U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and the
State of California Department of Transportation
In cooperation with the
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
D
REF
388.404
B2811e
August 2005
Chttmns
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
MG 3 1 ?m
DOCUMENTS DE»-l.
SAN FRANCISCO
BLIC LIBRARY
San Francisco Public Library
DOCUMEiN Tb Uc..-,.
SAN FRANCISCO
RJBUC LIWIARY
REFERENCE BOOK
Not to be taken from the Library
JUN 1 6 2006
BART Seismic Retrofit Project
Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Submitted Pursuant to:
42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C)
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and the
State of California Department of Transportation
In cooperation with
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
AUG 3 1 2005
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
jfe^W rA^T^n Date ?/ Jg'/t?'*
JANIE^AYTON
Marafger of Environmental Compliance
Sen Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
CULLOM
District 4 Office of Local Assistance
California Department of Transportation
CotiXovy^ D a,e g/jLX/pS
jlJLX U Date ^ jn./lQOS
GENE K. FONG
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
August 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY S-l
5.1 Purpose of this Document S-l
5.2 Project Summary S-l
5.3 Identification of Agency Roles S-3
5.4 Purpose of the Project S-4
5.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts S-4
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Location of Proposed Action 1-1
1.3 Description of the Existing BART System 1-2
1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 1-6
2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 Alternative Development Process 2-1
2.2 Proposed Action 2-1
2.2.1 Transbay Tube 2-1
2.2.2 Transition Structures 2-16
2.2.2.1 San Francisco Transition Structure 2-16
2.2.2.2 Oakland Transition Structure 2-33
2.2.3 Aerial Guideways 2-34
2.2.4 Stations 2-41
2.2.4.1 Rockridge Station 2-42
2.2.4.2 MacArthur Station 2-45
2.2.4.3 West Oakland Station 2-45
2.2.5 Other Seismic Retrofit Activities 2-46
2.2.6 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Options 2-47
2.2.6.1 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project 2-48
2.2.6.2 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options outside
the Project..... 2-50
2.2.7 Schedule 2-54
2.3 No- Action Alternative 2-54
2.4 Design Variations Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation
2.4.1 Transbay Tube 2-56
2.4.2 Transition Structures N 1
2.4.3 Aerial Guideways 2-57
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION J.0-1
3.1 Water Resources 3.1-1
3.1.1 Existing Setting 3.1-1
3.1.1.1 San Francisco Bay Water Resources 3. 1 - 1
3.1.1.2 Upland Water Resources V 1-4
3.1.2 Proposed Action 3.1-8
3.1.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
3.1.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation V 1 8
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 i
Table of Contents
3.1.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.1-12
3.2 Noise 32_1
3.2.1 Existing Setting 3.2-1
3.2.1.1 Acoustical Fundamentals 3.2-1
3.2.1.2 Existing Noise Environment 3.2-1
3.2.1.3 Noise Survey and Sensitive Receptor Identification 3.2-1
3.2.2 Proposed Action 3.2-7
3.2.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.2-7
3.2.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.2-7
3.2.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.2-14
3.3 Cultural Resources 3.3-1
3.3.1 Existing Setting 3.3-1
3.3.1.1 Archaeological Resources 3.3-1
3.3.1.2 Historic Architectural Resources 3.3-2
3.3.2 Proposed Action 3.3-4
3.3.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.3-4
3.3.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.3-4
3.3.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.3-6
3.4 Transportation 3.4-1
3.4.1 Traffic /Ground Transportation 3.4-1
3.4.1.1 Existing Setting 3.4-1
3.4.1.2 Proposed Action 3.4-12
3.4.2 Vessel Transportation 3.4-19
3.4.2.1 Existing Setting 3.4-19
3.4.2.2 Proposed Action 3.4-23
3.5 Geology /Seismicity 3.5-1
3.5.1 Existing Setting 3.5-1
3.5.1.1 Regional Geologic Setting 3.5-1
3.5.1.2 Regional Seismicity 3.5-1
3.5.1.3 Geologic Conditions in the Project Area 3.5-3
3.5.2 Proposed Action 3.5-4
3.5.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.5-4
3.5.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.5-5
3.5.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.5-6
3.6 Hazardous Materials 3.6-1
3.6.1 Existing Setting 3.6-1
3.6.1.1 Phase I and Phase II Reports 3.6-1
3.6.2 Proposed Action 3.6-3
3.6.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.6-3
3.6.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.6-3
3.6.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.6-4
3.7 Risk of Upset/ Safety 3.7-1
ii August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3 1223 07271 9538
Table of Contents
3.7.1 Existing Setting 3.7-1
3.7.1.1 System Safety 3.7-1
3.7.1.2 Existing Emergency Services 3.7-2
3.7.2 Proposed Action 3.7-3
3.7.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.7-3
3.7.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.7-3
3.7.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.7-6
3.8 Visual Resources 3.8-1
3.8.1 Existing Setting 3.8-1
3.8.1.1 Existing Visual Resources — Oakland 3.8-1
3.8.1.2 Existing Visual Resources — San Francisco 3.8-12
3.8.1.3 Light and Glare 3.8-16
3.8.2 Proposed Action 3.8-16
3.8.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.8-16
3.8.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.8-16
3.8.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.8-19
3.9 Biological Resources 3.9-1
3.9.1 Existing Setting 3.9-1
3.9.1.1 Marine and Terrestrial Resources 3.9-1
3.9.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.9-5
3.9.2 Proposed Action 3.9-10
3.9.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.9-10
3.9.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.9-1 1
3.9.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.9-18
3.9.2.4 Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species 3.9-19
3.10 Air Quality 3.10-1
3.10.1 Existing Setting 3.10-1
3.10.1.1 The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 3.10-3
3.10.2 Proposed Action 3.10-4
3.10.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts 3.1 0-4
3.10.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation 3.10-5
3.10.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.10-6
3.11 Social impacts 3 11-1
3.11.1 Community Character and Cohesion 3. 11-1
3.11.1.1 Existing Setting 3.11-1
3.11.1.2 Proposed Action 3.1 1-5
3.11.1.3 Dredged Material Reuse/ Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.11-9
3.11.2 Environmental Justice 3. 1
3.11.2.1 Existing Setting 3.11-9
3.11.2.2 Public Participation, Outreach and Informational
Access 3.11-13
3.11.2.3 Proposed Action 3. 11-13
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 1 1 1
Table of Contents
3.11.2.4 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Impacts and
Mitigation 3.11-14
3.12 No- Action Alternative 3.12-1
4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-1
4.1 Description of Cumulative Projects 4-1
4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis 4-9
4.2.1 Water Resources 4-9
4.2.2 Noise 4-9
4.2.3 Cultural Resources 4-10
4.2.4 Transportation 4-11
4.2.4.1 Ground Transportation 4-11
4.2.4.2 Vessel Transportation 4-13
4.2.5 Geology/Seismicity 4-14
4.2.6 Hazardous Materials 4-14
4.2.7 Risk of Upset/Safety 4-15
4.2.8 Visual Resources 4-15
4.2.9 Biological Resources 4-16
4.2.10 Air Quality 4-18
4.2.11 Social Impacts 4-19
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5-1
5.1 Agency Consultation 5-1
5.1.1 Meetings and Teleconferences 5-1
5.1.2 Permits and Approvals Required for the Project 5-2
5.1.2.1 Federal Permits /Approvals 5-2
5.1.2.2 State Permits /Approvals 5-2
5.1.2.3 Regional Permits /Approvals 5-3
5.1.2.4 Local Permits /Approvals 5-4
5.2 Public Outreach 5-4
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
6.1 Lead Agencies 6-1
6.2 EA Preparers 6-2
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
7.1 Persons and Agencies Contacted or Consulted 7-1
7.2 Documents Cited 7-1
8.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 8-1
APPENDICES
A Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
B Title VI Policy Statement
C Regulatory Environment
D Section 4(f) Correspondence
iv
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Project Vicinity Map Showing Project Area 1-3
1- 2 Project Vicinity Map of the Transbay Tube and Transition Structures 1-5
2- 1 Section of Transbay Tube Showing Existing Soil Conditions 2-3
2-2 Retrofit Concept - Micropile Anchorage Along the Transbay Tube 2-7
2-3 Retrofit Concept - Vibro-Replacement at the San Francisco End 2-9
2-4 Retrofit Concept - Vibro-Replacement at the Oakland End 2-10
2-5 Retrofit Concept - Stitching the Tube at the San Francisco End 2-12
2-6 Retrofit Concept - Stitching the Tube at the Oakland End 2-13
2-7 Aerial Detail of Stitching the Tube and Vibro-Replacement at the
Oakland End 2-17
2-8 Retrofit Concept - Tunnel Liner Sleeve at the Seismic Joint 2-19
2-9 Side View of San Francisco Transition Structure Showing Existing
Soil Conditions and Direction of Potential Lateral Soil Spreading 2-21
2-10 Retrofit Concept - Pile Array, Piles and Collar Anchorage,
Containment Structures, and Sacrificial Walls for San Francisco
Transition Structure 2-25
2-11 Side View of Steel Piles Retrofit Concept for the San Francisco
Transition Structure 2-26
2-12 Construction Details for Retrofits at the San Francisco Transition
Structure (Construction Method 1) 2-27
2-13 Construction Details for Retrofits at the San Francisco Transition
Structure (Construction Method 2) 2-28
2-14 Retrofit Concept - Isolation and Support Walls, Containment
Structures, and Sacrificial Wall at the San Francisco Transition
Structure 2-31
2-15 Side View of Isolation Wall Retrofit Concept at the San Francisco
Transition Structure 2-32
2-16 Typical Aerial Structure Pier Before and After Seismic Retrofits 2-35
2-17 View Showing Different Shapes of Existing Columns 2-37
2-18 General Location of Aerial Structures and Station Retrofits 2-39
2-19 Cross Section of a Typical Aerial Station Before and After Seismic
Retrofits 2-43
2-20 San Francisco Stitching Site Holes 1 1* 1
2-21 Potential Dredged Material Disposal Site Options '
2-22 BART Seismic Retrofit Project Construction Schedule 2-55
3.1- 1 FEMA Flood Zones Relative to the General Location of Aerial
Structures and Station Retrofits 3.1-5
3.2- 1 General Location of Aerial Structures and Station Retrofits and
Noise Measurement Locations ; !
3.4-1 Project Location Numbers
3.4-2 Relationship of the San Francisco Regulated Navigation Area,
Designated Vessel Traffic Lanes, and the Project Construction Area 3.4-20
3.4-3 Features of San Francisco Bay in the Project Construction Area 1.4-2 I
3.4-4 The Outer Harbor at the Port of Oakland 3.4-25
3.4-5 Ferry Routes Departing the San Francisco Ferry Building
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 V
Table of Contents
3.4- 6 Extent to Which Vibro-Replacement Could Block the Outer Harbor
Entrance Channel 3.4-29
3.5- 1 Principal Active Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area 3.5-2
3.8-1 Rockridge Station 3 - 8 " 3
3.8-2 MacArthur Station 3 - 8 "5
3.8-3 Chabot Road Overpass 3.8-9
3.8- 4 Golden Gate Avenue Overpass 3.8-13
4- 1 Location of Projects Considered for Cumulative Impact Analysis 4-8
LIST OF TABLES
5- l Summary of Project- Related Construction Activities S-2
2-1 Proposed Dredge and Fill Volumes in San Francisco Bay by Project
Component 2-15
2-2 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options for the BART Seismic
Retrofit Project (not Involving Reuse within the Project) 2-52
2-3 Potential Dredged Material Dewatering/Rehandling Locations 2-53
3.1-1 Comparison of High Tidal Elevations near the BART Transbay Tube 3.1-2
3.1-2 Trace Pollutants in San Francisco Bay Sediments at RMP Station
BC11 (near Yerba Buena Island) during the Year 2000 3.1-3
3.1-3 Groundwater Elevations Near Aerial Guideways and Other Facilities 3.1-7
3.1- 4 Summary of Base Floodplain Risks and Impacts 3.1-12
3.2- 1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms 3.2-2
3.2-2 Short-term (10-Minute) Noise Measurement Results at Sensitive
Receptors Near Work Locations 3.2-5
3.2- 3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels 3.2-8
3.3- 1 Architectural Historic Properties within the APE 3.3-3
3.4- 1 Existing Operations on Freeway Segments Potentially Affected by
Dredged Material Hauling 3.4-5
3.4-2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 3.4-6
3.4-3 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 3.4-6
3.4-4 Existing Operations at Intersections Potentially Affected by Retrofit
Construction 3.4-7
3.4-5 Existing Operations at Intersections Potentially Affected by Dredged
Material Hauling 3.4-8
3.4-6 Operations at MTS Street Segments Potentially Affected by Retrofit
Construction 3.4-8
3.4-7 Mitigation Measures to Limit Vessel Transportation Impacts under
Construction Methods 1 and 2 3.4-32
3.6- 1 Location of Potential Chemical Releases 3.6-2
3.9- 1 Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 3.9-6
3.8-1 Existing Conditions: Visual Character and Visual Quality 3.8-15
3.10- 1 Estimate of Average Daily Emissions by Major Source Category for
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin - Year 2002 (Tons) 3.10-3
4-1 Plans and Projects to Consider in the Cumulative Impact Analysis
for the BART Seismic Retrofit EA — Berkeley Hills Tunnel to
Montgomery Street Station 4-2
vi August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
SUMMARY
2 S.l PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
3 This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated
4 with the proposed seismic retrofit of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system
5 from the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel in Oakland, California, to the Montgomery
6 Street Station in San Francisco (Figure 1-1). This EA is prepared in accordance with the
7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because project funding is being provided by the
8 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. This document does not
9 address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the
10 Legislature has enacted a statutory exemption from CEQA for the proposed project (Public
11 Utility Code section 29031.1). Pursuant to this exemption, on February 10, 2005, the BART
12 Board of Directors adopted the proposed project for purposes of CEQA. In addition,
13 completion of NEPA compliance by means of this EA is necessary in order to qualify for federal
14 funding.
15 All figures cited in this section that start with a "1" are located in Chapter 1: Purpose and Need,
16 and the figures beginning with a "2" appear in Chapter 2: Project Alternatives.
17 S.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
18 BART is conducting a comprehensive seismic retrofit program of its system in anticipation of a
19 potential future major earthquake. The project area is located in the cities of Oakland and San
20 Francisco, California (Figure 1-1). There would be no increase in capacity (number of BART
21 trains or ridership) as a result of the seismic retrofit, and substantial changes in BART service
22 are not expected to result during or as a result of the retrofit.
23 The project includes seismic retrofits of several facilities: the Transbay Tube (the portion of the
24 BART system located beneath San Francisco Bay [Figure 1-2]); San Francisco Transition
25 Structure (Figure 2-9); Oakland Transition Structure (Figure 2-7); the aerial (elevated)
26 guideways that carry the tracks between the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the
27 Oakland Transition Structure (Figure 2-16); and, Rockridge Station, MacArthur Station, and
28 West Oakland Station. Every BART train crossing the Bay must pass through the Transba)
29 Tube. Although the BART system could be operated independently on either side oi the Ba)
30 due to crossovers at each end that allow BART to turn trains around, an impact to the I ransbaj
31 Tube rendering it inoperable would immediately cut off train access to the opposite side of the
32 Bay.
33 A variety of different retrofit methods would be used, depending on the BAR' I facility to be
34 retrofitted, as described below. Additional details of the project and each retrofit method are
35 provided in Chapter 2, and associated construction activities are summarized in 1 able S-1 . I he
36 proposed seismic retrofit activities would be conducted with no substantial impact to V> \RI
37 service. The project would require a total of approximately 6 years to complete, although the
38 project could potentially take longer than 6 years if limited funds required the deferral ol some
39 retrofit activities. The analysis in this document is based on the assumption that adequate
40 funding is available and, therefore, project activities would be completed in 6 \ ears.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
S-1
Summary
Table S-l. Summary of Project-Related Construction Activities
Construction Activity
Transbay
Tube
San Trancisco
Transition
Structure
Oakland
Transition
Structure
Aerial
Guideways
Stations
Other
Retrofits
In-watpr Fxravatiop /Orprlcnno"
x
x
Dredged Material Disposal
x
x
In-water Pile Installation
X
X
Sediment Strengthening
X
X
Foundation Strengthening
X
X
Column Strengthening
X
X
Land-based Pile Installation
X
X
Building Frame Strengthening
X
X
X
1 Proposed seismic retrofits of the Transbay Tube include either micropile anchorage (installing
2 small tension piles through the floor of the Tube to connect it to more stable clay soils below San
3 Francisco Bay [Figure 2-2]), or vibro-replacement (compacting the sediment surrounding the
4 Tube and reinforcing these sediments with stone columns for the length of the Tube under San
5 Francisco Bay and onshore at the Port of Oakland [Figures 2-3 and 2-4]). In addition, stitching
6 the Tube near both transition structures (installing clusters of large-diameter steel piles around
7 the Tube [Figures 2-5 and 2-6]) and installing a tunnel liner sleeve at one of the seismic joints is
8 proposed (Figure 2-8).
9 Proposed seismic retrofits at the San Francisco Transition Structure include either a combination
10 of activities called the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept (Figures 2-10 and 2-11) or the Isolation Walls
11 Retrofit Concept (Figures 2-14 and 2-15). The Pile Array Retrofit Concept consists of pile array
12 (installing about 100 steel pipe piles beneath the Ferry Plaza Platform west of the transition
13 structure), piles and collar anchorage (installing large-diameter steel piles around the transition
14 structure and connecting them together with a large collar), containment structures (installing a
15 water-resistant structure around the seismic joints), and sacrificial walls (installing concrete
16 walls around the transition structure from the mud line up to the immediate underside of the
17 Ferry Plaza Platform). The Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept consists of isolation and support
18 walls (installing 2 rows of large concrete piles or reinforced concrete walls along both the north
19 and south sides of the transition structure), pile array (installing about 26 steel pipe piles
20 beneath the Ferry Plaza Platform west of the transition structure), and similar to the Pile Array
21 Retrofit Concept, containment structures and sacrificial walls. To strengthen the sediments
22 around the BART approach tunnels west of the transition structure, either retrofit concept
23 would also include soil jet grouting (pumping a slurry mixture into the deep Bay mud around
24 the BART approach runnels). Part of the Ferry Plaza Platform would be temporarily removed
25 during seismic retrofits at the San Francisco Transition Structure, but would be replaced once
26 completed. Installation of steel pipe piles would use oscillating or rotating techniques, to the
27 extent feasible. Seismic retrofits requiring excavation or dredging would be conducted within a
temporary construction steel sheet pile wall placed from just below the mud line to the water's
29 surface, to reduce turbidity and release of construction debris into Bay water. The above-grade
30 portion of the Oakland Transition Structure requires strengthening the existing steel bracing
3 1 with newly reinforced concrete shear walls.
S-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Summary
1 Proposed seismic retrofit of the aerial guideways would typically include enlargement of the
2 existing foundation, jacketing of the concrete columns with steel casings or collars, placement of
3 additional shear keys at the hammerhead caps, and installation of additional piles, if needed
4 (Figure 2-16). Installation of new piles would use impact hammer and non-impact drilling
5 techniques (i.e., an oscillating or rotating hydraulic installation system). Some of the multi-
6 column piers (piers that have between two to six columns instead of just one) also would
7 require infill concrete walls between the columns. At some abutment 1 locations, concrete
8 catchers or seat extenders would be added to increase the available seating area for the girders
9 on the abutments.
10 BART stations along the project alignment are located on elevated platforms (aerial platforms),
11 at-grade, or underground. Rockridge Station and West Oakland Station, both aerial stations,
12 would require similar types of seismic retrofits described above for the aerial guideways to
13 minimize structural damage and prevent potential collapse. For example, new column steel
14 jacketing would be installed on the columns, and new concrete blocks would be placed at the
15 top of some pier caps at Rockridge Station (Figure 2-19). At West Oakland Station, new
16 concrete grade beams would be installed to connect all of the column footings together, and
17 joint connections of the platform canopies would be strengthened. Installation of any necessary
18 piles at the stations would use impact hammer and non-impact drilling techniques (i.e., an
19 oscillating or rotating hydraulic installation system).
20 Proposed seismic retrofit at MacArthur Station, an at-grade station, would include adding piles
21 and enlarging footings using similar methods to those described above. The station walls
22 would be thickened, new footings installed, and joint connections of the platform canopies
23 strengthened. The four underground stations associated with the project area (19 lh Street-
24 Oakland, Oakland City Center/ 12 th Street, Embarcadero, and Montgomery Street) do not
25 require seismic retrofitting.
26 Proposed seismic retrofit measures for the Oakland Yard and Shop area, located on BART
27 property (see number 38 on Figure 2-18), would include additional diagonal bracing of framing
28 elements and strengmening of structural joints within the existing frame to minimize the effects
29 of a potential earthquake.
30 S.3 IDENTIFICATION OF AGENCY ROLES
31 BART is the applicant for this project. The federal lead agency under NEPA is the U.S.
32 Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FIIWA). Money from I I 1\V.\
33 will pass through the Local Assistance Program of the California Department of Transportation
34 (Caltrans) to fund the proposed seismic retrofits. This document has thus been prepared with
35 the input of FHWA, as well as BART and Caltrans, who are acting as nonleoVral co lead
36 agencies under NEPA. Cooperating agencies for this project include National Oceanic and
37 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Arm)
38 Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Franti
39 Bay Conservation and Development Commission, California Department oJ I ish and Game
40 State Lands Commission, City of Oakland, Port of Oakland, and Port ol San Francis< 0.
1 An abutment is a wall supporting the end of a bridge or span and sustaining the pressure oi the abutting earth
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
S-3
Summary
1 S.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
2 The purpose of the project is to protect life safety 2 and the massive public capital investment
3 represented by the permanent stationary facilities of the BART system, and to prevent
4 prolonged interruption of BART service to the public. The portion of the BART system
5 proposed for seismic retrofit is important to the overall transportation system in the region, and
6 disruption could severely affect local transportation and circulation, especially across the San
Francisco Bay. BART carries as many passengers during weekday rush hour as the San
8 Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (BART 2004a). The proposed seismic retrofit would reduce the
9 risk to, and improve the safety of, BART patrons and personnel during an earthquake. The
10 project is designed to enhance the safety of passengers and personnel and to enable the BART
11 system to return to operation within a reasonable timeframe after an earthquake. More detail
12 on the purpose of the project is included in Chapter 1.
13 S.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
14 The project would result in environmental impacts only during construction. Once the
15 proposed seismic retrofit work is completed, there would be no environmental impact. There
16 would be construction related impacts on eleven environmental resource areas: water
17 resources; noise; cultural resources; transportation (ground and vessel); geology/seismicity;
18 hazardous materials; risk of upset/ safety; visual resources; biological resources; air quality; and
19 social (or community) resources. All impacts would be avoided or limited by implementation
20 of procedures proposed as part of the project, and by mitigation measures described in this
21 document.
22 Chapter 3 describes the impacts and mitigation measures for the project.
2 For the purposes of the seismic retrofit project, life safety is the level of retrofit that will provide a low risk of endangerment to
human life for any event likely to affect the retrofitted structure. In general, non-collapse of a structure is considered
adequate to provide life safety.
S-4 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2 1.1 INTRODUCTION
3 The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District is conducting a comprehensive
4 seismic retrofit program to strengthen the BART system in anticipation of a potential future
5 major earthquake. The objectives of the seismic retrofit program are twofold: (1) to protect life
6 safety 1 and the massive public capital investment represented by the permanent stationary
7 facilities of the BART system, and (2) to prevent prolonged interruption of BART service to the
8 public. There would be no increase in capacity (number of BART trains or ridership) as a result
9 of the seismic retrofit.
10 This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated
11 with the BART Seismic Retrofit Project (the project), which includes seismic retrofits for the
12 Transbay Tube, San Francisco Transition Structure, Oakland Transition Structure, the aerial
13 (elevated) guideways that carry the tracks between the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel
14 to the Oakland Transition Structure, and the West Oakland Station, Mac Arthur Station, and
15 Rockridge Station. Every train in the BART system that crosses the San Francisco Bay (the Bay)
16 must pass through the Transbay Tube. Although the BART system could be operated
17 independently on either side of the Bay due to crossovers at each end that allow BART to turn
18 trains around, an impact to the Transbay Tube rendering it inoperable would immediately cut
19 off train access to the opposite side of the Bay.
20 The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has prepared
21 this EA in accordance with the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 United
22 States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321-4370d, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality
23 (CEQ) Regulations, and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Transit Administration
24 Procedures, 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 1, Subchapter H, Part 771, Section
25 771.119 (EAs) and Section 771.135 (Section 4[f] 49 U.S.C. 303). This document is not required to
26 address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A) because the
27 Legislature has enacted a statutory exemption from CEQA for the project (Public Utility Code
28 section 29031.1). Pursuant to this exemption, on February 10, 2005, the BART Board of Directors
29 adopted the proposed project for purposes of CEQA. In addition, completion of NEPA
30 compliance by means of this EA is necessary in order to qualify for federal funding.
31 1.2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED ACTION
32 The project area is located in the cities of Oakland and San Francisco (Figure 1-1). The proje< t
33 begins at the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel, continues southw est to Rockridge
34 Station, south to MacArthur Station, south to 19th Street - Oakland Station and Oakland City
35 Center/12 th Street Station (both underground stations), west to West Oakland Station, wesl
36 through the Transbay Tube beneath the Bay, and terminates at the Montgomery Street Station.
1 For the purposes of the seismic retrofit project, life safety is the level of retrofit (hot will provide .1 low n-k >>i endanga inert I to
human life for any event likely to affect the retrofitted structure. In general, non-collapse oi ■> Structure Is considered
adequate to provide life safety.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
1-1
1.0 Purpose and Need
1 The total length of the project is 12.3 miles. This portion of the BART system is located in a
2 largely urbanized area.
3 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING BART SYSTEM
4 The original BART system was constructed between 1964 and 1972 using cutting-edge design
and engineering techniques. The original system consisted of approximately 72 miles of track
6 and 34 stations. Since then, new track and stations have been added to the system so that it now
7 consists of 104 miles of track, connecting communities in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco,
8 and San Mateo counties with 43 stations. The system is a combination of aerial, underground,
9 and surface track, which is separated from general vehicular traffic.
10 The portion of the BART system analyzed in this EA (the project area) consists of approximately
1 1 12.3 miles of track, of which 2.5 miles are located at-grade (surface level), 3.3 miles are on aerial
12 structures supported by columns, and 6.5 miles are underground or underwater (the Transbay
13 Tube is underwater for 3.6 miles). Between the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel and the
14 northern portal of the tunnel through downtown Oakland, BART tracks are at-grade (surface
15 level) or on a raised earthen-berm, except where they pass over streets. When passing over
16 streets, BART tracks are located on aerial structures supported by columns. For most of this
17 portion of the BART system, the tracks are located in the median of State Route 24.
18 Between the western portal of the downtown Oakland tunnel and the eastern portal of the
19 Transbay Tube, BART tracks are on a continuous aerial guideway supported by columns. This
20 is called the West Oakland Aerial Guideway (see Figure 2-18). The transition between the West
21 Oakland Aerial Guideway and the Transbay Tube is called the Aerial Transition Structure
22 (Location #37 on Figure 2-18).
23 The most common aerial structure along the BART system consists of a single-column
24 reinforced concrete column bent 2 or pier on either pile-supported or spread concrete footings.
25 There are 342 concrete column bents within this portion of the BART system. BART stations
26 along the project alignment are located either at-grade, underground, or on elevated platforms
27 (aerial stations). Seismic retrofits at the three stations shown in bold on Figure 1-1 - Rockridge
28 Station, MacArthur Station, and West Oakland Station - are analyzed in this EA.
29 The Transbay Tube is 3.6 miles long and is buried in an underwater trench in the Bay, at a
30 maximum depth of 132 feet below mean sea level. The eastern end of the Tube begins in the
31 Port of Oakland, between 7 th Street and Berth 32, and continues beneath the Bay to a point just
32 east of the San Francisco Ferry Building (Figure 1-2). The Tube was constructed as a double
33 pipe, giving it a binocular shaped cross-section. A transition structure 3 was installed at each
34 end of the Tube, one just east of the San Francisco Ferry Building called the San Francisco
35 Transition Structure, and one in the Port of Oakland called the Oakland Transition Structure.
36 The San Francisco Transition Structure is located in the Bay (in water) while the Oakland
37 Transition Structure is located on land. Four special seismic joints were constructed at the
38 transition structures; these joints connect the Tube to the rest of the BART
2 A column bent (also known as a pier or pier bent) consists of the entire structure supporting the trackway girders, including
the foundation, the column(s), and the bent cap.
3 Transition Structures are used to evacuate smoke and allow air into the Transbay Tube.
1-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
SONOMA
FRANCISCO
LEGEND
Proposed Project Area
BART Station
SANTA CLARA
Source: Ward & Associates
Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map Showing Project Area
ft
ft
ft
II
ft
ft
I
I
II
1.0 Purpose and Need
1 system and allow some movement of the system in response to seismic activity. Two seismic
2 joints at the San Francisco end, one on either side of the transition structure, are located in the
3 Bay just east of the Ferry Building. Two joints at the Oakland end, one on either side of the
4 transition structure, are located on land within the Port of Oakland.
5 1.4 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
6 The purpose of the project is to protect life safety and the massive public capital investment
represented by the permanent facilities of the BART system, and to prevent prolonged
8 interruption of BART service to the public. Seismic retrofit studies (BART 2002a, 2002b) suggest
9 that substantial damage to BART facilities would occur from a major earthquake. Therefore, the
10 project is needed to reduce the risk to, and improve the safety of, BART patrons and personnel
1 1 during an earthquake.
12 The BART system's seismic capability was tested on October 17, 1989, with the 7.1-magnitude
13 Loma Prieta earthquake. The earthquake caused extensive damage and disruption to
14 transportation systems throughout the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The BART system
15 suffered only minor damage, and repairs to crucial system components were completed in time
16 to declare the system operational by the next morning (BART 2002a). It acted as one of the only
17 major links between San Francisco and Oakland after the earthquake until the San Francisco-
18 Oakland Bay Bridge was restored. With the Bay Bridge out of use for a full month, the region
19 was dependent on the BART system for transportation between San Francisco and the East Bay.
20 BART's performance during that period resulted in an increase in daily ridership from 218,000
21 commuters to 350,000 (BART 2004a). BART's ability to withstand the Loma Prieta earthquake
22 was attributed to its superior design.
23 While BART's original design was advanced for its time and helped the system withstand the
24 Loma Prieta earthquake, a larger seismic event could occur in the Bay Area in the near future.
25 Recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) statistical analysis indicates there is a 62 percent
26 probability a major earthquake will affect the Bay Area before the year 2030 (USGS 2003c).
27 Because portions of the BART system are located near or cross the Hayward, Calaveras,
28 Concord, and San Andreas fault lines, the system could be adversely affected by a seismic event
29 on any one of these faults. For example, the backfill surrounding the Transbay Tube is prone to
30 the phenomenon of liquefaction 4 resulting from an earthquake. Liquefaction could cause the
31 Tube to become buoyant, resulting in vertical movement (i.e., uplift) and potential structural
32 failure of the Tube along the alignment. Liquefaction could also reduce or eliminate the backfill
33 surface friction on the Tube, resulting in excessive longitudinal movement relative to the
34 seismic joints. Excessive longitudinal movement could cause one or more of the seismic joints
35 to break, which could cause Bay water to leak into the Tube. Since the Transbay Tube is
36 submerged, any potential structural deficiency could threaten the safety of BART personnel and
37 passengers and would cause a complete shutdown of the Tube. The Transbay Tube could
38 require 2 years or more to be restored to service. A major earthquake could also damage BART
39 stations and aerial guideways, rendering some inoperable. Temporary shoring would be
4 Liquefaction refers to the potential for sediments covering the Transbay Tube to liquefy during an earthquake. Liquefaction is
a form of seismically induced ground failure, in which saturated loose sandy sediments lose their strength, change from a
solid state to a liquid state, and become unstable. Liquefaction occurs most commonly in areas with a high water table.
1-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1.0 Purpose and Need
1 employed to bring some of these structures back to service quickly, but permanent repairs are
2 estimated to require approximately 15 months to complete.
3 The portion of the BART system proposed for seismic retrofit is important to the overall
4 transportation system in the region, and disruption could severely affect local transportation
5 and circulation, especially across the San Francisco Bay. BART is estimated to carry more than
6 150,000 persons daily across the Bay, including more than 30,000 persons during peak hours,
7 which is as many passengers accommodated by the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge during
8 weekday rush hour (FHWA and Caltrans 1998; BART 2004a). The Alameda-Conrra Costa
9 Transit District offers 654 daily bus trips over the Bay Bridge and has a current ridership of
10 approximately 13,000 persons, with up to 3,000 persons during rush hour (FHWA and Caltrans
11 1998). The Bay Bridge is currently operating at capacity (FHWA and Caltrans 1998), and adding
12 additional vehicles would create severe congestion and delay.
13 The damage to the BART system from a major earthquake would require BART riders to seek
14 other means of transportation for an extended period. It is estimated that only 27 percent of the
15 approximately 300,000 daily BART riders would be able to use the system immediately after the
16 earthquake, and additional capacity would not begin to become available for approximately 6
17 months. Capacity would not reach 50 percent of the pre-earthquake ridership until
18 approximately 15 months after the earthquake event. As repairs to the Transbay Tube would
19 take over 2 years, BART would not support travel across the Bay until several years after a
20 major earthquake event (BART 2002a, 2002b). During this time, transbay travelers would have
21 to use alternate travel modes, potentially resulting in up to 300,000 additional trips competing
22 for space on a damaged roadway system. The additional trips would contribute to increased
23 delays during peak traffic hours, estimated to be 60 to 80 minutes along the State Route 24
24 corridor (BART 2004a).
25 It is not certain what other types of transportation BART riders would use, since other
26 transportation modes would also be damaged during the earthquake, but BART studies
27 assumed that most would attempt to drive to work. Others may be able to use non-BART
28 public transportation or telecommute. Following the Loma Prieta earthquake, ferries remained
29 in service; ferry service across the Bay is expected to be available in the event of a future
30 earthquake (San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority [WTA] 2002). However, it is unlikeK
31 that other modes of transportation, even with an expanded ferry service, could full)
32 accommodate displaced BART riders.
33 With regard to economic losses, the BART Seismic Risk Analysis (BART 2002b) estimates thai
34 potential direct repair costs of a large earthquake on the entire existing BART svstem I
35 billion. The estimated costs for repairing the BART system between the Berkeley 1 Iills runnel
36 and Montgomery Street Station would exceed $570 million, the majority of which would be to
37 repair the Transbay Tube. This estimate does not take into account indirect impacts, 5U< h as tin-
38 cost to BART commuters of finding other transportation, the cost to non-BART commuters due
39 to increased traffic congestion as a result of the loss of BART service, or the severe impact to the
40 Bay Area economy due to a closure of BART. In comparison, the cost of the retrofit project is
41 estimated to be about $447 million, and would have the added benefit of enhanced safet} for
42 passengers and personnel and would enable the BART system to return to operation w ithin a
43 reasonable timeframe after an earthquake.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
1-7
1.0 Purpose mid Need
This page intentionally left blank.
1-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
2 2.1 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
3 The proposed action addressed in this document is a seismic retrofit project for a portion of the
4 existing BART system (the project). The CEQ's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural
5 Provisions of NEPA establish a number of policies for federal agencies, including "...using the
6 NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that will
7 avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions on the quality of the human environment"
8 (40 CFR 1500.2 [e]). Thus, this document only addresses those alternatives that could
9 reasonably avoid or minimize adverse effects of the proposed action. Because the action is an
10 improvement of an existing facility in its current location, does not include adding new
11 facilities, and would not increase the capacity of the system, the only alternatives considered are
12 the proposed action and the no-action alternative. There are no other reasonable alternatives.
13 The CEQ NEPA implementation regulations require the analysis of the no-action alternative. In
14 addition, analysis of the no-action alternative provides a baseline against which to compare the
15 impacts of the proposed action. This chapter describes the basic components of the proposed
16 action and no-action alternative, and explains why potential alternative design options were
17 eliminated from further discussion.
18 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION
19 The project description below is based on the following two key references:
20 • BART Seismic Vulnerability Study (BART 2002a), and
21 • Seismic Risk Analysis (BART 2002b).
22 The BART Seismic Vulnerability Study is ongoing, and future work may validate or refine the
23 engineering concepts discussed below. It may be determined at a future date that specific
24 seismic retrofits can be eliminated or minimized without an increased risk to life safetj or
25 prolonged interruption to BART service.
26 BART conducted a variety of seismic studies (BART 2002a) to identify key facilities within the
27 existing system that could be seriously affected by a large earthquake. The BART Seismic
28 Vulnerability Study determined that not all facilities between the west portal of the Berkeley
29 Hills Tunnel and Montgomery Street Station require seismic retrofit. I he facilities that require
30 seismic retrofit include the Transbay Tube; transition structures (San Francisco and Oakland)
31 the aerial guideways between the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel and Montgomery
32 Street Station; three stations (West Oakland, MacArthur, and Rockridge); and the ( )akland ^ ard
33 and Shop area.
34 2.2.1 Transbay Tube
35 The Transbay Tube is located between the Oakland and San Francisco transition structures and
36 is 3.6 miles long (see Figure 1-2). It consists of 57 steel sections, each about 3 feet in length,
37 The sections are welded together and reinforced with a concrete liner, [he I ransbaj I ube was
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-1
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 installed by dredging a trench along the Bay bottom and laying a 2-foot thick layer of gravel to
2 the bottom of the trench (the foundation course on Figure 2-1). The Tube sections were lowered
3 onto the gravel and additional gravel (special fill 1 ) was placed at the sides of the Tube, reaching
4 about half way up. The Tube was then covered with sand/gravel fill material (ordinary fill 2 ).
5 No compaction of either the gravel or fill layer was conducted.
6 Seismic retrofit studies have determined that the fill surrounding the Transbay Tube may be
7 prone to the phenomenon of liquefaction. 3 Liquefaction could cause the Transbay Tube to
8 become buoyant, resulting in vertical movement (i.e., uplift) and potential structural failure of
9 the Tube along the alignment. Liquefaction could also reduce or eliminate the backfill surface
10 friction on the Tube, resulting in excessive longitudinal movement relative to the seismic joints.
11 Excessive longitudinal movement could cause one or more of the seismic joints to break, which
12 could cause water to leak into the Tube. Since the Tube is submerged, any potential structural
13 deficiency could threaten the safety of BART personnel and passengers and would cause a
14 complete shutdown of the Tube.
15 Two alternative design methods, micropile anchorage and vibro-replacement, are included as
16 part of the project to minimize the potential effects of liquefaction. Additional analysis and
17 testing are needed to determine the technical feasibility of both methods. BART will conduct
18 additional tests to verify feasibility and effectiveness, after which a decision will be made before
19 the completion of final project design regarding where, and to what extent, vibro-replacement
20 and /or micropile anchorage will be used.
21 The project also includes stitching the Tube and installing a tunnel liner sleeve to further
22 strengthen the Tube's seismic joint from structural failure. These design methods, described
23 below, would be employed regardless of whether the micropile anchorage or vibro-replacement
24 method is chosen for implementation. The vibro-replacement method may reduce the need for
25 pile stitching, thus reducing the environmental impact of the project. Additional seismic design
26 methods specifically associated with the transition structures are discussed in section 2.2.2.
27 No disruption to BART service is anticipated during any retrofit method associated with the
28 Transbay Tube. It is anticipated that construction staging areas for supporting work on the
29 Transbay Tube, as well as the San Francisco Transition Structure (see section 2.2.2), would be
30 located on the Bay waterfront and would be capable of allowing barge loading and unloading.
31 Two potential construction staging areas include Piers 94 and 96 along the Oakland side of the
32 Bay, within a primarily industrial area.
1 Special fill is large-diameter gravel specified by BART at the time the Transbay Tube was constructed. This fill is generally
very coarse, ranging from '4-inch si/e up to as large as 4-inch size. This term was created during the original construction of
the BART system because this very coarse material is unusual in construction and would have had to be specially located and
procured for construction of the Transbay Tube.
2 Ordinary fill is sandy material that has a finer gradation.
3 Liquefaction is a form of seismically induced ground failure, in which saturated loose sandy sediments lose their strength,
change from a solid state to a liquid state, and become imstable. Liquefaction occurs most commonly in areas with a high
water table.
2-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
II
II
II
ft
ft
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, all contractors working on or in the vicinity of
2 the Transbay Tube will prepare Site Specific Work Plans that include emergency procedures
3 and specific measures to prevent compromising the integrity of the Tube. All equipment and
4 personnel necessary to perform emergency repairs on the Transbay Tube will be in the
5 construction vicinity at all times during active construction on, or in the vicinity of, the
6 Transbay Tube.
7 Micropile Anchorage (Figure 2-2). Along the entire length of the Transbay Tube, small (7 3 4-inch
8 diameter) tension piles, referred to as micropiles, would be installed through the floor of the
9 Tube's existing central gallery 4 and would extend downward to more stable strata (e.g., clay
10 below the Bay Mud) below the Tube. By anchoring the Tube to firmer soils, the upward
11 buoyant force of an earthquake would be resisted even though the material surrounding the
12 Tube may liquefy.
13 Approximately 2,200 micropiles would be installed along the length of the Tube, for an average
14 of about 38 micropiles per 330 feet of Tube length. The length of the micropiles would depend
15 on the depth of the more stable strata, and may extend up to 100 feet below the bottom of the
16 gallery. To install the micropiles, holes would be drilled from the floor of the gallery and then
17 casings installed. The micropile casings would house an embedded rod with a pressure-
18 grouted concrete bulb at the tip (Figure 2-2).
19 Since the drilling would occur 40 to 60 feet below the Bay bottom, and spoils and drill muds
20 from the holes would be taken into the gallery, no spoil or drilling mud debris would enter the
21 water column. Spoils and drilling muds would be collected and contained during the
22 operation, and transported through the Tube on the trackways to the East Portal of the Tube in
23 Oakland; there they would be loaded onto approved trucks to be hauled for disposal at an
24 approved disposal site. Three potential disposal sites include Altamont Landfill, Redwood
25 Landfill, and Vasco Road Landfill. The estimated volume of waste solids would be 5,500 cubic
26 yards (cy) (2.5 cy/hole x 2,200 holes), consisting of Bay sediments underlying the Tube and drill
27 muds.
28 Vibro -Replacement (Figure 2-3). An alternative design method to micropile anchorage w ould
29 be to conduct vibro-replacement along the full length of the Tube. The Tube backfill consists of
30 special fill and ordinary fill, as described above. Vibro-replacement would consist ol
31 compaction of the special fill and ordinary fill, and placement of stone columns in a grid pattern
32 about 6 feet by 6 feet on both sides of the Tube to densify the backfill around the Tube.
33 Sediments would be densified from the existing relative density of 40 percent to a relative
34 density of 60 to 70 percent. 5 Denser sediments surrounding the Tube would act to stabilize or
35 anchor the Tube in the event of an earthquake. Liquefaction can only occur in Loose granular
36 soils, so densifying the material prevents this phenomenon from occurring. It there is no
37 liquefaction, the uplift of the Tube would not occur. After the Loma Prieta earthquake, vibro
4 The gallery is the central area between the two train tracks inside the Transbay Tube, the galler) is used as .1 u,-ik are* and
provides a space for people to walk if they need to evacuate a train located inside the 1 ube
5 Every soil has a maximum density that can be achieved, regardless ol how much compacts e effort is applied Relath e
density is the ratio between the density of the soil being considered and its maximum density
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-5
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 replacement was used to install stone columns at the Matson Marine Terminal at the Port of
2 Oakland (Geomatrix 1991, 1995a, 1995b).
Stone columns would be constructed using a vibratory probe. After the probe penetrates to the
4 desired depth of treatment, stone fill would be deposited into the hole from the ground surface
or through feed tubes to the tip of the probe as it is withdrawn. Stone columns would be placed
6 in the surrounding backfill material and not in the sediments above the Tube, and would not
extend above the existing Bay Mud surface. A total of approximately 25,000 stone columns
would be placed in the backfill along the sides of the Tube. The length of the stone columns
9 would be approximately 32 feet each. Assuming that the stone columns would be about 3 feet
10 in diameter, a total of about 200,000 cy of stone would be placed along the Tube below the
11 mudline. Possible sources of the stone include quarries in the San Rafael and Napa areas north
12 of the Bay; stone would be loaded on barges near the quarries and delivered to the vibro-
13 replacement sites by tugboats, as needed. The final pattern of the stone columns and their
14 spacing would be determined through a vibro-replacement demonstration program. Since the
15 stone in the stone columns would be displacing the voids in the existing uncompacted Tube
16 backfill, no additional fill would be added to the Bay bottom.
17 Vibro-replacement would be performed from a barge-mounted operation simultaneously on
18 both sides of the Tube to avoid unbalanced lateral pressures. The vibration would be limited in
19 intensity so that it would not impact the structure of the Tube (the types of equipment used
20 make minimal noise and vibration) and would be implemented in a sequence to minimize
21 differential settlement along the Tube. The compaction of the special fill and ordinary fill, and
22 placement of stone columns would be performed so that operations would occur 5 to 20 feet
23 below the Bay Mud surface thereby minimizing, if not eliminating, any disturbance of the
24 surface of the Bay Mud. A template may be used at the bottom of the Bay, as shown on Figure
25 2-3, to assist in accurate positioning of the stone columns. The template steel frame would be
26 supported on spud piles pushed into the Bay, which would keep the template off of the Bay
27 bottom. When relocating, the template would be lifted to extract the spud piles from the Bay
bottom, and would be repositioned and supported again by the spud piles in its new location.
29 The template would not be dragged across the bottom; the only portion of the template that
30 would come into contact with the Bay bottom would be the supporting spud piles.
31 Two barge-mounted vibro-replacement operations within the Bay would operate
32 simultaneously, both beginning in the open Bay with one barge working toward San Francisco
33 and the other working toward Oakland. Concurrently, there would be a barge installing
34 stitching at the San Francisco end of the Tube (see below), but it is anticipated that stitching
35 operations would be completed before the vibro-replacement operations reached that area. In
36 order to avoid blocking the entrance to the Port of Oakland Outer Harbor Entrance Channel
37 with construction barges, it may be necessary to use the micropile anchorage method instead of
38 vibro-replacement for seismic retrofitting the portion of the Tube within the Entrance Channel
39 (see section 3.4.2 for more details).
40 Vibro-replacement on the land side at the Port of Oakland (Figure 2-4) would be performed in
4 1 the same manner and sequence as the marine-based operation except that barges would not be
2-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
ik
a
ik
k
T-kr-
> ■ >
i I
2-9
2-10
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 required. The vibro-replacement construction envelope would be contained within the BART
2 easement 6 along the length of the Tube. The estimated length of the area occupied by
3 equipment, actual treatment area, and pavement preparations would total 250 feet to 300 feet at
4 any given time. The vibro-replacement construction may impact the Port of Oakland's terminal
5 in sections measuring up to 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. This retrofit measure would be
6 tested in a demonstration program and, if it is determined to be effective, vibro-replacement
7 would be recommended as a viable alternative to the micropile anchorage concept to minimize
8 the potential effect of liquefaction of the backfill surrounding the Tube. If the micropile
9 anchorage method was employed instead of the vibro-replacement on the entire length of the
10 Tube, then vibro-replacement techniques would still be used on the San Francisco side of the
11 Bay to further densify materials. Backfill material that surrounds the 2,000 linear feet of the
12 underwater Tube east of the San Francisco Transition Structure would be compacted to increase
13 its density from the existing 40 percent to 60 to 70 percent.
14 Vibro-replacement activities near the San Francisco Transition Structure would require use of
15 noise-generating construction equipment near sensitive (commercial) uses, such as the San
16 Francisco Ferry Plaza, restaurants, and professional office buildings. To screen these uses, the
17 construction contractor will install and maintain temporary noise control barriers around all
18 noise-generating equipment throughout the duration of retrofit activities.
19 Stitching the Tube. Six clusters of four to six 8- to 12-foot diameter steel piles would be installed
20 at 330-foot intervals over a distance of approximately 2,000 feet from each transition structure at
21 either end of the Tube, east of the San Francisco Transition Structure and west of the Oakland
22 Transition Structure (for a total of 12 clusters) (Figures 2-5 and 2-6). This is referred to as
23 stitching the Tube; stitching is a term that was coined by BART to describe the work of tying
24 down the Tube at its two ends to prevent longitudinal movement. By stitching the Tube
25 together, the Tube would resist the push-pull effect at the seismic joint and would be prevented
26 from breaking loose from the surrounding material. Pile clusters would be connected to the
27 Tube through precast concrete pile caps and tremie concrete 7 around the Tube's existing dam
28 plates 8 (Figure 2-5). Six clusters of piles and caps would be installed on the San Francisco side
29 of the Bay, and six clusters of piles and caps would be placed on the Oakland side but would be
30 installed on land.
31 Installation of each pile cluster on the San Francisco Bay side would occur from a barge and
32 would require some dredging (dredging would also be needed for retrofits proposed at the San
33 Francisco Transition Structure [see details below]). The dredging associated with stitching
34 would occur at six locations (at the six clusters of piles and caps noted above) about 330 Uvt
35 apart for approximately 2,000 feet directly east of the San Francisco Transition Structure.
36 Temporary slopes created for stitching the Tube near the San Francisco Transition Structure w ill
37 be constructed with shallow slopes, in accordance with recommendations by a licensed
38 geotechnical engineer.
6 This easement is a particular type of property right that grants BART subsurface rights along tin- length ol tin- l ube ,inJ rights
of access from the surface for maintenance, etc.
7 Tremie concrete is concrete that is placed under water using a chute or tremie tube.
8 Dam plates are steel plates welded across the Tube near each joint that were used to connect the two I ube segments together
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-11
2-12
2-13
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 It is anticipated that dredging at the stitching locations would take place using a clamshell
2 bucket excavation technique, and that a silt curtain 9 would be placed around the dredging
3 barge to limit lateral spreading of the turbidity plume. The total estimated dredge volume from
4 the six stitching locations would be 126,100 cy. The combined estimated dredge volume from
5 stitching activities and either of the two retrofit options at the San Francisco Transition Structure
6 is expected to be between approximately 153,000 and 222,000 cy (see Table 2-1); the total area of
Bay bottom disturbance from these combined retrofit techniques would be up to 8 acres.
After installation of the pile and pile caps, the dredged areas would be backfilled with the
9 dredged material if the dredged material re-use option is implemented, as described in section
10 2.2.6.1. If the dredged material is disposed off-site, as discussed in section 2.2.6.2, then the
1 1 dredged areas would be backfilled only to a minimum 5-foot depth over the Tube to replace the
12 proper type of ordinary fill that currently exists on top of the Tube. A debris management plan
13 will be prepared and implemented prior to construction, and will include provisions for
14 removing any debris and smoothing the bottom (e.g., by trawling) following replacement of
15 bottom sediments over the piling clusters.
16 Installation of the steel piles at the San Francisco end would utilize oscillation or rotating
17 techniques, not an impact hammer, to the extent feasible. An impact hammer installs piles by
18 hammering them into the ground, which generates noise as well as vibration. Oscillation-
19 induced technology, which makes minimal noise and vibration, utilizes a hydraulic casing
20 oscillator. The pile has a cutting edge at the bottom tip of the casing, and as the casing is rotated
21 back and forth about 15 to 18 inches, it simultaneously pushes the pile into the ground. The
22 rotator method is used to install piles by rotating the cutting edge of the casing in a full circle.
23 This method also produces minimal noise and vibration effects. Currently, with the equipment
24 that is available, both the oscillation and rotator techniques are capable of installing up to 12-
25 foot diameter casings. It is possible that piles with a diameter greater than 12-feet may be
26 needed for stitching, depending on soil conditions and other engineering design details. If so,
27 the use of an impact hammer may be necessary for installing these piles if oscillation or rotating
28 technology is not available to handle a pile of such magnitude.
29 For construction near the San Francisco Transition Structure, the construction contractor will be
30 required to install and maintain temporary noise control barriers around all noise-generating
31 construction equipment throughout the duration of retrofit activities. If conventional pile-
32 driving (impact hammer) equipment is required for stitching the Tube, the construction
33 contractor will, in addition to installing the noise control barriers, be required to schedule
34 activities to avoid high public use times at the San Francisco Ferry Plaza, shroud the pile drivers
35 with noise barrier materials, and provide advanced public notice, including a hotline for noise
36 complaints related to surrounding uses.
9 A silt curtain (turbidity curtain) is a temporary, floating barrier that is placed around construction or dredging equipment to
restrict horizontal spreading of suspended materials or turbid water masses. The silt curtain consists of a flotation boom and
a flexible "skirt" of variable length that is weighted at the bottom and hangs down from the flotation boom. Several curtain
designs and materials are available for different deployment conditions (e.g., currents, tides, winds).
2-14
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2.0 Project Alternatives
Table 2-1. Proposed Dredge and Fill Volumes in San Francisco Bay by Project Component
Project Component/Location
Dredge Volume
(cyP
Duration of
Dredging Activity
Fill Volume
(cy) 3
Number of New
Piles
Transbay Tube
Micropile Anchorage
-
-
-
2,200
Vibro-Replacement
-
-
-
-
Stitching the Tube 1
Location 1
54,000
3 weeks
54,000
4-6
Location 2
29,000
3 weeks
29,000
4-6
Location 3
16,700
3 weeks
16,700
4-6
Location 4
9,100
2 weeks
9,100
4-6
Location 5
8,500
2 weeks
8,500
4-6
Location 6
8,800
2 weeks
8,800
4-6
Seismic Joint Restoration
Total
126,100
15 weeks
126,100
2,224 - 2,236
San Francisco Transition Structure
Pile Array, Piles and Collar Anchorage, Containment Structures & Sacrificial Walls
(Steel Piles Retrofit Concept)
Pile Array
2-3 years
100
Piles and Collar Anchorage
10,000
2-3 years
500
8-12
Containment Structures
15,000
2-3 years
5,000
Sacrificial Walls
1,200
2-3 years
3,000
Ferry Plaza Platform 2
80 - 250 4
Total
26,200
2-3 years
8,500
188-362
Isolation and Support Walls, Containment Structures & Sacrificial Walls
(Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept )
Isolation & Support Walls
80,000
3-4 years
1,000
26
Containment Structures
15,000
3-4 years
5,000
Sacrificial Walls
3-4 years
1,500
Ferry Plaza Platform 2
80 - 250 4
Total
95,000
3-4 years
7,500
106-276
Combined Project Components
Total Project (Steel Piles)
152,300 5
2-3 years
134,600
2,412-2,598
Total Project (Isolation Walls)
221, 100 6
3-4 years
133,600
2,330-2,512
Notes:
1. Stitching the Tube Locations 1-6 are shown on Figure 2-20.
2. Installation of either retrofit concept at the San Francisco Transition Structure would require remo\ ing and then restoring
between 65,000 and 70,000 square feet of the Ferry Plaza Platform.
3. The dredge and fill volumes are based on the proposed retrofit methods described in this chapter. 1 he dredge and till \ olumes
vary between location because the amount of sediment on top of the Tube varies from location to location
4. Depending on whether a plaza-based operation (Construction Method 2) or a marine-based operation (Construction Method 1 1
is used, approximately 80 to 250 piles, respectively, would be removed during platform removal; the number ol repla< emenl
piles may change depending on the pile size and spacing called for in the final design.
5. To be conservative, it is estimated that dredging from all project components at the Tube and the Steel Piles Retrofit ( loncepl at
the San Francisco Transition Structure would total about 153,000 cy.
6. To be conservative, it is estimated that dredging from all project components at the Tube and the Isolation Wall'. Retrofit
Concept at the San Francisco Transition Structure would total about 222,000 cv.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-15
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 To minimize impacts to vessel traffic in the Bay, stitching construction would be phased and
2 would be limited to a barge work area not to exceed 350 feet by 350 feet for each pile cluster.
3 Anchoring the construction barge to the Bay bottom may go outside of these limits. Assuming
4 that both vibro-replacement and stitching activities are done simultaneously, there could be as
many as 12 construction and supply barges on the Bay at the same time. The exact number and
6 size will be determined by the construction contractor(s) and the construction schedule.
Installation of each pile cluster on the Oakland side (Figures 2-6 and 2-7) would be a land-based
8 operation and would involve excavating 20 to 60 feet below the ground surface to reach the top
9 of the Tube. An area approximately 150 feet by 150 feet would be excavated for each piling
10 group, and only one stitching area would be open at any given time. Temporary slopes created
11 for stitching the Tube near the Oakland Transition Structure will be constructed with shallow
12 slopes, in accordance with recommendations by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Stockpiled
13 soils excavated during stitching would be placed in a confinement site lined with sheet plastic
14 and surrounded by berms to prevent off-site transport by stormwater runoff. Any
15 contaminated excavated material would be contained and hauled to an approved disposal area.
16 Installation of the steel piles would also utilize the oscillation or rotating techniques described
17 above, to the extent feasible.
18 San Francisco Seismic Joint Restoration. At the seismic joint within the Transbay Tube, just
19 east of the San Francisco Transition Structure, a steel segmented secondary tunnel liner sleeve
20 would be placed within the existing tunnel, with neoprene or rubber gaskets to control potential
21 leakage (Figure 2-8). The liner would extend around both the trackway tubes and gallery. This
22 liner would be installed in sections from within the existing Tube; therefore no ground
23 disturbance or dredging would be required. No seismic retrofits are necessary for the seismic
24 joints on the Oakland side of the Tube since they have more existing capacity (more ability for
25 the joint to move without damage) than those on the San Francisco side, and have less
26 vulnerability to seismic activities.
27 2.2.2 Transition Structures
28 Poor soil conditions adjacent to the Tube and transition structures could result in excessive
29 Tube movement at the seismic joints, possibly resulting in failure or damage to the transition
30 structures. Ground-shaking, liquefaction of adjacent soils, and lateral spreading of upper soil
31 deposits (Figure 2-9) could result in excessive movement of the transition structures (i.e.,
32 rocking, sliding, base-uplifting), which could cause structural failure of the structures, seismic
33 joints, and /or Tube. The seismic retrofit methods for the Tube described in section 2.2.1 would
34 help to reduce the seismic-motion demands on the seismic joints as well as provide added
35 protection from potential water leakage into the Tube. The following seismic retrofit methods
36 would provide additional protection against structural failure of the transition structures.
37 2.2.2.1 San Francisco Transition Structure
38 Two alternative design methods consisting of a series of activities called the Steel Piles Retrofit
39 Concept (pile array, piles and collar anchorage, containment structures, and sacrificial walls), or
40 the Isolation Wall Retrofit Concept (isolation and support walls, containment structures, and
41 sacrificial walls), are included as part of the project to rnmimize potential structural failure of the
42 San Francisco Transition Structure. Both retrofit concepts are described in greater detail below.
2-16
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Figure 2-7. Aerial Detail of Stitching the Tube
and Vibro-Replacement at the Oakland End
i
■
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
H
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 All dredging or excavation activities associated with either retrofit concept at the San Francisco
2 Transition Structure would occur within the footprint of the Ferry Plaza Platform. During
3 dredging, temporary construction steel sheet piling would be installed around the construction
4 area using oscillation or rotating techniques, from just below the mud line and extending
5 upward to the water's surface. The temporary sheet piling is intended to isolate and contain
6 dredged materials and construction spoils from entering the surrounding Bay water, and to
7 limit the lateral spreading of a potential turbidity plume.
8 For construction near the San Francisco Transition Structure, including completion of either
9 retrofit concept, the construction contractor will be required to install and maintain temporary
10 noise control barriers around all noise- genera ting construction equipment throughout the
11 duration of retrofit activities. If conventional pile-driving (impact hammer) equipment is
12 required, the construction contractor will, in addition to installing the noise control barriers, be
13 required to schedule activities to avoid high public use times at the San Francisco Ferry Plaza,
14 shroud the pile drivers with noise barrier materials, and provide advanced public notice,
15 including a hotline for noise complaints related to surrounding uses.
16 Any hardscape or landscape materials removed during construction on or near the San
17 Francisco Transition Structure, including specifically at the San Francisco Ferry Plaza, will be
18 replaced in-kind after project completion, and will ensure the same type of vegetation or tree is
19 replaced at a 1:1 ratio.
20 To avoid off-site glare onto sensitive (commercial) receptors, the construction contractor will
21 direct light sources away from the nearby uses' lines of sight, through focusing light onto the
22 work area and shielding the source, so as not to cause light spillover or focused, intense off-site
23 glare.
24 Steel Piles Retrofit Concept
25 Pile Array. Between the San Francisco Ferry Building and the San Francisco Transition
26 Structure, an array of approximately 100 (approximately 6-foot diameter) steel pipe piles would
27 be installed beneath the existing Ferry Plaza Platform, which extends from the Ferry Building to
28 the Transition Structure (Figures 2-10 and 2-11). The piles would anchor into more stable soils
29 below the Bay Mud by extending up to 200 feet below mean sea level. Placement of the piles
30 would reduce the spreading of soils downslope to the east between the Ferry Building and
31 Transition Structure, and would reduce the impact of spreading soils on the transition structure
32 building.
33 To further minimize soil movement surrounding the tunnels west of the San Francisco
34 Transition Structure that connect the transition structure to Embarcadero Station, soil grouting
35 would be conducted. Grouting is the injection of stable suspensions or liquid into pores
36 fissures or voids, or the jetting of cement mixtures at high flow rate and pressure into the soil to
37 create soil-cement. Jet or chemical grouting of the soft Bay Mud layer surrounding the Tube
38 tunnel would improve the soil shearing and bearing capacity of the mud, and prevent bearing
39 and sliding failures of the soil. This grouting would be done from the Ferry Plaza Platform
40 through temporary holes in the platform using a technology in which high pressure jets of
41 cement or chemical grout are discharged sideways into the soft Bay Mud layer around the 1 ube
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-23
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 to simultaneously excavate and then mix with the soil to create a more stable material.
2 Discharge of the grouted soil into Bay waters above the mud line is not anticipated because of
3 the depth where the activity would be occurring (at least 60 feet below mud line), and the jet
4 grouting device would be surrounded by a vacuum pipe to contain and remove any excess
5 grouted materials before they would enter the water column.
6 To facilitate access to, and use of, the Ferry Plaza Platform, construction would take place from
7 either a marine-based or plaza-based operation and would be supported by construction
8 barges. As shown in Figure 2-12, the marine-based option (Construction Method 1) would
9 require placement of a construction barge and supply barge on the waterside of the platform.
10 Part of the platform that currently supports pedestrian viewing 10 and ferry terminal activities
11 would be temporarily removed in the areas of the new pile array to allow access by the
12 construction barge. Its associated concrete support piles would be either cut off at the Bay
13 bottom elevation or removed completely. The marine-based operation would require
14 approximately 70,000 square feet of the existing platform to be removed along with about 250
15 supporting piles to allow access for the construction barges. The existing piles are relatively
16 small pre-cast concrete piles. Since these piles were primarily designed for compression loads,
17 it may not be easy to remove them, and they may have to be cut off at the mud line. The
18 removed portion of the platform and supporting piles would be replaced once installation of
19 the array of large steel piles is completed.
20 As shown in Figure 2-13, if a plaza-based operation (Construction Method 2) is used, a
21 construction crane would be placed either on top of the existing platform deck or on temporary
22 construction steel pipe piles placed through the existing platform to below the mud line, with a
23 supply barge positioned on the south side of the platform. This would reduce the amount of
24 platform removal necessary during construction and would reduce disruption to nearby ferry
25 operators. The plaza-based operation would require approximately 65,000 square feet of the
26 existing platform to be removed along with about 80 supporting piles to allow access for the
27 construction barges. The World Trade Club, the restaurant located next to the San Francisco
28 Transition Structure, would remain open and accessible to its members, but access at times
29 would be provided from the second floor, not always the ground floor. Access to and from the
30 landing dock for the Golden Gate Ferries would also be maintained.
31 Installation of the steel pipe piles would use oscillation or rotating techniques described in
32 section 2.2.1, to the extent feasible. The spoils from demolition of the existing concrete and steel
33 plaza platform would be contained and removed from the site.
34 Piles and Collar Anchorage. At the San Francisco Transition Structure, eight to twelve large
35 (approximately 10-foot diameter) steel pipe piles would be installed around the transition
36 structure building (Figures 2-10 and 2-11). The pile group would be connected with a large
37 precast concrete or fabricated steel collar placed beneath the existing Ferry Plaza Platform down
38 to just below the Bay Mud line, and would be positioned against the transition structure walls.
10 Pedestrians currently have access to the entire Ferry Plaza Platform, which is shown as a trapezoidal shape on Figure 2-12.
2-24 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2-25
o
o
D
Ul
>
<i
o
o
U~UJ
TFORM
BE RE
LACED
SACRI
NCRET
< Q_
JO"
. O
ooo
dr. — Ss => 1 ! 1 \ V ' s }
OPOoC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
- ZQ
^ OLjJ
I'M
O OLjJ
KzlOo
o.p.mi-
=jo !
occ
(no
2-26
2-28
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 The piles and collar would anchor the structure to more stable soils by extending approximately
2 200 feet below mean sea level, and would stabilize the structure from sliding and rocking
3 movements as well as the pressure from spreading soils. Dredging or excavation of the Bay
4 bottom (approximately 10,000 cy) around the structure would be required (see Table 2-1).
5 During construction, sections of the concrete deck of the Ferry Plaza Platform located around
6 the transition structure would be removed temporarily and replaced, as described under Pile
7 Array above (see Figures 2-12 and 2-13).
8 Installation of the steel pipe piles would utilize the oscillation or rotating techniques described
9 in section 2.2.1, to the extent feasible. The concrete and steel spoils from demolition of the
10 platform, and accidental debris spills, would be contained and removed from the site. The
11 concrete or steel collar would be installed from a barge and from the plaza platform level,
12 lowered to the final elevation just below the Bay Mud line.
13 Containment Structures. To the immediate east and west of the San Francisco Transition
14 Structure and around the Transbay Tube seismic joints, a water resistant structure called a
15 Containment Structure, would be installed on either end of the building to protect the Tube
16 and tunnels from water intrusion during a seismic event (see Figures 2-10 and 2-11). The
17 structure would consist of steel pipe piles that are overlapped to provide four continuous
18 walls around the Tube seismic joints, extending from a point just above the joints into the
19 deep mud below the Tube. Installation of the steel pipe piles would utilize the oscillation or
20 rotating techniques described in section 2.2.1, to the extent feasible. Following installation of
21 the walls, about 15,000 cy of material (primarily new Bay Mud) would be excavated and
22 replaced by a Bentonite slurry fill, which would effectively surround the seismic joint, Tube,
23 and tunnels and create a water-resistant seal around those structures. A concrete cap would
24 then be placed above the Bentonite-filled structure, and Bay Mud replaced over the cap's
25 approximately 13,500 square-foot surface. The two Containment Structures would be located
26 directly beneath the Piles and Collar Anchorage on the east and west of the Transition
27 Structure (beginning about 50 feet below mud line), and would extend to a depth of nearly
28 140 feet below the mud line.
29 Sacrificial Walls. Eight-foot thick concrete walls, called Sacrificial Walls, would be placed on
30 all four sides (north, south, east and west) of the San Francisco Transition Structure to further
31 reinforce the building from potential adverse impacts during a seismic event. Installation of the
32 walls would require dredging or excavation of approximately 1,200 cy of material. The
33 sacrificial walls would be located approximately 5 feet from the building's outer wall surface;
34 and would extend from the top of the concrete or steel collar to the immediate underside of the
35 Ferry Plaza Platform (see Figure 2-11).
36 Isolation Wall Retrofit Concept
37 Isolation and Support Walls. An alternative retrofit concept to the proposed Piles Array and
38 Piles and Collar Anchorage at the San Francisco Transition Structure, described above/ consists
39 of elements called Isolation Walls and Support Walls. Similar to the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept
40 this concept also includes construction of two Containment Structures and Sacrificial Walls (see
41 Figures 2-14 and 2-15).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 The Isolation Walls would consist of two continuous walls of large (approximately 8-foot
2 diameter) concrete piles or reinforced concrete walls placed along both sides of the Transition
3 Structure (north and south) from just below the existing mud line, to about 160 feet below mud
4 line. The Isolation Walls would extend westward and eastward along the Tube and tunnels,
5 and would be connected by up to four, 6-foot diameter struts located below the mud line and
6 perpendicular to the east-west trending walls.
7 The purpose of the Isolation Walls would be to mmimize the impact of lateral spreading soils
8 moving downslope to the east from the Ferry Building toward the Transition Structure and the
9 Bay, which could cause structural failure of the Transition Structure. The distance between the
10 two Isolation Walls is slightly greater than the width of the Transition Structure; therefore, the
1 1 walls would divert some soil (on the north and south) away from the building. The Isolation
12 Walls would also minimize the amount of soil movement occurring between the Ferry Building
13 and the Transition Structure to the east, to only that material lying within and between the
14 Isolation Walls.
15 The Isolation Walls would consist of either concrete piles that are overlapped to provide a
16 continuous wall (called a secant pile wall), or a 6- to 8-foot wide concrete reinforced slurry wall.
17 Construction of the secant pile wall variant would require installation of a large diameter steel
18 caisson, excavation of materials within the caisson, and placement of concrete inside the
19 excavated caisson as it is removed. A large concrete cap beam would then be placed directly on
20 top of the Isolation Walls. Installation of either construction method (secant pile wall or slurry
21 wall) would utilize the oscillation or rotating techniques described in section 2.2.1.
22 The Isolation Walls would be parallel to and independent of the proposed interior Support
23 Walls, which would be placed about 8 feet away. Similar to the secant pile wall variant
24 described above, the Support Walls would consist of concrete piles overlapped to provide a
25 continuous wall, which is structurally connected to the outside surfaces of the Transition
26 Structure on the north and south sides of the building. The Support Walls would be located
27 approximately 60 feet below the mud line to about 220 feet below the mud line, and would
28 protect the Transition Structure from sliding or tipping during a seismic event. In the &-foot
29 wide space between the two sets of walls (Isolation and Support Walls), Bay Mud would be
30 backfilled to close the space. The likely source of Bay Mud would be leftover dredged materials
31 associated with construction of both sets of walls, which would require dredging of
32 approximately 80,000 cy of material (primarily Bay Mud soils). As described above, a
33 temporary construction steel sheet pile would be installed around the sites prior to construction
34 of either wall, to isolate and retain dredged materials and to reduce the extent of a potential
35 turbidity plume entering surrounding Bay water.
2-30
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2-31
*d5
o
o
o
jr-r-
8
Jo
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
£ 2g
w gz
•Jig
o Sj
o OLd(= o
cl cl oji — o
2-32
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 To further stabilize the soil adjacent to the Tube west of the Transition Structure, approximately
2 26 steel pipe piles (6-foot diameter) would be installed north and south of the BART approach
3 tunnels. Also, to mmimize soil movement surrounding these tunnels, soil grouting would be
4 conducted in the area surrounding the Tube (at about 60 feet below mud line) (see Figure 2-15).
5 Jet or chemical grouting of the soft Bay Mud layer surrounding the Tube tunnel would improve
6 the soil shearing and bearing capacity of the mud, and prevent bearing and sliding failures of
7 the soil. This grouting would be done from the Ferry Plaza Platform, as described above for the
8 Steel Piles Retrofit Concept. Discharge of the grouted soil into Bay waters above the mud line is
9 not anticipated.
10 Containment Structures. Similar to the Containment Structures proposed as part of the Steel
11 Piles Retrofit Concept, to the immediate east and west of the San Francisco Transition Structure
12 and around the Tube seismic joints, a water resistant structure called a Containment Structure,
13 would be installed on either end of the building to protect the Tube and tunnels from water
14 intrusion during a seismic event (see Figures 2-14 and 2-15). The structure under this concept
15 would, however, consist of concrete walls placed above the Tube seismic joints, and soil
16 grouted walls placed in the deep mud below the Tube. Following installation of the walls,
17 which would be located at least 50 feet below the mud line, about 15,000 cy of material
18 (primarily new Bay Mud) would be excavated and replaced by a Bentonite slurry fill, which
19 would effectively surround the seismic joint, Tube and tunnels and create a water-resistant seal
20 around those structures. A concrete cap would then be placed above the Bentonite-filled
21 structure, and Bay Mud replaced over the cap's approximately 13,500 square-foot surface. The
22 two Containment Structures would be located directly above the Support Walls (beginning
23 about 60 feet below mud line), and would extend up to the mud line at its highest elevation.
24 Sacrificial Walls. Similar to the Sacrificial Walls proposed as part of the Steel Piles Retrofit
25 Concept, 8-foot wide concrete walls would be placed on all four sides of the Transition
26 Structure. Under this retrofit concept, however, no dredging or excavation would be required
27 as the walls would extend from the top of the Containment Structures on the east and west, and
28 from the top of the Support Walls on the north of south, to the immediate underside of the
29 Ferry Plaza Platform (see Figure 2-15).
30 2.2.2.2 Oakland Transition Structure
31 The above-grade portion of the Oakland Transition Structure, which is located on land within
32 Port of Oakland property (Figure 1-2), requires strengthening of its steel frame. This would be
33 accomplished by reinforcing the existing steel bracing with new reinforced concrete shear walls.
34 The shear walls would be attached to the precast concrete panel through a grid of newly
35 installed anchors. There would be some ground disturbance during the construction ol the
36 concrete shear walls; ground disturbance would be confined within the fenced BART easemenl
37 area around the Oakland Transition Structure. There would be no public disruption during
38 construction since the transition structure is located in a fenced-in industrial area. The stat-iiu;
39 area would be located within the fenced area around the Oakland Transition Structure. The
40 Oakland Transition Structure is visible from 7 th Street and the San Francisco Bay Trail that
41 parallels 7 th Street between Port View Park and Middle Harbor Shoreline Park.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-33
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 2.2.3 Aerial Guideways
2 Aerial track is installed on guideways that are supported by piers. The most common aerial
3 structure consists of a single-column reinforced concrete pier on either pile supported or spread
4 concrete footings (see Figure 2-16 for a typical aerial structure). Existing columns have one of
5 three different shapes: rectangular, hexagonal, or circular (Figure 2-17). On top of the column
6 is a hammerhead-type pier cap and shear keys 11 (Figure 2-16) that support the track. Seismic
7 studies have determined that aerial structures may suffer damage from an earthquake, such as
8 shear key failure, pier cap damage, column damage, and/or foundation failure. Structural
9 damage from shear key failure would most likely allow trains to continue to traverse the
10 location at slow speeds, but more severe damage to the column or foundation could lead to
11 structural collapse.
12 Proposed seismic retrofits of the aerial guideways include enlargement of the existing
13 foundation (approximately 5 to 8 feet on each side and 2 to 3 feet on top) and placement of a top
14 mat of rebar 12 and new vertical dowels 13 through the existing foundation. Typical seismic
15 retrofits would also include jacketing (encasing) of the concrete columns with 3/8- to 1-inch
16 thick steel casings or collars, and placement of additional shear keys at the hammerhead caps
17 (Figure 2-16). The steel casing that would encircle each column to be retrofitted would range in
18 width from 0.13 foot to 2.9 feet thick, depending on the original shape of the column; after
19 retrofit, each column would have a round or elliptical shape. In poorer soils (soils that have less
20 bearing capacity), installation of additional piles would also be done. At some abutment 14
21 locations, concrete catchers or seat extenders, would be added to increase the available seating
22 area for the girders on the abutments. These catchers are typically reinforced concrete blocks
23 attached to the face of the abutment using horizontal dowels.
24 In addition to the seismic retrofits described above, some of the multi-column piers (piers that
25 have between two to six columns instead of just one) would require infill concrete walls
26 between the columns. In areas where multiple piers are located within a sensitive view area,
27 such as Forest Street near the Rockridge Station, the steel casings would be installed to the same
28 height on each pier for a consistent look.
29 Ground disturbance around each pier to be retrofitted would take place within a 10-foot radius
30 of the pier; on-site construction equipment would be placed within a 20-foot radius of each pier.
31 See Figure 2-18 for details about the locations of proposed aerial guideway seismic retrofits.
11 A shear key is a structural element designed to prevent differential lateral movement between two adjoining structural
components.
