HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attch 2 Exh A-1 Initial Study/MND Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Project:
Iron Horse Linear Park
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
August 2013
EXHIBIT A-1 TO
ATTACHMENT 2
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................2
Contact Person & Sponsor...........................................................................................2
Project Location and Context 2
ProjectDescription........................................................................................................3
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................10
Determination................................................................................................................10
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.......................................................................12
EarlierAnalyses.............................................................................................................13
Discussion of Checklist................................................................................................24
1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................24
2. Agricultural Resources.........................................................................25
3. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis .............................................25
4. Biological Resources 27
5. Cultural Resources................................................................................30
6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................32
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................33
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................33
9. Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................35
10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................37
11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................37
12. Noise.......................................................................................................37
13. Population and Housing 42
14. Public Services 42
15. Recreation...............................................................................................43
16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................43
17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................44
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 45
�w Initial Study Preparers .................................................................................................47
Agencies and Organizations Consulted....................................................................47
References ......................................................................................................................47
Attachment 1-Biological Reconnaissance..................................................................48
Attachment 2- Preliminary Wetland Determination 49
Attachment 3- Acoustic Report...................................................................................50
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location........................................................................................6
Exhibit 2: Site Context..................................................................................................7
Exhibit3: Park Parcel....................................................................................................8
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts
of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a
completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics
addressed in the checklist.
Project Sponsor & Contact Person
City of Dublin
Parks and Community Services Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
(925) 833 6646
Attn: Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator
Project Location and Context
The City of Dublin is comprised of approximately 14.59 square miles of land area
lying in eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or
the Tri-Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include the City of San Ramon and
unincorporated Contra Costa County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County
to the east and west and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to the south.
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and
" other major features.
The proposed Iron Horse Linear Park would be located in the approximate center of
Dublin, generally located between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Dublin-San
Ramon City Limit Line along the Iron Horse Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad
tracks. The current location of the South San Ramon Creek forms the westerly boundary
of the proposed municipal park. Another long, linear parcel of land owned by Alameda
County is adjacent to the easterly boundary of the proposed park site. There is a
portion of the proposed park that is on the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard.
The proposed park is approximately 5,900 feet in length with a width ranging from
approximately 100 to 150 feet. The total size of the park site is approximately 12.13
acres. The park site is Assessor Parcel Number 941-2768-006-02.
City of Dublin Page 2
�` Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Ow
To the west of the proposed park site is a linear parcel of land owned by the
Alameda County Flood Control District ("ACFCD" or "Zone 7 Water Agency"). This
property is occupied by South San Ramon Creek, which is a flood control facility
owned and operated by the District, and to the east of the creek lies the Iron Horse
Regional Trail, which is operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. The total
size of the land owned by Zone 7 is 22.82 acres and includes Assessor Parcel
Numbers 941-0190-001-01, 941-0190-001-05, 941-0191-095-00, 941-0205-001-12, and
941-0205-001-63 (partial).
The park site is vacant and was formerly a Union Pacific railroad track. The tracks
were located on a small berm in the approximate center of the site with
embankments on either side leading to small depressions. A railroad trestle remains
on the site from the previous railroad use.
Vegetation on the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, including but not
limited to wild oats, ryegrass and ripgut brome. A number of oak and willow trees
grow on the site. Due to previous grading of the corridor, a number of jurisdictional
wetlands exist on the proposed park site, totaling 0.51 acres.
Existing vehicle access to the proposed park site is limited to a gate on the north side
of Amador Valley Boulevard. A number of informal pedestrian connections exist
along the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods.
An east-west underground gasoline and petroleum line maintained by Kinder-
"' Morgan runs along the east side of the site, but outside the proposed park area. A
Aw fiber optic underground conduit extends along the west side of the site within the
proposed park area. Additionally there are overhead transmission lines operated by
PG and E that run north and south along the property line shared by Zone 7 and the
proposed park site.
Surrounding land uses include single and multi-family residential dwellings and the
City's Stagecoach Park to the east. The Iron Horse regional multi-use trail and south
San Ramon Creek/Zone 7 Drainage canal to the west, with residential uses and
Dublin High School further to the west. Residential and light industrial uses lie to
the north within San Ramon. Residential uses have been constructed south of the
proposed park site.
Exhibit 2 shows the location of project site with surrounding uses and other features.
Exhibit 3 shows the proposed park parcel of land.
Project Description
Background. Based on the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the central portion
of Dublin is currently underserved with local parks. The City's adopted ratio of
parkland to population is 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. There is an estimated
deficit of 12 acres of parkland in the central portion of Dublin. The availability of the
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
vacant former Union Pacific property to become a City park would reduce this
identified deficit.
Proposed Park. Although no specific park design has been formally selected by the City
of Dublin, the City has been exploring multiple concepts for future uses that could
occur in the park and has developed a concept site plan with community participation
and support. The City is aware of the close proximity of residential uses along the
corridor and the concept site plan has a number of low-intensity uses that include a mix
of quieter, passive uses near residential areas with a few nodes of more active uses. A
limited number of small structures would be constructed on the park site, and several of
the following uses are likely to be included in the future park plan:
• Re-aligned Iron Horse Regional Trail
• Realigned South San Ramon Creek
Expanded Wetland Areas with Boardwalk Trails and Wildlife Viewing Platforms
• Children's play area
• Gathering space/outdoor classroom(s)
• A nature interpretative area
• Picnic areas
` Community garden
• Children's garden
• A riparian forest
Protected and/or preserved wetlands
• Public restrooms
• Parking area
The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive community outreach program to
identify park designs and additional uses may ultimately be selected. The proposed
park will likely include providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages with surrounding
residential areas east and west of the site as well as a connection to Dublin High School
and Stagecoach Park, a local City park.
The park also is also expected to include realignment of the South San Ramon Creek
and relocation of the Iron Horse Trail so that the creek and the trail could have a
curvilinear route and pathway through the park rather than being linear and adjacent to
the park (as currently exists). If the final park plan were to include the realignment of
the creek and trail, the parcels that currently comprise the creek channel and regional
trail would continue to be owned by the Zone 7, although they would be integrated into
the park development and would function as an extension of the space.
A small vehicle parking lot is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Blvd.
Potable water and sewer lines would need to be extended to portions of the future park
to support public restrooms. Recycled water lines would also be extended into portions
of the project site for irrigation of future landscaped areas.
The operational hours of the park are expected to be daily, sunrise to sunset.
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
r
City pprovals. The park site does not currently have a land use designation on the
City's General Plan Land Use Map. The Zone 7 parcels are partially designated
"Stream Corridor," but a portion of the parcels are also without a land use designation.
An Amendment to the General Plan will be required to designate the park site as
"Parks/Public Recreation," and the currently undesignated Zone 7 parcels should be
designated "Open Space." Rezoning to the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District
is also proposed to ensure consistency between the amended General Plan and site
zoning.
The new zoning district and new land use designation will allow Zone 7 to continue
to operate and maintain South San Ramon Creek as a flood control facility and will
� allow the Iron Horse Regional Trail to exist in its current location, including
maintenance activities for the channel and access roads, and any future needs
(although none are currently planned) for small facilities such as new gage houses or
floodplain areas.
The project also includes an amendment to the City's Park and Recreation Master
Plan to include the proposed park in the Master Plan.
a
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
S A N e A a t o Martinez
4 4
.8 AY
San 6eo Concord
Rafael
Richmond
580
Mill 101
Valley Walnut
24 Creek
4iM Berkeley
680
on
Oakland
q1 580
San Francisco �eaa
S a N San
w Leandro
DUBLIN
FRANCISCO eeo seo
Daly
City Livermore
BAY
101 Pleasanton
Hayward
... r 92
v
280
San Mateo
Fremont
84
AW
j Newark
ffi
Redwood
City
�r Half
Moon 84
... M Ba y Palo
o ;
# Alto
o eeo
0
Z w
a 0 65 tot
U 680
i
y
2eo Sunnyvale
m
Santa Clara
an
x Jose 101
T
u 17
p
�aa
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
IRON HORSE PARK PROJECT o z 4 s 8 10 miles
INITIAL STUDY
patk .
Aj-
so
AW
xx mbY ro*'
fr
iM i 5,..
1
s
a 1
41, Ok
aw
.art ����� �,: £s� �yz'�• .�
� `�k4� Fyn•�.at'r���` "�,
z
r
Ao a t ry
0,*�,%
� � ✓ter �
W.
Xw
a�
X ,v3 a`
a� CSC" Jg
3 w9
Exhibit 2
CITY OF DUBLIN
IRON HORSE PARK PROJECT LOCAL CONTEXT
INITIAL STUDY
r '
� `'- ' `. to 'rr+.' ." •
CL
AlW CL
CL
CL
As
CD
Ilk
ty
Ci
XX
Nk,K � R col � �f�• �'.• 1
1
(1
rx . s � �1/ � \�v. ' iti C •
a }• �144�,
4
- c
1. Project description: Construction of a linear park, potential South San
Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse
Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres
of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as
the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water
Agency). Proposed uses are primarily passive, but
would also include some areas of higher activity
recreation uses. Pedestrian and bicycle connections
would be made with surrounding neighborhoods and
Dublin High School. The development of the park
may also include realignment of the Iron Horse Trail
and the existing Zone 7 watercourse within the park.
Construction of the park would require approval of a
General Plan Amendment and rezoning by the City of
Dublin as well as an amendment to the City of Dublin
Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
3. Contact persons: Rosemary Alex, Parks & Facilities Development
Coordinator
4. Project location: East side of the Iron Horse Multi-Use Trail, generally
between Amador Valley Boulevard and City Limit
5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin
6. General Plan designation: Existing: "Stream Corridor' (Zone 7 Water Agency
parcels) and Undesignated (A portion of Zone 7
�•• parcels and Union Pacific-future City of Dublin-
parcels)
Proposed: "Open Space" (A portion of Zone 7 parcels)
�rw and "Parks/Public Recreation" (Union Pacific—
future City of Dublin- parcels)
7. Zoning: Existing: Unclassified
Proposed: PD-Planned Development
S. Other public agency required approvals:
- Zone 7 Water Agency (encroachment onto District property)
- California Department of Fish & Wildlife (potential Streambed Alteration
Agreement)
- Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Certification)
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 Wetland Permit)
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
aftw
X Aesthetics - Agricultural X Air Quality/GHG
Resources Emissions
X Biological X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils
Resources
X Hazards and X Hydrology/Water - Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources X Noise - Population/
Housing
- Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/
Circulation
X Utilities/Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
VW document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
„ mitigated.” An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project.
r
Signature: � i Date:
Z..
Printed Name: z ' -3 �^ a<°U� For: _ c? 7rrV�-w
n
i
I
I
I
City of Dublin Page 11
Initial Study/Iron Norse Park Project August 2013
■
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that
are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
vow parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
M does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a
fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will
not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) In some instances, an "LS, Less-than-Significant Impact" response may reflect
that a specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA
document and appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a
previous CEQA document to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
In a few instances, some previously analyzed topics have been determined to
be significant and unavoidable and mitigation of such impact to a less-than-
significant level is not feasible.
3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
4) 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant
impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5) 'Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
�' implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how
*' they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in
parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at
the end of the checklist)
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or Negative Declaration. Reference CEQA Guideline Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). This
Initial Study does not rely on earlier CEQA analyses.
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following Potentially Less Than Less than No
the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
1.Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista? (Source: 1,9)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including
but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X
(Source: 1,9)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
(Source: 9)
. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime X
views in the area?(Source: 9)
14„ 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 1,9, 11)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X
or a Williamson Act contract?(Source: 1, 11)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which,due to their location or nature,could
result in conversion of farmland to a non- X
agricultural use?(Source: 1,9)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?(7) X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
that,due to their location or nature,could result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural X
use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest
use?(7)
City of Dublin Page 14
' " Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
3.Air Quality(Where available,the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
Ow applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 11) X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
d' substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation?(Source: 2)
" c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable X
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
" concentrations? (Source: 2, 11) X
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X
number of people?(Source: 9)
4.Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly
through habitat modifications,on any species
identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special X
-- status species in local or regional plans,policies
or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 3,9)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,policies or X
w regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 3,4,9)
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to X
marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct
removal,filling,hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 3,4)
,. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
" species or with established native resident or X
migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 3,9)
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources,such as tree X
protection ordinances?(Source: 1, 11)
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,Natural Community X
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 8)
5.Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in X
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 11)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource X
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1,4)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource,site or unique geologic X
feature? (Source: 1,9)
d) Disturb any human remains,including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery?(1,9) X
6.Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
�. substantial adverse effects,including the risk of
loss,injury,or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated
on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist or based on other X
substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 1,
11)
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking(1, 11) X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X
liquefaction? (1, 11)
iv) Landslides? (1,2,4,5) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Source: 1,9, 11)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable,or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- X
or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 9)
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), X
creating substantial risks to life or property?
A" (Source: 11)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available X
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 10)
7.Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either
directly or indirectly,that may have a significant X
impact on the environment? (Source: 5)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the X
emissions of greenhouse gases? (Source: 5)
8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,use or X
disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 6)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable X
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 6)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of X
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 6, 11)
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec.65962.5 and,as a result, X
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?(Source: 11)
O,„ e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use X
airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 11)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for X
�. people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 11)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? X
(Source: 108)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to X
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 10)
9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 10, I l) X
"w b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (17)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area,including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river,in a manner X
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-or off-site? (Source: 10)
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas,including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river,or substantially X
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?(Source: 9, 10)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide X
' substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 4,7)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
(Source: 10, 11)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other X
flood delineation map? (Source: 11)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood X
flows? (Source: 11)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
w loss,injury,and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a X
levee or dam? (11)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (9) X
10.Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
(Source: 1)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project(including but not limited to the X
general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?(Source: 1)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? X
(11)
11.Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the X
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1)
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X
or other land use plan? (Source: 1)
12.Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the X
local general plan or noise ordinance,or
applicable standards of other agencies? (7)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X
levels? (Source: 7)
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing X
levels without the project? (7)
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X
levels existing without the project? (7)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use X
airport,would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels?(11)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip,would the project expose people X
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 11)
13.Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1,9)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere? (9)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of X
housing elsewhere?(Source: 9)
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
A
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Aw Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
w
Mitigation
14.Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities,need for new or physically altered
government facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service rations,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services?(Sources: 10)
Fire protection X
Police protection X
Schools x
Parks X
Other public facilities X
Solid Waste X
15.Recreation:
a)Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 8, 11)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 8, 11)
16.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system,taking X
into account all modes of transportation,
including mass transit and all non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation
system,including but not limited to
intersections,streets,highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit?
(10)
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for X
designated roads or highways? (10)
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
40
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in the location that results in substantial X
safety risks? (11)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X
intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm
equipment?(10)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?(10) X
f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs
regarding public transit,bicycle or pedestrian
facilities or otherwise decrease the performance X
of safety of such facilities?(10)
17.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control X
ZOO Board? (10)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
40 of existing facilities,the construction of which X
could cause significant environmental effects?
(10)
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm X
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (10)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources,or are new or expanded entitlements
4" needed? (10)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve X
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (10)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (11)
g)Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste? (11)
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
w Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
18.Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment,substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, X
,,. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a
" plant or animal community,substantially reduce
. the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited,but cumulatively
o considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings,either directly or indirectly? X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1) City of Dublin General Plan,updated through February,2013
2) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
3) LSA,Biological Resources Reconnaissance,February,2013
4) WRA,Wetland Delineation Report,May 2013
5) City of Dublin Climate Action Plan,October 2010
6)Treadwell & Rollo,Phase I ESA,March 2013
7) RGDL Acoustic Report,August 2013
8) City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan,2006
9) Site Visit
10) Discussion with City staff or service provider
imp
11) Other Source
City of Dublin Page 23
°" Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M:Less Than Significant After Mitigation
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
NI: No Impact
1. Aesthetics
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The site provides limited
views of the Dougherty Hills area just east of the site. Most views from the site are
limited by existing fences along the corridor. If approved and constructed, there
would be no changes to scenic vistas or views to or from the future park site since
there only limited and small-scale recreation structures constructed on the site that
would not significantly block existing views. The future park would expand
opportunities for residents and visitors to access views of the Dougherty Hills and
no impact would occur with respect to this topic.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. Although a
park development plan has yet to be finalized, the intent of the park is to preserve
natural features, including wetlands and trees, to the fullest extent feasible.
