Draft Environmental Impact Report - Amazon Web...

General Plan Revision

®

Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2012052027

April 2015

Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2012052027

Prepared for:

California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor John Laird Secretary, The Natural Resources Agency Lisa Mangat Acting Director, California State Parks P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001

April 2015

General Plan Revision

®

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... v

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... S-1 S.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................. S-1 S.2 Environmental Effects Eliminated from Further Analysis .............................................. S-2 S.3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................... S-2 S.4 Areas of Known Controversy .......................................................................................... S-3 S.5 Issues to be Resolved ....................................................................................................... S-4 S.6 Summary of Alternatives Considered .............................................................................. S-4

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Type, Purpose, and Intended Use of this Environmental Impact Report......................... 1-1 1.2 General Plan Process and Public Participation ................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Comments Received on the Scope of the DEIR .............................................................. 1-4 1.4 Focus of the EIR .............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.5 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 Subsequent Environmental Review Process .................................................................... 1-5 1.7 DEIR Contents and Organization .................................................................................... 1-6

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Environmental Setting and Carnegie SVRA Use Characteristics.................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2-8 2.4 General Plan Components................................................................................................ 2-9

CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 3.2-1 3.3 Biotic Resources ........................................................................................................... 3.3-1 3.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3.4-1 3.5 Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources ........................................... 3.5-1 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 3.6-1 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 3.7-1 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.9 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................. 3.9-1 3.10 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 3.10-1 3.11 Population and Housing .............................................................................................. 3.11-1 3.12 Public Services and Utilities ....................................................................................... 3.12-1 3.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................... 3.13-1 3.14 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................................................... 3.14-1

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued Page

CHAPTER 4 – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Geographic Scope ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.3 Cumulative Forecasting Methodology ............................................................................. 4-2 4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-5

CHAPTER 5 – OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Environmental Effects Eliminated from Further Analysis .............................................. 5-1 5.2 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 5-4 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................. 5-5 5.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................ 5-6

CHAPTER 6 – ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Evaluation ...................................... 6-2 6.2 No-Project Alternative ..................................................................................................... 6-4 6.3 Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative ...................................................................... 6-6 6.4 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................ 6-7

CHAPTER 7 – REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 7-1

CHAPTER 8 – REPORT CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................................ 8-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A Carnegie SVRA DEIR NOP and Public Comments

Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations

Appendix C Noise Fundamentals and Noise Modeling Results

Appendix D Traffic Report

FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map.................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3. Preferred Concept Map .................................................................................................. 2-13 Figure 3.1-1. Carnegie SVRA Planning Area Viewshed ................................................................... 3.1-3 Figure 3.3-1. Habitat Types Found at Carnegie SVRA ...................................................................... 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2. Special-status Plant Species .......................................................................................... 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-3. Special-status Plant Species Occurrences within a 5-Mile Search Radius ................... 3.3-7

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR ii Table of Contents

Figure 3.3-4. Special-status Bird, Amphibian, and Reptile Occurrences Recorded during Habitat Monitoring System Surveys .......................................................................................... 3.3-9

Figure 3.3-5. Special-status Animal Species Occurrences within a 5-Mile Search Radius ............. 3.3-11 Figure 3.6-1. 2012 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector ................................................ 3.6-4 Figure 3.8-1. Conceptual Facilities and the 100-Year Floodplain .................................................... 3.8-20 Figure 3.10-1. Roadway Segments Used for Off-site Traffic Noise Modeling ................................ 3.10-13 Figure 3.14-1. Existing Volumes ........................................................................................................ 3.14-5 Figure 3.14-2. SVRA Traffic ............................................................................................................ 3.14-15 Figure 3.14-3. Total Traffic Year 2030 ............................................................................................ 3.14-17 Figure 4-1. Cumulative Projects ......................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 6-1. Draft Preferred Concept ................................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-2. Draft Preferred Concept - Expanded Limited Recreation .............................................. 6-11

TABLES

Table 1-1. Location of CEQA-Required Content ............................................................................. 1-7 Table 2-1. Visitor Experience Areas ............................................................................................... 2-15 Table 3.2-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................. 3.2-4 Table 3.2-2. Summary of Applicable San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Annual Ambient Air