12 In a typical concrete construction, reinforcing steel (rebar) is placed in grids of steel running in two directions. For a
horizontal structure such as a pile cap, these grids are often referred to as mats. Many of the existing pile caps have bottom
mats (located in the lower part of the slab), but not top mats.
13 A dowel is a straight piece of rebar inserted into existing concrete, typically to tie the older concrete into a new piece. In this
case, the dowels would be placed vertically into the top of the existing foundation to tie the new concrete footing and rebar to
the old, and to provide additional strength to the overall footing structure.
14 An abutment is a wall supporting the end of a bridge or span and sustaining the pressure of the abutting earth.
2-34
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
CD
CD
co
cd
CL
cd
co
<
O -1- CP
lilt
cZ
0}
o ^°
CD
CO
O
O
O
O)
re
x
CD
x:
o
CD
CO
2
o
CD
1 fUr
CD
CO
E
,g
CD
s
CL
CD
O
5
co
"re
•c
CD
<
CO
X
ai
=3
=> j=
i= a>
co or
co o
i i
cn co
X CD
LU CO
DD
o =
<n co
< CO
i" CD
CD
cn
■ — ^
ca o
CD o
-c cr
co „
CD o
e
CD
a>
E
_2
o
o
o
1
cn
i
O
E
2 jo
CD O
E .
o u~)
^ cr>
a> o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
■
II
ft
3
ft
MAP#: LOCATION:
LEGEND?
PROP(
1 Chabot Road
2 Golden Gate Avenue
3 Patton Street
4 Presley Way
5 Rockridge Station
6 Forest Street
7 Claremont Avenue
8 Telegraph & 56'" Street
9 55'" Street
10 Shattuck
11 52nd street
12 Grove Street
13 45 ln Street
14 42^ Street
1 5 MacArthur Station
16 MacArthur Boulevard
Four a
Four a
Five pir
Four pi
See te:
Eighte
Six pier
Three
Two
Two pieu
Four pfc
Four pi«
Eight pi
Twelve
some o
See tex
Twelve
some c<
17 30<n Street
18 29'" Street
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Oakland Wes
Figure 2-18. (icncral I. oration of
Aerial Structures and Station Retrofits
MAP#: LOCATION:
LEGEND
PROPOSED^JTROFIT^
Four abutments retrofitted with catchers
Four abutments retrofitted with catchers.
Five piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Four piers and four abutments retrofitted.
See text lor details.
Eighteen piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Six piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Three piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Two piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Two piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Four piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Four piers and four abutments retrofitted.
Eight piers and eight abutments retrofitted.
Twelve piers and twelve abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
See text for details.
Twelve piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
Eight piers and two abutments retrofitted:
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
Eight piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
Eighteen piers and five abutments retrofitted.
West Oakland Aerial Guideway 140 piers and three abutments retrofitted.
West Oakland Station See text for details.
Oakland Yard & Shop See text for details.
Chabot Road
Golden Gate Avenue
Patton Street
Presley Way
Rockndge Station
Forest Street
Claremont Avenue
Telegraph & 56" Street
55 th Street
Shattuck
52 nd Street
Grove Street
45" 1 Street
42 nd Street
MacArthur Station
MacArthur Boulevard
17 30»> Street
18 29»> Street
19 Sycamore & 27" Street
20-37
29
38
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle: Oakland West, Calif. 1959, 1980; USGS7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Oakland East, Calif. 1997
Figure 2-18. General Location of
Aerial Structures and Station Retrofits
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 For construction near the aerial guideway retrofit locations, the construction contractor will be
2 required to install and maintain temporary noise control barriers around all noise-generating
3 construction equipment throughout the duration of retrofit activities. If conventional pile-
4 driving (impact hammer) equipment is used, the construction contractor will, in addition to
5 installing the noise control barriers, be required to schedule noisiest activities to mmimize the
6 amount of time when residents are home or schools are in operation, shroud the pile drivers
with noise barrier materials, and provide advanced public notice, including a hotline for noise
8 complaints related to surrounding uses.
9 Any hardscape or landscape materials removed during aerial guideway retrofits will be
10 replaced in-kind after project completion, and will ensure the same type of vegetation or tree is
11 replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Specifically, for construction occurring at or near Hardy Park or the Bay
12 Trail adjacent the 7th Street right-of-way, the construction contractor will be required to restore
13 park or trail amenities to pre-project conditions, including clean up, regrading, recompacting,
14 repavement or relandscaping, and replacement of any damaged fencing.
15 For construction at locations near major surface street roadways or freeways, including at aerial
16 guideway locations beneath the State Route 24 overpasses, the construction contractor will be
17 required to direct light sources away from motorists' lines-of-sight, through focusing light onto
18 the work area and shielding the source, so as not to cause light spillover or focused, intense off-
19 site glare.
20 BART has identified three temporary staging areas for aerial guideway and station retrofits: (1)
21 5 th Street and Cypress Street (near the West Oakland Station), (2) 5 th Street and Brush Street (east
22 of the West Oakland Station), and (3) 40 th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way (near the
23 MacArthur Station). The staging area near 5 th Street and Cypress Street (Mandela Parkway) is
24 about 300 yards (0.17 miles) south of this intersection; it is the closest staging area to the West
25 Oakland Station and would also be used for substitute parking during construction at some
26 locations.
27 This site is unpaved, has a tree and some weeds, and is surrounded by commercial buildings,
28 primarily warehouses. The staging area at 5th Street and Brush Street would be under the
29 BART tracks and is east of the West Oakland Station. This site is unpaved, covered with weeds,
30 and surrounded by commercial buildings, primarily warehouses. A vacant parcel on the
31 southeast corner of 40 th Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way would be used as a staging area
32 and for substitute parking during construction at some locations. Tins site is unpaved with
33 weeds, and is surrounded by primarily commercial buildings, with residences across the street
34 and within a half block of this property. BART would be responsible for the maintenance ol the
35 staging areas during project activities. No staging activities would occur within a recreation or
36 public park area.
37 2.2.4 Stations
38 Seismic retrofits are proposed for Rockridge Station, MacArthur Station, and West Oakland
39 Station. The four underground stations associated with the project area do not require seismif
40 retrofitting because the predicted amount of damage caused by a potential earthquake to the
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-41
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 underground stations is small and would not affect the ability of the system to return to
2 operation quickly after a seismic event (BART 2002a).
3 Construction activities at the BART stations would temporarily displace some parking spaces at
4 the Rockridge and West Oakland Stations, as noted below. Some sidewalks would be removed
5 and then rebuilt. Bus stops adjacent to structures supporting BART stations would also have to
6 be temporarily realigned or moved to nearby locations while retrofit activities occur.
7 For construction at the BART stations, the construction contractor would install and maintain
8 temporary noise control barriers around all noise-generating construction equipment throughout
9 the duration of retrofit activities. In addition, if conventional pile-driving (impact hammer)
10 equipment is required, the construction contractor would schedule activities during non-
1 1 commute periods and evenings, shroud the pile drivers with noise barrier materials, and provide
12 advanced public notice, including a hotline for noise complaints related to surrounding uses.
13 Any hardscape or landscape materials removed during retrofits at the BART stations will be
14 replaced in-kind after project completion, and will ensure the same type of vegetation or tree is
15 replaced at a 1:1 ratio.
16 For construction at stations near major surface street roadways or freeways, the construction
17 contractor will be required to direct light sources away from motorists' lines-of-sight, through
18 focusing light onto the work area and shielding the source, so as not to cause light spillover or
19 focused, intense off-site glare.
20 2.2.4.1 Rockridge Station
21 The Rockridge Station, an aerial station, consists of eight 2-column reinforced concrete piers
22 supported on concrete pile foundations and is abutted on its east end by a substation structure
23 with shear walls. The station also has elevated spans of track structures, platform slab
24 structure, overhead canopy structure, concourse, and pedestrian structures (see Figure 2-19 for
25 a typical aerial station). Seismic retrofit studies have determined that aerial stations would
26 suffer earthquake damage similar to the aerial guideways, such as shear key failure, pier cap
27 damage, column damage, and /or foundation failure. Structural damage from shear key failure
28 would most likely allow trains to continue to traverse the location at slow speeds, but more
29 severe damage to the column or foundation could lead to structural collapse. In addition,
30 ground shaking may cause damage to the station canopies, stairways, and elevator shafts.
31 The Rockridge Station would require similar methods of seismic retrofits described above for
32 the aerial guideways to minimize structural damage and prevent potential collapse. A top mat
33 of rebar and new vertical dowels would be installed close to the bottom of existing footings.
34 New column steel jacketing would be installed for all but one of the columns; all columns at the
35 station platform are rectangular in shape. New concrete blocks would be installed at the top of
36 the pier caps to seismically retrofit some of the shear keys. Pier retrofits would be conducted
37 one pier at a time. Brackets also would be installed at the connection between the station
38 platform and the main station girders. Construction would occur in phases to minimize
39 impacts on parking.
2-42
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Cross Section of Typical Existing Aerial Station before Seismic Retrofit
Canopy
Support
Cross Section of Aerial Station with Seismic Retrofit
^ It
Platform
Track
Support
Key:
1 1
Existing Structure
Seismic Retrofit
Underground
Notes
1. Foundation Retrofits Not Shown In This Cross Section.
2. New Elliptical/Circular Column Casing Increases Column Size by 1 .5" to 16"
Figure 2-19. Cross-Section of a Typical Aerial Station Before and After Seismic Retrofits
ft
II
II
ft
ft
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 Before commencement of construction activities at Rockridge Station, a protection and
2 conservation plan for the tile mural and bronze plaque will be prepared by a qualified
3 conservator, and implemented during and after planned retrofits to ensure that the mural and
4 plaque remain intact during and after construction activities.
5 2.2.4.2 MacArthur Station
6 The MacArthur Station, an at-grade station, consists of two abutments and seven multi-column
7 piers supporting a platform, track, and canopy structures. All columns and walls are on pile
8 footings. Seismic retrofit studies have determined that sliding and dislocation of foundations
9 and pile footings could result in partial or complete loss of operability of at-grade stations in the
10 event of a major earthquake. In addition, ground shaking may cause damage to the walls,
11 columns, shear keys, canopies, and entry structures.
12 Proposed seismic retrofits for the MacArthur Station would include adding piles and enlarging
13 footings at some piers and along the walls of the station to minimize structural damage and
14 prevent potential collapse. New in-fill walls would also be constructed between cohimns at one
15 pier. The station walls would be thickened and new footings installed to tie the new piles into
16 the existing walls. Work would also include strengthening the joint connections of the platform
17 canopies. No parking would be affected by the construction activities at MacArthur Station.
IS Before commencement of construction activities at MacArthur Station, a protection and
19 conservation plan for the mural painting and sculptures will be prepared by a qualified
20 conservator, and implemented during and after planned retrofits to ensure that the mural and
21 sculptures remain intact during and after construction.
22 2.2.4.3 West Oakland Station
23 The West Oakland Station, an aerial station, consists of eleven 2-column reinforced concrete
24 piers supported on spread footing foundations, track girders, platform girders, platform canop)
25 structures, train control rooms, the concourse, escalator, stairs, elevators, substation, and a
26 parking lot (see Figure 2-19 for a typical aerial station). The West Oakland Station would be
27 prone to the same types of earthquake damage as the Rockridge Station, such as shear kev
28 failure, pier cap damage, column damage, and/ or foundation failure.
29 The West Oakland Station would require similar types of seismic retrofits described abo\ e for
30 the Rockridge Station to minimize structural damage and prevent potential collapse. A top mat
31 of rebar and new vertical dowels would be installed in cored holes close to the bottom ol
32 existing footings. New concrete blocks would be installed at the top of the pier caps to
33 seismically retrofit the shear keys. New concrete grade beams (7 feet by 12 feet) would be
34 installed both longitudinally and transversely to connect all of the column footings together. A
35 special enlarged foundation would be required for two piers located adjacent to the station
36 lobby and other station features. The individual column footings at these piers would he
37 connected with new reinforced concrete grade beam to create one large footing. Tier retro! it-
38 would be conducted one pier at a time. Work would also include strengthening the joint
39 connections of the platform canopies.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-45
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 The construction phasing plan for the West Oakland Station generally proposes seismic retrofit
2 work at two piers during each phase. Approximately 20 to 30 parking spaces would be closed
3 during each phase of construction, or up to 6 percent of the total supply.
4 2.2.5 Other Seismic Retrofit Activities
5 The Oakland Yard and Shop area, located on BART property (see number 38 on Figure 2-18), is
6 used to conduct maintenance and repair for the BART system and trains. These buildings are
7 likely to suffer extensive damage during an earthquake. Proposed seismic retrofit measures
8 would include additional diagonal bracing of framing elements and strengthening of structural
9 joints within the existing frame to minimize the effects of a potential earthquake. The staging
10 area would be located within the existing paved areas surrounding the Oakland Yard and Shop.
11 No ground disturbance would be required, and there would be no effect on BART passengers
12 during construction since these buildings are located on restricted BART property.
13 Seismic retrofit activities would be conducted with minimal impact to BART service. During all
14 seismic retrofit activities, construction contractors will use energy efficient equipment, avoid
15 unnecessary idling of construction equipment, maintain equipment in good working
16 conditions, and encourage car pooling of construction workers. Construction equipment will
17 not block BART trains or substantially interfere with BART employees or riders. In areas where
18 operations could be impacted, work will be done during non-operational hours (generally 12:30
19 to 4:00 A.M. weekdays, but this varies by location, and non-operational hours are longer on
20 weekends). BART operates from 4 A.M. to midnight on weekdays, 6 A.M. to midnight on
21 Saturdays, and 8 A.M. to midnight on Sundays.
22 Any utilities (including pipelines, electrical cables, telephone cables, fiber optic lines, etc.)
23 located in the project area that may interfere with seismic retrofit activities will be either
24 protected in place or relocated at the commencement of the work. Utility relocation will be
25 conducted as part of the project. BART will consult with potentially affected utility companies
26 to identify the utilities that may be affected and to ensure continuation of service. The
27 contractor will be required to install all re-routed utility lines and conduct tie-in activities
28 during off-peak service periods approved by the affected utility provider. All relocations of
29 wastewater piping shall utilize pumps and diverted flows to maintain full service capabilities.
30 Prior to commencement of construction, the construction contractor will be required to prepare
31 and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic management plan to manage and
32 maintain traffic operations, parking, pedestrian and bicycle safety, etc. throughout the duration
33 of retrofit activities at any aerial guideway location or BART station, including for any required
34 utility relocation work. The plan would be developed with the direct participation of BART, the
35 City of Oakland, AC Transit, and Caltrans. In addition, the property owners of all businesses
36 adjacent to the construction areas will be consulted.
37 Construction contractors will be required to prepare Site Specific Work Plans or BART will
38 implement operational changes issued by the System Safety Department, delineating
39 emergency procedures for evacuation of BART trains. Contract specifications will also include
40 specific procedures for maintaining the security of the BART right-of-way, provisions for
41 maintenance of communication and ventilation control systems and/or provisions for back-up
2-46
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 systems during all retrofit activities, and provisions of BART's System Safety Plan and
2 Emergency Response Plan. Contractors will be required to adhere to standard BART
3 procedures that require background checks on all contractors. The Operations Control Center
4 will be notified at the start and end of any major construction activities. Additionally, BART
5 will coordinate with the City of Oakland and San Francisco Fire Departments throughout all
6 retrofit activities.
In addition, contractors will be required to prepare a Health and Safety Plan, for each retrofit
8 location, and Soils Management Plan prior to commencement of construction activities. In the
9 event that contaminants are encountered during excavation activities, all construction contractors
10 will be required to adhere to the prevention procedures stipulated in these plans, including
11 compliance with Cal-OSHA 40-hour training requirements. For all land-based construction
12 activities, the contractors will also be required to implement the BAAQMD Enhanced Control
13 Measures, as well as BART Standard Specifications - Section 01570, Part 1.08, during dry
14 conditions for dust control.
15 2.2.6 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
16 This section describes the reuse/ disposal options, both within the project and off site, for the
17 dredged material that would be generated by the project. Dredging would be required for a
18 variety of retrofit activities proposed at the Transbay Tube and the San Francisco Transition
19 Structure, including: (1) stitching the Tube at the San Francisco end (section 2.2.1), (2) the pile
20 and collar anchorage associated with the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept (section 2.2.2), (3) the
21 Containment Structures associated with both retrofit concepts (section 2.2.2), (4) the Isolation
22 and Support Walls associated with the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept (section 2.2.2), and (5)
23 the Sacrificial Walls associated with the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept (section 2.2.2). The total
24 amount of dredged material generated from the project would range from approximately
25 153,000 to 222,000 cy, depending on if the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept or the Isolation Walls
26 Retrofit Concept, respectively, is implemented at the San Francisco Transition Structure.
27 Proposed dredge and fill volumes, the expected duration of dredging for each dredge location,
28 and the number of new piles that would be installed are summarized in Table 2-1. A more
29 detailed discussion of activities associated with the dredged material disposal options,
30 including a conceptual construction sequence and additional information on each
31 reuse/ disposal option, is included in Appendix A.
32 A wide range of dredge disposal options was examined for this project. Section 2.2.6.1 assumes
33 that project dredged material will test suitable for in-Bay disposal, and describes the possibility
34 of reusing some of the dredged material during stitching the Tube at the San Francisco end,
35 with the remainder of the material from retrofits at the San Francisco Transition Structure being
36 disposed offsite at one of the in-Bay or upland reuse/ disposal sites. These potential in-Bay or
37 upland reuse/ disposal sites are discussed in detail in section 2.2.6.2, along with two potential
38 landfill sites that could be used for disposal of the most contaminated material. Section 2.2.6.2
39 also assumes that no material is reused within the project stitching operations, and that the total
40 project dredged material may be disposed at one of the eight offsite reuse/disposal locations.
41 That is, section 2.2.6.2 presents a worst-case analysis in which the maximum 222,000 cy of
42 dredged material associated with the combined stitching operation and Isolation Walls Retrofit
43 Concept could go to any of the reuse/ disposal sites listed in Table 2-2, including a landfill site.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-47
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 2.2.6.2 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
2 If the dredged material meets the requirements for in-Bay disposal 15 , some of the project
3 dredged material (up to 126,100 cy) could be reused within the stitching operation by
4 backfilling the stitching holes after the installation of the pile and pile caps (Figure 2-20). This
5 would minimize effects on transportation and air quality since the total amount of material
6 would not require transport to an offsite facility for disposal. Dredged material would be
7 stored on barges until the stitching holes are ready for backfilling. Even after reuse within the
8 stitching operations, however, dredged material associated with the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept
9 (approximately 26,900 cy) or the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept (95,900 cy) would require
10 offsite disposal at one of the permitted in-Bay or upland reuse /disposal sites (described in
11 section 2.2.6.2). Because dredged material would have to meet the requirements for in-Bay
12 disposal under this scenario, any leftover dredged material would also be expected to meet the
13 requirements for disposal at any in-Bay, ocean, or upland reuse /disposal sites.
14 In addition, during dredging associated with stitching, some of the existing ordinary backfill (a
15 special mix of sand and gravel) located directly over the Tube would need to be removed to
16 allow the frame for the stitching piles to sit directly on top of the Tube structure. Consequently,
17 some additional ordinary fill material (approximately 11,000 cy) would have to be imported
18 because it is not possible to segregate the ordinary backfill from the regular Bay Mud sediments
19 that overlay the Tube while dredging is occurring. Filling the holes with the imported ordinary
20 backfill would potentially displace up to 11,000 cy of available area that would otherwise be
21 filled by the 126,100 cy of project dredged material, and could exceed the capacity of the six
22 holes. Although it is impossible to closely balance cut and fill volumes during dredging
23 operations due to sediment settling and other factors, such as ocean current, the possibility
24 remains that up to 11,000 cy of dredged material may require offsite disposal following
25 completion of dredging activities at the six stitching locations. If any dredged material exceeds
26 the capacity of the six stitching holes as a result of being displaced by the ordinary fill, it will be
27 disposed offsite at one of the permitted in-Bay, ocean, or upland reuse/ disposal sites (described
28 in section 2.2.6.2), along with the additional 26,900 to 95,900 cy of dredged material associated
29 with retrofits at the San Francisco Transition Structure under the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept or
30 the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept, respectively. Transport of the total combined 37,900 to
31 106,900 cy of dredged material, including the stitching reuse material potentially displaced by
32 the ordinary fill (up to 11,000 cy) and either the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept or the Isolation
33 Walls Retrofit Concept, respectively, would require a maximum of 11 to 31 barge trips (each
34 containing approximately 3,500 cy of material).
15 Dredged material meets the requirements for in-Bay disposal if the material is dispersive in nature and tested suitable
pursuant to the Inland Testing Manual (EPA and USACE 1998). See also Appendix A (Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal
Options) and section 3.1. 2.3 (Water Resources).
2-48 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2-49
2.0 Project Alternatwes
1 2.2.6.2 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options outside the Project
2 Eight offsite reuse /disposal options not involving reuse within the project are evaluated; these
3 are listed in Table 2-2 and shown in Figure 2-21. These reuse /disposal options represent a
4 variety of beneficial uses of the dredged material, including wetland restoration at Hamilton or
5 Montezuma Wetlands, levee maintenance on Winter Island, and fill for the proposed Alameda
6 Point Golf Course. For other options, the dredged material would be disposed in the Bay
(Alcatraz), in the ocean (San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site [SF-DODS]), or in a landfill
8 (Altamont, Vasco Road). As shown in Table 2-2, all of the sites have the volume capacity to
9 accommodate the entire maximum 153,000 to 222,000 cy of dredged material from the project
10 associated with stitching activities and either the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept or the Isolation
11 Walls Retrofit Concept, respectively, assuming the dredged material meets the site's acceptance
12 criteria with regard to sediment quality. Although the Altamont Landfill's capacity is 125,000
13 cy per year, the landfill could reasonably accommodate the total dredged material over the
14 project lifetime, assuming 2 to 4 years of construction.
15 Disposal of dredged material at an ocean site (e.g., SF-DODS) is possible if the dredged material
16 is tested in accordance with the Ocean Testing Manual. For in-Bay disposal (e.g., Alcatraz),
17 maintenance dredging is given priority; material that is dispersive in nature and tested suitable
18 pursuant to the Inland Testing Manual would be potentially eligible for this disposal option.
19 The feasibility of in-Bay disposal also depends on the dredging volume and timing. In-Bay
20 disposal site capacities will decline over the next few years to ensure compliance with the Long-
21 Term Management Strategy (LTMS) plan to reduce in-Bay disposal (U.S. Army Corps of
22 Engineers [USACE] et al. 1998). Disposal of the dredged material at an ocean or in-Bay site
23 would require 44 to 64 barge trips (each with approximately 3,500 cy capacity) to transport the
24 maximum 153,000 to 222,000 cy of dredged material associated with the combined stitching
25 activities and either the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept or the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept,
26 respectively.
27 For the upland and landfill sites, the dredged material would need to be dewatered before
28 reuse/disposal. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB)
29 does not permit dredged material to be dewatered into San Francisco Bay. For disposal sites
30 where dewatering is needed, it must be done on land. To transport the dredged material to a
31 dewatering site, it is assumed that a 5,000-cy barge would have an effective material loading
32 capacity of 70 percent, because approximately 30 percent of the capacity would be taken up by
33 water and material bulking, which is the volume of the material that expands upon excavation.
34 This 30 percent reduction in barge capacity would also accommodate the need to not load the
35 barges beyond the extent to which they can fully contain the dredged material during transport
36 to the disposal site. Therefore, each barge would only load 3,500 cy of material, and 44 to 64
37 barge trips would be required to transport the maximum 153,000 to 222,000 cy of dredged
38 material associated with the combined stitching activities and either the Steel Piles Retrofit
39 Concept or the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept, respectively, to an upland reuse /disposal site
40 or to a dewatering site for landfill disposal. Some of the upland reuse /disposal sites have their
41 own dewatering/sediment rehandling facilities, while others do not. Table 2-3 summarizes the
42 locations where dredged material would be dewatered /rehandled, depending on the disposal
43 site.
2-50
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2-51
2.0 Project Alternatwes
Table 2-2. Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options for the BART Seismic Retrofit
Disposal Site
Disposal Capacity for the
Years 2005 through 2011 1
Qualitative Description of
Type of Material Accepted
In-Bay
Alcatraz (SF-11)
1.65 - 0.9 million cubic
yards (mcy) per year
Clean material passing testing
under the Inland Testing
Manual (USACE et al. 1998)
Ocean
SF-DODS
4.8 mcy per year
Clean material passing testing
under the Ocean Testing
Manual (USACE et al. 1998)
Upland
Hamilton Wetland Restoration
(including Bel Marin Keys)
— Novato, CA
10.6 mcy total
Clean "cover" material (CCC
2003)
Montezuma Wetland Restoration
— Solano County, CA
17-20 mcy total
Both "cover" and "non-cover"
material (Solano County 2001)
Winter Island — Contra Costa
County, CA
800,000 cy total
Material suitable for levee
rehabilitation (fewer chemical
restrictions than wetland use)
(USFWS 2000)
Alameda Point Golf Course
2 mcy total 2
Revised DEIR for golf course
issued in March 2005; project
approval expected by Jan 2006.
San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development
Commission & Regional Water
Quality Control Board to
establish sediment quality
criteria for this site; fill to be
covered by more than 3 feet of
clean sand (City of Alameda
2004).
Landfills
Altamont Landfill (Class II & III
facility) — Livermore, CA
125,000 cy per year
Nonhazardous, non-petroleum
contaminated Class III waste,
per CCR Title 22 and 40 CFR
(Alameda County 2000, 2003).
Vasco Road Landfill (Class III
facility) — Livermore, CA
300,000 cy per year
Notes:
1. The timeframe 2005 through 2011 is the expected construction period for the BART seismic retrofit project. Designated
capacities for in-Bay disposal sites are expected to decline over the period 2005 through 2011, along with the decrease
in in-Bay disposal allowed under the Bay Area's LTMS for dredged material disposal.
2. The Alameda Point Coif Course Project would be able to accept up to 2 mcy, but only until 2008.
2-52
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2.0 Project Alternatives
Table 2-3. Potential Dredged Material Dewatering/Rehandling Locations
Disposal Site
Dewatering/Rehandling Location
Hamilton Wetland Restoration
Hamilton Wetland Restoration 1
Montezuma Wetland Restoration
Montezuma Wetland Restoration 1
Winter Island
Winter Island 2
Alameda Point Golf Course
Alameda Point Golf Course 1
East Bay Landfills
Port of Oakland Berth 10 Rehandling Facility
Notes:
1. Project has or will have a dedicated sediment rehandling facility.
2. Winter Island does not have a sediment rehandling facility but the dredged material could be placed inside berms that
would allow the excess water to drain into the ground.
1 Disposal at the Altamont or Vasco Road Landfills could be used for the most contaminated
2 sediment. To be acceptable at either landfill, the dredged material must meet a less than 50
3 percent moisture limit criterion and have no free liquids. The dredged material would first be
4 dried at the Port of Oakland's Berth 10 rehandling facility. This facility would be made accessible
5 to BART until the Port's new Berth 29 is constructed, which is not expected to occur until after the
6 BART project has been completed. The Port would lease this rehandling facility to BART; BART
7 would have to operate the facility under the conditions specified in the Port's existing permit,
8 including all dewatering requirements, as SFBRWQCB does not allow for any waste discharge
9 offsite. BART would be allowed to offload only 15,000 to 20,000 cy of dredged material over a 2-
10 month period. The project could do this repeatedly every 2 months for as long as it took to dry
11 the maximum combined 153,000 to 222,000 cy of project dredged material, should all material be
12 destined for landfill disposal. Sediment would then be trucked to a landfill in small (12-cy
13 capacity) dump trucks. Dredged material hauling from the Port of Oakland to landfill disposal
14 sites will only occur outside of peak hours (6 AM to 10 AM and 3 PM to 7 PM).
15 Based on the Port's dewatering requirements, it would take approximately 15 to 20 months to
16 dry the total 153,000 cy of dredged material associated with the combined stitching operation
17 and Steel Piles Retrofit Concept before it could be transported to a landfill site. Transport of this
18 material would require 12,750 total truck trips whether spread over the estimated 3 year
19 construction period, or occurring in successive trips immediately after the material is dried (15
20 to 20 months). This would equate to approximately 12 daily truck trips (if spread evenly over
21 the 3 year period) or approximately 21 to 28 daily truck trips (if trips occur consecutively during
22 the 15 to 20 month dewatering period).
23 Dewatering the total 222,000 cy of dredged material associated with the combined stitching
24 operation and Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept would take approximately 22 to 30 months.
25 Transport of this material would require 18,500 total truck trips whether spread over the
26 estimated 4 year construction period, or occurring in successive trips immediately after the
27 material is dried (22 to 30 months). This would equate to approximately 13 daily truck trips (it
28 spread evenly over the 4 year period) or approximately 21 to 28 daily truck trips (if trips OCCUI
29 consecutively during the 22 to 30 month dewatering period).
30 A dredging operation plan, for barges traveling to upland and in-Bay sites, will be implemented
31 as part of the dredging permit approval process, and will include conditions for spill control
32 measures, proper dredged material handling, use of hydraulic fuel, loading requirements, etc
33 Additionally, because dredged material will be 80% dry, and only 20% liquid at the time ol
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-53
2.0 Project Alternatwes
1 transport by truck, an accidental spill during transport would not result in uncontrolled release
2 of dredged material.
3 Since sediment testing results for the sediments that would be dredged for the project are not
4 available, it is not known at this time if some portion of the total dredged volume would be
5 suitable for certain reuse/disposal options (e.g., in-Bay, ocean, or wetland restoration) while
6 other portions would require a different disposal solution (e.g., landfill). However, it should be
noted that in 2004, 95 percent of all material dredged in the San Francisco Bay was deemed
suitable for aquatic disposal (Bay Planning Coalition 2005), which is consistent with historic
9 values that indicate the proportion of dredged material recommended as unsuitable for
10 unconfined aquatic disposal is typically less than 5 percent (Dredged Material Management
11 Office [DMMO] 2002). The unsuitable material is usually from maintenance dredging projects.
12 Based on this information, it is expected that most, if not all, project dredged material will be
13 determined suitable for in-Bay, ocean or beneficial upland reuse disposal. It is not expected that
14 a large portion of the project dredged material would require a different disposal solution (e.g.,
15 landfill), and it could be that the total volume of dredged material would be suitable for one
16 reuse/disposal site. However, this document still presents a worst-case analysis in which the
17 maximum 222,000 cy of dredged material associated with the combined stitching operation and
18 Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept could go to any of the reuse /disposal sites listed in Table 2-2,
19 including a landfill site.
20 2.2.7 Schedule
21 The approximate construction schedule for the project is outlined below (see Figure 2-22).
22 • Transbay Tube and Transition Structures
23 - Transbay Tube micropile anchorage or vibro-replacement — 2 years
24 - Vibro-replacement on land (Oakland end) — 1 year
25 - Stitching on the San Francisco end — lVi years
26 - Stitching on the Oakland end — 1 year
27 - San Francisco Transition Structure — 2 to 4 years
28 - Oakland Transition Structure — V2 year
29 - San Francisco Seismic Joint Restoration — V/2 years
30 • Aerial Guideways — 4 years
31 • Stations — 6 years
32 • Oakland Yard and Shop Area — 1V4 years
33 2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
34 Under the no-action alternative, the proposed seismic retrofit of the BART system between the
35 Berkeley Hills Tunnel and Montgomery Street Station would not occur. The use of the BART
36 system would continue as it currently exists, but without the benefit of added protection against
37 seismic activity.
2-54
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2-55
2.0 Project Altemathies
1 Implementation of the no-action alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the
2 proposed action, which is to provide seismic retrofitting to the BART system to protect life
3 safet\- and the massive public capital investment represented by the BART system and to
4 prevent prolonged interruption of BART service to the public.
5 NEPA requires that the no-action alternative be analyzed; it also provides a measure of the
6 baseline conditions against which the impacts of the project can be compared. Analysis of
7 potential impacts associated with the no-action alternative is discussed in section 3.12 (No-
8 Action Alternative).
9 2.4 DESIGN VARIATIONS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM
10 FURTHER EVALUATION
11 Several seismic retrofit design variations were considered for the Transbay Tube, transition
12 structures, and aerial guideways, but were eliminated from further evaluation for the reasons
13 discussed below. The following discussion is based on the BART Seismic Vulnerability Study
14 (BART 2002a).
15 2.4.1 Transbay Tube
16 Alternative design variations examined as an alternative to the micropile anchorage technique
17 to minimize the potential effects of liquefaction include exterior Tube tie-downs, heavy riprap
18 over the existing fills, and chemical or jet grouting of the backfill. These alternatives were
19 eliminated from further evaluation because of excessive cost, difficulty in confirming their
20 effectiveness, and they would cause greater environmental concerns. The following three
21 design variations were considered as alternatives to stitching the Tube.
22 ] . Chemical or jet grouting was considered for anchoring the Tube's end to improve the
23 friction between the Tube and soil. This alternative was determined to be less reliable
24 and more expensive, and was eliminated from further evaluation.
2. Installing a new seismic joint in the first section of the Tube east of San Francisco (east of
26 the existing seismic joint on the eastern side of the San Francisco Transition Structure) was
27 considered as an alternative to accommodate potential large movements at the seismic
28 joint. The new joint would be constructed to have sufficiently large seismic movement
29 capacity to accommodate the predicted seismic motion demand at the end segment of the
30 Tube. This alternative was foimd not to be viable due to high costs and risks to the BART
3 1 system during construction, and was eliminated from further evaluation.
32 Internal battered micropile tube tie-downs were considered but rejected due to the lack of
33 sufficient horizontal tension load capacity that could be generated in the micropiles, together
34 with the complexities of construction in the tight quarters of the Tube gallery.
35 The installation of a permanent cofferdam 1 ' 1 structure was considered as an alternative, interim
36 safety measure prior to installation of all seismic retrofit measures and as a long-term
16 A cofferdam is a watertight, temporary structure used to keep out water during construction.
2-56
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
2.0 Project Alternatives
1 redundant protection of the Tube. The cofferdam would surround the San Francisco Transition
2 Structure and existing seismic joints, and would minimize the volume of Bay water entering the
3 Tube if water leaks developed at the seismic joints following excessive joint movement. This
4 concept was not feasible because sealing the cofferdam as it crossed the Tube on the Bay side
5 would be very difficult to accomplish, and there would be a potential for damage to the Tube
6 and adjacent structures. Also, the cofferdam structure could potentially alter the hydrological
7 effects of the transition structure on the Bay and would potentially become a long-term
8 maintenance problem because of standing water inside the cofferdam. Therefore, this
9 alternative was eliminated from further evaluation.
10 2.4.2 Transition Structures
11 At the San Francisco Transition Structure, the following four design variations were considered
12 as an alternative to the Pile Array Anchorage method to prevent soil liquefaction and reduce the
13 spreading of soils downslope between the Ferry Building and transition structure. Similar
14 alternative design methods were considered for the Oakland Transition Structure, but were
15 rejected for the same reasons.
16 1. Installation of a sheet pile barrier wall was eliminated from further evaluation since it
17 was determined that it would not be able to restrain the imposed load from the
18 spreading soil.
19 2. Adding additional larger-diameter piles to the platform was eliminated from further
20 evaluation since the platform, with the added piles, could not be relied upon to provide
21 a restraint to the spreading soil.
22 3. Adding large diameter piles with a steel frame was considered but rejected due to the
23 relatively constant corrosion protection maintenance effort that would be required for
24 the steel frame in the salty Bay water.
25 4. At the San Francisco Transition Structure, one design variation was considered as an
26 alternative to the Piles and Collar Anchorage method alone to stabilize the transition
27 structure from sliding and rocking movements as well as the pressure from spreading
28 soils. Jet or chemical grouting of the 20-foot thick soft Bay Mud layer under the base of
29 the transition structure was considered to improve the soil shearing and bearing
30 capacity of the mud and to prevent bearing and sliding failures of the soil. This grouting
31 would be done from the Ferry Plaza Platform using directional drilling techniques
32 through temporary holes in the platform, and from within the transition structure
33 through the base slab. This alternative was determined to be less reliable on its own, as
34 well as more expensive; therefore, it was eliminated from further evaluation.
35 2.4.3 Aerial Guideways
36 The installation of additional piles at the foundations of all aerial piers, regardless of soil
37 conditions, was considered. This alternative would ensure that no damage would occur to the
38 pile foundations during an earthquake, but would increase the risk of a catastrophic failure in
39 the columns. BART elected to accept some foundation damage to reduce the risk of column
40 collapse (and associated risks to life safety) by proposing to add additional pile foundations
41 only where required; therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further evaluation
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
2-57
2.0 Project Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
2-58
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
2 Technical studies were prepared for a number of resource areas evaluated in this EA; these
3 studies provide an in-depth analysis of potential impacts associated with the project. Mitigation
4 measures for the project identified in this EA are also based on the findings and
5 recommendations of these specialized technical studies. The following technical studies were
6 prepared for the project:
7 • Water Quality and Hydrology Technical Study;
8 • Location Hydraulic Study;
9 • Noise Technical Study;
10 • Cultural Resources technical studies, including:
11 - Archaeological Survey Report,
12 - Historic Property Survey Report,
13 - Historical Resources Evaluation Report, and
14 - Finding of Effect;
15 • Traffic Technical Study;
16 • Vessel Transportation Technical Study;
17 • Phase I Environmental Review and Phase II Field Investigation Report;
18 • Visual Resources Technical Study;
19 • Biological Resources technical studies, including:
20 - Biological Assessment, and
21 - Natural Environment Study; and
22 • Environmental Justice Technical Study.
23 These studies are available for review at BART's Seismic Retrofit/ Earthquake Safety Program
24 offices located at 300 Lakeside Drive, 17 th floor, in Oakland, California, during regular business
25 hours (9 A.M. to 5 P.M. Monday through Friday).
26 The following resource areas were determined to have no impacts and, therefore, are not
27 discussed further in this EA: Land Use; Utility Service Systems; and Energy. Land Use impacts
28 are not anticipated because the proposed action is improvement of an existing facility in its
29 current location, and does not include adding new facilities or increasing the capacity of the
30 BART system. In addition, BART will undertake utility protection and/or relocation work as
31 part of the project to ensure continuation of utility service as described in section 2.2.5.
32 Accordingly, no impacts to Utility Service Systems are anticipated. For energy-related impacts,
33 energy conservation measures have been incorporated into the project as described in section
34 2.2.5. The only energy consumed by the project will be from construction equipment during the
35 construction period, no wasteful energy consumption will occur, and there will be no
36 consumption of energy after the retrofit activities are completed.
37 A detailed discussion of the regulatory environment governing this project is pro\ ided in
38 Appendix C of this EA. If a project activity requires a permit or other regulatory action (e g
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.0-1
3.0 Existing Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation
1 stormwater discharge requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
2 permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act), the applicable regulatory requirement is also
3 identified in the impact discussion.
4 Analysis of the impacts associated with the reuse or disposal of dredged material generated by
the project is provided under each resource area in Chapter 3 of the EA. The EA analyzes two
6 feasible scenarios for reuse or disposal of project dredged material, including (1) dredged
material reuse within the project (see Appendix A, section A.l), provided results from
8 standardized testing demonstrate the material is suitable for in-Bay disposal, and (2) dredged
9 material reuse /disposal options outside of the project (see Appendix A, section A.2). Reuse or
10 disposal of dredged material outside the project would occur at existing, permitted facilities or
1 1 designated sites. Disposal-related impacts on resources at each of the in-water and upland sites
12 have been evaluated previously in the site designation environmental documentation (e.g.,
13 Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] or permit applications specific to each disposal facility
14 and reuse site). Because the reuse and disposal sites considered for this project are already
15 designated /permitted, use of the sites for disposal of dredged material from the project would
16 comply with the site use and other permit conditions. The following resource areas would
17 potentially be impacted by transporting dredged material to the reuse /disposal sites, and thus
18 are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of the EA:
19 • Water Resources;
20 • Noise;
21 • Transportation;
22 • Visual Resources;
23 • Biological Resources; and
24 • Air Quality.
25 The following resource areas would not be impacted by the transport of dredged material to the
26 reuse/ disposal sites, so a detailed discussion is not provided:
27 • Cultural Resources;
28 • Geology /Seismicity;
29 • Hazardous Materials;
30 • Risk of Upset/Safety (safety related to vessel transportation is addressed in section 3.4,
31 [Transportation]); and
32 • Social Impacts.
3.0-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.1 Water Resources
1 3.1 WATER RESOURCES
2 A Water Quality and Hydrology Technical Study (BART et al. 2005a) was prepared to assess
3 potential impacts to water resources located in the project area. Resource areas evaluated in
4 this technical study include the following: hydrology and circulation; water quality; sediment
5 quality; flooding potential; and groundwater hydrology. The environmental analysis
6 determined that impacts on water resources would be short term (for the duration of the
7 construction activity) and localized (BART et al. 2005a). A Location Hydraulic Study (BART et
8 al. 2005e) was also prepared to assess the potential hydraulic impacts associated with the
9 project. This study provides a detailed analysis of project work that lies within the base (100-
10 year) floodplain, including the 100-year high tidal floodplain (100-year tidal floodplain). The
11 study concludes that project impacts to hydrology and floodplain risks would be negligible.
12 3.1.1 Existing Setting
13 The existing setting for water resources is summarized below and described in greater detail in
14 the Water Quality and Hydrology Technical Study (BART et al. 2005a) and Location Hydraulic
15 Study (BART et al. 2005e).
16 3.1.1.1 San Francisco Bay Water Resources
17 The project would potentially affect water resources predominantly within the central portions
18 of San Francisco Bay, between San Francisco and Oakland in the vicinity of the San Francisco-
19 Oakland Bay Bridge (Bay Bridge) and Yerba Buena Island, and portions of urban areas within
20 west Oakland along the existing BART system.
21 Hydrology and Circulation
22 Freshwater inflows, tidal flows, and their interactions largely determine variations in the
23 hydrology of the Bay. These processes enhance exchange between shallows and channels
24 during the tidal cycle and contribute significantly to landward mixing of ocean water anil
25 seaward mixing of river water. The 100-year tidal elevations are shown in Table 3.1-1 for gages
26 near the Transbay Tube. To estimate the 100-year tidal elevation during construction, an
27 adjustment for the general rise in sea level is made. The 100-year tide elevations from the
28 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Federal Emergent
29 Management Administration (FEMA) in Table 3.1-1 include consideration of such phenomena
30 as El Nino and tsunami effects.
31 There has been a general rise in ocean levels over the last 100 years according to USGS and
32 NOAA records. At the Fort Point sea level station near the south landing of the Golden Gate
33 Bridge, sea levels have increased an average of 8 inches from 1900 to 1999 (USGS 1999). This
34 rate of sea level rise can be used to adjust the USACE and FEMA estimates of the 100-year tide
35 from the 1980s values shown in Table 3.1-1 for the gages near the project, up to the first \ ear ol
36 anticipated project construction. Assuming project construction begins in 2005, and using the
37 rate of change for sea level from Fort Point, sea levels would increase by 1.6 inches (0. 1 foot) by
38 the year 2005. The 100-year tide adjusted for the year 2005 is 0.1 foot of sea level rise added to
39 the highest of the USACE and FEMA values shown in Table 3.1- 1 .
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.1-1
3.1 Water Resources
Table 3.1-1. Comparison of High Tidal Elevations near the BART Transbay Tube
Location
Port of Oakland
Berth 32/33 fl
Yerba Buena Island b
Pier 22 San
Francisco Bay c
1984 U5ACE 100-Year Tide *
6.3
6.3
6.5
1986 FEMA 100-Year Tide **
6.5
6.5
NA
Maximum Historical Tide d
Date
4.9
12/27/74
5.7
1/9/78
4.8
12/27/74
2005 Adjusted 100-Year Tide e
6.6
6.6
6.6
Notes:
All the elevations are based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
* USACE (1984)
** FEMA (1986)
a. Station Identification: 941 4779
b. Station Identification: 941 4782
c. Station Identification: 941 4317
d. Based on available data up to 1983 (NOAA 2003).
e. Based on Fort Point sea level rise estimates (USGS 1999) of 0.1 foot by year 2005, added to the higher of the
100-vear tidal estimates shown for the USACE and FEMA in the rows above.
1 Water Quality
The main surface water body in the project area is the San Francisco Bay, which connects to the
3 Pacific Ocean through the Golden Gate Channel. The San Francisco Bay is an estuary, in which
4 river water mixes with and measurably dilutes seawater. Surface runoff from the Bay Bridge
5 and Interstate 80 and urban runoff from adjacent streets, industrial sites, and open areas flows
6 directly or indirectly into the Bay. Other input sources to the Bay include discharges from
municipal wastewater treatment plants, discharges from dredging operations, discharges from
8 other industrial processes, and atmospheric deposition.
9 San Francisco Bay is an impaired water body, meaning it does not meet its designated uses because
10 of excess pollutants, under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d), and total maximum daily load
1 1 (TMDL) assessments have been planned or initiated for a number of pollutants/stressors. The 2003
12 CWA Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments identifies the following
13 pollutants/stressors for San Francisco Bay Central (Calwater Watershed 20312010) and San
14 Francisco Bay Lower (Calwater Watershed 20410010): chlordane, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
15 (DDT), diazinon, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, nickel,
16 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin-like PCBs, and selenium.
17 Since 1993, surface water quality throughout the San Francisco Bay has been evaluated by the
18 Regional Monitoring Program (RMP), under the direction of the San Francisco Bay Regional
19 Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). Data from the RMP are used to characterize water
20 and sediment quality in the project area. The Yerba Buena Island station is located in the project
21 area; see Table 3.1-2.
3.1-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.1 Water Resources
Table 3.1-2. Trace Pollutants in San Francisco Bay Sediments at RMP Station BC11
(near Yerba Buena Island) during the Year 2000
rulllllllill
Ray "-iFnTivfFMT ^mtt t t<~tc ams ppr
Effects Levels (mg/kg)
ER-L*
ER-M*
Arsenic
8.2
8.2
70
Cadmium
0.27
1.2
9.6
Chromium
TV T A
NA
81
370
Copper
40
34
270
Lead
20
46.7
218
Mercury
0.20
0.15
0.71
Nickel
74
20.9
51.6
Selenium
0.24
Silver
0.19
1.0
3.7
Zinc
105
150
410
Total PAHs
1.4
4.022
44.792
Total PCBs
0.025
0.0227
0.18
Total DDTs
0.003
0.00158
0.0461
Total Chlordanes
ND
0.0005
0.006
* ER-L = effects range-low
ER-M = effects range-medium
Source: San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) 2000.
1 The Central Bay portion of San Francisco Bay generally has the lowest TSS concentrations;
2 however, wind-driven wave action and tidal currents, as well as dredged material disposal and
3 sand mining operations, can cause elevations in suspended solids concentrations throughout the
4 water column. Average concentrations of TSS (based on optical measurements) of 23 milligrams
5 per liter (mg/L) and 32 mg/L were reported at depths of 23 feet and 3 feet above the bottom,
6 respectively, at a site near Pier 24 (on the west side of the Bay Bridge in the vicinity of the project
7 area) (Buchanan and Ganju 2002).
8 Metals in the Water Column. Ten trace metals in the aquatic system are monitored on a regular
9 basis by the RMP. These trace metals include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
10 nickel, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc. Measured concentrations of these metals in the project
11 vicinity were below the respective criteria during 2000 as well as during previous years of the
12 RMP.
13 Organic Pollutants in the Water Column. The RMP measures three general types of trace
14 organic contaminants: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, and pesticides. During
15 2000, Bay waters near the BART project contained PCB concentrations that exceeded water
16 quality criteria, whereas concentrations of other trace pollutants were below criteria. Elevated
17 PCB concentrations occur throughout large portions of the Bay, and the potential source ol
18 PCBs in the central San Francisco Bay watershed, identified in the 2002 CWA Section 303(d) list.
19 is "unknown nonpoint source."
20 Sediment Quality
21 Sediments within the main channel areas of the San Francisco Bay consist primarily of coarse-
22 grained sands, reflecting the strong currents that restrict deposition and accumulation of liner-
23 grained particles. Along the eastern shoreline of the Bay, sediments are predominantly mud
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.1-3
3.2 Water Resources
1 (Nichols and Patamat 1988). Characteristics of surface sediments may vary seasonally, in
2 response to changes in river flow, transport loads, and wave-induced resuspension of
3 sediments from shallow portions of the Bay (USACE et al. 1998).
4 While pollutant loading to the San Francisco Bay from point and non-point sources has declined
5 dramatically over the past two decades, and surface sediment contamination may be declining
6 from historical highs, Bay sediments are still an important source and site of accumulation of
7 pollutants. Concentrations of trace metals and organics in Bay sediments are monitored by the
8 state's Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program (BPTCP) (SFBRWQCB 1995) and RMP (SFEI
9 1998). Sediment metal and trace organic concentrations in bottom sediments at RMP Station
10 BC11 (a station near Yerba Buena Island Station BC10) during 2000 are listed in Table 3.1-2.
11 3.1.1.2 Upland Water Resources
12 Much of the upland portion of the project area is highly developed for urban and industrial uses.
13 The only substantial surface water feature in the vicinity of the project is Lake Merritt in Oakland,
14 which is an urban wildlife refuge, representing a unique resource that provides public exposure
15 to wildlife habitat (Goals Project 1999). The lake is approximately 1 kilometer (km) east of the
16 BART route. Other upland, surface water features within the project area are small and highly
17 modified. Municipal stormwater permits apply to the urbanized portions of the project area.
18 Most of the historical tidal flats and marshes along the eastern shoreline of the San Francisco
19 Bay have been filled and developed (Goals Project 1999). Compared to the tidal wetlands
20 located in the Emeryville Crescent, shoreline portions of the project area do not provide
21 extensive habitat for wildlife and are characterized by limited functions and values due to
22 human disturbance and lack of wetland species diversity.
23 Flooding Potential
24 The floodplain consists of the land-based, 100-year surface runoff floodplain, and the 100-year
25 tidal zone. There are no encroachments of the project on the 100-year floodplain for surface
26 runoff. Figure 3.1-1 illustrates the composite FEMA maps for this area of the project. The BART
27 retrofit locations are shown in red, the floodplain areas are shown in blue. The 100-year
28 floodplain is shown in blue and designated with the Zone A label (including Zone AE, Zone Al,
29 etc). Flood zones without an "A" are outside the 100-year floodplain, and therefore not of
30 concern for this study. The "Line A" Temescal Creek culvert (see Figure 3.1-1) crosses the
31 BART alignment five times between project location 1 and project location 13, but there is a low
32 risk for interference with any of the proposed retrofit locations shown on Figure 3.1-1.
3.1-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
LEGENE
100- Year F
Retrofit Loo
MAP#
PROPC
Four at^ '
Four at
Five pi
Four pi{
LOCATION:
Chabot Road
Golden Gate Avenue
Patton Street
Presley Way
Rockridge Station
Forest Street
Claremont Avenue
8 Telegraph & 56 th Street
9 55'n Street
10 Shattuck
11 52™* Street
12 Grove Street
13 45'n Street
14 42 nd Street
15 MacArthur Station
16 MacArthur Boulevard
17 30'n Street
18 29in Street
19 Sycamore & 27>n Street
20-37 West Oakland Aerial Guideway
29 West Oakland Station
38 Oakland Yard & Shop
The 1 00-year floodplain is designated with the Zone A I at
Zone A1 , etc.). Rood zones without an "A" are outside ft
LEGEND
100- Year Floodplain
A
Retrofit Location
MAP#:
LOCATION:
PROPOSbU Hfc 1 HUN 1 .
1
Chabot Road
Four abutments retrofitted with catchers.
2
Golden Gate Avenue
r fl i„ tKirtmantc rairr^i IftO/H with f*atf*h&rc
hour aDUimenis reuuiiiicu wim udiuntsia.
3
Patton Street
rlV© plclS aMu 1WU dUUlHlelila I tru ui I uc\J .
4
Presley Way
Four piers and four abutmGnts rGtrofittGd.
5
Rockridge Station
Sgg text for details.
6
Forest Street
CTinhtnnn niarc anri f u;n a hi it mQritc rot mf ittcwH
fcigniGen piers dnu iwu duuunciiia iciiuihiwj.
7
Claremont Avenue
Six piers and two abutments retrofittGd.
8
Telegraph & 55* Street
Three piers and two abutments retrofitted.
9
5511 Street
Two piers and two abutments retrofitted,
10
Shattuck
Two piers and two abutments retrofitted.
11
52 nd Street
Four piers and two abutments retrofitted.
12
Grove Street
Four piers and four abutments retrofitted.
13
45'" Street
Eight piers and eight abutments retrofitted.
14
42 nd Street
Twelve piers and twelve abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
15
MacArthur Station
See text for details.
16
MacArthur Boulevard
Twelve piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
17
30'" Street
Eight piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
18
291" street
Eight piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
19
Sycamore & 27»> Street
Eighteen piers and five abutments retrofitted.
20-37
West Oakland Aerial Guideway 140 piers and three abutments retrofitted.
29
West Oakland Station
See text for details.
38
Oakland Yard & Shop
See text for details.
The 100-year floodplain Is designated with the Zone A label (including Zone AE,
Zone A1. etc ) Rood zones without an "A" are outside the 100-year floodplain.
^
Source: FIRM (Rood Insurance Rate Map); Cily of Oakland, Calif.; Panel 20 of 45; Communitv-Panel Number 065048 (XP0 B
I'SGS 7 5 Minute Quadrangle; Oakland West, Calif. 1959. 1980; and Oakland Easl, Calif. 1997
Figure 3.1-1. FEMA Flood Zones Relative to the
General Location of Aerial Structures and Station Retrofits
3.1 Water Resources
1 Groundwater Hydrology
2 Groundwater in the upland portion of the project area is part of the Santa Clara Valley aquifer,
3 and is contained primarily in coarse-grained, lens-shaped deposits of sand and gravel that
4 alternate with beds of fine-grained clay and silt with minimal permeability (Planert and
5 Williams 1995). Groundwater quality near the margins of the Bay may be affected by saltwater
6 intrusion and, locally, by industrial contamination from spills and historical waste discharge
7 practices.
8 Groundwater elevations at sites along the aerial portion of the BART route are listed in Table
9 3.1-3. The table compares the groundwater elevations, shown as feet above mean sea level
10 (msl), with the excavation depths proposed for the BART retrofit project. The depths to
11 groundwater are greater than the proposed excavation depths at all sites except for those along
12 the West Oakland Viaduct and the West Oakland Station (the last two rows of the table) near
13 the shoreline of the Bay.
Table 3.1-3. Groundwater Elevations Near Aerial Guideways and Other Facilities
Location
Proposed Excavation Depths
(feet above mean sea level [msl])
Uroitnclcuater blevatton
(feet above msl)
1
Chabot Road
274
254
2
r^nlHpn r^^fp Avpnup
266.5
243
3
Patton Street
252.3
196
4
Presley Way
219
184
6
Forest Street
182.5
150-160
7
Claremont Avenue
157.2
114, 129
8
Telegraph & 56 th Street
133.5
110, 120
9
55 th Street
130.7
103
10
Shattuck
125
<54
11
52 nd Street
120.47
84
12
Grove Street
107
80-94
13
45 th Street
91.0
75
14
42" d Street
Not Available
75, 60
16
MacArthur Boulevard
75.99
53, 58
17
30 th Street
47.71
22,24
18
29 th Street
46.75
23, 25
19
Sycamore & 27 th Street
31.0
17-20
20-28,
30-37
West Oakland Viaduct
-0.2 - 5.5
10
29
West Oakland Station
3
10
Notes:
1. Map # corresponds to Figure 3.1-1.
Source: BART (2001).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.1-7
3.1 Water Resources
1 3.1.2 Proposed Action
2 3.1.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
3 Impacts on water resources would occur if the project would:
4 • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirement;
5 • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
6 planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
7 polluted runoff;
8 • Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
9 as a result of the failure of a levee or dam;
10 • Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
11 flood flows;
12 • Place structures in areas that would encroach on the 100-year tidal floodplain;
13 • Increase the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow;
14 • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
15 alteration of the course of a stream or river, or increase the rate or amount of surface
16 runoff so as to cause substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation on- or off-site; or
17 • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
18 3.1.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
19 Transbay Tube
20 Micropile Anchorage. Because drilling would affect only subsurface sediment layers (i.e., those
21 beneath the Tube and below the bottom of the Bay), drilling would not resuspend or otherwise
22 disturb bottom sediments, and none of the cuttings or wastes from the micropile holes would be
23 discharged to the Bay. This project activity would not alter surface flow patterns in wetlands,
24 affect runoff patterns in adjacent upland areas, result in stormwater discharges to the Bay, or
25 increase the potential for local flooding. Consequently, no impacts on water quality or
26 sediment quality in the Bay would result.
27 Vibro-Replacement. This process would be performed from barges and would not require
28 dredging, although some minor disturbances to the bottom of the Bay would occur from
29 deployment of spuds (temporary anchors) from the barge, spud piles from the template frame,
30 and the vibratory probe. Resuspension of bottom sediments would cause localized increases in
31 suspended solids concentrations and corresponding increases in turbidity. However, the
32 amount of bottom sediments potentially disturbed by vibro-replacement would be small, and
33 suspended sediments would be expected to disperse with local currents or settle rapidly to the
34 bottom. Therefore, as minor elevated suspended particle concentrations would occur only in
35 the immediate vicinity of the vibro-replacement sites the impact on water quality would be
36 negligible.
3.1-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.1 Water Resources
1 Stitching the Tube. Water quality impacts would result primarily from dredging, dredged
2 material disposal and /or backfilling with the dredged material (if testing results demonstrate
3 the material is suitable for aquatic disposal), and installation of pilings and piling caps at the
4 San Francisco end of the Tube. Minor disturbances of surface sediments would also result from
5 mooring the dredge and/ or dredge barge.
6 Elevated suspended sediment concentrations associated with dredging and the transfer of
7 dredged material to a barge would result in a surface turbidity plume near the dredge, with
8 accompanying decreases in light transmittance (i.e., water clarity). Following completion of
9 dredging, the suspended sediment/ turbidity plume is expected to disperse within hours due to
10 mixing, dilution, and settling of dredged solids (USACE et al. 1998). Dispersion of a surface
11 turbidity plume would be restricted by placing a silt curtain around the dredging operation.
12 Thus, water quality impacts related to elevated suspended solids concentrations and turbidity
13 levels from dredging operations are expected to be temporary and localized.
14 Contaminants released during resuspension and leakage/ spillage from dredging may re-attach
15 to suspended particles, which would eventually settle to the bottom. Thus, dredging operations
16 would temporarily move some sediment-associated contaminants into the water column, but
17 they would not represent a new source or increased loadings of 303(d)-listed pollutants and are
18 not expected to cause permanent changes in water quality (BART et al. 2005a).
19 Barge anchoring and piling installation would also cause localized and temporary disturbances
20 to bottom sediments, although these sediments are expected to settle rapidly and within 100
21 meters or less of their origin. This would have a negligible impact on water quality.
22 Stitching at the Oakland end of the Tube would not require dredging or dredged material
23 disposal, would not generate any waste materials that would be released into the Bay, and
24 would not impact Bay water or sediment quality.
25 San Francisco Seismic Joint Restoration. Placement of a tunnel liner sleeve between the
26 seismic joint on the San Francisco end of the Tube would occur entirely from inside the Tube,
27 would not require dredging or result in any waste discharge to the Bay, and would not impact
28 water or sediment quality.
29 Transition Structures
30 San Francisco Transition Structure. Disturbances to water quality would accompany dredging,
31 barge anchoring, piling installation, and placement of the pilings cap, and would consist of
32 temporary and localized resuspension of bottom sediments, similar to those described above tor
33 stitching. Slight increases in suspended sediment concentrations would persist until particles
34 settled to the bottom and/ or were dispersed by tidal currents, a negligible impact.
35 Impacts to water and sediment quality from retrofits at the transition structure associated with
36 either the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept or Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept would generally be
37 similar, although some differences are expected due to differences in total dredging
38 requirements, piling installation, and wall construction. For both concepts, disturbances to
39 water and sediment quality would consist of temporary and localized resuspension of bottom
40 sediments, similar to those described above for stitching. Slight increases in suspended
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3. 1- 1 )
3.1 Water Resources
1 sediment concentrations would persist until particles settled to the bottom. Dispersion of
2 suspended sediments and turbidity plumes would be restricted by the temporary sheet pile
3 walls that will surround the dredging operations. Some loss of grouting /slurry material may
4 occur during retrofit activities. However, these materials would be confined to the Bay bottom,
and not dispersed outside of the temporary sheet pile walls, which will also facilitate cleanup
6 and disposal. Therefore, as dredging and installation of new retrofits would be confined to the
immediate construction area within the Ferry Plaza Platform, impacts to sediment and water
8 quality would be negligible.
9 Steel Piles Retrofit Concept. The removal and eventual replacement of 250 existing pier pilings at
10 the Ferry Building, along with placement of 100, 6-foot diameter piles between the Ferry Building
1 1 and Transition Structure, will cause short-term and localized resuspension of bottom sediments.
12 Installation of piles around the transition structure would use an oscillation or rotating technique
13 that would minimize physical disturbances of the bottom sediments. Dredging of approximately
14 26,200 cy of bottom sediments, as well as replacement of bay sediments over the top of the
15 containment structure, would occur inside of the temporary containment sheet pile walls that
16 would restrict horizontal dispersion of resuspended bottom sediments and leakage from the
1 7 dredge bucket. Similarly, jet or chemical grouting would be conducted below the mud line and
18 within an area enclosed with temporary sheet walls that would restrict the horizontal dispersion
19 of any grout materials that could migrate through the mud line. Subsequently, should grout
20 materials migrate through the mud line, they would be recovered from the bay bottom, and
21 therefore, any resulting changes to sediment quality would be temporary and localized, a
22 negligible impact. Soil jet grouting would alter the properties of the subsurface sediments, but
23 would not affect the quality or characteristics of the surface sediment. The duration of these
24 changes to water and sediment quality is expected to be 2-3 years.
25 Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept. Dredging required for implementation of this retrofit concept
26 (approximately 95,000 cy) would be more extensive than for the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept.
27 Excavation and backfilling would, however, occur inside an area confined by temporary sheet pile
28 walls that would restrict dispersion of sediments and turbidity water plumes outside of the
29 immediate construction area. The temporary walls also would restrict dispersion of any grouting or
30 slurry materials used for soil jet grouting and to prevent collapse of trenches, respectively.
31 Following construction, water quality would return to pre-construction conditions as resuspended
32 sediments settle to the bottom. Any grout and slurry materials that accumulate on the bay bottom
33 would be collected and disposed. Therefore, changes to water and sediment quality would be
34 temporary and localized, a negligible impact. Soil jet grouting would alter the properties of the
35 subsurface sediments, but would not affect the quality or characteristics of the surface sediment.
36 The duration of these changes to water and sediment quality is expected to be 3-4 years.
37 Oakland Transition Structure. Retrofit of the Oakland Transition Structure would have no
38 impact on water resources.
39 Aerial Guideways
40 Proposed retrofits to the aerial guideways for the Oakland portion of the BART system would
41 not generate or release wastes to water bodies. Retrofit of the aerial guideways would not place
42 any new structures within flood-prone areas, alter surface flows, or increase the potential for
43 flooding or inundation. Excavation of footings would generate piles of soil, which would be
3.1-10
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.1 Water Resources
1 placed in confinement areas (e.g., bermed and lined ponds) that are not subject to runoff and
2 dispersal to surface waters. At all but the West Oakland Aerial Guideway and West Oakland
3 Station, groundwater elevations are below proposed excavation depths. Retrofit activities at all
4 locations except for the two identified above, would not generate any dewatering wastes.
5 Groundwater may be encountered in the vicinity of the West Oakland Aerial Guideway and
6 West Oakland Station. Discharges of dewatering effluent, if needed, would require an NPDES
permit or waste discharge requirement (WDR) from the SFBRWQCB, as regulated by Section
8 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (see Appendix C, section
9 C.l). The aerial guideway retrofit sites, including adjacent staging areas, would be covered
10 under the general stormwater permit, which would identify best management practices (BMPs)
11 and other requirements to limit potential impacts on water quality from stormwater runoff
12 during the retrofit operation. Because these operations would implement BMPs and comply
13 with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), discharges would be in accordance
14 with permit or WDR conditions.
15 Stations
16 Retrofit activities for the three BART stations would consist largely of reinforcement of existing
17 structures. These proposed changes, and related construction activities, would not generate or
18 release wastes to water bodies. In addition, retrofit of the stations would not place any new
19 structures within flood-prone areas, alter surface flows, increase the potential for flooding or
20 inundation, or place waste materials in areas subject to runoff and dispersal to surface waters.
21 The station sites, including adjacent staging areas, would be covered under the general
22 stormwater permit, which would identify BMPs and other requirements to limit potential
23 impacts on water quality from stormwater runoff during the retrofit operation.
24 A Location Hydraulic Study (BART et al. 2005e) was prepared to assess the potential hydraulic
25 impacts associated with the project within the base (100-year) floodplain, including the 100- year
26 high tidal floodplain (100-year tidal floodplain). A Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report has
27 also been prepared for the project, which is required for projects that have minimal floodplain risks.
28 The Location Hydraulic Study shows that the base floodplain would not be affected by the
29 project (see Table 3.1-4). Proposed retrofit activities are located within close proximity to the
30 100-year floodplain of Temescal Creek; the 100-year floodplain is contained within the Temesi. :al
31 Creek culvert. The Temescal Creek culvert crosses the project alignment five times between
32 Location 1 and Location 13, but does not interfere with any of the proposed retrofit locations
33 (see Figure 3.1-1). Because the project does not encroach on either the 100-year floodplain or the
34 100-year tidal floodplain, there is no risk associated with the proposed retrofit activities. Since
35 the project is a retrofit of existing structures and within the footprint of the existing BART line,
36 project implementation would not affect natural and beneficial floodplain values or floodplain
37 development. As the project would have no effect on natural or beneficial floodplain values,
38 non-routine measures are not required to minimize floodplain impacts or preserve the natural
39 and beneficial floodplain values. Implementation of routine construction techniques and BMPs
40 including avoiding existing drainage facilities, avoiding disturbing or impeding flow in the
41 Temescal Creek culvert, and limiting storage or use of equipment to non-floodplain areas will
42 ensure avoidance of any short-term impacts on the floodplain.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.1-11
3.1 Water Resources
Table 3.1-4. Summary of Base Floodplain Risks and Impacts
Type of Risk or Impact
Project
I. Are risks associated with the action?
No
II. Are there impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values?
No
III. Will the action support probable incompatible floodplain development?
No
IV. Are non-routine measures required to minimize floodplain impacts associated
with the action?
No
V. Are non-routine measures required to restore and preserve the natural and
beneficial floodplain values impacted by the action?
No
VI. Is the action a significant floodplain encroachment?
No
VII. Is the action a significant longitudinal encroachment?
No
2 3.1.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
3 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
4 Reuse of dredged material within the project would cause temporary and localized impacts on
5 water quality due to elevated suspended sediment concentrations following placement of
6 dredged material at each of the stitching holes (described in section 2.2.6.1). These changes
7 would be similar to those expected from placement of ordinary backfill over the Tube, except
8 that elevated suspended sediment concentrations may persist for a slightly longer period due to
9 the greater volume of material and greater proportion of smaller sized particles with relatively
10 lower settling rates. Turbidity plumes formed during placement of dredged material at the
1 1 stitching holes would not be expected to extend beyond a few hundred meters from the site due
12 to the presence of silt curtains surrounding the site, and the plumes would disperse within
13 several hours after placement operations end, a negligible impact on water quality.
14 This conclusion is predicated on results from standardized testing of the dredged material
15 demonstrating that the material does not contain elevated concentrations of chemical
16 contaminants or cause significant toxicity or contaminant bioaccumulation in representative
1 7 marine organisms, and is therefore, considered suitable for in-water disposal. If results from
18 sediment testing show that the material is unsuitable for in-water disposal, reuse of the material
19 as fill within the project would not be permitted. In this case, no project-related impacts to
20 water quality would occur from reuse of dredged material as fill.
21 Placing the dredged material in the stitching holes would not cause any noticeable changes in
the texture or quality of bottom sediments within the project area. This is because dredged
23 sediments would be replaced in the reverse order in which they were removed (e.g., surface
24 sediments would be removed first and replaced last), thereby maintaining similar sediment
25 characteristics. During reuse of dredged material within the stitching operation, an additional
26 11,000 cy of "ordinary backfill" (a special mix of sand and gravel) would need to be imported to
replace existing ordinary backfill directly over the Tube; all imported ordinary backfill would
be placed into the six stitching holes, potentially displacing up to 11,000 cy of dredged material
29 planned for reuse. Any displaced dredged material (totaling up to 11,000 cy) that does not fit
30 neatly into the stitching holes would be disposed offsite along with up to 95,900 cy of leftover
31 dredged material associated with seismic retrofits at the San Francisco Transition Structure.
3.1-12
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.1 Water Resources
1 Impacts on sediment quality under this option would be negligible. Reuse of dredged material
2 within the project would have no impact on upland surface water or groundwater quality.
3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Optioiis outside the Project
4 Impacts on water resources from transporting dredged material to aquatic disposal sites would
5 occur only if materials were spilled or leaked during transit. The severity of any impacts would
6 depend on where the spill occurred, existing water quality conditions at the spill site, the
volume of material spilled, and the effectiveness of any efforts to contain and clean up the spill.
8 In general, these factors also apply to the disposal of other types of waste materials that would
9 be generated from the project, such as disposal of cuttings and drilling muds from the micropile
10 anchorage installation. Spills or leaks of dredged material in open water would produce a
11 turbidity plume with elevated concentrations of suspended sediments, reduced water clarity,
12 and potentially elevated contaminant concentrations that would disperse within a few hours
13 due to natural mixing processes and particle settling.
14 Spills of dredged material that occurred during transport to an upland disposal site would
15 affect water resources only if the material was spilled directly, or subject to transport by wind or
16 storm runoff, into a surface water body. Although dredged sediments would be dewatered, the
17 material would still be moist and cohesive, and the volume of material subject to spills during
18 transport is considered too small to cause impacts related to altered stormwater drainage,
19 flooding, or siltation. Instead, a small spill could contribute to the existing potential for
20 polluted runoff and/or degradation of water quality in receiving water bodies, although this
21 contribution would be too small to cause water quality impacts.
22 Spills into or near open water of gasoline or other petroleum products, such as oil and hydraulic
23 fluids required for operation of motorized equipment (e.g., dredge or tug), could occur during
24 retrofit operations, as well as during transport of dredged material. Although unlikely, large oil
25 spill volumes could degrade water quality, with the potential for toxicity and contaminant
26 bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. Spill containment and cleanup protocols, such as boom
27 deployment, storage requirements, and notification procedures, are specified in spill response
28 portions of the dredging operation plan prepared and implemented by the dredging contractor.
29 Large spills of oil or petroleum products on land also have the potential for leaching into
30 groundwater. However, the potential for migration of petroleum spills within the upland
31 portions of the project site would be too small to cause an impact because the contractor would
32 be required to implement spill control and cleanup measures.
33 The potential impacts on water resources from spills during transport of contaminated soils
34 (e.g., soils excavated from the vicinity of some aerial guideways; see section 3.6) to an upland
35 disposal site would be negligible and comparable to those associated with potential spills ol
36 dredged materials.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.1-13
3.1 Water Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
3.1-14
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.2 NOISE
2 A Noise Technical Study (BART et al. 2005c) was prepared to evaluate noise impacts from the
3 project. The environmental analysis determined that construction activities would temporarily
4 elevate noise levels at noise sensitive receptors. 1 However, a combination of using quieter
5 construction methods (e.g., an oscillating or rotating hydraulic system) and applying noise
6 mitigation measures for selected construction methods would reduce construction noise levels
at affected noise sensitive receptors to within acceptable limits (BART et al. 2005c). There
8 would be no permanent noise impacts from the project.
9 Underwater noise impacts, including potential vibration and sound pressures on the marine
10 environment, are addressed in section 3.9 (Biological Resources). The following analysis
11 discusses airborne noise impacts only.
12 3.2.1 Existing Setting
13 The existing setting for noise is summarized below and described in greater detail in the Noise
14 Technical Study (BART et al. 2005c).
15 3.2.1.1 Acoustical Fundamentals
16 Details regarding acoustical fundamentals are provided in the Noise Technical Study (BART et
17 al. 2005c). Technical terms are defined in Table 3.2-1.
18 3.2.1.2 Existing Noise Environment
19 Construction activities associated with the project could affect the noise environment of
20 sensitive receptors near construction activities. The Transbay Tube is located underwater, and
21 the Oakland Transition Structure is located in an unpopulated area with no nearby noise
22 sensitive receptors. The at-grade and above-grade portions of the aerial guideway track in
23 Oakland are located in urbanized, densely populated areas where noise sensitive uses, such as
24 residences, recreation areas, a hospital, a school, and businesses are located; the San Francisco
25 Transition Structure is located in a popular commercial location. Pile driving proposed at the
26 San Francisco Transition Structure and the Ferry Plaza platform would occur in the waters at
27 the edge of San Francisco Bay.
28 3.2.1.3 Noise Survey and Sensitive Receptor Identification
29 The degree to which noise from the project would adversely affect the environment in the
30 vicinity of the BART system depends on the sensitivity of surrounding land uses, the proximity
31 of construction activities to these sensitive uses, the type of equipment used for construction,
32 the degree of noise control on the equipment, and the time of day and duration of' noise
33 producing construction activities. To assess the existing daytime noise environments in the
34 vicinity of the retrofit work locations, a series of short-term (10-minute) noise measurements
1 Noise sensitive receptors are defined as any location or land use where noise can interrupt on goini; .n ti\ itios u hich can
result in community annoyance. Noise sensitive receptors consist of, but are not limited to, schools rouiciu os, libraries
parks, hospitals, and other care facilities.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.2-1
3.2 Noise
1
2 Table 3.2-1. Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term
Definition
Decibel, dB
A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10
of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20
/zPa (20 micronewtons per square meter).
Frequency, Hz
The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted
Sound Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-
weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very
high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response
of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound
levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.
C-Weighted
Sound Level, dBC
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the C-
weighting filter network. The C-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very
high frequency components of the sound but provides no weighting over the human
hearing frequency range.
Loi, Lio, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time
during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise
Level, L e q
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5
dB in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 P.M. and after addition of 10 dB to sound levels
measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
Day/Night Noise
Level, Ldn
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10
dB to levels measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
Lmax, Lniui
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Ambient Noise
Level
The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of
environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive
That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given
location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration,
frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as well as the
prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (2002)
3 were made near selected work areas along the project alignment (see Figure 3.2-1) to characterize
4 the typical existing noise environment. Noise measurements were conducted between 1:00 PM
5 and 4:00 PM during the afternoons of Thursday, January 2, 2003, and Friday, January 3, 2003. A
6 summary of these measurements is presented in Table 3.2-2 and discussed below.
7 The areas around the aerial structures, stations, and transition structures proposed for retrofit
work were visited to identify nearby noise sensitive receptors and monitor existing ambient
9 noise levels in potential noise impact areas during daytime hours. No nighttime work would be
10 conducted at any above-grade locations.
3.2-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
MAP #:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-37
29
38
LEGEND
PROPOSED
Four abutme
Four abutme
Five piers an
Four piers a
See text for c
Eighteen pie
Six piers an
Three piers
Two piers am
Two piers am
Four piers ai
Four piers ai
Eight piers a
Twelve piers
some concre
See text for
Twelve piers
some concrei
Eight piers an
some concre
Eight piers arfij
some concre^'
Eighteen pie
West Oakland Aerial Guideway 140 piers an
West Oakland Station See text for d
Oakland Yard & Shop See text for d
LOCATION:
Chabot Road
Golden Gate Avenue
Patton Street
Presley Way
Rockridge Station
Forest Street
Claremont Avenue
Telegraph & 56 th Street
55 th Street
Shattuck
52 n d street
Grove Street
45< h Street
42 n <* Street
MacArthur Station
MacArthur Boulevard
30 th Street
29th Street
Sycamore & 27^ Street
\
LEGEND
Proposed Retrofit Location
Noise Measurement Location
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. Oakland West. Calil /^^^^^^O'-
1. General Location of Aerial Structures and
1 Retrofits and Noise Measurement Locations
MAP#: LOCATION:
1 Chabot Road
2 Golden Gate Avenue
3 Patton Street
4 Presley Way
5 Rockridge Station
6 Forest Street
7 Claremont Avenue
8 Telegraph & 56* Street
9 55' h Street
10 Shattuck
11 52"" Street
12 Grove Street
13 45* Street
14 42"« Street
15 MacArthur Station
16 MacArthur Boulevard
17 30' h Street
18 29* Street
19 Sycamore & 27* Street
20-37 West Oakland Aerial Guideway
29 West Oakland Station
38 Oakland Yard & Shop
LEGEND
PROPOSED RETROFIT:
Four abutments retrofitted with catchers.