State and County designated scenic highways in the Dublin Planning area include
Tassajara Road and the I-580 freeway. The project site is not located adjacent to or
near either of these two roadways.
There would therefore be no impact with substantial damane to scenic resources,
including any adjacent to a scenic highway.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The intent of
the proposed project is to enhance the condition of the former railroad area
through enhanced landscaping, installation of recreational facilities and improving
vehicular and pedestrian access to the park. This would not represent a
degradation of the visual character of the site and no impacts would result.
d) Create new sources of significant amounts of light or glare? LS/M. No lights
currently exist within the proposed park property. Although a final design of
the park is not completed, exterior lighting fixtures for safety and security
could be installed. If not properly mitigated, light fixtures could cast unwanted
light and glare onto adjacent properties. This would be a significant impact and
will be reduced to a level of less-than-significance be adherence to the
following measure:
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Mitigation Measure AES-1 (light and glare impacts). As part of the
Building Permit submittal, the City shall submit lighting details and a
photometric plan for review and approval. At minimum, the submittal
shall include:
a) A lighting plan illustrating the approximate location of all exterior
light fixtures to be placed on the project site.
b) Design details for cut-off lenses on the fixtures or other similar
techniques to directed light to the intended area of illumination and
to prevent off-site glare impacts on project site and adjacent
buildings and properties.
c) A photometric plan demonstrating lighting levels required to
provide adequate safety and security onsite and also demonstrating
that light will not spill over the site onto adjacent streets or
properties.
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Project Impacts
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or uses, conflict with a
Williamson Act contract or convert prune farmland to a non-agricultural use? NI. The
project site is a former railroad corridor and was not historically used or zoned
for agricultural production. No Williamson Act Land Conservation contracts
are present on the site. There would be no impacts with respect to this topic.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? NI. No
forested lands are present on the project and no impact would result with respect
to this topic.
-O» e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a
non forest use? NI. See item "d," above.
a
3. Air Quality
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS.
Although the proposed park is not currently designated on the Dublin General
Plan which serves as the basis of the regional Clean Air Plan, the proposed
park would further goals of the Clean Air Plan by encouraging bicycle and
pedestrian use in Dublin. The proposed park would not increase the
population of Dublin or add other uses that would be associated with
significant vehicle trips. No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to
conflicts to or obstructions of the Clean Air Plan.
b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable
air pollutants? LS/M. Although the operation of the proposed park, once
City of Dublin Page 25
August 2013
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project
VA
constructed, would not generate significant air emissions since minimal vehicle
trips would be generated (see Transportation and Circulation section of this Initial
Study), construction activities could generate potentially significant emissions.
These impacts would include generation of fugitive dust from site grading and
from construction equipment that could impact nearby residents, users of Iron
Horse Trail and Stagecoach Park and students at Dublin High School. Adherence
to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1. The project construction contractor shall
adhere to the following measures to reduce fugitive dust and construction
equipment fumes. These measures shall be included within project plans
and specifications that are reviewed through the Building Permit and Site
Improvement Permit process.
1) During grading and construction, all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking
areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day, as necessary, to prevent
wind-blown dust.
2) Stockpiled earthern material shall be covered.
3) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site
shall be covered.
4) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed.
5) Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or areas shall be limited to 15 mph.
6) Idling times shall be minimized by either shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? LS/M. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 will reduce short-term construction air quality impacts
to a less-than-significant level. No significant pollutants are anticipated to be
generated with respect to long-term operational use of the proposed since
proposed uses would be primarily passive recreational uses.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NI. None of the
proposed uses within the park would generate substantial amounts of odors that
could affect nearby residents. No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to
this topic.
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
4. Biological Resources
' Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species?
LS/M. The following analysis is based on a biological reconnaissance of the site conducted by LSA biological consultants ("Results of Reconnaissance-level
Biological Survey for Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin, Alameda County,"
dated February 26, 2013). This report is included as Attachment 1 to this Initial
Study. This report is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at
the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours
Site conditions. The dominant topographical feature on the site is an abandoned
UPRR railroad grade topped with crushed gravel and cobble. Both embankments
of the grade are covered in non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oat
(Avena fatua), rye grass (Festuca perennis), and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus).
Beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), a native grass, is present in small amounts.
Non-native ruderal forbs growing throughout the parcel include bristly ox-tongue
(Picris echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and mustard (Brassica sp.). Several
aw linear depressions in the borrow ditches on both sides of the railroad grade were
full of water during the January 2013 survey. The largest of these was an
approximately 450-foot-long by 50-foot-wide pool in the eastern borrow ditch
approximately 765 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. Seasonal wetland plant
species observed growing in and around these depressions include spiny
cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), curly dock (Rumex
crispus), fat-hen (Atriplex prostrata), nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and swamp
prickle grass (Crypsis schoenoides).
A stand of woody vegetation dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and
sandbar willow (Salix exigua) is present on the western side of the railroad grade
approximately 300 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. A few immature valley
oaks (Quercus lobata) and coast live oaks (Q. agrifolia) grow along the top of the
" grade adjacent to the willow stand. Several oaks and willows are also present on
the eastern side of the grade north of the larger stand of riparian woodland. A few
small trees and shrubs of various native and non-native species grow along the
western site boundary at the southern end of the parcel near Alamo Creek. Species
observed in this area include walnut (Juglans sp.), Italian buckthorn (Rhamnus
alaternus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), and coast
live oak.
Special-status plants. Based on the results of the CNDDB search and observed
habitat conditions in October 2006 and January 2013, LSA identified four special-
status plant species as potentially occurring in the vicinity (see Table A located in
Attachment 1). Two of these have been recorded in the general vicinity of the
parcel: Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) and Congdon s tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). Diablo helianthella is not expected to occur due
to the absence of chaparral and oak woodland. Congdon's tarplant (rare plant rank
1B) is known to occur within the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, less
than 1 mile east of the parcel, and also along Dougherty Road, approximately 1
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
mile north-northeast of the parcel. This species typically occurs in annual
AW grassland,but is also known to occur in ruderal vegetation adjacent to annual
grassland or that were once annual grassland. Habitat for this species is present in
the grassland along the railroad grade. Since the January 2013 survey was
conducted outside the blooming period for the species (May to October), there is
some potential for this species to occur on the parcel. Focused surveys during the
blooming period are necessary to confirm the presence or absence of this species
SVecial-status animals. The CNDDB contains records for 9 special-status animal
species in the vicinity of the parcel and habitat is present for another (loggerhead
shrike [Lanius ludovicianus]) (Table A of Attachment 1). Seven of these species are
not expected to occur due to the lack of habitat and/or surrounding development.
This group includes the following four listed species: California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda
whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
rnacrotis mutica). California tiger salamander has been recorded at Camp Parks less
than one mile east of the site. The seasonal pools adjacent to the railroad grade
resemble moderate-quality breeding habitat for the species. However, historic and
ongoing disturbance on the parcel (e.g., railroad maintenance, vegetation
management, pedestrians and pets) its small size and the parcel's isolation from
the more extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road make it highly unlikely that
the species is present. California red-legged frog has been recorded from the upper
reaches of Alamo Creek in the San Ramon Valley, but has not been observed in the
lower, urbanized reach west of Dougherty Road due to decreased habitat quality
from surrounding urbanization. San Joaquin kit fox have not been found during
several intensive surveys in the Dublin/San Ramon area, and are presumed absent
from the area. The parcel is completely isolated from the closest occupied Alameda
whipsnake habitat which is located over seven miles from the site.
Although not detected during either survey, loggerhead shrike (California Species
of Special Concern) could potentially nest in the oaks and willows northwest of
Amador Valley Boulevard and the grassland on either side of the railroad grade
provides foraging habitat. Other native bird species may also be present on the
site, including white-tailed kite, Anna's hummingbird, western scrub-jay,
chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, American robin, California towhee, and house
finch. Two California ground squirrel burrow complexes provide marginal habitat
for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; California Species of Special Concern),
although dense weed cover may limit their suitability for nesting.Both of these
species are known to occur in the extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road
(i.e., Camp Parks) and in the Dougherty Valley. Construction of the proposed park
and disturbance of the ground could result in significant impacts to a number of
special-status plant and wildlife species, including Congdon's tarplant,burrowing
owl, loggerhead shrike and other native bird species. Adherence to the following
measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1. A qualified botanist shall conduct a focused
Congdon's tarplant botanical survey during its blooming period (May to
October) in accordance with CDFW protocols and as recommended in the
EACCS. If Congdon's tarplant species are found on the site, no
City of Dublin Page 28
' Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
construction shall occur on that portion of the site containing tarplants
and a 50-foot wide buffer area shall be maintained around the perimeter
of tarplants. The width and location of the buffer may be adjusted by a
qualified biologist in consultation of California Fish &Wildlife (CDFW)
staff. Alternatively, if avoidance is not feasible, alternative areas shall be
identified, on or off of the site, with the same hydrological conditions as
the site. Tarplant seeds shall be collected from the park site prior to
grading and replanted in the alternative location.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Further surveys for burrowing owl shall be
completed prior to grading in accordance with the recently revised Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation issued by the CDFW in March 2012. If
burrowing owls are found breeding and/or wintering on the site, burrows
shall be avoided during the breeding season and a suitable buffer area
shall be established round each nest, as determined by a qualified
biologist, or suitable off-site habitat shall be provided such as easements
as recommended in the EACCS. In addition, any occupied burrows shall
be avoided through the establishment of exclusion zones during
construction. The location and widths of such exclusion zones shall be
' determined by a qualified biologist.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3. If future development plans include tree
removals, such activities should be conducted during the non-nesting
season (September 1 to January 31), if feasible. Depending on the nature
and location of proposed work, pre-construction surveys may be
Aw necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds, as determined by a qualified
biologist. Such surveys shall be conducted within 7 days prior to the start
of work from February to May (since there is a higher potential for birds
to initiate nesting during this period), and within 15 days prior to the start
of work from June to August. If nesting birds are found, a buffer area
` around each nest shall be established under the direction of a qualified
�r biologist and the buffer area shall remain as directed by the biologist.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
LS/M. Approximately 0.51 acres of the proposed park site have been identified
as jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This is based
on a wetlands delineation prepared by the firm of WRA biological consultants in
May, 2013. This report is included as Attachment 2 to this Initial Study. Riparian
vegetation identified within wetland areas included wild oat, ripgut brome,
bristly ox-tongue, prickly lettuce, curly dock, fat hen and rabbitsfoot grass.
Grading, filling or other actions that could be taken as part of the project to
disturb this jurisdictional wetland would be a potentially significant impact.
Adherence to the following will ensure that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and riparian habitat are reduced to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure BI0-4. Jurisdictional wetlands on the site shall be
avoided during construction and operation of the proposed park. A
suitable buffer and protection devices shall be incorporated into the final
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
park plan. If avoidance is not feasible, on-site jurisdictional wetlands shall
be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, as recommended in the EACCS, as close to the
° park as practicable and where suitable habitat exists. Alternatively, the
WW City may purchase credits in an off-site wetland mitigation bank at a 3:1
ratio.
40 In accordance with existing regulatory requirements for protection of sensitive
species and habitats, necessary permits shall be obtained by the City from
appropriate biological regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish
and Wildlife and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS/M. The
proposed park site presently allows full north-south access for wildlife traversing
the area as well as for native fish species using the Zone 7 watercourse. Future
park improvements could substantially block or impeded existing fish or wildlife
movement. Adherence to the following measure will ensure that substantial
movement of native fish or wildlife will not be blocked.
Mitigation Measure BI0-5. Prior to the preparation of construction
documents, final park design plans shall be reviewed by a qualified
biologist to ensure that substantial blockage of native fish or wildlife will
not occur. If necessary, park plans shall be required to be changed to
M ensure that fish and wildlife movement is maintained.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? LS. The City
of Dublin lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
(EACCS) planning area. The EACCS is not a Habitat Conservation or Natural
Community Conservation Plan. The General Plan revisions will be consistent
with local City of Dublin biological resource protection policies, as well as
applicable objectives, policies, and programs contained in the EACCS
document. Key objectives of the EACCS include comprehensive conservation
of special-status species in eastern Alameda County, contribution to recovery
of threatened species, establishing mitigation thresholds, and others. Future
development is required to comply with all City policies, ordinances and
requirements protecting biological resources, including impacts to heritage
trees. A less-than-significant impact would therefore result with respect to this
topic.
5. Cultural Resources
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. With one
exception, the project site contains no structures. The one exception is an older
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
railroad trestle that serves to bridge an existing drainage channel in the
approximate center of the proposed park site.
The existing trestle structure is expected to be incorporated into the final park
design and could become a crossing for the realigned Iron Horse Regional
Trail. If the trestle is maintained, it will need to be assessed for safety purposes
and examined for potential toxicity due to the fact that it has likely been treated
with creosote and other chemical wood preservatives over its lifetime. If the
trestle remains and is incorporated into the park, this could result in a
significant health risk to the public. Adherence to the following measure will
ensure that the trestle is suitable for public use:
Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Prior to reuse of the existing trestle, the
structure shall be examined by a Registered Environmental Assessor
(REA) to ensure that the level of chemicals and other substances on and
Aw adjacent to the structure are below applicable local, state and federal
exposure standards for human and animals. The REA shall recommend
specific feasible measures to reduce the level of risk from identified
hazards to the public. These measures shall be incorporated into the
final park development plan. If the level of risk cannot be reduced to a
generally recognized safe level, the trestle structure shall be removed
and any area near the trestle shall be safely remediated. Necessary
permits and approvals shall be obtained as necessary from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, the Alameda County Environmental
Health Services Department or others. Necessary clearances shall be
" secured from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to issuance of a
grading plan for this portion o the project site.
Should the trestle not be able to be retained, the removal of the trestle would
not result in a significant impact to a historic structure, and the impact would
be less than significant.
Therefore, removal of the trestle would not result in a significant impact to a
" historic structure.
b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS/M.
The project site is located on relatively flat topography near Alamo Creek and
other local watercourses. Typically, Native American villages are located close to
such watercourses. Therefore, there is a medium to high potential for encountering
historic, prehistoric, Native American or similar cultural resource during grading
for the proposed park and other ground disturbing activities, This could include
paleontological resources. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CULT-2. Wording shall be added on final
Joe construction plans and specifications for the proposed park to the effect
that if archeological or Native American materials or artifacts are
identified, work on that portion of the project shall cease until a resource
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
MW
protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance is prepared by a qualified archeologist and/or
.. paleontologist and approved by the City of Dublin Community
Development Director or an authorized representative. Project work may
be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are
encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the
provisions of State law carried out.
6. Geology and Soils
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or
landslides? LS. A small number of structures would be constructed as part of the
ow proposed park, as identified in the Project Description of this Initial Study.'
since the park would primarily contain passive recreational facilities. The park
is also not envisioned by the City to provide major recreational facilities, as
does other parks in Dublin. such as Emerald Glen Park in Eastern Dublin.
Therefore, future exposure of a substantial number of people or major
structures to injury or death from ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,
ground failure or landslide is considered less-than-significant.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Future
development of the proposed park will be regulated by Section 7.2 ("Stream
Corridors and Riparian Vegetation") of the Conservation Element of the Dublin
General Plan that requires protection of Stream Corridors and Riparian
Vegetation to minimize erosion into local creeks. The same Element includes
4W Guiding and Implementing Policies to minimize erosion into local bodies of
water and to undertake erosion control methods.
In addition, development projects, including the proposed park, are required to
adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Alameda
"� County Clean Water program and enforced by the City of Dublin as part of
normal and customary review of individual development projects. This will
ensure insignificant impacts regarding substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
These BMPs typically include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fences,
sandbags and similar measures to minimize substantial erosion and loss of
topsoil. With adherence standard City requirements, this impact will be less-
than-significant.
c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential
' lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS/M. The site is located near
local streamcourses, including Alamo Creek and South San Ramon Creek.