Quality Data (2011–2013) ............................................................................................ 3.2-9 Table 3.2-3. Summary of Applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Annual Ambient Air

Quality Data (2011–2013) .......................................................................................... 3.2-11 Table 3.2-4. California and National Attainment Statuses for the San Francisco Bay Area Air

Basin ........................................................................................................................... 3.2-12 Table 3.2-5. California and National Attainment Statuses for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin .. 3.2-13 Table 3.2-6. Summary of 2008 Estimated Emissions Inventory for Criteria Air Pollutants and

Precursors (Alameda County) ..................................................................................... 3.2-14 Table 3.2-7. Summary of 2008 Estimated Emissions Inventory for Criteria Air Pollutants and

Precursors (San Joaquin County) ................................................................................ 3.2-15 Table 3.2-8. Baseline (2010) and Projected (2030) Operational Emissions of Air Pollutants........ 3.2-30 Table 3.2-9. Alternate Baseline (2001) and Projected (2030) Operational Emissions of Air

Pollutants Before and During Implementation (through 2030) of the General Plan .. 3.2-31 Table 3.4-1. Summary of Documented Resources ........................................................................... 3.4-3 Table 3.6-1. Summary of Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Implementation of the

Carnegie SVRA General Plan ....................................................................................... 3.6-8 Table 3.7-1. Active Hazardous-Materials Sites in and near the Planning Area .............................. 3.7-14 Table 3.10-1. Summary of Noise Measurements .............................................................................. 3.10-2 Table 3.10-2. Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Levels Modeled in the Vicinity of the

Planning Area.............................................................................................................. 3.10-3 Table 3.10-3. Summary of Future Noise Levels Modeled for Traffic in the Planning Area .......... 3.10-11 Table 3.10-4. Typical Noise Levels Caused By Construction Equipment ...................................... 3.10-16

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Table of Contents iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued Page

Table 3.14-1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................... 3.14-3 Table 3.14-2. Existing Roadway Levels of Service .......................................................................... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-3. Traffic Counts at Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area ..................................... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-4. Regional Distribution Of Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area Traffic ............ 3.14-7 Table 3.14-5. Estimated Year-2030 Traffic Volumes, Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area 3.14-13 Table 3.14-6. Year-2030 Intersection Levels of Service................................................................. 3.14-14 Table 3.14-7. Year-2030 Roadway Levels of Service .................................................................... 3.14-14 Table 4-1. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2. Regional Growth Projections ........................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3. Cumulative Projects ......................................................................................................... 4-4

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR iv Table of Contents

ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

°F degrees Fahrenheit 4WD four-wheel-drive μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill ANSI American National Standards Institute ARB California Air Resources Board ASC Anthropological Studies Center ATV all-terrain vehicle BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality

Control Board, Central Valley Region BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice B.P. Before Present CAAQS California ambient air quality standards Cal EMA California Emergency Management Agency Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational

Safety and Health CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CALVENO California Vehicle Noise Carnegie SVRA General Plan

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area General Plan

CASSP California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program CBC California Building Standards Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Valley RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Acronyms and Other Abbreviations v


CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines

and Geology) CHP California Highway Patrol CIWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalency COC contaminant of concern CR Cultural Resource Management (goals and guidelines) CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRLF California red-legged frog CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CTS California tiger salamander CVC California Vehicle Code CWA Clean Water Act dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibels DEIR draft environmental impact report DHS California Department of Health Services (now the California Department

of Public Health) diesel PM diesel particulate matter DOC California Department of Conservation DOE U.S. Department of Energy DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District ECAP East County Area Plan EDD California Employment Development Department EIR environmental impact report EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR vi Acronyms and Other Abbreviations


Eveg Existing Vegetation FEIR final environmental impact report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FTA Federal Transit Administration FY fiscal year FYLF foothill yellow-legged frog General Plan Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area General Plan Geo Geology (goals and guidelines) GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system gpd gallons per day GPS global positioning system HCP habitat conservation plan high-GWP high–global warming potential HMS Habitat Monitoring System I-580 Interstate 580 IE Interpretation and Education (goals and guidelines) lb/day pounds per day LDL Larson-Davis Laboratories Ldn day-night average noise level Leq energy-equivalent noise level LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period LOS level of service MLD most likely descendent MOU memorandum of understanding mph miles per hour MS4 General Permit General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small Municipal