Four abutments retrofitted with catchers.
Five piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Four piers and four abutments retrofitted.
See text for details.
Eighteen piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Six piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Three piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Two piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Two piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Four piers and two abutments retrofitted.
Four piers and four abutments retrofitted.
Eight piers and eight abutments retrofitted.
Twelve piers and twelve abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
See text for details.
Twelve piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
Eight piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
Eight piers and two abutments retrofitted;
some concrete walls removed and replaced.
Eighteen piers and five abutments retrofitted.
140 piers and three abutments retrofitted.
See text for details.
See text for details.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Oakland West. Calif. 1959, 1980; USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Oakland East. Calif. 1997
LEGEND
Proposed Retrofit Location
Noise Measurement Location
Figure 3.2-1. General Location of Aerial Structures and
Station Retrofits and Noise Measurement Locations
3.2 Noise
1
Table 3.2-2. Short-term (10-Minute) Noise Measurement Results
at Sensitive Receptors Near Work Locations
Measurement Location
A- Weighted Noise Level, dB A
Kir, 1
NO.
Work Loccition-
j
i-mn.v
7
r „„
1
1
1. L.naDot Koaa
OZ
Oi
1^7
D/
Do
DO
D4
Do
z
2. Golden Gate Avenue
73
/Z
O't
AT
Oi
Dy
3
3. Patton Street
74
72
69
66
65
62
60
4
6. Forest Street
76
73
70
68
68
65
62
5
11. 52" d Street
82
79
72
70
68
66
62
6
15. Mac Arthur Station
81
78
74
72
71
68
66
7
18. 29 th Street
75
74
67
64
60
58
55
8
22. Viaduct at Brush Street
77
76
70
66
63
60
58
9
30. Viaduct at Chester Street
75
72
67
64
61
58
57
10
32. Viaduct at Lewis Street
85
84
77
73
65
58
53
11
San Francisco Transition
Structure
68
64
62
60
59
57
56
Notes:
1. These numbers correspond to the "Noise Measurement Location" numbers (in blue) on Figure 3.2-1.
2. These numbers correspond to "Proposed Retrofit Location" numbers (in red) on Figure 3.2-1.
2 Project Area Divided into Four Distinct Noise Environments
3 Based on the site visits, the noise environments and the position of noise sensitive receptors
4 relative to the location of the proposed seismic retrofit work may be divided into four distinct
5 environments:
6 1. Near the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel, where the BART track alignment is
7 not positioned between State Route 24, Interstate 580, or Interstate 980 (proposed
8 retrofit locations 1 and 2 on Figure 3.2-1).
9 2. Where the BART track alignment is positioned between State Route 24, Interstate 580,
10 or Interstate 980 (proposed retrofit locations 3 to 19 on Figure 3.2-1).
11 3. Where the BART track is elevated on the West Oakland Aerial Guideway (proposed
12 retrofit locations 20 to 37 on Figure 3.2-1).
13 4. The San Francisco Transition Structure (see Figure 2-10).
14 Environment 1 — Near the West Portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel. This area is largely
15 residential with recreation areas and a school near the BART alignment. The closest noi v
16 sensitive receptor at location 1 (Figure 3.2-1) is a building at the Chabot Recreation Center
17 approximately 100 feet north of the work location. A residence approximately 200 feet north
18 from the work location is the next closest noise sensitive receptor to location I . The dosesl noise
19 sensitive receptor at location 2 is a residence, approximately 200 feet north ol the work location.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.2-5
3.2 Noise
1 Because State Route 24 is immediately south of location 2, there are no noise sensitive receptors
2 south of this location.
3 Ambient daytime noise levels near these noise sensitive receptors were dominated by local
4 traffic on Chabot Road and more distant traffic on State Route 24, with measured L eq s ranging
5 from 56 to 63 dBA. Passing BART trains, helicopter over-flights, and trucks on Chabot Road
6 produced the highest noise levels in these areas, with maximum (L max ) levels ranging from 68 to
7 73 dBA.
8 Environment 2 — BART Tracks between Highivay Lanes. In this area, the BART tracks are
9 surrounded by multi-lane highway traffic and pass through urbanized, densely populated
10 areas, where noise sensitive uses such as residences, recreation areas, a hospital (Oakland
11 Children's Hospital, located on 52nd Street, just west of retrofit locations 11 and 12 shown on
12 Figure 3.2-1), and commercial areas are located. Typically, noise sensitive receptors are at least
13 250 feet from the proposed work locations and are either fully or partially shielded by the
14 intervening highway structures.
15 Ambient daytime noise levels in these areas are typically dominated by traffic noise from the
16 highways with measured Leqs ranging from 64 to 72 dBA and maximum noise levels of 74 to 81
17 at the closest noise sensitive receptors. Passing BART trams and local traffic produced
18 maximum noise levels in these areas, but did not affect average levels.
19 Environment 3 — BART Tracks on the West Oakland Aerial Guidezvay. In this area the BART
20 tracks are elevated on the West Oakland Aerial Guideway, running approximately parallel to
21 Interstate 880 and 7 th Street, moving to an elevated position above the median of 7 th Street
22 before dropping and entering the Transbay Tube. Surrounding land uses in the area are largely
23 commercial and industrial with a commercial/residential mix of uses along the northeastern
24 side of 7 th Street where BART is elevated above the median. In this portion of the project,
25 residences above ground-floor commercial uses are approximately 50 feet from piers that are
26 proposed for retrofit.
27 Ambient daytime noise levels in these areas are typically dominated by traffic noise from
28 Interstate 880 and 7 th Street and passing BART trains. Measured L eq s at the noise sensitive
29 receptors closest to the Aerial Guideway ranged from 66 to 73 dBA, with passing BART trains
30 producing maximum noise levels of 75 to 85 dBA and trucks and buses on surface streets
31 producing maximum levels of between 68 and 72 dBA.
32 Environment 4 — San Francisco Transition Structure. The San Francisco Transition Structure is
33 located on the Bay side of the San Francisco Ferry Terminal Plaza. This is a commercial area
34 with pedestrian viewing areas, a restaurant, and a small parking platform. Port offices and
35 businesses lease nearby building space from the Port. Measurements of ambient daytime noise
36 levels in the terminal plaza showed that average noise levels range from 59 to 60 dBA L eq with
37 maximum noise levels reaching 68 dBA.
3.2-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.2 Noise
1 3.2.2 Proposed Action
2 3.2.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
3 The impacts of adverse noise effects on people from normal construction activities are based on
4 the applicable standards and the existing ambient noise level. Noise impacts would occur if the
5 project resulted in:
6 • Noise levels that are projected to exceed the allowable levels set forth in the BART
7 Design Criteria (see Appendix C, Table C-l).
8 3.2.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
9 The retrofit activities would require the use of heavy machines and equipment, which would
10 generate noise and vibration. Table 3.2-3 provides a summary of construction noise level data
11 developed by FHWA that shows typical noise levels from construction equipment. Retrofit
12 work would also require the use of stationary construction equipment such as pumps,
13 generators, and/or compressors operating relatively continuously during the work.
14 Transbay Tube
15 Micropile Anchorage. Spoils and drilling muds from this activity would be transported to the
16 east portal of the Tube and removed via truck. Because the portal is located in an industrial
17 area with no nearby sensitive receptors and truck traffic would pass through industrial areas to
18 freeways, there would be no noise impacts from truck traffic during micropile anchorage work.
19 Vibro -Replacement. Noise levels resulting from the construction of stone columns during
20 vibro-replacement were monitored in San Luis Obispo County (Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
21 1999). Internal combustion engines, which run the generator, crane, and air-compressor, are the
22 dominant noise sources. Noise resulting from the operation of the vibratory probe is mostly
23 masked by noise from the other equipment. Noise levels were measured at a reference distance
24 of 270 feet. Typical A-weighted noise levels during construction ranged from 68 dBA to 70 dBA
25 L eq . The maximum hourly average noise level reached 75 dBA L eq . Adjusted to a reference
26 distance of 50 feet, typical noise levels would be 83 to 85 dBA L eq , and the maximum hourly
27 noise level would be 90 dBA L eq at a reference distance of 50 feet.
28 Noise sensitive "commercial use" receptors, such as professional office buildings or restaurants,
29 are located 150 to 200 feet from the San Francisco Transition Structure (Environment 4).
30 Continuous noise from this operation would be 73 to 78 dB L eq at the nearest (commercial)
31 receptor. Barge work within about 500 feet of the shore would generate noise levels exceeding
32 70 dBA, the BART threshold for commercial areas with no nighttime residency.
33 Vibro-replacement activities would not impact noise sensitive receptors near the San Fran< is<
34 Transition Structure, however, because temporary noise control barriers will be installed
35 around all noise-generating construction equipment, providing for noise reductions ol up to 10-
36 15 dBA (within BART limits). No work would occur near sensitive receptors in the Cit) ol
37 Oakland.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.2-7
3.2 Noise
1 Stitching the Ttibe (Rotary or Oscillating Pile-Driving Equipment). Near the San Francisco
2 Transition Structure (Environment 4), noise levels resulting from dredging and the proposed
3 oscillating or rotating hydraulic equipment would fall within the range of typical construction
4 noise. Hourly average noise levels are expected to be a maximum of about 85 to 88 dBA L eq at a
reference distance of 50 feet. Barge work within about 500 feet of the shore would generate
6 noise levels exceeding 70 dBA, the BART threshold for commercial areas with no nighttime
7 residency.
Table 3.2-3. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise Level
(dBA) at 50 Feet
Equipment
Typical Noise Level
(dBA) at 50 Feet
Air Compressor
81-85
Grader
83-85
Backhoe
80-83
Hoe- Ram
85-90
Chain Saw
85
Impact Wrench
85
Compactor
82
Jackhammer*
88-89
Compressor
85-90
Loader
85-88
Concrete Truck
81
Paver
80-89
Concrete Mixer
85
Pile Drive, Impact
101
Concrete Pump
82
Pile Driver, Sonic
96
Concrete Vibrator
76
Pump
80-85
Crane, Derrick
86-88
Rock Drill
98
Crane, Mobile
83-87
Roller
74
Dozer
84-88
Scraper
89
Drill Rig
88
Slurry Machine
91
Dump Truck
84
Slurry Plant
78
Excavator
84
Truck
85-89
Generator
85
Vacuum Excavator
85-88
Gradall
86
* Jackhammers (90 lb. class) rated at 82 dBA at 7 meters are available. This would be equivalent to 74 dBA at
50 feet. These are silenced with molded intricate muffler tools.
Source: National Cooperative Highway Research Program (1999)
8 Stitching the tube with rotary or oscillating equipment would not impact noise sensitive
9 receptors near the San Francisco Transition Structure, however, because temporary noise
10 control barriers will be installed around the noise-generating construction equipment,
1 1 providing for noise reductions of up to 10-15 dBA (within BART limits). No work would occur
12 near sensitive receptors in the City of Oakland.
13 Stitching the Tube (Conventional Pile-Driving Equipment). Typical noise data for conventional
14 pile drivers are presented in Table 3.2-3, which indicates a maximum A-weighted noise level of
15 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise measurements taken while driving large diameter steel
16 piles in the San Francisco Bay region indicate noise levels could be expected to reach 110 dBA at
17 a distance of 50 feet (Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2001). Maximum allowable noise emission
18 limits established by BART for impact pile drivers are 100 dBA for equipment acquired before
3.2-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.2 Noise
1 1986, and 95 dBA for equipment acquired after January 1, 1986. Project noise levels are
2 projected to exceed these noise emission limits.
3 The nearest receptors that could be subject to pile driver noise would be located 150 to 200 feet
4 from the barge-mounted equipment. Predicted maximum A-weighted noise levels would range
5 from 90 to 100 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor location. This exposure would be
6 temporary, but would occur for the duration (about 2 years) when pile driving is closest to the
7 San Francisco Transition Structure (Environment 4), and would interfere with speech
8 communication outdoors and indoors.
9 Sensitive receptors near the San Francisco Transition Structure will not be impacted by pile-
10 driving noise from stitching activities, however, because the following project actions will
11 reduce noise levels to within acceptable BART limits: pile driving will be scheduled to avoid
12 high public use times at the Ferry Plaza; pile drivers will be shrouded with noise barrier
13 materials; temporary noise control barriers will be installed around noise-generating
14 construction equipment; and, advanced public notice regarding pile-driving, including a hotline
15 for noise complaints, will be provided. For additional details, see the Noise Technical Study
16 (BART et al. 2005c).
17 San Francisco Seismic Joint Restoration. Installation of a tunnel liner sleeve would result in no
18 public disturbance or effects on the acoustical environment because all work would be done
19 within the Tube.
20 San Francisco Transition Structure
21 The primary source of construction noise associated with retrofits at the San Francisco Transition
22 Structure is the pile installation associated with construction of pile array, piles and collar
23 anchorage, or isolation and support walls. There would also be noise generated when existing
24 concrete support piles are removed and spoils are contained and removed from the site. In
25 addition, dredging and excavation of the Bay bottom around the structure for retrofits proposed
26 as part of the Steel Piles Concept or the Isolation Walls Concept would occur. The following
27 impact discussions are organized by the type of pile-driving equipment that could be used.
28 Rotary or Oscillating Pile-Driving Equipment. Noise levels resulting from dredging and the
29 proposed oscillating or rotating hydraulic pile installation equipment would fall within the
30 range of typical construction noise near the San Francisco Transition Structure (Environment 4).
31 Hourly average noise levels are expected to be a maximum of 85 to 90 dBA Leq at a reference
32 distance of 50 feet. The predicted continuous noise level is 73 to 78 dBA at the nearest
33 (commercial) sensitive receptor. This work would occur close to sensitive receptors (public
34 areas and a restaurant), where noise levels would exceed 70 dBA, the BART threshold for
35 commercial areas with no nighttime residency.
36 Sensitive receptors near the San Francisco Transition Structure will not be impacted by dredging
37 and use of proposed oscillating or rotating hydraulic pile installation equipment, however
38 because temporary noise control barriers will be installed around all noise-generating
39 construction equipment, providing for noise reductions of up to 10-15 dBA (within BART limits).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.2-9
3.2 Noise
1 Conventional Pile-Driving Equipment. If a conventional impact pile driver is used in this area,
2 noise levels would cause a substantial disturbance to persons outside in public areas, and inside
3 the restaurant and other nearby buildings. Maximum noise levels would exceed the BART
4 emission limit of 125 dBA at distances less than 25 feet, and would exceed the 95 to 100 dBA
5 BART limit at distances of 300 feet.
6 Sensitive receptors near the San Francisco Transition Structure will not be impacted by high
noise levels from pile-driving, however, because the following project actions will reduce noise
8 levels to within acceptable BART limits: pile driving will be scheduled to avoid high public use
9 times of the Ferry Plaza; pile drivers will be shrouded with noise barrier materials; temporary
10 noise control barriers will be installed around noise-generating construction equipment; and,
1 1 advanced public notice regarding pile-driving, which includes a hotline for noise complaints
12 related to surrounding uses, will be provided. For additional details, see the Noise Technical
13 Study (BART et al. 2005c).
14 Oakland Transition Structure
15 Because the transition structure is located in a fenced-in industrial area, with no nearby noise
16 sensitive receptors, no noise impacts would result.
17 Aerial Guideways and Stations
18 Pile installation at aerial guideways and stations would use both impact (e.g., conventional pile-
19 driving) and non-impact drilling techniques (e.g., an oscillating or rotating hydraulic
20 installation system). The following impacts are organized by project location and the type of
21 construction equipment that could be used.
22 Construction Noise at Retrofit Locations 1 and 2. The closest noise sensitive receptors to
23 Locations 1 and 2 are approximately 70 feet from the edge of the BART tracks, near the west
24 portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel (Environment 1). No pile installation would occur at
25 Locations 1 and 2. Retrofitting the four abutments at Location 1 (Chabot Road) may produce
26 intermittent maximum noise levels of 85 dBA at the school and 80 dBA at the closest residence.
27 Continuous maximum noise levels may reach 75 dBA at the school and 70 dBA at the closest
28 residence. Retrofitting the four abutments at Location 2 (Golden Gate Avenue) may produce
29 intermittent maximum noise levels of 80 dBA at the closest residence. Continuous maximum
30 noise levels may reach 70 dBA at the closest residence.
31 Sensitive receptors located near the abutments at Locations 1 and 2 will not be impacted by
32 construction activities, however, because the following project actions will reduce noise levels to
33 within acceptable BART limits: temporary noise control barriers will be installed around noise-
34 generating construction equipment; and advanced public notice regarding construction
35 activities, which includes a hotline for noise complaints, will be provided to nearby uses. For
36 additional details, see the Noise Technical Study (BART et ai. 2005c). Although construction
37 noise levels would be within acceptable BART limits with implementation of above project
38 measures, the following mitigation measure is identified to further reduce noise levels.
39 Mitigation Measure. The following measure will further reduce noise levels related to project
40 activities at retrofit Locations 1 and 2:
3.2-10
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.2 Noise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
• Prohibit construction equipment that does not meet the lower BART noise emission limit
(85 dBA at 50 feet). Where feasible, use electric-powered equipment instead of diesel
equipment and hydraulic tools instead of pneumatic tools. Employ effective intake and
exhaust mufflers on all internal combustion engines and compressors. Line hopper
storage bins and chutes with sound-deadening material. Maximize the physical
separation as far as possible between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
8
9
- Provide enclosures for stationary equipment and provide barriers around
particularly noisy areas on the site;
10
11
- Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
transmission of noise; and
12
13
- Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the nearby residential
neighbors.
14 Construction Noise (Rotary or Oscillating Pile-Driving Equipment) at Retrofit Locations 3 to
15 19. Seismic retrofit work at these locations, which would potentially affect the area near the
16 BART alignment located between State Route 24, Interstate 580, and Interstate 980
17 (Environment 2), would produce intermittent maximum and continuous maximum noise levels
18 of about 75 and 65 dBA, respectively, at the closest noise sensitive receptors outside the stations
19 (typically at least 250 feet from work locations). Considering that all of the affected noise
20 sensitive receptors outside the stations are located along arterial roadways, this level of noise
21 from construction activities would meet the BART daytime noise standard. However,
22 construction activities at Rockridge Station (Location 5) and MacArthur Station (Location 15)
23 could expose BART patrons and employees to noise levels in excess of BART limits.
24 BART patrons and employees at Rockridge and MacArthur Stations will not be impacted by
25 construction activities because the following project actions will reduce noise levels to within
26 acceptable BART limits: temporary noise control barriers will be installed around noise-
27 generating construction equipment; and advanced public notice regarding construction
28 activities, which includes a hotline for noise complaints, will be provided to nearby uses. For
29 additional details, see the Noise Technical Study (BART et al. 2005c). Although construction
30 noise levels would be within acceptable BART limits with implementation of above project
31 measures, the following mitigation measure is identified to further reduce noise levels.
32 Mitigation Measure. The following measure will further reduce noise levels related to project
33 activities at retrofit Locations 3 through 19:
34 • Prohibit construction equipment that does not meet the lower BART noise emission hunt
35 (85 dBA at 50 feet). Where feasible, use electric-powered equipment instead of diesel
36 equipment, and hydraulic tools instead of pneumatic tools. Employ effective intake and
37 exhaust mufflers on all internal combustion engines and compressors. 1 ine Koppei
38 storage bins and chutes with sound-deadening material. Maximize the physical
39 separation as far as possible between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
40 separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.2-11
3.2 Noise
1 - Provide enclosures for stationary equipment and provide barriers around
2 particularly noisy areas on the site;
3 - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
4 transmission of noise; and
5 - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the nearby residential
6 neighbors.
7 Construction Noise (Rotary or Oscillating Pile-Driving Equipment) at Retrofit Locations 20 to
8 37. Construction noise at these locations would affect the area near the West Oakland Station
9 and along the West Oakland Aerial Guideway (Environment 3). Facades of the
10 commercial/residential mix of uses along the northeastern side of 7 th Street, where the West
11 Oakland Aerial Guideway is in the median of the roadway, are approximately 50 feet from
12 piers that are proposed for retrofit. Based on worst-case intermittent and continuous maximum
13 noise levels of 90 dBA L ma x and 85 dBA L eq at 50 feet from work areas as described previously,
14 noise from the seismic retrofit work at the West Oakland Station (Location 29) and along the
15 West Oakland Aerial Guideway could exceed the BART daytime noise standard.
16 Sensitive receptors at the West Oakland Station and along the West Oakland Aerial Guideway
17 will not be impacted because the following project actions will reduce noise levels to within
18 acceptable BART limits: construction will be scheduled to minimize noisiest activities when
19 residents are home; temporary noise control barriers will be installed around noise-generating
20 construction equipment; and advanced public notice regarding construction activities, which
21 includes a hotline for noise complaints, will be provided. For additional details, see the Noise
22 Technical Study (BART et al. 2005c). Although construction noise levels would be within
23 acceptable BART limits with implementation of above project measures, the following
24 mitigation measure is identified to further reduce noise levels.
25 Mitigation Measure. The following measure will further reduce noise levels related to project
26 activities at retrofit Locations 20 to 37:
27 • Prohibit construction equipment that does not meet the lower BART noise emission limit
28 (85 dBA at 50 feet). Where feasible, use electric-powered equipment instead of diesel
29 equipment, and hydraulic tools instead of pneumatic tools. Employ effective intake and
30 exhaust mufflers on all internal combustion engines and compressors. Line hopper
31 storage bins and chutes with sound-deadening material. Maximize the physical
32 separation as far as possible between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
33 separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
34 - Provide enclosures for stationary equipment and provide barriers around
35 particularly noisy areas on the site;
36 - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
37 transmission of noise; and
38 - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the nearby residential
39 neighbors.
40 Construction Noise (Conventional Pile-Driving Equipment) at Retrofit Locations 3 to 37. As
41 stated above, no pile installation would occur at retrofit Locations 1 and 2. In addition, impact
3.2-12 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.2 Noise
1 pile-driving at Rockridge Station (Location 5) and West Oakland Station (Location 29) is
2 unlikely due to overhead height limitations.
3 Impact pile-driving methods could be used at MacArthur Station (Location 15) and other aerial
4 guideway locations, including near the BART alignment located between State Route 24,
5 Interstate 580, and Interstate 980 (Locations 3 to 19) and along the West Oakland Aerial
6 Guideway (Locations 20 to 37). Impact pile-driving methods would produce noise levels in
excess of 100 dBA at 50 feet (unshielded) and could impact sensitive noise receptors, including
8 BART patrons and employees at MacArthur Station, residences outside MacArthur Station, or
9 other identified receptors located near aerial guideway locations, who would be exposed to
10 high noise levels in exceedance of BART limits.
11 The closest noise sensitive receptor outside MacArthur Station is a residential building on 40 th
12 Street, an arterial roadway with relatively high ambient noise, approximately 250 feet from the
13 station walls. Based on this distance, pile-driving noise at this sensitive receptor could reach
14 levels of between 80 to 85 dBA during unshielded pile driving, which is below BART limits.
15 Noise levels within MacArthur Station during unshielded pile driving could reach levels in
16 excess of 100 dBA, however, and could impact BART patrons and employees at this station.
17 The closest noise sensitive receptors along the BART alignment between State Route 24,
18 Interstate 580, and Interstate 980 are residences located typically at least 250 feet from work
19 locations. Based on this distance, and considering that all of these affected noise sensitive
20 receptors are located along arterial roadways, pile-driving noise at these receptors could reach
21 levels of between 80 to 85 dBA during unshielded pile driving, which is below BART limits.
22 The closest noise sensitive receptors from the West Oakland Aerial Guideway, located
23 approximately 50 feet from piers that are proposed for retrofit, are the commercial/ residential
24 mix of uses along the northeastern side of 7 th Street, where the Aerial Guideway is in the
25 median of the roadway. Based on this distance, pile-driving noise at these receptors could reach
26 levels of up to 105 dBA during unshielded pile driving, which is in excess of BART limits.
27 BART patrons and employees at MacArthur Station, and receptors near the West Oakland
28 Aerial Guideway, will not be impacted by pile-driving, however, because the following project
29 actions will reduce pile-driving noise levels to within acceptable BART limits: construction will
30 be scheduled to minimize the impact on sensitive receptors (either during daytime hours to
31 avoid impacts to residences and/or during non-commute periods); pile drivers will be
32 shrouded with noise barrier materials; temporary noise control barriers will be installed around
33 noise-generating construction equipment; and advanced public notice regarding construction
34 activities, which includes a hotline for noise complaints, will be provided. For additional
35 details, see the Noise Technical Study (BART et al. 2005c). However, if after propel
36 implementation of noise barriers at MacArthur Station and near the West Oakland Aerial
37 Guideway, noise levels from pile-driving activities are not reduced to within acceptable BARl
38 limits as expected, the following mitigation measure is identified.
39 Mitigation Measure. The following measure will ensure noise levels from pile-driving acti\ ities
40 at MacArthur Station and near the West Oakland Aerial Guideway are maintained within
41 acceptable BART limits:
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.2-13
3.2 Noise
1
2
3
4
5
6
BART shall require the construction contractor to monitor pile-driving noise at
MacArthur Station and retrofit locations near the West Oakland Aerial Guideway.
Noise readings shall be taken at the beginning of any pile-driving activity to confirm the
contractor has properly installed noise control barriers. If, after proper implementation
of noise barriers, pile-driving noise is not reduced to within acceptable BART limits,
then other actions shall be taken to reduce excessive noise levels, including:
7
8
- Use vibratory, oscillating, or rotating pile drivers to reduce the noise produced by
pile-driving activities; or,
13
9
10
12
1 1
- Perform pile-driving at night or during non-commute periods. If pile-driving is
performed at night, and monitoring shows that residents located within 50 feet of the
pile-driving activity are experiencing noise above acceptable BART levels for
nighttime noise, temporary relocation will be offered to these residents until
nighttime pile-driving is completed.
14
3.2.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
15
Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
16 Noise sources associated with the dredging reuse operation (i.e., backfilling) include a clamshell
17 dredge and three tugboats. Noise would result from use of diesel engines that power the
18 dredging equipment and pumps. The noise level generated by the dredging equipment is
19 typically up to 87 dBA, measured at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels generated by diesel
20 engines that power the tugboats, which would be used to move the dredge and barge, are
2 1 similar. Hourly average noise levels, given the anticipated usage factors, are calculated to be 85
22 to 88 dBA L eq at a reference distance of 50 feet. Barge work within about 500 feet of the shore
23 would generate noise levels exceeding 70 dBA, which is the BART threshold for commercial
24 areas with no nighttime residency.
25 Dredging would not cause a noise impact near the San Francisco Transition Structure, however,
26 as temporary noise control barriers will be installed around the noise-generating construction
27 equipment, providing for noise reductions of up to 10-15 dBA (within BART limits).
28 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Options outside the Project
29 Transportation of the project's dredged material to the potential in-Bay, deep ocean, or wetland
30 sites via waterways would generate noise from the operation of tugboats. The noise, however,
31 would not measurably increase existing noise levels and would be indistinguishable from the
32 noise from other maritime traffic. Transportation of the dredged material to landfills would
33 also generate noise associated with the addition of up to 28 daily truck trips, if the trips
34 occurred consecutively during the minimum 22-month dewatering period. The Altamont and
35 Vasco Road Landfills would be accessed via local streets at the Port of Oakland (used almost
36 exclusively by trucks; see section 3.4 [Transportation]), and freeways. These Port streets and
37 freeways experience very substantial truck traffic. Therefore, the noise generated from 28
38 additional daily truck trips would be negligible, and would not create a measurable increase in
39 noise compared to existing truck traffic noise on these access roads and freeways.
40 Transportation of dredged material outside the project would cause no new noise impacts.
3.2-14
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
2 An Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (BART et al. 2005m), Historical Resources Evaluation
3 Report (HRER) (BART et al. 2005k), Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (BART et al. 2005]),
4 and a Finding of Effect (FOE) (BART et al. 20051) were prepared to identify and evaluate all
5 cultural resources (e.g., archaeological sites, buildings, structures, objects, districts) located
6 within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) associated with the project and document potential
7 impacts. The APE includes all areas of potential ground disturbance, including right-of-way
8 and temporary construction lay down areas. For historic resources, the APE also includes
9 buildings and structures that may be affected by vibration from construction equipment. The
10 following information is derived from these documents.
11 3.3.1 Existing Setting
12 Important cultural resources are those that qualify as an eligible "historic property" under the
13 National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR §60.4). To be eligible for listing on the National
14 Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a cultural resource must possess integrity of location,
15 design, setting, material, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the
16 following criteria:
17 A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
18 of history;
19 B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past;
20 C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
21 represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant
22 and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
23 D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
24 (See Appendix C, section C.3 for a complete definition of the eligibility criteria.)
25 3.3.1.1 Archaeological Resources
26 Archaeological site record searches were conducted at the California Historic Resources
27 Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University to determine the
28 location of recorded archaeological sites within 1-mile of the Archaeological Resources APE. A
29 reconnaissance-level survey was conducted to verify the setting of recorded archaeological sites
30 near the Archaeological Resources APE and their relationship to the APE. The reconnaissance
31 survey, in conjunction with the site record searches, determined that there are no recorded
32 historic or prehistoric archaeological resources within the Archaeological Resources APE.
33 Archaeological sensitivity was also assessed for unrecorded buried historic and prehistoric
34 archaeological resources based on predictive modeling, historic maps, and documented past
35 ground disturbance. No areas were considered to have a high archaeological site potential due
36 to the absence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the Archaeological
37 Resources APE. The sensitivity for buried prehistoric and/or historic deposits at about 80
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.3-1
3.3 Cultural Resources
1 percent of the approximate 300 excavation sites at 38 project locations (see Figure 2-18) was
2 determined to be low. The other 51 excavation sites at 14 project locations were determined to
3 have a moderate potential for encountering unknown prehistoric or historic cultural remains.
4 Although the dimensions of the planned excavation locations and potential for new ground
5 disturbance would be relatively limited, the possibility for encountering an intact buried
6 prehistoric and/or historic deposit at the moderate potential locations could not be discounted.
7 Therefore, these areas are considered to have a moderate sensitivity for encountering unknown
8 archaeological resources that would meet the eligibility criteria for NRHP Listing.
9 The ground surfaces underneath and adjacent to the Transbay Tube were previously disturbed
10 during the original construction of the facility. Therefore, no potential for intact marine
1 1 archaeological resources such as shipwrecks exist within the Transbay Tube APE.
12 3.3.2.2 Historic Architectural Resources
13 The Historic Architectural Resources APE includes all areas of potential ground disturbance as
14 well as all areas within which project construction equipment vibration could be anticipated to
15 adversely affect standing structures built prior to 1957 (i.e., those that have not been subject to
16 recent seismic engineering standards). In all cases, the Historic Architectural Resources APE
17 boundary was extended to include all structures that could be subject to potential direct and
18 indirect effects resulting from project implementation (i.e., construction equipment noise and
19 vibration). Although the Historic Architectural Resources APE does not always include entire
20 parcel boundaries, it does include all potentially affected structures within a given parcel.
21 A reconnaissance level survey of the Historic Architectural Resources APE was performed in
22 February 2003. A total of 63 structures were identified in the APE. Of these, 42 structures built
23 prior to 1957 were identified; 27 of these had been previously evaluated by the State Historic
24 Preservation Officer (SHPO) for their NRHP listing eligibility. All of the historic properties
25 (those listed on or eligible for NRHP listing) within the APE are listed in Table 3.3-1.
26 One of the structures previously evaluated by the SHPO, the San Francisco Ferry Building, is
27 listed on the NRHP under Criterion A due to is association with the Union Ferry Depot, and
28 under Criterion C, as an outstanding example of the neo-classic Beaux Arts architectural style,
29 its seminal use of reinforced-concrete in its steel frame, and association with the prominent San
30 Francisco architect A. Page Brown. Built in 1898 and originally known as the Union Ferry
31 Depot, it is located adjacent to the San Francisco Ferry Plaza (the Plaza is not part of the NRHP
32 property, as it was constructed at a later date). The Ferry Building was modified by a new pile-
33 supported platform surrounding its bay-side perimeter during recent improvements made to
34 the Ferry Terminal (San Francisco Planning Department, Caltrans, and FHWA 1997).
35 Six of the previously evaluated resources within the APE have been determined by the SHPO to
36 be eligible for NRHP listing as a result of the Interstate 880 Reconstruction Project evaluation
37 (Caltrans 1990; FHWA 1991). One individual property, the Wempe Brothers /Schmidt- Western
38 Paper Box Co. Building, was determined eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion C as it
39 exhibits distinctive characteristics associated with the industrial activity related to expanded
40 railroad commerce that attracted ethnic migrants to Oakland.
3.3-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.3 Cultural Resources
1 The other five NRHP-eligible structures are contributors to the Oakland Point Historic District.
2 This District was determined eligible for NRHP listing under Criteria A and C due to the
3 District's importance as one of the earliest residential, commercial, and ethnic neighborhoods in
4 West Oakland. Built between 1870 to 1880, this neighborhood extended from approximately
5 Broadway to Grove Street and 1st Street to 7th Street and housed the families of businessmen,
6 professionals, artisans, and laborers, many working for the Central Pacific Railroad. Properties
supporting immigrants seeking work in West Oakland included hotels, boarding and rental
8 houses, commercial establishments providing food, clothing, and sundries, and recreational
9 establishments such as theaters and bars.
10 The BART Transbay Tube was determined to be potentially eligible for NRHP listing during the
11 current architectural historical evaluation under Criteria A and C. When it was opened for
12 service on September 16, 1974, it was the deepest and longest underwater transit tube in the
13 world. Its structural form, engineering technique, and method of construction pioneered the
14 use of underwater placement technology now found on other transit systems worldwide. The
15 Transbay Tube has retained its original integrity of location, setting, design, workmanship and
16 materials. In 1997, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers acknowledged the
17 importance of the mechanical engineering innovations of the Transbay Tube by designating the
18 Tube and the BART system a Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark. As a structure of
19 exceptional mechanical engineering importance achieving significance under Criteria A and C
20 within the past 50 years, the BART Transbay Tube appears eligible for NRHP listing under
21 Consideration G. Consideration G applies to "a property achieving significance within the past
22 50 years if it is of exceptional importance."
23 Table 3.3-1. Architectural Historic Properties within the APE
Building
Number
Name
Address
National Register
Eligibility Criteria
43
San Francisco Ferry
Building 1
Embarcadero at the
foot of Market Street
A and C
14
Wempe
Brothers/Schmidt-
Western Paper Box Co.
Building 2
1155 -5 th Street
C
16
Kohler-Coffey House 2
719 Chester Street
A and C
22
Dempsey Rental Cottage 2
710 Henry Street
A and C
23
Dempsey Rental Cottage 2
714 Henry Street
A and C
37
Montoya Rental House -
Mousalemas House 2
717 Willow Street
A and C
38
Montoya Rental House -
Mousalemas House 2
721-23 Willow Street
A and C
42
BART Transbay Tube 3
A and C,
Consideration C,
1: Listed on the NRHP
2: Determined Eligible for Listing on the NRHP by SHPO
3: Considered Eligible for Listing on the NRHP
24 Twenty structures have been previously determined by the SHPO to not be eligible for
25 inclusion on the NRHP. The other 15 structures built prior to 1957 that were evaluated during
26 the current project architectural survey appear to not be eligible for NRHP listing.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.3-3
3.3 Cultjiral Resources
1 The Firestorm Community Mural constructed in 1991 at Rockridge Station is not eligible for
2 consideration as an historic property and NRHP listing. The mural's importance as a
3 contemporary visual neighborhood resource is addressed in section 3.8 (Visual Resources).
4 3.3.2 Proposed Action
5 3.3.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
6 Impacts on cultural resources are considered to be substantial if the project would have an
7 "adverse effect" on an historic property (eligible for NRHP listing). As identified in 36 CFR
8 §800. 5(a)(2), adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:
9 (i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;
10 (ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance,
1 1 stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped
12 access, that is not consistent with the Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of
13 Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines;
14 (iii) Removal of the property from its historic location;
15 (iv) Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the
16 property's setting that contribute to its historic significance;
17 (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the
18 integrity of the property's significant historic features;
19 (vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect
20 and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural
21 significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and
22 (vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without
23 adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term
24 preservation of the property's historic significance.
25 3.3.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
26 Archaeological Resources
27 No known historic properties (archaeological) are located within the Archaeological Resources
28 APE. However, it is possible that unknown subsurface prehistoric and/or historic deposits
29 exist in project locations with moderate sensitivity. Should any archaeological resource be
30 encountered during construction, it would be treated according to the provisions of 36 CFR
31 800.13 under the National Historic Preseivation Act. Therefore, impacts would be negligible.
32 Historic Architectural Resources
33 Project pile driving construction activities would generate high ground-borne vibration levels,
34 which could damage a structure. Caltrans has identified a vibration threshold of 12.7 mm/sec
3.3-4 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.3 Cultural Resources
1 (0.5 inches/sec) peak particle velocity (ppv) under which structurally sound buildings that have
2 been designed to modern engineering standards would not be substantially affected. A
3 conservative vibration threshold of 5 mm/sec (0.2 inches/sec) ppv has been used for buildings
4 that are found to be structurally sound, but for which structural damage is a major concern. For
5 structures that have been structurally weakened or historic buildings that have not been
6 previously strengthened by seismic retrofitting such as the six historic properties located within
the APE, a conservative threshold of 2 mm/sec (0.08 inches/sec) ppv is often used to provide
8 the highest level of protection (Caltrans 2002).
9 Typical impact hammer pile drivers generate a ppv of about 0.64 inches/sec at a distance of 25
10 feet (National Cooperative Highway Research Program [NCHRP] 1999). At a reference distance
11 of 200 feet, the ppv generated by impact hammer pile driving would be approximately 0.08
12 inches/sec. The predicted ppv would be right at the conservative threshold limit of 0.08
13 inches/sec often used for historic buildings. Therefore, it is possible that any historic properties
14 within 200 feet of an impact hammer pile driving activity would result in a potential adverse
15 effect on the structures' integrity. The predicted ppv at distances of less than 200 feet from non-
16 impact drilling techniques (i.e., an oscillating or rotating hydraulic installation system) for pile
17 installation would be below this ppv threshold, and would not affect an historic property.
18 Seven historic properties within the APE are located between 35 and 200 feet of project pile
19 installation activities for the seismic retrofit of aerial guideways, the West Oakland Station, and
20 the San Francisco Transition Structure. The San Francisco Ferry Building has been recently
21 seismically retrofitted, resulting in the incorporation of modern engineering standards that
22 would defray the effects of pile driving. Impact hammer pile installation techniques within 200
23 feet of the other six structures determined by SHPO to be eligible for NRHP listing has the
24 potential to result in vibration that could damage the physical structures' integrity. The closest
25 historic property, the Wempe Brothers /Schmidt- Western Paper Box Co. Building, is
26 approximately 35 feet from pile installation activities. This structure is concrete-reinforced,
27 such that potential adverse vibration effects would be minimized due to the greater stability
28 associated with this modern engineering design. The other five wooden-framed historic
29 properties are located between 125 and 200 feet from potential pile installation locations, and
30 could potentially be subjected to vibrations of up to 0.08 inches/sec ppv. No other direct
31 impacts on the architectural historic properties would result from the project.
32 Mitigation Measure. If impact hammer pile installation techniques are used within 200 feet of the
33 five wooden-framed historic properties within the APE, potential impacts related to vibration
34 on these five properties would be avoided with implementation of the following measures:
35 • A pre-construction survey shall be performed on the five wooden- framed historic
36 properties within the APE to document the existing condition of the structures
37 Vibration equipment activity within 200 feet of all five wooden-framed historic
38 properties within the project APE shall be monitored during construction. The vibration
39 monitoring equipment shall issue a warning when a peak particle velocity (pp\ )
40 approaches 0.08 inches /second. When any reading on the monitoring equipment
41 reaches 0.08 inches /second ppv, work shall immediately cease and the contractor shall
42 adopt alternative pile installation methods such as using pre-drilled piles or a vibratory
43 pile driver to maintain equipment vibration below 0.08 inches/ second ppv .
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.3-5
3.3 Cultural Resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Vibration monitoring and surveys of all five wooden-framed historic properties within the
project APE shall be done prior to, during regular intervals, and after project construction
to document structural conditions. The vibration monitoring and structural surveys shall
identify and describe any pre-existing internal and external structure cracking, settlement,
and distress, and the condition of foundations, walls and other structural elements. The
surveys shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural
Engineer in the State of California and shall be in accordance with industry-accepted
standard methods. Written reports documenting conditions before and after project
completion shall be prepared under the supervision and approval of a Structural
Engineer, licensed to practice in the State of California. The reports shall include photo-
documentation to verify that no structural damage has occurred to any of the historic
properties during construction.
13 This measure would avoid any potentially "adverse effect" on historic properties as defined in
14 Part 36 CFR §800.5(a)(2), Criterion (i).
15 Seismic retrofit improvements to the Transbay Tube, such as adding pile clusters around the
16 Tube (stitching the Tube), adding a tunnel liner sleeve along one joint, or compacting the soil
17 surrounding the Tube (vibro-replacement), would not compromise the integrity of the
18 structures' precedent-setting form, engineering technique, or method of construction. All of the
19 character-defining features that make the resource potentially eligible for NRHP listing would
20 continue to serve their original purpose. Conversely, the retrofit improvements would ensure
21 that possible impacts resulting from future seismic activity would be minimized, therefore
22 resulting in beneficial effects on this historic resource.
23 A Finding of No Adverse Effect may be determined when an undertaking is modified or
24 conditions are imposed to avoid impacts on historic properties (36 CFR Part 800.5 [b]). For the
25 undertaking as a whole, the FHWA proposes that a Finding of No Adverse Effect is
26 appropriate, because the project would avoid adverse effects on historic properties through the
27 implementation of the above mitigation measures. SHPO concurred with the Finding of No
28 Adverse Effect in a letter dated May 13, 2005.
29 3.3.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
30 Dredged material reuse or disposal activities would not encroach within or disturb any known
31 or potential cultural resources. Therefore, no impacts on cultural resource impacts would
32 result.
3.3-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.4 TRANSPORTATION
2 This section evaluates ground-based transportation (section 3.4.1), such as traffic and parking
3 issues, as well as vessel transportation issues (section 3.4.2). A Traffic Technical Study (BART et
4 al. 2005h) was prepared to analyze the ground transportation impacts of the project from the
5 west end of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel in Oakland, to the Montgomery Street Station in San
6 Francisco. The environmental analysis determined impacts on ground transportation facilities
7 would result from project construction activity at the aerial guideways and stations, as well as
8 hauling of dredged material to disposal sites. However, no permanent alteration to
9 transportation facilities /operations would result from the project; all traffic impacts would be
10 temporary (BART et al. 2005h).
11 A Vessel Transportation Technical Study (BART et al. 2005d) was also prepared to evaluate the
12 vessel transportation impacts associated with the project at the Port of Oakland, in San
13 Francisco Bay, and at the San Francisco Ferry Building. The environmental analysis determined
14 that proposed retrofit activities could interfere with the Port of Oakland and San Francisco
15 Ferry Building operations (BART et al. 2005d). However, all identified impacts would be
16 temporary (BART et al. 2005d).
17 3.4.1 Traffic/Ground Transportation
18 Potential ground transportation impacts related to seismic retrofit work include, (a) lane
19 closures and detours within public streets to accommodate construction, and (b) truck hauling
20 of dredged material to potential disposal sites. Lane closures and detours within public streets,
21 alterations to public parking, and alterations to public transit stops are related to construction
22 activity on aerial guideways and stations, all within the City of Oakland. The focus of the
23 ground transportation analysis is on construction activities occurring within the City of
24 Oakland. However, this analysis also considers impacts for the hauling of dredged material
25 from the Port of Oakland to various landfills in Alameda County. Project-generated vehicle
26 trips to transport equipment and deliver materials, as well as trips by workers, and
27 transportation of materials to and from the staging areas are expected to be minor and would
28 not impact ground transportation facilities in Oakland and San Francisco (BART et al. 2005h).
29 3A.1.1 Existing Setting
30 Existing Roads
31 Freeways. The BART alignment is on an aerial structure in two freeway locations: (1) in the
32 median of State Route 24 and Interstate 980 between Chabot Road and Sycamore Street in
33 Oakland; and (2) near the Interstate 880 freeway between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and
34 Union Street. Construction at retrofit locations would not directly impact any of the mainline
35 freeways in the project area; however, some components of the construction work would
36 impact specific freeway ramps and ramp intersections with local streets.
37 Hauling of dredged material, however, could utilize regional freeways. If dredged material is
38 disposed at the Altamont Landfill or the Vasco Road Landfill, the material would be dried at
39 the Port of Oakland rehandling facility and then transported to the landfills along Interstate 880
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-1
3.4 Transportation
1 south, Interstate 238, and Interstate 580 east. A description of the regional freeways that would
2 be used to haul dredged material to a landfill for disposal is provided in the Traffic Technical
3 Study (BART et al. 2005h).
4 Streets. There are 40 streets adjacent to, or that cross, the proposed retrofit construction areas.
5 These streets are identified and briefly described in the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al.
6 2005h). The location of these streets is shown in Figure 3.4-1.
7 In addition to streets affected by retrofit construction there are several local streets that could be
8 affected by hauling of dredged material from the Port of Oakland to landfill disposal sites.
9 Dredged material to be disposed at the Altamont Landfill would be transported from the Port of
10 Oakland along Interstate 880 south, Interstate 238, to Interstate 580 east. Though there is access
11 between the Port of Oakland and Interstate 580, heavy trucks are restricted on Interstate 580
12 between Grand Avenue and 106th Avenue in the City of Oakland. Thus, it is anticipated that
13 trucks transporting dredged material would access Interstate 580 from Interstate 238, outside the
14 weight restriction area. Access to Interstate 880 would occur via 7th Street. To travel to the
15 Altamont Landfill, trucks would exit Interstate 580 at the Greenville Road interchange, travel on
16 Southfront Road to Greenville Road, and then north along Greenville Road, which turns into
17 Altamont Pass Road, the access road for the landfill. Upon return, vehicles would go south on
18 Altamont Pass Road to Northfront Road, which has an interchange with westbound Interstate
19 580. Dredged material to be disposed at the Vasco Road Landfill would exit Interstate 580
20 directly to Vasco Road. Characteristics of the roads that would be used to haul dredged material
21 to landfill disposal are briefly described in the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
22 Existing Traffic Operations
23 The evaluation of existing traffic operations includes a.m. and p.m. peak hour operations at street
24 intersections near the BART alignment, assessment of mid-block street capacities beneath the BART
25 aerial structure, and operations on freeways used to haul dredged material to disposal sites.
26 Level of Service. Freeways, roads, and intersections are evaluated in terms of level of service (LOS),
27 which is a measure of driving conditions and vehicle delay. Levels of service range from A (best) to
28 F (worst). Levels of service A, B, and C indicate conditions where traffic can move relatively freely.
29 Level of service D describes conditions where delay is more noticeable. Level of service E describes
30 conditions where traffic volumes are at, or close to, capacity resulting in significant delays. Level of
3 1 service F characterizes conditions where traffic demand exceeds available capacity, with very slow
32 speeds (stop-and-go), long delays (over 1 minute), and queuing at signalized intersections.
33 Freeivay Operations. Construction at retrofit locations would not directly impact freeways.
34 Hauling of dredged material, however, would utilize regional freeways. A review of freeway
35 operations was undertaken for the three freeways potentially affected by project dredged material
36 hauling (see Table 3.4-1), as part of The Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project Final
37 Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (USACE and Port of Oakland 1998).
38 In this table, speeds of 49 miles per hour (mph) or higher indicated LOS A through C. At LOS D,
39 traffic operating conditions become unstable and speeds drop as low as 41 mph. At LOS E, there
40 are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream and speeds can drop as low as 30 mph. At LOS F,
41 speeds are below 30 mph with stop-and-go traffic (USACE and Port of Oakland 1998).
3.4-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 Transportation
1 Table 3.4-1. Existing Operations on Freeway Segments
2 Potentially Affected by Dredged Material Hauling
A.M Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
Freeway Segment
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
Interstate 880 South of 7 th Street
Northbound
B
0.52
B
0.41
Southbound
C
0.54
D
0.85
Interstate 880 North of Interstate 980
Northbound
C
0.69
B
0.43
Southbound
B
0.46
D
0.80
Interstate 880 South of Interstate 980
Northbound
F
1.08
D
0.90
Southbound
D
0.80
F
1.11
Interstate 880 North of Interstate 238
Northbound
F
1.19
F
1.04
Southbound
D
0.84
F
1.18
Interstate 238
Eastbound
B
0.47
C
0.76
Westbound
C
0.76
C
0.58
Interstate 580 East of Interstate 238
Eastbound
C
0.61
F
1.00
Westbound
F
1.00
C
0.63
Interstate 580 Ramps at Vasco Road
Interchange
Eastbound Off Ramp After Diverge
F
1.21
F
1.08
Eastbound to Northbound Loop Ramp
A
0.19
D
0.79
Southbound to Westbound Ramp
C
0.70
A
0.25
Westbound On Ramp Prior to Merge
F
1.08
F
1.04
Notes:
LOS = Level of service V/C = Volume of vehicles/Capacity of roadway
1. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.
Source: USACE and Port of Oakland 1998.
3
4 As indicated by Table 3.4-1, congestion is problematic on the freeways serving the Port and
5 landfill areas. Portions of Interstate 880, Interstate 580, and Interstate 580 interchanges operate
6 at LOS F in both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.
7 Intersection Operations. Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 summarize LOS criteria for signalized and
8 unsignalized intersections. Intersection operations were evaluated for the A.M. and P.M. peak
9 hours at 14 intersections in the vicinity of retrofit construction activities as well as seven
10 intersections affected by hauling of dredged material.
11 For retrofit construction activities, intersections were identified as the most likelv to be
12 impacted by construction activities based on a field review of the proposed construction areas.
13 The Traffic Technical Study details the methodology used to analyze operations at intersections
14 in the vicinity of retrofit construction (BART et al. 2005h).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-5
3.4 Transportation
Table 3.4-2. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of
Service
f nutrnl /~)/>//7i/
per Vehicle
(seconds)
Description
A
< 10
Free flowing. Most vehicles do not have to stop.
B
>10 to 20
Minimal delays. Some vehicles have to stop, although waits are not
bothersome.
C
>20 to 35
Acceptable delays. Substantial number of vehicles have to stop because of
steady, high traffic volume. Still, many pass without stopping.
D
>35 to 55
Tolerable delays. Many vehicles have to stop. Drivers are aware of heavier
traffic. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues
begin to form, often on more than one approach.
E
>55 to 80
Substantial delays. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light.
Long queues form, sometimes on several approaches.
F
>80
Excessive delays. Intersection is jammed. Many cars have to wait through
more than one red light, or more than 60 seconds. Traffic may back up into
"up-stream" intersections.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, Washington, D.C., 2000, Exhibit 16-2.
1 Table 3.4-3. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Service
Average Control Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
A
OtolO
B
>10 to 15
C
>15 to 25
D
>25 to 35
E
>35 to 50
F
>50
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Exhibits 17-2 and 17-22.
2 Existing levels of service were calculated for each intersection affected by retrofit construction
3 and are provided in Table 3.4-4. The intersection of Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street
4 operates at LOS D during the A.M. peak hour due to the high right-turn volume from
5 southbound Claremont Avenue to the State Route 24 on-ramp. All of the other intersections
6 operate at LOS C or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours in terms of average delays
7 for all vehicles. Although average delays for all drivers is consistent with LOS A, drivers at the
8 stop sign at 53 rd Street at Shattuck Avenue experience delays consistent with LOS D in the A.M.
9 peak hour and LOS F in the P.M. peak hour.
3.4-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 Table 3.4-4. Existing Operations at Intersections
2 Potentially Affected by Retrofit Construction
Intersection
Control
a.m. Peak Hour
p.m. Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
1 . Broadway /Patton St. & Miles Ave.
All-Way
Pi
btop
C
15.6
B
10.6
2. College Ave. & Keith Ave.
Signal
23.3
27.7
O 11 A \/f*l A-
3. College Ave. & Miles Ave.
bignal
B
15.2
B
12.4
4. Claremont Ave. & Hudson St.
Signal
D
42.7
B
13.6
5. Telegraph Ave. & 56 th St. /State
Route 24 EB On-ramp
Signal
B
10.9
B
18.3
6. Shattuck Ave. & 53 rd St.
1-Way Stop
A / 1 — \ 1
A/D 1
0.4/30. 2 1
A/F 1
4.0/>l00
r-r T"> 1 P" 1 i O ri], f t
7. Brush St. & 5 th St.
Signal
B
13.1
B
12.5
8. Market St. & 5 th St.
Signal
B
10.4
B
10.9
9. Adeline St. & 5 th St.
Signal
C
24.9
C
24.7
10. Union St./Interstate 880 Ramps &
5 th St.
Signal
B
17.1
B
18.9
II. Chester St. & 7 th St.
2- Way Stop
A/C !
2.9/15.6 1
A/B 1
2.1/14.3
12. Peralta St. & 7 th St.
Signal
A
9.7
A
9.8
13. Wood St. & 7 th St.
Signal
B
18.2
B
17.9
14. Maritime Street & 7 th St.
Signal
C
22.2
C
27.7
Notes:
LOS = Level of service Delay = Delay in seconds EB = Eastbound
1. For signal and all-way stop control, the LOS and delay are the average for all vehicles at the intersection. For 1- or 2-way stop
control, there are two measures of LOS and delay: (a) the LOS and delay average for all vehicles passing through the
intersection, and (b) the turning movement with the greatest LOS and delay.
Source: Dowling Associates 2002.
3 A review of intersection operations was undertaken for the six intersections potentially affected
4 by dredged material hauling (see Table 3.4-5). The intersection of Southfront Road and
5 Interstate 580 eastbound Ramp operates at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour due to the high
6 volume of right-turning vehicles at that approach. During this peak period, delays arc very
high for the westbound right-turning traffic, but all other movements at the intersection operate
8 at LOS A (USACE and Port of Oakland 1998). The Vasco Road and Northfront Road
9 intersection operates at LOS E (below standard) during the P.M. peak hour. All of the other
10 intersections potentially affected by dredged material hauling operate at LOS C or better during
11 both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (USACE and Port of Oakland 1998).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-7
3.4 Transportation
1 Table 3.4-5. Existing Operations at Intersections
2 Potentially Affected by Dredged Material Hauling
Intersection
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
7th Street and Interstate 880 SB On Ramo 1
» 111 U I til I V» 11 I L v I J IU IV. \J \J V_y 11 IxCllll ys
A
2.8
B
6.6
7th Street & Interstate 880 NB Off Ramo 1
C
16.4
C
16.8
Southfront Road & Interstate 580 EB Ramps
A
4.8
F
High
Southfront Road & Greenville Road
B
13.8
B
12.6
Altamont Pass Road/Greenville Road & Landfill
access 2
B
5.3
B
6.5
Northfront Road & Interstate 580 WB Ramps 2
B
5.9
B
8.2
Vasco Road & Northfront Road
C
15.7
E
48.7
Notes:
LOS = Level of service Delay = Delay in seconds
EB=Eastbound NB=Northbound SB=Southbourtd VVB=Westbound
1. Level of service at this intersection has been estimated based on traffic conditions prior to completion of Interstate 880.
2. Delay expressed is largest average delay of all turning movements.
Source: USACE and Port of Oakland 1998.
3 The existing mid-block operations of selected street segments were evaluated by comparing the
4 highest directional peak-hour traffic count to the street segment volume thresholds (Table 3.4-
5 6). The traffic volumes on Telegraph Avenue and Shattuck Avenue beneath the BART aerial
6 structure are consistent with LOS D operations. All other segments have traffic volumes that
7 are consistent with LOS C or better operations.
8 Table 3.4-6. Operations at MTS Street Segments
9 Potentially Affected by Retrofit Construction
Location
No. 1
Street
Peak Hour
Highest
Peak Hour
Volume
Number of
Lanes
Level of
Service
5
College Avenue
5:00-6:00 P.M.
519
1
C
7
Claremont Avenue NB
5:00-6:00 P.M.
1,067
2
C
7
Claremont Avenue SB
5:00-6:00 P.M.
197
2
A
8
Telegraph Avenue NB
5:00-6:00 P.M.
1,314
2
D
8
Telegraph Avenue SB
5:00-6:00 P.M.
1,481
2
D
10
Shattuck Avenue
5:00-6:00 P.M.
780
1
D
11
52" J Street
4:00-5:00 P.M.
440
2
A
16
MacArthur Boulevard
5:00-6:00 P.M.
824
3
B
20
Martin Luther King Jr. Way
5:00-6:00 P.M.
506
1
C
23
5 th Street W. of Market
8:00-9:00 A.M.
601
2
C
24
5"' Street E. of Adeline
5:00-6:00 P.M.
1,036
2
C
31
7"' Street
5:00-6:00 P.M.
573
2
B
36
Maritime Street
4:00-5:00 P.M.
340
2
A
Notes:
NB = Northbound SB = Southbound
1. These location numbers are shown on Figure 3.4-1.
Sonne: Dowling Associates 2002.
3.4-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 Existing Parking
2 There are both on-street and off-street parking areas adjacent to the BART alignment within the
3 project area.
4 On-Street Parking. Most of the streets that cross the BART ahgnment within the project area
5 have on-street parallel curb parking on both sides of the street. The following streets do not
6 have parking on either side of the street at the BART ahgnment (location numbers below are
7 shown on Figure 3.4-1):
8 • Location 1: ChabotRoad;
9 • Location 2: Golden Gate Avenue;
10 • Location 3: Patton Street;
11 • Location 5: College Avenue, which has bus and taxi loading areas along the curbs;
12 • Location 19: Northgate Avenue;
13 • Location 25: Adeline Street;
14 • Location 26: 5th Street; and
15 • Location 36: Maritime Street.
16 Fortieth Street (Location 15) has on-street parking on the north curb only.
17 The on-street parking spaces appear to be most fully utilized in areas closest to the BART
18 stations. Near the Rockridge Station, these locations include Presley Way (Location 4), Forest
19 Street (Location 6), Hudson Street (Location 7), and Claremont Avenue (Location 7). Near the
20 Mac Arthur Station, parking spaces were almost fully utilized on 40 th Street (Location 15). Near
21 the West Oakland Station, parking spaces are used on Mandela Parkway (Location 28), Chester
22 Street (Location 29), Henry Street (Location 30), and 7 th Street (Location 31).
23 Station Areas. Seismic retrofit construction activity at the Rockridge and West Oakland Stations
24 would temporarily close some parking spaces at station lots and increase demand for on-street
25 parking. Detailed parking surveys were conducted on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, to determine
26 the total numbers of parking spaces within Vi mile of each station. The surveys also inventoried
27 parking restrictions and mid-day parking occupancies on each individual block.
28 Rockridge Station. There are approximately 6,050 on-street parking spaces within Vi mile of the
29 Rockridge Station. There is short-term metered parking on College Avenue and on several side
30 streets intersecting College Avenue. Neighborhood permit parking, generally with a 2-hour
31 limit, is in effect on most residential streets within Va mile of Rockridge Station. There are 4-
32 hour parking limits beyond that range. About 5,170 of the 6,050 parking spaces in the project
33 area are not controlled by permit or time-limit restrictions. Street cleaning occurs twice a month
34 on each side of the street (4 days a month) from 12:30 P.M. to 3:30 P.M. (during the 1 ; and 3 01
35 2 nd and 4 th weeks of each month; sweeping days vary by specific block). On street cleaning
36 days, it is expected that half of the uncontrolled spaces (about 2,590) would be unavailable.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-9
3.4 Transportation
1 Parking counts were conducted on a day with no street cleaning to determine the base level of
2 demand for parking in the area. This parking demand for non-permit parking was found to
3 peak in the afternoon around 3:00 P.M. at 3,340 stalls, or about 65 percent occupancy of the 5,170
4 total uncontrolled spaces. However, the peak demand exceeds the supply that would be
5 available on 4 days per month during street cleaning.
6 West Oakland Station. In the vicinity of the West Oakland Station, there are approximately 4,630
7 on-street parking spaces within Vi mile of the station. There is some neighborhood permit
8 parking in the vicinity of the West Oakland Station. About 4,040 of the 4,630 spaces are not
9 controlled by permit or time-limit restrictions. On street cleaning days (4 days per month), it is
10 expected that half of these stalls (2,020) would be unavailable. On the survey day, with no
1 1 street cleaning, parking demand for non-permit parking was found to peak around 12:00 noon
12 at 2,120 stalls.
13 Off-Street Parking. Seismic retrofit construction work would also occur within two BART
14 station parking lots.
15 Rockridge Station. The Rockridge Station has 911 parking spaces for automobiles (including
16 some designated for disabled persons) and 12 motorcycle parking spaces. A parking validation
17 system is in effect where BART passengers must validate their numbered parking space from
18 within the paid fare gate area. There are no additional parking lots available for commuter
19 parking adjacent to the BART parking lot. Bicycle parking is provided by 56 lockers and 133
20 rack spaces.
21 West Oakland Station. The West Oakland Station has 469 parking spaces for automobiles
22 (including some designated for disabled persons) and 24 motorcycle parking spaces. There are
23 several private parking lots near the West Oakland Station that charge a fee for commuter
24 parking. Bicycle parking is provided by 8 lockers and 91 rack spaces.
25 Existing Transit
26 Regional and local rail transit service is provided by BART. Local bus transit service in the
27 project area is provided by Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit).
28 BART. The BART system is comprised of 104 miles of track, connecting communities in Contra
29 Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties with 43 stations. The system is a
30 combination of aerial, subway, and surface track, separated from general vehicular traffic.
31 BART operates from 4 A.M. to midnight on weekdays, 6 A.M. to midnight on Saturdays, and 8
32 A.M. to midnight on Sundays.
33 AC Transit. Several AC Transit routes use streets and bus stops in the project area. The details
34 of these transit routes are summarized in the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
35 Existing Bikeways
36 Caltrans has defined three different bikeway types. A Class I bikeway is essentially a bike path
37 completely separate from other traffic. A Class II bikeway is a bike lane, generally a striped
38 lane denoted by signs, that allows one-way bike travel on the edge of a street or highway. A
3.4-10
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 Class III bikeway or bike route is a shared facility between bikes, vehicles, and pedestrians. A
2 Class III bike route connecting the Rockridge area with the Oakland Hills is designated on
3 College Avenue north of the Rockridge Station (Location 5), continuing on Chabot Road, and
4 crossing under the BART alignment at Golden Gate Avenue (Location 2). A Class III bike route
5 connecting downtown Oakland with Berkeley is designated on Shafter Avenue and Colby
6 Street, using Forest Avenue (Location 6) to cross under the BART alignment. A Class II bike
route has been established on both sides of Telegraph Avenue north of State Route 24. A Class I
8 bike route has been constructed along the south side and parallel to 7 th Street west of Maritime
9 Street to provide access to the Middle Harbor Shoreline Park.
10 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
11 Most of the streets in the project area have sidewalks on both sides of the street, with the
12 following exceptions:
13 • Location 1: Chabot Road, unpaved shoulder on both sides; and
14 • Location 12: Martin Luther King Jr. Way off-ramp, no pedestrians permitted.
15 Field surveys of pedestrian activity were conducted at each retrofit location in April 2002. Only
16 a small number of pedestrians were observed at many of the locations, however pedestrian
17 activity was observed at the following locations:
18 • Location 3: Patton Street, associated with Chabot Elementary School;
19 • Location 5: College Avenue, associated with Rockridge Station, business district, and
20 Claremont Middle School;
21 • Location 7: Hudson Street and Claremont Avenue, associated with Hardy Park, casual
22 carpool staging areal (a.m. peak period only), and AC Transit transbay bus stops (p.m.
23 peak period only);
24 • Location 8: Telegraph Avenue;
25 • Location 15: 40th Street, primarily the south curb, associated with MacArthur Station
26 and bus stops; and
27 • Location 29: Chester Street, associated with West Oakland Station.
28 Construction activity would also occur at the San Francisco Transition Structure on the Ferrj
29 Plaza Platform. The transition structure is beyond the primary pedestrian portion of the Fen \
30 Plaza Platform used by ferry passengers. The platform adjacent to the transition structure is.
31 however, used by pedestrians viewing San Francisco Bay.
1 "Casual car pools" are informal car pools that form when drivers and passengers meet at designated locations Genera 11)
people wanting to cross the Bay Bridge congregate in an informally designated area, and are picked up by driv ers crossing
the bridge and then are dropped off in designated areas in San Francisco (generally Fremont and Mission Streets) Both
driver and passenger benefit because in the morning car pools are able to bypass the long delays at the Bay Bridge toll pla/a
In the evenings carpools can take advantage of the car pool-only on-ramp to the Bridge, and car pool lanes on Interstate St 1
and Interstate 880. Casual car pools are considered convenient because no pre-arrangement or fixed schedule is necessax]
There are a number of East Bay pickup locations, such as Hudson Street.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-11
3.4 Transportation
1 3.4.1.2 Proposed Action
2 3.4.1.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
3 The following criteria were used to evaluate project impacts to traffic and ground
4 transportation.
5 Factors for Evaluating Freeway and Street Segment Impacts. The project would impact
6 transportation on freeway and street segments if it caused the level of service on a freeway or
7 street segment in the MTS to degrade to LOS F. This measure is also used by the Alameda
8 County Congestion Management Agency.
9 Factors for Evaluating Intersection Impacts. The project would impact intersections if:
10 • For intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS D or better, cause intersection
1 1 operations to degrade to worse than LOS D;
12 • For intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS E, cause an increase in the
13 average critical movement delay by 6 seconds or more or cause the LOS to deteriorate to
14 LOS F; or
15 • For intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS F; cause an increase in the
16 average critical movement delay by 4 seconds or more.
17 Factors for Evaluating Parking Impacts. The project would impact parking if it greatly
18 reduced parking supply more than it reduced parking demand.
19 Factors for Evaluating Transit Impacts. The project would impact transit if it increased transit
20 demand to the point where it could not be accommodated by existing or planned transit
2 1 capacity.
22 Factors for Evaluating Bicycle Impacts. The project would impact bicyclists if it created
23 particularly hazardous conditions for bicyclists or eliminated bicycle access to adjoining areas.
24 Factors for Evaluating Pedestrian Impacts. The project would impact pedestrians if it resulted
25 in overcrowding on public sidewalks, created hazardous conditions for pedestrians, or
26 eliminated pedestrian access to adjoining areas.
27 Factors for Evaluating Temporary Construction Impacts. Unless otherwise noted, the factors
28 used to evaluate permanent project impacts also apply to the construction period. The project
29 would impact vehicle traffic, including truck traffic, transit service, or bicycle or pedestrian
30 travel during the construction period if it created hazards for any of those travel modes, caused
3 1 considerable delays, or eliminated access to adjoining areas.
32 3.4.1.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
33 The primary impact on ground transportation during retrofit construction relates to the
34 temporary closures of sidewalks, parking areas, and traffic lanes. The analysis of closures
35 presented in this report is based on 21 BART Seismic Retrofit Strategy Reports, prepared
36 between August 2, 2001, and February 15, 2002 (Bechtel/HNTB Team 2001a-r; BART 2002e-g),
3.4-12
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 and field review. It is expected that proposed lane/ sidewalk closures would be modified as the
2 design team refines the construction plans and traffic strategies. For the purposes of this
3 analysis, reasonable worst-case temporary closure impacts on project area streets are assumed.
4 Freeway Segment Operations. No impacts on freeway operations are expected from seismic
5 retrofit construction. Traffic generated by transport of construction workers or equipment to
6 and from retrofit construction sites would use regional freeways, but would not add significant
7 traffic volumes to any individual freeway segment during typical commute peak periods. See
8 also section 3.4.1.2.3 for impacts on freeway segment operations resulting from dredged
9 material hauling.
10 Intersection Operations. Impacts on intersection operations resulting from dredged material
11 hauling are discussed in section 3.4.1.2.3. Traffic generated by transport of construction
12 workers or equipment to and from retrofit construction sites would use local streets and
13 intersections, but would not add significant traffic volumes to any individual critical turn
14 movements at intersections in Oakland or San Francisco during typical commute peak periods.
15 However, the maximum potential lane closures related to retrofit construction would increase
16 delay at several locations, and would cause two intersections that would otherwise operate at
17 LOS D or better to operate at peak hour LOS E or F:
18 1. College Avenue and Keith Avenue - P.M. peak hour only; and
19 2. Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street - both A.M. and P.M. peak hours.
20 Impacts to these two intersections will be avoided, however, because the construction
21 contractor will be required to prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic
22 management plan (TMP) that specifically addresses accommodations for local street traffic at
23 these locations throughout the duration of retrofit activities. TMP components will include
24 configuring construction staging areas to accommodate a 100-foot southbound turn lane or
25 control northbound signalization and temporarily remove parking (approximately 4 spaces) on
26 College Avenue and designing construction staging areas to accommodate two northbound
27 lanes on Claremont Avenue. For additional details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al.
28 2005h).
29 Street Segment Operations. Traffic generated by transport of construction workers or
30 equipment to and from retrofit construction sites would use local streets, but would not add
31 significant traffic volumes on any individual street segments in Oakland or San Francisco
32 during typical commute peak periods. However, street segment operations will be affected by
33 retrofit construction. Many of the lane closures associated with retrofit construction would
34 occur in mid-block locations away from street intersections. These closures may not affect the
35 operations of the intersections, but could require drivers to merge from two or more lanes into
36 fewer lanes.
37 Peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the level of service thresholds established tor street
38 segments. The evaluation compares the existing number of lanes and assumes single lane
39 operation in each direction on each street segment. This is a worst-case assumption; it
40 expected that lane closures will not be as extensive as assumed. It is expected that the extent of
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-13
3.4 Transportation!
1 proposed lane closures will be modified as the design team refines the construction plans and
2 traffic strategies.
3 If through-traffic is limited to a single lane during project construction, traffic volumes would
4 exceed the LOS F threshold criteria on one MTS street segment, Telegraph Avenue (Location 8,
5 southbound). Impacts to this street segment will be avoided, however, because the construction
6 contractor will be required to prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and TMP that
7 specifically addresses accommodations for local street traffic at this location throughout the
8 duration of retrofit activities. TMP components will include configuring construction staging
9 areas to accommodate two through-southbound lanes on Telegraph Avenue. For additional
10 details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
11 Truck Operations. Truck operations would be affected by retrofit construction. During the
12 retrofit construction period, the project would temporarily increase traffic hazards by closing
13 lanes and creating design features that do not comply with Caltrans design standards for truck
14 movements. Adeline Street (Location 25) and Maritime Street (Location 36) are primary access
15 routes to the Port of Oakland. Temporary lane closures at the intersections of Adeline Street
16 with 5 th Street and Maritime Street with 7 th Street would result in turn radii that are not
17 adequate for trailer trucks, and would increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles.
18 Impacts to truck operations will be avoided, however, because the construction contractor will
19 be required to prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and TMP that specifically
20 addresses accommodations for truck traffic at these locations throughout the duration of retrofit
21 activities. TMP components will include configuring construction staging areas at the Adeline
22 Street/5 th Street and the Maritime Street/7 th Street intersections to accommodate sufficient
23 turning radii for trailer trucks. For additional details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et
24 al. 2005h).
25 Parking. Parking would be affected by retrofit construction. Construction at the Rockridge and
26 West Oakland Stations would temporarily close some parking spaces within the parking lots,
27 and temporarily eliminate some on-street parking. A detailed construction-phasing plan will be
28 developed, which will determine the total number of parking spaces that would be available at
29 each station at any given time. BART currently proposes to complete the seismic retrofit work
30 at the station parking lots in phases so that a limited number of parking spaces would be
31 impacted at any given time.
32 At the Rockridge Station, Phase 1 of construction (Piers 1 and 2) would impact approximately
33 30 parking spaces. Phase 2 of construction (Piers 3 and 4) would impact six parking spaces for
34 disabled persons that would need to be temporarily relocated. Although it is unknown exactly
35 where these six disabled parking spaces will be relocated, all six disabled parking spaces will
36 remain in Rockridge Station at a nearby, comparable location. Phase 3 of construction (Piers 5
37 to 8) would impact approximately 100 parking spaces, or about 11 percent of the total parking
38 supply. On-street parking on all but 4 days of the month is adequate and could accommodate
39 parking displaced at the Rockridge Station during retrofit. On the days with street cleaning,
40 displacement of parking at the Rockridge Station would impact on-street parking.
41 The construction phasing plan for the West Oakland Station generally proposes seismic retrofit
42 work at two piers during each phase. Approximately 20 to 30 parking spaces would be closed
3.4-14
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 during each phase of construction, or up to 6 percent of the total supply. On-street parking on
2 all but 4 days of the month is adequate and could accommodate parking displaced at the West
3 Oakland Station during retrofit. On the days with street cleaning, displacement of parking at
4 the West Oakland Station would impact on-street parking.
5 Parking would also be affected in locations other than the Rockridge and West Oakland
6 Stations. Curb parking would be temporarily removed during all phases of construction at each
7 location where on-street curb parking exists. The construction easement drawings dated
8 January 9, 2002, indicate a standard construction easement length of 100 feet along each side of
9 a street. This corresponds to the elimination of five parallel parking spaces on each side of the
10 street. Therefore, construction at each of the following locations with on-street parking within a
11 reasonable walking distance of BART stations would be temporarily impacted by the
12 elimination of approximately 10 parking spaces at each location during the construction period:
13 Presley Way (Location 4), Forest Street (Location 6), Hudson Street (Location 7), Claremont
14 Avenue (Location 7), Mandela Parkway (Location 28), Chester Street (Location 29), Henry Street
15 (Location 30), and 7 th Street (Location 31).
16 Impacts to parking will be avoided, however, because the construction contractor will be
17 required to prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and TMP that specifically
18 addresses accommodations for parking at these locations throughout the duration of retrofit
19 activities. TMP components will include coordination with the City of Oakland to temporarily
20 relax parking permit restrictions, reschedule street cleaning operations, and notification of all
21 parking space closures at the Rockridge and West Oakland Stations. For additional details, see
22 the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h). In addition, the following mitigation measures
23 are identified.
24 Mitigation Measures. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will further ensure
25 that parking impacts are avoided throughout the duration of project retrofit activities:
26 • BART shall provide on-site or off-site replacement parking facilities on a one-space for
27 one-space basis for private property where on-site parking supply is reduced below
28 demand by construction. If on-site or off-site replacement parking facilities cannot be
29 identified, BART shall financially compensate the property owners for the use of the on-
30 site parking spaces during the period that construction activities affect on-site parking.
31 • BART shall temporarily relocate the six disabled parking spaces to the best available
32 remaining parking locations at the Rockridge Station during the periods thai
33 construction requires temporary closure of these disabled parking spaces.
34 Transit. The project would not increase transit demand such that demand could not be
35 accommodated by existing or planned transit capacity. However, mere are potential impacts
36 related to transit circulation and access; these are discussed below.