Generally, alluvial soils can be subject to liquefaction in the event of a seismic
event, which could lead to damage to any permanent buildings on the site and
other improvements, including, but not limited to, water and sewer pipes,
sidewalks, retaining walls and other improvements. These improvements could
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
be damaged in the event of loss of soil strength due to liquefaction or other soil
MW hazards. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
4W
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. A soils and geotechnical report shall be
commissioned by the City to identify the presence of liquefaction,
expansive soils, the potential for differential settlement and other
potential soil hazards that could damage park improvements. If such
soil characteristics are found on the site, the report shall include
detailed recommendations on how to reduce the risk of soil hazards to
a less-than-significant level. This would typically include
recommendations for enhanced building foundations, removal of
incompetent soils, and similar measures. The recommendations of the
soils report shall be implemented in final park development and
construction plans.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
— All new projects are required by the City of Dublin to connect to the local sewer
system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. No impacts
would therefore result with regard to septic systems.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Impacts
a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? NI. The
proposed park would be a locally oriented park in the central area of Dublin,
intended to serve the existing population in this portion of the community.
Proposed uses would be largely passive and not intended to attract a large
number of users. One small vehicle parking lot would be provided, however, it is
anticipated that the majority of future users would access the park via bicycle or
on foot. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions would be below the thresholds
of significance published by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which
is 600 acres for a city park (source: Table 3-1, BAAQMD GHG screening criteria,
May 2010). Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to
generation of greenhouses gasses.
S. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Impacts
a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal hazardous materials? NI. City of Dublin crews would normally and
customarily use fertilizers, herbicides and similar materials to maintain park
landscaping. Similarly, there could also be limited quantities of building
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
maintenance materials stored on the site, such as paints, solvents and similar
materials. This is typical of all City of Dublin parks. No hazardous materials
would be disposed on the project site. Overall, there would be no impact with
respect to the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous material that would
pose a significant hazard to the public or surrounding neighborhoods.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? LS/M. This portion of the Initial Study is based on an updated Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment prepared on March 6, 2013 by the firm of
Treadwell & Rollo ("Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, County of
Alameda and Union Pacific Right of Way, Dublin, California." This report is
hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The Phase I
" Environmental Site Analysis is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours. Based on the findings of
the Phase I report, there is one potential hazard on or adjacent to the site that could
cause a significant hazard to the public and the environment as a result of project
construction. This condition is deposit of chemicals and contaminants into site
soils and possibly groundwater as a result of previous land uses and activities on the site.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identifies a history of previous
deposits of pesticides, herbicides, diesel fuel, creosote and heavy metals on the site
as a result of previous uses on the site, primarily railroad uses. The Phase I report
also notes that there is a recorded history of hydrocarbon leaks into the soil and
groundwater from a nearby Kinder Morgan large-diameter gasoline and
petroleum transmission pipeline located approximately 40 feet to the east of the
proposed park site and parallel to the site. Grading of the park site to install park
improvements could result in a release of hazardous materials into the
environment that would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the
following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Prior to park construction, additional soil
sampling shall be conducted to determine if contaminants above
Environmental Screening Levels are present in the soil. If found, a
remediation plan shall be prepared and approved by appropriate
regulatory agencies, which may include the Regional Water Quality
Control Board or the Alameda County Environmental Health Services
Department. Remediation of contaminated material could include
removal of contaminated material to an approved off-site location or
similar measure. Remediation shall be completed per the approved plan
and carried out by licensed contractors. The remediation plan shall
include safety plans for workers and users of the Iron Horse Trail, as may
be required. Necessary clearances shall be secured from appropriate
regulatory agencies prior to the issuance of a grading plan.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI.
Although Dublin High School is located immediately west of the proposed park,
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
�. approval and implementation of the project would have no impact with regard to
this topic, since the future park is not anticipated to handle, store or release
n. significant quantities of hazardous materials.
d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the
Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or
environment? NI. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Cortese List of hazardous sites does not identify the proposed park site as
contaminated as of July 3, 2013
(http:/ /w��nv.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search). No impact is anticipated
with respect to this topic.
e-f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?
NI. The proposed park site is located well north of the Livermore Municipal
Airport and is not within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of this facility (see
Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 8/12). No other public
or private airports or airstrips are located near the site.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Development and operation
of the proposed park will be required to be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that also addresses emergency
evacuation. The proposed park would include multiple access points to and
from adjacent neighborhoods as well as Stagecoach Park and Dublin High
School, to facilitate emergency evacuation. No impacts are anticipated with
regard to this topic.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The site is
located within a developed portion of Dublin and is not subject to wildland
fires. No impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI.
Construction and future operation of the proposed park would generate a
small increase in wastewater from a small number of restroom facilities within
the park. Wastewater collection, treatment and discharge of wastewater is
provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The District
holds necessary waste discharge permits from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and other applicable agencies. Approval and implementation of
the proposed park would not exceed waste discharge requirements imposed on
DSRSD by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (source: Stan Kolodzie,
DSRSD, 7/10/13). No impacts are expected with respect to this topic.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The
park site is currently undeveloped and allows for groundwater recharge. The
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
AW
proposed park would not include a substantial amount of impervious surfaces,
such as major buildings, parking lots or similar improvements, but would
primarily remain as a passive, open space park. This would allow continued
groundwater recharge on the site. Similarly, the proposed park would not
generate a substantial demand for additional water sources that could deplete the
local water table, since irrigation is proposed to be from recycled water not potable
water. Therefore, the proposed project would not lower the local water table or
substantially change the status of groundwater recharge areas and no impacts
would occur.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? LS/M. The existing Zone 7 channel within the
project area may be rerouted into a more curvilinear route from the current linear
channel to improve the character of the proposed park. The channel relocation
may change the flow rate, amount of sediment deposited in the creek bottom
and/or incise adjacent banks. These could be significant impacts with respect to
existing streambed courses such that substantial siltation could occur. This impact
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with adherence to the following
measure:
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: If the existing Zone 7 channel is to be
changed from it's present course, the City of Dublin shall have a qualified
hydrologist prepare a hydrology and hydraulic analysis of the proposed
rerouting to analyze the potential for a changed flow rate, deposition of
erosion or incising of adjacent creek banks. Specific methods to reduce
such effects shall be included in the report. The findings of the report shall
be approved by the Zone 7 District Engineer and the recommendation of
the report shall be incorporated into final park design plans.
d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site,
create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS/M. Refer to item "c," above with respect
to changes in stream course impacts. There would be no impact with respect to
polluted runoff from the proposed park as noted in subsection "b."
f) Substantially degrade water quality? NI. The City of Dublin requires all individual
development projects, including the proposed park, to meet Best Management
Practices to ensure that water quality would be protected. Best Management
Practices are described above in Section 8c of this Initial Study. No impact is
anticipated with regard to this topic.
g-i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? NI. No housing is
proposed as part of the project and no impacts would occur with respect to this
topic.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. There are expected to be no
impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since the project site is be
located inland from major bodies of water, primarily San Francisco Bay, and no
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
major steeply sloping areas are found within or adjacent to the park. Therefore, no
impacts would occur with respect to this topic.
10. Land Use and Planning
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The proposed park site is
presently vacant and does present a barrier between neighborhood east and
west of the site. The proposed park would include a number of pedestrian and
bicycle linkages with surrounding neighborhoods, Dublin High School and
Stagecoach Park. The proposed park would provide new linkages that would
strengthen ties with established neighborhoods and no impacts are anticipated
with respect to this topic.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation? NI. Although a General
Plan Amendment is being considered as part of the underlying project, the
purpose of the Amendment is to designate the site as a public park in the absence
of an existing General Plan land use designation. No other General Plan policies
affecting environmental protections are proposed to be changed and no impacts
would result with respect to this topic.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
NI. See Checklist Item 4 f.
VW
11. Mineral Resources
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources are
identified in the Dublin General Plan for this site.
low 12. Noise
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS/M. Potential noise
impacts of the proposed park has been analyzed in a report entitled
"Environmental Noise Impact Report for the Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin CS"
dated July 11, 2013 prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz. This report is
attached to the Initial Study as Attachment 3. Following is a summary of the
findings of the RDGL report.
Existing Noise Conditions. The proposed park would extend along the Iron Horse
Regional Trail and include the former Union Pacific Right of Way. Residences are
located on both sides of the proposed park with backyards that abut the project
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
rte„
site. Along the western side of the site, backyards are approximately 100 feet from
the Iron Horse Trail. On the eastern side, backyards are about 200 feet from the
Iron Horse Trail.
To quantify the existing noise environment, long-term noise measurements were
made by RGDL staff for seven consecutive days at two locations (A and B on
Figure 1 of the attached acoustic report) and short term, 15-minute noise
measurements were made at four locations (1 through 4 on Figure 1). The
measurement locations were primarily chosen to represent the existing conditions
at residences near the proposed project.
In general, average noise levels toward the north (location A) ranged from 45 to 55
dBA (Leq) whereas noise levels on the southern end (location B), near Amador Valley
Boulevard, were slightly higher and ranged from about 45 to 60 dBA.
Table 1 shows the results of the short term noise measurements.
Table 1. Summary of Short-Term, 15 Minute Noise Measurements
A-weighted Sound Level,dBA
Location Date /Time
L,q Lio L50 L90 CNEL*
1 1134 a.m. 39 41 37 35 51
2 1-May-13 47 49 44 38 52
12:33 a.m.
8-May-13
3 2:17 m 47 48 45 43 51
4 8-May-13 53 54 52 51 57
2:36 p.m.
8-May-13 5 3:17 y m 52 54 52 51 56
*CNEL calculated based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at 24-hour noise
monitor location.
Source: RGDL, 2013
At location 3, adjacent to homes on the west side of the project site, a dog barking
generated a maximum noise level of 51 dBA, whereas a voice on the Iron Horse
Trail was 49 dBA. An airplane flyover generated a maximum noise level of 60 dBA.
At location 4, a distant truck generated a noise level of 52 dBA whereas a
motorcycle generated a maximum level of 58 dBA. At Location 4 the sound of kids
in the nearby park were 56 to 58 dBA though they were somewhat masked by wind
noise which was about 55 dBA. At location 5, near the southern end of the site,
distant traffic had a maximum noise level of 52 dBA.
City Noise Standards. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies
regarding noise and land use compatibility. Table 2 provides guidelines for the
compatibility of land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less
is considered normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
the City's compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and
transit noise.
aw Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacce table
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lod in Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80
�r
Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
nursin homes
Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70
arks
Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1
Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or
disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which
annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of
any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area." The noise
ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the
noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the City's
Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not possible
to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project generated noise in
the context of this noise study.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a
determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does
not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant
increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for
determining when a noise increase is significant.
AW A recent FAA Draft Policy discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases
in aircraft noise. These FAA thresholds are consistent with the thresholds that
were adopted in CEQA document for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Therefore, these thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases
due to the project as follows—an increase in CNEL is significant if it is:
5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is less than 60 dBA
• 3 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65
dBA
MW • 1.5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater.
' Potential noise impacts. Noise sources associated with the proposed project
would range from those that are typical for the existing trail such as people
walking,jogging or biking to new uses such as children's play areas, outdoor
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
classrooms and outdoor picnic areas.
Typical maximum noise levels from trail users (joggers, bikers and people
Aw strolling) range from 43 to 60 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. With the proposed
project, the trail would meander and be as close as 25 feet from existing homes.
Table 2 shows the estimated noise levels from the trail use at backyards of
existing residences.
Table 3. Estimated Noise Levels from Trail at the Nearest Backyards
Noise Source Lmax (dBA)
Bike* 44
Jogger* 44
Voice—normal** 40
Voice—raised** 47
L.VOice—shout** 70
* Noise Study for Alamo Creek Bike Path, 30 June 2003
** "Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", 3rd Ed., Cyril
Harris 1998.
Based on the noise measurements that were made for the Alamo Creek Bike Trail
project, the Le due to the trail users would be 43 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from
the center of the trail. This corresponds to an Leg of 35 dBA at a distance of 25 feet.
If this level of activity occurs from 7 AM to 9 PM, then the DNL would be 34 dBA
at the nearest backyards, estimated to be about 25 feet from the trail.
For group activities, the level of noise would depend on the number of users and
the proximity to homes. For example, a group activity, such as use of a play area
where five children are playing continuously for 12 hours a day would generate an
Leq of 52 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The corresponding CNEL would be 49 dBA.
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan considers a CNEL of
60 dBA or less to be "normally acceptable" for neighborhood parks and residential
development. The City's of Dublin's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 5.28) does not
contain quantitative noise level limits.
Existing noise levels along the project site range from a CNEL of 51 to 57 dBA due
to ambient noise and trail use. This is considered "normally acceptable" for both
park and residential uses. In the future, the noise from the proposed project will
vary, depending upon the specific use and ultimate location of that use with
respect to existing residences.
For the purposes of this assessment, the uses are divided into two types: Trail use
(biking, walking,jogging) and outdoor classrooms/play/picnic areas.
The use of the bike trail would be similar to current use though the distance of the
main trail to homes would decrease since the trail would likely meander from east
to west (as opposed to its current location about 100 to 200 feet from homes).
low City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Under the scenario where a trail comes within about 25 feet from a residential
backyard, the CNEL would be 34 dBA. A CNEL of 34 dBA is well within the City's
"normally acceptable" level of 60 dBA for residential use and would not result in a
significant noise impact.
The precise location of the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas is not known at
this time, but the concept site plan indicates that a likely distance would be about
100 feet from existing homes. An outdoor classroom, play or picnic areas with five
children playing continuously, throughout the day, would generate a CNEL of 49
dBA at a distance of 100 feet. If the number of children increased to 10, the CNEL
' would increase to 52 dBA. Both these levels are considered "normally acceptable"
for residential use according to the City's General Plan and would also not result
in a significant noise impact.
In order to generate noise levels greater than those considered normally acceptable
(e.g. greater than 60 dBA (CNEL)) there would need to be approximately 75
children using the outdoor area if it is located 100 feet from the homes or the play
area would need to be closer than 37 feet from the homes if there were only 10
children playing. In these instances, noise from the outdoor
classroom/play/picnic area would be considered a significant impact. Adherence
to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. The final development plan for the park
shall include a restriction of classrooms, play areas and picnic areas to a
minimum distance of 37 feet from the rear yard of existing residences
w adjacent to the park.
Potential permanent noise increases are addressed in item "a." above.
Construction of the proposed park could result in substantial temporary increases
in noise as a result of site grading and construction of structures on the site.
Temporary construction noise could be considered significant to existing trail
users and due to the close proximity of residences along major portions of the park
site. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant impact by limiting hours and days of construction to normal daytime
periods.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI.
The proposed park is anticipated to largely consist of natural uses rather than
located in structures. Structures anticipated for the park will likely be small-scale,
low-rise buildings that would not generate significant groundborne noise or
vibration and no impacts would result.
c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in permanent in ambient noise levels?
LS/M. Potential permanent noise increases are addressed in item "a." above.
Construction of the proposed park could result in substantial temporary increases
in noise as a result of site grading and construction of structures on the site.
Temporary construction noise could be considered significant due to the close
proximity of residences along major portions of the park site. Adherence to the
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
�w
following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant impact by
limiting hours and days of construction to normal daytime periods.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2. Construction activities shall be limited to
the hours of 7:30 am to 6 p/m, Monday through Saturday, excluding state
„�. or federal holidays. Hours of construction shall include delivery of
materials and tune up of equipment. Hours of operation shall be included
on construction plan and specifications.
e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public or private
airport or airstrip? NI. The proposed park is not located within a 2-mile radius of
any public or private airport or airstrip.
13. Population and Housing
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. The
site is currently vacant and no housing units are proposed for site as part of the
new park. No impacts are anticipated.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people
requiring replacement housing?q g g.
p NI. The site is vacant and no housing units or
people would be displaced should the project be approved and constructed. No
impacts are anticipated.
AW
14. Public Services
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. The City of Dublin contracts with Alameda County Fire
Department for fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire inspection
services. The closest fire station is located at 7494 Donohue Drive (Station #16),
'" and this station would provide primary response to fire or rescue calls for
service within the proposed park. Construction and operation of the proposed
park would increase the calls for fire and emergency services to the
Department, but not require any new fire stations or the expansion of an
existing station (Bonnie Terra, ACFD, 7/3/13) so there would be a less-than-
significant impact with respect to this topic.
b) Police protection? LS. There could be a small increase in the number of calls for
service to the Dublin Police Services Department based on future use of the
proposed park. However, based on a discussion with the Dublin Police Services
Department, there would not be a need for new police facilities to serve the
proposed park or a need to expand existing police facilities (Tom McCarthy,
Dublin Police Services, 7/10/13). A less-than-significant impact is anticipated
with respect to police service.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project Page
u.. August 2013 13
c) Schools? NI. No residences would be constructed as part of the proposed park
project so that no school-aged children would be generated that would require
new classroom space or other educational facilities. No impacts would result
with respect to this topic.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. The proposed park would be
maintained by City of Dublin park maintenance crews. The park would be
constructed to City engineering and construction standards to minimize the
„ need for excessive maintenance so that a less than-significant impact would
occur with respect to this topic.
e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item 17, below.