Separate Storm Sewer Systems msl mean sea level MT metric tons

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Acronyms and Other Abbreviations vii


NAAQS national ambient air quality standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP natural community conservation plan NEHRPA National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP notice of preparation NOX oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRM Natural Resource Management (goals and guidelines) OHMVR Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation OHV off-highway vehicle OHV BMP Manual OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control OHWM ordinary high-water mark OM Park Operations and Maintenance (goals and guidelines) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OU operable unit PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PM particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of

2.5 micrometers or less PM10 respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of

10 micrometers or less ppm parts per million PRC California Public Resources Code PVC polyvinyl chloride RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROD record of decision ROG reactive organic gases ROV recreational off-highway vehicle RV2013 Recreation Vehicle 2013 RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR viii Acronyms and Other Abbreviations


SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SJMSCP San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 sulfur dioxide Soil Standard Soil Standard and Guidelines SOX oxides of sulfur SPPO State Parks peace officer State Parks California Department of Parks and Recreation SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SVRA State Vehicular Recreation Area SWMP Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant tpd tons per day tpy tons per year UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle VEO Visitor Experience and Opportunities (goals and guidelines) VM Visitor Management (goals and guidelines) VOC volatile organic compound Water Water Quality (goals and guidelines) WET California Waste Extraction Tests

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Acronyms and Other Abbreviations ix

SUMMARY

This summary of the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan (Carnegie SVRA General Plan or the General Plan) is provided in accordance with Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which specifies that an environmental impact report (EIR) is to contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences, presented in clear and simple language. The summary identifies each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. Accordingly, this summary includes a brief description of the project, environmental impacts and mitigation, areas of known controversy, and alternatives to the project.

S.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Carnegie SVRA is mainly a destination for intermediate and advanced off-highway motorcycles from multiple age groups. Known for steep hillsides and challenging terrain, the SVRA attracts families and single riders who want to ride for a few hours, camp and ride for several days, or compete in or watch hillclimbs or other special events. Various facilities that support recreation opportunities are located within the approximately 4,675-acre SVRA: 1,575 acres in the original SVRA and 3,100 acres in the expansion area. Existing facilities include multiple restrooms, day-use sites for picnicking and staging, and recreational facilities that include off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails, a motocross track, all-terrain vehicle (ATV)/motocross track, 70cc children’s track, 110cc beginner track, 4x4 challenge area, hillclimb special-event area, campsites, and park concessions.

All units operated by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) must prepare a general plan before developing new facilities that may result in the permanent commitment of resources. General plans are broad-based policy documents that establish long-range visions and goals and provide direction on future types of improvements, services, and programs. The Carnegie SVRA General Plan outlined in this DEIR is this unit’s second general plan.

The project considered in this DEIR is the implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. The General Plan is a guidance document intended for use over many years, and it outlines goals and guidelines that apply to the entire Carnegie SVRA. The goals and guidelines address existing issues and provide ongoing management guidance that can be implemented to achieve the SVRA’s long-term vision, which is to provide an effectively managed and convenient place for friends, families, and groups to enjoy the outdoor recreational setting through OHV activity and other compatible recreational uses.

In addition to the long-range planning provided through the General Plan, the project includes multiple improvements to park facilities related to access, education, recreation opportunities, and operations. Proposed improvements include new entrance gates; a gathering area and interpretive facility at the

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Summary S-1

Tesla Coal Mine Site; more recreational opportunities (i.e., multiuse OHV routes, four-wheel-drive technical course and trail/road system); new gathering areas; parking; a training site that could include office space, parking, or camping; additional maintenance space; a ranger station; a new interpretive facility; communication or technology support facilities; and a helicopter landing site.

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan provides much of the physical and regulatory setting description and the project description used for the CEQA analysis in this DEIR. Chapter 2, “Existing Conditions,” in the General Plan describes the geographical, physical, and management setting, including resource conditions and planning influences. General Plan Chapter 4, “The Plan,” identifies proposed use areas and management goals and guidelines, which combine to serve as the project description used for this CEQA analysis.