37 Bicycle Circulation. There would be no permanent impacts on bicycle circulation. 1 [owe\ cv.
38 retrofit construction would temporarily create narrowed curb lanes that would be less than the
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-15
3.4 Transportation
1 recommended width by Caltrans 2 and could reduce bicycle safety on several routes used by
2 bicycles. These include the existing Class III bike routes on College Avenue (Location 5) and
3 Forest Avenue (Location 6). Construction of the project may also introduce narrowed curb
4 lanes and temporarily reduce safety in locations that are included in the City of Oakland
5 recommended bikeway network, including Claremont Avenue (Location 7), Telegraph Avenue
6 (Location 8), Shattuck Avenue (Location 10), 52 nd Street (Location 11), 40 th Street (Location 15),
7 Market Street (Location 23), Mandela Parkway (Location 28), and 7 th Street (Location 31).
8 Impacts to bicycle circulation will be avoided, however, because the construction contractor will
9 be required to prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and TMP that specifically
10 addresses accommodations for bicyclists at these locations throughout the duration of retrofit
1 1 activities. TMP components will include posting signs to direct bicyclists through construction
12 areas. For additional details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
13 Pedestrian Circulation. The project would not permanently increase traffic hazards to
14 pedestrians. There would be no permanent impacts on pedestrian circulation.
1 5 However, during retrofit construction, it would be necessary to temporarily close the sidewalk
16 on at least one side of the street in each location shown on Figure 3.4-1, with the exception of
17 Location 1 (Chabot Road) and Location 12 (Martin Luther King Jr. Way off-ramp); these areas
18 do not have sidewalks. If project construction temporarily closes the sidewalk on one side of
19 the street at a time, pedestrians would detour to the sidewalk on the other side of the street.
20 This would cause some inconvenience but would not cause substantial increases in delay for
21 pedestrian movements. If project construction closes the sidewalk on both sides of a street,
22 pedestrians would have to detour to adjacent streets, may lose access to some areas, and may
23 incur significant delays compared to their normal pedestrian routes.
24 Impacts to pedestrian circulation will be avoided, however, because the construction contractor
25 will be required to prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and TMP that
26 specifically addresses accommodations for pedestrians at specific locations with significant
27 amounts of pedestrian traffic throughout the duration of retrofit activities. TMP components
28 will require that sidewalks remain open on at least one side of the street during all construction
29 phases at locations that have significant amounts of pedestrian traffic. For additional details,
30 see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
31 Other Temporary Construction Impacts. Potential temporary impacts of seismic retrofit
32 construction at specific locations are evaluated below.
33 Patton Street (Location 3). During construction adjacent to the northbound lanes on Patton
34 Street, the BART Seismic Retrofit Strategy Reports (Strategy Reports) currently call for two-way
35 operation on the 22-foot wide southbound lane. Two-way operation on the southbound lane of
36 Patton Street may not be feasible due to the minimal width for two-way operation and the
37 difficulty of providing a safe crossing between northbound Patton Street and the off-ramp from
2 The Caltrans I lighway Design Manual refers to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) standards, which recommend a width of 1.5 meters from the curb for a Class II bike lane and a minimum curb
lane width of 4.3 meters for a Class III bikeway so bicycles and general traffic can move side by side with safety.
3.4-16
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 State Route 24. As a result, northbound Patton Street would be impacted if the northbound
2 lanes adjacent to construction are closed, reducing access across State Route 24.
3 Rockridge Station (Location 5). Bus stops on College Avenue are located north and south of
4 the BART tracks, about 22 feet from the nearest BART column. The bus loading areas are
5 located immediately adjacent to the BART columns. The proposed construction plans (BART
6 2002a) would impact these loading areas by closing the entire southbound curb lane during
7 Phase 1 of construction and the entire northbound curb lane during Phase 2 of construction. At
8 a minimum, this would require relocation of the bus stops on the affected curb lane, and
9 possibly the bus stops on the opposite curb due to reduced street width. Taxi loading areas at
10 the Rockridge Station would also need to be temporarily relocated during construction.
11 Relocation of bus and taxi loading areas would cause considerable delay to bus and taxi
12 travelers.
13 Hudson Street Near Claremont Avenue (Location 7). A casual carpool staging area located
14 along Hudson Street, approaching Claremont Avenue, would be impacted by the temporary
15 closure of the curb parking lane during construction that would block off the area currently
16 used by drivers waiting for riders. It would be necessary to temporarily designate an
17 alternative location for queued vehicles. Most nearby alternative locations, such as further east
18 on Hudson Street or on southbound Claremont Avenue, would temporarily remove on-street
19 parking in front of adjacent residents and businesses. Other locations would significantly
20 increase travel time for some carpool users.
21 52nd Street On-Ramp (Location 11). The Strategy Reports propose temporary closure of the
22 on-ramp from 52 nd Street to State Route 24 and Interstate 580. This closure would require traffic
23 to continue west on 52 nd Street and use the on-ramp from southbound Martin Luther King Jr.
24 Way or find alternate routes to the freeway. This on-ramp carries approximately 12,400 daily
25 vehicles. The detour would impact traffic operations as it could temporarily increase the traffic
26 volume on westbound 52 nd Street adjacent to Children's Hospital from 4,500 daily vehicles to
27 16,900 daily vehicles. The detour would also impact traffic operations at the intersection of
28 Martin Luther King Jr. Way and 52 nd Street and may increase travel time for drivers by delays
29 equivalent to LOS F.
30 MacArthur Station (Location 15). Bus stops on 40 th Street at the MacArthur Station are located
31 east of the BART structure. The bus loading area is located immediately adjacent to the BART
32 columns. The proposed detour plans (BART 2002a) would impact these bus stops by closing
33 the entire eastbound curb lane during Phase 1 of construction, and requiring relocation of the
34 bus stops. Taxi loading areas on 40 th Street at the MacArthur Station would also need to be
35 temporarily relocated during construction. Relocation of bus and taxi stops would cause
36 considerable delay to bus and taxi travelers.
37 Temporary impacts to traffic operations from temporary closure of street lanes, and relocation
38 of a casual carpool location, and bus and taxi loading areas will be avoided, however, because
39 the construction contractor will be required to prepare and implement a construction phasing
40 plan and TMP that specifically addresses accommodations for traffic operations at the affected
41 locations throughout the duration of retrofit activities. TMP components will include
42 provisions for a single northbound lane on Patton Street or a detour route during closure oi
43 northbound Patton Street, a temporary detour at 52 nd Street, alternative carpool loading
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-17
3.4 Transportation
1 locations, bus loading areas on College Avenue and eastbound 40 th Street, and temporary taxi
2 loading areas at Rockridge and MacArthur Stations. For additional details, see the Traffic
3 Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
4 3.4.1.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
5 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
6 Dredged material reuse within the project would not affect traffic/ ground transportation.
7 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Options Outside the Project
8 Because dredged material would be transported by barge to any of the in-Bay or upland offsite
9 disposal locations, dredged material reuse /disposal at these sites would not affect
10 traffic /ground transportation.
11 If dredged material is disposed at a landfill site, impacts related to dredged material hauling
12 would occur from the movement of up to 28 trucks per day (each with 12-cy capacity) from the
13 Port of Oakland to either the Altamont or Vasco Road landfills. Dredged material disposal
14 would occur for approximately 22 to 30 months, if trips occurred successively during the
15 dewatering period (rather than spread evenly over the 4 year construction period).
16 Freeway Segment Operations. Hauling of dredged material to the Altamont or Vasco Road
17 Landfills would result in impacts to four freeway segments currently operating at LOS F during
18 the A.M. and P.M. peak hours:
19 1. Interstate 880 South of Interstate 980, northbound in A.M. peak hour, southbound in P.M.
20 peak hour;
21 2. Interstate 880 North of Interstate 238, northbound in A.M. peak hour, southbound in P.M.
22 peak hour;
23 3. Interstate 580 East of Interstate 238, westbound in A.M. peak hour, eastbound in P.M.
24 peak hour; and,
25 4. Interstate 580 Ramps at Vasco Road Interchange, eastbound off ramp in both A.M. and
26 P.M. peak hour, westbound on ramp in both A.M. and P.M. peak hour.
27 Temporary impacts on freeway operations at these four locations will be avoided, however,
28 because the construction contractor will be required to transport dredged material from the Port
29 of Oakland to landfill disposal sites outside of peak hours (6 A.M. to 10 A.M. and 3 P.M. to 7 P.M.).
30 For additional details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
31 Intersection Operations. Hauling of dredged material would add approximately 28 trucks per
32 day to intersections along the proposed haul routes. The addition of these truck trips could
33 result in impacts to one intersection (Southfront Road and Interstate 580 eastbound ramp)
34 currently operating at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour.
35 Temporary impacts on intersection operations at the Southfront Road/ Interstate 580 eastbound
36 ramp intersection will be avoided, however, because the construction contractor will be
37 required to transport dredged material from the Port of Oakland to landfill disposal sites
3.4-18
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 outside of peak hours (6 A.M. to 10 A.M. and 3 P.M. to 7 P.M.). For additional details, see the
2 Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
3 3.4.2 Vessel Transportation
4 3.4.2.1 Existing Setting
5 The existing setting for vessel transportation is summarized below and described in greater
6 detail in the Vessel Transportation Technical Study (BART et al. 2005d).
The project construction area would be located within the San Francisco Bay and Oakland
8 Harbor Regulated Navigation Areas (USCG 1999). The San Francisco Bay and Oakland Harbor
9 Regulated Navigation Areas, and the designated traffic lanes are shown in Figure 3.4-2.
10 The project area does not contain any designated anchorage areas. Anchoring along the
11 Transbay Tube is expressly prohibited (as signified by the purple zone surrounding the
12 Transbay Tube in Figure 3.4-3). Without pre-approval of the USCG, anchoring is also expressly
13 prohibited within the Oakland Outer Harbor Entrance Channel.
14 Port of Oakland and Vicinity
15 The Port of Oakland is one of the major port facilities in the U.S., loading and discharging more
16 than 98 percent of the containerized goods entering and leaving northern California. The port
17 specializes in container ship operations and has facilities such as deepwater berths, container
18 cranes, and connections to rail lines. The Port of Oakland facilities adjacent to the BART
19 Transbay Tube include the former Matson Terminal (now called the Outer Harbor Terminal),
20 the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel, and the Outer Harbor.
21 Former Matson Terminal/ Outer Harbor Terminal. As illustrated in Figure 2-7 (see Chapter 2),
22 the Outer Harbor Terminal includes Berths 32, 33, and 34; a storage yard; and freight station.
23 Berths 32 and 33 serve containerized cargo with large waterfront gantry cranes. Berth 34 lias
24 side ramps to serve roll-on /roll-off cargo, such as cars (Port of Oakland 2002b). During 2002,
25 approximately 116 vessel calls were made at the Outer Harbor Terminal. The Port of Oakland
26 intends to refurbish and upgrade the Outer Harbor Terminal (including Berths 32, 33, and 34); it
27 will be closed for renovation until the end of 2005.
28 Outer Harbor Entrance Channel. As shown in Figure 3.4-3, approximately 2,300 feet of the
29 Transbay Tube underlie the Oakland Outer Harbor Entrance Channel. The Oakland Outer
30 Harbor Entrance Channel allows deep draft vessels, such as container ships, to access 16 berths
31 within the Outer Harbor of the Port of Oakland. The channel is approximately 800 feet wide
32 and is maintained to a depth of 42 feet. Plans are in progress to further deepen the channel to a
33 depth of 50 feet to better accommodate modern deep-draft container vessels, limit delays due to
34 tides, and reduce the risk of vessels running aground.
35 Based on the number of annual ship calls to the Outer Harbor in 2002, it is estimated that
36 approximately 42 cargo ship transits occurred in the Bay over the Oakland end of the Transba)
37 Tube in a given week.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-19
3.4-20
Figure 3.4-3. Features of San Francisco Bay
in the Project Construction Area
Figure 3.4-3. Features of San Francisco Bay
in the Project Construction Area
3.4 Transportation
1 During 2002, 1,095 ships called on berths within the Port of Oakland Outer Harbor.
2 Outer Harbor. As shown in Figure 3.4-4, the Port of Oakland Outer Harbor includes Berths 7
3 through 37 (this includes all terminals served by the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel, including
4 the 7 th Street Terminals). Ships enter the Outer Harbor via the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel
5 (see Figure 3.4-4). There is a turning basin for ships in the Outer Harbor along the face of Berths
6 25 to 30. According to the Port of Oakland, all ships accessing any Outer Harbor terminal must
use this turning basin. The Outer Harbor has some unique terminals, terminals that provide
8 services that are not available anywhere else at the Port of Oakland. For example, Berth 10 is
9 the only sediment handling facility at the Port. Berth 10 is used to process sediments from
10 dredged operations in the Bay. The Outer Harbor also includes the only breakbulk 3 facilities at
11 the Port and the only roll-on/roll-off cargo (cars and other vehicles) handling facilities (Port of
12 Oakland 2002b). According to the Port of Oakland, the steamship lines that utilize the Outer
13 Harbor typically only make calls at Outer Harbor terminals and not at terminals in the Middle
14 or Inner Harbors of the Port.
15 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
16 The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is the eighth longest bridge in the world (NO A A
17 Fisheries 2002b). As illustrated in Figure 3.4-3, the bridge originates at Rincon Point in San
18 Francisco, crosses Yerba Buena Island, and terminates in Oakland. The bridge has a total of 14
19 supports, labeled west to east with the phonetic alphabet. 4 Near the Transbay Tube there are six
20 bridge supports, with four bridge spans through which vessels can pass. The Transbay Tube
21 passes under the Delta-Echo bridge span (NOAA Fisheries 2002b).
22 San Francisco Ferry Building and Vicinity
23 The San Francisco Ferry Building is located in downtown San Francisco on the far eastern edge
24 of the city on the western edge of the Bay. As shown in Figure 3.4-5, the Ferry Building has
25 three platforms (the North Terminal, Ferry Plaza, and South Terminal) providing six berths.
26 The North Terminal is used by the Tiburon and Vallejo ferries, the Ferry Plaza is used by the
27 Larkspur and Sausalito ferries, and the South Terminal serves ferries going to and from the East
28 Bay/Alameda. Three ferry companies, with various routes, operate from the Ferry Building:
29 Blue and Gold Ferry; Golden Gate Ferry; and Harbor Bay Ferry. Service is provided by two
30 types of vessels: monohulls and catamarans.
31 3.4.2.2 Proposed Action
32 3.4.2.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
33 The following criteria were used to evaluate impacts to vessel transportation.
34 Would the project (construction barges, moorings, or other components):
3 Breakbulk facilities are facilities that handle loose, noncontaineri/ed products. Examples include steel slabs and coils
4 The phonetic alphabet is used in place of letters in radio transmissions so as to clearly define w hich letter is being used
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-23
3.4 Transportation
1 • Violate regulations for a Regulated Navigation Area established by the USCG;
2 • Interfere with operation of designated traffic lanes or fairways (navigable channels);
3 • Interfere with passage underneath bridges or other confined air draft areas;
4 • Substantially increase conflicts between vessels in the Bay; or
5 • Preclude the use of vessel infrastructure.
6 3.4.2.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
7 Violate Regulations of a Regulated Navigation Area. If the vibro-replacement method is used
8 to retrofit the Transbay Tube, it could violate regulations by anchoring vibro-replacement
9 equipment barges in the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel and San Francisco Bay, outside the
10 anchorage areas designated by the USCG.
11 Mitigation Measures. Impacts to vessel transportation related to anchoring will be prevented by
12 implementing the following mitigation measure:
13 • Prior to activities that require anchoring vessels in the Bay, BART and/or its contractor
14 shall acquire an Anchorage Waiver Permit. An Anchorage Waiver permit, issued by the
15 USCG, typically requires notifying the Captain of the Port 11 th USCG District in writing
16 of expected activities; providing official and ongoing notice to mariners during
17 construction; developing a mooring plan; and marking equipment and any debris for
18 visibility. Compliance with Anchorage Waiver permit requirements would prevent the
19 project from violating regulations for the Oakland Harbor and San Francisco Bay
20 Regulated Navigation Areas.
21 Interfere with Operation of Designated Vessel Traffic Lanes. If the vibro-replacement method
22 is used, vibro-replacement construction barges could interfere with operation of the Outer
23 Harbor Entrance Channel (Figure 3.4-6). As shown in Figure 3.4-6, the presence of construction
24 barges in the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel could prevent access to the Outer Harbor,
25 essentially precluding the use of this area of the Port. The presence of construction barges was
26 identified as an impact by both the USCG and Port of Oakland.
27 Mitigation Measures. Impacts on vessel operations at the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel will be
28 prevented by implementing either of the following mitigation measures:
29 • Alter the method by which vibro-replacement is conducted to create a smaller
30 construction arrangement to leave space for vessel passage in the Outer Harbor Entrance
31 Channel where feasible. BART shall consult with the Port of Oakland to determine the
32 amount of space that must be left open for vessel passage.
33 • In those areas where it is not possible to perform vibro-replacement and leave adequate
34 open space in the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel for vessel passage, BART shall instead
35 utilize micropile anchorage. Micropile anchorage is feasible throughout the Transbay
36 Tube, with the exception of approximately 200 feet underlying a sump pump 5 complex
is meant to remove any water that should enter the Tube.
3.4-24
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Figure 3.4-4. The Outer Harbor at the Port of Oakland
Figure 3.4-5. Ferry Routes Departing the San Francisco Ferry Building
3.4-2 l >
3.4 Transportation
1 that is immediately offshore of Berth 34. Micropile anchorage would not require any
2 construction within the waters of the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel.
3 Under this mitigation measure neither vibro-replacement nor micropile anchorage would be
4 performed on that portion of the Transbay Tube immediately offshore of Berth 34 (approximately
5 200 feet). As part of the BART Seismic Vulnerability Study (BART 2002a), various liquefaction
6 scenarios that could potentially occur at portions of the Transbay Tube were analyzed.
7 Under the worst-case scenario, uplift forces capable of significantly affecting the Tube did not
8 occur when the liquefaction distance spanned less than 320 continuous feet. Thus, the proposal
9 to forego retrofit of the Tube for 200 feet, a distance less than the minimum 320 feet required to
10 result in uplift, would not subject the Tube to damage during a seismic event. In addition, since
11 each section of the Tube is 330 feet long, a portion of the Tube section in question would still
12 undergo retrofit, further decreasing the potential for damage to the Tube.
13 Interfere with. Passage Underneath the Bay Bridge. As vibro-replacement moves along the
14 Transbay Tube, the construction barges could be present within 1,000 feet of both the Charlie-
15 Delta and Delta-Echo spans (Figure 3.4-3) for 4 to 5 months. Construction is expected to
16 interfere with only one span at any given time, leaving at least three spans west of Yerba Buena
17 Island open for vessel passage. Discussions with the San Francisco Bar Pilots found no
18 particular preference for specific bridge spans. So, while the project would involve construction
19 underneath the Bay Bridge, the project is not expected to disrupt or impact vessel passage
20 underneath the bridge.
21 Substantially Increase Conflicts betiueen Vessels in the Bay. Construction work in the Outer Harbor
22 Entrance Channel could bring construction barges into close proximity to vessels entering and
23 exiting the Port of Oakland Outer Harbor. Applicable mitigation measures for this impact are
24 described above, under Interfere with Operation of Designated Vessel Traffic Lanes. Dredging in the
25 proximity of the San Francisco Ferry Building could also bring construction barges into close
26 proximity to vessels entering and exiting the ferry terminal. This potential impact and
27 applicable mitigation measures are described in section 3.4.2.2.3, below.
28 Preclude the Use of Vessel Infrastructure at Port of Oakland
29 Water-based retrofit activities. Vibro-replacement offshore Berth 34 could preclude use of this
30 berth for approximately 1 month, in addition to the impacts to the Outer Harbor Entrance
31 Channel (discussed above).
32 Land-based retrofit activities. Vibro-replacement activities on land within the Port of Oakland
33 would disrupt approximately 300 feet along the BART right-of-way at any given time. This
34 would mean cargo could not be feasibly moved across a strip of land approximately 300 feet
35 long, between the berth and terminal yard. Because there is approximately 1,700 feet of land
36 fronting Berths 32, 33, and 34, a strip of land approximately 1,400 feet would still be available to
37 move goods from Berths 32, 33, and 34 to the Outer Harbor Terminal. Figure 2-7 illustrates the
38 configuration of Berths 32, 33, 34, the BART right-of-way, potential construction area, container
39 storage areas, the freight station, and terminal gates. Figure 2-7 demonstrates the need to
40 maintain sufficient space to facilitate cargo movement between the berths and yard areas of the
41 terminal. The Port of Oakland estimates that a strip of land or "driveway" of approximately
3.4-30
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 120 feet is needed to move containers from berths to the terminal area. Thus, while on land,
2 vibro-replacement and stitching would disrupt storage of containers and queuing of trucks
3 along the construction area boundaries; retrofit activities would not eliminate primary berth
4 operations.
5 Mitigation Measures. Impacts on operations at the Outer Harbor Terminal of the Port of Oakland
6 will be prevented by implementing either of the following mitigation measures:
• Schedule vibro-replacement to occur during a time when no container ships are
8 scheduled to arrive at Berth 34. In 2002, only two ships called on Berth 34. Further, the
9 Outer Harbor Terminal, including its berths (32, 33, and 34), will be undergoing
10 refurbishing and will not be used from 2003 to 2005; retrofit activities during this period
11 would avoid any potential conflicts with ships calling at Berth 34.
12 • Do not perform vibro-replacement in the area immediately offshore Berth 34 (see also
13 mitigation measures proposed above for the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel). Not
14 performing vibro-replacement at this Berth would allow it to remain operable
15 throughout retrofit activities. As discussed earlier, it is possible to substitute micropile
16 anchorage in place of vibro-replacement along most of the tube, with the exception of
17 200 feet of the Transbay Tube immediately offshore of Berth 34. However, based on
18 seismic vulnerability studies, it would be possible to forgo retrofit along small segments
19 (less than 300 feet) of the Tube without subjecting the Tube to uplift large enough to
20 damage the Tube during a seismic event.
21 Preclude the Use of Vessel Infrastructure at San Francisco Ferry Building. Construction work
22 would preclude the use of some of the vessel infrastructure at the Ferry Building. The northern
23 berth of the South Terminal could be closed due to construction for up to 1 year (under
24 Construction Methods l 6 or 2 7 ). Golden Gate Berth 2 would be unavailable for at least 3 months
25 (Construction Method 2) or as much as 1 year (Construction Method 1). This impact would
26 disrupt ferry service for approximately 5,500 daily ferry passengers.
27 Mitigation Measures. Impacts to vessel transportation at the San Francisco Ferry Building,
28 related to Construction Method 1 and Construction Method 2 will be prevented with
29 implementation of the measures described in Table 3.4-7.
30 3.4.2.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
31 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
32 Stitching and associated dredging and dredged material reuse could result in up to nine barges and
33 two tugboats in the vicinity of the Ferry Building. Further, construction barges with dredged
6 Construction Method 1 proposes using a marine-based construction to retrofit the San Franc isco Transition Sinn lure I ndci
Construction Method 1, a construction barge and supply barge would be stationed on the waterside ol the Fern Pla a
platform. Part of the platform that currently supports pedestrian viewing and ferry terminal activities would be temporarily
removed in the areas of the new pile array to allow access by the construction barge.
~ Construction Method 2 proposes using a crane placed on top of the existing Ferry Tla/.i platform to retrofit the San 1 randsco
Transition Structure. Under Construction Method 2, a supply barge would be positioned on the south side of the platform
Compared to Construction Method 1, this would reduce the amount of platform removal necessary during construction and
would reduce disruption to nearby ferry operators.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-31
3.4 Trci7isportation
Table 3.4-7. Mitigation Measures to Limit Vessel Transportation Impacts
under Construction Methods 1 and 2
Mitigation Measure
Applicable to
Construction
Method 1
(Duration)
Applicable to
Construction
Method 2
(Duration)
Adjust schedules of East Bay ferries (Oakland-Alameda and Alameda-Harbor
Bay) to accommodate all East Bay ferries on the southern berth of the South
Terminal (Figure 3.4-5). If ferry companies maintain schedules similar to
current arrangements, it should be possible to accommodate all East Bay ferries
at the southern berth with only minor timetable adjustments (changes in arrival
or departures of no more than 15 to 20 minutes). Based on meetings with
representatives from Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry and the Port of San Francisco,
this mitigation measure would allow East Bay ferries to accommodate a similar
passenger load with the same frequency from the same geographic area with
minimal disruption to passengers.
Yes (1 year)
Yes (2 weeks)
Make arrangements for access to the Pacific Bell Park ferry berth or the Pier 27
ferry berth. Either the Pacific Bell Park ferry berth or the Pier 27 ferry berth
would be suitable monohull ship berths in the vicinity of the Ferry Building that
could be used by East Bay monohull ferries in the event that an East Bay
catamaran goes out of service or that could be used for maintenance of Golden
Gate monohull ferries (personal communication, N. Dempsey 2003). Either the
Pacific Bell Park ferry berth or the Pier 27 ferry berth should be available for the
period during which Golden Gate Berth 2 is inoperable. Based on meetings
\A/ifh rpiiroconf t tr./wc Ftt^tvi A 3mdn3 l\ — 1 3 rnnr R;aw Fpi*i*w ann Frio T-^nt"F c\t Nan
Willi I cL>l trr>fcrl Ucl LI v fcrri llwlll /AlclIIieda/ mdlUUI LJcly rtrll V dllU llltr 1 U[ I Ul Dcill
Francisco, this mitigation measure would allow East Bay and Golden Gate
ferries to continue operations in the event of unscheduled maintenance.
Yes (1 year)
No
Adjust schedules of Golden Gate ferries so that all monohull vessels can use
Golden Gate Berth 1 while Golden Gate Berth 2 would be inoperable. If ferry
companies maintain schedules similar to current arrangements, it should be
possible to accommodate all Golden Gate monohull ferries and some
catamarans at Golden Gate Berth 1 with only minor timetable adjustments
( rh/i n p - p t ; in ^irriv^l or Hpn^i rfi i rps n f no morp th^n 1 S to 90 mini i fpO
^^.llCllll^C^ 111 ul A 1 V CI J Wl UCpCI 1 1 LUC^i Ul 1 l\J lllwlvZ LA 1 CI 1 L 1 ±J IU IIIllllllV^J.
Yes (1 year)
Yes (3 months)
Build a new float at Pier Vi (Figure 3.4-5) so that it can serve Golden Gate
catamaran ferries displaced at Golden Gate Berths 1 and 2 as well as serve as a
repair area for any East Bay or Golden Gate catamarans in need of servicing.
This mitigation measure, in addition to the mitigation measures described
above, would allow Golden Gate ferries to accommodate a similar passenger
load with the same frequency from the same geographic area with minimal
disruption to passengers. This mitigation measure would also allow any
necessary maintenance of East Bay and Golden Gate catamarans. 8
Yes (1 year)
Yes (3 months)
Alter supply barge operations so that the supply barge would only be present at
night or outside the times when the Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry would be using
the South Terminal. This mitigation measure would limit closure of the
northern berth of the South Terminal to 1 to 2 weeks.
No
Yes (2 weeks)
8 Subsequent to completion of seismic retrofit activities proposed at the Ferry Plaza Platform, the Port of San Francisco may
redesign and permanently relocate the Golden Gate Ferry Slip to a nearby pier (e.g., Pier Vi). In the event the Port of San
Francisco receives the necessary environmental approvals and funding to complete these actions, BART will coordinate with
the Port to avoid duplication of efforts to restore full access to the Golden Gate Ferry berths.
3.4-32
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.4 Transportation
1 material would move back and forth from the alignment of the Transbay Tube, and from the end of
2 the Ferry Platform Plaza to a dredged material storage area. The construction barges associated
3 with dredging would move in and out of areas regularly and frequently traversed by ferries
4 that berth at the Ferry Building. The movement of large construction barges in the vicinity of
5 the Ferry Building substantially increases the risk of vessel conflicts in the Bay. The following
6 mitigation measure is identified for this impact.
7 Mitigation Measure. Impacts to vessel transportation related to stitching and dredged material
8 reuse within the project, on the San Francisco Ferry Building and vicinity, will be prevented by
9 implementation of the following mitigation measures:
10 • Barges associated with stitching shall not be present within 600 feet of the Ferry
11 Terminal berths at the same time as barges associated with dredged material
12 excavation /storage or barges associated with placement of fill or reuse of dredged
13 material.
14 • Barges associated with dredged material excavation and storage shall not be present
15 within 600 feet of the Ferry Terminal berths at the same time as barges associated with
16 stitching or barges for placement of fill or reuse of dredged material.
17 • For construction within 600 feet of the Ferry Tenninal berths, no more than one barge
18 accepting/storing dredged material shall be present at any time.
19 • For construction within 600 feet of the Ferry Terminal berths, construction barges
20 moving dredged material shall operate only during those hours when ferries are not in
21 service (before 6:00 A.M. and after 9:30 P.M.). During hours when ferries are in service,
22 construction barges shall remain stationary.
23 • For dredged material excavation and reuse activities more than 600 feet from Ferry
24 Terminal berths, no more than two barges for accepting/storing dredged material shall
25 be present at any time.
26 If any dredged material (up to 11,000 cy) is displaced during backfill activities associated with
27 stitching the Tube, it will be disposed offsite at one of the permitted in-Bay or upland
28 reuse /disposal sites, along with the additional 95,900 cy of displaced dredged material
29 associated with retrofits at the San Francisco Transition Structure. Up to 31 barges (each with
30 approximately 3,500 cy of capacity) would be required to transport the total combined 106,900
31 cy of dredged material; these barges will be required to operate consistent with USCG
32 regulations and guidelines. Movement of these 31 barges would, therefore, have no impacts on
33 vessel transportation.
34 Dredged Material Reuse /Disposal Options Outside the Project
35 Dredging activities and offsite disposal would result in up to eight barges (one less barge
36 needed for clamshell excavators than under the reuse scenario above) and two tugboats in the
37 vicinity of the Ferry Building, substantially increasing the risk of vessel conflicts in the Bay.
38 This impact and applicable mitigation measures are described above, under dredged materia]
39 reuse within the project.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.4-33
3.4 Tratisportation
1 Barges moving dredged material from the project site to any of the disposal sites located outside
2 the project area will be required to operate consistent with USCG regulations and guidelines.
3 Sixty-four (64) total barge trips (each barge with a capacity of approximately 3,500 cy) would be
4 needed to dispose of the maximum 222,000 cy of dredged material to an offsite location.
5 Whether spread over the 4 year construction period, or if each 2-day barge trip occurred
6 consecutively (resulting in about 4.5 months of successive barge trips), this minimal amount of
7 activity would not interfere with operation of a vessel traffic lane, substantially increase
8 conflicts between vessels, or preclude the use of vessel infrastructure. The barges will travel in
9 appropriate vessel traffic lanes when disposing of dredged material at any of the potential sites.
10 Although the Alcatraz disposal site is located within a vessel traffic lane, disposal at this site
11 would not be expected to cause interference with the operation of the lane.
3.4-34
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
2 This section addresses the existing local and regional geologic conditions within the project area
3 and analyzes geologic hazards and general geotechnical issues such as unstable slopes, faults,
4 and seismicity. This assessment relies on published reports and the general geologic setting as
5 indicators of potential geologic hazards. Design-level engineering geology and geotechnical
6 investigation, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and analyses are not required by
NEPA. Those investigations would be completed before construction of the project.
8 3.5.1 Existing Setting
9 3.5.1.1 Regional Geologic Setting
10 The project is located in the central portion of the Coast Ranges geologic /geomorphic province
11 of central and northern California. The Coast Ranges have a general northwest orientation and
12 are characterized by north-northwest trending folds and faults. This area consists of
13 sedimentary, metamorphic, volcanic, and igneous rocks, ranging in age from Jurassic/
14 Cretaceous age (100 to 200 million years ago) to the present (Oakeshott 1978).
15 The San Francisco Bay region is located within a northwesterly oriented geomorphic
16 depression, or broad valley, which is partially filled by San Francisco Bay. This geomorphic
17 feature and the surrounding mountains are approximately 1 million years old (within
18 Quaternary time), which is relatively recent in tectonic origin. Basement complex bedrock
19 beneath the San Francisco Bay Area consists of the Jurassic Franciscan Formation. Cretaceous
20 through Pliocene sedimentary rocks overlie the basement complex. These sedimentary rocks
21 are covered onshore by Pleistocene and Recent alluvium, consisting of lenticular gravel, sand,
22 silt, and clay deposits, as wells as marsh deposits and artificial fill along the perimeter of the
23 Bay. Offshore, beneath the Bay, sediments consist of five formations of late Quaternary age,
24 including the Alameda, San Antonio, Posey, Merritt Sand, and Bay Mud formations. The Bay
25 Mud consists of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated, saturated, organic-rich silty marine
26 clays (Trask and Rolston 1951; CDMG 1969; Blake et al. 1974).
27 3.5.1.2 Regional Seismicity
28 The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the more seismically active regions in California. There
29 are at least six active faults within 30 miles of the project area, including the San Andreas
30 Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, Green Valley, and Concord faults (Figure 3.5-1). These
31 active faults trend northwesterly; display a similar right-lateral, primarily horizontal
32 movement; and are responsible for several large historical earthquakes. Segments of these
33 faults have been designated by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) a-
34 Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones, which indicate areas of potential surface fault rupture.
35 None of these faults traverse the project area. However, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
36 for the Hayward fault, the closest to the project area, lies approximately 500 feet northeast ol the
37 northernmost aerial guideway to be seismically retrofitted, with the fault trace approximately
38 1,100 feet from the guideway (CDMG 1987, 1994).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.5-1
Figure 3.5-1. Principal Active Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area
3.5-2
3.5 Geology I Seismicity
1 The San Andreas and Hayward faults have been responsible for the largest earthquakes in the
2 project area. The San Andreas fault, located approximately 8 miles southwest of the
3 Montgomery Street Station at its closest point to the project, was responsible for the magnitude
4 7.8 San Francisco earthquake in 1906, and the magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989.
5 Similarly, the Hayward fault was responsible for the approximate magnitude 7 Hayward
6 earthquake in 1868 (CDMG 1987; USGS 2003a, 2003b). These earthquakes caused widespread
damage throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area. An earthquake probability report
8 (USGS 2003c) concluded that the Hayward /Rodgers Creek fault system has a 32 percent
9 probability for one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquakes from 2000 to 2030. Similarly,
10 the San Andreas fault has a 21 percent probability for one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater
11 earthquakes on the San Francisco Peninsula portion of the fault, from 2000 to 2030. Overall, the
12 San Francisco Bay Area has a 62 percent probability of a similar size earthquake during this
13 timeframe.
14 3.5.1.3 Geologic Conditions in the Project Area
15 Oakland Topography and Stratigraphy
16 The topography from the Oakland Transition Structure eastward to Martin Luther King Jr. Way
17 is generally flat to gently sloping to the west. The elevation over this 3-mile portion of the
18 BART alignment rises from sea level to approximately 20 feet above mean sea level (msl).
19 From 12 th Street northward to the Rockridge Station, the topography is gently sloping to the
20 southwest, rising over 3 miles from approximately 20 feet above msl to 160 feet above msl.
21 From the Rockridge Station northeast to the Berkeley Hills Tunnel, the grade increases from
22 gently to moderately sloping, to the southwest, as the BART right-of-way transitions from the
23 coastal plain to the Berkeley Hills. The elevation gain over this approximate 2-mile portion of
24 the alignment is approximately 120 feet, reaching a maximum elevation of approximately 280
25 feet above msl.
26 With the exception of the Oakland Harbor area, undifferentiated Quaternary surficial deposits,
27 including marine deposits, alluvium, and artificial fill, underlie most of the BART alignment
28 through the City of Oakland (Blake et al. 1974; Geomatrix Consultants 2002). The near surface
29 soils along the north Oakland portion of the right-of-way consist primarily of interbedded
30 sandy silts and clay units. Marine and marsh Bay Mud, overlain by artificial fill, primarily
31 underlie the portion of BART alignment located in the harbor area.
32 The fill material generally consists of sand and clay dredged from tidal flats and offshore areas.
33 Upland soil, construction debris, and other materials of unknown origin may also have been
34 used. Geologic maps indicate that portions of the right-of-way located west of Interstate
35 Highway 880 are located on artificial fill (Helley et al. 1997). Historical maps indicate that the
36 section of the right-of-way located east of the freeway in west Oakland is located within die
37 original shoreline of Oakland (1878 First Ward Map). The Bay Mud generally consists of day
38 with organic material that is exposed at the surface near the former Bay margin and ranges In
39 thickness from less than 1 foot to about 120 feet beneath the Bay.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.5-3
3.5 Geology/ Seismicity
1 San Francisco and San Francisco Bay Topograph}/ and Stratigraphy
2 The topography from the San Francisco Transition Structure to the Montgomery Street Station is
3 generally flat, but slopes gently toward the east-northeast. The elevation gain from sea level,
4 over this 0.75-mile section, is approximately 25 feet above msl. Artificial fill deposits of varying
5 composition underlie this short segment of BART. The fill in this area typically consists of clay,
6 silt, sand, rock fragments, organic material, and/or manmade debris (Blake et al. 1974). This fill
7 material is generally subject to liquefaction and was responsible for extensive damage in the
8 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (USGS 2003d). Liquefaction is a form of seismically induced
9 ground failure, in which saturated loose sandy sediments lose strength and change from a solid
10 state to a liquid state.
11 Fine-grained Bay Mud surrounds the Transbay Tube. The Bay Mud is separated into two units,
12 Younger Bay Mud and Older Bay Mud. The Transbay Tube was constructed within the Young
13 Bay Mud, which is primarily a soft silty clay, has a high percentage of water, is pliable and
14 weak, and is highly compressible. These deposits have caused the most engineering difficulties
15 during construction of the Transbay Tube and other structures along the margin of the Bay.
16 The strength of the Young Bay Mud increases with depth as a result of the pressure from above.
17 The Young Bay Mud deposits are generally 60 to 130 feet thick in the vicinity of the Transbay
18 Tube (CDMG 1969; BCDC 1967; Trask and Rolston 1951).
19 Old Bay Mud deposits are present beneath the Young Bay Mud. A sand layer sometimes
20 separates the two units. The Old Bay Mud is more consolidated than the Young Bay Mud, due
21 to the increased overburden pressure and reduction in moisture. These dense sands and stiff
22 clays provide a good foundation for piles and similar structures (BCDC 1967).
23 Borings drilled for the San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project (Treadwell & Rollo 1995)
24 encountered 90 to 120 feet of soft to medium-stiff clay of the Young Bay Mud. A 15- to 25-foot-
25 thick layer of dense to very dense sand to clayey sand underlies these Young Bay Mud deposits.
26 Stiff clay of the Old Bay Mud is present beneath the sand to a depth of approximately 190 feet.
27 3.5.2 Proposed Action
28 3.5.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
29 Geologic impacts would be considered substantial if the project:
30 • Is located on strata or soil that is unstable, or would become unstable as a result of the
31 project.
32 • Exposed people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
33 of loss, injury, or death involving seismically induced fault rupture, strong ground
34 shaking, or ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential
35 settlement, or subsidence.
3.5-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.5 Geology/ Seismicity
1 3.5.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
2 Transbay Tube and San Francisco Transition Structure
3 Topography and Stratigraphy. Project construction within Bay sediments would result in
4 localized changes in bottom topography. Activities associated with the vibro-replacement
5 alternative for retrofit of the Transbay Tube would not disturb bottom sediments; however,
6 compaction of the subsurface sediments is expected to cause a permanent yet localized drop of
7 approximately 1 foot in the bottom elevation of the Bay.
8 Tidal surges in and out of the Bay create currents along the bottom, which in turn causes scour
9 and erosion to occur in areas of high velocity currents, and deposition to occur in areas of
10 slower currents. Changes to the bathymetry (i.e., bottom topography of the Bay) of
11 approximately 1 foot would result in temporary disruption of these underwater depositional
12 processes and associated suspended sediments. However, depositional equilibrium would be
13 reestablished within a short period, resulting in settling of suspended sediments. Because no
14 regional, long-term depositional disruptions would occur, impacts associated with vibro-
15 replacement of the Tube would be negligible.
16 Dredging would be required for stitching at the San Francisco end of the Tube and either of the
17 two alternative retrofit options for the San Francisco Transition Structure; the total area of Bay
18 bottom disturbance from these combined retrofit techniques would be up to 8 acres. Although
19 the bathymetry would be modified, the proposed area of dredging is located in an industrial,
20 predominantly disturbed area, where previous dredging has occurred. Dredging would
21 temporarily disrupt bottom sediments; however, similar to prior dredging episodes in this area,
22 depositional equilibrium would be reestablished within a short period. As no regional, long-
23 term depositional disruptions would occur as a result of dredging in this area, impacts would
24 be negligible.
25 However, dredging would potentially result in unstable geologic conditions within the Bay
26 Mud deposits which, as noted above, are highly compressible. Temporary 40 foot deep
27 excavations over an area up to 200-feet by 100-feet could result in potential slope failure if
28 constructed too steeply. However, temporary slopes created for stitching the Tube near the San
29 Francisco Transition Structure will be constructed with shallow slopes and will be completed in
30 accordance with recommendations by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Therefore, impacts
31 associated with slope failure are not anticipated. For additional details, see the BART Seismic
32 Retrofit Project Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005).
33 Seismicity. Although the BART system fared well during the magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta
34 earthquake in 1989, more severe ground shaking could occur as a result of a larger earthquake
35 and/or an earthquake centered closer to the project area. The project involves seismic retrofit ol
36 the BART system, consistent with recommended mitigation measures in CDMG Special
37 Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CDMG
38 1997). As a result, the rail system would become substantially stronger, resulting in protection
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.5-5
3.5 Geology fSeismicity
1 of life safety 1 and the massive public capital investment represented by the permanent facilities
2 of the BART system. In addition, seismic retrofit would prevent prolonged interruption of
3 BART service to the public in the event of a major earthquake. This would be a beneficial
4 impact.
5 Oakland Transition Structure, Stations, and Aerial Guideways
6 Topography and Stratigraphy. Stitching excavations would be required for installation of each
7 stitching piling group on the Oakland end of the Tube. Other excavations would be completed
8 for enlarged footings /foundations for stations and aerial guideways. As these excavations
9 would be temporary, no permanent changes in topography would occur from the project.
10 However, as described for the San Francisco Transition Structure, stitching excavations would
1 1 potentially result in unstable geologic conditions, including potential slope failure if constructed
12 too steeply. However, temporary slopes created for stitching the Tube near the Oakland
13 Transition Structure will be constructed with shallow slopes and will be completed in
14 accordance with recommendations by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Therefore, impacts
15 associated with slope failure are not anticipated. For additional details, see the BART Seismic
16 Retrofit Project Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005).
17 Seismicity . The project would have a beneficial impact as described above for the Transbay
18 Tube and San Francisco Transition Structure.
19 3.5.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
No geologic/ seismic impacts would occur from dredged material reuse or disposal.
For the purposes of the seismic retrofit project, life safety is the level of retrofit that will provide a low risk of endangerment to
human life for any event likely to affect the retrofitted structure. In general, non-collapse of a structure is considered
adequate to provide life safety.
3-5-6 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
2 Hazardous materials present in subsurface soils or groundwater that are disturbed during the
3 proposed seismic retrofit activities have the potential to impact workers, public health and
4 safety, or the environment. Depending on the nature and extent of contamination that may be
5 present, excavated soil and /or groundwater produced from dewatering operations may be
6 subject to a variety of regulatory requirements or other specific management procedures. This
7 section evaluates issues related to potential contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity
8 of project components.
9 3.6.1 Existing Setting
10 3.6.1.1 Phase I and Phase II Reports
11 A Phase I Environmental Review (Geomatrix Consultants 2001, hereafter referred to as the
12 Phase I report) and a Phase II Field Investigation Report (Geomatrix Consultants 2002; hereafter
13 referred to as the Phase II report) were conducted to assess potential environmental issues that
14 could be encountered during onshore construction activities associated with seismic upgrade of
15 the aerial guideways and stations. Issues related to potentially contaminated dredged material
16 are addressed in section 3.1 (Water Resources) and section 3.9 (Biological Resources).
17 The Phase I report identified land uses adjacent to the alignment that had the potential to
18 adversely affect soil or groundwater under the alignment. The report included an
19 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) regulatory database search of the seven state and
20 federal lists that document known locations of hazard substance releases, including "Calsites"
21 (DTSC/ California Environmental Protection Agency [Cal-EPA]); the Cortese List (Office of
22 Planning and Research); Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) (RWQCB);
23 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
24 (CERCLIS) (USEPA Superfund sites); National Priority List (USEPA Priority Superfund sites);
25 Annual Work Plan (Cal-EPA); and Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Clean-ups (Surface spills
26 only; non-LUST sites) (RWQCB). As part of the Phase I report, these databases were searched
27 for sites located within a 1-mile radius of the proposed seismic retrofit sites.
28 The Phase II report consisted of soil and groundwater samples collected in areas identified in
29 the Phase I report as potential areas of concern. The report summarized the analytical results of
30 29 soil boring samples and 15 groundwater grab samples collected in the project area.
31 Analytical results were used to evaluate the potential risk to those with possible direct contact
32 (i.e., construction workers) and to assess the options and procedures for soil management.
33 Summary of Conditions
34 Based on the EDR regulatory database search documented in the Phase I report, more than 540
35 hazardous materials/waste sites are located within 0.5 mile of the BART alignment between the
36 east portal of the Transbay Tube and the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel. A screening
37 process was developed to prioritize the sites with respect to potential impairment oi soil and
38 groundwater in the vicinity of the project. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the findings based on the
39 regulatory database and historic uses of the alignment and adjacent properties.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 3.6-1
3.6 Hazardous Materials
Table 3.6-1. Location of Potential Chemical Releases
Location*
Chemicals that May Have
Been Released in Soil
Chemicals that May Have
Been Released in Groundwater
Aerial Structures 1-15
No impacts to shallow soil are
anticipated
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Aerial Structures 16-19
Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs,
solvents, and metals (including
aerially-deposited lead)
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Aerial Structures 20-28
Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, and
PCBs
Petroleum hydrocarbons and
solvents
Aerial Structures 29-37
PCBs, PAHs, solvents, and metals
Petroleum hydrocarbons and
chlorinated solvents
* See Figure 2-18 for the location of these aerial structures.
1 Based on the results of the Phase I report, borings were drilled in areas suspected of subsurface
2 contamination. Based on the analytical results of samples collected for the Phase II
3 investigation, detectable concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total petroleum
4 hydrocarbons (diesel) (TPHd), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals listed as
5 hazardous under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 are present in soil and
6 groundwater in the vicinity of the project. However, with one exception, all soil samples
7 contained concentrations of these compounds less than construction worker risk-based
8 screening levels (RBSLs). Benzo(a)pyrene, which is typically used as an indicator of PAHs, was
9 detected in a soil sample collected at a depth of 2.5 feet, at a concentration in excess of the RBSL,
10 near aerial structure number 25, located along 5 th Street, between Adeline and Chestnut Streets
11 (see Figure 2-18).
12 VOCs detected in groundwater were within both drinking water standards and the discharge
13 limits for disposal into the storm drain, in accordance with RWQCB-mandated National
14 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. There is no specific
15 drinking water standard or discharge limit for TPHd. However, the TPHd concentrations are
16 less than the discharge limit for oil and grease, which is similar to TPHd.
17 Lead in soil was not detected at concentrations that exceeded RBSLs for construction workers.
18 However, lead concentrations were detected within the upper 5 feet of soil, in 8 of 19 borings
19 drilled along the east-west trending portion of the right-of-way in west Oakland, at
20 concentrations that warrant further sampling and analysis to determine the appropriate
21 disposal option. These elevated lead concentrations were detected in the vicinity of aerial
22 guideway numbers 23, 25-28, 31, and 36 (see Figure 2-18).
3.6-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.6 Hazardous Materials
1 3.6.2 Proposed Action
2 3.6.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
3 Soil and groundwater contamination impacts would be considered substantial if the project:
4 • Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the release of
5 petroleum products or hazardous substances into the environment; or
6 • Is located on or near a property that is on a list as having hazardous substances
compiled by government agencies which, as a result, could create a substantial hazard to
8 the public or the environment.
9 3.6.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
10 Stitching on the Oakland side of the Tube would involve soil excavation to a depth of 20 to 60
11 feet below the existing ground surface. No dewatering of the excavation site would be required
12 (BART 2002a). At all but the West Oakland Aerial Guideway and West Oakland Station,
13 groundwater elevations are below proposed excavation depths. Thus, retrofit activities would
14 not generate any dewatering wastes at most of the construction sites. Groundwater may be
15 encountered in the vicinity of the West Oakland Aerial Guideway and West Oakland Station.
16 In this case, a waste discharge requirement from the RWQCB would be required for discharging
17 the dewatering effluent to the stormdrain (see Appendix C, section C.6). The effluent would be
18 tested in accordance with NPDES permit requirements and either disposed into the storm drain,
19 if determined to be within permit discharge limits, or disposed off-site at a designated disposal
20 facility. Alternatively, clean dewatered groundwater (per RWQCB discharge requirements)
21 could be used for onsite dust suppression. See section 3.1 (Water Resources) for additional
22 information regarding groundwater conditions.
23 Based on the sampling results from the Phase II investigation (Geomatrix Consultants 2002),
24 direct exposure to onsite construction workers with unacceptable risk (i.e., in excess of RBSLs) is
25 unlikely at all locations sampled, with one exception. Analytical results from samples collected
26 in the vicinity of aerial structure number 25 (see Figure 2-18) indicate levels of PAHs that exceed
27 construction worker RBSLs and/ or typical background concentrations.
28 In addition, during excavations or drilling for foundation work in all other areas (i.e., the
29 Oakland Transition Structure, all stations, and all aerial structures), the construction team may
30 encounter unexpected petroleum waste or hazardous waste in soil and/or groundwater.
31 However, implementation of a Health and Safety Plan, for each retrofit location, and a Soils
32 Management Plan will ensure the proper handling and disposal of contaminated soils during
33 excavation activities. Because construction contractors will follow the prevention procedures
34 stipulated in these plans, impacts associated with exposure of onsite workers to contaminants
35 are not anticipated. For additional details, see the BART Seismic Retrofit Project Construction
36 Standards Manual (BART 2005).
37 Although lead concentrations in soil were below RBSLs, lead was detected within the upper 5
38 feet of soil at several locations at concentrations that warrant further sampling and analysis to
39 determine proper disposal options. In addition, previously undetected contaminated soil ma)
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.6-3
3.6 Hazardous Materials
1 be encountered in other areas during project excavations. Potential generation of excavation
2 spoil piles with elevated lead or other contaminant concentrations could increase onsite
3 construction workers' exposure to contaminated soils if disposed in an inappropriate manner,
4 including reuse as clean fill or disposal at facilities not equipped to safely handle hazardous
5 wastes. The following mitigation measure is identified for this impact.
6 Mitigation Measures. The following measure will ensure proper handling and disposal of
7 hazardous materials.
8 • Excavated soil in the vicinity of aerial guideway numbers 23, 25-28, 31, and 36 shall be
9 analyzed for lead and other contaminants prior to disposal or reuse as fill at other
10 locations. If lead or other contaminants are found at levels that require the soil to be
1 1 characterized as hazardous waste, the soil must be disposed at a permitted hazardous
12 waste facility.
13 3.6.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
14 No hazardous materials impacts would occur from dredged material reuse or disposal.
15 Furthermore, although the dredged material may be tested unsuitable for aquatic disposal, it
16 would not be expected to qualify as hazardous material.
3.6-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.7 RISK OF UPSET/SAFETY
2 This section evaluates safety issues during project construction, as well as the potential for
3 construction to increase risks during upset events (such as earthquakes and other emergencies).
4 Construction activities can increase risk to workers, passengers, and those in the community
5 that are in the immediate area. Due to the nature of the BART system, many of the retrofit
6 locations are in areas that support heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The use of heavy
equipment, construction activity at ground level and above, as well as the movement of
8 construction structures (such as barriers, scaffolding, fencing) all pose an increased risk to the
9 general public. BART has developed plans and procedures in compliance with occupational
10 health and safety requirements that would mitigate the risk at each of the retrofit locations,
1 1 including specific plans for unique situations.
12 3.7.1 Existing Setting
13 3.7.1.1 System Safety
14 The System Safety Program Plan defines BART's technical and managerial safety activities (BART
15 2002n). The System Safety Department's organization, methods, procedures, documentation,
16 and its relationship with regulatory agencies and other BART departments are prescribed in the
17 System Safety Program Plan. Also, the shared safety- related responsibilities of BART's
18 operations, maintenance, and engineering departments are defined in the System Safety Program
19 Plan (BART 2002n). The System Safety Program Plan complies with the requirements of the
20 California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 164, Rules and Regulations Governing
21 State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed Guideway Systems.
22 BART Emergency Plan
23 BART maintains an Emergency Plan, last updated in November 2002, to provide guidance for
24 mobilizing BART and other public safety resources to respond to various types of emergencies
25 that may occur within the BART system (BART 2002c). The plan outlines procedures for all
26 BART personnel who could respond in the event of an emergency, such as management, tram
27 operators, system operators, police, and power and electrical personnel. The plan also provides
28 guidance for organizations that may be asked to assist, depending on the nature of the
29 emergency, such as local fire and police agencies. To support the implementation of the
30 Emergency Plan, BART staffs an Emergency Operations Center and has a designated Emergency
31 Service Coordinator.
32 The plan is tailored for emergencies that could occur within different parts of the BART system.
33 For example, procedures for emergencies in the Transbay Tube are different than procedures
34 for emergencies at aerial stations.
35 The Emergency Plan indicates that there are crucial systems used to respond to all emergencies.
36 These include:
37 • Communications equipment used to interconnect stations, trains, the operations control
38 center, and BART police;
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.7-1
3.7 Risk of Upsetl Safety
1 • Communications equipment used to inform passengers about potential or existing
2 emergencies and the proper response to such emergencies;
3 • Ventilation and ventilation control systems;
4 • Equipment to control power to the trains (e.g., the Third Rail);
5 • Fire fighting equipment; and
6 • Devices and structures that limit access to BART right-of-way, tracks, and tunnels.
7 System Security
8 BART has taken steps to heighten awareness of potential terrorist attacks that could potentially
9 occur along the entire system. Although details of most security procedures are confidential,
10 BART has implemented the following types of security procedures to increase security: new or
11 enhanced threat assessment tools and hardware, such as closed circuit television; enhanced
12 access control; training and drills for personnel; inspections and police patrols; and, intensified
13 security awareness campaigns directed at both personnel and riders. BART employees have
14 been provided with training to encourage a greater awareness of their surroundings and to
15 report suspicious behavior or activities. To help heighten rider awareness of their
16 surroundings, BART has increased communications with customers regarding system security
17 through the use of passenger bulletins, advertisements, newsletters, and reports by local media.
18 3.7.1.2 Existing Emergency Services
19 BART Police
20 BART police are an autonomous law enforcement agency, staffed by 284 persons, of which 204
21 are sworn peace officers. BART police provide a full range of law enforcement services, and
22 include a bicycle patrol, canine unit, and a Special Problems and Rescue team. BART police
23 officers have the same powers of arrest as city police officers and county sheriff deputies. BART
24 officers may take enforcement action on or off of BART jurisdiction, anywhere within the State
25 of California if there is immediate danger to persons or property. BART police facilities are
26 located in Concord, Walnut Creek, El Cerrito, Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, Castro Valley,
27 Dublin /Pleasanton, San Francisco, Daly City, Colma, San Bruno, and the San Francisco
28 International Airport BART station (BART 2004b).
29 Oakland Fire and Police
30 The 46 fire stations of the Oakland Fire Department provide firefighting and rescue services
31 within the City of Oakland (City of Oakland 2004). The department consists of approximately
32 500 firefighting and emergency medical personnel, 26 engine companies, 7 truck companies,
33 and other specialized units for aircraft rescue, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials,
34 and wildfires (personal communication, J. Williams 2003). Rescue and emergency services are
35 further enhanced by the 735 police officers of the City of Oakland (personal communication, R.
36 Stewart 2003).
3.7-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.7 Risk of Up set/ Safety
1 San Francisco Fire and Police
2 The 48 fire stations of the San Francisco Fire Department provide firefighting and rescue
3 services to the 47.5 square miles of the City of San Francisco. The department consists of
4 approximately 1,700 firefighting and emergency medical field personnel, 42 engine companies,
5 18 truck companies, 18 ambulances, two rescue squads, and two fireboats. Other specialized
6 units include cliff rescue, hazardous materials, and wildland fires (City and County of San
7 Francisco 2003a). Rescue and emergency services are further enhanced by the 2,000 police
8 officers of the City of San Francisco (City and County of San Francisco 2003b).
9 3.7.2 Proposed Action
10 3.7.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
11 The following criteria were used to evaluate potential impacts to worker safety, public safety,
12 and consistency with emergency plans and policies during project construction. Substantial
13 adverse impacts would occur if the project would:
14 • Violate applicable construction codes/health and safety standards;
15 • Introduce members of the public into areas of active construction;
16 • Disable or substantially impair emergency response equipment (such as communica-
17 tions, ventilation, and fire fighting);
18 • Substantially impair implementation of existing emergency procedures (e.g., make a
19 station unsuitable as an evacuation point, make it difficult to transport rescue crews or
20 equipment);
21 • Substantially increase demand on fire and police services beyond existing capacity; or
22 • Make the BART tracks or right-of-way less secure.
23 3.7.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
24 Construction activities are planned for many locations that are adjacent to public roads,
25 sidewalks, BART stations, BART tracks, public areas, and railroad tracks. As such, workers,
26 BART riders, and the public may be affected by construction activities to varying degrees.
27 Violate Applicable Construction Codes/Health and Safety Standards
28 Prior to commencement of construction, contractors will be required to prepare a I lealth and
29 Safety Plan, for each retrofit location, which will ensure all contractors follow applicable public
30 safety standards (see Appendix C, section C.7 for safety standards). In addition, specifically for
31 work on the Transbay Tube, Site Specific Work Plans will be prepared that include emergenc \
32 procedures and specific measures to prevent compromising the integrity of the Tube. For
33 additional details, see the BART Seismic Retrofit Project Construction Standards Manual (BART
34 2005).
35 In those locations where it would be necessary to relocate utilities, this would be done
36 consistent with both BART's construction procedures and the utility owner's construction
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.7-3
3.7 Risk of Upset/ Safety
1 standards. Worker safety would be enhanced through BART coordination with the affected
2 utility agencies. In addition, Caltrans prescribes procedures, standards, and practices for utility
3 relocation required for construction of transportation projects.
4 In one location, retrofit would require construction close to an existing rail line. The Union
5 Pacific Railroad has construction safety requirements for work adjacent to their tracks. These
6 requirements would also be incorporated into BART construction contracts.
7 In many locations, construction activities would encroach into existing traffic lanes or parking
8 areas. This may result in the relocation of parking, narrowing or closing lanes, forcing two-way
9 traffic to share a lane, or detouring traffic. BART would require in contract specifications that
10 each contractor follow Caltrans traffic handling procedures (as detailed in the Manual of Traffic
11 Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones, 1996), including safety measures such as
12 the use of K-rails, signage and flagmen.
13 Given BART's standard construction procedures and health and safety requirements, no
14 impacts to worker safety are anticipated.
15 Introduce Members of the Public into Areas of Active Construction
16 BART intends to close, reroute, or shield any pedestrian walkways, traffic lanes, parking areas,
17 and piers potentially exposed to project construction, as needed. In those situations where
18 construction requires the closure or narrowing of traffic lanes, BART will require contractors to
19 develop construction traffic management plans consistent with Caltrans standards and
20 professional practice, including detours, construction signage, and flagmen (for greater detail
21 see section 3.4 [Transportation]).
22 At the San Francisco Ferry Building, large construction equipment would be close to the
23 Transbay Tube and transition structure, and it would be necessary to remove large portions of
24 the Ferry Plaza platform. Construction would require the closure of two ferry berths, and
25 ferries and ferry riders would be detoured to areas outside the active construction area (for
26 more details see section 3.4). To maintain access to the World Trade Club, temporary
27 construction walkways along the upper deck of the restaurant (the deck above the Ferry Plaza
28 platform) are proposed. Use of this elevated walkway could expose the public to additional
29 risk, which is a safety impact.
30 BART intends to maintain normal service during retrofit of the Transbay Tube. While patrons
31 and BART personnel would not have direct contact with these activities, the Transbay Tube
32 would be undergoing active construction. Procedures for stitching, micropile anchorage, and
33 vibro-replacement have yet to be fully developed. These activities would increase the risk of
34 water leaking into the Tube; the risk of other construction activities causing water leakage into
35 the Transbay Tube is uncertain. However, implementation of Site Specific Work Plans that
36 include emergency procedures and specific measures to prevent compromising the integrity of
37 the Tube and the presence of equipment and personnel necessary to perform emergency repairs
38 on the Transbay Tube will ensure adherence to applicable public safety regulations (see
39 Appendix C, section C.7). For additional details, see the BART Seismic Retrofit Project
40 Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005).
3.7-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.7 Risk of Upset/ Safety
1 Mitigation Measures. The following measures will further ensure public safety during
2 construction activities on or in the vicinity of the Transbay Tube.
3 • Any temporary walkways used to access the World Trade Club shall be inspected for
4 consistency with the California Building Code (CCR Title 24, Part 2). Any temporary
5 walkways shall be screened from construction dust and debris. Screening shall also
6 prevent any pedestrians from accessing any part of the construction area. 1
• For those types of construction work that have never been performed on the Transbay
8 Tube, activities which could harm the integrity of the Transbay Tube, such as placement
9 of vibro-replacement probes and barge anchors, and micropile anchorage, shall be
10 tested, and, if necessary, refined, during hours when BART trains are not in service.
11 • BART shall shutdown train service through the Transbay Tube if the integrity of the
12 Tube is deemed to be in jeopardy by members of BART's System Safety Department or
13 Emergency Operations Center, BART Police, Oakland Fire and Police Department, San
14 Francisco Fire and Police Department, or the construction supervisor for retrofit work on
15 the Transbay Tube. Other portions of the BART system could remain in operation even
16 with shutdown of the Transbay Tube.
17 Disable or Substantially Impair Emergency Respo?tse Equipment
18 Construction activities have the potential to impair the use of communications equipment used
19 to interconnect stations, trains, the operations control center, and BART police; communications
20 equipment used to inform passengers about potential or existing emergencies and the proper
21 response to such emergencies; ventilation and ventilation control systems; equipment to control
22 power to the trains (e.g., the Third Rail); and fire fighting equipment. However, BART contract
23 specifications will require provisions for maintenance of communication and ventilation control
24 systems and/or provisions for back-up systems during all retrofit activities. Because
25 construction contractors will be required to follow the emergency response equipment
26 procedures stipulated in their contracts, impacts associated with impairment of emergency
27 response systems are not anticipated. For additional details, see the BART Seismic Retrofit
28 Project Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005) .
29 Substantially Impair Implementation of Existing Emergency Procedures
30 BART's Emergency Plan (BART 2002c) has defined procedures for evacuation of BART trains in
31 the Transbay Tube and on aerial structures during regular operations. During construction,
32 some of the stations and track areas may not be appropriate for emergency evacuation and
33 some rescue equipment may not be able to access parts of the system due to the presence of
34 construction equipment and vehicles. However, implementation of Site Specific Work Plans or
35 adherence to operational changes issued by the System Safety Department, delineating
36 emergency procedures for evacuation of BART trains, coordination with the City of Oakland
37 and San Francisco Fire Departments, and providing notification to the Operations Control
1 Subsequent to completion of seismic retrofit activities proposed at the Ferry Plaza Platform, the Port ol Nm 1 nndsCO m.n
redesign the World Trade Club entrance within its current location. In the event the Port of San Francisco in on cs tin-
necessary environmental approvals and funding to complete this action, BART will coordinate with the Port to a> Old
duplication of efforts to restore full access to the World Trade Club.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.7-5
3.7 Risk of Up set/ Safety
1 Center regarding major construction activities will ensure adherence to applicable public safety
2 regulations (see Appendix C, section C.7). For additional details, see the BART Seismic Retrofit
3 Project Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005).
4 Mitigation Measures. The following measure will further ensure public safety during retrofit
5 activities.
6 • Appropriate signage illustrating evacuation procedures for any stations /areas under
7 construction shall be developed, provided during preparation of the construction
8 contract documents, and put in place for the public before construction begins.
9 Make the BART Tracks or Right-of-Way Less Secure
10 Retrofit activities would introduce new construction equipment and persons into the BART
11 system and into the BART right-of-way. Construction activities and storage of construction
12 equipment and supplies may require the removal of barriers to the BART right-of-way. With
13 removal of these barriers, the BART right-of-way would be at greater risk for vandalism,
14 terrorism, and trespassing. Because all contractors will be required to follow specific
15 procedures for maintaining the security of the BART right-of-way and the provisions of BART's
16 System Safety Plan and Emergency Response Plan stipulated in their contracts, impacts related
17 to security of the BART right-of-way are not anticipated. BART will also perform background
18 checks and provide badges to all contractors. For additional details, see the BART Seismic
19 Retrofit Project Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005).
20 3.7.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
21 No safety-related impacts would occur as a result of dredged material reuse or disposal.
22 Furthermore, although the dredged material may be rendered unsuitable for aquatic disposal, it
23 would not be expected to qualify as hazardous material.
3.7-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.8 VISUAL RESOURCES
2 A Visual Resources Technical Study (BART et al. 2005b) was prepared to analyze project
3 impacts on visual character, visual quality, and the viewing audience, and the potential for
4 project-related light and glare. The project area analyzed consists of all BART facilities located
5 along approximately 12.3 miles of track, of which 2.5 miles are located at-grade (surface level),
6 3.3 miles on aerial structures supported by columns, and 6.5 miles underground or underwater
(the Transbay Tube is underwater for 3.6 miles). The technical study describes the visual
8 environment in detail and includes photographs showing project construction sites and
9 surroundings; this section summarizes the conclusions of the technical study.
10 3.8.1 Existing Setting
11 A description of the visual environment is provided below for the project worksites (from east
12 to west) in Oakland (section 3.8.1.1) and San Francisco (section 3.8.1.2) in terms of visual
13 character, visual qualities, and viewing audience. The project setting is also characterized with
14 regard to light and glare (section 3.8.1.3).
15 Visual character is defined as the forms, lines, colors, and textures of a project setting. Visual
16 quality is defined in terms of three variables, or evaluative criteria, including vividness (visual
17 power of landscape components), intactness (integrity of the natural or built environment), and
18 unity (compatibility of landscape elements). The viewing audience is defined as the major viewer
19 groups experiencing a visual resource or landscape. Visual character and quality are also
20 summarized in Table 3.8-1, located at the end of section 3.8.1.2.
21 3.8.1.1 Existing Visual Resources — Oakland
22 Rockridge Station
23 Visual Character. The Rockridge Station is an entirely aerial station within the median of State
24 Route 24; it spans College Avenue and straddles a drop-off area and two parking lots.
25 Views from the aerial platform to the north encompass residences, trees, and the Oakland-
26 Berkeley Hills. Views to the south, along College Avenue, are predominantly of commercial
27 uses. Views to the east are of the Oakland-Berkeley Hills, with mature trees and some buildings
28 in the foreground. Views to the west look toward downtown Oakland and the hills.
29 The Rockridge Station is the site of the Firestorm Community Mural, a work of art composed of
30 more than 2,000 handmade ceramic tiles created by community members, former President Bill
31 Clinton, and local lawmakers, to commemorate the Oakland Hills Fire of 1991. The mural and
32 plaque are shown in Figure 3.8-1.
33 Visual Quality. The visual quality of the Rockridge Station's setting ranges from moderate to
34 high. The setting is a well-maintained suburban neighborhood with some memorable visual
35 features, such as the Firestorm Community Mural and commemorative plaque. Views from the
36 above-grade station platform encompass the Oakland-Berkeley Hills to the east, tntactness is
37 low, however, as the freeway, BART tracks, and BART station physically and visually divide
38 the neighborhood. Despite the relatively uniform surroundings and presence of some
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.8- 1
3.8 Visual Resources
1 landscaping, the station is isolated and distinct from its surroundings, so the visual unity of the
2 setting is low.
3 Viezving Audience. Because of the station's location near the Rockridge neighborhood's
4 commercial center, the high level of associated pedestrian activity, periodic use of the station for
5 community group gatherings and events, and the presence of the mural, this station is a widely
6 recognized, visible presence in the neighborhood.
7 MacArthur Station
8 Visual Character. The MacArthur BART Station is an at-grade station, bordered by the station
9 parking lot immediately to the east and neighborhood commercial uses and residential uses to
10 the west. The station is the site of two wall paintings mounted on interior walls (north wall and
1 1 south wall), as shown in the photographs in Figure 3.8-2. Views from the vicinity of the station
12 are confined by the overpass and columns, but include surrounding residential and commercial
13 land uses. Views to the east and west are dominated by the freeway in the foreground, with
14 treetops, commercial building and residential rooftops in the middleground, and the distant
15 Oakland-Berkeley Hills ridgeline. Views to the north and south are dominated by the BART
16 tracks and freeway. To the north, the ridgeline of the Oakland-Berkeley Hills is visible. To the
1 7 south, only the rooftops of the tallest buildings in downtown Oakland are visible.
18 Visual Quality. The overall visual quality of MacArthur Station ranges from low degrees of
19 intactness and unity to highly vivid in its features. The station is located in an urban, mixed-use
20 neighborhood that is not itself visually vivid. However, the station contains two wall paintings
21 and a public plaza housing four sculptures; these are considered highly vivid. The station's
22 setting, however, is typically urban with a mix of uses, and the BART tracks, station, and parking
23 lot are isolated from this setting. For these reasons, intactness and unity are considered low.
24 Viezving Audience. The viewing audience includes patrons of the BART station, motorists along
25 nearby roadways, pedestrians, patrons of adjacent businesses, and residents living close to the
26 station.
27 West Oakland Station
28 Visual Character. The West Oakland Station is an aerial station (i.e., ground-level ticket offices
29 and gates with an aerial platform), surrounded by a parking lot. Views from the elevated West
30 Oakland platform encompass, in the foreground and middleground, the upper stories and
3 1 rooftops of commercial and residential uses to the east and BART's West Oakland parking lot
32 and light industrial uses to the west. Distant, panoramic views toward the Port of Oakland and
33 San Francisco Bay are available to the west. The skyline of the Oakland-Berkeley Hills is visible
34 in the distance to the north and east.
35 Visual Quality. Visual quality of the surroundings of the West Oakland Station ranges from low
36 to moderate. The West Oakland Station is located in an urban neighborhood with typically mixed
37 uses and no distinct natural or built features, and vividness is low. The Aerial Guideway and
38 station interrupt the otherwise regular street grid and reduce intactness to low levels. The station
39 is architecturally compatible with its surroundings and therefore unity is considered moderate.
3-8-2 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
3.8 Visual Resources
1 Vieiving Audience. The viewing audience is similar to that identified for the West Oakland
2 Aerial Guideway. It includes a wide range of viewers, including patrons of the BART station,
3 motorists on nearby streets, pedestrians, patrons of businesses in the area, and residents living
4 close to the station.
5 West Oakland Aerial Guideway
6 Visual Character. The visual character of the Aerial Guideway's setting varies as it passes
through different neighborhoods in West Oakland. The Aerial Guideway between the Aerial
8 Transition Structure and Maritime Street is located in an industrial area associated with the Port
9 of Oakland. There are warehouses to the north and south. The remainder of the Aerial
10 Guideway, between Maritime Street in the Port and the downtown tunnel, passes through a
11 variety of neighborhoods in West Oakland. At Pine Street, just east of where the tracks cross
12 beneath the Interstate 880 freeway, the line passes through a mix of commercial and residential
13 uses. Residential neighborhoods lie to the north; the Main Oakland U.S. Post Office is to the
14 south at 7 th and Willow streets.
15 After leaving the West Oakland Station, the BART tracks leave 7 th Street and begin to parallel 5 th
16 Street. Immediately east of the West Oakland Station, surrounding land uses are residential
17 and commercial. East of Mandela Parkway, the tracks are bordered on the north by the
18 Interstate 880 freeway corridor, with light industrial and commercial areas beyond the freeway.
19 Land uses remain light industrial and commercial as the line crosses Filbert and Myrtle streets,
20 transitioning to industrial uses as the tracks approach the Interstate 880 freeway and turn to the
21 north toward the Oakland City Center/ 12 th Street Station.
22 Visual Quality. Visual quality is generally low near the Port of Oakland and increasingly
23 moderate approaching downtown Oakland. The setting of the Aerial Guideway exhibits a low
24 degree of vividness because of the surrounding mix of light industrial, commercial, and
25 residential uses and the absence of distinctive natural or built features. The Aerial Guideway
26 disrupts the otherwise uniform grid of the streets it crosses, and contributes to a low degree of
27 intactness. The setting of the Aerial Guideway is uniformly urbanized along its length and
28 exhibits a moderate unity of visual appearance.
29 Viewing Audience. The Aerial Guideway is visible to a wide range of viewers along its length,
30 including motorists on cross-streets and streets paralleling the BART system, pedestrians,
31 patrons of industrial and commercial businesses in the area, and residents living nearby.
32 Aerial Transition Structure
33 Visual Character. The Aerial Transition Structure is located in an industrial area within [he
34 Port, partially screened by a low retaining wall and bordered on the southwest by a segment of
35 the San Francisco Bay Trail, a regional multi-use trail planned to eventually encircle San
36 Francisco Bay; a rail line; a private access road; and warehouses to the south. The trail frontage
37 is landscaped along its southwest side. Farther east, new landscaping was observed at the
38 intersection of Maritime and 7 th streets.
39 Visual Quality. Overall visual quality in this area is low, although it is unified by the San
40 Francisco Bay Trail. The predominantly industrial setting and varied land uses, infrastructure.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.8-7
3.8 Visual Resources
1 and equipment contribute to low degrees of vividness and intactness. However, the uniformly
2 landscaped trail unifies the otherwise visually unrelated features in the immediate area of the
3 Aerial Transition Structure, and unity is therefore characterized as moderate.
4 Vieiving Audience. The Aerial Transition Structure is visible to motorists on 7 th and Maritime
5 streets and bicyclists and pedestrians on the portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail that parallels
6 the Aerial Structure.
7 Oakland Transition Structure
8 Visual Character. The visual environment is dominated by industrial and marine-related
9 development (e.g., cargo terminals) and infrastructure (e.g., roadways, train tracks, cranes, and
10 equipment).
11 Visual Quality. The overall visual quality at this location is low. The setting is utilitarian,
12 characterized by industrial and Port-serving infrastructure, which contributes to a low degree of
13 vividness. Ongoing redevelopment of the area with a variety of Port-related uses contributes to
14 a heterogeneous setting with a low degree of intact features. The setting is visually varied, with
15 each Port terminal configured for a different tenant and operations, so visual unity is low.
16 Vieiving Audience. The Oakland Transition Structure is fenced to prevent public access. During
17 normal operations, it is not visible to motorists on 7 th Street or to bicyclists and pedestrians on
18 the segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail paralleling 7 th Street.
19 Other Seismic Retrofits — Chabot Road
20 Visual Character. The Chabot Road overpass just west of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel portal is
21 surrounded by the most dense vegetation found along the project alignment. Notwithstanding
22 the presence of ivy, weedy species, and grasses, the area supports mature, dense, attractive
23 landscaping that visually blends in with native vegetation observed farther upslope toward the
24 portal of the tunnel. There are several small stands of redwoods, as well as mature pines and
25 eucalyptus, on the slopes. Views of the Chabot Road overpass and adjacent vegetation are
26 shown in Figure 3.8-3.
27 Visual Quality. The Chabot Road overcrossing is surrounded by steep, heavily vegetated
28 slopes with nearby development, and is highly vivid. The BART tracks divide the area and
29 reduce the intactness of the landscape to low levels, but as slopes are otherwise largely
30 undisturbed in this area, it retains a moderate degree of visual unity.
31 Vieiving Audience. The viewing audience includes motorists and pedestrians along Chabot
32 Road.
33 Other Seismic Retrofits — Golden Gate Avenue
34 Visual Character. At the bridge overcrossing of Golden Gate Avenue, the slopes on either side
35 of the roadway, north and south of the BART line, are densely vegetated. Several young, but
3.8-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Chabot Road Overpass
Chabot Road Overpass
Figure 3.8-3. Chabot Road Overpass
I
3.8 Visual Resources
1 established, native redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) are present within 15 feet of the bridge
2 supports. Chabot Park is located northwest of BART's Golden Gate overpass between Patton
3 Street and Golden Gate Avenue. The southeastern edge of the Park (occupied by tennis courts)
4 is located at least 50 feet from the Golden Gate overpass and is screened from the overpass by
5 mature slope vegetation. Views of the Golden Gate Avenue overpass and adjacent vegetation
6 are shown in Figure 3.8-4.