15. Recreation
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. The
proposed project would consist of a new City park in an existing underserved
portion of Dublin. The proposed park would increase the number and types of
parks for Dublin residents and would therefore not increase the use of other
existing neighborhood and regional parks. No impacts would occur with
respect to this topic.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. The proposed project does include construction of recreation and
park facilities; the potential physical impacts of the proposed facilities are
addressed in the resource topics throughout this IS. No impacts beyond those
iw addressed elsewhere in the Initial Study would occur with respect to this topic.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Project Impacts
a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and
street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads?
LS. Construction of the proposed park would result in increases in traffic on local roads, as Dublin residents travel to and from the park. Based on standard
trip generation rates for parks published in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) (9t' edition), the proposed park is anticipated to generate the
following number of vehicle trips:
Daily weekday trips: 28 trips
• Weekday morning peak trips: 0.25 trips
Weekday evening peak trips: 1.1 trips
• Saturday daily trips: 147 trips
• Sunday daily trips: 50 trips
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
�w
Based on a discussion with the City of Dublin traffic engineer, the addition of
the above trips to the local roadway system, there would be a less-than-
significant impact with respect to congestion on nearby local or regional roads
or CMA-designated roadways (source: Obaid Khan, Dublin traffic engineer,
7/8/13). Since the proposed park would be located near the existing Iron Horse
Trail, the number of vehicles accessing the proposed park could be less than
anticipated using standardized rates, since a number of future users would be bicyclists or pedestrians. it is also anticipated that some park usage would
come from nearby neighborhoods, whereby park users would walk or bicycle
to the proposed park. This impact would therefore be less-than-significant.
c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed park would have no
impact on air traffic patterns since it would not include any airport or other
features that could change air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS/M. A
aim finalized site plan for the proposed park has not been prepared. It is unknown
if the park development plan could increase traffic hazards, result in an
incompatible use or create potential conflicts with existing driveways or nearby
intersections. Since this is not known, such conditions could be created which
would result in a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following
measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. The final park development plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer to
assure that no traffic design hazards are created and that circulation
for bike,jogging, walking and other park uses are not incompatible.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. No impacts would occur with regard
to emergency access. The preliminary description for the proposed park would
include several pedestrian and bicycle connections with surrounding
neighborhoods, Stagecoach Park and Dublin High School to ensure that
adequate emergency access would be provided.
f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or
pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
NI. The proposed park is intended to be neighborhood oriented, with
minimum off-street parking and maximum walkways and bicycle paths.
Therefore, the proposed project would further City policies to promote non-
automobile uses and no impacts would result with respect to this topic.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Project Impacts
° a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS/M. The Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) bases existing and future wastewater flows
on land uses included in the Dublin General Plan. Since the proposed park use
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
is not included in the General Plan Land Use Map, future wastewater flows are
not currently included in the District's wastewater master planning. Based on a
recent discussion with District staff (source: Stan Kolodzie, 7/10/13), the small
incremental amount of wastewater generated from the park would likely not
be considered significant that would exceed Regional Water Quality Control
Board discharge standards; however, restroom facilities will need to include
low-flow fixtures to limit the amount of future wastewater flow. This is
included as a mitigation measure. With adherence to the following measure,
this impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Future restrooms within the park shall be
limited to "low flow" toilets. Water faucets shall be equipped with
.� flow restrictors.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
LS/M. Based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff(Stan Kolodzie, 7/10/13),
the District can provide adequate water and wastewater service to the
proposed park without the need for new or expanded facilities, with adherence
to Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. Refer to Section 9c of this Initial Study.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. The Dougherty Pipeline crosses Alamo
Canal just east of the project location, which is critical for providing potable
water to DSRSD for use by Dublin residents. If any park-related work is to be
performed along the pipeline right of way, an encroachment permit shall be
obtained from the District. However, based on discussions with DSRSD staff,
as noted above, the District has adequate water supplies to serve the proposed
park and no impact would result with respect to this topic.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS/M. See item "a,"
above.
f) Solid waste disposal? NI. Since the proposed park would include largely passive
uses with minimal numbers of users, the amount of solid waste anticipated to be
generated would be less-than-significant.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste NI. The
existing service provider, Amador Valley Industries, will ensure adherence to
federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No impact would result with
respect to this topic.
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
44
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed park would
not have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or have the
potential to restrict the range of rare or endangered species, based on
mitigation measures included in the Initial Study.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future
projects). No, cumulative impacts of the proposed park would be minimal,
since future users of the park would largely be local residents and trips to the
park is anticipated to be primarily by non-automotive modes of transportation.
This would substantially limit impacts of the project on traffic, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise generations and similar potential impacts.
low
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. Based on the preceding Initial
Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have
a�
been identified from the proposed project.
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author
Jane Maxwell, report graphics
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator
Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer, Traffic
Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshal
Tom McCarthy, Police Chief
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Stan Kolozdie, Staff Engineer
Zone 7 Water Agency
Elke Rank, Water Resources Planner
References
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website,July 2013
Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2010 Update, Dublin San Ramon
Services District, June 2011
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 3/13
Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project, Page & Turnbull, 2004
Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission, August 2012
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update
Sewer System Management Plan, Dublin San Ramon Services District,
updated September 2005
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Attachment 1-
Biological Reconnaissance Report
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
!§
S I L�.1 .4510 ICI I" INC BFRK ELEY I'R LS NO RIVERS I DL
I- lAR ILA,:E 510. E Gb10 1 L CARLSBAD IRVINL R(D CK L
I I' ItICN MC�f\D, C?.LII ORI\IA 1?8111 :,I 2S -n,3t1 I'AY FORT C:OIAANS PALM S P R IN CS SAN LUIS i_i I31SPU
Via Email
February 26,2013
Robin Donoghue
Meyers Nave
401 Mendocino Avenue,#100
Santa Rosa,CA 95401
Subject: Results of Recormaissance-level Biological Survey
Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin,Alameda County
Dear Mr. Donoghue:
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA)has completed a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the two
former Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR)right-of-way parcels in Dublin. LSA previously surveyed the
northern parcel between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alameda County line in October 2006
and presented the results in a letter report dated October 16, 2006. The purpose of the current survey
was to confirm that habitat conditions on the northern parcel had not substantially changed since 2006
and to identify existing biological resources on the southern parcel between Interstate 580(I-580) and
Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, we evaluated both parcels' potential to support special-status plant
and/or animal species and determined if any sensitive habitats such as wetlands or drainages are
present.
This letter report includes the following: (1)a summary of relevant federal and State regulations
pertaining to biological resources; (2)a description of the methods used to conduct the survey; (3)a
discussion of biological resources and constraints on the northern parcel, and(4)a discussion of the
same topics on the southern parcel. The biological resources discussion for each parcel is comprised
of three components: (1)a description of the existing vegetation and wildlife, (2)a discussion of
special-status plant and animal species known to occur in the area and their potential to occur on the
parcel,and(3)a description of any jurisdictional waters and/or sensitive vegetation types observed on
the parcel.
REGULATORY CONTEXT
The project site is located within the general geographical range of several sensitive plant
communities and special-status plant and wildlife species. Biological resources on the project site
may fall under the agency jurisdictions and regulations of the agencies listed below and described in
more detail in Attachment A:
1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Species listed under the federal Endangered
Species Act, migratory birds.
2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW). Species listed under the California
Endangered Species Act. California Species of Special Concern, Streambed Alteration
Agreements, migratory birds.
2/26/13(P:AMEY1301TioRpt.doc)
PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN
L S A ASSOCIATES, INC,
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).Fill of waters/wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
4. Regional Water Quality Control Board,(RWQCB). Water quality certification under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act.
5. National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). Marine and anadromous species listed under the
federal Endangered Species Act.
METHODS
Prior to visiting the parcels,LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)for
records of special-status species within the Dublin U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)7.5-minute
quadrangle and reviewed the previous report prepared for the northern parcel(LSA 2006). LSA
biologist Matt Ricketts visited both parcels on January 24,2013 to assess current habitat conditions
and evaluate the parcels' potential to support special-status plant and/or animal species. For the
purposes of this report,special-status species are defined as follows:
• Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or
endangered under the federal ESA
• Species that are listed,or designated as candidates for listing,as rare,threatened, or endangered
under CESA
• Plant species assigned to California Rare Plant Ranks IA, 1B,and 2
• Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern
• Species that meet the definition of rare,threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the
CEQA guidelines
• Considered to be a taxon of special concern by local agencies
NORTHERN PARCEL
Existing Conditions
Most of the below information is adapted from our previous 2006 report since habitat conditions
observed in January 2013 appeared relatively unchanged from our previous visit.
Vegetation.The dominant topographical feature on the northern parcel is an abandoned UPRR
railroad grade topped with crushed gravel and cobble.Both embankments of the grade are covered in
non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oat(Avena fatua),rye grass(Festuca perennis),and
ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Beardless wild rye(Elymus triticoides),a native grass, is present in
small amounts.Non-native ruderal forbs growing throughout the parcel include bristly ox-tongue
(Picris echioides), prickly lettuce(Lactuca serriola),and mustard(Brassica sp.). Several linear
depressions in the borrow ditches on both sides of the railroad grade were full of water during the
January 2013 survey. The largest of these was an approximately 450-foot-long by 50-foot-wide pool
in the eastern borrow ditch approximately 765 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard(see attached
photo). Seasonal wetland plant species observed growing in and around these depressions include
spiny cocklebur(Xanthium spinosum),salt grass(Distichlis spicata),curly dock(Rumex crispus), fat-
2/26/13(P:AML-Y1301\BioRpt.doc) 2
i_S f, A .,._ _..;.
hen(Atripl(ax prostrata),nutsedge(Cyperus eragrostis), and swamp prickle grass(Crvpsis
schoenoides).
A stand of woody vegetation dominated by arroyo willow(Salix lasiolepis) and sandbar willow(Salix
exigua) is present on the western side of the railroad grade approximately 300 feet north of Amador
Valley Boulevard. A few immature valley oaks (Quercus lobata)and coast live oaks(Q. agi-ifolia)
grow along the top of the grade adjacent to the willow stand. Several oaks and willows are also
present on the eastern side of the grade north of the larger stand of riparian woodland. A few small
trees and shrubs of various native and non-native species grow along the western site boundary at the
southern end of the parcel near Alamo Creek. Species observed in this area include walnut( Uglans
sp.), Italian buckthorn(Rhamnus alaternus),coyote brush(Baccharis pilularis), silver wattle(Acacia
dealbata),and coast live oak.
Wildlife.Most of the wildlife species observed on October 3,2006 and/or January 24,2013 were
birds, with the following species observed within or flying over the parcel:ring-necked pheasant
(Phasianus colchicus), great blue heron(Ardea herodias),turkey vulture(Cathartes aura), Cooper's
hawk(Accipiter cooperii),red-shouldered hawk(Buteo lineatus),rock pigeon(Columba livia),
mourning dove(Zenaida macroura),Anna's hummingbird(Calypte anna), belted kingfisher(Ceryle
alcyon),red-breasted sapsucker(Sphyrapicus ruber),northern flicker(Colaptes auratus),American
kestrel (Falco spar-verius),black phoebe(Sayornis nigricaM), western scrub jay(Aphelocoma
californica),American crow(Corvus brachyrhynchos),ruby-crowned kinglet(Regulus calendula),
hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus),American robin(Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird
(Himus polyglottos),yellow-rumped warbler(Setophaga coronata), common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), Lincoln's sparrow(Melospiza lincolnii),white-crowned sparrow(Zonotrichia
leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow(Zonoo-ichia atricapilla),red-winged blackbird(Agelaius
phoeniceus), lesser goldfinch(Spinus psaltria),and house finch(Haemorhous mexicanus).
The dense grass and ruderal herbaceous cover of the abandoned right-of-way provides thermal and
protective cover for a variety of native amphibians and reptiles.Although Sierran treefrog
(Pseudacris sierra) and western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis)were the only species detected
during LSA's surveys, habitat is present for several other species that typically occur in or adjacent to
residential neighborhoods,such as slender salamander(Batrachoseps attenuatos),western toad(Bufo
boreas), southern alligator lizard(Elgaria rnulticarinatus), gopher snake (Pituophis eaten fer),and
common garter snake (Thanrnophis sirtalis).
California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) activity was observed at two locations during the
January 2013 survey: a small burrow complex in the western embankment of the west borrow ditch
approximately 2,500 feet southeast of the Alameda/Contra Costa county line, and a larger burrow
complex in the western embankment of the west borrow ditch approximately 450 feet northwest of
Amador Valley Boulevard and below the stand of oaks(see attached photo). Evidence(burrows or
runways)of Botta's pocket gopher(Thomomys bottae)and California vole(Microtus californica)was
also observed throughout the grassland. Other common mammal species expected to occur include
house mouse(Mus musculus), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger),northern raccoon(Procyon lotor), striped
skunk(Mephitis mephitis), and black-tailed deer(Odocoileus he72101711S).
2/26/13(P:AMEY1301\13ioRpt.dcc)
3
LSA ASSOUTATLS, TNC.
Special-status Species
Plants.Based on the results of the CNDDB search and observed habitat conditions in October 2006
and January 2013, LSA identified four special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the
vicinity(see attached Table A).Two of these have been recorded in the general vicinity of the parcel:
Diablo helianthella(Helianthella castanea) and Congdon's tarplant(Centromadia par yi ssp.
congdonii)(CDFW 2013).Diablo helianthella is not expected to occur due to the absence of
chaparral and oak woodland. Congdon's tarplant(rare plant rank 1B)is known to occur within the
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, less than 1 mile east of the parcel,and also along
Dougherty Road, approximately 1 mile north-northeast of the parcel.This species typically occurs in
annual grassland, but is also known to occur in ruderal vegetation adjacent to annual grassland or that
were once annual grassland(Preston 1999,LSA obs.).Habitat for this species is present in the
grassland along the railroad grade. Since the January 2013 survey was conducted outside the
blooming period for the species(May to October),there is some potential for this species to occur on
the parcel. Focused surveys during the blooming period are necessary to confirm the presence or
absence of this species.
Animals.The CNDDB contains records for 9 special-status animal species in the vicinity of the
parcel and habitat is present for another(loggerhead shrike[Lanius ludovicianus])(Table A). Seven
of these species are not expected to occur due to the lack of habitat and/or surrounding development.
This group includes the following four listed species: California tiger salamander(.4ntbystoma
californiense), California red-legged frog(Rana draytonii),Alameda whipsnake(Masticophis
lateralis euryxanthus)and San Joaquin kit fox(Vulpes macrotis mutica). California tiger salamander
has been recorded at Camp Parks less than one mile east of the site.The seasonal pools adjacent to
the railroad grade resemble moderate-quality breeding habitat for the species.However,historic and
ongoing disturbance on the parcel(e.g.,railroad maintenance,vegetation management,pedestrians
and pets) its small size and the parcel's isolation from the more extensive grasslands east of
Dougherty Road make it highly unlikely that the species is present. California red-legged frog has
been recorded from the upper reaches of Alamo Creek in the San Ramon Valley,but has not been
observed in the lower,urbanized reach west of Dougherty Road due to decreased habitat quality from
surrounding urbanization. San Joaquin kit fox have not been found during several intensive surveys in
the Dublin/San Ramon area, and are presumed absent from the area(Sproul and Flett 1993).The
parcel is completely isolated from the closest occupied Alameda whipsnake habitat which is located
over seven miles from the site.
Although not detected during either survey, loggerhead shrike(California Species of Special
Concern) could potentially nest in the oaks and willows northwest of Amador Valley Boulevard and
the grassland on either side of the railroad grade provides foraging habitat.The two California ground
squirrel burrow complexes provide marginal habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia;
California Species of Special Concern),although dense weed cover may limit their suitability for
nesting. Both of these species are known to occur in the extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road
(i.e., Camp Parks) and in the Dougherty Valley(LSA obs.).