S.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The topic of agriculture and forestry resources was eliminated from full analysis in the DEIR because no potential exists for significant environmental effects to result from implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan related to this issue. See Chapter 5, “Other CEQA-Required Analysis,” for additional discussion.

S.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

This DEIR provides a detailed analysis of the potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. The environmental analysis found that, with incorporation of project design features, implementation of goals and guidelines as directed by the General Plan, and adherence to regulatory requirements (e.g., State Parks and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation [OHMVR] Division requirements and guidelines, and requirements from regulatory agencies and state and federal regulations), implementation of the General Plan would result in less-than-significant environmental impacts in the following issue areas:

► Aesthetics ► Biotic resources ► Cultural resources ► Geology, soils, and mineral and paleontological resources ► Greenhouse gas emissions ► Hazards and hazardous materials ► Hydrology and water quality ► Land use ► Noise ► Population and housing ► Public services and utilities

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR S-2 Summary

► Recreation ► Transportation and traffic

No mitigation measures are required for the impacts identified for these resource areas because the impacts were found to be less than significant. However, as identified in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” the following impacts would be significant and unavoidable during General Plan operations only, because no feasible mitigation measures currently exist to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level (the corresponding construction-related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation):

► Impact 3.2-2, “Violation of an Air Quality Standard or Substantial Contribution to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation”

► Impact 3.2-3, “Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region is Nonattainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (Including Releasing Emissions that Exceed Quantitative Thresholds for Ozone Precursors)”

S.4 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY

The following areas of known controversy were identified for the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and were taken into consideration during the development of the General Plan goals and guidelines:

► Site access, particularly access to the expansion area

► Relationships with neighbors

► Water supply and water conservation

► On-site erosion and sedimentation

► Effect of OHV use on the views from Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road and on aerial imagery

► Noise levels from existing and potential OHV use

► Fire safety during dry California summers

► Cultural resources, including historic-era and prehistoric sites

► Mine safety

► Limited visitor facilities

► Protection and preservation of sensitive biological resources in portions of Carnegie SVRA, including aquatic resources from recreational use


S.5 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

The OHMVR Division is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The lead agency must consider community needs and desires, long-term planning, and the OHMVR Division’s mission when determining the appropriate level of intensity of OHV use at Carnegie SVRA. It will be important for the OHMVR Division’s decision makers to resolve the need for balance between open and developed OHV use areas throughout the SVRA, on the one hand, and restrictions in some areas to protect on-site natural and cultural resources and provide for public safety and compatibility with surrounding land uses, on the other.

S.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

CEQA requires an analysis of a range of potential alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce any significant impacts. However, implementation of the proposed project (the Carnegie SVRA General Plan as described in Chapter 2 of this DEIR) would cause no significant impacts, with the exception of air quality impacts related to operations, which are significant and unavoidable. Therefore, no alternatives exist that could reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. However, alternatives were identified that have the potential to minimize at least one less-than-significant impact in at least one resource area. In addition, several alternatives were considered during the planning process, including an Air Quality Alternative, the provisions of which were ultimately incorporated into the General Plan (OM Goal 7 and OM Guidelines 7.1 through 7.3).

The alternatives analysis evaluates each issue area compared with the proposed project. The following two project alternatives are considered in the alternatives analysis:

► No-Project Alternative ► Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative

Under the No-Project Alternative, the portion of Carnegie SVRA currently open to the public would remain at 1,575 acres and the 3,100-acre expansion area would not be available for recreation or other uses and would remain closed to the public. The expansion area could potentially be used for grazing under this alternative, if leases were renewed. Current operation and management patterns in the original SVRA and expansion area would be expected to continue. No new facilities would be developed in the expansion area. The only activities that would occur are activities designed to improve environmental conditions at the SVRA (e.g., water quality and habitat improvements) that are currently being conducted to keep up with maintenance and are necessary to maintain safe conditions. OHV use and social gatherings would continue in the portion of the SVRA that would remain open to the public.