Visual Quality. The semi-natural setting of the Golden Gate Avenue BART overcrossing,
8 including landscaping and nearby residential development, contribute to a moderately vivid
9 setting. While the BART tracks visually divide the area and reduce intactness to low levels,
10 consistent landscaping on either side of the overcrossing maintains a moderate degree of visual
1 1 unity.
12 Viewing Audience. The viewing audience includes motorists along Golden Gate Avenue and
13 pedestrians including local residents.
14 Other Seismic Retrofits — Hardy Park
15 Visual Character. At Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street, the BART line and State Route 24
16 pass over Hardy Park, a Caltrans-owned facility operated by the City of Oakland Office of
17 Parks and Recreation. Hardy Park comprises a collection of recreational facilities at the
18 northern end of the Rockridge-Temescal Greenbelt. The Greenbelt follows the Temescal Creek
19 alignment, roughly paralleling Claremont Avenue for three blocks.
20 A mural is painted on the State Route 24 underpass on Claremont Avenue near Hudson Street,
21 across the street from Hardy Park and its playground. Known as the Oceanus Mural, the 3,000-
22 square-foot work of art was commissioned by Caltrans in 1977. It was restored by the original
23 artist and community volunteers in July 2003, and was rededicated in September 2003.
24 Visual Quality. The visual quality in the vicinity of BART's Hardy Park overcrossing is
25 variable. Hardy Park recreational facilities surround the BART overpass; the open space,
26 landscaping park facilities, and Oceanus mural on the underpass contribute to a highly vivid
27 setting. The park is divided by the freeway and BART overpass, reducing intactness to low
28 levels. However, the park is unified by its single recreational purpose as well as by landscaping
29 and hardscape, and unity within this landscape is therefore high.
30 Viewing Audience. The viewing audience includes park patrons as well as motorists on
31 adjacent roadways.
32 Other Seismic Retrofits — Remaining Bridges and Overpasses
33 The existing setting of the remaining bridges and overpasses in the project area is described in
34 the Visual Resources Technical Study (BART et al. 2004b). Since the project would have no
35 impact on visual resources at these locations, they are not discussed further.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.8- 1 1
3.8 Visual Resources
1 3.8.1.2 Existing Visual Resources — San Francisco
2 San Francisco Transition Structure
3 Visual Character. The Northeastern Waterfront is centrally located on the center of San
4 Francisco's downtown waterfront area and is a popular scenic and recreational destination. The
5 centerpiece of the Embarcadero waterfront is the Ferry Building at the terminus of Market
6 Street; it establishes a strong visual link with that corridor and anchors the western edge of the
7 Ferry Plaza.
8 The Transition Structure and World Trade Club are located on the Ferry Plaza near its eastern
9 tip. The Golden Gate Ferry Terminal and an elevated pedestrian walkway is adjacent to the
10 World Trade Club on the Ferry Plaza.
1 1 There are panoramic views eastward from the Ferry Building Marketplace and Ferry Plaza and
12 adjacent waterfront. Views encompass San Francisco Bay and associated ferry, barge, and boat
13 traffic; open sky; Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island; the western span of the Bay Bridge
14 connecting San Francisco and Yerba Buena; and the distant Oakland-Berkeley Hills. In contrast,
15 views toward San Francisco's waterfront from the Bay, as viewed by Bay Bridge motorists, ferry
16 passengers, and boaters, are dominated by the skyline of the City of San Francisco in the
17 background. As viewed from the Bay, the waterfront is set against a backdrop of mid-rise and
18 high-rise hotels and office buildings of the Financial District and the city's downtown.
19 Visual Quality. The juxtaposition of dramatic, natural landscape features (the panoramic Bay,
20 wooded Yerba Buena Island, and Marin Headlands) and built features (Bay Bridge, Ferry
21 Building Marketplace, San Francisco waterfront, and a portion of Treasure Island) contribute to
22 a highly vivid setting, viewed from waterfront, Bay Bridge, and waterborne vantage points.
23 The Ferry Plaza and surrounding waterfront are moderately visually intact, since they are
24 visually distinct from their surroundings (e.g., the adjacent waterfront) and the plaza houses a
25 number of unrelated and visually distinct uses, including the Ferry Building Marketplace, the
26 ferry terminal, the World Trade Club and San Francisco Transition Structure, surface parking,
27 pedestrian access, sightseeing, and fishing. Similarly, the project setting exhibits low visual
28 unity, the result of a visually heterogeneous mix of independent, unrelated development and
29 activities.
30 Viewing Audience. The landside viewing audience for the San Francisco Transition Structure
31 includes patrons of the World Trade Club, ferry terminal, and Ferry Building Marketplace;
32 motorists, pedestrians, and sightseers along The Embarcadero, the waterfront and on the Ferry
33 Plaza; and occupants of the Financial District. Waterside viewers include motorists on the Bay
34 Bridge and ferry and boat passengers in the Bay.
3.8-12
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Golden Gate Avenue Overpass
Golden Gate Avenue Overpass
Figure 3.8-4. Golden Gate Avenue Overpass
f
3.8 Visual Resources
Table 3.8-1. Existing Conditions: Visual Character and Visual Quality
Project Structure
or Element
Visual Character
Visual Quality
Vividness
Intactness
Unity
Rockridge Station
• BART Station in State Route 24 median
• Suburban setting (commercial center, single-
family residential uses)
Moderate
to High
Low
Low
MacArthur Station
• BART Station at grade beneath State Route
24 /BART overpass; parking lot
• Commercial and residential uses
High
Low
Low
West Oakland
Station
• Aerial BART Station along Aerial Transition
Structure; parking lot
• Residential, commercial uses to north, south
• Light industrial uses to southeast
Low
Low
Moderate
West Oakland Aerial
Guideway
• Aerial Transition Structure to Maritime Street:
Port-serving and light industrial uses, rail
lines and roadways
• Pine Street to West Oakland Station:
commercial, residential uses
• West Oakland Station to Mandela Parkway:
commercial, residential uses
• Mandela Parkway to Filbert and Myrtle
streets: commercial, light industrial uses
• Filbert and Myrtle streets to downtown
Oakland tunnel: light industrial uses
Low
Low
Moderate
Aerial Transition
Structure (Port of
Oakland)
• Port-serving and light industrial uses
• Rail lines, Port access roads
• Recreational uses (San Francisco Bay Trail)
Low
Low
Moderate
Oakland Transition
Structure (Port of
Oakland)
• Port-serving and industrial uses (including
fenced, inaccessible transition structure)
• Rail lines, Port access roads
• Recreational uses (San Francisco Bay Trail)
Low
Low
Low
Other Seismic
Retrofits- Chabot
Road
• Landscaped open space along roadway slopes
• Residential uses
High
Low
Moderate
Other Seismic
Retrofits- Golden
Gate Avenue
• BART overpass, landscaped slopes
• Residential uses
• Recreational uses (Chabot Park)
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Other Seismic
Retrofits- Hardy
Park
• State Route 24/BART overpass
• Recreational uses (dog park, Hardy Park
Playground tot lot, basketball court,
landscaped open space)
• Oceanus Mural on State Route 24 underpass at
Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street
H.gh
Low
High
San Francisco
Transition Structure
• Public facilities (Golden Gate Ferry Terminal)
• Commercial facilities (Ferry Building
Marketplace restaurants, retail uses; World
Trade Club, associated parking)
• Recreational facilities (fishing, sightseeing)
High
Moderate
Low
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.8-15
3.8 Visual Resources
1 3.8.1.3 Light and Glare
2 The urban nature of the San Francisco and Oakland settings of the project area mean that
3 nighttime light levels throughout the project area are uniformly high. The San Francisco
4 Transition Structure location is lit by light standards illuminating the surface parking area, ferry
5 terminal, World Trade Club, and the perimeter of the platform. It is also indirectly lit by lights
6 along the Embarcadero Promenade /Herb Caen Way. Throughout Oakland, BART travels
7 almost exclusively along major thoroughfares (boulevards and streets) or within the median of
8 State Route 24, which are illuminated at night at relatively high levels.
9 3.8.2 Proposed Action
10 3.8.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
1 1 Criteria used to determine project-related impacts on visual resources are based on the FHWA
12 guidance and methodology provided in the Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects
13 (FHWA 1988). The project would result in impacts on visual character or qualities if the project
14 resulted in one of the following conditions:
15 • The visual character of project features contrasted strongly with the project setting,
16 resulting in low visual compatibility; or
17 • The proposed action changed, through introduction or removal, the existing balance
18 between the qualities of vividness, intactness, and unity of landscape features.
19 The project would result in impacts related to light and glare if the project resulted in the
20 following condition:
21 • Changes in the ambient nighttime illumination levels, which would spill light from the
22 project site and affect nearby sensitive uses or activities.
23 3.8.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
24 Oakland
25 Rockridge Station. Seismic retrofitting of piers at Rockridge Station would take place in
26 proximity to the Firestorm Community Mural and associated Oakland Hills Fire
27 commemorative bronze plaque. A portion of the mural on the building's east-facing facade is
28 located 10 feet west of the two columns identified as Pier 2. Jacketing of the southernmost Pier
29 2 column would also necessitate removal of the bronze plaque. Because the project includes
30 protective measures that will ensure the preservation of the artworks and restoration of the
31 bronze plaque to its original location, no impacts to the visual character or qualities of the
32 station are anticipated.
33 MacArthur Station. Construction at MacArthur Station would take place in proximity to the
34 two wall paintings located on the station's north and south walls and the four sculptures
35 located in the station plaza. Because retrofit activities would be short-term, and the project
36 includes protective measures that will ensure the preservation of the artworks during
37 construction, no impact on the station's visual character or qualities is anticipated.
3.8-16
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.8 Visual Resources
1 Project construction would be visible to patrons of the BART station but would not change
2 views of or from the station. Residences on 40 th Street are sufficiently distant that views from
3 these locations would not be affected. Motorists using the 40 th Street undercrossing at the
4 station would temporarily be able to see construction, but the impact on existing views would
5 be negligible. The proposed new infill walls would block only views already confined to the
6 station interior and would likewise have a negligible impact on views.
West Oakland Station. Project construction would be temporary and confined to structural
8 features internal to the station. The proposed project would have no impact on the overall
9 visual character of MacArthur Station or on its visual qualities.
10 Project construction would be visible to patrons of the BART station but would not change
11 views of or from the station. Views from off-site locations, including adjacent 7 th Street, are
12 sufficiently distant and screened by intervening vegetation such that impacts on those views
13 would be negligible.
14 Aerial Guideways. Project construction could result in the disturbance or removal of
15 ornamental landscaping and decorative hardscaping at several locations where slopes beneath
16 the aerial guideway support such features. These areas will be restored to their pre-project
17 conditions as part of the proposed project, and no impact is anticipated on visual character or
18 the visual quality of unity. As the qualities of vividness and intactness are generally low
19 throughout these areas, no impact on these qualities is expected.
20 While the proposed column jackets and shear keys would be visible to area motorists,
21 pedestrians, and residents, the new features would not contrast with the existing BART system
22 infrastructure, nor would they block or degrade any existing views.
23 West Oakland Aerial Guideway. Project construction would result in the temporary
24 disturbance or removal of landscaping along the San Francisco Bay Trail and at the intersection
25 of Maritime and 7 th streets. Construction would affect a small segment of the trail, which would
26 be temporarily rerouted within the adjacent 7 th Street right-of-way. The project would not
27 permanently affect the- trail's alignment or purpose, and the trail would be restored to its pre-
28 project condition upon completion of construction. For these reasons, the proposed project
29 would have no impact on visual character.
30 Landscaping and hardscaping associated with the San Francisco Bay Trail are among the few
31 visually unifying elements in this area. Landscaping subject to removal during project
32 construction includes ornamental grasses, low shrubs, and vines. Since this disturbance would
33 be temporary and the area would be restored to its pre-project condition after construction,
34 impacts on unity would be negligible. The intactness and vividness of the project area are
35 already low and would not be affected by project construction.
36 Oakland Transition Structure. Project staging and construction would occur entirely within the
37 fenced yard surrounding the transition structure and would not affect the visual character or
38 quality of the project area.
39 Other Seismic Retrofits. Because the BART line is contained within the median of State Route
40 24 throughout most of this segment until Golden Gate Avenue, in the Rockridge neighborhood/
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.8-17
3.8 Visual Resources
1 proposed seismic improvements would result in negligible effects on the visual character or the
2 qualities of the remaining work sites or their settings. While construction would be visible from
3 nearby residences, businesses or roadways, such activities would be temporary and would not
4 impact views from these locations.
5 Three worksites are discussed below in more detail because of their visual qualities: the Chabot
6 Road and Golden Gate Avenue overpasses, and Hardy Park.
7 Chabot Road and Golden Gate Avenue. Project construction associated with the Chabot Road
8 and Golden Gate Avenue overpasses would necessitate the removal of some plantings at these
9 locations, including two small redwood stands and scattered eucalyptus and pine trees at the
10 Chabot Road overpass, and three small stands of young redwood trees near the Golden Gate
11 overpass. As part of the project, these areas would be restored to their pre-project landscaped
12 conditions. For this reason, and because both areas already support relatively dense
13 ornamental and native plantings, the project would have a negligible impact on the overall
14 visual character or visual qualities of the two areas.
15 Affected observers include motorists and pedestrians along Chabot Road and Golden Gate
16 Avenue. Project impacts on views of the worksites and surrounding areas would be negligible.
17 Hardy Park. Project construction at the Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street BART/State
18 Route 24 overpass is close to Hardy Park recreational facilities, and would result in the removal
19 of existing landscaping. Construction would be temporary, and the project includes measures
20 to ensure the adequate restoration of park amenities to pre-project conditions, including clean
21 up, regrading, recompacting, repavement or relandscaping of the park, and replacement of any
22 damaged fencing. No impacts to visual character or qualities are anticipated. The Oceanus
23 Mural on the State Route 24 underpass is more than 20 feet from Pier 57, which is the closest
24 pier planned for reinforcement. At this distance, the mural would not be affected by
25 construction activity.
26 Oakland Yard and Shop Building. As the Oakland Yard and Shop building is located on
27 fenced, private property, inaccessible to the public, no impacts on visual character or qualities
28 are anticipated.
29 San Francisco
30 Project construction would detract from the existing degree of intactness because of removal of
31 a portion of the Ferry Plaza and staging of construction equipment and supplies, and would
32 disrupt the visual unity among the already disparate buildings and structures on the Ferry
33 Plaza. However, intactness at this worksite has been identified as moderate and unity is
34 considered low. Moreover, construction effects would be temporary and the platform would be
35 restored to its pre-project condition following construction. Therefore, construction impacts on
36 visual quality would be negligible. Project construction, including removal of a portion of the
37 platform, would not affect the broader scenic setting and construction activities would be
38 temporary.
39 Dredging associated with retrofit of the Transbay Tube or San Francisco Transition Structure
40 could result in a water surface turbidity plume near the dredge site, which could be visible to
3.8-18
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
\
3.8 Visual Resources
1 nearby viewers, though not visually dominant or even readily apparent. This plume would be
2 relatively small within the context of the larger Bay, and would disperse within hours after
3 dredging stops in that location due to mixing, dilution, and settling of dredged solids. This is
4 considered a negligible impact.
5 With respect to the viewing audience, the ferry platform serves as only one of numerous
6 locations along the waterfront that offer viewing opportunities to area visitors. The platform's
7 temporary removal during construction (2-4 years) is offset by the viewing opportunities
8 available along the length of the Embarcadero and on other nearby piers. However, the project
9 includes installation of noise control barriers consisting of either plywood walls between 8 and
10 12 feet tall around each worksite, or equipment blankets that would completely enshroud
11 individual pieces of equipment, which could obstruct views from offsite locations for the
12 duration of construction. These noise barriers would not block views from the Ferry Building
13 Marketplace or from other vantage points available along the length of the Embarcadero or
14 inland of the waterfront (e.g., high rise buildings), where views of the Bay would remain
15 available to visitors. For these reasons, platform removal and the presence of construction
16 equipment, noise barriers, and activities would result in negligible impacts on views from the
17 Ferry Building Marketplace. No impacts are expected on other landside and waterside viewers
18 in the project area because of their distance from the project site.
19 Light and Glare
20 Project construction could result in the temporary use of high-intensity light sources in the
21 vicinity of the highway and area roadways to illuminate construction activities in low light
22 conditions (e.g., overcast days or nighttime shifts, if applicable). The proposed project includes
23 measures intended to confine light spillover and prevent focused, intense off-site glare (see
24 BART et al. 2005b). Consequently, project construction would have negligible impacts on
25 ambient nighttime light levels or glare generation.
26 The construction sites where residential uses are within several hundred feet of project
27 construction include the three BART stations, where the BART right-of-way passes along 5 th
28 Street east of the West Oakland Station, and where the BART right-of-way crosses Pine Street
29 just east of Interstate 880. The stations (and construction sites) are separated from the nearest
30 residential uses by BART parking lots and/or surrounding roadways. Project construction
31 would occur far enough from residential land uses that impacts would not occur.
32 3.8.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
33 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
34 The placement of fill at the dredged stitching sites would require the same equipment used for
35 dredging and would take place in the same locations. Therefore, similar to dredging activities,
36 dredge material reuse within the project would have negligible impacts on visual resources
37 Dredged material reuse in the project area would also have a negligible impact on the visual
38 vividness of the sites, and no impact on intactness or unity of landscape features is anticipated.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.8-19
3.8 Visual Resources
1 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options outside the Project
2 Impacts on visual resources associated with transport of dredged material to the eight offsite
3 destinations would be similar for all of the proposed sites. Disposal of dredged material
4 outside the project would occur in addition to fill placement at the stitching sites and San
5 Francisco Transition Structure. Barges would travel in the appropriate traffic lanes from the
6 project site to a disposal site. Because barges are a common sight throughout San Francisco Bay,
7 barge transport of dredged material to locations outside the project would result in no impacts
8 on visual character and visual resources, including the visual qualities of vividness, intactness,
9 and unity, either at the project work sites or along the barge routes.
3.8-20
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2 The analysis presented below is based on the results of two technical studies prepared for the
3 project. A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared in accordance with legal requirements set
4 forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 [c]), and follows the
5 standards established in the FHWA NEPA guidance. In addition, a Natural Environment Study
6 (NES) was prepared in accordance with Caltrans Environmental Handbook (Volume 3,
Chapter 2). The BA and NES provide detailed analyses of impacts on special status species and
8 native habitats that occur in the project area, including Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) (BART et al.
9 2005f, 2005g).
10 3.9.1 Existing Setting
11 3.9.1.1 Marine and Terrestrial Resources
12 This section provides a description of marine and terrestrial resources, including habitats and
13 vegetation, commercially important fisheries species, and special status species that may occur
14 in, or migrate through, the project area. San Francisco Bay supports a large and diverse
15 community of freshwater, estuarine, and marine fish; macroinvertebrates; zooplankton;
16 phytoplankton; and aquatic vegetation. The Bay is strongly influenced by tidal exchange with
17 nearshore coastal waters and freshwater inflow from the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
18 systems, and other tributaries. Factors that affect the abundance and diversity of the aquatic
19 community include tidal flushing, currents, fluctuations in salinity, and water temperature.
20 Freshwater inflows from the river systems contain significant amounts of nutrients and
21 dissolved minerals and transport a large volume of sediment from the watersheds. Freshwater
22 inflows mix with nutrient-deficient seawater within the Bay, resulting in a highly productive
23 estuarine aquatic environment.
24 As a result of the diversity of aquatic habitats, and productivity of the estuarine waters, the Bay
25 and western Delta serve as important spawning and nursery areas for many aquatic species,
26 provide foraging habitat, and serve as an important migratory corridor for anadromous fish,
27 which migrate between freshwater and marine environments. The Bay-Delta system has been
28 designated as critical habitat for winter- run Chinook salmon and steelhead. San Francisco Bay
29 and portions of the western Delta have also been identified as EFH for federally managed fish
30 species.
31 Plankton
32 The project lies within the Central Bay Subregion of San Francisco Bay. Phytoplankton common
33 here are the diatoms Chaetoceros spp. and Rhizolenia spp. and some dinoflagellates. Most of
34 these are coastal species that now occur in the Central Bay, beyond their native ranges, because
35 of coastal upwelling and tidal mixing with nearshore coastal marine waters. The majority of the
36 spring phytoplankton bloom is composed of dinoflagellates, a primary food source for
37 zooplanktonic grazers and benthic filter- feeders. Central Bay zooplankton are concentrated in
38 the shoals along the Bay, and are composed mainly of the copepods Eurytemora affinis,
39 Sinocalanus doerri, and Pseudodiaptomous forbesi, and many larval invertebrate species.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3»- 1
3.9 Biological Resources
1 Eelgrass
2 Eelgrass beds are present intermittently in the shallows of San Francisco Bay, as are both the
3 native and invasive species of Spartina. There are approximately 131 acres (53 hectares) of
4 eelgrass beds within the Central Bay (USACE et al. 1998), which is somewhat less than half of
5 the acreage of eelgrass in the entire San Francisco Bay. Eelgrass beds provide refuge and
6 nursery habitat for many fish and invertebrate species including juvenile Chinook salmon
7 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) , Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster
8 aggregata), crabs, and bay shrimp. In addition, these beds provide spawning habitat for the
9 Pacific herring and other fish species, and foraging habitat for the California least tern {Sterna
10 antillarum browni), many other bird species, and several invertebrate species. None of these
11 beds are close to the project site; beds are located offshore from Emeryville, off the southern end
12 of Alameda Island, and off the northern end of Bay Farm Island.
13 Benthic Invertebrates
14 The deep water and coarse-grained sediments in the Central Bay provide habitat for species that
15 are tolerant of strong currents and substrate irregularity. The benthic community in the Central
16 Bay is represented in part by the amphipod Foxiphalns obtusidens, the crab Cancer gracilis, and
17 the polychaetes Armandia brevis, Mediomastns sp., Siphones missionensis, and Glycinde picta.
18 Sheltered areas of the Central Bay are characterized by finer sediments and biota typical of such
19 sediments. The small clam Macoma balthica is abundant here, particularly in intertidal areas.
20 Other common species are the molluscs My a arenaria, Gemma gemma, Musculista senhousia, and
21 Venerupis philippinarum; the amphipods Ampelisca abdita, Photis californica, Grandidierella japonica,
22 and Corophium sp.; and the polychaetes Streblospio benedicti, Glycinde sp., Exogone lonrei, and
23 Polydora sp. Hard substrates support large populations of the Bay mussel, My t Hits edulis
24 (Thompson et al. 1994; USFWS 1986). The benthos, or the community living on the seafloor, also
25 provides nursery habitat for the commercially important Dungeness crab (Cancer magister).
26 Fish
27 A wide variety of fish may be found in the project area. Among them are various flatfish,
28 surfperch, gobies, sculpin, bait and forage fish (anchovies, herring, smelt), pipefish (Syngnathus
29 spp.), croakers, silversides, sharks, and rays. Flatfish common to sandy-silt sediments include the
30 English sole (Parophrys vetulus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), California halibut
31 (Paralichthys calif or nicus), and diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guttulata) (USACE 1992). Other
32 common bottom fish include Bay gobies (Lepidogobius lepidiis) and the Pacific staghorn sculpin
33 (Leptocottus armatus). White croakers (Genyonemus lineatus) usually occur in shallow water and
34 feed on benthic invertebrates (Hart 1973).
35 Northern anchovies (Engraulis mordax), a pelagic, or open water marine species, occur in the Bay
36 year round. Anchovies are an important food source for predators such as salmon, jacksmelt, and
37 striped bass. Pacific herring (Clupea harengns pallasii) are also an important forage species.
38 Herring enter the Bay in the winter and early spring to spawn in rocky areas, along seaweed or
39 eelgrass covered substrates, on pilings, and on sandy beaches (U.S. Navy 1993). Some of these
40 spawning areas include the shoreline between the Bay Bridge and San Leandro Yacht Harbor,
3.9-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
1 along the Alameda and Oakland waterfront, the shoreline of Yerba Buena and Treasure Islands,
2 and other shoreline areas of Central and San Pablo bays (U.S. Navy 1993; Smith and Kato 1979).
3 Shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata) and pile surfperch (EJiacochilus vacca) are commonly
4 found in harbors (Smith and Kato 1979; USACE 1984).
5 Anadromous fish that migrate through the Bay (saltwater) to spawn in the Sacramento-San
6 Joaquin River system (freshwater), include striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa
snpidissima), and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Chinook salmon migrate mainly in
8 the fall, although the winter-run Chinook migrate from November to May (U.S. Navy 1993;
9 USACE 1992). Other anadromous fish found within the Bay include white and green sturgeon
10 {Acipenser transmontanus and Acipenser medirostris, respectively), which generally migrate
11 upstream in the spring (Smith and Kato 1979). Additional details on managed (EFH) species are
12 contained in the project BA and NES (BART et al. 2005f, 2005g).
13 Marine Mammals
14 Marine mammals that occur commonly in the project area include harbor seals (Phoca vitulina),
15 the California sea lion (Zalophus calif ornianns), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and harbor
16 porpoises (Phocoena phocoena).
17 The harbor seal is a year-round resident in coastal California and in San Francisco Bay. The
18 total population of harbor seals in the Bay is estimated at approximately 700 animals (USFWS
19 1992). Twelve haul-out areas (locations where seals and sea lions rest, breed, or molt out of the
20 water) are known to exist in the Bay. The Yerba Buena haul-out has more than 40 harbor seals
21 during the breeding and molting seasons. Yerba Buena Island is not considered a breeding site;
22 however, pups have been observed there (Kopec and Harvey 1995). Harbor seals use the south
23 side of Yerba Buena Island as a year-round haul-out and foraging site (Kopec and Harvey 1995).
24 California sea lions have been observed on a regular basis in the shipping channel to the south
25 of Yerba Buena Island, although little information is available on their foraging patterns in the
26 Bay. While California sea lions are known to use the general area of Pier 39 as a haul-out site,
27 the majority are male, and no rookeries (nesting or breeding grounds) are known in the Bay.
28 The gray whale has been sighted more frequently in recent years in the Bay. Gray whales use
29 the Bay seasonally, but their presence is poorly understood. Observations of gray whales
30 typically occur during the months from December to March, during their winter migration
31 north to Alaska and the Bering Straits.
32 There are high densities of harbor porpoise just offshore from the Bay. Although they ha\ e
33 been observed in the Bay and have the potential to occur in the project area, they are not
34 expected to be abundant in this portion of the Bay.
35 Marine Birds
36 Common marine bird species observed in the Central Bay and project area include cormorants,
37 gulls, scoters, murres, guillemots, and grebes, among others. Wintering species include the
38 common loon (Gavia immer), surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), and western grebe
39 (Aechmophorus occidentalis) (USFWS 1986, 1995). Waterfowl are typically more abundant in
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-3
3.9 Biological Resources
1 shallow-water habitats but also occur in deep-water habitats. Cormorants and gull species are
2 likely to occur in the project area. Shorebirds, such as sanderlings (Calidris alba) and dunlin
3 (Calidris alpina), and western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) are also present in
4 shallow-water habitats and on mudflats, feeding on small clams, snails, and worms (USFWS
5 1986, 1995).
6 Terrestrial Resources
7 The BART alignment comes ashore in the East Bay beneath Berth 34 in the Port of Oakland,
8 passes through downtown Oakland and extends east to the western portal of the Berkeley Hills
9 Tunnel. Within the Port of Oakland, vegetation is minimal. An adjacent bicycle path is
10 landscaped with ornamental shrubs along its southern edge. The only other vegetation near the
11 BART right-of-way in this area includes weeds growing in nearly barren land near the
12 guideways, and a few ornamental trees. Between downtown Oakland and the final approach to
13 the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel, the BART tracks are contained in the median of
14 State Route 24. As State Route 24 approaches the Warren Freeway (Highway 13) in the Oakland
15 Hills, the BART tracks leave the State Route 24 median and are at-grade with aerial sections at
16 street crossings until the tracks reach the tunnel.
17 The land adjacent to the State Route 24/ BART right-of-way is either paved, overtaken with
18 weeds, landscaped with poorly maintained ornamental plantings, or covered with wood mulch
19 or rock. There are street trees near the West Oakland Station. Between the MacArthur and
20 Rockridge Stations, vegetation along the BART right-of-way is limited to planted medians and
21 planter strips. The Rockridge Station supports only ivy-filled planters with several mature
22 carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua) adjacent to the commuter parking lot.
23 Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) are present in the vicinity of Presley Way, but are
24 approximately 100 feet from the BART alignment. At Patton Street the slopes are covered with
25 ivy and support a few planted Japanese maple trees. At Golden Gate Avenue, the surrounding
26 neighborhood supports fairly dense stands of non-native vegetation. Bridge piers are set into
27 slopes supporting ivy, patches of non-native grasses, and weeds. There are scattered native
28 toyon (Heteroneles arbutifolia) shrubs and invasive pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) near the
29 BART bridge over Golden Gate Avenue. Several stands of well-established redwoods (Sequoia
30 sempervirens) are present on the slopes near the bridge piers; trees at the northeast corner of the
31 bridge are within a few feet of the support columns.
32 The segment of the BART system between the Montgomery Street Station and the San Francisco
33 Ferry Plaza is located underground and within the developed urban setting of the City of San
34 Francisco. The San Francisco Ferry Plaza is located on the San Francisco Bay waterfront
35 (Embarcadero area) and extends several hundred feet out into shallow water. Vegetation on the
36 Ferry Plaza is limited to ornamental trees, shrubs, and flowers contained in planters set into the
37 platform surrounding the World Trade Club building and the San Francisco Ferry Terminal.
38 Berkeley Hills Tunnel — Western Portal
39 Slopes adjacent to Chabot Road support an understory of ivy, non-native grasses, and weeds.
40 Shrubs include stands of native toyon and non-native pampas grass. The toe of the slope along
41 the north side of Chabot Road, beneath the overpass, also supports an isolated stand of wetland
3.9-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
1 plants. Non-native trees along both sides of Chabot Road include sapling and mature, possibly
2 planted eucalyptus and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). Several stands of California redwood
3 also occur on the slopes on either side of the road, and may have been planted. Several
4 redwoods are located at the southwest corner of the bridge within a few feet of the existing
5 bridge piers. There is a second stand of redwoods about halfway up the northwest slope near
6 the tunnel portal. There is a designated open space preserve at the top of the slope, above the
7 tunnel portals.
8 A wetland area was identified along the northeastern side of Chabot Road (Reynolds 2002;
9 BART et al. 2005a). This wetland is approximately 1,200 square feet (0.03 acre) and appears to
10 have formed as a result of the road berm, which has blocked drainage off the adjacent slope. It
11 is physically and hydrologically isolated from natural drainage, and supports non-native
12 wetland plants. Two man-made features may contribute to the creation or maintenance of this
13 wetland: an East Bay Municipal Utility District meter box and pipeline that may be leaking,
14 and a municipal storm drain along the north side of Chabot Road that carries substantial runoff
15 during rainfall events (Reynolds 2002).
16 The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2002) reports that this area also supports
17 the Berkeley kangaroo rat, a federal Species of Concern that prefers foothill woodlands and
18 valley grassland communities.
19 3.9.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
20 Several state or federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur or have a
21 potential to occur in the project area. Seasonal migrations of anadromous fish are well known, as
22 are the spawning or foraging destinations of these and other species. However, the number of
23 individuals or the size of the population that may be in the Bay during the construction period
24 and may be affected by the project are not known at this time. Table 3.9-1 lists the state and
25 federally listed species potentially occurring in the general project area. In Table 3.9-1, species
26 with a reasonable potential to occur in the immediate project area and to be affected by the project
27 are listed in bold print. For these species, occurrence in the project area is described in detail in
28 the Biological Assessment (BART et al. 2005f). Species not listed in bold print in Table 3.9-1 have a
29 very low potential for being affected by the project, and are not discussed further in this E A.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-5
3.9 Biological Resources
O
£ '~
o>
bE
Q
!S CO
5
T3
G cj
^ C
>, g
o
re c
E •£
— -a
c 2
■2 §
re o
h oj
2 I
■£ -3
cn re
S E
oi c«
o
c
o
1/3
x
bC
S2l
ai re cn
2 S g,
bC 0) 3
1 ,
re uj <-> oi
3 in o j
>, ? « 5
<
: ^
UJ — !
o
a.
b<3
X
u
nl
X
D.
E
3
X
£ re
O) ra
— O)
3 S
<s X
re u
T3 re
H X
55 £
01 01
cn X
a; c p
oi
re -"S
IS °
3 C
cj 3
o £
re 2
o
re
.*j
0)
cn ,M
3 3
£ 2
M re
01 cn
X C
5:2
oi o
X M
H ^
. 01
01 ■±3
tj 01
01 to
c 2
£ ^ p
« _g x -a
> T3 d c
2 £ ?, £
is 2 3d Uh
c
re
CD
face
re J)
01
in
^ " <u
oi re
60 3 o
£ c "3
O 5 ro
Ph < X
£c§
<
^2
C/3
O C
'Z cn
C 3 0)
re ti X
) re °
: o >->t;
• ;> c
be
c.S ^
| «i
w -n
og 3
(J 13
■X* I
.a T3
> C
re
<J
O) O)
'o\SP
r ^
(U CQ
£ Ss
C\J i-**.
.S CQ C
3 X
u
° c
° 5 .
2 S
C c re
° 7!
c ?d
"O re
c u.
re
bO rt
- cn
re
re
3 >-:
re
01
c .-a
cn Oi
oi >
§ O)
cn °
M C
c <"
v cn
,cn re
u .
-C O)
.2P re
X $
T3
C
re oi
^3
re
o«
re >^
oi re
C CQ
p
C
•c
bD
at
u
0*
C
<s
CJ
■C c
V O
E ^
re re
(13
o -t:
QJ -I
.2 1
01
t< cn n
JS
2 o
cn 11
01 3
■J3 TS
> o
2 °
43 re
i- o
O CD
O .t)
3<
^ "re
o >
X 2
6X3 V!
c .Si,
'5b 2
£ !X
0)
"-i x.
bo-"
.£ .E
3 cn
C M •
.2 ° re
1 S3
2 2^
bo
Oj cn
> re
.p 01
2 c
re <u
O
a.
bo
re
0)
re
O
£ re
ai re
o g
O)
fc: 53 *3
01
re oi
ro X 43
^ cn ^
« 2 o
CD X cn
bp
5 2
0)
IX
a
_re
Tj
'S
g 2
2^ n
cn CX--3
x 5P O
cr V rt
. re .5 -g
3 O"
0)
cn
re
>^2 -
X! X
.5 x
o u
■r re
> 0)
n X
JS 3 «
C
re
±3 6 C
£ re re C
O- tn re 2
Oi T5 g O
3 C ' :
-a
re
a., bo S
^ C ~
w 01
H 3 D- 2
«h <
01 CQ 2
cn' re
E C 0) T3
-73 — X <U
O X 3 >
C ' " '
— ^ cu re
X >
re
cj
cn re
o» oi
.C ^
cn ^
re . — i
E
c c
x 01
re
CD O
oi is
_M re
« 5
S 3
03 C
re cn
'^ O
3
a. X u
_ - JS
,g 01 «
> a
re
OI CJ
43 OJ K
Oi • - ^ n
_; cn ^ u
oi cn - ■
u > S £
'c <5 a» t? .P 'o
T3
re re
m>2
t re
u o
0) re -rj
OJ
!X bo Cu
.2 3^
cn -a 3
01 u
o si
O. S bO u f cn
^ c 01 11 oi
SJ cx'S "
-3 cu cn c
3 re ^.2 £
■ S i5 re -2 13
y cx 3 ro
O o
cn
O jJ
O re
j-.
o 3
re
5 X W re IS
§ g I 2 2 o 3
i6 .3 cn X C cn
b05f]£ »
4= 2^ ai
re
o
u
3
01
Cu
O
U a
3.9-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
C o
CD
O oj
n . b£
1 &
a: '~
~ c C
"g
41 ^
c ua
OJ C
S 2
CO
._: o>
■ — • re
X)
_ re
— re 33
E J= 3
u 17:1
>
re
"o
CJ
ja
j<
0) 73
u
re
o
c
re
a
CO
73
U
c
3
re 73
c
re
01
3
t3
re
OCC
mu
o
OJ
o
c
ing
nroi
UIU|
no
01
o
c
13
-C
c
C
c .
O to
SG 2
2 o
aj oj
_Q C
13 2
c 5
f—
-53 2
£ 35
S §
5 ~
bO
e
aj -a
.£:§
Is
_ 8 s
y 3 33
O >
S re tj
"a) re bO
r33 cj --c
— ■ oj bo
o'oE
Z o-2
c .
0) to
2 «
is re
'35 '£
> 5
oi 33
lH — .
re re
06 U
bO
c
0) 73
-X re
p b
■a 3
u. O
3 u
CJ
O J,
2 «?
oj
re
01
o S
2 o~
c .
OJ CO
U
P re
5
'35 'c
> o
0) 33
U. ! i
re re
CS U
Cj
bo
C
'C
3
OJ 73
•5 >,
c re
re
0)
o c
u
tj
o
o
>,
53
O
Z
."3
X> >
re to
oj bo
'P 2
c .
OJ to
U S
2 re
14 C
re re
C2 U
3
T3
re
01
OJ
bo
bo
O
bO
_C
'C
3
OJ 73
.££
IS
3 -Si
re W
-5 c
•3 re
re
-O 3
y. 3 .33
O _- - X3
j-» re (j
x2 «
"aJ re bo
Z ^2
c .
01 t/3
u s
2 re
ua c
> o
01 33
i-j . — 1
re re
C5 U
o
SL.
re
OJ
>;
_0J
X!
c2
oi _oj
bO
c
re
re
OJ^
"5
>-.
01
JZ
P S
QJ O
(J T3
o re
bO
re
2 s
C ^ a-.
re 2 re
re S IS
±3 bO re
c
c
OJ
U-
re
c
cut:
c/^ 3 u
w in
01 0)
X >
£ 2
f3 C
C OJ
re C
01 c
re
Ei- re
3 CD
o
O
o
c
U
c
2
tio £
■c 6
re
C
o
02
re re
OJ 0)
U5 >h
c tj
"C .Si.
3 O
in
>, OJ
re x;
to .C
to .Z!
re re
^•33
.33 £>
C re
•rl X
SL'E
0^ u
S-l t/)
OJ £
rC 01
SZ
£ H
u O
O re
re^-
bO
2 £
T3
C
re ii
re
re u
33 bO
01 -3
Q £
c 2
P re
CO
3°°^
c oi 01
35"£ 2
3
C Xi
Oh re
3 CD
Si
re
o» -C
re Is
2 2
O re
U 73
o .2
> o>
5 2
tx _ ^
2 5 js
o z
> re
bC
3
T3
CO
'C
">
Si.
'o
S-l
D-
01
X
3 £
u O
S E
re
CQ
O
CJ — ■ r-
co re 3
•-h j_. re
c a.Sj
re 01 h
^ ^ £
1 — u u
re re
* ? Sfi
3 — _0J
"y aj "re
^ to > .
o
U -o
n
OJ
C 4J
OJ 01
u «
bO
c
re
^£
G
>
SL
'o
11
a.
01
x
c
3 C
u c
o • —
o re
>.
re
bC
S £
C C
'3 re c
Hi
C O 3
re » H
^•a .£
re 1- 1j re
r> U- > • -
5 c'S-Q
C re ^ re
I 12 ■
« u, 3 U
U g X -
re .2 'C C
C
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-7
3.9 Biological Resources
O
01
T- -2
ft
a: ~
U5 C/j
P >- r-
tc b oj
CE Cu"0
in >- 3
"ego.
(U O « _c
u CO o
c
5 CD
E §1
cj
3 c c
u toJ5
"I""* ec
C
E
— -B - o
o § « a
2 £ S o
O) —
.> _e
■SO
u c
O £
PL,
O
2 *
o* -5
u 3
c
)h
jU
cn
01
re
wi
re
cn
CD
u,
0)
E
re
jisu
CD
cn
c
12
01
re
1-,
cn
c ^
re u
CO E
o> .a
is c
c .2
O cn (/>
Z Stj
re
"3 cn
Q C re
cr c xi
re re c
0,0 «i
E E ~
re 01 in
c re >
u re
cn B _
S £ re 5
cn ^5
c
B re
re ."3
O
o
rtd re
m re
2 c
<u o
3 S3
^ re
£U
re o
2 TC
Lis
01 >,
_e .a
B in
C lS C
re o
^ in o
Hi
■3 .2-3
-_: u B
n 'B 41
O cn 01
Z £ 5
o
-2 o>
E M
re
TS J
|1
to C
re -B
re
Ch
c_i O) E
■rj X re
re cn
3 T3 ^
trc o
< «
_E L* >H
■ u
in .e
TS B
c
TS
01
u
O O)
01
S 2
o
-O
P
ao
Ih
01
o
2 re
01 re
B3 tJ
— 1 o^
I 2
Z D-
c
pj —
Cl, X!
w C
$.8
^ re
01
«* 6
cn o
^ o
>^ ,
Oi <N
pvj CN
Lh
r. 0)
2 CO
O cn
-Q 01
5 re
Cl, O X O
o
u
o
2 re
01 re
^ tJ
I s
Z Cl,
O
I &
[— 01
^ >-,
01
re S
re j;
01
cj
in LB E
re - 2
Oi 01
O rB
H <
w
Si,
O
Cl.
T3
■s g
01 re
£. cn
Ch
re .S
Oi o
Ch
E ^
01 >-,
t ^
3 ^ S
g -a
01 re E
^ ^ 2
O cn pl,
o
o
>^
"3 .
re
|l
Z
3
CJ
O
o
"3
•B 5
11
Z jz
re ^t 1 "P
x
5 m
in 01
re E
O 3
U TJ
a; P
" E
re 03
ro cn
E
E °
01
01
B ™
o 5
re S
So
bo
c
u
G
2 re
01 re
£ a
I s
Z D.
N
re^
U re
re cn
to
re o>
£ "
_ Ch
15 o
cn C
"re lC
In "B
re .5
O o
U Ch
B ^
O cn
U *H
OI
01
.s >; .
3 c "2
s § c
x o£
cn U ^2
D-
o 2
U £
3.9-8 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
CO
U
* <
—
60
d
—
u
o
■42 <*
C
o
Pi
cn
cu
"tj
C/5
(75
c
CD
fcC
re
0-
3 5
o
a.
1 p-
§ 2
.5 £
u
« W PS t-
c/5
a.
en
CD
C
O
-a
o
T3
3
CO
SP XS
.3 *
d
o
U
■£! m — , [_.
O T3
cj
Cu
Q
Cu
o
-a >s tn a.
_£ t3 "3. <« "S
*^ re fa in CO
T3
T3 cu t3
0) Cu CU
tlf I/) Ph
D w
Q
-J
O
CO
.3
2 P
re
-D
m
CO
o
o
o
o
CN
cs
01
cu
e
£
re
re
U
U
T3
-a
C
c
re
re
JS
ui
it*
o
c
c
CU
i
cu
1
1-1
re
re
Cu
Cu
cu
cu
Q
D
_re
C3
'2
u<
O
|
"re
"re
U
u
CO
o
o
5 -2
CN £
"7" re
It d
— D
> 3
re re
2 2
'2 x
Ui I— t
.2 &
re 2
U W
cu
'o 2
R- T3
ca •a
o c
U D
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-9
3.9 Biological Resources
1 3.9.2 Proposed Action
2 3.9.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
3 The methods used to evaluate impacts on habitats and wildlife were developed by the CEQ and
4 are included in the Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Section 1500-1508).
5 A project may impact biological resources if it would:
6 • Substantially affect a rare, threatened, or endangered species, or its habitat;
7 • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
8 species;
9 • Substantially diminish the habitat for fish, wildlife, or plant species; or
10 • Involve the production, use, or disposal of materials that pose a hazard to plant or
11 wildlife populations in the affected area.
12 In addition, an underwater noise threshold was developed following discussions with the
13 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries specialists (personal
14 communications, G. Stern 2003; T. Fahy 2003). The following criteria address underwater sound
1 5 pressure levels and the tolerance of fish and marine mammals to steel pile installation using an
16 impact hammer. The thresholds quoted below were obtained through pilot studies conducted
17 for the Bay Bridge Seismic Safety Project (Caltrans 2001), and by NOAA Fisheries' evaluation of
18 sound level monitoring reports that have been prepared for the Benicia-Martinez Bridge project
19 (personal communications, G. Stern 2003; R. Rodkin 2003).
20 For marine mammals, noise measured by the root mean square (rms) method is considered the
21 best predictor of adverse effects. The rms method, also referred to as the sound pressure level
22 (SPL), is the square root of the energy in an impulse divided by the duration of the impulse.
23 The rms and other noise measures are usually expressed in decibels (dB), a logarithmic scale, in
24 reference to a standard pressure such as one micropascal (1 uPa). A sound pressure of 180 dB
25 rms (re 1 /-iPa) has been identified by NOAA Fisheries as a guideline for establishment of the
26 gray whale safety zone (BART et al. 2005f). NOAA Fisheries applies this guideline to all whale
27 species, based on 180 dB rms as the sound level causing temporary threshold shift (TTS) in the
28 hearing of whales in general (personal communication, T. Fahy 2003). NOAA Fisheries also
29 indicated that any region where noise levels are greater than 180 dB rms would be designated
30 safety zones, and would require work stoppage while whales were present in that zone. To
31 avoid work stoppage, conservation measures to prevent noise levels of 180 dB rms or higher
32 would have to be implemented. A harassment zone for whales is designated as a circular ring
33 extending outward from the inner safety zone of 180 dB rms, to the outer limit of the 160 dB rms
34 underwater NOAA guideline for harassment of marine mammals. If there is any likelihood
35 that whales would stray into the harassment zone, NOAA Fisheries requires an Incidental
36 Harassment Authorization (IHA).
37 The NOAA Fisheries TTS harassment threshold for seals and sea lions is 190 dB rms, 10 dB
38 higher than for whales, which reflects the greater sensitivity of cetaceans (including whales) to
39 underwater sound compared to pinnipeds, such as seals and sea lions. Any region where noise
3.9-10
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
1 levels are greater than 190 dB rms would be designated safety zones for Steller sea lions and
2 other pinnipeds, and would require work stoppage while pinnipeds were present in that zone.
3 As discussed above, a harassment zone for all marine mammals is designated as a circular ring
4 extending outward from the inner safety zone of 190 dB rms (for pinnipeds), to the outer limit
5 of the 160 dB rms underwater NOAA guideline for harassment of marine mammals. Issuance
6 of an IHA from NOAA Fisheries would be required depending on the potential for pinnipeds to
7 stray into the harassment zone.
8 Noise impact thresholds for fish are less well understood than for marine mammals. For fish,
9 noise measured as instantaneous peak pressure (in dB re 1 uPa) is considered the best predictor
10 of adverse effects. For a given sound source, the peak pressure is typically 10 to 15 dB higher
11 than the rms value. In ESA Biological Opinions completed for recent construction projects in
12 San Francisco Bay (Benicia-Martinez New Bridge Project and Bay Bridge East Span Seismic
13 Safety Project), NOAA Fisheries has identified a peak pressure of 204 dB re 1 uPa as capable of
14 causing mortality of juvenile fish, and peak pressures of 180-190 dB as potentially causing
15 physical injury in fish (NOAA Fisheries 2002a, 2001). Again, noise impact thresholds are not
16 well understood for fish, so these peak pressure levels should be considered very approximate
17 levels at which adverse effects could occur.
18 3.9.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
19 In the following section, impacts on marine resources are presented first, followed by impacts
20 on terrestrial resources. A general description of each type of impact is provided followed by a
21 discussion of the types of communities and species, including protected species, which would
22 be affected by that impact.
23 Marine Resources
24 Benthic Disturbances and Turbidity. Underwater construction methods (e.g., dredging, pile
25 installation, vibro-replacement) would disturb the bottom of the Bay and would impact marine
26 life. Impacts of dredging would include removal of the benthic community and increased levels
27 of suspended solids and turbidity. Increased turbidity causes gill irritation in fish, reduces the
28 level of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column, and reduces foraging efficiency of fish and
29 marine mammals.
30 The vibro-replacement method, stitching the Tube, dredging, and pile installation at the San
31 Francisco Transition Structure would resuspend sediment in the water column, and increase
32 turbidity in localized areas. Micropile anchorage would occur from within the Tube, so there
33 would be no disturbance of the Bay bottom or overlying water column.
34 Underwater construction may also lower DO concentrations depending on the reduced organic
35 content of the suspended sediments. Any contaminants in the sediment would be introduced
36 into the water column, although the bioavailability of these contaminants is likely to be low as
37 contaminants are typically bound to sediment particles. These effects would be localized, and
38 resuspended sediments would be diluted and dispersed by waves, currents, and tides.
39 Although these construction efforts would be localized, they would occur for the duration ol
40 project activities.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-11
3.9 Biological Resources
1 At the San Francisco Transition Structure, it is expected that dredging, which would cause the
2 most resuspension of sediments, would last only a few weeks. These effects would be
3 intermittent because they would cease or dissipate at the end of each workday, but they would
4 occur regularly over an extended period. The use of temporary steel sheet pilings around each
5 construction area at the San Francisco Transition Structure would also isolate and contain
6 dredged materials and construction spoils from entering the surrounding Bay water, and would
7 limit the lateral spreading of suspended sediment plumes. For stitching the Tube, these effects
8 would be shorter in duration at any given location, because construction would move from one
9 location to another along the Tube alignment.
10 Benthic Community. Benthic flora and fauna have the greatest potential to be affected by
1 1 dredging operations.
12 In areas that are dredged or heavily disturbed by construction, the benthic community would
13 be lost or severely disturbed. The disturbance area at the San Francisco Transition Structure
14 and the six locations where the Tube would be stitched would be approximately 8 acres.
15 Minimal disturbance of the benthic community would also occur during vibro-replacement
16 activities at the sites where the spud piles holding the template in place would be inserted into
17 the Bay floor, and there would be deposition of particulates in areas adjacent to the larger
18 construction areas. Rapid and deep deposition of suspended sediments (e.g., greater than 10 to
19 20 centimeters [cm]) may smother and kill less mobile invertebrates. However, areas
20 experiencing this amount of deposition would likely be small. In other affected areas,
21 invertebrates would likely burrow upward through the deposited material, or move laterally
22 from the deposition, and survive.
23 Benthic community re-colonization after construction would generally occur by one of two
24 ways: (1) larval recruitment or (2) immigration of benthic organisms from adjacent areas.
25 Studies of re-colonization following construction indicate that re-colonization can be rapid due
26 to the presence of opportunistic species in the area (USEPA 1993). A benthic community
27 capable of providing a stable food source to bottom feeding fish, for example, is expected to
28 develop within 1 year. As construction sites would not be repeatedly disturbed, the
29 opportunistic species would be replaced over time by species that are more typically observed
30 in later stages of colonization, until a diverse and mature community that is characteristic of the
3 1 existing habitat develops. As such, impacts on the benthic community would be negligible.
32 No impacts to eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) would occur as there are no eelgrass beds near the
33 project area or potential dredged material disposal sites.
34 Plankton. Potential effects of increased turbidity on planktonic organisms from dredging and
35 construction activities include decreased phytoplankton primary productivity due to reduction
36 of light penetration, entrapment, and sinking of plankton due to ingestion by or adhesion of
37 particles to the plankton, and decreased survival, growth rates, and body weight of
38 zooplankton resulting from clogged and damaged feeding appendages (USEPA 1993; O'Connor
39 1991; Pequegnat et al. 1978). However, the impact on plankton communities would be
40 negligible since the turbidity increase would be localized and temporary (USEPA 1993).
41 Because suspended material settles rapidly, reduction in light attenuation and associated
42 reduction in primary productivity would be localized and short term, continuing only until the
43 plume dissipates (USEPA 1993). Because the Central Bay Subregion is dynamic, with ocean
3.9-12
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
1 currents dispersing new plankton populations, the effects are expected to be short term. As
2 phytoplankton and some zooplankton mature to reproductive life stages within a few days and
3 can remain viable for days to weeks, new communities would repopulate the water column
4 every few days. As such, impacts on plankton would be negligible.
5 Fish. Bottom disturbance from dredging and construction activities could also affect the food
6 resources of bottom-feeding fish. The affected area (8 acres) would be small relative to the total
7 foraging area in the project vicinity and in the Bay (approximately 100,000 acres). In addition,
8 water quality conditions in the construction area would likely temporarily discourage foraging
9 by most fish in the construction area and the immediate vicinity. Once construction is
10 completed, the benthic community would likely recover within several months to about 1 year
11 (USEPA 1993); therefore, long-term effects on this community would be negligible.
12 Suspended solids in the water can impact water column- feeding fish by decreasing the visibility
13 needed for foraging and by impairing oxygen exchange due to clogged or lacerated gills. This
14 could occur if resuspended sediments contained high levels of reduced organic matter, which
15 would result in localized areas of low DO levels. Suspended solids concentrations sufficient to
16 cause adverse effects on fish are expected to occur only in the immediate construction area.
17 Suspended solids concentrations exceeding 1,500 mg/L are considered a threshold for adverse
18 effects on juvenile Chinook salmon (Noggle 1978). A study by the USACE on the water quality
19 effects of a clamshell dredging project in San Francisco Bay showed that suspended solids
20 concentration were generally below 200 mg/L at a location 50 meters down-current of the
21 dredging site, and lower than this at greater distances (USACE 1976). This indicates that
22 suspended solids effects on fish from project construction are likely to be negligible. The one
23 possible exception to this is for Pacific herring. If construction occurs close to a site of herring
24 spawning, the spawning could be adversely affected by suspended solids and related DO
25 effects.
26 Mitigation Measure. Implementation of the following measure will avoid impacts to herring,
27 during spawning season:
28 • Seasonal Restrictions. Between December 1 and February 28, a qualified observer shall
29 monitor dredging when in proximity to potential Pacific herring spawning sites, the
30 locations of which are well documented by the California Department of Fish and Game.
31 Herring spawning sites are generally located in shallow water near the surface, and arc
32 visible as a large mass of herring eggs, which are adhesive, and attach most commonly
33 on eelgrass or other algae. If herring spawning sites are observed within 200 meters of
34 the work site by a qualified monitor stationed on a nearby boat, pier, or beach, all in-
35 water dredging-related activities shall be stopped in the area for 2 weeks.
36 Effects on DO levels from dredging and construction activities on fish communities arc also
37 expected to be localized and very limited in extent. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water
38 Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) DO standard for adverse biological effects is 5.0 mg/L. In
39 the USACE (1976) dredging study in San Francisco Bay, DO levels decreased from 9.0 to 5.5
40 rng/L at a location 50 meters down-current of the dredging site, but increased to background
41 levels within 10 minutes after dredging. In a study of the effects of dredging in Oakland
42 Harbor, DO levels were reduced to 5.70-6.67 mg/L in the immediate dredging vicinit]
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 1.9-13
3.9 Biological Resources
1 (Hartman Consulting Group 1997). These studies indicate that the proposed construction
2 would have negligible DO-related effects on fish.
3 If suspended sediments contain toxic chemicals, fish could be exposed to these chemicals in the
4 water column. However, chemical contaminants are expected to be mostly bound to sediment
5 particles, which would limit their bio-availability (Ludwig and Sherrard 1988; Pavlou 1978;
6 Slotten and Reuter 1995; Thomann 1989; USEPA 1989). At the time of this writing, sediments in
7 the project area have not been tested. Past testing of sediments near the San Francisco Ferry
8 Terminal indicated the presence of common contaminants, including metals, polycyclic
9 aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the latter two being
10 common byproducts of waste oil from industrial processes (personal communication, L. Fade
11 2003). Although these contaminants are known to occur in a portion of the project area,
12 sediments along this part of the San Francisco waterfront usually test suitable, in bioassay tests,
13 for disposal at an open-water site such as the Alcatraz disposal site in San Francisco Bay
14 (personal cornmunication, J. Ach 2003). This indicates that contaminant levels in sediments in
15 the project vicinity are not sufficient to cause acute toxicity. Considering this and the
16 expectation that suspended solids would be high only in the immediate construction area,
17 toxicity effects on fish are expected to be negligible.
18 Marine Mammals. Turbidity caused by dredging could impair foraging by marine mammals by
19 reducing underwater visibility during dredging operations. These impacts would most likely
20 affect harbor seals and California sea lions, which are common in the project area, as well as
21 harbor porpoises, which have been observed in the project area but are not abundant.
22 However, the impacts to marine mammals would be negligible given the extent of available
23 foraging area in the project vicinity and the Central Bay. Based on their rare occurrence in the
24 project area, humpback whales and Steller sea lions would not be affected by turbidity.
25 Marine Birds. Impacts on birds would result primarily from turbidity caused by the dredging and
26 pile installation, noise disturbance from equipment, and indirect effects on food resources such as
27 fish and invertebrates. Shorebirds may be startled by construction noise and equipment and
28 personnel on the shoreline or on the water (i.e., during vibro-replacement) and may be
29 prevented from perching or roosting in the vicinity during the construction period.
30 The direct effect of a turbidity plume is that it would alter the water clarity and potentially
31 reduce foraging opportunities for the California brown pelican, the California least tern, and
32 double crested cormorant (all visual predators) in the vicinity of the dredging operations for
33 several hours each day. In addition, schooling fish may avoid plumes and cause these birds to
34 forage in areas that are distant from the project site.
35 Depending on the construction approach for vibro-replacement and dredging associated with
36 the San Francisco Transition Structure and stitching the Tube, foraging areas could be reduced
37 in the project and turbidity plume area. However, the project area and available foraging
38 habitat is small relative to the size of the Bay and impacts on foraging or other behaviors would
39 be negligible. Although construction activities along the Transbay Tube and the transition
40 structures are not expected to result in mortality or injury of birds, these activities would likely
41 deter birds from foraging, roosting, or perching in the project area. The temporary reduction of
42 roosting or perching sites along the Bay shoreline would have a negligible impact on these and
43 other bird species.
3.9-14
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
1 Suspension of sediment that is suitable or unsuitable for aquatic disposal would occur during
2 dredging operations, and may expose fish to contaminants. The use of temporary steel sheet
3 pilings aroimd each construction area during dredging operations would, however isolate and
4 contain suspended sediment from entering the surrounding Bay water, and would limit the
5 lateral spreading of a potential turbidity plume. As discussed above, toxic effects on fish are
6 expected to be negligible. Although fish, the principal food of marine birds, may be present in the
dredging area at the outset of construction and may be exposed to contaminants, most fish would
8 likely avoid the dredging area, thereby reducing potential exposure to contaminants during
9 construction. Birds would likely avoid the project area, thereby reducing exposure to potentially
10 contaminated prey. As such, toxic effects resulting from exposure to contaminated sediments or
1 1 prey would be negligible.
12 Noise. The construction operation with the greatest potential to cause noise impacts on marine
13 species is pile installation, which would occur for stitching the Tube as well as for the pile array
14 anchorage, and piles and collar anchorage at the San Francisco Transition Structure. Standard
15 pile installation methods, such as pile driving using an impact hammer, would generate the
16 highest noise levels and could affect hearing acuity, and cause physical injury or mortality in
17 fish and marine mammals.
18 An oscillating or rotating pile installation method would be expected to generate considerably
19 lower noise levels than the impact hammer method. This method does not generate strong
20 impulsive noise and sound pressure waves, and the equipment would be staged from a barge
21 so the noise would be airborne rather than underwater. Although no noise measurement data
22 are available for this method, it is considered unlikely that the noise generated by this method
23 would exceed the underwater NOAA guideline of 160 dB rms for harassment of marine
24 mammals, or be sufficient to cause adverse effects on fish. However, geologic conditions in
25 some locations may necessitate use of an impact hammer pile driver. Therefore, the assessment
26 of biological impacts and development of mitigation measures presents a worst-case analysis in
27 which the impact hammer pile driver would be used for pile installation.
28 The available data indicate that, without attenuation, impact hammer pile driving would
29 generate potentially harmful underwater noise levels. For example, at the San Francisco-
30 Oakland Bay Bridge and Benicia Bay Bridge construction projects, pile driving created peak
31 pressures ranging from 227 dB re 1 uPa at a distance of 4 meters, to 173 dB at over 1,600 meters
32 (BART et al. 2005c). Using the rms method, which is applicable to marine mammals, the
33 observed levels were 210 dB rms re 1 uPa at 4 meters and 180 dB rms at over 320 meters.
34 Fish and marine mammals have the greatest potential to be affected by underwater noise
35 Invertebrates are much less sensitive to noise than fish and mammals, so reducing or
36 preventing noise impacts on fish and mammals would also protect other marine species.
37 Underwater noise levels exceeding the TTS threshold of 180 dB rms (whales) would occur at a
38 distance of at least 320 meters. The 190 dB rms TTS threshold (for pinnipeds) would be
39 exceeded over a shorter distance. The NOAA Fisheries thresholds indicate that potential TTS in
40 hearing, and injury or mortality, could occur in marine mammals within these distances. The
41 marine mammal harassment threshold of 160 dB rms would be exceeded over greater distances.
42 As discussed in section 3.9.2.1 above, if marine mammals are expected to occur within such a
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-15
3.9 Biological Resources
1 harassment zone, BART would need to obtain an IHA from NOAA and comply with the terms
2 of this IHA.
3 If an impact hammer pile driver is used without attenuation, impacts would most likely affect
4 California sea lions and harbor seals, as well as harbor porpoise, which have been observed in
5 the project area but are not abundant. While similar impacts are expected for Steller sea lions,
6 only a solitary male is known to occur seasonally in the waters near the project area. As a
result, this solitary male is the only Steller sea lion expected to experience the same impacts as
8 described for California sea lions and harbor seals. Based on their rare occurrence in the project
9 area, humpback whales are not likely to be affected.
10 Although noise impact thresholds for fish are not well understood, it is possible that
11 unattenuated noise from impact hammer pile driving could cause injury and harassment of fish
12 over a distance of several hundred meters, and mortality, particularly of juveniles, over a much
13 shorter distance. Underwater noise impacts could affect any fish species present in the project
14 vicinity, including EFH species, such as the Sacramento River winter- run Chinook salmon,
15 Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, the Central Valley steelhead, and the Central
16 California Coast steelhead. Due to the uncertainty associated with the presence/ absence of
17 these protected species in the Bay during construction activities, the following mitigation
18 measures are identified. Additional details on managed (EFH) species are contained in the
19 project BA and NES (BART et al. 2005f, 2005g).
20 Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be used, as warranted, to ensure
21 that noise impacts on fish and marine mammals are kept within acceptable limits.
22 Based on available data from other Bay Area projects 1 , the method that would protect all
23 aquatic species is the Air Bubble Curtain (ABC) system, as this method can reduce noise levels
24 considerably if properly designed, installed, and operated. In addition, this method would
25 protect common and sensitive fish and mammal species regardless of migratory seasons. An
26 IHA would likely be required to address general construction activities on the water that would
27 disturb marine mammals in the project area regardless of the construction methods used.
28 • Pilot Study, Noise Monitoring, and Contingency Control Measures. BART shall measure
29 noise levels generated by impact hammer and oscillation type equipment during a pile
30 installation demonstration that will be completed before construction begins.
31 Monitoring shall be conducted according to a work plan that shall be prepared by BART
32 and approved by NOAA Fisheries. Noise levels shall be measured and described in
33 appropriate units and at appropriate distances for comparison with NOAA Fisheries
34 guidelines. Should these measurements indicate that adverse impacts on fish or marine
1 Several measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of ABC systems have been conducted. For the Benicia-MartLnez Bridge
project, both an unconfined ABC system and a confined ABC system were found to reduce peak sound pressure levels by 20
dB or greater. The unconfined ABC system included several vertically stacked rings to maintain a curtain of bubbles around
the entire pile in strong currents. An isolation casing prevents currents from sweeping the bubble curtain away from the pile;
therefore, it will provide the same effectiveness using less air. Reductions of about 5 to 20 dB have been measured for the
unconfined ABC system used for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project. Reductions in
sound pressure levels for other projects using ABC systems have also been between 5 and 20 dB. The amount of sound
reduction provided by these systems is difficult to predict, however, due to the presence of complex noise sources that extend
below the waterline.
3.9-16
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
1 mammals would occur, FHWA and NOAA Fisheries shall require BART to develop and
1 implement a mitigation plan to reduce noise levels to below NOAA's impact thresholds
3 by implementing the measure described below. Noise levels shall be monitored during
4 construction to ensure that the control measures are effective in reducing noise to
acceptable levels. Should the measurements during the pilot study indicate that noise
6 thresholds would not be exceeded, mitigation measures would not be implemented.
• Air Bubble Curtain (ABC) System. Install an ABC system around the pile driver to
8 attenuate underwater noise during pile driving activities. An ABC system, when
9 properly installed, reduces underwater sound pressures by 5-20 dB; it can be either an
10 imconhned curtain of bubbles, or a curtain of bubbles confined by either vinyl or other
11 types of casings, such as an isolated pile. An isolated pile is a steel or vinyl rube lined
12 with closed cell foam. Monitoring of pile driving at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge project
13 showed that a multiple-ring unconfined ABC system can be as effective in reducing
14 underwater noise levels as a confined ABC system. The design for the bubble curtain
15 shall ensure a complete curtain of bubbles from the mud bottom to the water's surface in
16 the current conditions anticipated during the seasons when pile driving would occur.
17 • Incidental Harassment Authorization. A harassment zone for marine mammals shall be
18 established as a circular ring extending outward from the inner safety zone of 190 dB
19 rms (180 dB rms for whales), to the outer limit of 160 dB rms. If there is any potential for
20 marine mammals to occur in the harassment zone, FHWA shall obtain and BART shall
21 comply with the conditions in an IHA from NOAA Fisheries.
22 Terrestrial Resources
23 Vegetation and Tree Removal. In the cities of Oakland and San Francisco, construction
24 activities would remove non-native and ornamental vegetation from developed urban areas. In
25 addition, trees may be removed from the City of Oakland, including Japanese maple and
26 possibly California redwood. Because Japanese maples and redwoods require many years to
27 reach maturity and the stature that is characteristic of the species, removal would be an impact
28 because it would take many years of growth and care to replace these trees. Most other trees in
29 the project area are sufficiently far from the construction and staging areas and would not be
30 intentionally or accidentally removed or otherwise affected. While BART is not legally required
31 to comply with local ordinances, including the City of Oakland Protected Trees Ordinance
32 (Chapter 12.36 of the Oakland Municipal Code), BART adheres to these regulations to the
33 greatest extent feasible. Accordingly, hardscape and landscape materials removed during
34 construction will be replaced in-kind after project construction, ensuring the same type of tree is
35 replaced at a 1:1 ratio (see section 3.8.2.2).
36 Construction and staging activities in the hillside surrounding the Berkeley Hills Tunnel may
37 result in the removal of vegetation and trees; however, the wetland area adjacent to Chabol
38 Road would be avoided. Removal of vegetation or trees would degrade the area for several
39 years until vegetation has re-established. During the recovery period, the site would be
40 susceptible to erosion, loss of topsoil, and weed invasion, which would substantially degrade
41 the habitat over the long term unless the following measures are implemented to control
42 erosion, and remove and control weedy species.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-17
3.9 Biological Resources
1 Mitigation Measures. Vegetation and tree removal impacts near the Berkeley Hills Tunnel will be
2 controlled by implementing the following measures:
3 • Avoid Tree Removal Specifically during the Nesting Season. Trees that are retained in
4 developed urban areas in the cities of San Francisco or Oakland, or the west portal of the
5 Berkeley Hills Tunnel area, shall be avoided by estabkshing a buffer of at least 6 feet
6 from the drip line. If tree removal is necessary, it shall be done outside the bird nesting
7 season, which extends from March 1 through August 1.
8 • Protect Wetlands. The wetland in the Chabot Road area shall be avoided and protected
9 by establishing erosion protection measures (e.g., silt fencing, straw bales, etc.) upslope
10 from the wetland. These measures shall prevent disturbed soils in the project area from
1 1 running off into this wetland during rainfall/ runoff events.
12 • Restore Construction Area. A revegetation and/ or seeding plan shall be developed for the
13 Berkeley Hills Tunnel construction area and other areas that experience vegetation
14 removal. The plan shall be implemented immediately following completion of
15 construction activities at this site. The plan shall include a planting plan and plant
16 palette; a planting, irrigation, and maintenance schedule; an erosion control plan; a weed
17 control plan; a monitoring and reporting schedule; success criteria; and contingency
18 measures if planting efforts fail to meet success criteria.
19 The Berkeley kangaroo rat is likely to occur in the project area, specifically at the Berkeley Hills
20 Tunnel (CNDDB 2002). Construction activities associated with the Berkeley Hills Tunnel may
21 affect remnant populations or individuals of this species. This is because this area remains
22 densely vegetated with an understory of non-native grasses and weeds, and invasive ivy.
23 Shrubs in this area include toyon and stands of non-native pampas grass along lower slopes.
24 This site also supports mature and sapling trees including eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and
25 California redwood. Noise associated with construction activities, personnel, and use of heavy
26 equipment in this area may startle individual kangaroo rats if they are present in the work area.
27 While construction noise is not likely to cause mortality or injury to individuals of this species,
28 noise may cause them to disperse into unsuitable habitat nearby, a negligible impact on the
29 species.
30 3.9.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
31 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
32 Backfilling the various stitching holes using material excavated from adjacent holes would have
33 water quality and biological impacts similar to those described for dredging (section 3.9.2.2).
34 This material would be placed using a clamshell or tremie method, and would not be dumped
35 from the water surface; this would reduce water quality and related biological impacts.
36 Although material would be backfilled at most holes fairly soon (approximately 2-3 weeks) after
37 being excavated, it is unlikely that any of the benthic organisms in the dredged material would
38 survive for that amount of time on a dredge barge. Dredged material would be placed on top of
39 any "ordinary backfill" placed directly on top of the Tube. Considering all factors, including
40 the overall low percentage of Bay habitat and organisms that would be affected by dredging
41 activities, negligible biological impacts would occur.
3.9-18
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.9 Biological Resources
1 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options outside the Project
2 The types of biological impacts that would occur from transport of the dredged material would
3 be the same for all of the off-site reuse /disposal options, and so all of these options are
4 addressed together here.
5 The barges transporting dredged materials will be filled with only the amount of material that
6 can be entirely contained during transport, as described in Appendix A, section A.2.1. It is still
possible, particularly in rough seas as might be encountered en route to the San Francisco Deep
8 Ocean Disposal Site, for small amounts of dredged material to be spilled during transport from
9 the dredging site to the reuse/ disposal site(s). This would result in the same type of biological
10 effects of turbidity as described in section 3.9.2.2. Such spills are expected to be small and
11 infrequent, and the spilled material is expected to be quickly diluted and dissipated by waves
12 and currents. Therefore, the biological impacts of such spills would be negligible.
13 Spills of fuel from the transport vessels will be controlled by implementing standard measures
14 to rnmimize the frequency and size of such spills. Most commercial vessel companies operating
15 in San Francisco Bay implement spill containment and cleanup plans. When a spill occurs,
16 vessel operators are required to notify the National Response Center (NRC), U.S. Coast Guard,
17 and the U.S. EPA On-Scene Coordinator. Small volumes of spilled fuel would dissipate fairly
18 quickly. All fueling facilities are required to have a Spill Prevention Control and
19 Countermeasiire Plan (SPCC), which is implemented should a spill occurred during fueling.
20 Spills of dredged material could also occur from trucks along the upland portion of the
21 transport route. Such spills will be cleaned up as soon as possible, and so would have little
22 potential for adverse biological impacts. This potential would increase if the material were
23 spilled or transported into a surface water body, where the same type of turbidity or
24 contaminant impacts to marine species described in section 3.9.2.2 could occur. However, the
25 likelihood of such a spill, and especially of transport to a water body, is low, and the volume is
26 likely to be small.
27 3.9.2.4 Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species
28 The impacts (effects) of the project on species protected by the ESA are addressed above in
29 sections 3.9.2.2 and 3.9.2.3, along with other potentially affected species. For all ESA-protected
30 and EFH species potentially occurring in the project area, including the Sacramento River
31 Winter-run Chinook salmon (endangered), Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon
32 (threatened), Central California Coast steelhead (threatened), Central Valley steelhead
33 (threatened), Stellar sea lion (threatened), humpback whale (endangered), American peregrine
34 falcon (endangered), California brown pelican (endangered), California Least term
35 (endangered), and western snowy plover (threatened), the analysis concludes that the project
36 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, these species. The effects of the project on ESA-
37 protected and EFH species are discussed in more detail in the BA prepared for the project
38 (BARTetal. 2005f).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.9-19
3.9 Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
3.9-20
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.10 AIR QUALITY
2 This section addresses the existing local and regional air quality conditions within the project
3 area, and potential project impacts on this resource. Air pollutant emissions would be released
4 directly by combustion emissions or indirectly as fugitive dust from the vehicles and equipment
5 used during project construction and dredging activities. There would be no new emissions
6 associated with operation of the BART system following construction.
7 3.10.1 Existing Setting
8 Air quality at a given location can be described by the concentrations of various pollutants in
9 the atmosphere. Pollutants are defined as two general types: (1) "criteria" pollutants; and (2)
10 toxic compounds. Criteria pollutants are pollutants for which national and/ or state ambient air
11 quality standards have been set. These include: ozone (03); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen
12 dioxide (N02); sulfur dioxide (SO2); respirable particulate matter with diameter less than 10
13 microns (PMlO); fine particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5); lead;
14 visibility reducing particles; sulfates; vinyl chloride; and hydrogen sulfide.
15 Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of
16 previously emitted pollutants (called precursors). These precursors are mainly nitrogen oxides
17 (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). There are only state standards (no federal standards)
18 for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen sulfide.
19 There are no federal or state ambient standards for toxic compounds. Toxic compounds,
20 including those compounds identified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) by the federal
21 government and/or as toxic air contaminants (TACs) by the State of California, are toxic air
22 pollutants that have been determined to present some level of cancer, acute, or chronic health
23 risk to the general public. The impact of toxic compounds is generally assessed using
24 guidelines of exposure developed by the local air district. Units of concentration for both
25 criteria pollutants and toxic compounds are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or
26 micrograms per cubic meter (/xg / m 3 ).
27 Criteria Pollutants
28 Carbon Monoxide. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying
29 capacity of the blood and, therefore, can cause dizziness and fatigue, impair central nervous
30 system functions, and induce heart attacks in persons with serious heart disease.
31 Ozone. 03 can be harmful to the human respiratory system and to sensitive species of plants
32 when it reaches elevated concentrations in the lower atmosphere. Short-term 03 exposure can
33 reduce lung function in children, make people susceptible to respiratory infection, and produce
34 symptoms that cause people to seek medical treatment for respiratory distress. Long-term
35 exposure can impair lung defense mechanisms, and lead to emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
36 Nitrogen Dioxide. The major health effect from exposure to high levels of NO: is the risk oi
37 acute and chronic respiratory disease. N02 is a combustion by-product, but it can also form in
38 the atmosphere by chemical reaction.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.10 l
3.20 Air Quality
1 Sulfur Dioxide. The major health effect from exposure to S02 is acute and chronic respiratory
2 disease. Asthmatics are particularly sensitive. SO2 can also react with water in the atmosphere
3 to form acids (or so-called "acid rain") that can cause damage to vegetation and man-made
4 materials. The main source of S02 is the combustion of fuels containing sulfur, chiefly coal and
5 fuel oil.
6 Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is regulated as PMlO. More recently it was subdivided
into coarse and fine fractions, with PM2.5 constituting the fine fraction. Health effects range
8 from repeated short-term respiratory distress to chronic respiratory disease like asthma from
9 long-term exposure. Particulate matter also results in reduced visibility.
10 Hazardous Air PollutantslToxic Air Contaminants
11 As noted above, there are no ambient air quality standards for HAPs or TACs. When
12 HAPs /TACs are identified, health effects data are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For those
13 TACs that have been evaluated as known or suspected carcinogens, the California Air
14 Resources Board (ARB) has determined that there are no levels or thresholds below which
15 exposure is risk free.