Other Sensitive Biological Resources
Jurisdictional Waters.Based on the presence of standing water and seasonal wetland plant species,
several areas along the bottoms of the borrow ditches on either side of the railroad grade are likely
subject to Corps jurisdiction under-Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and RWQCB jurisdiction
under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act as wetlands of the United States and/or State.
2/26/13(P:ANIEY1301\13ioRpt.doc) 4
Other portions of the ditches that do not support wetland plants but show evidence of seasonal
saturation may be considered other waters of the United States by these agencies.
Sensitive Natural Communities. The CDFG tracks the occurrences of plant communities that are
either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. The CNDDB contains
no records of sensitive natural communities in the vicinity of the parcel,nor did LSA identify any
such communities during its 2006 and 2013 reconnaissance surveys.
Biological Constraints
Congdon's Tarplant.As mentioned above, the parcel contains habitat for Congdon's tarplant. To
confirm the presence or absence of this species,a qualified botanist would need to conduct a focused
botanical survey during its blooming period(May to October)in accordance with CDFW protocols
(CDFG 2009). The results of the survey could facilitate the avoidance of any on-site occurrences
during project design.
Burrowing Owl.Although habitat quality for burrowing owls on the parcel is marginal,its presence
cannot entirely be ruled out without conducting additional surveys for this species in accordance with
the recently revised Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation issued by the CDFW in March 2012
(CDFG 2012). If burrowing owls were found breeding and/or wintering on the parcel, loss of
occupied burrows or suitable foraging habitat would likely be considered a significant impact under
CEQA and instigation(e.g., preservation of suitable on-or off-site habitat)may be warranted. In
addition, any occupied burrows would have to be avoided through the establishment of exclusion
zones during construction.
Loggerhead Shrike and Other Native Birds.Nests of all native bird species are protected under the
federal MBTA and Section 3503 the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibits the take,
possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. The trees in the southern half of the
parcel provide suitable nesting habitat for one special-status bird species(loggerhead shrike) as well
as other native bird species such as white-tailed kite Anna's hummingbird, western scrub jay,
chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit,American robin, California towhee,and house finch, among
others. If conducted during the nesting season(typically defined by CDFW as February 15 to
September 1), removal of the trees could directly impact nesting birds by destroying active nests.
Prolonged loud construction noise could also disturb nesting birds,resulting in nest abandontnent or
failure. If future development plans include tree removals,such activities should be conducted during
the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31),if feasible.Depending on the nature and location
of proposed work, pre-construction surveys may be necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Such
surveys should be conducted within 7 days prior to the start of work from February to May(since
there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 15 days prior to
the start of work from June to August.
Jurisdictional Waters.As mentioned above,the numerous pools within the borrow ditches on either
side of the railroad grade, and potentially other areas within the ditches, are likely under Corps and
RWQCB jurisdiction.Any fill or modification of these areas would require a Clean Water Act
Section 404 permit from the Corps and Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB. To
clarify the extent of Corps jurisdiction and more accurately depict jurisdictional boundaries, a formal
wetland delineation in accordance with Corps methodology(Environmental Laboratory 1987, Corps
2008)would need to be conducted before applying for permits or designing project features around
2/26/13(P:A.MI✓Y13MBioRpt.doc) 5
LSA A9S0C:lArF+5, INC.
existing wetlands. Alternatively,if future development is limited to uplands(i.e.,top of railroad
grade), a formal delineation would not be required.
SOUTHERN PARCEL
Existing Conditions
The southern UPRR parcel is an approximately 1,700-foot-long by 40-foot-wide strip of ruderal
grassland located between Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional Trail trailhead.The
majority of the property is a concave borrow ditch, likely created during construction of the former
railroad grade to the northeast which runs the length of the entire parcel.The parcel is bordered to the
northeast by the Iron Horse Regional Trail and to the southwest by industrial development.
Vegetation.The bottom of the ditch supports a mix of hydrophytic plant species typical of seasonal
wetlands, annual grasses,and ruderal forbs. Seasonal wetland plants such as annual beard grass
(Polyp09077 n7onspeliensis),spiny cocklebur,nutsedge,curly dock, salt grass,and fat-hen occur as
dense patches in seasonally wet depressions and are also interspersed with ruderal plants and grasses
in drier portions of the ditch. The banks of the ditch are dominated by wild oat and rye grass with
scattered patches of prickly lettuce,a ruderal forb.Native vegetation on the parcel includes an
approximately 100-foot-long by 30-foot-wide stand of beardless wild rye approximately 200 feet
northwest of the southern end of the parcel and a small stand of willows(Salix sp.)next to a culvert in
the central portion of the parcel.
Wildlife.Wildlife activity on the southern parcel is lower than on the northern parcel due to its
smaller size and increased disturbance levels associated with adjacent development. Species observed
during LSA's January 24,2013 survey include Sierran treefrog(heard calling),black phoebe,western
scrub jay, northern mockingbird, savannah sparrow,white-crowned sparrow,and western
meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta). Botta's pocket gopher burrows were observed on the embankment
northeast of the ditch.
Special-status Species
Of the three special-status plant or animal species discussed above as potentially occurring on the
northern parcel (Congdon's tarplant,burrowing owl,and loggerhead shrike),only Congdon's tarplant
has any potential to occur on the southern parcel.The lack of California ground squirrels and their
burrows precludes use of the southern parcel by burrowing owls, and the paucity of nest sites and
open grassland for foraging reduces the likelihood of loggerhead shrike nesting. The narrow width of
the parcel and consequent exposure to higher noise levels and disturbance from trail users also
reduces habitat suitability for shrikes.None of the remaining special-status species in Table A are
expected to occur due to the disturbed condition of the parcel and its proximity to regular human
activity.As on the northern parcel,focused surveys during the Congdon's tarplant blooming period
(May to October) would be needed to confirm its presence or absence.
Other Sensitive Biological Resources
Jurisdictional Waters.The ditch that runs the length of the parcel may be under Corps jurisdiction
as an"other water" of the United States.At a minimum,the depressions dominated by seasonal
wetland plant species are likely wetlands of the State.
2126/13(P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc)
Sensitive Natural Communities.Although the CNDDB contains no records of sensitive natural
communities in the area,stands of beardless wild rye such as the one observed on the southern parcel
are sometimes considered sensitive under CEQA. "Creeping rye grass' turfs"is recognized as a
sensitive natural cornrnunity in the list of vegetation alliances recognized by CDFW(CDFG 2010)
and impacts to high-quality examples of this community could be considered significant under
CEQA. For a stand to be included in this vegetation alliance, beardless wild rye must comprise
greater than 50 percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer(Sawyer et al.2009).The stand on the
southern UPRR parcel is comprised of only about 20 percent relative cover of beardless wild rye,
with the remaining portions comprised of rye grass,salt grass, and other annual grasses. Given the
relatively low cover of beardless wild rye and the generally disturbed condition of the stand, it is
unlikely to qualify as a sensitive natural community under CEQA.
Biological Constraints
The primary biological constraints to development of the southern parcel include Congdon's tarplant,
nesting birds(protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code), and
jurisdictional wetlands and/or other waters of the United States. Focused botanical surveys to
determine presence/absence of Congdon's tarplant would need to be conducted between May and
October. A formal wetland delineation could be conducted to clarify the extent of Corps and RWQCB
jurisdiction on the parcel at any time. A nesting bird survey would only need to be conducted if
construction activities occurred during the nesting season(February 1 to August 31).
We hope the above information will be useful in evaluating the land use potential of the two parcels.
Please contact me or Malcolm Sproul,Principal-in-Charge, if you have any questions or require
further information.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Matt Ricketts
Senior Wildlife Biologist
Attachments: Table A—Special-status Species
Attachment A—Regulatory Context
Site Photographs
The common and scientific name of this species was recently changed fi-om creeping rye grass(Leymns triticoides)to
beardless wild rye(Elymus triticoides),as per Baldwin et al.(2012).
2/26/13(PAMEY1301UoRpt.doc) 7
t.SA ASS 1)C,t AT E S, IN q.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, eds. 2012. The Jepson
Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating
impacts to special status native plant populations and natural corrununities.November 24.
CDFG.2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations.Vegetation Classification and Mapping
Program,California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. September 2010.
CDFG.2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW).2013. California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB), Commercial Version dated January 1,2013. Biogeographic Data Branch,
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.Technical report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2006. Results of Biological Reconnaissance Survey, Union
Pacific/Alameda County Parcels, Dublin. Prepared for City of Dublin Community
Development Department. October 16.
Preston, R.E. 1999. Preliminary Report on the Conservation Status of Congdon's Spikeweed
(HeniLonia parryi subsp.congdonii)in the South and East San Francisco Bay Area and
Monterey County, California. Unpubl.report prepared for U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ventura, CA.23 February.
Sproul,M.J. and M.A. Flett. 1993. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox in the northwest margin of its
range. 199') Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 29:61-69.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region(Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center,Vicksburg,MS.
2/26/13(PATv4EY1301\BioRpt.doc) 8
.._A ?C.?A i h S, ..Y
Table A: Special-status Species Evaluated for the Union Pacific Railroad Parcels,
Dublin,Alameda County,California
Status*
(Federal/State/
Species Other) Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion
Plants
Congdon's tarplant —/—/1B Alkaline soils in valley and May occur.Annual
Centromadia parryi ssp. foothill grassland. Also grassland provides habitat.
congdonii known to occur in ruderal Known to occur at Camp
habitats. Elevation: 1-230 Parks less than 1 mile east
m.Blooms May to of northern parcel.
October.
Diablo helianthella —/—/1B Rocky soils in Not expected to occur due to
Helianthella castanea chaparral/oak woodland lack of rocky soils and
interface. Elevation 60- chaparral.
1,300 m.Blooms March to
June.
Hairless popcorn-flower —/—/1 A Coastal salt marshes _and Not expected to occur due to
Plagiobothrys glaber alkaline meadows. lack of salt marsh and/or
Elevation: 5-180 m. alkaline meadows.Likely
Blooms Marcy to May. extirpated in California.
Oregon polemonium —/—/2 Coastal prairie,coastal Not expected to occur due to
Polemoniuun carnetan scrub,and lower montane lack of habitat.
coniferous forest.
Elevation:0-1,830 m.
Blooms April to
September.
Amphibians and Reptiles
California tiger salamander FT/ST/CSC Grasslands and foothills Not expected to occur due to
Ambystoma californiense that contain small mammal history of disturbance and
burrows(for dry-season isolation from large blocks
retreats)and seasonal of undisturbed grassland
ponds and pools(for (e.g.,Camp Parks).
breeding during the rainy
season).
California red-legged fi•og FT/—/CSC Ponds,streams,drainages Not expected to occur due to
Rana draytonii and associated uplands; lack of aquatic habitat.
requires areas of deep, still, Reach of Alamo Creek at
and/or slow-moving water southern end of northern
for breeding parcel too disturbed.
Western pond turtle —/—/CSC Ponds,streams,drainages, Unlikely to occur due to
Actinemys marmorata and associated uplands. lack of aquatic habitat.
Reach of Alamo Creek at
southern end of northern
parcel too disturbed.
Alameda whipsnake FT/ST/— Chaparral and sage scrub Not expected to occur due to
Hasticophis lateralis with rock outcrops and an lack of chaparral.
eulyxanthus abundance of prey species
such as western fence
lizard(Sceloporus
occidentalis).
P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc(02/26/13)
1.SA ASSOCf ATFS, INC.
Status*
(Federal/State/
Species Other) Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion
Birds
Burrowing owl —/—/CSC Open habitats(e.g., May occur in northern
Athene cunicularia grasslands,agricultural parcel.Burrows and
areas)with mammal foraging habitat present.
burrows or other features
(e.g.,culverts,pipes,debris
piles)suitable for nesting
and roosting.
Loggerhead shrike —/—/CSC Open grasslands and May occur in northern
Lanius ludovicianus woodlands with scattered parcel.Willows and oaks
shrubs,fence posts,utility provide nest sites and
lines,or other perches. grassland along railroad
Nests in dense shrubs and grade suitable for foraging.
lower branches of trees.
Tricolored blackbird —/—/CSC Nests in dense vegetation Not expected to occur due to
Agelaius tricolor near open water,forages in lack of dense emergent
grasslands and agricultural marsh or other vegetation
fields. suitable for nesting.
Mammals
Pallid bat —/—/CSC Roosts in eaves,tunnels, Not expected to occur due to
Antroaous pallidus buildings,under bridges, lack of roosting habitat.
and in tree hollows;forages
over variety of habitats.
San Joaquin kit fox FE/ST/— Annual grasslands with Not expected to occur due to
Vulpes Inacrotis mutica scattered shrubby history of disturbance and
vegetation.Loose-textured species' absence from
soils required for digging Dublin/San Ramon area.
burrows.
American badger —/—/CSC Open,dry habitats(e.g., Not expected to occur due to
Taxidea taxus grasslands)with friable surrounding disturbance
soils. lack of connectivity to
grassland habitat.No
burrows observed during
2006 or 2013 surveys.
*Status Codes
FE=federally endangered
171'=federally threatened
ST=State threatened
IA=California Rare Plant Rank IA
I B=California Rare Plant Rank I B
2=California Rare Plant Rank 2
CSC=California Species of Special Concern
P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doe(02/26/13)
ATTACHMENT A: REGULATORY CONTEXT
Federal Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and
endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act(ESA)protects listed
species from harm or"take,"broadly defined as to"harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound,kill,
trap, capture,or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct."An activity can be defined as a
"take"even if it is unintentional or accidental.The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed plant
and animal species with the exception of migratory fish which are under the jurisdiction of the
National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(formerly known as NOAA Fisheries).
An endangered species is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. Any activity that could result in the take of a federally listed species requires an
ESA Section 10 take permit from the USFWS, or an ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS in
conjunction with a federal permit process. Section 7 of the ESA requires other federal agencies
involved in permitting projects that may result in take of federally listed species(e.g., U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers)to consult with the USFWS prior to allowing any activities that may result in
take.
Clean Water Act
The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States
and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 3283(a)and include streams that are tributaries to
navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands.The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream
are measured at the line of the ordinary high water mark(33 CFR 328.3[e])or the limit of adjacent
wetlands(33 CFR 328.3[b]).
Waters of the United States fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Wetlands
include marshes,wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins,and other areas experiencing extended
seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds,
ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes,are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and
support wetland plant communities. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses such as
rivers, streams, lakes, springs,ponds,coastal waters, and estuaries. Seasonally inundated waterbodies
or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the United
States.
In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps before placing fill or
grading in wetlands or other waters of the United States. Prior to issuing the permit,the Corps is
required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA if the project may result in the take
of federally listed species.
All Corps permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In the
San Francisco Bay Area,this regulatory program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). Project proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other
waters of the United States must apply for water quality certification from the RWQCB. The
P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 1
LSA.ASSOGIA?LS, Iiv G.
RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or other
jurisdictional area.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA), which is enforced by the USFWS, prohibits the
taking, hunting, killing,selling, purchasing,etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds,or their
eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA,the term"take"is defined as"to pursue,hunt, shoot,capture,
collect, kill,or attempt to pursue,hunt, shoot,capture,collect, or kill,unless the context otherwise
requires."Most bird species native to North Arnerica are covered by this act.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife' (CDFW)has jurisdiction over State-listed
endangered,threatened,and rare plant and animal species under the California Endangered Species
Act(CESA). CESA is similar to the federal ESA both in process and substance; it is intended to
provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. Species may be
listed as threatened or endangered under both acts(in which case the provisions of both State and
federal laws apply) or under only one act. A candidate species is one that the Fish and Wildlife
Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to the State list.
Candidate species are protected by the provisions of CESA.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under this Act(California Water Code Sections 13000-14920),the RWQCB is authorized to regulate
the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State's waters.The RWQCB asserts
jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands,as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by
the Corps. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it may still require review
and approval by the RWQCB if isolated waters or wetlands are present. When reviewing applications,
the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the"beneficial uses"associated
with waters of the State. In most cases,the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by
requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements (WDRs)into projects that will require
discharge into-waters of the State. For most construction projects,the RWQCB requires the use of
construction and post-construction best management practices(BMPs).