16 Individual HAPs/TACs vary greatly in the risk they present. The principal HAP/TAC
17 associated with the project is diesel particulate matter, which would be emitted by diesel
18 engines used in project construction and dredging. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
19 (USEPA) currently designates diesel exhaust as a likely human carcinogen, but has not
20 established a unit risk factor, i.e., a measure of the cancer risk associated with long-term
21 exposure to a concentration of 1.0 /xg/m 3 . The USEPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
22 Committee (CASAC) suggests that an annual national ambient air quality standard for PM2.5 of
23 15 Mg/ m? would be adequately protective for long-term exposure to ambient diesel PM (CASAC
24 2000).
25 Conformity Determination
26 Areas with monitored pollutant concentrations that are lower than ambient air quality
27 standards are designated a? "attainment areas" on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. When
28 monitored concentrations exceed ambient standards, areas are designated as "nonattainment
29 areas." Nonattainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide are further classified based on the
30 severity and persistence of the air quality problem, into categories such as "moderate,"
31 "serious," or "severe."
32 The Clean Air Act requires that most federally funded or approved transportation projects,
33 plans, and programs in nonattainment areas must be shown to conform to state implementation
34 plans for attainment of federal ambient air quality standards (referred to as "conformity
35 determinations"). Typically, conformity for a federally funded transportation project is
36 assessed by confirming whether the project is included in a conforming regional transportation
37 plan (RTP) or transportation improvement program.
38 Under rule 40 CFR 93.126, this seismic retrofit program qualifies as an exempt project from
39 preparing a conformity determination in two categories of the Table 2 listings of "Exempt
40 Projects," i.e., it is (1) a "safety improvement program," and (2) a project involving
3.10-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.10 Air Quality
1 "reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures." In addition, this project has
2 been included in the regional 2005 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), prepared and
3 adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on July 28, 2004, as well as
4 MTC's RTP, Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, adopted on February 23,
5 2005. See discussion of the Earthquake Safety Program in the 2005 TIP (MTC 2004, page 49) for
6 further details.
7 3.10.1.1 The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
8 Baseline Air Quality
9 Table 3.10-1 summarizes the air emissions that occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
10 (SFBAAB) during 2002 (ARB 2003a), and shows that the largest contributors to ROG, CO, and
11 NOx air pollutants in the SFBAAB are on-road vehicles. On-road motor vehicles account for
12 approximately 40 percent of the ROG, 73 percent of the CO, and 53 percent of the NOx emitted
13 in the SFBAAB. The Petroleum Production & Marketing category is the largest source of SOx
14 emissions at 46 percent. The largest source of PMlO emissions (80 percent) is the miscellaneous
15 processes category that includes sources such as residential fuel combustion, farming
16 operations, construction/ demolition activities, and road dust.
Table 3.10-1. Estimate of Average Daily Emissions by Major Source Category for
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin - Year 2002 (Tons)
Source Category
ROG
CO
NOx
SOx
PMw
Stationary Sources
Fuel Combustion
3.4
42.3
82.8
92
4.3
Waste Disposal
3.7
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
Cleaning and Surface Coatings
37.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Petroleum Production & Marketing
48.2
1.7
2.8
29.6
1.1
Industrial Processes
15.2
22
52
92
10.8
Total Stationary Sources
108.1
46.2
91.1
48.2
lo.3
Area-wide Sources
Solvent Evaporation
76.3
Miscellaneous Processes
15.0
172.2
22.0
07
156.9
Total Area-wide Sources
91.3
172.2
22.0
0.7
156.9
Mobile Sources
On-Road Vehicles
182.9
1,795.8
330.4
2.6
9.4
Other Mobile Sources
74.0
452.8
178.2
12.7
13.2
Total Mobile Sources
256.9
2,248.6
508.6
15.2
22.6
Natural Sources
Total Natural Sources
0.2
3.20
0.1
0.5
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Total
456.6
2,470.2
621.8
64.0
196.2
Source: ARB 2003a.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.10-3
3.10 Air Quality
1 Attainment Status
2 Federal Status. The SFBAAB is currently in attainment of the federal standards for CO, NO2
3 and S02, in nonattainment for 03, and unclassified for PMlo (ARB 2003b). On January 5, 2005,
4 USEPA announced its determination that the SFBAAB is an unclassifiable/ attainment area for
5 the federal PM2.5 standard. Due to limited available information on fine particulates, all areas
6 not designated as "nonattainment" were designated as "unclassifiable/attainment" pending
7 collection of additional data. In addition, on October 31, 2003, USEPA signed rulemaking
8 proposing to determine that the SFBAAB had attained the federal 1-hour 03 air quality
9 standard. USEPA finalized this determination on April 1, 2004, and announced in the April 22,
10 2004 Federal Register that interim final action was being taken to stay and defer the imposition of
11 offset and highway sanctions that would have been imposed based on the continued
12 exceedance of the standard (FR Vol. 69; No. 78). On April 30, 2004, the USEPA then imposed a
13 new designation on the Bay Area as a marginal nonattainment area for the new 8-hour 03
14 standard (see 69 Fed. Reg. 23858, 23887). The Clean Air Act requirements for reasonable further
15 progress, attainment demonstration, and contingency measures will therefore be applicable to
16 the Bay Area for so long as the area continues to exceed the 8-hour 03 standard. These
17 requirements will be eliminated once the USEPA redesignates the area to attainment status.
18 State Status. The ARB designates areas of the state as either in attainment or nonattainment of
19 the CAAQS. At present, the SFBAAB is in nonattainment of the CAAQS for 03, PM10, and
20 PM2.5, and in attainment of the CAAQS for CO, NO2, and S02 (ARB 2003b). The SFBAAB is
21 designated as a "serious" nonattainment area for 03.
22 3.10.2 Proposed Action
23 3.10.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts
24 A project would normally be considered to have an air quality impact if it would:
25 • Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or
26 projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
27 concentrations;
28 • Conflict with adopted environmental plans or goals of the community where it is
29 located; or
30 • Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production, or disposal of
31 materials that pose a hazard to people, animal, or plant populations in the area affected.
32 However, the BAAQMD has determined that, although construction equipment emits CO and
33 ozone precursors, these emissions have been included in the emission inventory that is the basis
34 for regional air quality plans, and they are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of
35 ozone and CO standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 1999).
36 Furthermore, the factors for evaluating impacts would not be applicable to project operation
37 activities because the project's operational emissions would be the same as existing emissions.
3.10-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.10 Air Quality
1 3.10.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
2 The project consists of a variety of seismic retrofit construction activities. Air pollutant
3 emissions would be released from the vehicles and equipment used during these activities. Air
4 quality impacts from construction activities would occur from: (1) combustive emissions
5 released during the use of fossil fuel-powered equipment and mobile sources, and (2) fugitive
6 dust emissions (PMlO) generated during earth-moving activities and the operation of equipment
7 and vehicles on bare soil.
8 Diesel particulate matter and PMlO would be the only construction-related emissions of concern
9 from this project. Ozone precursor and CO emissions from project construction activities would
10 not exceed the significance factors above. Construction-related particulate matter emissions are
11 generally short term, but may still cause air quality impacts. Construction emissions of
12 particulate matter can vary greatly and may cause substantial increases in localized
13 concentrations depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the
14 equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors.
15 The BAAQMD's approach to mmimize construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of
16 effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions.
17 Prior to commencement of construction, the construction contractor will be required to
18 implement the BAAQMD's set of "Enhanced" control measures to reduce fugitive PMlO
19 emissions from construction activities at all land-based construction sites during dry conditions.
20 (The Enhanced control measures apply to sites larger than 4 acres.) In addition, BART's
21 Standard Specifications - Section 01570, Part 1.08 requirements for dust control will be
22 implemented (BART 2002d), and will supplement the BAAQMD measures. Implementation of
23 these measures will reduce fugitive PMlO emissions from construction activities to acceptable
24 levels. For additional details, see the BART Seismic Retrofit Project Construction Standards
25 Manual (BART 2005).
26 Mitigation Measures. Impacts associated with project emissions of diesel particulate matter will
27 be reduced by implementing the following measures. Implementation of these measures also
28 effectively reduces emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx).
29 • The BART District shall require the construction contractor(s) to use emulsified diesel
30 fuel in project equipment, where feasible. Use of this alternative diesel fuel will reduce
31 NOx and diesel particulate matter emissions by 14 and 63 percent, respectively,
32 compared to the use of conventional diesel fuel (ARB 2001).
33 • The BART District shall require the construction contractor(s) to use heavy-duty diesel-
34 powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated
35 "clean" diesel engines), whenever feasible. Use of newer equipment will result in lowei
36 emissions, compared to older equipment, due to the effects of the EPA/ARB off-road
37 engine emission standards. For example, for the 176 to 250 horsepower ranv;e, \0\
38 emission standards are 43 percent lower for 2002-manufactured equipment compared to
39 1987-manufactured equipment.
40 • Emissions generated by construction equipment shall be reduced by application oi the
41 following equipment control measures:
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 $.10-5
3.20 Air Quality
1 a. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size.
2 b. Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer's
3 specifications.
4 c. Diesel-powered equipment shall be replaced by electric equipment, whenever
5 feasible.
6 3.10.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
7 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project
8 The main source of construction-related emissions during backfilling activities onsite during the
9 stitching operation would be combustion products from project dredging equipment and
10 vessels (primarily diesel-powered clamshell dredges, tugboats that assist the dredges and
11 position the dredged material barges, survey boats, and tender boats). The emissions of CO and
12 ozone precursors from these construction sources have been included by the BAAQMD in the
13 regional air quality plans and would, therefore, not have an air quality impact. Fugitive PMlO
14 emissions would not be a concern for these water-based activities. However, combustion
15 emissions would include diesel particulate matter emissions, which could result in an air
16 quality impact.
17 In addition, diesel particulate matter emissions would be generated by the barges used to haul
18 the leftover dredged material to the off site reuse /disposal locations (31 total barge trips
19 anticipated), and by the equipment used to unload the material at the sites. No unloading
20 equipment would be required at the Alcatraz or SF-DODS disposal sites since the dredge
21 material transport barges would be bottom dumped at these locations. At the upland disposal
22 sites, diesel particulate matter emissions and fugitive PMlO emissions would also be associated
23 with the spreading equipment and /or trucks used to move the material to its final placement
24 location. Disposal at the landfill sites would similarly result in diesel particulate matter and
25 fugitive PMlO emissions associated with truck trips between the dewatering facility at the Port
26 of Oakland and the landfill site (assumed 28 per day total, during a consecutive 22-month
27 dewatering period). The estimated maximum of 28 daily truck trips could result in as few as 2
28 truck trips per hour during a 16-hour day (no hauling would occur during peak hours), or as
29 many as 8 truck trips per hour, which could result in an air quality impact.
30 Project PMlO and diesel particulate matter emissions associated with the dredging and
31 reuse /disposal activity could create a public health hazard and result in a regional air quality
32 impact. However, prior to commencement of construction, the construction contractor will be
33 required to implement the BAAQMD's set of "Enhanced" control measures to reduce fugitive
34 PMlO emissions, as well as BART's Standard Specifications - Section 01570, Part 1.08
35 requirements for dust control. Implementation of these measures will ensure fugitive PMlO
36 emissions from construction activities are within acceptable levels. For additional details, see
37 the BART Seismic Retrofit Project Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005). The mitigation
38 measures identified above are applicable, and their implementation will reduce diesel
39 particulate matter emissions.
3.10-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.10 Air Quality
1 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options Outside the Project
2 Similar to the scenario described above, diesel particulate matter emissions would be generated
3 by the barges used to haul the material to the reuse/ disposal locations (64 maximum barge trips
4 anticipated) and by the equipment used to unload the material at the site. No unloading
5 equipment would be required at the Alcatraz or SF-DODS disposal sites since the dredge
6 material transport barges would be bottom dumped at these locations. At the upland disposal
sites, diesel particulate matter emissions and fugitive PMlO emissions would also be associated
8 with the spreading equipment and/or trucks used to move the material to its final placement
9 location. Disposal at the landfill sites would similarly result in diesel particulate matter and
10 fugitive PMlO emissions associated with truck trips between the dewatering facility at the Port
11 of Oakland and the landfill site (also assumed 28 per day total, during a consecutive 22-month
12 dewatering period). The estimated maximum of 28 daily truck trips could result in as few as 2
13 truck trips per hour during a 16-hour day (no hauling would occur during peak hours), or as
14 many as 8 truck trips per hour, which could result in an air quality impact.
15 Project PMlO and diesel particulate matter emissions associated with the dredging and
16 reuse /disposal activity could create a public health hazard and result in a regional air quality
17 impact. However, prior to commencement of construction, the construction contractor will be
18 required to implement the BAAQMD's set of "Enhanced" control measures to reduce fugitive
19 PMlO emissions, as well as BART's Standard Specifications - Section 01570, Part 1.08
20 requirements for dust control. Implementation of these measures will ensure fugitive PMlO
21 emissions from construction activities are within acceptable levels. For additional details, see
22 the BART Seismic Retrofit Project Construction Standards Manual (BART 2005). In addition, the
23 mitigation measures identified above are applicable, and their implementation will reduce
24 diesel particulate matter emissions.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.10-7
3.10 Air Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
3.10-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.11 SOCIAL IMPACTS
2 Social impact assessment is a process for evaluating the effects of a proposed project on a
3 community and its quality of life. The assessment generally discusses items of importance to
4 communities, and specifically to certain social groups (e.g., elderly persons, disabled persons,
5 transit-dependent individuals, and ethnic groups), such as mobility, safety, employment effects,
6 relocation, isolation, and other community issues. This section follows the guidance in FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A, and Caltrans 2004 guidelines for a Community Impact analysis in
8 an EA. In addition, this section summarizes the demographic information and conclusions of
9 the Environmental Justice Technical Study (BART et al. 2005i), which evaluates potential project
10 impacts on minority and low- income communities, as defined by Executive Order 12898 (see
11 Appendix C, section C.ll).
12 Because the project would not change the alignment, or otherwise increase the capacity of the
13 BART system, changes in community cohesion such as splitting neighborhoods, isolating a
14 portion of a neighborhood, generating new development, or otherwise separating residents
15 from community facilities would not occur. In addition, social impacts to police and fire
16 protection, churches, and businesses (e.g., loss of employment or patronage) are not evaluated
17 further because households and businesses will not be affected as a result of project retrofit
18 activities. See section 3.7 (Risk of Upset/Safety) for a discussion of project activities requiring
19 police and fire agency input and coordination.
20 3.11.1 Community Character and Cohesion
21 3.11.1.1 Existing Setting
22 Community Boundaries
23 The project portion of the BART system passes through the City of Oakland (Alameda County)
24 and the easternmost portion of the City and County of San Francisco. Within these cities,
25 potentially affected areas correlate to the areas of impact analyzed in each environmental resource
26 of this EA. Consequently, the definition of "potentially affected areas" differs for traffic, noise, air
27 quality, and other resources.
28 City of Oakland. Oakland is located on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay and is
29 California's eighth largest city, with a population of approximately 399,484. Bordered on the
30 north by the City of Berkeley, the east by the East Bay Hills, the south by the City of San
31 Leandro, and the west by San Francisco Bay, Oakland occupies an area of 78.2 square miles.
32 The project portion of the BART system passes through several communities in Oakland. The
33 potentially affected areas are limited, however, to the immediate vicinity of the proposed work
34 sites.
35 The eastern end of the project portion of the BART system, between the western portal ot the
36 Berkeley Hills Tunnel and Rockridge Station, is located in Oakland's predominantly residential
37 Rockridge neighborhood. Project work sites located in this community include overpasses at
38 Chabot Road, Golden Gate Avenue, Patton Street, Presley Way, Forest Street, and Claremonl
39 Avenue, as well as the aerial Rockridge Station. Most of tins segment of BART is contained
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.11-1
3.11 Social Impacts
1 within the median of the elevated State Route 24, which follows major roadway alignments
2 characterized by a mix of commercial and residential development.
3 West of Rockridge Station, BART remains elevated in the median of State Route 24, which
4 passes through the MacArthur neighborhood of North Oakland, as it approaches downtown
5 Oakland. The BART system follows major roadway alignments throughout this area, and
6 BART work sites, including MacArthur Station and a number of overpasses, are located in
7 predominantly commercial districts. North of downtown Oakland, single- and multi-family
8 residential uses are located adjacent to the overpasses spanning Sycamore, 27 th , and Jefferson
9 Streets; 29th Street; 30th Street; MacArthur Boulevard; 42nd Street; 45th Street; Shattuck
10 Avenue; and 55th Street.
1 1 West of MacArthur Station, between the downtown Oakland tunnel and the Aerial Transition
12 Structure in the Port of Oakland, the BART aerial guideway passes through the community of
13 West Oakland. West Oakland is a well-defined neighborhood bounded by Port of Oakland
14 property and Interstates 580, 880, and 980. Land uses vary as the aerial guideway crosses
15 different neighborhoods within West Oakland, but are uniformly urban. Land uses are
16 predominantly industrial closer to the Oakland City Center/ 12 th Street Station in downtown
17 Oakland, transitioning to light industrial and commercial uses as BART approaches the junction
18 of Interstates 880 and 980. East of the West Oakland Station, the surroundings are mixed
19 commercial and residential. Between the West Oakland Station and Interstate 880 at the edge of
20 the Port, the aerial guideway passes through neighborhoods supporting a mix of commercial
21 and residential development. Immediately approaching the Port, the aerial guideway passes
22 through an industrial area, developed with warehouses, which is associated with the Port.
23 The Oakland Transition Structure and Aerial Transition Structure are located on the waterfront
24 within the Port of Oakland. The Port comprises a range of land uses, including container
25 terminals, rail and intermodal facilities, public recreational facilities including parks and a
26 segment of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, and the Oakland Army Base. The Oakland
27 Transition Structure is in the Port's interior between Berths 34 and 35. It is visible from 7 th Street
28 and a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail where it parallels 7 th Street.
29 The Aerial Transition Structure is located along 7 th Street within the Port and is bordered by the
30 San Francisco Bay Trail, which connects Port View Park and Middle Harbor Park on the west
31 with Jack London Square and Estuary Park on the east. The surrounding area is dominated by
32 industrial and Port-related development.
33 City of San Francisco. The City of San Francisco occupies a geographic area consisting of 47
34 square miles on the northern tip of San Francisco Peninsula, between San Francisco Bay and the
35 Pacific Ocean. The project portion of the BART system is underground and follows Market
36 Street for about 3 4 mile, from the San Francisco Ferry Plaza on the Northeastern Waterfront to
37 the Montgomery Street Station. This route passes through the City's predominantly
38 commercial and corporate downtown Financial District.
39 Community Facilities and Activity Centers
40 The project portion of the BART system includes work sites in proximity to heavily visited
41 recreation centers, including (from east to west) Hardy Park, a Caltrans-owned facility in
3.11-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.12 Social Impacts
1 Oakland's Rockridge neighborhood; a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail within the Port of
2 Oakland; and the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza. Each is discussed below.
3 Hardy Park - Oakland
4 At Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street in Oakland, the BART line and State Route 24 pass
5 over Hardy Park, a collection of recreational facilities including the recently built Hardy Park
6 Playground (a "tot lot"), a basketball court, and an enclosed off-leash dog park located at the
northern end of the Rockridge-Temescal Greenbelt. The greenbelt follows the Temescal Creek
8 alignment, roughly paralleling Claremont Avenue for three blocks. A second playground, the
9 Redondo Playground, was recently constructed at the southern end of the greenbelt. The BART
10 line passes directly over the northern end of the predominantly packed-dirt dog run, which
11 supports some lawn. Landscaping beneath and on either side of the BART line is limited to
12 dense ivy along slopes and a single young, but established and healthy, Japanese maple tree
13 (Acer palmahim) that appears to be an ornamental planting. Other mature park landscaping and
14 recreational facilities associated with the Rockridge-Temescal Greenbelt are relatively far (i.e.,
15 30 feet or more) from the BART tracks.
16 Hardy Park was established on state right-of-way and is subject to the terms and conditions of
17 the lease executed on September 11, 1991, between the City of Oakland (lessee) and the
18 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The lessee's rights to occupy the property
19 can be revoked at any time ".. .when any portion. . . is required for State highway or other public
20 transportation purposes as determined by the . . .Department of Transportation. . ." The terms of
21 the lease make it clear that Hardy Park occupies state right-of-way on a temporary basis. Hardy
22 Park is not a publicly-owned public park; the City of Oakland Office of Parks and Recreation
23 does, however, operate and maintain the park.
24 San Francisco Bay Trail - Oakland
25 A segment of the publicly accessible San Francisco Bay Trail parallels BART's Aerial Transition
26 Structure along 7 th Street within the Port of Oakland. The trail is part of a regional recreational
27 corridor comprising 210 miles of existing bicycle and hiking trails ringing San Francisco Bay
28 and connecting the nine Bay Area counties; 19 miles of the trail system are located in Oakland.
29 Trail segments are owned and maintained by local jurisdictions in which they are located. The
30 Port of Oakland owns and maintains the segments of the trail on its property.
31 The segment near the Aerial Transition Structure is designated on ABAG trail maps as an
32 improved (asphalt-paved) and landscaped mixed-use trail that shares the 7 th Street right-of-way
33 in places. It provides public waterfront access by connecting Port View Park and Middle
34 Harbor Shoreline Park, to the west, with inland trail segments and points of interest such
35 Jack London Square and Estuary Park (ABAG 2003). The trail is landscaped by the Port along
36 7 th Street as far east as Adeline Street.
37 Ferry Plaza -San Francisco
38 The Northeastern Waterfront is the center of San Francisco's downtown waterfront area and a
39 popular scenic and recreational destination. This area is the site of a revitali/.ation program ol
40 urban improvements intended to replace the former double-decked Embarcadero Freeway
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.11-3
3.11 Social Impacts
1 demolished in 1991 following the Loma Prieta earthquake, with public plazas, walkways, and
2 waterfront access. The centerpiece of the Embarcadero waterfront is the Ferry Building
3 Marketplace, housing a mix of permanent commercial and professional uses, and farmers
4 markets on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays in open arcades and on the
5 esplanade portion of the Ferry Plaza. The esplanade is open to pedestrians.
6 Roadways, Transit Services, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
7 The project would affect roadways, transit services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the
8 Oakland. There would be no impact on roadways in San Francisco, where the project portion of
9 the BART system is underground; however, impacts to ferry services at the San Francisco Ferry
10 Building could occur as a result of retrofit activities at the San Francisco Transition Structure.
1 1 City of Oakland. The Oakland portion of the BART system is surrounded by roads, transit
12 services (e.g., bus stops, taxi stands, casual carpool, etc.), parking, and bicycle and pedestrian
13 facilities. Construction at proposed retrofit locations would not impact area freeways, including
14 State Route 24 and Interstates 880 and 980; however, some components of the construction work
15 would impact specific freeway ramps and ramp intersections with local streets. In addition,
16 there are 40 streets adjacent to, or that cross, the proposed retrofit construction areas.
17 Parking around the BART alignment includes both on-street and off-street parking areas.
18 Retrofit activities would affect the total amount of parking available at and near the stations
19 throughout the duration of construction. On-street parking spaces appear to be most fully
20 utilized in areas closest to the Rockridge, MacArthur, and West Oakland Stations, as described
21 in section 3.4 (Transportation).
22 With respect to public transit, Oakland is primarily served by BART; additionally Alameda-
23 Contra Costa Transit District provides bus service in the project area and operates 17 routes.
24 Many residents in Oakland depend on public transit for transportation (Pacific Institute 2002).
25 In addition, bicycle routes, taxi stands, and a casual carpool location are designated in the
26 vicinity of the BART alignment.
27 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including Caltrans-designated bikeways and sidewalks are also
28 located throughout the project area, as described in section 3.4 (Transportation).
29 City of San Francisco. The San Francisco Ferry Building is located on the far eastern edge of
30 San Francisco, in downtown San Francisco. The Ferry Building has three platforms (the North
31 Terminal, Ferry Plaza, and South Terminal) providing six berths. The North Terminal is used
32 by the Tiburon and Vallejo ferries, the Ferry Plaza is used by the Larkspur and Sausalito ferries,
33 and the South Terminal serves ferries going to and from the East Bay/Alameda. Three ferry
34 companies, with various routes, operate from the Ferry Building: Blue and Gold Ferry; Golden
35 Gate Ferry; and Harbor Bay Ferry.
36 Construction activity at the San Francisco Transition Structure on the Ferry Plaza Platform
37 would occur beyond the primary pedestrian portion of the Ferry Plaza Platform used by ferry
38 passengers. The platform adjacent to the transition structure is, however, used by pedestrians
39 viewing San Francisco Bay.
3.11-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.11 Social Impacts
1 3.11.1.2 Proposed Action
2 3.11.1.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Community Character and Cohesion Impacts
3 The determination of impacts to community character and cohesion are based on FHWA and
4 Caltrans guidance. Impacts would occur if the project resulted in changes (either beneficial or
5 adverse) to neighborhoods or segments of a community that disproportionately affected elderly
6 persons, disabled persons, transit-dependent individuals, and/ or ethnic groups, including:
7 • Physically dividing or isolating a neighborhood or community;
8 • Inhibiting a community's growth; and/ or
9 • Altering the quality of life for neighborhood residents or businesses due to:
10 - separation of residences from community services and facilities (e.g., recreation
11 areas, school districts, churches, businesses, police and fire stations);
12 - increased or decreased public access (e.g., vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or
13 pedestrian); and /or
14 - introduction of public safety hazards, including traffic hazards.
15 3.22.2.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
16 Community Boundaries
17 The proposed project would affect only existing BART system facilities in Oakland and San
18 Francisco, would not introduce new facilities in locations where none currently exist, or
19 otherwise displace or divide persons, businesses, or neighborhoods.
20 In Oakland, the proposed project would be entirely confined to the existing BART system, and
21 therefore would not increase the division or isolation of neighborhoods or communities, inhibit
22 a community's growth, or alter the quality of life for neighborhood residents or businesses.
23 In San Francisco, retrofitting activities would take place in a confined area around the Ferry
24 Plaza, and would similarly not divide or isolate an existing neighborhood or community, inhibit
25 a community's growth, or otherwise alter the quality of life for area residents or businesses.
26 Community Facilities and Activity Centers
27 FHWA has the responsibility to make a determination regarding the application of Section 4(0
28 to resources potentially affected by project actions, such as those at Hardy Park and the 7*
29 Street segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, per 49 USC 303 and 23 CFR 771.135(b) In
30 support of FHWA's determination, BART conducted a Section 4(f) consultation with potentially
31 affected agencies having jurisdiction over those resources. Letters were submitted to the City of
32 Oakland and the Port of Oakland requesting concurrence that the project would not
33 substantially or permanently impair use of park or trail amenities. Based on the results ol tin-.
34 correspondence, FHWA determined there is no Section 4(f) use associated with the project (see
35 Appendix D, Section 4(f) Correspondence).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 Ul-5
3.11 Social Impacts
1 Hardy Park. Project construction at the Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street BART/State
2 Route 24 overpass would occur close to Hardy Park recreational facilities, which are owned by
3 Caltrans and operated and maintained by the City of Oakland's Parks and Recreation
4 Department. Project implementation at the Claremont Avenue/Hudson Street BART overpass
5 would require foundation expansions, and new piling and pier cap retrofits on Pier (column)
6 numbers 57 through 62; installation of new concrete shear keys atop the columns; and
7 excavation for enlargement of column footings. Three of the piers (59 through 61) are located
8 within Hardy Park or at the edge of the block containing the park; one of the three piers is
9 located within the dog park. Retrofit activities at the remaining three piers (57, 58 and 62),
10 which are located on the opposite side of Claremont Avenue (Pier 57), in the median of
11 Claremont Avenue (Pier 58) and on the opposite side of Hudson Street (Pier 62), will not affect
12 the dog park.
13 The need for construction access to the piers in Hardy Park, and the associated construction
14 activity, would require closure of the dog park and basketball facilities for approximately 2
15 months for the retrofit of Piers 59, 60, and 61, which are located within those facilities. In
16 correspondence regarding Section 4(f) issues, FHWA stated that Hardy Park is not a publicly-
17 owned public park, and not a Section 4(f) resource; therefore, no Section 4(f) use would occur.
18 However, project-related construction would result in noise, vibration, and localized air quality
19 impacts (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by the operation of construction equipment, and would
20 affect the park. Construction would require removal of existing landscaping, including grass at
21 the dog park, ivy, an ornamental Japanese maple, and an ornamental sweet-gum tree.
22 Construction would be temporary, and the project includes measures to ensure the adequate
23 restoration of park amenities to pre-project conditions, including clean up, regrading,
24 recompacting, repavement or relandscaping of the park, and replacement of any damaged
25 fencing. No other park facilities would be affected.
26 Bay Trail. The project would require the seismic strengthening of the aerial guideway atop
27 which the BART tracks leave the Transbay Tube portal and are carried 22 feet aboveground to
28 the West Oakland Aerial Guideway. Six new footings (i.e., foundations) and external columns
29 would be constructed adjacent to the existing footings and piles at Bent numbers 3, 4, and 5.
30 Additional seismic improvements include retrofitting the Aerial Transition Structure's
31 abutment with the West Oakland Aerial Guideway to the east (at Bent number 6), and
32 installation of longitudinal restraints on the guideway structure.
33 The new columns would be located less than 3 feet from the edge of the San Francisco Bay Trail
34 where it passes by the Aerial Transition Structure. Excavation for construction of expanded
35 foundations for the columns could abut or extend into (beneath) the trail alignment. In
36 addition, construction-related high noise levels, vibration, localized air quality impacts (i.e.,
37 fugitive dust), and potential safety hazards (i.e., from moving equipment, excavation) would
38 preclude use of the trail in the vicinity of the construction work and constitute temporary
39 occupancy. Other project impacts at this location include the reduction of visual quality (i.e.,
40 temporary blockage of visual sightlines along the trail, removal of landscaping). Because of the
41 close proximity of the Aerial Transition Structure to the trail, construction access and activity
42 would require temporary closure of the adjacent segment of the trail for approximately 2
43 months.
3.11-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.11 Social Impacts
1 The project's occupancy of the trail segment would be temporary and would meet the terms of
2 23 CFR 771.137(p)(7) "Temporary Occupancy." Accordingly, there is no Section 4(f) use
3 associated with this trail segment. The trail would be relocated during this time to the adjacent
4 7 th Street right-of-way for the duration of construction (other segments of the trail are
5 permanently located in the 7th Street right-of-way). The project also includes measures to
6 ensure the adequate restoration of trail amenities to pre-project conditions, including clean up,
7 regrading, recompacting, repavement or relandscaping of the trail segment, and replacement of
8 any damaged fencing.
9 The Port of Oakland has indicated that the project would be consistent with the designated use
10 of recreational areas within the Port's jurisdiction, and would not impact this segment of the
11 San Francisco Bay Trail (see Appendix D, Section 4(f) Correspondence). The following
12 mitigation measures are identified, however, to ensure coordination with the Port of Oakland
13 throughout the duration of project construction.
14 Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid impacts
15 to the 7 th Street Bay Trail segment in the Port of Oakland:
16 • The construction contractor will submit all construction plans for retrofit activities in the
17 vicinity of the affected 7 th Street Bay Trail segment, and will coordinate the construction
18 schedule with the Port Engineering Design and Construction Departments.
19 • The construction contractor will also coordinate the alignment of the temporary detour
20 of the trail, and the associated directional signage, with the Port Environmental Planning
21 Department.
22 San Francisco Ferry Plaza. The project would result in the temporary removal of a portion of
23 the San Francisco Ferry Plaza, which is a popular scenic destination open to the public. As part
24 of project implementation, the Ferry Plaza would be restored to its pre-project condition.
25 Moreover, this portion of the waterfront is not the sole publicly-accessible scenic destination on
26 San Francisco's Northeastern Waterfront; there are numerous other opportunities for
27 sightseeing in the immediate vicinity. For this reason, impacts related to use of this facility are
28 considered negligible.
29 Other Community Facilities. Retrofitting piers at the Rockridge and Mac Arthur Stations would
30 take place in proximity to public artworks, including the Firestorm Community Mural at
31 Rockridge Station, and wall paintings and sculptures at MacArthur Station. The project
32 includes protective measures that will ensure the preservation of the artworks during
33 construction, so no impacts on the artworks are anticipated.
34 The Oceanus Mural on the State Route 24 underpass is more than 20 feet from Pier 57 at the
35 Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street overpass location, which is the closest pier planned tor
36 reinforcement, and would not be affected by construction.
37 Roadways, Transit Services, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
38 Roadway Closures. Temporary closure of roadway segments in the project vicinity, including
39 northbound Patton Street and the on-ramp from 52 nJ Street to State Route 24 and Interstate 580,
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.11-7
3.11 Social Impacts
1 may occur as a result of project construction activities, as described in section 3.4
2 (Transportation). A detour would be provided, which may temporarily affect traffic operations
3 in the area, and increase travel time for drivers.
4 However, impacts to these roadway segments will be avoided because the construction
5 contractor will be required to prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic
6 management plan (TMP) that specifically addresses accommodations for local street traffic at
7 this location throughout the duration of retrofit activities. For additional details, see the Traffic
8 Technical Study (BART etal. 2005h).
9 Public Transit. Construction would require relocation of several bus stops in Oakland,
10 including those located at Rockridge, Mac Arthur, and West Oakland Stations. Taxi loading
11 areas at the Rockridge and Mac Arthur Stations would also need to be temporarily relocated
12 during construction. In addition, a casual carpool staging area located along Hudson Street
13 approaching Claremont Avenue would be impacted by the temporary closure of the curb
14 parking lane during construction, which would require temporary designation of an alternative
15 location for queued vehicles waiting for riders.
16 Temporary impacts to transit-dependent individuals and non-drivers in the communities
17 surrounding retrofit locations as a result of temporary closure of street lanes, as well as
18 temporary relocation of bus and taxi loading areas and a casual carpool location, will be
19 avoided, however, because the construction contractor will be required to prepare and
20 implement a construction phasing plan and TMP that specifically addresses accommodations
21 for traffic operations at the affected locations throughout the duration of retrofit activities.
22 Construction activities at the San Francisco Transition Structure could require closure of the
23 northern berth of the Ferry Building's South Terminal for up to 1 year, as described in section
24 3.4 (Transportation). Golden Gate Berth 2 would also be unavailable for at least 3 months to 1
25 year. These closures would disrupt ferry service for approximately 5,500 daily ferry passengers.
26 Measures to prevent impacts to ferry services as a result of project activities are described in
27 Table 3.4-11, in section 3.4 (Transportation).
28 Parking Supply. Construction at the Rockridge and West Oakland Stations would temporarily
29 close some parking spaces within the parking lots and temporarily eliminate some on-street
30 parking, as described in section 3.4 (Transportation). Curb parking would also be temporarily
31 removed at each location where on-street curb parking presently exists.
32 Impacts to parking, including the six handicapped parking spaces at Rockridge Station, will be
33 avoided, however, because the construction contractor will be required to prepare and
34 implement a construction phasing plan and TMP that specifically addresses accommodations
35 for parking at these locations throughout the duration of retrofit activities. In addition,
36 implementation of mitigation measures that would provide on- and off-site replacement
37 parking, and temporary relocation of disabled parking spaces within Rockridge Station at a
38 comparable location, would ensure impacts are avoided (see section 3.4 [Transportation]).
39 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. There would be no permanent impacts on bicycle
40 circulation in Oakland. However, retrofit construction would temporarily create narrowed curb
41 lanes and could reduce bicycle safety on several routes. These include the existing Class III bike
3.11-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.11 Social Impacts
1 routes on College Avenue and Forest Avenue, as well as at several locations included in the
2 City of Oakland recommended bikeway network, as described in section 3.4 (Transportation).
3 The project would also not permanently increase traffic hazards to pedestrians or impact
4 pedestrian circulation. However, it may be necessary to temporarily close the sidewalk on at
5 least one side of the street in two locations, including Chabot Road, which provides access to
6 Chabot Elementary School, and at Martin Luther King Jr. Way off-ramp, as described in section
3.4 (Transportation). If project activities temporarily close the sidewalk on one or both sides of
8 the street, pedestrians would need to detour to the opposite sidewalk or to adjacent streets, as
9 warranted, including school children walking to Chabot Elementary School.
10 With implementation of project measures addressing introduction of public safety hazards on
1 1 bicycle and pedestrian circulation, including preparation and implementation of a construction
12 phasing plan and TMP that specifically addresses accommodations for bicyclists and
13 pedestrians at these affected locations throughout the duration of retrofit activities, bicyclists
14 using affected routes, and pedestrians walking to nearby schools, BART stations, or other transit
15 locations will not be impacted.
16 3.11.13 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
17 Reuse of dredged material within the project, as well as disposal outside the project area, would
18 not result in social impacts, such as increasing the division or isolation of neighborhoods or
19 communities, inhibiting a community's growth, or otherwise altering the quality of life for
20 neighborhood residents or businesses. Because of project measures that would restore affected
21 areas to pre-project conditions and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, reuse
22 of dredged material would not change existing community characteristics or cohesion.
23 3.11.2 Environmental Justice
24 An Environmental Justice Technical Study (BART et al. 2005i) was prepared to analyze the
25 environmental justice impacts associated with the project. The analysis is based on impacts on
26 other resource areas analyzed in this document. Issue-specific analyses for the environmental
27 resources applicable to environmental justice concluded that project construction would result
28 in temporary and negligible impacts on those resources. Accordingly, project construction
29 would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income
30 populations in the Oakland and San Francisco project areas (BART et al. 2005i).
31 3.11.2.1 Existing Setting
32 The communities in Oakland and San Francisco that were evaluated for purposes ol
33 environmental justice correspond to areas of potential impact as defined in the analyses of
34 individual environmental resources in this EA. Data characterizing the current demography
35 profile of the Oakland and San Francisco project areas were obtained from the U.S. Bureau ol
36 the Census (Census 2000).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.11-9
3.11 Social Impacts
1 Minority Population in the Project Area
2 City of Oakland. In the City of Oakland, Blacks (or African Americans) and Whites form the
3 largest racial/ethnic groups, constituting 35.7 and 31.3 percent of the city's population,
4 respectively. The other major racial/ethnic groups are Hispanic/Latino (21.9 percent) and
5 Asian (15.2 percent). Approximately 68.7 percent of Oakland's population consists of
6 minorities. The project area supports a relatively higher population of Blacks (African
Americans), Latino-Black, and Latino-Asian populations than the rest of the City. White,
8 Hispanic /Latino, Asian, and other minority populations (such as Native Hawaiian or Other
9 Pacific Islander) each constitute a smaller percentage of the project area population than they do
10 of the citywide population.
11 City and County of San Francisco. One of the most densely populated counties in the nation,
12 San Francisco has a population of 776,733 and is the state's fourth largest city according to the
13 2000 census. Of this population, 49.7 percent is White, 30.8 percent is Asian, 14.1 percent is
14 Hispanic, and 7.8 percent is Black (or African American). The project area, which is along the
15 Northeastern Waterfront near the downtown Financial District, supports a relatively larger
16 Asian population than the rest of the City. Other major ethnic groups are represented in
17 relatively lower concentrations in the project area than citywide.
18 Low-Income Population in the Project Area
19 The U.S. Census Bureau's definition of poverty serves as the U.S. Government's official
20 statistical definition of poverty. If a family's total income is less than the Census Bureau's
21 poverty threshold, then that family is considered poor. Unlike low- and very-low income
22 thresholds, which are often defined by a state or region, Census Bureau poverty thresholds do
23 not vary geographically, but are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index
24 (CPI-U). An average household size of three persons is assumed for both the cities of Oakland
25 and San Francisco, based on Census 2000 data. 1 The most recent poverty threshold (2002) for
26 three-person households is $14,072 per year (weighted average). 2
27 City of Oakland. Assuming an average household of three persons, approximately 27.3 percent
28 of households in the project area are estimated to live below the poverty level threshold of
29 $14,072 per year, compared to 19.3 percent citywide. Thus, the percentage of persons in the
30 project area who live below the poverty level threshold is relatively higher than throughout the
31 City as a whole.
32 City and County of San Francisco. Assuming an average household of three persons,
33 approximately 16.3 percent of households in the project area are estimated to live below the
1 For the purposes of this analysis, average household sizes in both cities were assumed to be three persons. This number was
derived by identifving (1) the approximate median between the average household size of 2.3 and the average number of
family members per household of 3.20 and rounding up (San Francisco); and (2) the approximate median between the
average household size of 2.6 and the average number of family members per household of 3.3S (Oakland).
2 The FI 1VVA has issued Interim Guidance entitled Addressing Environmental justice in Environmental Assessments/Environmental
Impact Statements, which implements DOT guidance, and therefore Executive Order 1289S and EPA guidance (FHWA 2001;
EPA 1998; EOT 1997). FHWA's 2001 Interim Guidance directs that low-income populations be identified using Department
of I [ealth and Human Services poverty thresholds, which were used in this analysis. The Department of Health and Human
Services bases its thresholds on those developed by the Census Bureau.
3.11-10
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.11 Social Impacts
1 poverty level threshold of $14,072 per year, compared to 11.3 percent citywide. Thus, the
2 percentage of persons in the project area who live below the poverty level threshold is relatively
3 higher than throughout the City as a whole.
4 Existing Environmental Conditions
5 Health Risks. Oakland project area residents are subject to greater health risks from air and
6 water pollution, and soil contamination than the rest of the City, as measured by the sum of
7 toxics generated in Oakland (i.e., air emissions, surface water discharges, land releases,
8 underground injections, and chemical transfers to off-site facilities) by facilities reporting to the
9 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) (Pacific Institute 2002). Other sources of pollution include diesel
10 emissions from ship traffic, the freeways and roadways; small businesses such as gas stations
11 and dry cleaners; and abandoned brownfield sites. Toxic releases are associated with cancers
12 and respiratory problems such as asthma, which particularly affects young children and the
13 elderly.
14 Ship and boat traffic along San Francisco's Northeast Waterfront, where the San Francisco
15 Transition Structure is located, and in the Bay contribute to increased diesel emissions in the
16 area, which are linked with cancer. The nearest (commercial) sensitive receptors include
17 restaurants and shops at the Ferry Building, and nearby professional offices; no residential uses
18 are located in the project vicinity.
19 Surface runoff from the Bay Bridge and Interstate 80 and urban runoff from adjacent streets,
20 industrial sites, and open areas flows directly or indirectly into the Bay. Other input sources to
21 the Bay include discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants, discharges from
22 dredging operations, discharges from other industrial processes, and atmospheric deposition.
23 San Francisco Bay is an impaired water body, meaning it does not meet its designated uses
24 because of excess pollutants. Urban runoff or spills of hazardous materials into or near open
25 water along San Francisco's Northeast Waterfront can adversely affect the area's water quality.
26 Air Quality. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which includes the entire project
27 area, is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Air
28 Resources Board (ARB) as being in nonattainment of federal and state standards for ozone,
29 respectively. The SFBAAB is unclassified by federal standards for particulate matter less than
30 ten microns in size (PMio), and in nonattainment of state standards for PMio. Due to limited
31 available information on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), the SFBAAB was recently (January 5,
32 2005) designated by USEPA as "unclassifiable/ attainment" pending collection of additional
33 information; ARB has designated the area in nonattainment of state standards for PM2
34 The Oakland project area is crossed by four freeways (Interstates 580, 880, and 980 and State
35 Route 24) and numerous major boulevards and roadways, and is east of the Port of Oakland a
36 source of pollutants associated with industrial facilities, tenants, shipping and cargo handling.
37 and Port-related truck traffic.
38 Since prevailing winds generally blow from west to east, the San Francisco Peninsula typically
39 has better air quality than the East Bay and inland locations. Ship and boat traffic along San
40 Francisco's Northeast Waterfront, where the San Francisco Transition Structure is located,
41 contributes heavily to air quality in the project area.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.11-11
3.11 Social Impacts
1 Noise and Vibration. The project areas can be divided into four noise environments: (1) near
2 the west portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel; (2) BART tracks within State Route 24; (3) BART
3 tracks on the West Oakland Aerial Guideway; and (4) the San Francisco Transition Structure.
4 Sensitive noise receptors near the Berkeley Hills Tunnel include residences, the Chabot
5 Recreation Center, and Anthony Chabot Elementary School. Along State Route 24, sensitive
6 noise receptors are typically located at least 250 feet from proposed work locations, and are
7 partially or fully shielded by intervening highway structures. Along the West Oakland Aerial
8 Guideway, surrounding land uses are commercial and residential, with residences as close as 50
9 feet from work areas in some locations. Sensitive receptors near the San Francisco Transition
10 Structure include commercial uses, such as the World Trade Center, located at the Ferry Plaza.
11 Destruction or Diminution of Aesthetic Values. The Oakland portion of the BART route
12 traverses neighborhoods in Rockridge, downtown Oakland, West Oakland, and the Port of
13 Oakland, which possess distinct visual characters and qualities. The viewing audience
14 throughout the Oakland portion of the BART route includes motorists and pedestrians on
15 nearby roadways; residences and businesses within sight of the BART right-of-way and
16 stations; and people using Hardy Park in the Rockridge neighborhood of Oakland, and the San
17 Francisco Bay Trail in the Port of Oakland.
18 The San Francisco portion of the BART route encompasses a portion of the Ferry Plaza on the
19 Embarcadero along the Northeastern Waterfront, and also extends beneath the Bay to the east.
20 The Ferry Plaza is a prominent architectural feature in the project area, and occupies a scenic
21 location set against the backdrop of the downtown Financial District skyline to the west, and
22 offering views of San Francisco Bay, the Bay Bridge, and Yerba Buena Island to the east. The
23 landside viewing audience comprises patrons of the ferry terminal, World Trade Club, and the
24 Ferry Building Marketplace; motorists, pedestrians, and sightseers on the Embarcadero and
25 Ferry Plaza; and occupants of high-rise buildings to the west. The waterside viewing audience
26 includes Bay Bridge motorists, boaters, and people aboard ships and barges.
27 Traffic Congestion. The Oakland portion of the BART system is surrounded by roads, transit
28 services, parking, and pedestrian facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of driving
29 conditions and vehicle delays and ranges from A (best) through F (poorest); LOS A through
30 LOS C indicates traffic moves freely. In Oakland, the Claremont Avenue/Hudson Street
31 intersection was determined to operate at LOS D during the A.M. peak hour, and drivers
32 experience delays consistent with LOS D and F during A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively, at
33 the stop sign at 53 rd Street at Shattuck Avenue. The remaining Oakland study intersections
34 operate at LOS C or better during A.M. and P.M. rush hours, measured in terms of average
35 delays for all vehicles.
36 With respect to public transit, Oakland is served by BART; additionally Alameda-Contra Costa
37 Transit District provides bus service in the project area and operates 17 routes. Many residents
38 in Oakland depend on public transit for transportation (Pacific Institute 2002). In addition, taxi
39 stands are located near the three BART stations proposed for retrofit, and a casual carpool
40 location is designated near the Rockridge Station.
41 Parking around the three BART stations includes both on-street and off-street parking spaces.
42 Retrofit activities would affect the total amount of parking available at and near the stations
43 throughout the duration of construction.
3.11-12
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.12 Social Impacts
1 The project would not affect traffic in the San Francisco project area because all BART facilities
2 are underground in this area; traffic in San Francisco is not considered further.
3 3.11.2.2 Public Participation, Outreach and Informational Access
4 The proposed action is subject to public participation as required under the NEPA. A public
5 information meeting was held on January 28, 2003, in Oakland, California; on October 23, 2003,
6 in Rockridge, California; and January 18, 2005, in San Francisco, California. During these
meetings, BART presented information on the project and solicited public input on issues of
8 concern. A public hearing will also be held to address the public's comments on the Draft EA,
9 anticipated to occur in September 2005.
10 3.11.2.3 Proposed Action
11 3.11.2.3.1 Factors for Evaluating Environmental Justice Impacts
12 The determination of Environmental Justice impacts is based on FFTWA guidance. Impacts
13 would occur if the project resulted in:
14 • Disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
15 low-income populations in the project area, taking into account mitigation.
16 3.11.2.3.2 Impacts and Mitigation
17 Health Risks. Project implementation would result in negligible air quality health risk impacts
18 on minority and low-income members of communities in Oakland and San Francisco (see Air
19 Quality, below), including from diesel emissions, as a result of conformance with applicable
20 regulatory requirements and implementation of standard BART practices.
21 Potential impacts to water quality could affect subsistence fishing practiced by local Asian
22 communities living near the Northeast Waterfront area, including at the San Francisco
23 Transition Structure and Ferry Plaza. Spills into or near open water of gasoline or other
24 petroleum products required for operation of motorized equipment (e.g., dredge or tug), could
25 occur during retrofit operations, as well as during transport of dredged material. Although
26 unlikely, large oil spill volumes could degrade water quality, with the potential for toxicity and
27 contaminant bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. Spill containment and cleanup protocols
28 specified in the spill response portions of the dredging operation plan will be implemented by
29 the dredging contractor. Dredging operations could also remove or severely disturb the benthic
30 organisms and juvenile fish on which this community depends; however, the area subject to
31 disturbance is approximately 8 acres (including the six stitching sites and the site of the San
32 Francisco Transition Structure), a relatively small area given the size of the San Francisco Ba)
33 (100,000 acres). Therefore, impacts to subsistence fisherman would be negligible. Furthermore
34 other waterfront locations would remain undisturbed around the Bay throughout the duration
35 of project activities.
36 Air Quality. Project construction activities throughout the project area would release
37 combustive emissions generated by fossil fuel-powered equipment and mobile sources, such as
38 diesel emissions, and fugitive dust emissions (PMio) generated during earth-moving and
39 operation of equipment and vehicles on exposed soil. Construction-related emissions would be
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.11-13
3.11 Social Impacts
1 short term but could impact the minority and low-income populations living in close proximity
2 to the retrofit locations in Oakland, including in the Rockridge, downtown, and West Oakland
3 neighborhoods. Because the project will conform with applicable regulatory requirements for
4 dust control (BAAQMD Enhanced Control Measures), will implement standard BART
5 measures, and will adhere to diesel mitigations, fugitive dust emissions from construction
6 activities and construction-related diesel particulate matter emissions will not adversely affect
7 these low-income and minority residential populations.
8 Noise and Vibration. Project construction would not result in noise levels above acceptable
9 BART limits (see section 3.2 [Noise]). Nearby sensitive receptors, including schools (Chabot
10 Elementary School), hospitals (Children's Hospital Oakland), and minority and low-income
1 1 residential populations in the Oakland neighborhoods, would not be adversely affected.
12 Destruction or Diminution of Aesthetic Values. Project implementation would result in the
13 temporary disturbance of hardscape and landscaping at Hardy Park in the Rockridge
14 neighborhood, at several Oakland work sites, at the Bay Trail segment in the Port of Oakland,
15 and at the Ferry Plaza in San Francisco (see section 3.8 [Visual Resources]). Scenic views would
16 not be permanently obstructed, and spillover light and glare would not increase as a result of
17 project retrofits. All work sites would be restored to pre-project conditions as part of project
18 implementation; therefore, minority and low-income populations living in proximity to the
19 project work sites would not be adversely affected.
20 Increased Traffic Congestion. Project construction would result in short-term traffic impacts at
21 the College Avenue and Keith Avenue intersection, and the Claremont Avenue and Hudson
22 Street intersection. Project construction could also result in short-term impacts on some street
23 segments, transit routes, and relocation of transit (bus) stops, taxi stands, and a casual carpool
24 location near Rockridge Station. Parking supply at stations and nearby street parking would be
25 reduced for the duration of construction. The construction contractor will be required to prepare
26 and implement a traffic construction management and phasing plan, however, which would
27 ensure impacts to the minority and low-income communities near the retrofit locations, who are
28 generally non-drivers and transit-dependent, are avoided (see section 3.4 [Transportation]).
29 3.11.2.4 Dredged Material Rens^/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation
30 Reuse of dredged material within the project, as well as disposal outside the project area, would
31 not result in disproportionately high adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations in
32 the project area. Impacts from dredging activities would be negligible with implementation of
33 project measures that would restore affected areas to pre-project conditions, and ensure
34 compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
3.11-14
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 3.12 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
2 Under the no-action alternative, extensive earthquake damage may occur to the Transbay Tube,
3 stations, and aerial guideways, requiring widespread repair and construction work. Disruption
4 of this portion of the BART system could severely affect local transportation and circulation,
5 especially across the San Francisco Bay. BART currently carries more than 150,000 persons daily
6 across the Bay, with more than 30,000 persons during peak hours, which is as many passengers
accommodated by the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge during weekday rush hour (FFTWA and
8 Caltrans 1998; BART 2004a). The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District offers 654 daily bus trips
9 over the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and has a current ridership of approximately 13,000
10 persons, with up to 3,000 persons during rush hour (FFTvVA and Caltrans 1998). The San
11 Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is currently operating at capacity (FFTWA and Caltrans 1998) and
12 adding additional vehicles would create severe congestion and delay.
13 Seismic retrofit studies (BART 2002a, 2002b) suggest that, without the project, substantial
14 damage to the Transbay Tube, aerial guideways, aerial stations, and other facilities would occur
15 from a major earthquake. Recent USGS statistical analysis indicates a 62 percent probability
16 that a major earthquake will affect the Bay Area before the year 2030 (USGS 2003c). As part of
17 these BART studies, several earthquake scenarios were considered. It was determined that the
18 most likely seismic event would occur on the Hayward fault with a magnitude of 6.9 on the
19 Richter scale. The probability of such an earthquake occurring within the next 30 years is
20 approximately 8.5 percent (USGS 2003c). The likely damage scenario discussed below would be
21 associated with such an event. This scenario is based on the BART Seismic Vulnerability Study
22 (BART 2002a) and the Seismic Risk Analysis (BART 2002b).
23 Damage to the Rockridge, MacArthur, and West Oakland Stations would render them
24 inoperable. Approximately 36 aerial structures would be a total loss, another six would be
25 damaged to the extent that trains could not travel at full speed over them, and 77 would sustain
26 minor damage. Temporary shoring would be employed to bring some of these structures back
27 to service quickly, but permanent repairs are estimated to require approximately 15 months to
28 complete. The Transbay Tube would be rendered inoperable and would require 2 years or
29 more to be restored to service.
30 Repairs to the BART system would involve extensive construction operations. Some possible
31 repairs for aerial structures and stations include jacking columns to restore them to a vertical
32 position, followed by grouting beneath the column footings to strengthen the soil. Train tracks
33 and electric third rails would require straightening or replacement to allow trains to operate.
34 Staircases and escalators at stations may be damaged to an extent that they would require
35 replacement. Repairs to the Transbay Tube could require dredging to remove liquefied
36 material, pumping of floodwater from the Tube, repairing damaged joints or the concrete Lining
37 of the Tube, or jacking the Tube to return it to its pre-earthquake alignment.
38 Ferry service across the Bay is expected to be available in the event of a future earthquake (WTA
39 2002). Combined, all current ferries in service have a capacity of 5,000 persons per hour (WTA
40 2002). It is anticipated that if commercial dining and excursion vessels were converted to Pen J
41 service, hourly capacity would be approximately 14,500 persons (WTA 2002). It is estimated
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.12-1
3.12 No-Action Alternative
1 that the combined ferry service and transbay bus service (if bridges were still operable) could
2 only accommodate about half of the peak hour ridership currently served by BART.
3 It is not certain what other types of transportation BART riders would use, since other
4 transportation modes would also be damaged during the earthquake, but BART studies
5 assumed that most would attempt to drive to work. Others may be able to use non-BART
6 public transportation or telecommute. However, it is unlikely that other modes of
7 transportation, even with an expanded ferry service, could fully accommodate displaced BART
8 riders, potentially resulting in up to 300,000 additional trips competing for space on a damaged
9 roadway system. The additional trips would contribute to increased delays during peak traffic
10 hours, estimated to be 60 to 80 minutes along the State Route 24 corridor (BART 2004a).
11 Potential consequences to each resource that would result from implementation of the no-action
12 alternative are discussed below. In general, the magnitude of impacts on all identified resource
13 areas are expected to be much greater, affecting a larger geographic area, and for a longer
14 period, under the no-action alternative than the proposed project.
15 Water Resources
16 Damage to the Transbay Tube could require dredging liquefied sediments and /or pumping
17 Bay waters from flooded portions of the Tube. These dredging and disposal activities could
18 result in formation of turbidity plumes and dispersion of contaminated sediments. In upland
19 portions of the project area, seismic damage could affect stormwater flows and increase the
20 potential for debris runoff into surface waters.
21 Noise
22 Because construction activities would occur on an emergency basis, it is likely that work would
23 have to occur 24 hours per day. This would substantially increase construction noise impacts at
24 sensitive receptors in the area. Scheduling limitations proposed to mitigate noise impacts
25 resulting from the project would likely be deemed unreasonable or infeasible.
26 Cultural Resources
27 Archaeological Resources
28 Some of the repairs needed following a major earthquake would require ground disturbances at
29 the existing aerial guideways and BART stations. This excavation would most likely occur in
30 previously disturbed soils, such that no new impacts on archaeological resources would occur.
31 Impacts on archaeological resources would be equivalent to those associated with the seismic
32 retrofit project.
33 Historic Architectural Resources
34 In response to a seismic event, it is reasonable to assume that vibration activity associated with
35 reconstruction of failed facilities would be much more extensive under this alternative than
36 would occur during the seismic retrofit project.
3.12-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.12 No-Action Alternative
1
Transportation
2
Traffic/ Ground Transportation
3 The damage to the BART system would require BART riders to seek other means of
4 transportation for an extended period. It is estimated that only 27 percent of the 310,000 daily
5 BART riders would be able to use the system immediately after the earthquake, and that
6 additional capacity would not begin to become available for approximately 6 months. Capacity
7 would not reach 50 percent of the pre-earthquake ridership until approximately 15 months after
8 the earthquake event. As repairs to the Transbay Tube would take over 2 years, BART would not
9 support travel across the Bay until several years after a major earthquake event (BART 2002a,
10 2002b). During this time, travelers would have to use alternate travel modes to cross the Bay.
11 More streets would be affected than under the proposed action because extensive construction
12 would be necessary following a major earthquake. Construction would result in lane closures,
13 decreased level of service at intersections and street segments, and could lead to dangerous
14 circulation conditions. In addition to construction-related impacts, transportation and
15 circulation would be impacted by former BART riders using personal vehicles or other modes
16 of transit while the BART system is under repair.
17 Vessel Transportation
18 Repair activities to the Tube could involve dredging, replacing damaged tube joints, and jacking
19 the tube into alignment. Based on the nature and extent of these construction activities, it is
20 reasonable to assume that there would be substantial interference with vessel passage through
21 the Port of Oakland Outer Harbor Entrance Channel and substantial conflicts between
22 construction barges and vessels trying to use the Outer Harbor Entrance Channel. Similarly,
23 repair work could block access to Berth 34 and the adjacent terminal yard. These impacts
24 would be more extensive and occur for a longer period than impacts of the project.
25 Geology/Seismicity
26 Structural damage from a severe earthquake would likely require extensive excavations and
27 dredging in association with foundation repair work, temporarily resulting in changes in
28 topography /bathymetry and potentially unstable cut slopes.
29 Hazardous Materials
30 Structural damage would likely require extensive excavations, dredging, and dewatering in
31 association with foundation repair work, resulting in potential exposure of onsite workers to
32 unexpected contaminated soil and/or groundwater. In addition, excavated and dev\ -a to red
33 material could pose impacts to the surrounding environment if not handled and disposed of in
34 accordance with applicable state and federal hazardous materials regulations (see Appendix C,
35 section C.6).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.12-3
3.12 No-Action Alternative
1 Risk of Upset/Safety
2 The breadth of the repair work associated with extensive earthquake damage to BART facilities
3 would expose BART passengers, BART workers, construction workers, and the general
4 community to a broad range of construction activities and would increase the risk of upset and
5 safety-related concerns. Because of the likelihood of major damage to the BART system without
6 seismic retrofit following a major earthquake, there is a greater likelihood that construction
7 work under this alternative would interfere with emergency response equipment or prevent
8 implementation of emergency procedures.
9 Besides increasing the amount of construction related to BART system repair, this alternative
10 also has a greater risk of upset than the proposed project. Without seismic retrofit, it is likely
11 that the BART system could sustain major damage, increasing risk to BART patrons, BART
12 workers, and persons and structures in the vicinity of the BART alignment.
13 Visual Resources
14 Aerial guideways, aerial stations, and other facilities could suffer damage ranging from minor
15 to major, and some facilities could be total losses. Following such an event, repairs would
16 necessitate lengthy construction at most or all facilities in the project portion of the system.
17 Consequently, visual character, visual quality, and light and glare conditions associated with
18 the project area would be subject to increased impacts under the no-action alternative.
19 Biological Resources
20 There would be impacts on the marine environment in the event of damage to the BART system
21 from a major earthquake. Repairs to the Transbay Tube would likely require dredging to
22 remove liquefied material, pumping and discharge of floodwater from the Tube, repairing
23 damaged joints or the concrete lining of the Tube, or jacking the Tube to return it to its pre-
24 earthquake alignment. These actions would result in substantial disturbance of the Bay bottom
25 and increased turbidity, resulting in the same types of impacts described for the project but on a
26 larger scale. Dredged material would also be disposed of, resulting in the same types of
27 impacts described for the project. Underwater noise impacts on marine species associated with
28 repair of the Transbay Tube would depend primarily on the need for pile driving, which cannot
29 be known at present. Repairs to upland portions of the system would cause the same types of
30 biological impacts, such as vegetation removal and erosion potential, as the project.
31 Air Quality
32 The amount of equipment required to repair major earthquake damage during the emergency
33 construction period would be much greater than what is needed to complete the project.
34 Combustive emissions and fugitive dust emissions would be greater and last longer. In
35 addition, a large number of displaced riders would likely use personal transportation during
36 the period of repair. The combustive emissions from these personal vehicles would add an
37 additional unmitigable air quality burden to the Bay Area.
3.12-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
3.12 No-Action Alternative
1 Social Impacts
2 Earthquake-related reconstruction of the BART system under this alternative, as well as the
3 associated loss of availability of public transportation, would not result in impacts that fall
4 disproportionately on the elderly, handicapped, or transit-dependent individuals, or on
5 minority or low-income populations. However, the transit-dependent and low-income
6 populations tend to be more reliant on public transportation for mobility as compared to the
general (i.e., citywide) population. Therefore, the loss of BART services could result in potential
8 isolation of these populations from the broader community.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
3.12-5
3.22 No-Action Alternative
This page intentionally left blank.
3.12-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
2 CEQ regulations (40 CFR Section 1508.7) stipulate that the cumulative effects analysis in an EA
3 should consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from "the incremental impacts of
4 the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
5 regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions," commonly referred to as
6 "cumulative effects." Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively
significant projects occurring over the lifetime of the project under consideration. This section
8 evaluates the cumulative effects of the project with other reasonably foreseeable projects.
9 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
10 Cumulative effects occur when there are interactions between a proposed action and other
11 actions in close proximity or during an overlapping time period. Actions geographically
12 overlapping or close to the proposed action would likely have more potential for interaction
13 than those farther away. Similarly, actions coinciding in time with the proposed action would
14 have a higher potential for cumulative effects.
15 The analysis of cumulative impacts must include regional effects in addition to cumulatively
16 substantial localized effects. The region considered in this analysis includes: Oakland west of
17 the Berkeley Hills Tunnel, including West Oakland; the Port of Oakland; San Francisco Bay in
18 the vicinity of the Transbay Tube; and the vicinity of the San Francisco Ferry Building Platform.
19 The timeframe considered in this analysis includes projects that would be under construction
20 during the same timeframe as the project, i.e., from 2005 through 2011.
21 The methodology used to develop this cumulative analysis included contacting the following
22 organizations to identify reasonably foreseeable future projects:
23 • Association of Bay Area Governments;
24 • California Department of Transportation, District 4;
25 • City of Oakland;
26 • City/County of San Francisco;
27 • East Bay Municipal Utility District;
28 • East Bay Regional Park District;
29 • Port of Oakland;
30 • Port of San Francisco; and
31 • Water Transit Authority.
32 Information obtained from these agencies was used to compile a list of ongoing ami proposed
33 programs and projects near the project alignment that could contribute to cumulative impacts.
34 A list of the projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis is presented in Table 4 1 and
35 their locations are shown on Figure 4-1.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-1
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
EE c
u 1
Q
to
c
g
to >^
— «
O to
a, j
£ O
to i-
f— <
T3
3 'yj
TO J
■5 J
* c
S 6
to o
-a c
a. o
c
g
to
a. 3
S a
TO l-
H <
to
Cu
->
o
'C
ia
C
u
X
(3
£ o u
c °
N
X s:
u bD
01 p
'o 1 o
a-x:
.a ^
x .2
TO 3.
>- J
(30 O
O u
S *
0> O)
Q TO
TO
g CO
o
(N
<*> C H
c o £
•2 £
z: to c
.Si. o 3f
8 8 o
C- < U
§ *
S3 C
TO TO
C CD
bO QJ
-o c
^ In
5 *
C
—I TO
bO
1 S -a
C
v C
c 2
CD
O TO
Q- 3
S o
TO >-
""3
Ol
£ TO
• J TO
H
<c
c m
CD "O
TO
£
3 TO
£ O
O)
01
x;
T3
C
X TO
C rv;
•2 <
tj CO
-a c
C _TO
V TO
« o
O
Oi £j
£ a
c
g
TO ^
v« —
O TO
3 " i
2 H <
c
o
u
c
o
C
O
O C
C J"
W n:
m C
2 £
OJ
u C
01 TO
TO ■JT> In
bo2
><
Ol f5
01
— ' «
X 01
H X
• C
8 S
c ■£
O u
7± O
Ch c
^3 CD
.2 o
c O
X 01
W C
bp i,
*> c
2 2
TO T3
>s a
X
T3
01
O X
2
a.
O
T3
C
TO
C
o
o
X
3
<
C
cu
E
2 o.
rv C
3" m to
d I E ^
4-2 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
en <*>
TO .!_»
C (75
2 fr
cx 5
e °
~ c
■i s
£ *o3
U §
c 3 -
-C >-> cn
— 0) <u
C w re
O ^ C-
U * w
o co
« I
£ o
73 )-c
e ■*■'
3 4>
c .a
Ch en
U)
H
C*
<
CO
0)
U §
-I ~
.O
to
Q
<5
S J?
ft, ^
c
o
_, to '3
OJ
c
01
01
O 16
75 Cl^
re H fe
o
60 "5
o re
O N
X c 3 01 QJ «
^ s u > U £
c
o
E "m
CL
01
CD
Tj CN
01 O
to O
re oj
3 O-
S3 ti
Q 8
c
a,.
re "O
E c
.b re
x — 1
o c
>-i re
Cl jd
Cl a
re - 1 —
O (8 M JS
j_j t* ■*-■ 0>
g t; »1 h
0) US
£ 3
o •=
c
•2 .a
re 2
3
cl
c c
re a; re
re TS
o 3
co t-i .
c t;
r-H O
-C H C
O
On 01
CN >
bC^ J=
C re o
0) CO
K re
T3 g
to ^
to O
c <;
'to 01
3 >
03 3
oJ 01
o « e
° n
a. ^
to 01
01 -a
tO ni
3 &
0) .
^
> O
Ti
Oi
o> —
0)
2 3
c
& o
S- °
o 01
11 a— H
1;
O cS
u ™
CO ?
Z
o ,o
0) „
-C
O
01 to
o
bp c
5 ^>
01
re
to
01
X!
3
H -S
5 ^
re
C —
O 1-
0)
bo
oj re
01 o
g to
O 3
>^ J3
•a
o
ex be
c 3 re
c
re
FT T3 i ^
co £ «
CO Q_ In
O T3
re
a
u
re .3 El,"
CO OJ
01 tu
to hi
re
6° ^
C g
n re
TS .2 O
S « in
« £ o
^ T) ^
Oku
• S
01 to
C re B
•2 S S
JS - °
J-i Q_ ~
re ^ re 01
f 1 1 1
ON
» re
5b ^
< 2
"S 2
5 El
Cl, O
E c
8 5
SG S3
PL1 H
T3
Oi
« 8
O CN
C
S O
tu 'J3
3 0)
g E
o o
tj o
01
•S .6 ^ -
o
to *;
^ CO
CL to
T3
C
re
L,
c
Cl
O
ST -P
r- r- 1 re
U
01
lP CO
^ r-
QJ U
L, L,
■ M to
01 01
£ 5
7; 01
o»
c c
S £
E S
o —
U
>^ ° 3
bO ^3 ^|
_o |= O
O N
oj re to
O X c<
o
01
>-,
re C
^ .2
L, -t- 1
01 Oi
§ £
.2 8
T3 aj_
2 'o
— , 01
tO .SL,
re o
01 >H
PL, C_
O
ClQ
5%
Ja •* > ^
12
re c
01
"2 o
^
a. c
u — C
Cl re o
■ > Jj S
c S £
01 > to
6 2 b
Cl q.0£
-2 o <
tU *3 CQ
a) -o
^3 c g
oj xi re
3 O re
x -2 "55
5 E ai
re
01
CO
be —
bO
OJ O
- ■ 01 -o r
.2 53 01
02 > (J
00
o be
c
CN -S
X
o E
. O
00 CN ^
°> re
0) t
re
re
JS c
E 3
bC
c
. o
• U
c
o
bC
_g
■5
c
01
ffl § or
w U -o
re
e "°
.3 ^
-s <
E °
re
<
QJ C
!i
X ^
c J2
i §
ii 01
O -
x S
c
re o
O 2
v a
bC 3
Q x
to
1 C
4* 3
C co
> 01
2 Z
§••§>
E c
— PU
re Cl^j
60 5 C
•7 >^ re
f E O
o 5 —
o < o
D c?
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-3
4.0 Cumulative Itnpacts
Si, Q
S 2
C
o > -2
si u
re ^3 a,
C C/5
aj in
P O
W CJ IB Jr
bOs Cu S
4! C B °
2 .£ .S p-
0) c/> 5 <fl H ^ Pi
a ai O
s > u £
c
o
crj X
g 2
3 O
o 9-
cn i/i
OJ c
Pi re
re
o
c
01
>^
X
C
o
.Si. in
o o
Ph tN
oi
£ -G
C o
01
rv C
aj oi
o C
T3 g
= lit
u -a
* g
> "JS
C
re
c re
o X
a, f
bo b
bc_2
c/S 01
o ^
sg bo
°° c
SO X
to ^
S y
.2 c
•7) O
en
t3 o
£ s
re 01
ID
a.
re
a.
i~*
bO
o -
C
c
'c
he
R)
"So
"53
c
01
£
7)
5 "0
> c
_1 re
ai
CO c
.2 c 3 o>
ffl .5 U >
ON
ON
u C
01 01
II
£ 3
U 01
13 g
£1 <
5 01
°--£
E c
S §
CD £
E
o
CN
O
CM
X
c
• o
§ I
CM
0) g
X o
g 2
01 cj
> 01
£ '°
f; a.
"° -n
o> y
x S
S 01
-2 'o
-j —
2 ffi
01
re O
"5 - re
C 3 u
c
01 o
S re
o 1-
re g
0) o
T3
0)
re
01
en
<
2
01
tp 01
01 e
H C re -r
re —
C 0)
ro re
Si c
X! re
3 T3
U C
Pi re
.a o
g re
-g
u C
re
§ s
g 3
01 a
< o
01
X
^ c in a* «
^ * 3
X 1
01
c
c
<
re CJ
X G
O c/j
lg
c «
re u
?r o
1-. j_,
o
c
ON
v £
V 3
c 1/5
re f>
< (50 ^
l-l
re
2
><
l
>,
01
01
re
pa
a
t>C
g
01
C/J
U
CsS
'u
01
>5i
c
re
b£
3
U-i
01
c
|
re
cn
01
c
-C
Po
"o
%
u
(/J
13 <U
C g
S U
5 a.
i3 0,
T3 3
5 «
< B
< "5
01
o
to
c
Z £ <
01
In re
C
re S
h g
> <
re
2 o
cn ^
D U
01
es
>~,"re
o 5 —
o "3 S
01
_0J
re
>jo-« ^
° re O S
- N
w ^, 55 re « .<£
5uuie;>
(50 ■
C g
6i
0)
3
fS O
0)
Si ts
s
X en
x c
01
c
C50
C
x "3
re 3
01 y
BS .g
.g Pi
co <
tJ «
S C
3 n -
2 x
'a in
re 01 ™
> •> re
cm"
•it 1
bb .5 .
C cj c
'55 '>
x -g In
g
13
o
bU
>
re
c
01
g
Pl,
o
>
01
13
01
Pi
13
c
re
(50
C
■2 £
01 ► J -'
01 o
-a
01 c
pi y
c
01
g
o
O)
>
01
-3
js! re
m O
O 13 -
03 c
2- 3
Q g
• > g
c U
U < la
4-4 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
OI
<L u.
1 «
H *S
'vant C/i
ronment
^ ,^
'o
0,
Ul
co
T3
01
3
_S
c
O
u
(0
o-t
u
.3
0)
.a.
'o
u
c
C>
tp
Q
n
1
+■>
Cl Ci
<U ~
2
a, ^
v.
o
s;
■3
01
3
C
c
o
u
CO
-t-
09
(«
w
•Si, 6
2 Z
3
re
e s
c 5
O 3
Ea a
3 O C
U Z w <
3 OJ
U q
CM
IT)
o o
O O
CM CN
X
o
CL
Cl
C< CO
u -a
01 3
o £
cl .-5
P u
u. tj <y 5 3
CL^ — o 3
QJ ui u n; i_
« c ^ 3 y
O re ui ui 3 u
2hS>u<
f? 3 CO
H 8
o g
« 8
C CM
M 3
C T3
o Si
re
0J
re
£
x
o
- f-t
> £l
3 3 ex
w .£ re
QJ
re —
> re
L> Ul QJ
qj T3 —
x c .2
'£h g
"o <J 'S
£ e 02
CJ QJ
3 «> 8
£3 re ^
ui 33 re
5 > £
> 55 2
> 3 c
0J re £
Z ±J O
T3
01
u
QJ 3
ci re
re x
CL c
01 W
3 3
CLtJ d
c a ■ 2
re w ro
oj" bp U3
.y .£ o.
33 X
OS"*'
re S.S
ca re
C
01
£
CL
o
—
>
01
Q
c
o
<
T3
C
O
< S o
^ £ a
QJ
Ci re
o 5 1/1 b
eS 2 > <
O C
re »
E. S
s in
§ §
.- 1 CM
3 Ul 01
? O M
3 ci 3
« O <
3 c >^
2 o ^
Cl "3 T3
re oi
N '
§b.3
ui re
C
Ul LO
C O
O q
CI CM
T3
*4 c
o re
c =
Cc
re
QJ
T3 qj
3 -3
re
w —
re
3
0) o
£ 3
_QJ o
"qj '-3
^ ci
re in
CL Ul
J3 o
ul 3^
qj re
8 ^
7 S
< «i
Q aj
< ■£
oi
u
re
£
en
O
3
^<
par
mi
in
re
cx
bC
oj"
bO
C
3
O
M
3
T3
'www.
Ave
01
-3
_o
3
O
Ul
£
3
d
01
01
re
£
u
ve
01
bo
o
'tn
alon
impi
Web
01
3
OI
01
CJ C
W QJ
01 3
ft
o oj
ai P
QJ j_>
■£ QJ
o c
01
_0 ui
O O
S 2
_QJ
re
£
X
o
1-1
CL
CL
re
3
_o
o
3
3 ^
3
01
13 3
qj £
TJ re
O
-3 ffl
CO 3
> re
fx
ui
QJ
S .3
re S
Clu
re re
uj £
QJ O
?r ^- re
Ul
w y
QJ "O
O QJ 4-
re ~->
x > a
T3
CL re
S .2
i I
re ,0J
re qj
o «>
° J2 O
-or
U K t
Cl
re _~)
CO S
Ul pQ
QJ
Ul
bo'o
° ^
O _ui
S 5
3
QJ
QJ
QJ
3
O
QJ <fi
3 §
3 Ci
VO
O
o
CM
OJ
ui
re
B - 2
E .£ cm
_QJ .3 >
CI Ul QJ
frx 3
O
O 3
3 O
O '3
- .« 3
re >^
'— 33
O re
Cl 3
~ a
o
2
H <
re
CL
>^
XI
3
O
*J
CL
o
S-H
CL
T3
0)
.X, LD
o o
Jr 1 °
C- CM
■ Si tn O
X 3
w o £
tj "g >
QJ 3 QJ
"O" TO -3
Ul 4 - 1
ft, ^ 3
>h •— "T
QJ Ul
4= QJ
re cl
D.