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)applies to"projects"proposed to be undertaken
or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the
potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of CEQA,a species not
included on any formal list"shall nevertheless be considered threatened or endangered if the species
can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria"for listing. With sufficient documentation,a
species could be shown to meet the definition of threatened or endangered under CEQA and be
considered a"de facto"threatened or endangered species.
California Fish and Game Code
The CDFW is also responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code,which contains
several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. For example, Section 1602 of the Fish
and Game Code governs the issuance of Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements by CDFW. Lake
I Prior to January 1,2013,the CDFW was known as the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).For the
purposes of this report,the"CDFG"abbreviation is only used to reference documents issued by the agency prior to 2012.
P:\MEY1301\BtoRpt.doc(02/26/13) 2
..e, ..,S0c;L%F_ NI, .
or Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially divert or
obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed,channel,or bank of any river, stream, or lake
designated as such by CDFW.
The Fish and Game Code also designates animal species as Fully Protected or Protected. Fully
Protected animals and Protected animals may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW does not
issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research or live
capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully Protected species are
listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700(mammals), 5050(reptiles and amphibians), and 5515(fish)of
the Fish and Game Code,while Protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41
and 42.
Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession,or needless destruction of the
nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction
of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes(owls)and their nests.
These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds.
Non-native species, including European starling,house sparrow,and rock pigeon,are not afforded
any protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code.
California Species of Special Concern
The CDFW maintains an administrative list of Species of Special Concern, defined as a"species,
subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more
of the following(not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:
• is extirpated fi•om the State, or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role;
• is listed as federally,but not State-,threatened or endangered;
• meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed;
• is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious(noncyclical)population declines or range
retractions(not reversed)that, if continued or resumed,could qualify it for State threatened or
endangered status;
• has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s),that if
realized,could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status."
Species of Special Concern are generally included in a CEQA document analysis of project impacts.
In contrast to species listed under the federal ESA or CESA Species of Special Concern have no
formal legal status.
California Rare Plant Ranks
Special-status plants in California are assigned to one of five"California Rare Plant Ranks"by a
collaborative group of over 300 botanists in government, academia, non-governmental organizations,
and the private sector. This effort is jointly managed by the CDFW and the non-profit California
Native Plant Society(CNPS). The five California Rare Plant Ranks currently recognized by the
CNPS include the following:
• Rare Plant Rank IA—presumed extinct in California.
• Rare Plant Rank 1 B—rare,threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
• Rare Plant Rank 2—rare,threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
PAMEY1301\13ioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 3
1,SA AS S1)Ci t A P.S, INN,
• Rare Plant Rank 3 —a review list of plants about which more information is needed.
• Rare Plant Rank 4—a watch list of plants of limited distribution.
Substantial impacts to plants ranked IA, 1B,and 2 are typically considered significant based on
Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines depending on the policy of the lead agency. Plants ranked 3
and 4 may be evaluated by the lead agency on a case-by-case basis to determine significance
thresholds under CEQA.
P:AMEY7301\BioRpt.doc(02126/13) 4
t
I
Large seasonal pool on northern parcel,approximately 765 feet north ofAmador Valley Boulevard.
r
f
California ground squirrel burrow complex on northern parcel,approximately 450 feet north of
Amador Valley Boulevard.
L S A
Dublin UPRR Parcels
Site Photographs
P:AMCY 1 301 Ag\Site Photographs.edr(02/21/2013)
P'
5�-
Seasonal wetland vegetation in central portion of southern parcel.
t,
Willows in central portion of southern parcel.
L S A
Dublin UPRR Parcels
Site Photographs
P:AMEY1301\g\Site PhotographsAr(02/21/2013)
Attachment 2-
Preliminary Wetland Delineation
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013
Preliminary SeCtion 404 Determination
DUBLIN IRON HORSE TRAIL
DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared Far:
Jerry Haag
2029 University Ave.
Berkeley, California 94704
� a
Contacts " E
Tom Fraser
fraser@wra-ca.com
Date:
May 2013
wr
N R Id t.,FiTI 3 f. rNtLLTANTS
169 tG, f u,;S i-mn,:iswo €t3 I, Sun 1"„1i13::l, CA 94,DQ1 4, <„;= 0+19 f ca Cum) www.,mu-ca.com.
This page intentionally left blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
1.1 Study Background.......................................................................................................... I
1.2 Regulatory Background................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS.............. .................. ..................2
3.0 METHODS...........................................................................................................................2
3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................... 2
3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. ....................................................................................... 5
3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West.............................................................. 6
3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction............................................................. 6
4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................6
5.0 RESULTS ............. ....................................... 9
5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.................................................................... 9
5.1.1 Wetlands ....... 9
5.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. ........................................ ..................... 9
5.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction........................................................... 10
6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION...................................................10
7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas Within the Study Area.............2
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Figures
Figure 1. Study Area Location Map
Figure 2. Aerial Photo of Study Area
Figure 3. Soils Map
Figure 4. Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
Appendix B - Wetland Data Forms
Appendix C - Representative Photographs of the Study Area
Appendix D - Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Background
The Dublin Iron Horse Trail site (Study Area) consists of 27.47 acres in Alameda County,
California (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Study Area is bounded on the north by the City of
Dublin/City of San Ramon City Limit Line, and on the south by Alamo Creek. Amador Valley
Boulevard divides the Study Area into two parts, a northern and a southern parcel.
The property is owned by the City of Dublin, is comprised of two former Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) right-of-way parcels, and now serves as the popular Ironhorse Trail corridor connecting
Dublin with neighboring areas to the north. The paved multi-use trail and abandoned railroad
bed, as well as aerial and underground utility lines, run adjacent to the relatively narrow Study
Area.
The City of Dublin is considering to expand park resources within the Study Area. WRA, Inc.
was hired to conduct a routine wetland delineation within the Study Area as part of the City's
due diligence process. On May 17, 2013, WRA conducted a routine wetland delineation in the
Study Area to determine the presence of potential wetlands and waters subject to federal
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This report presents the results of this
delineation.
1.2 Regulatory Background
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory and permitting authority regarding
discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States". Section 502(7)
of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including
territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term
"waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps
under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of"waters of the U.S_" in 33 CFR 328.3
includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters"
such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5)
tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters.
Therefore, for purposes of the determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act,
"navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S."
defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above.
The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as
follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b)
Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal
waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to
the limit of the wetland.
1
2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Appendix A depicts the extent of Corps jurisdiction within the Study Area based on a wetland
delineation conducted by WRA on May 17, 2013. The acreage of potential Section 404
jurisdictional areas is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Summary of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas Within the Study Area
"Potentially Potential
Habitat Type Size (acres) Isolated"Areas Jurisdictional
(acres) Waters of the
U.S. (acres)
Wetlands:
f — I
Seasonal Wetlands (PEMS) 0.51 N/A 0.51
TOTAL 0.51 N/A 0.51
3.0 METHODS
Prior to conducting field surveys, reference materials were reviewed, including the Soil Survey
of Alameda County (USDA 2013), the Alameda USGS 7.5' quadrangle, and aerial photographs
of the site.
A focused evaluation of indicators of wetlands and waters was performed in the Study Area on
May 17, 2013. The methods used in this study to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters
are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual("Corps Manual";
Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual. Arid West Region ("Arid West Supplement"; Corps 2008). The
routine method for wetland delineation described in the Corps Manual was used to identify
areas potentially subject to Corps Section 404 jurisdiction within the Study Area. A general
description of the Study Area, including plant communities present, topography, and land use
was also generated during the delineation visits. The methods for evaluating the presence of
wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." employed during the site visit are described in detail
below.
3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.
3.1.1 Wetlands
The Study Area was evaluated for the presence or absence of indicators of the three wetland
parameters described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Arid West
Supplement (Corps 2008).
Section 328.3 of the Federal Code of Regulations defines wetlands as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
2
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas."
EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3 (b)
The three parameters used to delineate wetlands are the presence of: (1) hydrophytic
vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. According to the Corps Manual, for
areas not considered "problem areas" or"atypical situations":
"....[E]vidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each
parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation) must be found in order to make a
positive wetland determination."
Data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils collected at sample points during the delineation site
visit was reported on Arid West Supplement data forms. Once an area was determined to be a
potential jurisdictional wetland, its boundaries were delineated using GPS equipment and
mapped on a topographic map. The areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands were measured
digitally using ArcGIS software. Indicators described in the Arid West Supplement were used to
make wetland determinations at each sample point in the Study Area and are summarized
below.
Vegetation
Plant species observed in the Study Area were identified using Baldwin et al. (2012). Plants
were assigned a wetland indicator status according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers list of
plant species that occur in wetlands (Lichvar 2012). Where differences in nomenclature occur
between Baldwin et al. (2012) and Lichvar (2012), the species name as it occurred in Lichvar
(2012) is listed in brackets. Wetland indicator statuses are based on the expected frequency of
occurrence in wetlands as follows:
OBL Always found in wetlands >99% frequency
FACW(±) Usually found in wetlands 67-99%
FAC Equal in wetland or non-wetlands 34-66%
FACU Usually found in non-wetlands 1-33%
UPL/NL Upland/Not listed (upland) <1%
The presence of hydrophytic vegetation was then determined based on indicator tests described
in the Arid West Supplement. The Arid West Supplement requires that a three-step process be
conducted to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. The procedure first requires the
delineator to apply the "50/20 rule" (Indicator 1; Dominance Test) described in the manual. To
apply the "50/20 rule", dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the
community. Dominant species are determined for each vegetation stratum from a sampling plot
of an appropriate size surrounding the sample point. Dominants are the most abundant species
that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover in
the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total
vegetative cover. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species has an OBL, FACW, or
FAC status, ignoring + and - qualifiers, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation
criterion.
3
If the sample point fails Indicator 1 and both hydric soils and wetland hydrology are not present,
then the sample point does not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, unless the site is a
problematic wetland situation. However, if the sample point fails Indicator 1 but hydric soils and
wetland hydrology are both present, the delineator must apply Indicator 2.
Indicator 2 is known as the Prevalence Index. The prevalence index is a weighted average of
the wetland indicator status for all plant species within the sampling plot. Each indicator status
is given a numeric code (OBL = 1, FACW = 2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5). Indicator 2
requires the delineator to estimate the percent cover of each species in every stratum of the
community and sum the cover estimates for any species that is present in more than one
stratum. The delineator must then organize all species into groups according to their wetland
indicator status and calculate the Prevalence Index using the following formula, where A equals
total percent cover:
PI
AOBL + 2AFACw + 3AFAC + 4AFACU + 5AUPL
=
AOBL +AFACw + AFAC + AFACU +AUPL
The Prevalence Index will yield a number between 1 and 5. If the Prevalence Index is equal to
or less than 3, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. However, if the
community fails Indicator 2, the delineator must proceed to Indicator 3.
Indicator 3 is known as Morphological Adaptations. If more than 50 percent of the individuals of
a FACU species have morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, that species is considered
to be a hydrophyte and its indicator status should be reassigned to FAC. If such observations
are made, the delineator must recalculate Indicators 1 and 2 using a FAC indicator status for
this species. The sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion if either test is
satisfied.
Hydrology
The Corps jurisdictional wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied if an area is inundated or
saturated for a period sufficient to create anoxic soil conditions during the growing season (a
minimum of 14 consecutive days in the Arid West region). Evidence of wetland hydrology can
include primary indicators, such as visible inundation or saturation, drift deposits, oxidized root
channels, and salt crusts, or secondary indicators such as the FAC-neutral test, presence of a
shallow aquitard, or crayfish burrows. The Arid West Supplement contains 16 primary
hydrology indicators and 10 secondary hydrology indicators. Only one primary indicator is
required to meet the wetland hydrology criterion; however, if secondary indicators are used, at
least two secondary indicators must be present to conclude that an area has wetland hydrology.
The presence or absence of the primary or secondary indicators described in the Arid West
Supplement was utilized to determine if sample points within the Study Area met the wetland
hydrology criterion.
4
Soils
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) defines a hydric soil as follows:
'A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or
ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions
in the upper part."
Federal Register July 13, 1994,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS
Soils formed over long periods of time under wetland (anaerobic) conditions often possess
characteristics that indicate they meet the definition of hydric soils. Hydric soils can have a
hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odor, low chroma matrix color, generally designated 0, 1, or 2,
used to identify them as hydric, presence of redox concentrations, gleyed or depleted matrix, or
high organic matter content.
Specific indicators that can be used to determine whether a soil is hydric for the purposes of
wetland delineation are provided in the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S. (USDA
2010). The Arid West Supplement provides a list of 23 of these hydric soil indicators which are
known to occur in the Arid West region. Soil samples were collected and described according
to the methodology provided in the Arid West Supplement. Soil chroma and values were
determined by utilizing a standard Munsell soil color chart (Gretag Macbeth 2000).
Hydric soils were determined to be present if any of the soil samples met one or more of the 23
hydric soil indicators described in the Arid West Supplement.
3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S.
This study also evaluated the presence of "waters of the U.S." other than wetlands potentially
subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Other areas, besides wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction include lakes, rivers and streams
(including intermittent streams) in addition to all areas below the HTL in areas subject to tidal
influence. Jurisdiction in non-tidal areas extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHW)
defined as:
"...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by
physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impresses on the bank,
shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial
vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that
consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas."
Federal Register Vol. 51, No. 219,
Part 328.3 (e). November 13, 1986
Identification of the ordinary high water mark followed the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter
No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (Corps 2005).
5
3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West
The Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008) includes procedures for identifying wetlands that may
lack indicators due to natural processes (problem areas) or recent disturbances (atypical
situations). "Problem area" wetlands are defined as naturally occurring wetland types that
periodically lack indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology due to
normal seasonal or annual variability. Some problem area wetlands may permanently lack
certain indicators due to the nature of the soils or plant species on the site. "Atypical situations"
are defined as wetlands in which vegetation, soil, or hydrology indicators are absent due to
recent human activities or natural events.
The list of difficult wetland situations provided in the Arid West Supplement includes wetlands
with problematic hydrophytic vegetation, problematic hydric soils, and wetlands that periodically
lack indicators of wetland hydrology. In addition, the problem area and atypical situation
sections of the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) were utilized to determine if any
sample points taken within the Study Area met the criteria for a problem area or atypical
situation. If any determination was based on less than three parameters, the rationale for the
wetland determination was explained on the data sheets included in Appendix B. Although the
Corps Manual and Arid West Supplement were utilized in the wetland determination, they do not
provide exhaustive lists of the difficult situations that can arise during delineations in the Arid
West. As a result, WRA interpreted the gathered data using best professional judgment and our
knowledge of the ecology of the wetlands in the region.
3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction
Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional
under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man-induced wetlands, which
are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due
to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may
include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated
in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas.
In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps
jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated
wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to,
and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an
interstate commerce connection.
4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Study Area is approximately 27.47 acres, located in Alameda County, California (Appendix
A, Figure 1). Elevations range from approximately 330 to 350 feet NGVD. The property is
approximately 6,000 feet north of the intersection of Interstates 580 and 680. The Study Area is
relatively flat and narrow, approximately 5,800 linear feet in length and 150 linear feet to 200
linear feet in width. It is bounded by Alamo Creek to the south, and the City of Dublin/City of
6
San Ramon City Limit Line to the north. While outside of the Study Area, the Iron Horse Trail
forms the boundary of the Study Area's western edge, and fencelines associated with
residential housing developments form the eastern edge. The Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (ACFWD) Zone 7 Drainage Channel is located immediately west of
Iron Horse Trail and is also outside of the Study Area.
The entire Study Area consists predominantly of ruderal herbaceous vegetation typically
associated with disturbed areas. Land use adjacent to the Study Area consists mostly of single-
family and multi-family residential housing, and associated infrastructure. Dublin High School is
located generally west of the Study Area, opposite the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel, and
several small parks are located in close proximity to the trail corridor marking the Study Area's
western edge. Rolling hills associated with the Dougherty Valley are located generally east of
the Study Area.
An elevated earthen berm topped with gravel and debris runs along the center of the Study
Area. This berm was constructed to support the UPRR railroad bed. A trestle crossing,
approximately 50 feet in length, is located approximately 1,400 linear feet north of Amador
Valley Boulevard. A linear borrow ditch is located immediately west of the former railroad bed.
This feature contains several small linear depressions that may pond water during winter. A
similar linear depression, also possibly a former borrow ditch, is located east of the abandoned
railroad in the southernmost portion of the parcel located north of Amador Valley Boulevard.
There are a number of underground and overhead utilities within the Study Area. An
underground petroleum pipeline just east of the former UPRR railroad bed and extends along
the entire length of the Study Area. An underground fiber-optic cable line is located immediately
west of the railroad bed in the linear borrow ditch. An overhead power line also runs the length
of the Study Area, just east of the Iron Horse Trail on a second, slightly elevated berm. Several
storm drain lines cross the Study Area and discharge directly to the ACFWD Zone 7 Drainage
Channel. Adjacent residential properties and Stagecoach Park, located immediately east of the
Study Area, also have storm drainage lines that discharge directly onto the ground surface of
the Study Area.
Vegetation
Vegetation within the Study Area consisted primarily of non-native annual grassland. Dominant
vegetation in areas determined to be uplands include wild oat (Avena fatua, NL), rye grass
(Festuca perennis, FAC), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, NL), bristly ox-tongue
(Helminthotheca echioides, FACU), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola, FACU), common mustard
(Brassica nigra, NL), wild radish (Raphanus sativa, NL), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus,
NL), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare, FACU).
Potential seasonal wetlands growing in the linear depressions within the borrow ditch were
dominated by hydrophytic plants, including nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW), swamp
prickle grass (Crypsis shoenoides, OBL), rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium, FAC), salt
grass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC), fat hen (Atriplex prostrate,
FACW), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis, FACW).
Hydrology
Natural hydrological sources for the Study Area include precipitation and surface run-off from
adjacent single-family and multi-family residential housing areas to the east. Several large hills
7
located east of the Study Area contribute drainage to these neighborhood areas, which is then
conveyed across the Study Area mostly as sheet flow toward the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage
Channel. Two culverts were observed along the eastern edge of the Study Area near the
Stagecoach Park. These culverts connect directly to a drainage feature that crosses the
abandoned railroad grade under a remnant trestle and discharges into the ACFWCD Zone 7
Drainage Channel through another culvert under the Iron Horse Trail. However, these culverts
appeared to be partially blocked with sediment. A small, concrete-lined drainage ditch runs the
length of Iron Horse Trail and discharges to the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel.
Soils
The Alameda County Soil Survey (USDA 2013) indicates that the Study Area has four native
soil types: Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Sunnyvale clay loam over clay; Linne
clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; and Diablo clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes. These soil types
are described in detail below and are shown in Appendix A, Figure 3:
Clear Lake. The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that formed in
fine textured alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. These soils occur in basins and in
swales of drainageways. Permeability is slow to very slow and runoff is negligible to high.
Depth to water table can vary greatly in these soils.
A representative profile for this series consists of a dark gray (N 4/0)) clay surface layer 19-45
inches thick. This layer is underlain by grayish-brown clay that extends to a depth of 72 inches.
These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005).
Sunnyvale Clay Loam Over Clay. The Sunnyvale series consists of poorly drained soils on
nearly level flood plains and basins. These soils formed in alluvium from mixed, but dominantly
sedimentary rocks. Permeability and runoff are slow, though pumping has lowered water table
in most areas so that now soil management is similar to somewhat poorly or moderately well
drained soils.
A representative profile for this series consists of dark gray (N/4) silty clay to 34 inches. This is
underlain by gray (5Y 5/1) silty clay with yellowish brown (2.5 Y 6/4) mottles to 60 inches.
These soils are listed as hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005).
Linne Clay Loam. The Linne series occur extensively and consists of moderately deep, well
drained soils that formed in material weathered from fairly soft shale and sandstone. These
soils are on mountainous uplands and foothills, and have slopes of five to 75 percent.
Permeability is moderately slow and runoff is very rapid.
A representative profile for this series consists of very dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 3/2) silty clay to
eight inches. This is underlain by very dark gray (10YR 5/1) clay with dark grayish brown (10YR
4/2) mottles to 19 inches. These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric
soils list (USDA 2005).
Diablo. The Diablo series consists of well drained soils on complex undulating, rolling to steep
uplands with slopes of five to 50 percent. These soils formed in residuum weathered from
shale, sandstone, and consolidated sediments. Permeability is slow and water runoff is slow
when the soil is dry, medium to rapid when soils are moist.
8
A representative profile for this series consists of dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay to 15 inches. This
is underlain by finely mixed gray (5Y 5/1) and olive gray (5Y 5/2) silty clay to 32 inches. These
soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005).
5.0 RESULTS
Vegetation, soils and hydrology data collected during delineation site visits are reported on
standard Corps Arid West Region data forms in Appendix B. Potential Section 404 jurisdictional
areas are described in the following sections and depicted in Appendix A, Figure 4.
Photographs of representative portions of the Study Area and sample points are shown in
Appendix C. A list of plant species observed during the site visits is included in Appendix D.
5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.
5.1.1 Wetlands
Seasonal wetlands (NWI classification = PEMC, palustrine emergent wetland, seasonally
flooded) identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands were present within linear depressional
areas in the borrow ditches. Seasonal wetlands within the Study Area were dominated by
facultative to obligate wetland species including nutsedge , swamp prickle grass, rough
cocklebur, salt grass, curly dock, fat hen, and rabbitsfoot grass. Soils in areas identified as
seasonal wetlands generally consisted of clay to clay loam textures. Redoximorphic features
were few, faint to distinct sometimes within the upper 6 inches. Oxidized root channels were
found along living roots in the deeper depressions, particularly located near the trestle drainage
feature just east of Stagecoach Park (W-4; Appendix A, Figure 4). Sediment deposits and biotic
crust were observed in areas prone to ponding, such as in the location of the trestle drainage
feature. Surface soil cracks were also observed in the trestle bridge crossing area and linear
depressions within the borrow ditch, however, these soil cracks were also observed in upland
areas atop the elevated berm, within the petroleum line utility easement east of the elevated
berm, and in disturbed areas adjacent residential housing along the eastern edge of the Study
Area. Vegetation in seasonal wetlands also passed the FAC-neutral test.
The border between seasonal wetland and upland communities was determined primarily by
vegetation and hydric soil field indicators: areas dominated by upland vegetation species, and
lacking sufficient redoximorphic features to meet hydric soil indicators were not included in the
areas identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Soils in the areas identified as uplands
lacked facultative wetland and obligate plants as well as hydric soil indicators. These upland
areas also lacked strong indicators of wetland hydrology.
All wetlands mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the
Corps as they are directly connected to a "navigable waters of the U.S.". Study Area waters
flow ultimately into Arroyo de la Leguna.
5.9.2 Other Waters of the U.S.
No features identified as other waters of the U.S. were observed within the Study Area.
Potential wetland features in deeper depressions and within the trestle drainage area were
characterized as having ponded conditions for a significant duration due to presence of
sediment deposits and areas comprised of bare ground. However, these wetland features
exhibited vegetation coverage greater than five percent, and are therefore not considered other
waters of the U.S.
9
5.2 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction
There are no isolated wetlands or man-induced wetlands within the Study Area. All wetlands
mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as
they were not created by human activities and are directly connected to a "navigable waters of
the U.S." (Arroyo de la Laguna).
6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION
The 27.47 acre Study Area has 0.51 acre of seasonal wetlands that may be considered
jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The potential seasonal wetlands
dominated by hydrophytic vegetation with FAC, FACW and OBL classified plants and contained
hydric soil and wetland hydrology indicators. In addition, these areas are tributary to a
"navigable waters of the U.S." and therefore meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands for
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The conclusion of this delineation is based on conditions observed at the time of the field
surveys conducted on May 17, 2013.
10
7.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department
of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631.
Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department
of the Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219; page 41217.
GretagMacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised washable edition.
Lichvar, RW. 2012. The National Wetland Plant List. Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center.
Hanover, NH. October 2012.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary
High Water Mark Identification. December 7.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). September.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2013. Web
Soil Survey of Alameda County, California. Website accessed May 16, 2013.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2005. Official
List of US Hydric Soils.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2010. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating
Hydric Soils, Version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. Alameda. 7.5 minute topographic map.
11
Appendix A - Figures
This page intentionally left blank
S>r�abbaa
Fai£6dJ
Rau is -
_.._• :..,,� a
+t_ i Laki ry
1 � •A Rti,0414
i aCt. ♦ ta t�3 i '
$rfYe'ey. ;�Sd1hU{ t33'hiLNr4Yfd
FTO; y a
} 1 w
C1 iSStS� � tarsr uvia
in
"
jw I -
rr�ae�scr 14,s
gad wtea,an"
�ertbnrttr
: Alt,
alf a�}iz a� . s91 s
`y}�}.�..y'I,m 3�.
)i 8111 \i ,.�.
Study Area
ft
pZ
p4 K
s.
rt
y
3
8
M i s V'�F
.,s 4; A €" a k`4, - •:..sip'F 't.a
» P
P� 1
c�a
h
A
u�1r
e
'I
-
b.
Figure 1. Location Map of Study Area
N wra
W E
S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Dublin Ironhorse Trail 0 0.75 1.5 Map Date:May 2013
Alameda County, California Miles Base Source:ESRI World Topo
Path:L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23101\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 1 Location.mxd
•
►
•
s
• • • •
1 ► ► •
as ► 1
■ u
A � u
.r - 7
✓ n a
.8 F1M
ol
{
g ff
RK
x
low
Mn
A€. ^s z y on
K,its
pp
1 . a� .# }"
vs
i t' .a i
AV�x
s y
{ £ $
3
4
_ Mx osE4
�' i � � ♦ xa:> �.�..`s ,� w: x` _. ... � :,i � tea~ Y'> ar .� ;� s 'z� � ;" ,r.� d �a ': ''� �
7
e H
zfi
ok,f' `. AF " r w oil "Y
oo lip
too
r
Is
�, t ',t"
"is 41
tF
3 �.
an
sy
W,
VIP
Oyu
M _ t
f r
WE a
IF
"�, �' " � � R � `�"•„,- `.? .tea,,..„::. '""='` � a � r�
u
a ,.NN i <
Y4 '
AT
s 3 s
a
Q3 W
'i a
not
Qv
ton
o : , aL ,.
C)
0 0
_ o
N
S'
(� O `fl LL M Cn EE
i o CO " W
L `
7 ❑mom
0 n n En
w m @ <o
o m
N
S
p d t{P
S
` y
n
Z
Ml 'f'
ca
x,
i
0. �»
,r Sic
9"'El
r
�a
v
o
a
�Yr N
(h
r�
N2a� 'air .tr d / �gftr"';r�+3f d
w'
^
y
L Q
C 0 O
z O U O_
L
Co
u> Q� (1) O II
Y m
CU
O 0 O N
'S o ��� N ti m 3 in
`
C +.� Q Q C N T N W
Q
Z- I E U to o a
^Adaw N
U m E gc �
_ Q _ —
(n U 3
�
_ (Q
11 M, F 7
} W 4—• — fQ
r
CO
O d N
�@ m
O
Vyq
" raf
>
i
t=
b.
g'
�L
y
Iii
\ \
% a
o0 & / m
0QE o � CN
\ 0 _0 % f � k _}
\ , § LL §/\
, m
J m :
1 \�°
� � !
!
� � !
\�
� 2
� k
� ` !
\ e 7 2
§ § § _ ¥ \ « -
°
e
: a\
/ \ p / :3/ $ f �} §
» =
\ a» G !fw
} a / §ik
�
$
�\ §
|
\ co -
Z \ \/
22a
/ / o ® / \ ) \ � \ ` ~ \)}
< \ / - \
( E o ` ' \ ° \
! § o
}�
§ � ~
This page intentionally left blank
Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region
Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 5/17/2013
Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-U-1
Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Sl o
ope(/o) 0 to 3
Subregion(LRR)LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.724852 Long: -121.924366
Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes [] No (If no,explain in remarks)
Are any of the following significantly disturbed?
❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No
Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Y 9Y (If needed,explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site mal2 showin sam le oint locations transects importanit features etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑Yes ® No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present?
❑Yes ®No within a Wetland? El Yes ® NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No
Remarks: Photos 9359-9362MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground oil pipeline,with evidence of compacted,variable soils.
UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately west,residential housing is located immediately east. GPS Point SP-U-1. The sample
point is located in uplands.
VEGETATION (use scientific names)
TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
%cover Species? Status
1. Number of Dominant Species 1 (A)
2.
that are OBL,FACW,or FAC?
Total number of dominant
3. species across all strata? 2
4. (B)
Tree Stratum Total Cover:
%of dominant species that 50 (A/B)
are OBL, FACW,or FAC?
SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet
1. Total%cover of Multioly bv7
2. OBL species x1 _
3. FACW species x2
4• FAC species x3
Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover. FACU species x4
HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5
1. Festuca perennis 60 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B)
2. Helminthotheca echioides 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A=
3. Distichlis spicata 10 N FAC
4.
-- Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
5.
❑ Dominance Test is>50%
6. ❑ Prevalence Index is</=3.0'
7• ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide
g, supporting data in remarks)
Herb Stratum Total Cover: ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain)
WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
1• must be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic
%Bare ground in herb stratum 10 Vegetation Present? [3 Yes ® No
cover of biotic crust
Remarks: Distichlis under Festuca. Festuca has 100%coverage immediately upslope of this sample point location on sideslope of earthen berm. The
sample point does not contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West
Sampling Point SP-U-1
SOIL
Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
a Color(moist) % TYpe, Loc' Texture Remarks
/o
(inches) Color(moist)
Clay loam no redoximorphic features
p_g 10YR 3/1 100
8-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no redoximorphic features observed
'T e:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel,M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol(Al) ❑Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B)
❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2)
❑Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ❑Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks)
❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑Redox Dark Surface(F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑Depleted Dark Surface(F7)
❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑Redox Depressions(F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) 3Indicators of hydric vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No
Remarks: No redoximorphic features were observed in the soil pit. No hydric soild field indicators are present at this sample point location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required)
Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(131)(Riverine)
❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(611) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine)
❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(B12) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Riverine)
❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310)
❑Water Marks(B1)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7)
❑Drift Deposits(B3)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑Crayfish Burrows(C8)
❑Surface Soil Cracks(66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3)
❑Water-Stained Leaves(69) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches):
Water table present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes ONO Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well, aerial photos,etc.)if available.
Remarks:No hydrology indicators are present at this sample point location. Soils surface cracks were observed,however,these soil cracks occur also
on sideslopes of the adjacent earthen berm,and within disturbed portions of the buried utility line.
Arid West
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region
Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 5/17/2013
Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-U-2
Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Slope(%) 0 to 3
Subregion(LRR)LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.724852 Long: -121.924366 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ❑ No (If no,explain in remarks)
Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No
Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑Soil ❑ Hydrology (If needed,explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site mal2 showina sam le point locations transects im ortant features etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes 0 N
Is the Sampled Area Yes ONO
Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes 0 N within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No
Remarks: Photos 9366-9369MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground cable,with evidence of nearby disturbance in recent
aerial imagery. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately east,Iron Horse Trail is located immediately west. GPS Point SP-U-2.
The sample point is located in uplands.
VEGETATION (use scientific names)
TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
%cover Species? Status
t. Number of Dominant Species 1 (A)
that are OBL,FACW,or FAC?
2 Total number of dominant
3' species across all strata? 2 (B)
4. %of dominant species that
Tree Stratum Total Cover: are OBL, FACW,or FAC? 50 (A/B)
SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet
1. Total%cover of- Multioly by-
2. OBL species x1
3. FACW species x2
4. FAC species x3
Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover. FACU species x4
HERB STRATUM Plot Size:
UPL species x5
7. Festuca perennis 50 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B)
2. Lactuca serriola 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A=
3. Distichlis spicata 15 N
FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
4. Mellilotus indicus 5 N FACU
❑ Dominance Test is>50%
5.