'5, 'S.
CO
3
o
a
x
■c
« CO
Z oj
_re
_ "5
X! T3
V 3
3 nj
V -
QJ 3
J3 O
-O" |
QJ 3
B. *J
re i_
ui O
in
3 re
a >-
■3 5
C I
O re
U CL
T3
3
Tj X
C Tj
S I
QJ
QJ "O
CO
oo
3 ci
QJ QJ
QJ 'o*
t o
Tj
C
qj re
Tj qj
3 3
re
re
Cl
^ JS
4- QJ
o >-
ui iJ"
C QJ
C ¥
X «
_v QJ
t: o>
re h
cc cn
c
so
jj s
re 3
S >
OI
T3
O
Ui
T3
3
re
3
01
uT
re
£
c
c
bp
be
'53
n
Cl
M
re
i—
Ir
bC
3
ES
"7
><
u
01
c
3
01
E
01
>
o
Q.
£
$
Ui
CL,
01 -u>
lU O
C g
3 re
r
Qj —
E re
^ _
Cl 3
U O
5 1
.2 u
3 O
^ Lu
O ui
3: 3
re 2
U H
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-5
4.0 Ciimiilathie Impacts
3 £
z
73
01
3
C
C
o
k.
•St, o
2 £
Oh
—
—
TO j2
.<« C
o
2
5 o
o>
Dh
o o
« u °
C_ cn
0) l\
r- Q
O
CN
3
oi
„ c
£ <N 3
5 V H
i- t- ^»
o o
s rv - o
C u n
re oi -rj
J2 re "«
g w U
e c°x
« o
re £
« ui in
C a; o>
re <u <u
^ O O
re O. Cl
5 £ E
at
> f
o —
a -a
I Q
o *
u u
iu re
•73 i;
re re
0° O
05
0)
u
o
in
<"
OI
CQ
x>
E
o
cl -a
E £
o <-i
y 0)^
cn o
I L.
UJ CL
oi "O
to c
"E
CQ re
01 Tj
c c
01
£ 3
01 CQ
01 0)
OS >
o >^
s *
re CQ
CL -n
<0 C
■m re
O) ~-
re
W re
ai O
r- I
3 o
.2 .y
^ c> u
E C (fl
01 re jt*
e .*« Q
E M- ~
u E oi c
57 g -C re
Oi S CO U
.9 5 I
o 3 16
S U h
re
'C
cn S
ts re
co S
>^-2
° re
N
01 re
U £
c
3
O
U
\ (6
>^ bO
6-g
£
o 01
\3 |H
re Cl
re
CL, o
(U C
^ u
C C
re
£ £
W E
re
CO
C
U3 -ST-
re
c _
CL P
Z C xi
T3 >.
c t!
re 01
"
—1 o
0) b
H Cm
3 Oi
re ^
B I
H ^
c ^
.2 o>
1 — 1
5 c
to
re oi
> m
re o
Z u
o
O TJ .S3
E >
u _
B
re 01
a;
3 S
E £
01 s
ai <
CQ
u, re
01
^ "re
E
O
° 3
CQ U
01
c-1
0) >>
£ 3
E 5
— 03^
5 .E O qj
1/1 c u
> W <
o
o
CN
■-
E _Q
■2 E
u O
£
o
Ol Qh
-E £
Cl u
4, 01
■ E L,
tin C
2 ?i
t3 £
O) _E
re .2
& -fi
fc Cl
01
c § 5
S re
o oi
L. Ih
Cl XI
E
re
Lt
Uh
E
Uh 01 c
E "o >-,
re >-, o
CO CL CL
-E a>
01
re
to E
.2 3
CQ U
•- 1 ex!
o
2 01
S >
LT)
O
o
CN
E >,
XI
« B
£ 2
re E
13 Jj
0) Cl
2 £
01 . o
> CO Li
SO"
re o u
60 OJ .g,
o
n
CL
2 "
S £
re . (j
to Cl qj
'o
O i-
U CL
T3
S £
XI
re
01
X
2 Li
-5
-Cl T3
E J_.
Cl re
v O
X)
o §
S M
O T3
CE E
u «
If
Cl re
cn ^
E «
£ 5
3
re
* 8
S 2
O 0°
E 6
•2 1
us to
3!
re Xi
r 1 ■ — 1
L5 «i 0)
0) 3
CSS x
01
o .S
CL E
re
.g o
CL CL
. O ^
to Cl tO
9° co cn o
° S3 c 7
.2 2 5 S
cq 2 H O
ON
o
o
CN
5^
Xi
E
O
Cl
£
o
0)
'cT
L,
Cl
T3
01
Oi O
■£ E
to .2
£ t5
2 S
S cl
re g
-O re
E u
re
re
^3 *tr? C — ?" E
.5 "C
X X
.2 to
o .£
£ 05
U 01
o .s
jg S
"E 01
"5 '
1-
ai re
E -°
3 cn
" £
o 2
E H
o 01
'■E £
O uh
Cl o
01
to
xi
C
«
re 11
co £
__ 01
E re
-2 a
X v
re c-5
O X
o
re -E
< t3
5
05
c
re
L 01 O ' — 1
re ^> L, re
CO ^ CL U
4-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
U
t/i O
T3 -r
QJ OJ 03
" s s
^ , , 1-1
>- 6 S
a o E
.2 c
o
0) 01
BO.
re .2 S
C in u"j
O
Oh
bo
£ =3 1
o
■s 6 % -a
o> u £ 3
tn io 9 3
01
Oh
3 a
m < _S a?
S . o^.a
.9 it a) >
S n S C
fi it S u
- »a S
-H QJ
CQ ro
^ 0)
- 0) „
03 tL, 0)
o
re
T3 H
" u o
y vS <«
CO
o
* oj a
O-c
y 5 J
B .S J5
S -a -g
C O) 0) O T3
- > ti O- o;
re o
= £ S
CD ey O) O
03 CO Hi
4H O _Q
>- .5
2h u
O
bo £
— H .-H _
It M 2 Ti C
.. ^ o
03 T— '
Oh C
3 O
o ,„
5 £
m5 re
o 5
H= H-. 0)
s o-
5 tn
_5 "h
U "'
BO a;
o
BO
g bo
M re
>
oS lo
O OJ
O) OI
■2 S
s b
BO Pi
O <
CO
01 -Ti
H 1 V
y >^
o ^
S U
o
2 g
13 -O 3 s
03 0)
>
u Q
OJ^ QJ _Ch
2 O 3
£ 2 <
.y a
a
a
o
2
<
2
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-7
4-8
4.0 Cumulative bjipacts
1 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
2 Three technical studies prepared for the project evaluate the cumulative impact of the project
3 with other foreseeable projects: the Biological Assessment (BART et al. 20051), the Natural
4 Environment Study (BART et al. 2005g), and the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
5 The description of cumulative impacts for Biological Resources (section 4.2.9) and Ground
6 Transportation (section 4.2.4.1) is a summary of the more detailed analysis in these technical
studies. Based on the analysis of project impacts in Chapter 3, if the project was determined to
8 have no impact on a specific resource area (e.g., flooding), the project will not contribute to a
9 cumulative impact on that resource, and therefore, is not discussed further below.
10 4.2.1 Water Resources
11 Similar to the project, channel dredging for certain cumulative projects, including the Port of
12 Oakland -50-foot Navigation Improvements Project, Berths 32/33 Wharf Rehabilitation,
13 Replacement of the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Base Realignment and
14 Closure of Treasure Island, and the San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project could result in
15 elevated suspended sediments and turbidity levels, higher oxygen demands, and
16 remobilization of sediment-associated contaminants at the project sites and at aquatic disposal
17 sites (if used for disposal of project dredged material). Impacts from these projects are expected
18 to persist for the duration of their respective construction phases. Cumulative impacts on water
19 quality are expected to be negligible because the impacts would only occur within the
20 immediate vicinity of the respective project sites, with some dispersion of turbidity/ suspended
21 sediment plumes due to currents. In addition, these projects would be conducted in accordance
22 with dredging and disposal permits that include BMPs and other measures to mitigate any
23 water quality impacts to negligible. To the extent that the cumulative projects dredge
24 contaminated sediments from the Bay for upland disposal or re-use, a beneficial impact on
25 sediment quality could occur.
26 The project has the potential for temporary, but cumulative impacts on surface water quality
27 associated with stormwater runoff. A number of the cumulative projects, including the
28 Caldecott Improvement Project, NAS Alameda/Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
29 Annex, EBMUD New Water Distribution System Project, West Oakland Redevelopment Project,
30 Mandela Parkway Improvement Project, Oakland Army Base Redevelopment, Fleet and
31 Industrial Supply Center/Port of Oakland, and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge West
32 Approach Replacement involve construction in upland areas that may also be affected by the
33 project. These projects have the potential to cumulatively affect the quality and/or flow of
34 stormwater runoff. However, similar to the project, the above projects would be covered by
35 construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans to reduce potential stormwater runofl
36 impacts. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts related to stormwater would be negligible.
37 4.2.2 Noise
38 Cumulative noise impacts would result only if construction noise associated with another
39 project affected the same sensitive receptors as the project during the same timeframe. Hie
40 project's contribution to cumulative underwater noise impacts on the marine environment is
41 discussed in section 4.2.9.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 Cumulative noise impacts could affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of:
4
5
2
3
the MacArthur Station due to the project and the MacArthur Station Development
Project;
the BART alignment near the 19 th Street/ Oakland Station due to the project and Uptown
Project Residential Development; and
6
7
the San Francisco Transition Structure due to the project and the San Francisco Ferry
Terminal Project.
8 To ensure the project's contribution to cumulative construction noise impacts are within
9 acceptable BART limits, standard procedures will be implemented as part of the project,
10 including installation and maintenance of temporary noise barriers; scheduling of construction
11 activities, such as pile driving; mufflers on construction equipment; and public notification (see
12 Chapter 2 [Project Alternatives]).
13 The project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts associated with transportation of
14 dredged materials from the project by either barge (for in-Bay or upland disposal options) or
15 truck (for landfill disposal options) would be negligible. Existing noise levels both within the
16 Bay, and along freeways and local streets that would be accessed by truck traffic, would
17 experience no discernible increase in noise as a result of these 20 daily additional trips.
18 Furthermore, noise impacts on sensitive receptors near the freeways and local streets in the
19 project area that would experience any combined truck trips associated with other projects
20 would be negligible as these other cumulative projects would be required to implement
21 measures to ensure noise levels are reduced to within acceptable limits.
22 4.2.3 Cultural Resources
23 The majority of the projects listed in Table 4-1 would have the potential to disturb either a
24 known or previously unidentified archaeological site or a maritime historic resource during
25 construction. Although no significant archaeological or maritime historic sites are recorded
26 within the APE of the project, it is possible that previously unidentified archaeological deposits
27 may be uncovered during construction. If an unidentified, potentially significant archaeological
28 deposit is discovered during project construction, an adverse effect on this property would
29 contribute to a cumulative effect. However, adherence to applicable National Historic
30 Preservation Act requirements will ensure the project's contribution to this cumulative effect is
31 negligible.
32 The project's potential adverse effect on six properties eligible for National Register of Historic
33 Places (NRHP) listing would contribute to a cumulative effect. Specifically, the Uptown Project
34 Residential Development, NAS Alameda /FISC Annex, West Oakland Redevelopment Project,
35 Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Area, Alameda Point Mixed Use Development, Base
36 Realignment and Closure of Treasure Island, the San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project, and the
37 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge West Approach Replacement all have the potential to impact
38 structures over 50 years old that could be eligible for NRHP listing, individual review of each of
39 these projects under NEPA (or when under the jurisdiction of a local or state lead agency, under
40 CEQA) likely resulted in the identification of any potentially eligible archaeological, historic, or
41 maritime resources and provided mitigation to address adverse effects. It is not certain, however,
4-10 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 that all cumulative adverse effects could be completely mitigated, given the potentially large
2 amount of ground disturbance involved with these projects. However, the mitigation measure in
3 section 3.3.2.2 will avoid the project's contribution to this cumulative effect.
4 4.2.4 Transportation
5 4.2.4.1 Ground Transportation
6 Cumulative impacts on groimd transportation were evaluated for project construction, and
from hauling dredged material to disposal sites. Assuming traffic would be greatest in the later
8 years of retrofit activity, the maximum cumulative traffic effects would occur during the final
9 stages of project construction. According to the project construction schedule, the final
10 construction work would occur 6 years after project commencement, or approximately in the
11 year 2011. Therefore, cumulative traffic effects are evaluated based on regional traffic changes
12 that are projected to occur by 2011. These cumulative effects would be expected to influence
13 intersection operations and street segment operations. However, this analysis also recognizes
14 that construction of other projects could result in lane closures and other temporary impacts
15 similar to the project, including impacts to parking, transit operations, and bicycle and
16 pedestrian circulation.
17 Freeway Segment Operations due to Traffic Growth
18 Project construction would not impact any of the mainline freeways in the study area; however,
19 hauling of dredged material could utilize regional freeways. Cumulative traffic forecasts for
20 freeways in year 2011 were based on the Alameda Countywide Transportation Model. Hauling
21 of dredged material to the Altamont or Vasco Road Landfills (up to 28 trucks per day, each with
22 a capacity of 12 cy) could result in substantial impacts to four freeway segments expected to
23 operate at LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours:
24 1. Interstate 880 South of Interstate 980, northbound in A.M. peak hour, southbound in P.M.
25 peak hour;
26 2. Interstate 880 North of Interstate 238, northbound in A.M. peak hour, southbound in P.M.
27 peak hour,
28 3. Interstate 580 East of Interstate 238, westbound in A.M. peak hour, eastbound in P.M.
29 peak hour, and
30 4. Interstate 580 Ramps at Vasco Road Interchange, eastboimd off ramp and westbound on
31 ramp in both A.M. and P.M. peak hour.
32 The project's contribution to cumulative impacts at these four freeway segments will be
33 avoided, however, because the construction contractor will be required to transport dredged
34 material from the Port of Oakland to landfill disposal sites outside of peak hours, as described
35 in section 3.4.1.2.3. For additional details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-11
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 Intersectioji Operation Impacts due to Traffic Growth
2 Project Construction
3 With Cumulative Year 2011 levels of traffic, the maximum potential lane closures related to
4 project construction would cause three intersections to operate at peak hour LOS E or F during
5 one or more peak periods:
6 1. Broadway/Patton Street and Miles Avenue (A.M. peak hour);
7 2. College Avenue and Keith Avenue (P.M. peak hour); and
8 3. Claremont Avenue and Hudson Street (A.M. and P.M. peak hours).
9 The project's contribution to cumulative impacts at these three intersections will be avoided,
10 however, because the construction contractor will be required to prepare and implement a
11 construction phasing plan and traffic management plan (TMP) that specifically addresses
12 accommodations for cumulative traffic operations throughout the duration of retrofit activities.
13 For additional details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
14 Dredged Material Hauling
15 The addition of 28 truck trips (if landfill disposal) could result in impacts to one intersection
16 (Southfront Road and Interstate 580 eastbound ramp), which is anticipated to operate at LOS F
17 during the P.M. peak hour under cumulative traffic conditions. The project's contribution to
18 cumulative traffic conditions at this intersection will be avoided, however, because the
19 construction contractor will be required to transport dredged material from the Port of Oakland
20 to landfill disposal sites outside of peak hours, as described in section 3.4.1.2.3. For additional
21 details, see the Traffic Technical Study (BART et al. 2005h).
22 Street Segment Operation Impacts due to Traffic Growth
23 With Cumulative Year 2011 levels of traffic, if through traffic is limited to a single lane during
24 project construction, traffic volumes would exceed the LOS F threshold criteria on Telegraph
25 Avenue (Location 8, southbound) during the Year 2011 scenario, assuming no prior mitigation.
26 The project's contribution to thi^ cumulative impact at Telegraph Avenue will be avoided,
27 however, because the construction contractor will be required to prepare and implement a
28 construction phasing plan and TMP that specifically addresses accommodations for this street
29 segment, as described in section 3.4.1.2.2.
30 Cumulative Impacts due to Other Construction in the Study Area
31 The MacArthur Station Development Project (at the MacArthur Station) and the West Oakland
32 Redevelopment Project (near the West Oakland Station) could result in construction adjacent to
33 project locations. Potential cumulative construction-related impacts could occur at either the
34 MacArthur or West Oakland Stations if these cumulative projects were scheduled at the same
35 time as the project. However, the project's contribution to cumulative construction impacts will
36 be avoided because the project construction phasing plan and TMP will specifically addresses
37 accommodations for cumulative construction operations at these two stations. The following
38 mitigation measure is also identified to avoid scheduling conflicts.
4-12
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 Mitigation Measure. Cumulative construction-related impacts due to schedule overlaps will be
2 avoided by implementing the following mitigation measure:
3 • Schedule project retrofits at the West Oakland Station and construction of the West
4 Oakland Redevelopment Project to occur at different times; schedule project retrofits at
5 the MacArthur Station and construction of the MacArthur Station Development Project
6 to occur at different times.
7 4.2.4.2 Vessel Transportation
8 During project construction, vibro-replacement barges could be present in the Outer Harbor
9 Entrance Channel for up to 3 months. Fill undertaken as part of the Oakland Army Base
10 Redevelopment Area, dredging associated with the -50-foot Navigation Improvements Project,
11 and Berths 32/33 Wharf Rehabilitation could also introduce construction equipment into the
12 Outer Harbor Entrance Channel. Should fill, dredge, and wharf rehabilitation actions occur at
13 the same rime as project vibro-replacement, the construction equipment for these projects could
14 block access to, and increase the risk of vessel conflicts within, the Outer Harbor Entrance
15 Channel. The following mitigation measure is identified for this cumulative impact.
16 Mitigation Measure. Vessel conflict impacts related to cumulative construction in the Outer
17 Harbor Entrance Channel will be prevented with implementation of the following measure:
18 • Vibro-replacement shall be scheduled for a 3-month period when fill, dredging, and
19 wharf rehabilitation actions associated with other approved projects are not planned, to
20 the extent feasible.
21 Vibro-replacement and stitching at the Oakland end of the Transbay Tube is expected to take
22 approximately 1 year and would occur within the yard area of Berths 32 to 34 at the Port of
23 Oakland. During vibro-replacement and stitching, access will be maintained between the yard
24 area and berths (as described in the mitigation measures in section 3.4.2.2.2).
25 Project actions at the San Francisco Ferry Building could close the northern berth of the South
26 Terminal for up to 1 year, and Golden Gate Berth 2 for 3 months to a year. As described in
27 section 3.4.2.2.2, the existing ferry services will be accommodated with only minor adjustments
28 (about 15 minutes or less) in schedules. However, should the frequency of ferry service increase
29 or new ferry routes be added per the Implementation and Operations Plan of the San Francisco
30 Bay Water Transit Authority, it may not be possible to maintain these new and expanded
31 services at the Ferry Building during project construction activities. This is further complicated
32 by the Pier lVi, 3 & 5 Project, which could limit access to the emergency pier and further
33 decrease the available berths at the Ferry Building. The following mitigation measure is
34 identified for this cumulative impact.
35 Mitigation Measure. Impacts to vessel infrastructure related to cumulative construction on the
36 San Francisco Ferry Terminal will be prevented with implementation of the following measure
37 • Retrofit activities at the San Francisco Transition Structure shall be scheduled to ouur
38 before or after completion of the Pier IV2, 3 & 5 Project (estimated completion in 2005).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-13
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 Expanded ferry service can only occur upon completion of the Pier Wz, 3 & 5 Project, thus
2 scheduling retrofit activities to occur before or after completion of the Pier VA, 3 & 5 Project
3 avoids cumulative impacts related to expanded ferry service.
4 4.2.5 Geology/Seismicity
5 Project activities would temporarily modify the bottom topography of the Bay. The project's
6 contribution to this cumulative impact would be negligible, however, because no regional, long-
7 term depositional disruptions would occur in the project area, as described in section 3.5.2.2.
8 Similar to the project, several offshore and shoreline projects (e.g., -50-Foot Navigation
9 Improvements, Berths 32/33 Wharf Rehabilitation, Replacement of the East Span of the Bay
10 Bridge) would involve dredgmg, pile driving, and associated changes to bottom topography.
11 Although the bathymetry would be modified in association with each of the cumulative
12 projects, these areas of dredging are located in industrial, predominantly disturbed area, where
13 previous dredging has occurred. Depositional processes would be temporarily disrupted
14 during construction of each of these projects; however, impacts would be localized and short
15 term, and depositional equilibrium would be reestablished within a short period. Because no
16 regional disruption of submarine depositional processes would occur, the project, in
17 combination with other offshore and shoreline projects, would not result in cumulative impacts
18 due to dredging.
19 Project dredging activities would potentially result in unstable geologic conditions within the
20 Bay Mud deposits, which consist of soft silty clay that is highly compressible. However, the
21 project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible, as impacts will be localized
22 and standard geotechnical engineering measures will be implemented (see section 3.5.2.2).
23 Dredging for the cumulative projects would also potentially result in unstable geologic
24 conditions within the Bay Mud deposits. However, the project, in combination with other
25 cumulative projects, would not result in cumulative impacts due to the localized nature of these
26 potentially unstable submarine slopes that will be mitigated with standard geotechnical
27 engineering.
28 4.2.6 Hazardous Materials
29 The project would result in excavation of known contaminated soil and potential excavation of
30 unknown contamination. Such contamination would be subject to assessment, segregation, and
31 disposal at an appropriate waste disposal facility, in accordance with applicable laws and
32 regulations. The project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible, as potential
33 health and safety impacts to construction workers will be localized, and implementation of a
34 site-specific Health and Safety Plan and Soil Management Plan will ensure proper handling and
35 disposal procedures are followed, as described in section 3.6.2.2. The majority of the
36 cumulative projects onshore in the East Bay (e.g., West Oakland Redevelopment Project,
37 Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Area, FISCO/Port of Oakland, and Alameda Point Mixed-
38 Use Development) would similarly result in ground disturbance and potential uncovering of
39 known or previously unknown soil and/ or groundwater contamination. Each of these projects
40 would also be subject to federal, state, and local regulations requiring site assessment and
41 remediation. Therefore, the project, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not
42 result in cumulative impacts, as potential health and safety impacts to construction workers will
43 be localized, and standard procedures will be followed.
4-14
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 4.2.7 Risk of Upset/Safety
2 The project would involve construction in several areas open to the general public, including
3 the Rockridge, MacArthur, and West Oakland Stations, and the San Francisco Ferry Building.
4 Other projects which could result in construction in the vicinity of these BART stations and/ or
5 the Ferry Building include the West Oakland Redevelopment Project, EBMUD New Water
6 Distribution System Project, Alameda Point Mixed-Use Development, San Francisco Ferry
Terminal Project, and Pier IVl, 3 & 5 Project. Compliance with general construction procedures
8 and regulations will prevent the public from being exposed to substantial risk from either
9 individual projects or the projects cumulatively.
10 A second source of risk comes from construction in the vicinity of the Transbay Tube. Both the
11 project and the -50-foot Navigation Improvements would introduce construction equipment in
12 the immediate vicinity of the Transbay Tube. While patrons and BART personnel would not
13 have direct contact with these activities, the Tube would be exposed to construction and
14 increased risk for damage. As part of environmental documentation for the -50-foot Navigation
15 Improvements, the USACE and Port of Oakland determined that the portion of the Tube in the
16 proposed dredge area is below the dredging limits, which are 42 to 50 feet below mean lower
17 low water (USACE and Port of Oakland 1998). The USACE and Port of Oakland determined
18 that the cathodic protection system of the Tube would be seriously damaged by dredging and
19 would have to be replaced (USACE and Port of Oakland 1998). The cathodic protection system,
20 however, will not be affected by seismic retrofit construction because dredging activities will
21 not occur near the system. Furthermore, adherence to the California Public Utilities
22 Commission requirements for preparation of a Safety Certification Plan, which identifies any
23 potential hazards to BART patrons and employees and applicable mitigations, will ensure the
24 project's contribution to cumulative risks from construction in the vicinity of the Tube is
25 negligible. Implementation of mitigation measures for the -50-foot Navigation Improvements
26 Project, replacement of the cathodic protection system, as needed, as well as adherence to
27 general construction procedures, and compliance with USCG regulations will reduce to
28 negligible the cumulative risks from construction in the vicinity of the Transbay Tube.
29 4.2.8 Visual Resources
30 The appropriate geographic area for evaluating cumulative impacts on visual resources is
31 normally relatively localized, and not regional, because of the nature of aesthetic features and
32 views. Accordingly, the geographic scope of cumulative visual resource impacts varies with
33 each portion of the BART system, depending on its context. As certain project work sites (e.g.,
34 Rockridge Station, West Oakland Station, Chabot Road and Golden Gate Avenue overpasses,
35 Oakland Transition Structure, etc.) would have no other projects occurring concurrently with
36 proposed construction activities, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on
37 visual resources there; accordingly, they are not discussed further below.
38 Project impacts on visual resources at the MacArthur Station will be negligible due to
39 implementation of project measures, as described in section 3.8.2.2. Although the MacArthur
40 Station Development Project would occur in the vicinity of the project work sites, it is unlikel)
41 to affect the specific visual resources (artworks) at the station that are potentially affected by the
42 project. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to visual resources in this project area would occur.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-15
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 Cumulative impacts on visual resources associated with the San Francisco Bay Trail, near the
2 Aerial Transition Structure at the Port of Oakland, would be limited to the Port. Although the
3 Port proposes to implement a number of redevelopment projects, some are located offshore or
4 affect only marine terminals, and the remainder would not affect any portion of the San
5 Francisco Bay Trail. Project impacts will be negligible with implementation of project
6 restoration measures, as described in section 3.8.2.2, so the project would not contribute to
7 cumulative impacts.
8 The project would have temporary and negligible impacts on visual resources at Hardy Park
9 due to implementation of project restoration measures, as described in section 3.8.2.2. Although
10 the Rockridge Greenbelt Development Project could also temporarily affect Hardy Park, the two
11 projects would not affect the same visual resources, and therefore, no cumulative visual impacts
12 would occur.
13 Impacts associated with seismic retrofit of the San Francisco Transition Structure and Transbay
14 Tube would occupy relatively small areas in relation to their surroundings and larger visual
15 settings, would be temporary, and would not result in permanent changes in the Ferry Plaza or
16 to the surface water or visibility in the Bay. Several related projects have been identified in this
17 area (San Francisco Northeastern Waterfront), including the San Francisco Ferry Terminal
18 Project and the Pier IV2, 3 & 5 Project. These projects would likely result in the permanent
19 removal and/or reconfiguration of waterfront piers and pedestrian walkways. However,
20 because project impacts would be negligible with implementation of project measures, as
21 described in section 3.8.2.2, the project would not contribute to cumulative visual impacts here.
22 The project's contribution to cumulative visual impacts associated with offsite disposal of
23 dredged materials would be negligible. Because barges are a common sight throughout San
24 Francisco Bay, barge transport of dredged material to locations outside the project would also
25 result in negligible impacts on visual character and visual resources, including visual qualities
26 of vividness, intactness, and unity, either at the project work sites or along the barge routes.
27 4.2.9 Biological Resources
28 Marine Resources
29 The impacts that are shared by other projects with in-water construction include:
30 • Temporary disruption and /or loss of the benthic community;
31 • Increased suspended particulates and turbidity, and the resulting biological effects
32 described in section 3.9.2.2; and,
33 • Underwater noise impacts on mammals and fish.
34 Project impacts on the benthic community in the Bay would be localized, and would disrupt
35 only a relatively small area (up to 8 acres). Other projects in the area would similarly result in
36 disruption /loss of the benthic cornmunity, including the Port of Oakland -50-foot Navigation
37 Improvements Project, the Replacement of the Bay Bridge East Span, and the San Francisco
38 Ferry Terminal Project. The area of the benthic community that would be disrupted by the
39 other projects is not known, but considering that mitigation measures will be implemented for
4-16
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 any project that adversely affects benthic communities, cumulative impacts are expected to be
2 negligible. Overall, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts on the benthic community
3 in the Bay would be negligible because only a small area would be affected, and as no area
4 would be repeatedly disturbed, re-colonization would be expected to occur relatively quickly.
5 Project turbidity effects would be contained to the immediate construction area and would
6 dissipate once construction ends each day. For most aspects of in-water construction, turbidity
effects would not occur over an extended period at a given location, because the construction
8 activity would move along the Transbay Tube alignment. Similar to the project, other dredging
9 and /or in-Bay projects would increase suspended particulates and turbidity, although turbidity
10 would also be localized and dissipate at the end of construction each day. The project's
11 contribution to cumulative turbidity impacts on biological resources in the construction area
12 would be negligible for all species occurring in the area, with the exception of herring. For
13 impacts to herring, the project includes a mitigation measure to avoid any potential impact
14 during spawning season, as described in section 3.9.2.2.
15 The greatest potential for cumulative impacts on marine resources in the Bay would be from
16 underwater noise associated with potential pile installation for the project, combined with that
17 for the Replacement of the Bay Bridge East Span. Standard pile driving techniques (i.e., use of
18 an impact hammer) have the potential to cause adverse effects on fish and marine mammals,
19 including physical injury and mortality. The Bay Bridge East Span Project would also use
20 standard pile driving techniques, but mitigation has been developed in consultation with
21 NOAA Fisheries to reduce underwater noise and sound pressure levels so as to prevent impacts
22 on marine species. For the project, as for the Bay Bridge East Span Project, mitigation measures
23 will be implemented, as described in section 3.9.2.2, to reduce project pile driving noise to
24 prevent impacts to fish and marine mammals. Considering all these factors, the combined
25 impacts of the project with the Bay Bridge East Span Project are negligible.
26 The project's contribution to cumulative biological impacts from dredged material disposal
27 would be negligible. A dredging operation plan for barges traveling to upland and in-Bay sites
28 will be implemented as part of the dredging permit approval process for the project, and will
29 include conditions for spill control measures, proper dredged material handling, use of
30 hydraulic fuel, loading requirements, etc. The impacts of disposal for the multiple dredging
31 projects located within the project area have been also been addressed through their dredging
32 permit approval processes to reduce impacts to negligible levels. For this reason, the project,
33 combined with other dredging projects that dispose of dredged material at designated sites.
34 would not cumulatively impact biological resources.
35 Terrestrial Resources
36 In upland areas, the project would potentially affect terrestrial biological resources due to the
37 temporary removal of trees and vegetation, although these resources are already degraded
38 because these areas are highly urbanized. Other projects in Oakland, including the EBMUD New
39 Water Distribution System and the Main Wastewater Treatment Plan Improvement Project
40 would similarly impact trees and vegetation in these highly urbanized areas. The proje< l S
41 contribution to cumulative impacts on terrestrial biological resources would be negligible,
42 however, as the project would return project worksites to pre-project conditions through
43 replacement in-kind of hardscaping and landscaping materials affected by construction. Further
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-17
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 although vegetation removal associated with the project would potentially degrade the habitat in
2 the Berkeley Hills Tunnel area, mitigation measures described in section 3.9.2.2 would prevent
3 impacts, and would reduce the project's contribution to the cumulative degradation of habitat in
4 this area to negligible.
5 The project, in combination with other projects, including the Oakland Army Base
6 Redevelopment Area, FISCO/Port of Oakland, NAS FISC Annex, and the Treasure Island Base
7 Realignment and Closure would also result in a cumulative beneficial impact to terrestrial
8 biological resources in Oakland, as these projects include mixed-use redevelopment that
9 typically includes public open spaces and vegetated areas, as well as dedication of land that
10 would either be restored to native habitat or developed with public park facilities including
1 1 vegetation. Overall, beneficial and synergistic impacts on East Bay biological resources over the
12 long-term would be expected from implementation of these projects.
13 4.2.10 Air Quality
14 The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently in nonattainment of the federal
15 and state air quality standards for 03, and the state standards for PMlo and PM2.5. Air
16 emissions of these pollutants generated by construction activities associated with the project
17 would cumulatively contribute to existing adverse conditions. However, the Bay Area Air
18 Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has considered 03 precursor emissions from region-
19 wide construction activities in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality
20 plans. Emissions of these pollutants are, therefore, not expected to impede attainment or
21 maintenance of 03 standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 1999). In addition, because the project
22 includes standard measures for reducing PMlO emissions from dust during dry conditions,
23 project construction emissions of PMlO would not be cumulatively considerable. For project-
24 related diesel particulate matter, mitigation measures described in section 3.10.2.2 will be
25 implemented to reduce emissions. Emissions of diesel particulate matter and PMlO would
26 primarily affect sensitive receptors in close proximity to each construction site. Substantial
27 cumulative air quality impacts would potentially result if concurrent diesel particulate matter
28 and PMlO emissions from construction of another nearby project affected the same sensitive
29 receptors.
30 Cumulative air quality impacts could affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of:
31 • the MacArthur Station due to the project and the MacArthur Station Development
32 Project;
33 • the San Francisco Transition Structure due to the project and the San Francisco Ferry
34 Terminal Project; and
35 • dredged material reuse/ disposal areas near other active projects.
36 Measures to mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative construction and dredged
37 material disposal impacts will be carried out, and are identified in section 3.10.2.2.
38 Implementation of these measures will reduce the project's contribution to negligible levels.
4-18
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
1 4.2.11 Social Impacts
2 The project would have no social impacts, as described in section 3.11 and, therefore, would not
3 contribute to a cumulative social impact on neighborhoods and communities surrounding the
4 proposed work sites, including any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or
5 low-income populations (i.e., Environmental Justice).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
4-19
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
This page intentionally left blank.
4-20
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
2 5.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION
3 5.1.1 Meetings and Teleconferences
4 This section identifies the agencies that were consulted during preparation of this EA to solicit
5 their input on the project, and describes the topics discussed with those agencies.
6 BART held an interagency coordination meeting at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
— San Francisco District office on August 14, 2002, to describe the project and solicit the
8 participating agencies' input on the project's permitting/approval requirements involving
9 water and marine resource issues. The following agencies participated in this meeting:
10 • USACE,
11 • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (or National
12 Marine Fisheries Service),
13 • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and
14 • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB).
15 BART conducted three meetings with various agencies to discuss potential vessel transportation
16 issues associated with the project. The first meeting was held on January 22, 2003, with the San
17 Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority, the City of Vallejo, and the City of Alameda. The
18 purpose of the meeting was to give a brief presentation of the retrofit concepts to the ferry
19 operators and to obtain information on potential impacts on ferry service operations during
20 project construction. A second meeting was held on February 6, 2003, with the U.S. Coast
21 Guard, the California Department of Boating and Waterways, the San Francisco Bar Pilots, and
22 the San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee to discuss potential impacts related to project
23 construction and navigation in the San Francisco Bay, underneath the San Francisco-Oakland
24 Bay Bridge, and within the Port of Oakland. The third meeting, held on February 18, 2003, with
25 the City of Alameda and Port of San Francisco served as a forum to develop mitigation
26 measures for potential impacts to ferry service operations.
27 BART gave a presentation on the project at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Dredged
28 Material Management Office (DMMO) on April 2, 2003. Representatives from the following
29 agencies were at this meeting: USACE, California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA),
30 BCDC, and the SFBRWQCB. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit agency input on
31 dredging and disposal issues associated with the project.
32 BART held several teleconferences with regulatory agencies. BART held two teleconferences w ith
33 NOAA Fisheries on January 30 and February 6, 2003, to discuss noise issues associated with in-
34 Bay construction techniques on fish and marine mammals. BART held a teleconference with the
35 BCDC on March 6, 2003, to discuss the BCDC's permitting requirements for the project, including
36 its consistency determination process. BART held a teleconference with the SFBRWQCB on
37 March 13, 2003, to discuss water quality issues related to the project, including the SIBRWQCB s
38 water quality certification process.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
5-1
5.0 Consultation and Coordination
1 BART conducted a Section 4(f) consultation in support of FHWA, which per the requirements of
2 49 USC 303 and 23 CFR 771.135(b) has the responsibility to make a determination regarding the
3 application of Section 4(f) to a proposed project. Letters were submitted to the Port of Oakland
4 regarding a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail adjacent the 7 th Street right-of-way within
5 the Port of Oakland, and to the City of Oakland regarding Hardy Park, a Caltrans-owned
6 facility in Oakland's Rockridge neighborhood (operated by the City of Oakland Office of Parks
7 and Recreation), both of which would be temporarily affected by project construction activities
8 (see Appendix D, Section 4(f) Correspondence).
9 5.1.2 Permits and Approvals Required for the Project
10 The following permits and approvals will likely be required for the seismic retrofit project.
11 5.1.2.1 Federal Permits! 'Approvals
12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
13 • Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) Section 10 permit for work (including dredging) or
14 structures (e.g., retrofit of the San Francisco Vent Structure) in navigable waters.
15 • Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404, RHA Section 10, and Marine Protection, Research
16 and Sanctuary Act (MPRSA) Section 103 permit if dredging, transport, or aquatic disposal
17 ( e -g-/ in-Bay or San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site) of dredged material is required.
18 U.S. Coast Guard
19 • Anchorage Waiver permit for construction activities that would require anchoring
20 construction barges in the San Francisco Bay and Oakland Harbor regulated navigation
21 areas.
22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
23 • Consultation under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) for terrestrial
24 biological resources and birds.
25 NOAA Fisheries
26 • Consultation under Section 7 of the federal ESA for fish and marine mammals.
27 • Consultation under the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
28 Management Act for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
29 • Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for species covered by the Marine Mammal
30 Protection Act (MMPA) if it is determined that marine mammals would be harassed by
31 the project (e.g., potentially by conventional impact-hammer pile driving in the Bay).
32 5.1.2.2 State Pennits/ Approvals
33 California Department of Fish and Game
34 • California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permit authority (PRC Section 2080.1) if a
35 state-listed species would be adversely affected. There are several state-listed species that
5-2 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
5.0 Consultation and Coordination
1 may occur in, or migrate through, the project area. Section 2080.1(c) states that if any
2 person obtains from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or NOAA Fisheries an
3 incidental take statement pursuant to Section 1536 of the federal ESA that authorizes the
4 taking of a listed endangered or threatened species, and such species are also endangered,
5 threatened or candidate species pursuant to CESA, no further authorization or approval is
6 necessary under this Section provided the recipient of the incidental take statement does
7 the following:
8 - Notifies the director in writing that an incidental take statement has been received
9 pursuant to the federal ESA, and
10 - Includes a copy of the incidental take statement with the notification.
1 1 Regional Water Quality Control Board
12 • CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification in connection with the Section 404 permit
13 for pollution prevention if dredged material is disposed of in waters of the United
14 States.
15 • Coverage under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
16 Construction Activities. Dewatering effluent discharges, if needed, would be covered
17 under a CWA Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
18 permit or waste discharge requirement.
19 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
20 • Major Permits. BCDC permits are required for any project that involves filling,
21 dredging, shoreline projects, and other projects that involve construction along the
22 shoreline. Major Permits are required for work that is more extensive than minor repair
23 or improvement; these permits require a public hearing.
24 • Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Federal Consistency Determination. This
25 determination does not result in a permit, but rather a review that the project is
26 consistent with the provisions of the federal CZMA.
27 State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
28 • Completion of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process for
29 cultural resources.
30 5.1.2.3 Regional Permits/ Approvals
31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
32 • Permit to Operate for dredges but only if the dredges are moored to a stationary dock
33 for their operation (i.e., they are not mobile).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
5-3
5.0 Consultation and Coordination
1 5.1.2A Local Permits/ Approvals
2 City of Oakland
3 • Encroachment permit from Public Works Agency, Traffic Engineering and Parking
4 Division, for construction activities that require closure of roads, elimination of parking,
5 enforcement of parking restrictions, and /or diversion of traffic within the City of
6 Oakland.
7 Port of Oakland
8 • A Right of Entry permit would be needed for any project work on Port of Oakland
9 property.
10 Port of San Francisco
11 • A Right of Entry permit would be needed for any project work on Port of San Francisco
12 property.
13 5.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH
14 BART conducted three public information meetings: one on January 28, 2003, in Oakland,
15 California; the second on October 23, 2003, in Rockridge, California; and the third on January
16 18, 2005, in San Francisco, California. During these meetings, BART presented information on
17 the project and solicited public input on issues to be addressed in the EA. A public hearing will
18 be held during the public review period of this report; this is expected to occur in September
19 2005. The Final EA will address comments received from the public and from public agencies
20 during the public review period.
5-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1
LEAD AGENCIES
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
Steve Healow, P.E.
Joan Bollman
Senior Project Development Engineer (District 4)
Senior Environmental Specialist (North)
State of California Department of Transportation (District 4)
Branch Chief, Biological Resources
Branch Chief, Archaeology
Branch Chief, Architectural History
Environmental Planner, Architectural History
Branch Chief, Historic Archaeology
Senior Transportation Planner
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Seismic Group Manager
Manager of Environmental Compliance
Deputy Project Manager, Seismic Retrofit Program
Principal Engineer
Principal Engineer
BART Seismic Retrofit Engineering Team
Chuck Morton
Elizabeth McKee
Elizabeth Krase
Meg Scantlebury
Thad Van Bueren
Wingate Lew
Tom Horton
Janie Layton
Shirley Ng
Hassen Beshir
Eric Fok
Bechtel
Balram Bhandari
Clay Claassen
Ching Wu
HNTB
Chip Mallare
Lillian Yan
Deputy Engineering Manager
Construction Manager
Project Manager
Deputy Engineering Manager-Aerial structures
Civil Support Manager
Other BART Consultants
Vicki Reynolds
CDM
Ward & Associates
Wetlands Biologist
Randall Smith, Project Manager
Benjamin Ananian, Anthropologist/Archaeologist
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
6-1
6.0 List of Preparers
6.2 EA PREPARERS
Name
Title or Expertise
Years of Experience
Role in Preparing EA
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
EA Authors
Jessica Benson
Planner
3 Years
Dredged Material
Disposal Scenario
Meredith Clement
Planner
8 years
Ground and Vessel
Transportation; Risk of
Upotrl/ Daltrly
Maia Coladonato
Environmental Planner
10 years
Hazardous Materials;
Risk of Upset/Safety
Anne Doehne
Senior Planner
12 Years
Visual Resources;
HI IV II UI LIILfc;! Hal JUbllCc,
Section 4(f) Resources
Karen Foster
oenior /\rcnacuiogisi
io years
i rujcLi L'eb(_ripiion,
Archaeological
Resources
Chris Hunt
Biologist
6 years
Marine Biological
Resources
Bill O'Brien
Senior Water Resource
Engineer
22 Years
Water Resources,
including Location
Hydraulic Study
Charlie Phillips
Senior Scientist
25 years
Water Resources
Perry Russell
Senior Geologist
18 years
Geology/Seismicity;
Hazardous Materials
Theresa Stevens
Senior Biologist
14 Years
Terrestrial Biological
Resources
David Stone
Cultural Resources
Manager
26 years
Historic Resources
Ted Turk
Senior Scientist
24 years
Marine Biological
Resources
Stephen Ziemer
Senior Air Quality
Specialist
24 years
Air Quality
EA Project Management
Alison Malkin
Planner
5 years
Current Project
Manager
Deborah Pontifex
Senior Program
Manager
22 years
Previous Project
Manager; QA/QC
Garrett Turner
SAIC Program Manager
20 years
Contractual Issues
6-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
6.0 List of Preparers
Subcontractors to SAIC
G. Borchard &
Associates
Gayle Borchard,
Principal
21 years
Project Description;
Local NEPA Liaison
Dovvling Associates, Inc.
Mike Aronson, P.E.,
Principal
Mike Carroll, Senior
Transportation Planner
20 years
11 years
Ground Transportation
Illingworth & Rodkin
Rich Rodkin, Principal
29 years
Noise
Monte Kim
Architectural Historian
6 years
Architectural History
William Self Associates
James Allan, Principal
Heather Price, Senior
Archaeologist
34 years
22 years
Historic and Prehistoric
Archaeological
Resources
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
6-3
6.0 List of Preparers
This page intentionally left blank.
6-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
7.0 REFERENCES
2 7.1 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED OR CONSULTED
3 Ach, Jay. 2003. Port of San Francisco. Teleconference August 7.
4 Dempsey, Nic. 2003. Port of San Francisco. Teleconference February 18.
r Fade, Larry. 2003. USACE, San Francisco District, Dredged Material Management Office.
6 Teleconference August 7.
7 Fahy, Tina. 2003. NOAA Fisheries. Teleconference February 6.
8 Rodkin, Rich. 2003. Illingworth & Rodkin Inc.
9 Stern, Gary. 2003. NOAA Fisheries. Teleconference January 30.
10 Stewart, Robert. 2003. Oakland Police Department, Special Assistant to the Chief.
11 Williams, James. 2003. Oakland Fire Department, Battalion Chief.
12 7.2. DOCUMENTS CITED
13 ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2003. San Francisco Bay Trail. Webpage:
14 http:/ /baytrail.abag.ca.gov/ .
15 Alameda County. 2003. Conditional Use Permit C-4158, Periodic Review, Vasco Road Landfill,
16 N. Livermore, California Negative Declaration. SCH # 2003112010. December.
17 . 2000. Conditional Use Permit C-5512, Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery
18 Facility, Class II Expansion Notice of Determination. SCH # 1985100825. March.
19 ARB (California Air Resources Board). 2003a. 2002 Estimated Annual Average Emissions - San
20 Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Technical Support Division, Emission Inventory Branch.
21 Webpage: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php Date Accessed:
22 February 5, 2004.
23 . 2003b. Area Designations Maps / State and National. Technical Support Division.
24 Webpage: http:/ /www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htmf Date Accessed: January 9, 2004.
25 . 2001. Letter on Verification of Emission Reductions from the Use of PuriNOv Fuel.
26 Criteria Pollutants Branch.
27 BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2003. Bay Area Air Qualitj
28 Management District Rules and Regulations.
29 . 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines - Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and
30 Plans. Planning and Research Division, San Francisco, California.
31 BART. 2005. BART Seismic Retrofit Project Construction Standards Manual.
BART Seisi7uc Retrofit EA August 2005 7-1
7.0 References
!
1 . 2004a. About BART Projects - BART Earthquake Safety Program. Webpage:
2 http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/earthquakesafety.asp .
3 . 2004b. About BART - BART Police. Webpage: www.bart.gov/about/police/
4 policeHistory.asp .
5 . 2002a. BART Seismic Vulnerability Study. Prepared with assistance by Bechtel
6 Infrastructure Corporation, the Bechtel/HNTB Team. June.
7 . 2002b. Seismic Risk Analysis. Prepared with assistance by Bechtel Infrastructure
8 Corporation and G&E Engineering Systems Inc.
9 . 2002c. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Emergency Plan. Prepared by
TO B ART's System Safety Department. Revised November.
11 . 2002d. BART Standard Specifications - Section 01570.
12 . 2002e. Preliminary BART Seismic Retrofit Program Civil Retrofit Strategy: Location 5 -
13 College Avenue /Rockridge Station. February.
14 . 2002f. Preliminary BART Seismic Retrofit Program Civil Retrofit Strategy: Location 15 -
15 4oth Street/Mac Arthur Station. February.
16 . 2002g. Preliminary BART Seismic Retrofit Program Civil Retrofit Strategy: Location 29 -
17 Chester Street/West Oakland BART Station. February.
18 . 2002h. System Safety Program Plan. BART System Safety Department. Rev. 5, October 8.
19 . 2001. Phase I Environmental Review — BART Seismic Retrofit Program, Segment 1 Aerial
20 Structures, West Portal of Berkeley Hills Tunnel to West Oakland, Oakland, California.
21 Prepared for Bechtel/HNTB Team by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. October.
22 . 1992. BART Extension Program System Design Criteria. Prepared by Bay Area Transit
23 Consultants. March.
24 . 1991. BART Construction Noise Standards.
25 BART, Caltrans & FHWA. 2005a. Draft Water Quality and Hydrology Technical Study for the
26 BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station.
27 Prepared by SAIC.
28 . 2005b. Draft Visual Resources Technical Study for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project -
29 Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC.
30 . 2005c. Draft Noise Technical Study for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills Tunnel
31 to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC with assistance from Illingworth &
32 Rodkin, Inc.
7-2 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
7.0 References
1 . 2005d. Draft Vessel Transportation Technical Study for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project -
2 Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC.
3 . 2005e. Draft Location Hydraulic Study for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills
4 Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC.
5 . 2005f. Draft Biological Assessment for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills
6 Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC.
. 2005g. Draft Natural Environment Study for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley
8 Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC.
9 . 2005h. Draft Traffic Technical Study for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills
10 Tumiel to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC with assistance from Dowling
11 Associates.
12 . 2005i. Draft Environmental Justice Technical Study for the BART Seismic Retrofit Project -
13 Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station. Prepared by SAIC.
14 . 2005j . Historic Property Survey Report - BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills
15 Tunnel to Montgomery Street Station, Caltrans District 4, Alameda and San Francisco County,
16 California. Prepared by SAIC.
17 . 2005k. Historical Resources Evaluation Report - BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley
18 Hills Tunnel to Montgomery Street Station, Caltrans District 4, Alameda and San Francisco
19 Counties, California. Prepared by SAIC.
20 . 20051. Finding of Effect - BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills Tunnel to
21 Montgomery Street Station, Caltrans District 4, Alameda and San Francisco Counties,
22 California. Prepared by SAIC.
23 . 2005m. Archaeological Survey Report - BART Seismic Retrofit Project - Berkeley Hills
24 Tunnel to Montgomery Street Station, Caltrans District 4, Alameda and San Francisco
25 Counties, California. Prepared by SAIC.
26 BCDC (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission). 1967. Summary of the
27 report, "Geology of San Francisco Bay," by Harold Goldman, CDMG, in History of San
28 Fra?icisco Bay, Part of a Detailed Study of San Francisco Bay.
29 Bechtel/HNTB Team. 2001a. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line
30 Aerial Structure, Chabot Road (Location 1). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
31 . 2001b. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
32 Golden Gate Avenue (Location 2). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
33 . 2001c. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure.
34 Patton Street (Location 3). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
7-3
7.0 References
1 . 2001d. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
2 Presley Way (Location 4). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
3 . 2001e. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
4 Forest Street, Bridge No. 33-0417 (Draft) (Location 6). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
5 . 2001 f. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
6 Claremont Avenue, Bridge No. 33-0414 (Draft) (Location 7). Prepared for San Francisco
7 BART.
8 . 2001 g. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
9 Telegraph Avenue, Bridge No. 33-0413 (Draft) (Location 8). Prepared for San Francisco
10 BART.
11 . 2001h. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
12 55 th Street, Bridge No. 33-0412 (Draft) (Location 9). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
13 . 2001 i. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
14 Shattuck Avenue (Location 10). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
15 . 2001j. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Central Contra Costa Line Aerial Structure,
16 52 nd Street, Bridge No. 33-0416 (Draft) (Location 11). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
17 . 2001k. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Berkeley-Richmond Line Aerial Structure,
18 Grove Street Off-Ramp, Bridge No. 33-0365 (Draft) (Location 12). Prepared for San
19 Francisco BART.
20 . 20011. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Berkeley-Richmond Line Aerial Structure,
21 45th Street (Location 13). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
22 . 2001m. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Berkeley-Richmond Line Aerial Structure,
23 42 nd Street (Draft) (Location 14). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
24 . 2001n. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Berkeley-Richmond Line Aerial Structure,
25 MacArthur Boulevard (Location 16). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
26 . 2001o. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Berkeley-Richmond Line Aerial Structure,
27 30 th Street (Location 17). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
28 . 2001p. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Berkeley-Richmond Line Aerial Structure,
29 29 th Street (Location 18). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
30 . 2001q. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Berkeley-Richmond Line Aerial Structure,
31 Sycamore & 27 th Street (Location 19). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
32 . 2001r. Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report for Transbay Line/Oakland Downtown Line
33 Aerial Structure - City of Oakland, Maritime St. to Martin Luther King Jr. Way
34 (Locations 20-36). Prepared for San Francisco BART.
7-4 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
7.0 References
1 Blake, M.C. Jr., Bartow, J.A., Frizzell, V.A., Schlocker, J., Sorg, D., Wentworth, CM., and Wright,
2 R.H. 1974. Preliminary Geologic Map of Marin and San Francisco Counties and Parts of
3 Alameda, Contra Costa, and Sonoma Counties, California.
4 BPC (Bay Planning Coalition). 2005. E-briefs target publication: BPC Work Program,
5 Navigation & Dredging Committee. June 23.
6 Buchanan, P.A. and N.K. Ganju. 2002. Summary of Suspended-Solids Concentration Data, San
Francisco Bay, California, Water Year 2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 02-
8 146. USGS, Sacramento, California.
9 CASAC (Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee). 2000. Review of EPA's Health Assessment
10 Document for Diesel Exhaust (EPA 600/8-90/057E). Washington, D.C. December.
11 CCC (California Coastal Conservancy). 2003. Bel Marin Keys Unit V Expansion of the
12 Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #
13 1998031053. June.
14 California Native Plant Society. 2002. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California
15 (Volume 6).
16 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2004. Environmental Handbook Volume 2:
17 Cultural Resources, http:/ /www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/vol2.htm .
18 . 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences). Technological
19 Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02-01-R9601. Division of Environmental Analysis, Office of
20 Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks,
21 Caltrans Retired Annuitant.
22 . 1996. Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintena?jce Work Zones.
23 . 1990. Historic Property Survey Report for the Proposed 1-880 Reconstruction Project in the
24 Cities of Oakland and Emeryville, Alameda County.
25 CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2003a. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes,
26 and Lichens List.
27 . 2003b. State and Federally Listed, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of California,
28 and State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California.
29 CDMG (California Division of Mines and Geology). 1997. Guidelines for Evaluating and
30 Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Special Publication 117.
31 . 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and Ages ot
32 Recent Volcanic Eruptions, scale 1:750,000.
33 . 1987. Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 7.5 Earthquake on the Hayieard Fault in
34 the San Francisco Bay Area. Special Publication 78.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
7-5
7.0 References
1 . 1969. Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill. Special Report 97 for
2 Ferry Building, San Francisco.
3 Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 2000. Webpage: http:/ /census.abag.ca.gov/cities/
4 Oakland.htm.
5 City of Alameda. 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Point Golf Course
6 Project. SCH # 2001062107.
7 City and County of San Francisco. 2003a. Fire Department. Webpage: www.sfgov.org/
8 site/fire. index.asp?id=4455 . Accessed January 27, 2004.
9 . 2003b. Police Department. Webpage: www.sfgov.org/ site/ police_.index.asp?id=20204 .
10 City of Oakland. 2004. Oakland Fire Services. Webpage: www.oaklandnet.com/ oakweb/fire .
11 . 1996. Chapter 17.120. Oakland Municipal Code Performance Standards.
12 City of San Francisco. 1972. Section 1, Part 2, Chapter 8. San Francisco Municipal Code.
13 Article 29. Regulation of Noise.
14 CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2002 and 2003. California Department of Fish
15 and Game-California Natural Diversity Database.
16 Dowling Associates. 2002. Traffic counts performed April 18, 2002.
17 DMMO (Dredged Material Management Office). 2002. Annual Report 2001. March.
18 DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 1997. U.S. Department of Transportation Order on
19 Environmental Justice. April. Webpage: http:/ / www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment/
20 ejustice/dot ord.htm
21 Entrix. 1998. Biological Assessment for the Berths 55-58 and Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement
22 (-50') Projects. Prepared for the Port of Oakland.
23 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating
24 Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses. Prepared under the
25 direction of an EPA Workgroup co-chaired by Arthur Totten and Bill Dickerson of the
26 Office of Federal Activities with assistance by SAIC. April.
27 . 1994. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
28 Populations and Eow-Income Populations.
29 USEPA and USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material
30 Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual. EPA-823-B-98-004.
31 Washington D.C.
7-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
7.0 References
1 FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2001. Addressing Environmental Justice in
2 Environmental Assessments /Environmental Impact Statements. December. Website:
3 http://www.mwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t664008a.htm.
4 . 1991. Finding of Effect for the Proposed Route 1-880 Replacement Project from the 1-980
5 Interchange to the 1-80/1-580/1-880 Distribution Structure in the Cities of Oakland and
6 Emeryville, Alameda County.
. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.
8 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1986. Flood Insurance Study - Alameda
9 County, California. February 19.
10 FHWA and Caltrans (Federal Highway Administration and California Department of
11 Transportation). 1998. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety
12 Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
13 Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 2002. Phase II Field Investigation Report: BART Seismic Retrofit
14 Program - Segment 1 West Portal of Berkeley Hills to West Oakland. Prepared for
15 Bechtel/HNTB Team. May.
16 . 2001. Phase I Environmental Review — BART Seismic Retrofit Program, Segment 1 Aerial
17 Structures, West Portal of Berkeley Hills Tunnel to West Oakland, Oakland, California.
18 Prepared for Bechtel/HNTB Team by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. October.
19 . 1995a. Construction Observations and Testing, Perimeter Dike Repairs, Seventh Street
20 Terminal. Submitted to Port of Oakland.
21 . 1995b. Construction Observations and Testing, Berth 40 Wharf Repairs, Seventh Street
22 Marine Terminal. Submitted to Port of Oakland.
23 . 1991. Geotechnical Study, Matson Marine Terminal Wliarf Repairs, Berths 32 and 33, Port of
24 Oakland. Prepared for the Port of Oakland.
25 Goals Project. 2000. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life Histories and
26 Environmental Requirements of Key Plants, Fish, and Wildlife.
27 . 1999. Bayland Ecosystem Habitat Goals. A Report of Habitat Recommendations.
28 prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. EPA, San
29 Francisco, California /San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
30 Oakland, California.
31 Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 180.
32 Hartman Consulting Group. 1997. Results of Field Sampling Program for Habitat
33 Enhancement Hydrodynamic Evaluation. Report prepared for the Port ot c XikKunl
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
7-7
7.0 References
1 Helley, E.J., and Graymer, RW. 1997. Quaternary Geology of Alameda County and Parts of Contra
2 Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties, California. U.S.
3 Geological Survey Open File Report 97-98.
4 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2002. Underwater Sound Levels Associated with Construction of the
5 Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Prepared by James Reyff, Paul Donavan, Sc.D. in association
6 with Charles Greene, Greeneridge Sciences under contract to the California Department
7 of Transportation. August.
8 . 2001. Noise and Vibration Measurements Associated with the Pile Installation Demonstration
9 Project for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span. June.
10 . 1999. Noise Impacts and Mitigation for the Lopez Dam Reconstruction EIR. Internal
11 report prepared for SAIC. November.
12 Kopec, D., and J. Harvey. 1995. Toxic pollutants, health indices, and population dynamics of
13 harbor seals in San Francisco Bay, 1989-91: a final report. Technical Publication,
14 Moss Landing Marine Lab, Moss Landing, California.
15 Ludwig, D.D. and J.H. Sherrard. 1988. An evaluation of the standard elutriate test as an estimator of
16 contaminant release at the point of dredging. Contract Report HL-88-1. Prepared for the
17 U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Improvement of Operations and
18 Maintenance Techniques Research Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department
19 of the Army, Washington, D.C.
20 MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission). 2004. 2005 Transportation Improvement
21 Program. Adopted July 28.
22 NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program). 1999. Mitigation of Nighttime
23 Construction Noise, Vibrations, and Other Niusances. Cliff J. Schexnayder, Ph.D., PE and
24 James Ernzen, Ph.D., PE. Arizona State University.
25 Nichols, F.H., and M.M. Patamat. 1988. The Ecology of the Soft-Bottom Benthos of San Francisco
26 Bay — a Connnunity Profile. Biological Report 85 (7.19), September. U.S. Geological
27 Survey and San Francisco State University.
28 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003. Webpage: http://co-
29 ops.nos.noaa.gov/benchmarks/9414782.html .
30 . 2002. United States Coast Pilot. 34 th Edition. August.
31 NOAA Fisheries. 2002a. Biological Opinion, Benicia-Martinez Bridge Project, Federal Highway
32 Administration, California Division, Sacramento. 151422SWR02SR6292. Southwest
33 Region, Santa Rosa, California. January 16.
34 . 2002b. San Francisco Bay Dredging Work Windows. NOAA Fisheries Southwest
35 Regional Office Webpage:
36 http:/ /swr. nmfs.noaa.gov/overview/sroffice/2Dredge_work_windows.html .
7-8
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
7.0 References
1 . 2001. Biological Opinion, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety
2 Project, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento. 151422SWR99SR190. Southwest
3 Region, Santa Rosa, California. October 30.
4 Noggle, C.C. 1978. Behavioral, physiological and lethal effects of suspended sediment on
5 juvenile salmonids. Master's thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
6 O'Connor, J.M. 1991. Evaluation of Turbidity and Turbidity-Related Effects on the Biota of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
8 District.
9 Oakeshott, G.B. 1978. California's Changing Landscapes, A Guide to the Geology of the State.
10 McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
11 Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. 2002. The West Oakland
12 Environmental Indicators Project. January.
13 Pavlou, S.P. 1978. Evaluation of dredged material pollution potential. Technical Report DS-78-
14 6. Prepared for Dredged Material Research Program, Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S.
15 Army, Washington, D.C.
16 Pequegnat, W.E., D.D. Smith, R.M. Darnell, B.J. Presley, and R.O. Reid. 1978. An Assessment of
17 the Potential Impact of Dredged Material Disposal in the Open Ocean. Technical Report D-78-
18 2. Prepared for the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers.
19 Planert, M. and J.S. Williams. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States, California,
20 Nevada. HA730-B. http : / / capp. water.usgs. gov / ch_b / gif /b 1 1 1 . gif
21 Port of Oakland. 2002a. Facts and Figures. Webpage: http://www.portofoakland.com/
22 maritime/ factsfig.asp .
23 . 2002b. Terminal Specifications. Webpage: http : / / www .portof Oakland .com / ma r i time /
24 terminal, asp .
25 Reynolds, V. 2002. Segment 1 of Phase 1, BART Retrofit Project: Summary of Existing Conditions.
26 Preliminary Identification of Sensitive Species, and Permitting Requirements. Draft Report
27 prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Seismic Retrofit Project.
28 San Francisco Planning Department, Caltrans, & FHWA. 1997. San Francisco Downtown Ferry
29 Terminal Environmental Assessment and Initial Study.
30 SFBRWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. Water Quality
31 Control Plan (Basin Plan). California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
32 Francisco Bay Region. Oakland, California.
33 SFEI (San Francisco Estuary Institute). 2000. RMP Annual Data. Webpage: http://www.sfei.org .
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
7-9
7.0 References
1 . 1998. Annual Report - San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program for Trace
2 Substances. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California. RMP Annual Data.
3 Webpage: http://www.sfei.org .
4 Slotten, D.G. and J.E. Reuter. 1995. Heavy metals in intact and resuspended sediments of a
5 California Reservoir, with emphasis on potential bioavailability of copper and zinc.
6 Mar. Freshwater Res., 46:257-265.
7 Smith, S.E. and S. Kato. 1979. The Fisheries of San Francisco Bay: Past, Present and Future. Pp.
8 445-468 In T.J. Conomos (Ed.), San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. San Francisco:
9 Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
10 Solano County. 2001. Montezuma Wetlands EIR (GP G-91-03, U-91-35, Z-91-05, MD-91-4) Notice
11 of Determination. SCH # 1991113031. April.
12 Thomann, R.V. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic food
13 chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:65-71.
14 Thompson, B., H. Peterson, and M. Kellogg. 1994. Benthic Macrofaunal Assemblages in the San
15 Francisco Estuary: 1994. Pilot Studies. Regional Monitoring Program 1994 Report.
16 Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C.
17 Trask, P.D. and Rolston, JW. 1951. Engineering Geology of San Francisco Bay, California. Bulletin
18 of the Geological Society of America, v. 62, p. 1079-1110.
19 Treadwell & Rollo. 1995. Geotechnical Investigation, San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project, Port of
20 San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Prepared for ROMA Design Group, March.
21 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1992. Richmond Harbor Deepening Project - Final
22 Eninronmental Working Paper. Prepared by SAIC. June.
23 . 1984. Final Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement, Oakland Harbor Deep-Draft
24 Navigation Improvements, Alameda County, California.
25 . 1976. Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay and Estuary, Appendix C, Water Column.
26 USACE and Port of Oakland. 1998. Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement (-50-foot) Project
27 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report /Feasibility Study,
28 Volume II. SCH No. 97072051. Prepared by SAIC. May.
29 USACE, USEPA, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco
30 Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and State Water Resources Control Board.
31 1998. Eong-Term Management Strategy (ETMS) for the Placement of Dredged Material in the
32 San Francisco Bay Region — Final Policy Environmental Impact Statement/Programmatic
33 Environmental Impact Report. October.
34 . 1976. Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay and Estuary, Appendix C, Water Column.
35 USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 1999. Vessel Traffic Service San Francisco User's Manual. January.
7-10 August 2005 BART Seismic Retrofit EA
7.0 References
1 USEPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Final Environmental Statement for
2 Designation of a Deep Water Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off San Francisco, California.
3 Prepared by SAIC. August.
4 . 1989. Briefing report to the WPA Science Advisory Board on the equilibrium
5 partitioning approach to generating sediment quality criteria. EPA 440/5-89-002, Office
6 of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington D.C.
7 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Plant Species of Concern.
8 . 2000. Notice of Exemption for Winter Island 2000-2001. SCH # 2000088221.
9 . 1995. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Richmond Harbor Phase I Deepening
10 Project. Draft Report. Prepared by the USFWS, Sacramento, California, for the U.S. Army
11 Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District.
12 . 1986. San Francisco Bay to Stockton Navigation Project: John F. Baldwin Ship Channel. A
13 Literature Review of Significant Fish and Wildlife Resources of the San Francisco Bay and
14 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento,
15 California, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District.
16 . 1992. Status and trends report on wildlife of the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared
17 under USEPA cooperative agreement CE-009519-0. Sacramento, California, January.
18 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003a. The Largest Earthquakes in the United States.
19 Webpage: http : / / neic .usgs . gov / neis / eqlis ts / 1 0maps_usa .h tml .
20 . 2003b. The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta, California Earthquake - Selected
21 Photographs. Webpage: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/dds/dds-29/ .
22 . 2003c. Major Quake Likely to Strike San Francisco Bay Region between 2012 and 2032.
23 Webpage: http://quake.usgs.gov/research/seismology/wg02/ .
24 . 2003d. The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta, California Earthquake - Seismicity and Geology.
25 Webpage: http://www.eqe.com/pubhcahons/lomaprie/seismici.htm .
26 . 1999. El Nino Sea-level Rise Wreaks Havoc in California's San Francisco Bay Region, Fact Sheet
27 175-99 Online Version 1.0, Webpage: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/ fs 175-99/
28 U.S. Navy. 1993. Disposal of Dredged Material from NAS Alameda and NSC Oakland, California
29 at the Navy Ocean Disposal Site, Final Supplement I, Environmental [mpa( t Statement.
30 WTA (San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority). 2002. A Strategy to Improve Public Transit
31 with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry Service. Implementation and Operations Plan.
32 December.
33 Wursig, B., C.R. Green, Jr., and T.A. Jefferson. 1999. Development of an Air Hubble Curtain to
34 Reduce Underwater Noise of Percussive Piling. Marine Mammal Research 4° (2000) " 9 ;
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
7-11
7.0 References
This page intentionally left blank
7-12
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
1
8.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2
ABC
air bubble curtain
3
ACHP
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
4
AC Transit
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District
5
AIRFA
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
6
APE
Area of Potential Effect
7
ARB
California Air Resources Board
8
ARPA
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979
9
ASR
Archaeological Survey Report
10
BA
Biological Assessment
11
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
12
BART
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
13
Bay Bridge
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
14
BCDC
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
15
BMP
best management practice
16
BPTCP
Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program
17
CAA
Clean Air Act
18
CAAQS
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
19
Cal-EPA
California Environmental Protection Agency
20
Cal-OSHA
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
21
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
22
CASAC
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
23
CCAA
California Clean Air Act
24
CCR
California CoHp of Rpp"iilnHons
25
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
26
CDMG
California Division of Mines and Geology
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
8-1
8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
1
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
2
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
3
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
4
5
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
6
CESA
California Endangered Species Act
7
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
8
cm
centimeter
9
CMA
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
10
CMP
Congestion Management Plan
11
CNDDB
California Natural Diversity Data Base
12
CNEL
community noise equivalent level
13
CO
carbon monoxide
14
CPI-U
Consumer Price Index
15
CWA
Clean Water Act
16
cy
cubic yards
17
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
18
dB
decibel
19
dBA
A-weighted decibel
20
dBC
C-weighted decibel
21
DDT
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
22
DMMO
Dredged Material Management Office
23
DO
dissolved oxygen
24
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
ZD
^.anrornia i^eparrment or i oxic ouDStances control
26
EA
Environmental Assessment
27
EB
eastbound
8-2
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
1
EDR
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
2
EFH
Essential Fish Habitat
3
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
4
ESA
Endangered Species Act
5
ESU
Evolutionarily Significant Unit
6
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Administration
7
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
8
FISC
Fleet and Industrial Supply Center
9
FISCO
Fleet and Industrial Supply Center — Oakland
10
FOE
Finding of Effect
11
HAP
hazardous air pollutant
12
HCM
Highway Capacity Manual
13
HPSR
Historic Property Survey Report
J. J J ±
14
HRER
Historical Resources Evaluation Report
15
Hz
Hertz
16
ICBO
International Conference of Building Officials
17
IHA
Incidental Harassment Authorization
18
km
kilometer
19
Ldn
day-night equivalent noise level
20
Leq
energy equivalent noise level
21
Lmax
maximum A-weighted noise level
22
Lmin
minimum A-weighted noise level
23
LOS
level of service
24
LTMS
Long-Term Management Strategy
25
LUST
leaking underground storage tank
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005
8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
1
mcy
million cubic yards
2
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
3
mg/L
milligrams per liter
4
MHTL
mean high tide line
5
mm
millimeter
6
mm /sec
millimeters per second
7
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act
8
MPRSA
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuary Act
9
ms
millisecond
10
msl
mean sea level
11
MTC
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
12
MTS
Metropolitan Transportation System
13
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
14
NAGPRA
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
15
NCHRP
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
16
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
17
NES
Natural Environment Study
18
NGVD
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
19
NHPA
National Historical Preservation Act
20
nmi
nautical mile
21
NG\
nitrogen dioxide
22
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
23
NOx
nitrogen oxides
24
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
25
NRC
National Response Center
26
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
8-4
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
1
03
ozone
2
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
3
PAH
polvcvclic aromatic hydrocarbon
JT J J J
4
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
i J IT J
5
PM2.5
particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter
6
PMlO
particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter
7
ppm
parts per million
8
ppv
X J.
peak particle velocity
J. A J
9
PRC
Public Resources Code
10
PRG
Preliminary Remediation Goal
11
RBSL
risk-based screening level
12
RHA
Rivers and Harbors Act
13
RMP
Regional Monitoring Plan
14
rms
root-mean square
15
ROD
Record of Decision
16
ROG
reactive organic gas
17
RTP
Regional Transportation Plan
18
RTIP
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
19
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
20
§
symbol for "Section"
21
SFBAAB
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
22
SF-DODS
San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site
23
SFEI
San Francisco Estuary Institute
24
SFBRWQCB
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
25
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
26
S0 2
sulfur dioxide
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
August 2005
8-5
8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
1
SPCC
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
2
SPL
sound pressure level
3
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
4
TAC
toxic air contaminant
5
TEA-21
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century
6
TIP
Transportation Improvement Plan
7
TMDL
total maximum daily load
8
TMP
traffic management plan
9
TPHd
total petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel)
10
TRI
Toxics Release Inventory
11
TSS
total suspended solids
12
TTS
temporary threshold shift
13
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
14
u.s.c.
United States Code
15
USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
16
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
17
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
18
U5GS
U.S. Geological Survey
19
VOC
volatile organic compoimd
20
VTS
Vessel Traffic Service
21
WDR
waste discharge requirement
22
WTA
San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority
23
micrograms per cubic meter
24
/zPa
micropascal
8-6
August 2005
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix A
Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
1 APPENDIX A
2 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
3 A.1 DREDGED MATERIAL REUSE WITHIN THE PROJECT
4 A.1.1 Conceptual Construction Sequence
5 If the dredged material meets the requirements for in-Bay disposal, some of the dredged
6 material could be reused within the stitching operation by backfilling the stitching holes after
the installation of the pile and pile caps. During reuse of dredged material within the stitching
8 operation, the ordinary backfill (a special mix of sand and gravel) would be removed during
9 dredging to ensure that the frame for the stitching piles sits directly over the Transbay Tube.
10 Due to constraints associated with dredging, segregation of the ordinary backfill from the silt
11 and sediment would not be feasible. Therefore, up to 11,000 cubic yards (cy) of additional
12 material would have to be imported to replace the existing ordinary backfill directly over the
13 Tube; all imported ordinary backfill would be placed into the six stitching holes. Filling the
14 holes with the imported ordinary backfill would potentially displace up to 11,000 cy of dredged
15 material, which could exceed the capacity of the six holes. Although it is impossible to closely
16 balance cut and fill volumes during dredging operations due to sediment settling and other
17 factors, such as ocean currents, the possibility remains that up to 11,000 cy of dredged material
18 may be leftover following completion of dredging activities.
19 In the description below, the six stitching holes are numbered 1 through 6, with 1 being closest
20 to the San Francisco Transition Structure (see Figure 2-20).
21 1. Hole #6, the hole farthest away from the transition structure, would be excavated first.
22 The excavated material (approximately 8,800 cy) would be stored on two barges that
23 would be temporarily stored offsite. The Port of San Francisco maintains a wharf south
24 of China Basin that is specifically arranged for barge storage, and would be the likely
25 storage location.
26 2. The barge supporting the clamshell excavator would be moved away from the site to
27 allow for construction of the stitching piles and cap at Hole #6 (this part of the operation
28 is necessary whether dredged material is reused on site or disposed of elsewhere). After
29 this construction is complete, but before beginning excavation of Hole #5, the contractor
30 would import and place 1,800 cy of new ordinary backfill over the Tube at Hole #6.
31 3. The contractor would then move his excavation operation back on site. Excavated
32 material from Hole #5 (approximately 8,500 cy) would be used to fill Hole #6. The
33 contractor would use one barge to support the clamshell excavator and a second barge
34 for placement of the excavated material. The excavated material would be placed into
35 Hole #6, using a clamshell bucket, a tremie system, or some method other than
36 dumping. Two barges are necessary because the distance between the two holes is too
37 great to allow the excavator to swing material directly between them. After excavation
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
A 1
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
1 and disposal is complete, the two barges would be moved offsite to allow for
2 construction of the stitching piles and cap at Hole #5.
3 4. After construction of the stitching piles and cap and placement of new ordinary backfill
4 over the Tube at Hole #5 (approximately 1,800 cy), the contractor would excavate Hole
5 #4 (approximately 9,100 cy) and place it in Hole #5 in the fashion described above. The
6 small excess of material here should sufficiently fit within Hole #5.
7 5. After construction of the stitching piles and cap and placement of new ordinary backfill
8 over the Tube at Hole #4 (approximately 1,800 cy), the contractor would excavate Hole
9 #3 (approximately 16,700 cy) and place a portion of the dredged material into Hole #4.
10 The remainder would be placed on two barges and taken to the same storage area where
11 the first two storage barges were located.
12 6. The contractor would continue in a similar fashion for Hole #2 (approximately 29,000
13 cy), this time generating enough excess material to fill three barges. These barges would
14 also be stored at the piers south of China Basin.
15 7. The contractor would excavate Hole #1 (approximately 54,000 cy) and place some of the
16 material into Hole #2. The remainder would be placed temporarily on five barges.
17 Since this material is to be returned to Hole #1 immediately after completion of the
18 stitching piles, it may be possible to maintain these barges at the site for a short period
19 and simply place the material back in the hole. If this is not possible, then these barges
20 would join the others at the piers south of China Basin.