6 ❑ Prevalence Index is</=3.0'
7. ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide
8.
supporting data in remarks)
Herb Stratum Total Cover: 90 ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain)
WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
1. must be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic
%Bare ground in herb stratum 10 %cover of biotic crust
Vegetation Present? Yes ® No
Remarks: Avena fatua has 100%coverage immediately upslope of this sample point location on sideslopes of earthen berm. The sample point does
not contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West
SOIL Sampling Point SP-U-2
Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) I Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
0-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no redoximorphic features
'Type:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel,M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol(Al) ❑Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B)
❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2)
❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks)
❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7)
❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) 31ndicators of hydric vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ® No
Remarks: No redoximorphic features were observed in the soil pit. No hydric soild field indicators are present at this sample point location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required)
Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient)
❑Water Marks(131)(Riverine)
❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine)
❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(B12) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Riverine)
❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic invertebrates(B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310)
❑Water Marks(61)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits(82)(Nonriverine) ❑Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7)
❑Drift Deposits(63)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows(C8)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3)
❑Water-Stained Leaves(139) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth(inches):
Water table present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth(inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well,aerial photos,etc.)if available.
Remarks:No hydrology indicators are present at this sample point location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West
Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region
Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin Count Alameda
County Sampling Date 5/17/2013
Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels)
State CA Sampling Point SP-W-3
Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins
Section,Township,Range
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Sl o
ope(/°) 0 to 3
Subregion(LRR)_LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.722460
Long: -121.922256 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay
NWI classification N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ❑ No (If no,explain in remarks)
Are any of the following significantly disturbed?
❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No
Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑Soil ❑ Hydrology Y 9Y (If needed,explain any answers in remarks)
UM , ARY OF F NDINGS-Attach site mal3showing sam le oint locations transects im octant eatures etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ❑ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present?
®Yes [] No within a Wetland? ®Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Photos 9371-9375MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground cable,with evidence of nearby disturbance in recent
aerial imagery. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately east,Iron Horse Trail is located immediately west. GPS Point SP-W-2.
The sample point is located in wetlands.
VEGETATION (use scientific names)
TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator
cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet
1• Number of Dominant Species 3 (A)
2• that are OBL, FACW,or FAC?
3. Total number of dominant
4.
species across all strata? 3 (B)
Tree Stratum Total Cover:
of dominant species that 100 (A/B)
are OBL, FACW,or FAC?
SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet
1. _ Total%cover of _ Multiply bw
2• OBL species x1
3. FACW species x2
4. FAC species x3
SaplinglShrub Stratum Total Cover: FACU species x4
HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5
1. Polypogon monspeliensis 30 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B)
2. Festuca perennis 20 y_ F_ ACW Prevalence Index=B/A=
3. Leymus triticoides 20 Y_ FAC
4. Avena fatua 10 N NL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
5, Melllotus indicus 10 N FACU ® Dominance Test is>50%
6. Rumex crispus 5 N FAC Prevalence Index is</=3.0'
7. ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide
8. supporting data in remarks)
Herb Stratum Total Cover: 95 ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'(explain)
WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
1• must be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic
%Bare ground in herb stratum 0 cover!o° of biotic crust Vegetation Present? ❑Yes ® No
Remarks: The sample point contains a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West
Sampling Point SP-W-3
SOIL
Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features Remarks
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % TYpe, Loc' Texture
0.7 10YR 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Loam
ORs on live roots
7-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no red oximorphic features observed
'T e:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B)
❑Black Histic(A3) ❑Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑Reduced Vertic(F18)
❑Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2)
❑Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ®Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks)
❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑Depleted Dark Surface(F7)
❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑Redox Depressions(F8) 'Indicators of h dric vegetation and
[I ve et Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) wetland hydrology v 9 t present.
❑Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4)
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No
Remarks: Redoximorphic features were observed in the upper part of the soil pit. The sample point met the F3 Depleted Matrix hydric soild field
indicators.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(Z or more required)
Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(B1)(Riverine)
❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine)
❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(612) ❑ Drift Deposits(133)(Riverine)
❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310)
❑Water Marks(61)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Nonriverine) ®Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7)
❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) [3 Saturation Burrows(C8)
® Surface Soil Cracks(66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) ❑Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3)
❑Water-Stained Leaves(69) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches):
Water table present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes ONO Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well,aerial photos,etc.)if available.
Remarks:Hydrology indicators B6 Surface Soil Cracks,and C3 Oxidized Rhizospheres Along Living Roots were met.
Arid West
US Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix C - Representative Photographs of the Study Area
This page intentionally left blank
ti
` 4+
3
0
Z>
Above: Photo shows railroad trestle crossing drainage
feature, looking west.
Below Photo shows evidence of ponding under railroad
wra
trestle crossing.
ENV$RONMENIAt CONSOtIANYS
Photographs taken May 17,2013
F
Above: Photo showing sample point SP-U-1 in
foreground, looking south. This sample point is located
within a buried pipeline easement. wra
x
Below: Photo showing sample point SP-U-2 in
foreground, looking north. Abandoned UPRR earthen fNVik C}NMEN1At e�-OhiSUtTANiS
berm is on the right.
Photographs taken May 17, 2013
Mz� h F
Y
2
�k
i
Above: Photo showing seasonal wetland feature W-3,
looking south-southwest.
wra
Photographs taken May 17,2013 £ ;? t�rtncw, artassr�"
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix D — Plants Observed Within the Study Area
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix D. Plants observed by WRA at the Dublin Iron Horse Trail Study Area, May 17,
2013.
SCIENTIFIC NAME WETLAND
COMMON NAME INDICATOR
STATUS -AW
Atriplex prostrate fat hen FACW
Avena fatua wild oats NL
Brassica nigra black mustard NL
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome NL
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle NL
Crypsis schoenoides swamp pricklegrass OBL
Cyperus eragrostis nutsedge FACW
Distichlis spicata salt grass FAC
Festuca perennis Italian rye FAC
Foeniculum vulgare fennel FACU
Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tounge FAC
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley FAC
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce FACU
Lepidium latifolium broadleaved pepperweed FACW
Leymus triticoides beardless lyme grass FAC
Melilotus indicus indian sweet-clover FACU
Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass FACW
Raphanus sativa wild radish NL
Rumex crispus curly dock FAC
Xanthium strumarium =roughcocklebur FAC
D-1
Attachment 3-
Acoustic Report
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project Page 50
August 2013
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER &
LEWIT2, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT REPORT FOR:
Iron Horse Linear Park
Dublin, CA
RGDL Project#: 13-029
PREPARED FOR:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
PREPARED BY:
Alan Rosen
Harold S. Goldberg, P.E.
DATE:
30 July 2013
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 Larkspur CA 94939% Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 4154640155* RGDLacoustics.com
1
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA 30 July Page ge 1
Environmental Noise Impact Report
1. Introduction
The proposed project is the development of a new linear park along the Iron Horse
Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad tracks extending from the Dublin-San
Ramon City Limit Line to just south of Amador Valley Blvd. Although no specific
design has been selected by the City, there are a variety of possible uses that are
being considered such as children's play areas, outdoor classrooms, picnic areas,
and community gardens.
The project site is adjacent to residential homes on both sides as well as the
existing Dublin High School athletic fields. This report evaluates potential impact of
the noise from likely project uses and provides recommendations for noise
mitigation measures if noise levels are expected to exceed applicable standards.
2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an
instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound
with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound
levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a
level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is
used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound
in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most
local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans,
EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the
A-weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken
together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The
maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of
a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover.
To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The
Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of
15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the
sound level during the quietest moments. it is usually generated by steady
sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called
the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound
Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These
descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during
nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account
for people's increased sensitivity during these hours.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER H[
LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 a Larkspur CA 94939<Tel 415 464 0150 4 Fax 415 464 0155 a RGDLacoustics.com
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 2
Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013
In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A
10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
3. Acoustical Criteria
3.1.City of Dublin General Plan
The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and
land use compatibility. Table 1 provides guidelines for the compatibility of
land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered
normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that the City's
compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit
noise.
Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE(d8)
Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable _Unacceptable _Unacceptable
(Noise Insulation)
Features Required
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75
Over 75
Motels,hotels 60 or less 60.70 70.80 Over 80
Schools,churches,nursing 60 or less 60.70 70-80 Over 80
homes
Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60.65 65-70 Over 70
Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70.75 75-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 70.75 Over 75
Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design.Conventional construction,
but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
3.2.City of Dublin Noise Ordinance
Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or
disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which
annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety
of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area". The noise
ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the
noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the
City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not
possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project
generated noise in the context of this noise study.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ,INc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375* Larkspur CA 94939�Tel 415 464 0150 a Fax 415 464 0155� RGDLacoustics.com
3
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA 30 July Page ge 3
Environmental Noise Impact Report
3.3.Increase in Noise
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a
determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA
does not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a
significant increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria
for determining when a noise increase is significant.
A recent FAA Draft Policy' discusses screening and impact thresholds for
increases in aircraft noise. These FAA thresholds are consistent with the
thresholds that were adopted in CEQA document for the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan.2 Therefore, these thresholds are used to assess the significance
of noise increases due to the project as follows — an increase in CNEL is
significant if it is;
• 5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is less than 60 dBA.
or
• 3 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA.
or
• 1.5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater.
4. Existing Noise Environment
The proposed Park runs along the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Union Pacific Right
of Way. The South San Ramon Creek forms the westerly boundary of the proposed
Park. Residences are located on both sides of the proposed park with backyards that
abut the project site. Along the western side of the site, backyards are about 100 feet
from the Iron Horse Trail. On the eastern side, backyards are about 200 feet from the
Iron Horse Trail.
To quantify the existing noise environment, long-term noise measurements were
made for seven consecutive days at two locations (A and B on Figure 1) and short
term, 15-minute noise measurements were made at four locations (1 through 4 on
Figure 1). The measurement locations were primarily chosen to represent the existing
conditions at residences near the proposed project.
Figures 2 and 3 show the daily variation in noise levels at each of the long-term monitor
locations. In general, average noise levels toward the north (location A) ranged from 45
to 55 dBA (Leg) whereas noise levels on the southern end (location B), near the road,
were slightly higher and ranged from about 45 to 60 dBA.
FAA Order 1050.1 E, CHG 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, 10 March 2006.
2 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR, September 2010, SCH#20100022005.
R05EN
GOLDBERG
DER He
LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375+Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 4
Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013
Table 1 shows the results of the short term noise measurements. At location 3,
adjacent to homes on the west side of the project site, a dog barking generated a
maximum noise level of 51 dBA, whereas a voice on the Iron Horse Trail was 49 dBA.
An airplane flyover generated a maximum noise level of 60 dBA. At location 4, a
distant truck generated a noise level of 52 dBA whereas a motorcycle generated a
maximum level of 58 dBA. Location 4 the sound of kids in the nearby park were 56 to
58 dBA though they were somewhat masked by wind noise which was about 55 dBA.
At location 5, near the southern end of the site, distant traffic had a maximum noise
level of 52 dBA.
Figure 1: Noise Measurement Locations
�, y _ x
r,
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ,INc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 a Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 5
Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013
Figure 2: Long Term Noise Measurement at Location A
S.ID�
w
L 67
d kba"
40
30
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
N 650 b 0 N d'0 C w N dr0 t0 (6 N w 0 65 N 6'0 b b N dd b 60 N w tl b N
Wad TFU Fri Sat Sn Nbn TUB V1hd
5'1/13 57113 SIN13 54113 5'5113 56113 57/13 5'8113
Tare of Day
Figure 3: Long Term Noise Measurement at Location B
100 F' , , _ _ ;
90
e0
70
t
50
a
40
_
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
N bri b ld N rd ti fd N dd b (d N td b ld N fd b fd N �0 ti ld N dri b Gj N
V\bd TFu Fri Sat S l Ntn TUB V\kd
511/13 57113 53113 5'4113 515113 5613 -97/13 5(8(13
Tirre of Day
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 4 Larkspur CA 94939 e Tel 415 464 0150 a Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 6
Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013
Table 1: Summary of Short-Term, 15 Minute Noise Measurements
Location Date /Time A-weighted Sound Level, dBA
Leq L10 L50 L90 CNEL*
1 1-May-13 39 41 37 35 51
11:34 a.m.
2 1-May-13 47 49 44 38 52
12:33 a.m.
3 8-May-13 47 48 45 43 51
2:17 p.m.
4 8-May-13 53 54 52 51 57
2:36 p.m.
5 8-May-13 52 54 52 51 56
3:17 p.m.
*CNEL calculated based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at 24-hour noise monitor location.
5. Analysis
5.1. Project Generated Noise
Noise sources associated with the proposed project would range from those
that are typical for the existing trail such as people walking, jogging or biking to
new uses such as children's play areas, outdoor classrooms and outdoor
picnic areas.
Typical maximum noise levels from trail users Qoggers, bikers and people
strolling) range from 43 to 60 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. With the proposed
project, the trail would meander and be as close as 25 feet from existing
homes. Table 2 shows the estimated noise levels from the trail use at
backyards of existing residences.
Table 2: Estimated Noise Levels from Trail at the Nearest Backyards
Noise Source Lmax dBA
Bike* 44
Jogger* 44
Voice — normal** 40
Voice — raised** 47
Voice —shout** 70
*Noise Study for Alamo Creek Bike Path, 30 June 2003
**"Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", 3`d Ed.,Cyril Harris 1998.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 7 Larkspur CA 94939 _ Tel 415 464 0150.ti Fax 415 464 0155 ,--RGDLacoustics.com
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 7
Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013
Based on the noise measurements that were made for the Alamo Creek Bike
Trail project, the Leq due to the trail users would be 43 dBA at a distance of 10
feet from the center of the trail. This corresponds to an Leq of 35 dBA at a
distance of 25 feet. If this level of activity occurs from 7 AM to 9 PM, then the
DNL would be 34 dBA at the nearest backyards, estimated to be about 25 feet
from the trail.
For group activities, the level of noise would depend on the number of users
and the proximity to homes. For example, a group activity, such as use of a
play area where five children are playing continuously for 12 hours a day
would generate an Leq of 52 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The corresponding
CNEL would be 49 dBA.
5.2. Impact Assessment
1. Would the proposal result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan considers a CNEL of
60 dBA or less to be "normally acceptable" for neighborhood parks and
residential development. The City's of Dublin's Noise Ordinance (Chapter
5.28) does not contain quantitative noise level limits.
Existing noise levels along the project site range from a CNEL of 51 to 57 dBA
due to ambient noise and trail use. This is considered "normally acceptable"
for both park and residential uses. In the future, the noise from the proposed
project will vary, depending upon the specific use and ultimate location of that
use with respect to existing residences.
For the purposes of this assessment, the uses are divided into two types: Trail
use (biking, walking, jogging) and outdoor classrooms/play/picnic areas.
The use of the bike trail would be similar to current use though the distance of
the main trail to homes would decrease since the trail would likely meander
from east to west (as opposed to its current location about 100 to 200 feet from
homes). Under the scenario where a trail comes within about 25 feet from a
residential backyard, the CNEL would be 34 dBA. A CNEL of 34 dBA is well
within the City's "normally acceptable" level of 60 dBA for residential use.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375-Larkspur CA 94939®Tel 415 464 0150 4- Fax 415 464 0155. RGDLacoustics.com
Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 8
Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013
The precise location of the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas is not known at
this time, but the concept site plan indicates that a likely distance would be
about 100 feet from existing homes. An outdoor classroom, play or picnic
areas with five children playing continuously, throughout the day, would
generate a CNEL of 49 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. If the number of
children increased to 10, the CNEL would increase to 52 dBA. Both these
levels are considered "normally acceptable" for residential use according to the
City's General Plan.
In order to generate noise levels greater than those considered normally
acceptable (e.g. greater than 60 dBA (CNEL)) there would need to be about 75
children using the outdoor area if it is located 100 feet from the homes or the
play area would need to be closer than 37 feet from the homes if there were
only 10 children playing. In these instances, noise from the outdoor
classroom/play/picnic area would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation 1: Restrict classroom, play and picnic areas so they are no
closer than 37 feet from existing residences.
2. Would the proposal result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project?
The contribution in noise from the use of the trail alone would increase the
CNEL at the closest residences by less than 1 dBA. Therefore, the increase in
noise from the use of the trail will result in a less than significant impact.
However, noise from the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas could increase
the CNEL in excess of 5 dBA if located within 75 feet of residences
(presuming 10 children playing). If there are 5 children playing, the distance
decreases to 55 feet. This is a significant impact.
Mitigation 2: See Mitigation 1
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 t Larkspur CA 94939$Tel 415 464 0150�Fax 415 464 0155- RGDLacoustics.com