21 After completion of the stitching piles and cap at Hole #1 and the placement of ordinary
22 backfill, the contractor would bring all stored material back to Hole #1 and place it there. If any
23 dredged material exceeds the capacity of the six stitching holes, it will be disposed offsite at one
24 of the permitted reuse/ disposal sites (described in section A.2.5), along with the additional, up
25 to 95,900 cy of leftover dredged material associated with the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept at
26 the San Francisco Transition Structure. Transport of the total maximum 106,900 cy of dredged
27 material leftover after reuse within the stitching holes would require a maximum of 31 barge
28 trips (each containing approximately 3,500 cy of material).
29 A.2 DREDGED MATERIAL REUSE/DISPOSAL OPTIONS OUTSIDE THE
30 PROJECT
31 A. 2.1 Dredge Equipment
32 The following assumptions are made for the dredge, tug, and barge equipment that would be
33 used for dredged material reuse/ disposal options outside the project:
34 • One 1,800-Horsepower (Hp) clamshell dredge operating at an average load factor of 0.8,
35 • Three 1,800-Hp tugs with the following tug disposition-specific load factors: 0.8 (with
36 loaded barge), 0.2 (with empty barge), and 0.05 (during idle/barge loading/barge
37 unloading conditions), and
A-2
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
1 • Three 5,000-cy barges.
2 It is assumed that each 5,000-cy barge would have an effective material loading capacity of 70
3 percent, because approximately 30 percent of the capacity would be taken up by water and
4 material bulking, which is the volume of the material that expands upon excavation. This 30
5 percent reduction in barge capacity would also accommodate the need to not load the barges
6 beyond the extent to which they can fully contain the dredged material during transport to the
disposal site. Therefore, each barge load would carry about 3,500 cy of material. Sixty-four (64)
8 barge trips would be required to transport the worst-case volume of 222,000 cy of dredged
9 material. The round trip travel time required for each reuse/ disposal site, the number of barge
10 trips by dredging location, and the frequency of barge trips to each reuse/ disposal site is
11 described below.
12 A.2.2 Round Trip Travel Time Required for Each Reuse/Disposal Site
13 Travel times associated with each potential reuse/ disposal site outside the project are provided
14 in Table A-l. The tug/barge speed going from the dredge site out to the disposal site is slower
15 by 2 knots than the speed of the tug/barge returning from the disposal site because the barge is
16 loaded going out, and empty on the return.
Table A-l. Travel Times Associated with Dredged Material
Reuse/Disposal Options outside the Project
Alternative
Disposal Site
Travel Time
to
Disposal Site
Travel Time
from
Disposal Site
Idle/Load/Unload
Time (a)
Per Round Trip
Total Round Trip
Time
Alcatraz
0.54 hour (b)
0.41 hour (c)
13.5 hours
14.5 hours
SF-DODS
9.86 hour (d)
7.67 hour (e)
13.5 hours
31.0 hours
Hamilton
3.37 hour (f)
2.58 hour (g)
22.5 hours
28.5 hours
Montezuma
6.20 hour (h)
4.74 hour (i)
22.5 hours
33.4 hours
Winter Island
6.02 hour (j)
4.60 hour (k)
22.5 hours
33.1 hours
Alameda
0.71 hour (1)
0.54 hour (m)
22.5 hours
23.8 hours
Port of Oakland
(Berth 10) (n)
0.89 hour (o)
0.68 hour (p)
22.5 hours
24.1 hours
Notes:
a) Assumes 11.5 hours of load time, 1 hour of dump time for aquatic sites (or 10 hours of unloading
time at a rehandling facility for upland sites), and 1 hour of idle time per round trip. Load time
based on an average clamshell dredge rate of 5,000 cy of material per 16-hour day.
b) 3.5 nautical miles (nmi) @ 6.5 knots.
c) 3.5 nmi @ 8.5 knots.
d) 69.0 nmi @ 7.0 knots.
e) 69.0 nmi @ 9.0 knots.
f) 21.9 nmi® 6.5 knots.
g) 21.9 nmi® 8.5 knots.
h) 40.3 nmi @ 6.5 knots.
i) 40.3 nmi @ 8.5 knots.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
A-3
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
Table A-l (cont'd). Travel Times Associated with Dredged Material
Reuse/Disposal Options outside the Project
Notes (cotit.):
j) 39.1 nmi @ 6.5 knots,
k) 39.1 nmi @ 8.5 knots.
1) 4.6 nmi @ 6.5 knots,
m) 4.6 nmi @ 8.5 knots.
n) Berth 10 at the Port of Oakland is the assumed rehandling facility for the East Bay landfills,
o) 5.8 nmi @ 6.5 knots,
p) 5.8 nmi @ 8.5 knots.
1 A.2.3 Number of Barge Trips by Dredging Location
2 The six stitching locations shown on Figure 2-20 would be dredged in reverse numerical order,
3 i.e., starting with Location 6 and ending with Location 1. The number of barge trips necessary
4 to transport the dredged material from each of these locations is listed in Table A-2.
Table A-2. Number of Barge Trips Needed to Transport
Dredged Material from Stitching Operation
Stitching Location
Volume of Dredged
Material (cy)
Capacity per Barge (cy)
Number of Barge Trips
Location 6
8,800
3,500
3
Location 5
8,500
3,500
3
Location 4
9,100
3,500
3
Location 3
16,700
3,500
5
Location 2
29,000
3,500
9
Location 1
54,000
3,500
16
Total Number of Barge Trips
39
5 For retrofit activities at the San Francisco Transition Structure, the number of barge trips
6 necessary to transport the dredged material associated with either Retrofit Concept (i.e., Steel
7 Piles Retrofit Concept or Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept) is listed in Table A-3. Total dredged
8 material (26,200 cy) associated with the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept, including pile array, pile
9 and collar anchorage, containment structures, and sacrificial walls would require 8 barges,
10 assuming all activities occur at the same time. Total dredged material (95,000 cy) associated
11 with the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept, including isolation and support walls, containment
12 structures, and sacrificial walls would require 28 barges, assuming all activities occur at the
13 same time.
A-4
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
Table A-3. Number of Barge Trips Needed to Transport
Dredged Material from San Francisco Transition Structure Retrofits
Retrofit Activity
Volume of Dredged
Material (cy)
Capacity per Barge (cy)
Number of Barge Trips
Steel Piles Retrofit Concept
Pile Array
Pile and Collar Anchorage
10,000
3,500
3
Containment Structures
and Sacrificial Walls
16,200
3,500
5
Total Number of Barge Trips
8
Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept
Isolation and Support Walls
80,000
3,500
23
Containment Structures
and Sacrificial Walls
15,000
3,500
5
Total Number of Barge Trips
28
1 The total volume of dredged material requiring reuse/ disposal is expected to be 152,300 cy if
2 the Steel Piles Retrofit Concept is implemented at the San Francisco Transition Structure, or
3 221,100 cy if the Isolation Walls Retrofit Concept is implemented (see Table 2-1). The
4 environmental analysis, however, is based on 222,000 cy of dredged material to provide a
5 worst-case analysis and to allow for a cushion in case some of the areas to be dredged result in
6 more dredged material than estimated. Therefore, 64 barge trips would be required to transport
7 the worst-case volume of 222,000 cy of dredged material.
8 A.2.4 Frequency of Barge Trips to Each Reuse/Disposal Site
9 It is assumed that the crew of the tug/ barge would work up to a 16-hour day. From Table A-l
10 (footnote a), it takes almost 12 hours to load one barge with dredged material. This table also
11 indicates that the time required to make a round trip from the dredge site to the disposal site
12 and back (including the time to load the dredged material onto the barge) is more than 16 hours
13 for each site considered except the Alcatraz site. All of the disposal sites except Alcatraz would
14 thus require 2 days for each round trip, with the tug/barge going to the site one day and
15 returning the next day. During periods when dredging is occurring for the project, there would
16 be three tug/barge combinations operating, with the assumption that on any given w ork daw
17 including:
18 • one tug/barge would be onloading material at the dredge site,
19 • one tug/barge would be traveling to the disposal site, and
20 • one tug/barge would be returning to the dredge site from the disposal silo that it \ isited
21 the previous day.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
A-5
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
1 This dredging and barging activity would last up to 4 years (see Table 2-1). Assuming this
2 work occurred only during weekdays, this activity would last up to 1,040 days (208 weeks x 5
3 work days/week = 1,040 days). Since most of the disposal sites would require 2 days for a
4 complete round trip, including the dredging, and there would be up to 64 barge trips necessary
5 for 222,000 cy, the barge trips if occurring consecutively could last for at least 128 days, or
6 approximately 4.5 months.
7 A.2.5 Description of the Eight Reuse/Disposal Sites
8 A.2.5.1 Alcatraz (SF-11)
9 The Alcatraz disposal site (known as SF-11) is a 2,000-foot-diameter circle located 0.3 miles
10 south of Alcatraz Island (centered at 37°49'17"N, 122°25'23"W) (see Figure A-l). Both federal
11 and non-federal dredgers have used the Alcatraz site since 1894. Alcatraz receives the most use
12 because of its strong currents as well as proximity to the ocean and all major ports that require
13 extensive dredging.
14 Beginning in 1975, monitoring of the conditions at SF-11 showed decreasing water depths (from
15 -160 to -95 feet), suggesting that dredged material was not being dispersed from the site. In the
16 mid-1980s, as a result of frequent disposal at this site, a mound developed at its eastern portion,
17 posing a hazard to navigation. In order to address this problem, the US ACE started to conduct
18 quarterly bathymetric surveys, and issued PN 93-3-Proposed Change in Corps Policy on Alcatraz
19 Dredged Material Disposal Site Management, which sets limits on the volume and timing of
20 disposal activities at Alcatraz in an effort to minimize mounding by maximizing dispersion
21 from the site. Currently, there is a yearly disposal volume limitation of 4 million cy (mcy) for
22 this site, with a monthly restriction of 400,000 cy from October to April, and 300,000 cy from
23 May to September (US ACE etal. 1998).
24 Recent monitoring of the Alcatraz Disposal Site has shown that the mounding of dredged
25 material is still occurring. The mound covers about 2/3 of the site, but appears to be decreasing
26 in both area and volume above the -40 foot level. Currently, this site allows clamshell
27 dumping. The dredged material that is disposed at Alcatraz is from maintenance dredging and
28 is mainly composed of silt, which disperses well. Sandy material, which often comes from new
29 work dredging, is not allowed at Alcatraz so, if aquatic disposal is desired, it often goes to the
30 San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site (SF-DODS).
31 A.2.5.2 San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site
32 SF-DODS is the deepest ocean dredged material disposal site in the United States. It is located
33 off the Continental Shelf in approximately 8,200 to 9,800 feet (2,500 to 3,000 meters) of water,
34 approximately 55 nautical miles (100 kilometers) offshore San Francisco (Figure A-2). SF-DODS
35 can accept a maximum of 4.8 mcy per year; therefore, SF-DODS could potentially accept all
36 material suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal that would be dredged from the project
37 (USACE et al. 1998).
A-6
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
1 A.2.5.3 Hamilton Wetland Restoration
2 The Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project would restore the former Hamilton Army Airfield
3 and the adjacent State Lands Commission Antennae Field to tidal and non- tidal wetlands. The
4 Hamilton restoration site is located on the northwestern edge of San Pablo Bay in the San
5 Francisco Estuary (Figure A-3).
6 The site, totaling over 900 acres, consists of the 619-acre former Hamilton Army Airfield plus
the continuous 20-acre Navy ballfields and the 250-acre State Lands Commission Antennae
8 Field. Wetland restoration would be implemented on a portion of the airfield parcel and the
9 abandoned antennae field.
10 In addition, a Conceptual Wetland Restoration Plan (Plan) is under preparation for the Bel
11 Marin Keys Unit V property, located in southeast Novato, Marin County (see Figure A-3). The
12 Plan evaluates the potential restoration of the property as an expansion of the adjacent
13 Hamilton Wetlands Restoration Project. The addition of the Bel Marin Keys parcel would add
14 1,610 acres along San Pablo Bay, for a total area of 2,598 acres (CCC 2003).
15 The Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project provides the opportunity to beneficially reuse
16 dredged material from Bay maintenance dredging and new dredging projects to raise the
17 elevation of subsided diked lands. Work on the Hamilton site began in 2005. The site would
18 have the capacity to accommodate a total of 10.6 mcy of dredged material (CCC 2003). Only
19 clean "cover" material would be accepted at the Hamilton site.
20 A.2.5A Montezuma Wetland Restoration
21 The Montezuma Wetland Restoration site is located in Solano County, California (Figure A-4).
22 The project will restore 1,720 acres of tidal wetlands and create 109 acres of managed wetlands,
23 establishing a tidal marsh habitat environment essential to the survival of two endangered
24 species and other fish and wildlife species.
25 The project advances the beneficial use of dredged material from San Francisco Bay, minimizing
26 in-Bay disposal and maximizing the beneficial reuse of dredged material. Restoration of the
27 tidal marsh habitat would potentially utilize 17 mcy of dredged material from the San Francisco
28 Bay Area (Solano County 2001). A commercial dredged sediment offloading and rehandling
29 facility has also been constructed to handle saline dredge material for fresh water aqu.it u
30 disposal in the Delta.
31 The Montezuma site is currently in use and has the capacity to accept a total of 20 mcy. The site
32 accepts both "cover" and "non-cover" material. The RWQCB defines "cover" and "non-cover"
33 material based on sediment tests: cover material contains pollutants below specified RWQCB
34 criteria and can be used for wetland restoration; non-cover material contains pollutants in
35 concentrations above cover sediment criteria, but does not exceed RWQCB non-cover sedimenl
36 criteria. Up to 20 percent of the dredged material received at the site could be classified .is non
37 cover material and the remaining 80 percent would need to be classified as cover material
38 (Solano County 2001).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
A-7
— 37° 50'N 1 22° 26'W 1 22° 25'W
— 37° 49'N
<\r\ Fisherman's y>/^\ — \
/C^l ^ Wharf <\X°.J \
Black Point / / \\ \% •N5>i\ \\ xS \ V~
yy nfl ^(f Aquatic \^ ^£v\
r f\\ \] I Park / North Poirrt^l
Telegraph Hill
SAN FRANCISCO
t
-37° 48'N , Sc f le ,
0.25 0.5
Mile h
Source.
COE 1 992. Appendix D - Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Environmental Assessment,
Oakland Inner Harbor 38-Foot Separable Element of the Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, June.
Figure A-l. Alcatraz Open Water Disposal Site SF-11
A-8
-123° 45'
-123°
-122' 15'
-123 45
-123"
-122° 15'
Scale
4
% 5 10
1 Miles
Depth in Fathoms
Source: EPA 1993a
Figure A -2. San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site (SF-DODS)
A-10
Figure A-4. Location of Montezuma Wetlands Site and Winter Island Site
A-ll
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
1 A.2.5.5 Winter Island
2 Winter Island is a privately owned 453-acre island located on the extreme western edge of the
3 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, north of the Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, and 5.4 miles
4 west of the Antioch Bridge, near the City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, California (see
5 Figure A-4). The island is comprised of 400 acres of freshwater marsh, 15 acres of open water
6 habitat consisting of scattered ponds and the main water canal, 2 acres of riparian habitat along
7 the levees, 33 acres of upland habitat made up of open sandy soils and upland vegetation, and
8 approximately 5 acres of developed facilities (USFWS 2000).
9 This island provides important habitat to numerous species of waterfowl, and the interior of the
10 island has been managed as a waterfowl habitat and hunting area (e.g., duck club) for over 50
11 years. Dredged material has been used for levee rehabilitation on the perimeter of Winter
12 Island for approximately 20 years.
13 The Winter Island Reclamation District No. 2122 is the project sponsor for the Winter Island
14 Levee Rehabilitation Project. The Winter Island Reclamation District holds a USACE dredged
15 material disposal permit, PN 22033S59, issued under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
16 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, authorizing disposal of up to 800,000 cy of dredged
17 material over a 10-year period at Winter Island. This permit expires September 1, 2006. In
18 addition, disposal of dredged material at Winter Island must also comply with Section 401 of
19 the Clean Water Act. Therefore, on June 19, 2001, the San Francisco Bay Region of the California
20 Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SFRWQCB) adopted the "Final Waste Discharge
21 Requirements and Water Quality Certification for levee rehabilitation operations at Winter
22 Island in Contra Costa" as Order No. 01-061, which also expires September 1, 2006.
23 All permits will be reviewed and renewed prior to the next dredging episode, as required. Any
24 dredged material placed at Winter Island would have to be in compliance with the SFRWQCB
25 Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No. 01-061, adopted on June 19, 2001.
26 A.2.5.6 Alameda Point Golf Course
27 The Alameda Point Golf Links project would construct a public golf course on the former
28 Alameda Naval Air Station. Alameda Point, formerly the Alameda Naval Air Station,
29 encompasses approximately 1,800 acres and occupies approximately one-third of the island city
30 of Alameda in Alameda County.
31 The proposed golf course would consist of an 18-hole links style golf course, a 9-hole executive
32 (short) course, a clubhouse with a pro-shop, a hotel/ conference center, associated infrastructure
33 (i.e., domestic water supply and irrigation system, water recycling system, lighting) and public
34 open space on approximately 215 acres at Alameda Point. Approximately 2 mcy of dredged
35 material from various areas within San Francisco Bay would be used to cap the existing fill
36 material at the site and construct topographic relief and drainage for portions of the golf course.
37 It is anticipated that the site would begin accepting dredged material in January 2006 and
38 continue through 2008. Regular operation of the golf course is anticipated to begin in 2010 (City
39 of Alameda 2004).
A-12
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix A - Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options
1 A.2.5.7 Altamont Landfill
2 The Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility is a Class II and Class III facility in
3 northern Alameda County. The landfill is owned by the Waste Management Company. It is
4 located on Altamont Pass Road approximately 35 miles from Oakland northeast of the City of
5 Livermore (Figure A-5). The site accepts up to 125,000 cy per year; 11,150 tons/day of non-
6 hazardous, non-petroleum contaminated Class III waste, and 2,000 tons/ day of nonhazardous,
petroleum contaminated soils and other nonhazardous, petroleum contaminated Class II waste
8 (Alameda County 2000).
9 A.2.5.8 Vasco Road Landfill
10 Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill is a Class III facility in northern Alameda County located on
11 Vasco Road northeast of the City of Livermore, just west of Altamont Landfill (see Figure A-5).
12 The Vasco Landfill is permitted to accept up to 300,000 cy per year of nonhazardous, non-
13 petroleum contaminated Class III waste (Alameda County 2003).
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
A- 13
Figure A-5. Location of Altamont Landfill and Vasco Road Landfill
A-14
Appendix B
Title VI Policy Statement
1
APPENDIX B
2 Title VI Policy Statement
3 The Title VI Policy Statement, dated July 26, 2000, and signed by Jeff Morales, Director of
4 Caltrans, states:
5 [Caltrans] under Title VI of tlie Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes, ensures
6 that no person in tlte State of California shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex and
national origin be excluded from -participation in, he denied the benefits of, or be
8 otlienvise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity it administers.
9 This statement is excerpted from the Caltrans' document EA-IS Template. dot, dated March 13,
10 2002.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
B 1
Appendix B - Title VI Policy Statement
This page intentionally left blank.
B-2
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C
Regulatory Environment
1
2
APPENDIX C
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
3 This appendix summarizes the regulatory environment, including all applicable federal, state,
4 and local plans, policies, and regulations for the following resource areas: water resources;
5 noise; cultural resources; transportation; geology/ seismicity; hazardous materials; risk of upset;
6 visual resources; biological resources; air quality; and social impacts.
7 C.l WATER RESOURCES
8 This section describes current laws and regulations relevant to water resources that could be
9 affected by the project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
10 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and San Francisco Bay
11 Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) would all be involved in permitting the
12 project.
13 Federal Laws and Regulations
14 Floodplain Encroachment. Per federal regulation 23 CFR 650A, the Federal Highway
15 Administration (FHWA) requires preparation of a Location Hydraulic Study for project work
16 that lies within the base (100-year) floodplain, which includes the 100-year high tide.
17 The FHWA floodplain encroachment analysis policies are designed to encourage a broad and
18 unified effort to prevent uneconomic, hazardous, or incompatible use and development of the
19 Nation's floodplains; minimize impacts of the highway agency's actions that adversely affect
20 base floodplains; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values that are
21 adversely impacted by highway agency actions.
22 Clean Water Act. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted as an amendment to the
23 federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which outlined the basic structure for regulating
24 discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA includes programs
25 addressing both point source and nonpoint source pollution, and empowers the states to set
26 state-specific water quality standards and to issue permits containing effluent limitations for
27 point source discharges. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has adopted
28 water quality standards for certain toxic pollutants in California (the California Toxics Rule).
29 Section 401 - Water Quality Certification. Under CWA Section 401, applicants for a federal license
30 or permit to conduct activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters ol the
31 United States, including discharges of dredged or fill material, must obtain certification from
32 the state in which the discharge would originate. The project's disposal of dredged material
33 would require a Water Quality Certification by the SFBRWQCB. This certification is required
34 by USACE before a Section 404 permit (see below) can be issued.
35 Section 402 - Permits for Stormwater Discliarge. Section 402 of the CWA, administered bv the
36 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), regulates the discharge of pollutants to
37 waters of the Unites States from any point source. This program regulates construction related
38 stormwater discharges to surface waters through USEPA's National Pollutant Discharge
39 Elimination System (NPDES) program. An NPDES permit is required for: (1) any proposed
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-1
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 point source wastewater or stormwater discharge to surface waters from municipal areas with a
2 population of 100,000 or more; and (2) construction activities disturbing 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or
3 more of land. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be required for the
4 project pursuant to the general permit for construction-related discharges.
5 Section 404 - Permits for Fill Placement in Waters and Wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA prohibits
6 discharges of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional "waters of the United States" without a
7 permit issued by the USACE. "Waters of the United States" are broadly defined in USACE
8 regulations (33 CFR §328.3) to include navigable waters 1 , their tributaries, and adjacent
9 wetlands. The USACE regulates, through the issuance of a Section 404 permit, the discharge of
10 dredged or fill material in waters of the United States. Therefore, the project's dredged material
11 disposal would require a Section 404 permit. The USACE has the authority to combine all
12 authorizations into one permit action; for example, the USACE would likely issue a
13 comprehensive CWA Section 404/Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit (see below).
14 Rivers and Harbors Act. Permits are required from the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers
15 and Harbors Act (RHA) for all structures and/ or work in or affecting navigable waters of the
16 United States (§322.3[a]). Because the project is in an area bisected by a navigation opening (San
17 Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge) under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, Section 10 of the
18 RHA would apply to the project. An RHA permit would be required for this project because it
19 involves work in navigable waters.
20 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuary Act. The Marine Protection, Research and
21 Sanctuary Act (MPRSA) regulates dredged material disposal at ocean disposal sites. A permit
22 from the USACE is required for disposal of dredged material at designated sites. An MPRSA
23 Section 103 permit would be required if dredged material from the project was disposed at the
24 SF Deep Ocean Disposal Site, a designated ocean disposal site.
25 Coastal Zone Management Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires project
26 applicants to submit a Coastal Consistency Determination to demonstrate that the proposed
27 project is consistent with the California Coastal Act. BCDC has the authority to make state
28 consistency determinations for coastal zone projects in the San Francisco Bay Area.
29 State Laws and Regulations
30 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. This Act is the primary state regulation addressing
31 water quality, and waste discharges (including dredged material disposal) on land and in
32 waters of the state. The Act's requirements are implemented by the RWQCB pursuant to the
33 provisions of the San Francisco Bay Region Basin Plan (SFBRWQCB 1995). Impacts on
34 Beneficial Uses as described in the Basin Plan would be addressed by the RWQCB during the
35 Section 401 Water Quality Certification process of the CWA. Construction activities would be
36 regulated under a general construction permit to comply with NPDES stormwater regulations.
37 Separate NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements (WDRs) could be required for
Navigable waters of the United States, as defined by 33 CFR 329.4, are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide and/ or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign
commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies over the entire surface of the water body, regardless of later
actions or events that may impede or destroy navigable capacity.
C-2
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 dewatering effluent discharges. In the State of California, the State Water Resources Control
2 Board (SWRCB) has the ultimate authority under this Act over state water rights and water
3 quality policy. The NPDES program in California is implemented by the SWRCB through its
4 nine RWQCBs, which were also established under the Porter-Cologne Act. The project is within
5 the jurisdiction of the SFBRWQCB.
6 McAteer-Petris Act On the regional level, the BCDC administers the McAteer-Petris Act,
which was enacted by the state legislature in 1965. The McAteer-Petris Act recognizes San
8 Francisco Bay as a significant economic, environmental, and recreational resource, and
9 established the BCDC to address mdiscriminate filling of San Francisco Bay. BCDC has
10 jurisdiction over all areas of the Bay that are subject to tidal action. BCDC's jurisdiction
11 includes subtidal areas, intertidal areas, and tidal marsh areas that are between mean high tide
12 and 1.5 meters (5 feet) above mean sea level. In addition, BCDC has jurisdiction over a 30.5-
13 meter (100-foot) wide shoreline band surrounding the Bay from the mean high tide line
14 (MHTL).
15 As defined by BCDC, bay fill is any solid material, including any pile-supported, floating,
16 cantilevered, or suspended material, that is placed bayward of the MHTL, which is
17 approximately +0.82 meters National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (+2.68 feet) at Yerba
18 Buena Island or the +1.5-meter (5.0-foot) contour line where marshlands are present.
19 A BCDC permit is required for any project that involves filling, dredging, or construction along
20 the shoreline as described in section 5.1.2.2.
21 C.2 NOISE
22 Federal Noise Regulations
23 The Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, requires
24 compliance with applicable state and local noise laws and ordinances. Project consistency with
25 these acts is evaluated in terms of consistency with state and local noise laws and ordinances.
26 Federal Highway Administration Standards for Noise
27 These standards for noise do not apply to the project for the reason explained below; this
28 information is included here for informational purposes because FHWA is the lead agency on
29 this EA. FHWA has adopted noise abatement regulations for highway projects (23 CFR 772).
30 Pursuant to FHWA regulations, noise abatement must be considered for Type 1 highway
31 projects when the project results in a substantial noise increase, or when the predicted noise
32 levels approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria. A Type 1 project is defined by 23 CFR
33 772 as follows: "proposed federal or federal aid highway project for the construction of a
34 highway on a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significant!}
35 changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increases the number of through lr.it! u
36 lanes." The BART Seismic Retrofit Project is not a Type 1 project as defined by 23 CFR 77
37 this noise regulation is not applicable.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-3
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 BART Construction Standards for Noise and Local Noise Ordinances
2 BART and the cities of Oakland and San Francisco have established regulations, plans, and
3 policies that are designed to limit construction noise impacts at noise-sensitive land uses. These
4 include: (1) BART Construction Standards for Noise (BART 1991); (2) the City of Oakland Noise
5 Ordinance (City of Oakland 1996); and (3) the City of San Francisco Noise Ordinance (City of
6 San Francisco 1972). Under State law, BART is not required to comply with certain local
7 ordinances, including noise standards. Consequently, the Oakland and San Francisco
8 Ordinances do not define the standards by which impacts are evaluated.
9 BART has adopted construction noise control criteria that apply to noise-sensitive buildings
10 (BART 1992). These standards are specified in terms of the temporal nature of construction
11 noise (i.e., "continuous" or "intermittent"), the time of day, and the sensitivity of the affected
12 receptor. The BART construction noise criteria for sensitive receptors exposed to continuous
13 and intermittent construction noise and mobile equipment noise are shown in Table C-l. These
14 limits apply 200 feet from the construction limits or at the nearest affected building, whichever
15 is closer. These limits are not based on defined noise metrics (e.g., L eq , Lmax). The "continuous"
16 limits are interpreted to be based on the energy equivalent noise level (L eq ) metric. The
17 "intermittent" limits are interpreted to be the maximum (Lmax) level measured using the "slow"
18 response setting on a standard sound level meter.
Table C-l. BART Limits for Continuous and Intermittent Construction Noise
Maximum Allowable
Continuous Noise Level, dB A 1
Maximum Allowable
Intermittent Noise Level, dB A 2
Affected Residential Area
Daytime 3
Nighttime 4
Daytime 3
Nighttime 4
Single family residence
60
50
75
60
Along an arterial or in multi-
family residential areas,
including hospitals
65
55
75
65
In semi- residential/ commercial
areas, including hotels
70
60
80
70
Affected Commercial Area
At Any Time
At Any Time
In semi- residential/ commercial
areas, including schools
65
80
In commercial areas with no
nighttime residency
70
85
Affected Industrial Area
At Any Time
At Any Time
All locations
80
90
Notes:
1. Objective: Prevent noise from stationary noise sources, parked mobile sources, or any source or combination of sources producing
repetitive or long-term noise lasting more than a few hours from exceeding the following limits.
2. Objective: Prevent noise from stationary noise sources, parked mobile sources, or any source or combination of sources producing
repetitive or long-term noise lasting more than a few hours from exceeding the following limits
3. Daytime refers to the period from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. local time daily except Sundays and legal holidays.
4. Nighttime refers to all other times including all day Sundays and legal holidays.
Source: BART Extension Program System Design Criteria (1992)
19 BART has also adopted construction noise limits for individual pieces of equipment. All
20 equipment other than highway trucks, including hand tools and heavy equipment, acquired
C-4
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 before 1986, shall generate maximum noise levels of 90 dBA (A-weighted decibel) or less as
2 measured at a distance of 50 feet. Equipment acquired after January 1, 1986 shall be limited to a
3 maximum noise level of 85 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet. Highway trucks in any
4 operating load or location acquired before January 1, 1986 are limited to a maximum noise level
5 of 83 dBA at 50 feet, and trucks acquired after January 1, 1986 are limited to 80 dBA at 50 feet.
6 Peak noise levels due to impact pile drivers may exceed the above noise emission limits by 10
dBA. People shall not be exposed to noise levels exceeding 125 dBC (C- weighted decibel).
8 C.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
9 Cultural resources "are tangible or observable traces of past human activity, regardless of their
10 significance, in direct association with a geographic location, including properties possessing
11 intangible traditional cultural values" (Caltrans 2001). These include any property important
12 for scientific, traditional, religious or other purposes, such as archaeological resources (both
13 prehistoric and historic remains), historic architectural resources (physical properties,
14 structures, or built items), and Native American resources (those important to living Native
15 Americans for religious, spiritual, ancestral, or traditional reasons).
16 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 establishes national policy for
17 protecting substantially important cultural resources that are defined as "historic properties."
18 NHPA Section 106 (16 U.S.C. §470f) and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR §800 requires
19 that federal agencies consider and evaluate the effect that federal projects may have on historic
20 properties under their jurisdiction, or those that would be affected by federally funded or
21 federally approved undertakings. The NHPA provides for the National Register of Historic
22 Places (National Register) a listing of historic properties throughout the nation. Section 106
23 analyses performed by archaeologists, historians, and ethnologists are done for every federal
24 undertaking to determine if there are any historic properties within an undertaking's Area of
25 Potential Effect (APE). The Section 106 process also requires that the lead federal agency
26 consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American tribes, and other
27 appropriate agencies and parties and, when appropriate, with the Advisory Council on Historic
28 Preservation (ACHP) in identifying the presence and treatment of historic properties.
29 To qualify as an eligible "historic property" under the NHPA, a cultural resource must meet
30 specific criteria established in its implementing regulations (36 CFR §60.4). These criteria state
31 that a resource must be at least 50 years old; possess integrity of location, design, setting,
32 material, workmanship, feeling, and association; and meet one or more of the following:
33 A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
34 of history;
35 B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past;
36 C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
37 represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents >i significant
38 and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
39 D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-5
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 In addition to the NHPA, cultural resources are protected by the Archaeological Resources
2 Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 469-469c), the American Indian Religious Freedom
3 Act of 1978 (AIRFA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 1996-19963), and the Native American Graves Protection and
4 Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3013) .
5 C.4 TRANSPORTATION
6 Traffic/Ground Transportation
The FHWA is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the
8 federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the
9 primary state highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Transportation
10 Equity 7 Act for the 21 st Century 7 (TEA-21). Federal funding under TEA-21 can be used to fund
11 local transportation improvement projects, such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing
12 roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, and transit system upgrades. The project
13 would be funded by federal and other sources.
14 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the agency responsible for the
15 planning, design, construction, and maintenance of all state highways. Caltrans is the
16 owner/ operator of the state and interstate highway system in California. Caltrans and the
17 California Transportation Commission review federally funded transportation improvements
18 and incorporate them into transportation plans and programs.
19 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional organization responsible
20 for prioritizing transportation projects in a Regional Transportation Improvement Program
21 (RTIP) for federal and state funding. The Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) is the
22 focus of MTC's regional transportation planning, system operations and investment decisions.
23 The MTS is the multi-modal transportation system of regional importance — those facilities that
24 are crucial to the freight and passenger mobility needs of the nine-county San Francisco Bay
25 Area. The MTS in the study area includes the following facilities:
• Freeways
- Interstate 580
- Interstate 880
- Interstate 980
- State Route 24
• Local Streets
- 5th Street - College Avenue
- 7th Street - MacArthur Boulevard
- 52nd Street - Maritime Street
- Adeline Street - Martin Luther King Jr. Way
- Broadway - Shattuck Avenue
- Claremont Avenue - Telegraph Avenue
26 The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CM A) is responsible for ensuring local
27 government conformance with the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), which is a 7-year
28 program to reduce traffic congestion. The CMA has review responsibility for proposed
29 development actions expected to generate 100 or more P.M. peak-hour trips than otherwise
C-6
BARJ Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 would occur. The CMA maintains a Countywide Transportation Model, and has approval
2 authority for the use of any local or subarea transportation models.
3 The cities of Oakland and San Francisco have responsibility for constructing and mamtaining
4 city streets within their respective city limits. Lane closures and detours within public streets,
5 alterations to public parking, and alterations to public transit stops related to project retrofit
6 construction activities on aerial guideways and stations would all occur within the City of
7 Oakland.
8 Vessel Transportation
9 Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, the USCG is authorized to establish,
10 operate, and maintain vessel traffic services for ports, harbors, and other waters subject to
11 congested vessel traffic. Shortly after passage of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the USCG
12 established the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) San Francisco. The VTS monitors and coordinates
13 vessel transit in the Bay by designating traffic lanes for vessel traffic, specifying separation
14 zones between vessel traffic lanes, requiring sailing plans, and requiring regular reporting of
15 vessel position while in route (USCG 1999; USACE and Port of Oakland 1998). The USCG also
16 regulates how vessels in San Francisco Bay can moor or anchor.
17 In addition to these actions, the USCG has also designated Regulated Navigation Areas within
18 the Bay. Within San Francisco Bay, there are specific areas where anchoring is allowed and
19 other areas where anchoring is disallowed without prior approval of the USCG. General!}'
20 anchoring is prohibited in any designated traffic lanes of a regulated navigation area, any
21 designated channels, and any areas within a tunnel, cable, or pipeline area.
22 C.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
23 State Laws and Regulations
24 Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. The criteria used to estimate fault activity in
25 California are described in the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972, which addresses
26 surface fault-rupture hazards in active fault zones. An active fault is described by the California
27 Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as a fault that has "had surface displacement within
28 Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years)." A potentially active fault is defined as "any fault
29 that showed evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 1.6 million years)."
30 Numerous active and potentially active faults are present in the vicinity of tine project (Figure
31 3.5-1).
32 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Regulations, The
33 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code Section 2690 et seq.) and the
34 Seismic Hazards Mapping Regulations (CCR, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Article 10) are
35 promulgated for the purpose of protecting public safety from the effects of strong ground
36 shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failures, or other hazards caused by
37 earthquakes. Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Ha wd& in
38 California (CDMG 1997), constitutes the guidelines for evaluating seismic hazards Other than
39 surface fault-rupture, and for recommending mitigation measures as required bv Pub Res
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-7
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 Code Section 2695(a). The project is consistent with recommended mitigation measures in
2 Special Publication 117.
3 California Building Code. The California Building Code is located at CCR, Title 24, Part 2. Title
4 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission which, by law, is
5 responsible for coordinating all building standards. About one-third of the text within the
6 California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions (International
7 Conference of Building Officials [ICBO] 1994). The proposed seismic retrofitting would be
8 completed in accordance with the California Building Code.
9 C.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
10 Classification of Contaminated Media
11 Soil that is excavated during construction activities and groundwater that is produced in
12 conjunction with de watering operations may be classified as a hazardous material or a
13 hazardous waste, depending on the types and concentrations of hazardous substances that are
14 present in it. Applicable federal, state, and local laws each contain lists of hazardous materials
15 or hazardous substances that may require special handling. These include "hazardous
16 substances" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
17 Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the state Hazardous Substances Account Act (Health and Safety
18 Code Section 25300, et seq.); "hazardous materials" under Health and Safety Code Section
19 25501, California Labor Code Section 6380 and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 8,
20 Section 339; "hazardous substances" under 40 CFR Part 116; and, priority toxic pollutants under
21 CFR Part 122. In addition, "hazardous materials" are frequently defined under local hazardous
22 materials ordinances, such as the Uniform Fire Code.
23 Generally speaking, "hazardous materials" means any material that, because of its quantity,
24 concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential
25 hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the
26 environment. Hazardous materials that are commonly found in soil and groundwater include
27 petroleum products, fuel additives, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds. If
28 concentrations of certain contaminants in the soil or groundwater are high enough to exceed
29 regulatory thresholds or other criteria established under CCR Title 22, Sections 66261.20 to
30 66261.24, the soil or groundwater would be classified as a "hazardous waste." Soil or
31 groundwater that exhibit these criteria are classified as "characteristic" hazardous wastes. In
32 addition, soil or groundwater that is contaminated with federally "listed hazardous wastes"
33 would be classified as hazardous wastes under California law and would have to be managed
34 accordingly.
35 Laws Regulating Hazardous Materials and Wastes
36 Depending on the type and degree of contamination that is present, any of several
37 governmental agencies may have jurisdiction over the project site. Generally, the agency with
38 the most direct statutory authority over the hazardous material will be designated as the lead
39 agency for purposes of overseeing any necessary investigation or remediation. Typically, sites
40 that are nominally contaminated with hazardous materials remain within the jurisdiction of
41 local hazardous materials agencies, such as a local fire department or health care services
C-8
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
' 1 agency. Sites that have more heavily contaminated soils are more likely to fall under the
! 2 jurisdiction of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Typically, the
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would become involved in site investigation or
4 remediation activities only in serious cases (e.g., where a very significant risk to public health
5 exists) or in cases where the construction site happens to fall within the boundaries of an
6 existing "superfund" site. A superfund site is any land that has been contaminated by
hazardous waste and identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a candidate for
8 cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/ or the environment. DTSC is authorized
9 to administer the federal hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
10 Recovery Act in California, and is also responsible for administering the state superfund
11 program under the Hazardous Substance Account Act.
12 Sites that have contaminated groundwater fall within the jurisdiction of SFBRWQCB and are
13 subject to the requirements of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (see section C.l).
14 Contaminated groundwater that is proposed to be discharged to surface waters or to a publicly
15 owned treatment works would be subject to the applicable provisions of the CWA, including
16 perrrtitting and possibly pretreatment requirements. A NPDES permit is required to discharge
17 pumped groundwater to surface waters, including local storm drains, in accordance with
18 California Water Code Section 13260. Additional restrictions may be imposed upon discharges
19 to water bodies that are listed as "impaired" under Section 303(d) of the CWA, including San
20 Francisco Bay. Where both soils and groundwater are implicated, both DTSC (or a local
21 agency) and the RWQCB may be involved. In addition, excavations in potentially contaminated
22 soil must be completed in accordance with a Soils Management Plan, prepared to minimize
23 exposure to onsite workers and to properly dispose of contaminated soil. This plan would be
24 approved by the RWQCB before construction.
25 The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has primary
26 responsibility for enforcing worker safety regulations, including the federal Hazard
27 Communication Program regulations. Cal-OSHA regulations are found in CCR Title 8. Cal-
28 OSHA regulations are generally more stringent than federal OSHA standards, which address
29 general construction safety but also include specific standards for situations involving potential
30 exposure to hazardous chemicals (e.g., lead).
31 BART Requirements
32 In addition to the federal, state, and local regulations that govern pollution control, BART issues
33 standard specifications with respect to pollution abatement as general requirements for all
34 BART contractors. These specifications require minimizing pollution of the environment
35 surrounding the work area by all practicable means. These standards also specify that no waste
36 or eroded materials should be allowed to enter natural or man-made water or sewage removal
37 systems and that all eroded materials from excavations should be contained within the work
38 area. These requirements apply to nonhazardous solid waste as well as to any soil or
39 groundwater that may be contaminated.
40 Risk-Based Screening Levels
41 The SFBRWQCB developed Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) as conservative screening
42 thresholds corresponding to acceptable risk levels for construction workers. The risk levels
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-9
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 account for factors such as site use and exposure pathways, direct human exposure, leaching of
2 soil contamination to groundwater, and migration of chemicals of concern from groundwater to
3 surface water. This screening criterion was used during an evaluation of analytical data
4 collected during a Phase II field investigation in association with the proposed project. EPA
5 Region IX has also established Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for most CERCLA
6 hazardous substances in soils. Different PRGs have been set for industrial and residential land
7 uses. Like the Regional Board's RBSLs, these PRGs are based on highly conservative risk
8 assumptions and generally signify levels of contamination for which "no further action" is
9 needed.
10 C.7 RISK OF UPSET/SAFETY
11 Worker Safety Regulations
12 Construction related to federal projects is regulated by the federal Occupational Safety and
13 Health Administration (OSHA) construction standards. OSHA standards cover general
14 construction but also include specific standards for situations involving potential exposure to
15 hazardous chemicals (e.g., lead) and specific provisions for certain types of construction
16 (welding, work from scaffolds or hoists, excavation, concrete construction, erecting steel
17 structures, work in tunnels, demolition/ bias ting, and work underwater). OSHA Construction
18 Standards can be found at 29 CFR Part 1926, Safety and Health Standards for Construction.
19 The CCR, Title 8, Chapter 4 - Division of Industrial Safety, Subchapter 4 - Construction Safety Orders,
20 also governs construction safety. These codes are designed for worker safety, but they also
21 serve to mitigate risk to the general public and, in this case, BART passengers.
22 Public Safety Regulations
23 The Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones -1996
24 (Manual) is also incorporated into California regulations (8 CCR Sections 1597-1599) to cover
25 situations where work site conditions require encroachment into public streets or highways.
26 However, other means of traffic control, such as continuous patrol, detours, barricades, or other
27 techniques for the safety of employees covered in the manual may be employed. The criteria for
28 the positioning, location, and use of traffic control devices as described in the Manual is not
29 mandatory.
30 C.8 VISUAL RESOURCES
31 A discussion of local tree ordinances is presented in section C.9, Biological Resources.
32 Federal Highway Administration Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects
33 The DOT FHWA's guidance document Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA
34 1988) defines FHWA's methodology for evaluating views of the surrounding landscape from the
35 project site or sites (e.g., views available to users of a proposed highway), as well as views of a
36 proposed project or project feature from off-site vantage points (e.g., views available to
37 residents living near a proposed highway alignment).
C-10
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 FHWA's framework for evaluating project impacts on the visual environment breaks the
2 analysis down into three parts:
3 1. Characterization of the visual character and qualities of the project setting (form, line,
4 color, and texture);
5 2. Determination of project-related impacts on visual resources and the quality of the
6 visual experience; and
7 3. Identification of the potentially affected viewing audience.
8 Visual Quality. After the visual character of a landscape has been defined, FHWA
9 methodology requires characterization of the existing level of visual quality associated with the
10 project setting in terms of three variables, or evaluative criteria, as follows:
11 • Vividness: Visual power (i.e., memorability) of landscape components. Includes
12 consideration of landforms and landcover (e.g., vegetation, water, and development).
13 • Intactness: Integrity of the natural or built environment and freedom from encroaching
14 elements. Development may enhance or subtract from otherwise intact urban and
15 pristine landscapes.
16 • Unity: Visual coherence or harmony of individual landscape elements; compatibility.
17 Although most landscapes exhibit a greater or lesser degree of unity between natural
18 and built landscape elements, entirely natural landscapes may be visually unified or
19 chaotic, as may predominantly urban landscapes.
20 When all three of these criteria are rated highly in a project setting, visual quality is accordingly
21 considered to be high. However, a landscape setting determined to possess low visual quality
22 may nonetheless be sensitive to project-related changes and benefit from, or be negatively
23 affected by, project additions to such qualities.
24 Viewing Audience. FWHA defines the components of visual experience as twofold: (1) the
25 visual resources (discussed above), and (2) the viewer response, or viewing audience. With
26 respect to viewer response, FHWA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects guidance
27 recommends the identification of major viewer groups, or audiences. Such audiences have
28 defining characteristics that can be identified in the degree of detail appropriate for the project
29 in question.
30 Viewers are first classified either as users or neighbors of a given transportation route. They are
31 further distinguished by the nature of their exposure to a given visual resource, which is
32 defined by an audience's physical location and proximity, the number of people affected, and
33 (for highway project users in particular) the duration of views.
34 Where appropriate, as in highly scenic locations, viewer sensitivity may also be classit n\\ and is
35 a function of viewer activity (e.g., a distracted motorist in a downtown setting versus .i relaxed
36 motorist on a scenic rural route). Other viewer group characteristics include viewer awareness,
37 which is the receptivity of viewers to a visual resource as manipulated by the deliberate
38 creation of a view, a transition between landscape types, or the existing land use context; and
39 local values and goals, which shape view expectations and appreciation.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-ll
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 C.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2 The following statutes govern various project components and are the basis for federal and state
3 permits that would be required prior to construction.
4 Federal Laws, Policies, and Executive Orders
5 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et sea., as amended). The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
6 protects federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered species, as well as proposed
7 and designated critical habitats. An endangered species is "any species which is in danger of
8 extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (ESA Section 3[6]). A threatened
9 species is "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
10 future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (ESA Section 3[20]). Consultation
11 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
12 Administration (NO A A) Fisheries is required under Section 7 of this Act for projects that affect
13 listed species or critical habitats. As the project may affect several listed fish species, Section 7
14 consultation will be required.
15 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and Executive Order 13186. The Migratory
16 Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation
17 of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. While no specific federal permit for impacts on
18 unlisted migratory birds exists, the USFWS considers impacts on migratory birds for federal
19 projects and may recommend mitigation measures in a Biological Opinion to reduce impacts on
20 migratory birds. Executive Order 13186 describes responsibilities of federal agencies to protect
21 migratory birds, in furtherance of the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts, the
22 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ESA, and the National Environmental Policy Act
23 (NEPA).
24 Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). This Act prohibits taking or
25 harassment of any marine mammals except incidental take during commercial fishing, capture
26 under scientific research and public display permits, harvest by native Americans for
27 subsistence purposes, and any other take authorized on a case-by-case basis as set forth in the
28 Act. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS are responsible for implementation of the Marine Mammal
29 Protection Act, depending on the species affected. As the project may result in harassment of
30 marine mammals in the Bay, an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) would be required.
31 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq). The
32 1996 amendments to this Act require a delineation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for all
33 federally managed species. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or carry out activities that may
34 adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding potential effects
35 of the action on EFH, and respond in writing to NOAA Fisheries recommendations. As the
36 project would occur within the EFH of several managed species, compliance would be required
37 and would occur concurrently with the Section 7 consultation process for listed fish species.
38 State Laws and Policies
39 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (C. W.C. Section 13000 et seq.; CCR Title 23, Chapter
40 3, Chapter 15). This Act is described in section C.l, Water Resources.
C-12
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 1 California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.). This Act
| 2 addresses protection of state-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animal species.
I 3 It requires that state agencies coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game
i 4 (CDFG) to ensure that state-authorized or state-funded projects do not jeopardize the existence
5 of a state-listed species; it also prohibits the taking of a listed species without authorization from
6 the CDFG. If the project would result in take of a state-listed species that was not authorized
under the federal Biological Opinion from the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, a Section 2081
8 permit would be required.
9 Local Policies
10 City of Oakland Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.36 Protected Trees Ordinance. This City
II of Oakland ordinance protects both indigenous and introduced tree species, growing as single
12 specimens, in clusters, or in woodland situations. The City protects and preserves trees by
13 regulating their removal; prevents unnecessary tree loss and minimizes environmental damage
14 from improper tree removal; encourages appropriate tree replacement plantings; and effectively
15 enforces tree preservation regulations. This ordinance protects coast live oaks 4 inches or larger
16 in diameter, or any other species 9 inches in diameter or larger, except eucalyptus and Monterey
17 pine trees. Monterey pine trees are only protected where more than five trees per acre are
18 proposed for removal.
19 According to BART's enabling statute, because BART is a special district, BART is not required
20 to comply with certain local ordinances associated with municipal planning and zoning
21 processes, including tree protection ordinances. However, BART seeks to adhere to these
22 policies to the greatest extent feasible. Consequently, the City of Oakland tree protection
23 ordinance is described although these regulations do not define the standards by which impacts
24 of the proposed project are determined.
25 C.10 AIR QUALITY
26 The project area is subject to major air quality planning programs required by both the federal
27 Clean Air Act (CAA), which was last amended in 1990, and the California Clean Air Act of 1988
28 (CCAA). Both the federal and state statutes provide for ambient air quality standards to protect
29 public health, timetables for progressing toward achieving and mamtaining ambient standards,
30 and the development of plans to guide the air quality improvement efforts of state and local
31 agencies. National and California ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) have
32 been established for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide
33 (S02), and for particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PMlO) or 2.5 microns (PM2.5) in
34 diameter. 2 California ambient standards tend to be at least as protective as national ambient
35 standards and are often more stringent. The NAAQS and CAAQS are listed in Table C-2.
There are also ambient standards for several other pollutants (e.g., lead, sulfates, etc.), but these other pollutants are not ilis> unm\I
in this document because the construction sources associated with this project would emit negligible amounts (or none) ol these
other pollutants. Emissions of these pollutants from the project would be minimal and would not cause an adverse impad
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-13
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
Table C-2. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards a
National Standards b
Concentration c
Status
Concentration c
Status
Ozone (0 3 )
1-hour
0.09 ppm
(180 ug/m 3 )
N
0.12 ppm
(235 ug/m 3 )
8-hour
0.08 ppm
(157 ug/m 3 )
U
Carbon monoxide (CO)
8-hour
9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m 3 )
A
9 ppm
(10 mg/m 3 )
A*
1-hour
20 ppm
(23 mg/ m 3 )
A
35 ppm
(40 mg/m 3 )
A
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Annual
0.053 ppm
(100 ug/m 3 )
A
1-hour
0.25 ppm
(470 ug/m 3 )
A
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Annual
80 ug/m 3
(0.03 ppm)
24-hour
0.04 ppm
(105 ug/m 3 )
A
365 ug/m 3
(0.14 ppm)
A
3-hour
—
—
1,300 ug/m 3
(0.5 ppm)
A
l-nour
0.25 ppm
(655 ug/m 3 )
A
lXCbpiiaUlc I ctl LlCUldlc
Matter (PM10)
rVlUlUal
20 ug/m 3f
Ng
50 ug/m 3h
A
24-hour
ov ug/ nv
IN
LdV ug/ m- 3
T T
U
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual
Iz ug/m JI
J.N6
la ug/ m- 5 )
I T
U
z^-nour
65 ug/ m 3 k
U
Lead
30-day
1.5 ug/m 3
A
Quarterly
1.5 ug/m 3
A
Hydrogen sulfide
1-hour
0.03 ppm
(42 m tr / m 3 1
U
Sulfates
Z4-nour
25 ug/m 3
A
Vinyl chloride
24-hour
0.010 ppm
(26 ug/m 3 )
No
information
available
Visibility reducing
particles
8-hour
(10 AM to 6
PM PST)
(See note 1)
U
A=Attainment N=Nonattainment U= Unclassified ppm=parts per million mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter
ug/m3=micrograms per cubic meter
Notes: a. California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1 hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that
are not to be exceeded. The standards for SO2 (24-hour), sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride
standards are not to be equaled or exceeded,
b. National standards, other than O3 and those based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a
year. The Ch standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly
average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one.
C-14
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
Table C-2. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status
c. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are
based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius ( C) and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters (mm) of
mercury (1,013.2 miUibars). All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25 C
and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of
pollutant per mole of gas.
d. In August 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to nonattainment-unclassified for the national 1-hour ozone
standard.
e. In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard.
f. Measured as an arithmetic mean. New standard promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on
June 20, 2002.
g. In June 2002, ARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10.
h. Measured as an arithmetic mean.
i. New standard promulgated by ARB on June 20, 2002.
j. Three-year average.
k. Three-year average of 95 th percentile measurements.
1. In sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when the relative
humidity is less than 70%. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment
due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70
percent.
Source: BAAQMD (2003); ARB (2003b)
1 Federal Requirements
2 The USEPA oversees state and local implementation of CAA requirements. The USEPA sets
3 national emission standards for mobile sources, which include new on-road motor vehicles, off-
4 road vehicles, and marine engines. USEPA also sets national fuel standards.
5 State and Local Requirements
6 Under California law, the responsibility to carry out air pollution control programs is split
between the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and Bay Area Air Quality Management
8 District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD can require stationary sources to obtain permits, as well as
9 impose emission standards and establish operational limits to reduce air emissions.
10 The ARB shares the regulation of mobile sources with the USEPA. The ARB has the authority to
11 set emission standards for on-road motor vehicles and for some classes of off-road mobile
12 sources that are sold in California. The ARB also regulates vehicle fuels to reduce emissions.
13 The ARB sets emission reduction performance requirements for gasoline (California
14 reformulated gasoline) and limits the sulfur and aromatic content of diesel fuel to make it burn
15 cleaner.
16 C.ll SOCIAL IMPACTS
17 Community Character and Cohesion
18 NEPA established that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure tor .ill
19 Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings
20 (42 U.S.C. 4331[b][2]). FHWA in its implementation of NEPA (23 U.S.C. 109[h]) directs that final
21 decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest. This requires
22 taking into account adverse environmental impacts, such as, destruction or disruption ot
23 human-made resources, community cohesion, and the availability of public facilities and
24 services.
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
C-15
Appendix C - Regulatory Environment
1 Environmental Justice Regulations
2 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice. President Clinton signed Executive Order
3 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
4 Populations, on February 11, 1994. The Executive Order directs each federal agency to pursue
5 the achievement of environmental justice as part of their respective missions, by identifying and
6 addressing disproportionately high, adverse human health or environmental effects of its
7 programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
8 United States.
9 National Environmental Policy Act. The Presidential Memorandum that accompanies the
10 Executive Order calls for a variety of actions (EPA 1994). Four specific actions are directed at
11 NEPA-related activities, including:
12 1. Each federal agency must analyze environmental effects, including human health,
13 economic, and social effects, of federal actions, including effects on minority
14 communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA.
15 2. Mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in EAs, EISs, or Records of Decision (RODs),
16 whenever feasible, should address significant and adverse environmental effects of
17 proposed federal actions on minority communities and low-income communities.
18 3. Each federal agency must provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA
19 process, including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation
20 with affected communities and improving the accessibility of public meetings, official
21 documents, and notices to affected communities.
22 4. In reviewing other agencies' proposed actions under Section 309 of the CAA, EPA
23 must ensure that the agencies have fully analyzed environmental effects on minority
24 communities and low-income communities, including human health, social, and
25 economic effects.
26 Federal Highway Administration. The project would be funded, in part with federal funds, by
27 the FHWA through the Caltrans Local Assistance Program. Accordingly, FHWA guidance for
28 evaluating transportation-related Environmental Justice impacts was consulted for this project.
29 The FHWA has issued Interim Guidance entitled Addressing Environmental Justice in
30 Environmental Assessments/Environmental Impact Statements, which implements DOT guidance,
31 and therefore Executive Order 12898 and EPA guidance (FHWA 2001; EPA 1998; DOT 1997).
32 The Interim Guidance specifies that treatment of Environmental Justice in NEPA documents
33 should identify minority populations, identify coordination and access to information and
34 participation, and identify adverse project effects on low-income and minority populations.
35 California Department of Transportation. All considerations under Title VI of the Civil Rights
36 Act of 1964 and related statutes have also been included in this project. The Department's
37 commitment to upholding the mandates of Title VI is evidenced by its Title VI Policy Statement,
38 signed by the Director, which can be found in Appendix B of this EA.
C-16
BART Seismic Retrofit EA
Appendix D
Section 4(f) Correspondence
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
CALIFORNIA DIVISION
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100
Sacramento, CA. 95814
October 22, 2004
IN REPLY REFER TO
HDA-CA
File # 04-ALA-00-BRT
Document # P50960
Mr. Bijan Sartipi, Director
Caltrans District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Attn: Ms. JoAnn Cullom, Office of Local Assistance
Dear Mr. Sartipi:
Subj: Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Seismic Retrofit Project - Section 4(f) Analysis
This is in response to the October 19, 2004, letter from BART regarding the Section 4(f) issue, as
it pertains to the BART Seismic Retrofit Project. The recreational resources in question are the
Hardy Dog Park and the 7 th Street Section of the San Francisco Bay Trail. Per 49 USC 303 and
23 CFR 771.135(b), it is the responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
make a determination regarding the application of Section 4(f). We have reviewed the submittal
under BART's October 19, 2004, letter and have determined there is no Section 4(f) use
associated with this project.
The Hardy Dog Park was established on state right-of-way and is subject to the terms and
conditions of the lease executed on September 11, 1991, between the City of Oakland (lessee)
and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The lessee's rights to occupy the
property can be revoked at any time ". . .when any portion. . . is required for State highway or
other public transportation purposes as determined by the . . .Department of Transportation. . .".
The terms of the lease make it clear that Hardy Dog Park occupies state right-of-way on a
temporary basis. Hardy Dog Park is not a publicly-owned public park and not a Section 4(f)
resource; therefore, no Section 4(f) use can occur.
The scope of the project includes work adjacent to the 7 th Street Section of the San Francisco
Bay Trail. That portion is within the jurisdiction of the Port of Oakland. It is anticipated the
work in this section will take approximately two months and that a detour to the adjacent 7 l
Street alignment will be in effect for the Bay Trail. Mr. James McGrath's letter dated
September 20, 2004, establishes concurrence from the official having jurisdiction that the
proposed project will not substantially impair the continuity of the bikeway. Since the other
terms of 23 CFR 771.137(p)(7) "Temporary Occupancy" are met, there is no Section 4(0 use.
It will be the responsibility of the project sponsor to comply with the measures on Page 2 of
Mr. McGrath's letter and consult with the Port as requested.
2
The information supporting these findings should be included in the 'Social Impacts' section of
the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). For reference, see Page 4 of my October 14, 2004,
letter with comments on the Draft EA. Also see our Technical Advisory 6640.8A, Page 21,
"4. Social Impacts" [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t664008a.htm ].
Please contact Steve Healow, Senior Project Engineer, at (916) 498-5849 if you have any
questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
I si Steve Healow
For
Gene K. Fong
Division Administrator
cc: w/o Enclosure (by E-mail)
Gary Winters, Caltrans HQ
Terry Abbott, Caltrans HQ
Germaine Belanger, Caltrans HQ
Cindy Adams, Caltrans D-4
Dale Jones, Caltrans D-4
RocQuel Johnson, Caltrans D-4
Shirley Ng, BART
Janie Layton, BART
Brett Gainer, FHWA
Joan Bollman, FHWA
SHealow/at
J B A R T
DO
James Fang
PRESIDENT
Oan Richard
VICE-PRESIDENT
Thomas E. Margro
GENERAL MANAGER
DIRECTORS
Oan Richard
1ST DISTRICT
Joel Keller
2ND OISTRICT
Roy Nakadegawa
3RD OISTRICT
Carole Ward Allen
4TH DISTRICT
Peter W.Snyder
5TH DISTRICT
Thomas M. Blalock
6TH DISTRICT .
Lynette Sweet
7TH DISTRICT
James Fang
BTH DISTRICT
Tom Radulovich
9TH DISTRICT
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
300 Lakeside Drive, P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688 P-flAI? 'V?
(510)464-6000 U ^^*° '
October 19, 2004
Mr. Steve Healow
Federal Highway Administration
650 Capital Mall Room 4-100
Sacramento, CA 95814-2724
Subject: BART Seismic Retrofit Project
Section 4(f) Information
Dear Mr. Healow:
On our meeting on October 8, 2004, additional information was requested related
to the Section 4(f) analysis concerning the 7 th Street section of the Bay Trail and
the Hardy Dog Park. Enclosed is the information clarifying the Hardy Dog Park
ownership. The area to be effected by this project is owned by the State of
California. A copy of the joint use agreement between BART and Caltrans is
attached. The area in question is referenced as parcel J-22 in the agreement. A
copy of the lease between the City of Oakland and Caltrans (Marler- Johnson Park
Lease) for the use of the area is also enclosed. Per paragraph number 5 of the
Marler- Johnson park lease, Caltrans has maintained access to the area for
highways purposes and maintenance. A meeting on September 22, 2004 with
Caltrans right of way personnel confirmed that BART would need to send a letter
to Caltrans a couple of months in advance for approval to close the Hardy Dog
Park for retrofit work so that Caltrans in turn could notify the City.
In terms of what would be affected, BART would need to close approximately
one-half of the dog park for approximately one month. The area outside the dog
park contains two full basketball courts, which would need to be closed for
approximately two months due to retrofit and access by the contractor. This
information will be clarified and reflected in the revised draft environmental
assessment document.
We have also sent letters to the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland in
August 2004 concerning the Seismic Retrofit Project to comply with Section 4(0
requirements. Subsequently, we have received a letter from the Port of Oakland
concerning the 7 th Street section of the Bay Trail that the BART Seismic Retrofit
Project does not constitute a "use" within the meaning of Section 4(0 with two
conditions. Please advise us as to how we should incorporate these conditions
into the environmental assessment; whether as a mitigation or into the proieet
description. (See enclosure.)
www.bart.gov
2
004237
I believe this is the information required for your determination as to whether a
Section 4(f) analysis is required. Please inform us of your decision so we can
proceed with changes to the draft environmental assessment.
Should you require further information, please contact me at 510-287-4927 or
Janie Layton at 510-874-7423.
Sincerely,
Shirley Ng K^JJ
Deputy Project Manager
Seismic Retrofit Capital Program
BART-BTOA-04-027
Enc.
Cc w/o ends:
J. Bollman (FHWA)
R.Monroe (Caltrans)
A. Malkin (SAIC)
T. Horton
J. Layton
J. Cullom (Caltrans)
PDCC
An Employee -Owned Company
August 27, 2004
Jim McGrath
Environmental Manager
Port of Oakland
530 Water Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: BART Seismic Retrofit Project EA - Section 4(f) Resource Analysis of A Segment of
the San Francisco Bay Trail
Dear Mr. McGrath:
SAIC is pleased to submit this letter and enclosures on behalf of BART, which is
currently preparing jointly with FWHA and Caltrans District 4 an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed BART Seismic Retrofit Project. The EA is expected to
be released for public review in early 2005. As part of the EA, a Section 4(f) Resource
Analysis was prepared according to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Act of 1966 (re-codified in 1983 at 49 U.S.C., §303), which requires disclosure of
publicly owned park and recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic
resources in the project area that would potentially be subject to Section 4(f) use by the
project.
This letter is intended to inform you that the proposed project will require consutrction
activities within a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail under Port jurisdiction. BART
has determined that, for the reasons described below, the temporary occupancy of this
segment of the Bay Trail by the proposed project does not constitute a "use" within the
meaning of Section 4(f), as defined by the Section 4(f) implenting regulations, 23 C.F.R. §
77.135(p)(7): (i) the duration of the occupancy will be temporary and ownership of the
land will not change; (ii) the scope of the work is minor; (iii) no permanent adverse
physical impacts, or temporary or permanent interference with the ativities or purposes
of the resource, are anticipated; and (iv) the land will be returned to a condition at least
as good as that which existed prior to the project. By this letter, BART respectfully
requests the Port's agreement that the above conditions are met, pursuant to 23 C.F.R. §
77.135(p)(7)(v).
The following briefly siimmarizes the BART Seismic Retrofit Project, identifies the
proposed temporary occupancy of the segment of the Bay Trail, describes brieflv how
Science Applications International Corporation
525 Anacapa Street I Santa Barbara, C A 93101 I tel: 805.564.6100 I fax: 805.965.6944 I www.salc.com
Jim McGrath
August 27, 2004
Page 2
implementation of the project would impact this land, and siimmarizes the mitigation
measures in place to reduce potentially substantial impacts to minimal levels. Copies of
the relevant background information from the Draft EA (currently under preparation),
including the Project Description and Section 4(f) Resources Analysis are enclosed for
your review.
Project Summary
The project consists of the portion of the BART system between the west portal of the
Berkeley Hills Tunnel in Oakland, to the Montgomery Street Station in San Francisco.
The BART facilities being seismically retrofitted include the Transbay Tube, through
which trains run under San Francisco Bay, ventilation structures on either end of the
Transbay Tube that allow air circulation within the Tube, aerial guideways (tracks
elevated above the ground), and three BART stations (Rockridge, MacArthur, and West
Oakland). Detailed descriptions of the seismic retrofit techniques are provided in the
EA (under preparation). The seismic retrofit techniques are designed to contain
movement of the BART system vertically, laterally, and longitudinally in the event of a
strong earthquake. The project is tentatively scheduled to commence construction
activities in fall 2005, with project completion anticipated summer 2011.
Project Use of Section 4(f) Resources and Measures to Minimize Harm
San Francisco Bay Trail. The project would require seismic strengthening of the aerial
guideway located near the east portal of the Transbay Tube. The columns to be
seismically retrofitted are located less than 3 feet from the edge of the San Francisco Bay
Trail where it passes by BART's aerial guideway. Excavation for construction of
expanded foundations for the columns could abut or extend into (beneath) the trail
alignment. In addition, construction-related high noise levels, vibration, localized air
quality impacts (i.e., fugitive dust), and potential safety hazards (i.e., from moving
equipment, excavation) would preclude use of the trail in the vicinity of the construction
work and constitute temporary occupancy. Other project impacts at this location
include the reduction of visual quality (i.e., temporary blockage of visual sightlines
along the trail, removal of landscaping). Because of the close proximity of the aerial
guideway to the trail, construction access and activity would require temporary closure
of the adjacent segment of the trail for approximately 2 months.
Occupancy of the trail segment would be temporary, and no portion of the trail would
be permanently incorporated into the project. The project would not result in
permanent adverse physical changes, nor would it interfere with the purpose or use of
the trail by pedestrians, hikers, or bicyclists. Creating a detour around the trail segment
that would be impacted by project construction, for the duration of construction in this
location, will fully mitigate the temporary occupancy.
Jim McGrath
August 27, 2004
Page 3
Mitigation Measures. Incorporation of these mitigation measures will minimize harm
along the San Francisco Bay Trail segment within the project area:
• Provide a temporary detour for the segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail
affected by the anticipated 2 months of construction at this location. The
recommended detour route is within the adjacent 7th Street right-of-way.
• Repair or replace any portion of the paved trail and associated fencing and
landscaping damaged or removed by the project.
The project received an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) from the California state legislature, which will expire in June 2005. Therefore,
to meet the tight project schedule, we ask that you provide the Port's agreement that the
conditions for temporary occupancy under 23 C.F.R. § 77.135(p)(7)(v) and any comments
on the project's effects on the affected segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, by
September 20, 2004 (an approximately 3-week review period).
Thank you in advance for your comments and adherence to this schedule. If you have
any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (805) 564-6156, or by email at
malkina@saic.com .
Sincerely,
Science applications International Corporation
Western Water and Environmental Resources Division
Alison Malkin
Deputy Project Manager
cc: Janie Lay ton, BART
Tom Horton, BART
Shirley Ng, BART
Norman Carlin, Pillsbury Winthrop
Anne Doehne, SAIC
Enclosures
One copy each of Project Description (Chapter 2) and Section 4(f) Resources Analysis,
prepared for Draft EA (under preparation)
K:\WORK\BART\Seismic Retrofit EA\Correspondence\AM - 08-26-04 Section 4(f) Letter Port OAK.doc
PORT OF OAKLAND
September 20, 2004
Ms. Alison Malkin
Deputy Project Manager
SAIC
525 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: BART SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT EA-SECTION 4(F) RESOURCE
ANALYSIS OF THE 7 th STREET BAY TRAIL ALIGNMENT
Dear Ms Malkin:
I am writing you this letter in response to your request that the Port review the BART
Seismic Retrofit Project plans to perform construction in proximity to the 7 th Street Bay
Trail located within the jurisdiction of the Port of Oakland in Oakland, California. It is our
understanding that as part of the Environmental Assessment under preparation, a
Section 4(f) Resource Analysis was prepared according to Section 4(f) of the
Department of transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, which requires disclosure of publicly
owned recreation areas in the BART Seismic Retrofit project vicinity that would be
subject to use by the project.
Based on a review the project description and the recommended impact mitigation
measures provided in your letter dated August 27, 2004; the Port is in agreement that
the BART Seismic Retrofit Project does not constitute a "use" within the meaning of
Section 4(f). This is assuming that the following conditions will be met:
1 . The duration of the occupancy of the 7 th street Bay Trail will be temporary and the
land ownership will not change;
2. The scope of the Retrofit construction work will be minor;
3. No permanent adverse physical impacts, or temporary or permanent interference
with the activities or purpose of the Bay Trail are anticipated; and
4. The land will be returned to a condition at least as good as that which exh
prior to the project.
D:\sdudleyWy Documents\Lauren\BART Seismic Retrofit Section 4f analysis 1 )-20-im,J;k'^'2 I 20<U
530 Water Street ■ Jack London Square ■ P.O. Box 2064 ■ Oakland, California 94604-2064
Telephone: (510) 627-1100 ■ Facsimile: (510) 627-1826 ■ Web Page: www.portofoakland com
Letter: Ms. Alison Malkin - SAIC September 20, 2004
Re: Bart Seismic Retrofit Project Ea-Section 4(F) Page 2
Resource Analysis Of The 7 th Street Bay Trail Alignment
In order to ensure that these conditions are met, the Port requests that the following
measures are implemented to further mitigate any potential impacts:
1. Please submit all construction plans and coordinate the construction schedule
with the Port Engineering Design and Construction departments.
2. Please coordinate the alignment of the temporary detour of the trail and the
associated directional signage with the Port Environmental Planning department.
Please call Ms. Lauren Eisele at 510-627-1250 if you have any questions.
cc: Lauren Eisele, Port Environmental Planning
Mr. Ron Nelson, Port Engineering Construction
Imee Osantowski, Port Engineering Design
Janie Layton, BART
Tom Horton, BART
Shirley Ng, BART
Sincerely,
Liames McGrath
Environmental Planning Manager
D: sdudlcy\My Documcnts\Lauren\BART Seismic Retrofit Section 41' analysis 9-20-04. doc9/2 I /20O4
An Employee-Owned Company
August 27, 2004
Claudia Cappio
Development Director
City of Oakland, Community and Economic Development Agency
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: BART Seismic Retrofit Project EA - Section 4(f) Resource Analysis of Hardy Park
Dear Ms. Cappio:
SAIC is pleased to submit this letter and enclosures on behalf of BART, which is
currently preparing jointly with FWHA and Caltrans District 4 an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed BART Seismic Retrofit Project. The EA is expected to
be released for public review in early 2005. As part of the EA, a Section 4(f) Resource
Analysis was prepared according to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Act of 1966 (re-codified in 1983 at 49 U.S.C., §303), which requires disclosure of
ptiblicly owned park and recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic
resources in the project area that would potentially be subject to Section 4(f) use by the
project.
This letter is intended to inform you that the proposed project will require consutrction
activities within Hardy Park, located in the Rockridge neighborhood of Oakland under
City jurisdiction. BART has determined that, for the reasons described below, the
temporary occupancy of Hardy Park by the proposed project does not constitute a "use"
within the meaning of Section 4(f), as defined by the Section 4(f) implenting regulations,
23 C.F.R. § 77.135(p)(7): (i) the duration of the occupancy will be temporary and
ownership of the land will not change; (ii) the scope of the work is minor; (iii) no
permanent adverse physical impacts, or temporary or permanent interference with the
ativities or purposes of the resource, are anticipated; and (iv) the land will be returned to
a condition at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. By this letter,
BART respectfully requests the City's agreement that the above conditions are met
pursuant to 23 C.F.R. § 77.135(p)(7)(v).
The following briefly summarizes the BART Seismic Retrofit Project, identities the
proposed temporary occupancy of Hardy Park, describes briefly how implementation ol
the project would impact this resource, and summarizes the mitigation measures in
Science Applications International Corporation
525 Anacapa Street I Santa Barbara, CA 93101 I tel: 805.564.6100 I fax: 805.965 6944 I www.snic.com
Claudia Cappio
August 27, 2004
Page 2
place to reduce potentially substantial impacts to minimal levels. Copies of the relevant
background information from the Draft EA (currently under preparation), including the
Project Description and Section 4(f) Resources Analysis are enclosed for your review.
Project Summary
The project consists of the portion of the BART system between the west portal of the
Berkeley Hills Tunnel in Oakland, to the Montgomery Street Station in San Francisco.
The BART facilities being seismically retrofitted include the Transbay Tube, through
which trains run under San Francisco Bay, ventilation structures on either end of the
Transbay Tube that allow air circulation within the Tube, aerial guideways (tracks
elevated above the ground), and three BART stations (Rockridge, MacArthur, and West
Oakland). Detailed descriptions of the seismic retrofit techniques are provided in the
EA (under preparation). The seismic retrofit techniques are designed to contain
movement of the BART system vertically, laterally, and longitudinally in the event of a
strong earthquake. The project is tentatively scheduled to commence construction
activities in fall 2005, with project completion anticipated summer 2011.
Project Use of Section 4(f) Resources and Measures to Minimize Harm
Hardy Park. Project implementation at the Claremont Avenue/Hudson Street BART
overpass would require foundation expansions, and new piling and pier cap retrofits on
BART piers (columns) located within Hardy Park. The need for construction access to
the piers, and the associated construction activity, would require closure of the dog park
and basketball facilities for approximately 2 months. Project- related construction would
also result in noise, vibration, and localized air quality impacts (i.e., fugitive dust)
generated by the operation of construction equipment, which would temporarily affect
the park.
Construction occupancy would be temporary, and no portion of the park would be
permanently incorporated into the project. The nature and magnitude of changes to the
park would be minimal, with no permanent adverse physical changes or interference
with the park's purpose. Clean up, regrading, recompacting, and repavement or
relandscaping of the park, to pre-project conditions and replacement of any damaged
fencing, will fully mitigate the temporary occupancy.
Seismic strengthening of two additional piers located within the adjacent roadway
rights-of-way would occur farther from the park boundaries but would require
temporary street closures and ekmination of existing on-street parking. While this could
inhibit public access to the park, it would not be considered substantial impairment of
park utility and would not constitute constructive use or temporary occupancy under
Section 4(f).
|
Claudia Cappio
August 27, 2004
Page 3
Mitigation Measures. Incorporation of these mitigation measures will minimize harm at
Hardy Park:
• Clean up, regrade or recompact, and repave or re-landscape to pre-project
conditions any portion of Hardy Park that is damaged by project construction.
• Replace any fencing removed or altered as a result of the project.
The project received an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) from the California state legislature, which will expire in June 2005. Therefore,
to meet the tight project schedule, we ask that you provide the City's agreement that the
conditions for temporary occupancy under 23 C.F.R. § 77.135(p)(7)(v) and any comments
on the project's effects on Hardy Park, by September 20, 2004 (an approximately 3-week
review period).
Thank you in advance for your comments and adherence to this schedule. If you have
any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (805) 564-6156, or by email at
malkina@saic.com.
Alison Malkin
Deputy Project Manager
cc: Janie Layton, BART
Tom Horton, BART
Shirley Ng, BART
Norman Carlin, Pillsbury Winthrop
Anne Doehne, SAIC
Enclosures
One copy each of Project Description (Chapter 2) and Section 4(f) Resources Analysis,
prepared for Draft EA (under preparation)
Sincerely,
Science applications International Corporation
Western Water and Environmental Resources Division
K:\WORK\BART\Seismic Retrofit EA\Correspondence\AM - 08-27-04 Section 4(f) Letter City OAK.doc
Open Library