Under the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative, developed and OHV uses in the planning area would be restricted to a smaller area. The Limited Recreation visitor experience area would apply to all drainages, ponds, and seeps in the planning area (with a minimum 150-foot buffer around these features), and to all blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland areas in the expansion area. Further,

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR S-4 Summary

allowable uses in the Limited Recreation visitor experience area would be limited to nonmotorized recreational opportunities, except at permitted crossings needed to provide site access. All goals and guidelines would be implemented as described in the General Plan. This alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative given the increased Limited Recreation areas; however, this alternative does not meet the project objectives.


CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

This draft environmental impact report (DEIR) evaluates the environmental effects of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area General Plan (Carnegie SVRA General Plan or General Plan). The DEIR is intended to inform decision makers and the public about environmental consequences of implementing the General Plan; it includes a description of changes proposed in the preferred concept. The DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division, is the CEQA lead agency for this project.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the environmental review process required by CEQA. The chapter also describes the background of the proposed project (the Carnegie SVRA General Plan), agency roles and responsibilities, and the contents and organization of this DEIR.

1.1 TYPE, PURPOSE, AND INTENDED USE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CEQA states that the purpose of an environmental impact report (EIR) is “to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided” (PRC Section 21002.1[a]). CEQA requires state and local governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of projects over which they have discretionary authority and to balance a proposed project’s benefits against its unavoidable environmental consequences. If the agency identifies environmental impacts as significant and unavoidable, it may still approve the proposed project if the agency believes that social, economic, or other benefits would outweigh the unavoidable impacts.

This DEIR was prepared by the OHMVR Division to assess the potential environmental impacts of approving and implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. The DEIR addresses the project’s potentially significant adverse effects on the physical environment, to the extent that such effects are reasonably foreseeable. The Carnegie SVRA General Plan is a planning document that provides a preferred concept for site use, including distinct visitor experience areas, and a broad set of goals and guidelines for future management and development, rather than specific and detailed projects. Thus, a program EIR was determined to be the appropriate CEQA document.

According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168), a program EIR may be prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and are logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, or plans. A program EIR allows a public agency to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures during the early planning stages. Program-level EIRs and project-level EIRs have the same

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Introduction 1-1

required contents. However, the levels of detail and analysis in the two types of documents differ because a program EIR analyzes a general conceptual design and location for the proposed alternatives, rather than providing a detailed analysis for a specific action (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146).

This DEIR provides a first-tier analysis of the environmental effects of implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. Future projects associated with the General Plan will be reviewed in light of the information in this DEIR, in compliance with Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the OHMVR Division finds that a subsequent project would not result in new effects or require new mitigation measures, it can approve the activity as being within the scope of this DEIR. Should new effects not addressed in this DEIR be identified, the OHMVR Division would prepare an appropriate CEQA compliance document. That subsequent document would tier from this DEIR by incorporating the general discussions of the broader EIR by reference and focusing the analysis solely on the issues specific to the later project.

This DEIR will be used by lead, responsible, and trustee agencies that may have review authority over the project. The following agencies are among those expected to use the DEIR as a reference for future actions:

► State Parks ► California Department of Fish and Wildlife ► U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ► U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ► Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ► Alameda County ► San Joaquin County ► Bay Area Air Quality Management District ► San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

The General Plan must be approved by the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission and the EIR must be certified by the OHMVR Division before the OHMVR Division may implement the Carnegie SVRA General Plan.

1.2 GENERAL PLAN PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

General plans are broad-based policy documents that establish long-range management visions, goals, and guidelines and provide direction for future types of improvements, services, and programs. Developing general plans allows agencies to assess resource stewardship, facility development and management, and education and interpretive programs for the public. A general plan provides guidelines for managing and designating future land uses, which includes acquiring land and developing the facilities required to accommodate expected visitation and administrative needs.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 1-2 Introduction

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan provides a comprehensive framework to guide long-term development, ongoing management, and public use at Carnegie SVRA. The General Plan must remain flexible, general in scope, and consistent in its vision for the SVRA’s future; it must accommodate changing conditions and enable State Parks to solve future management problems.

Public and stakeholder input is important to State Parks’ general plan process. State Parks seeks input at the outset and throughout planning; that input is essential to developing a general plan’s recommendations, goals, and guidelines. An extensive public participation program was implemented as the Carnegie SVRA General Plan was developed. The goal of this outreach effort was to identify the community’s ideas and desires for future management and use of Carnegie SVRA, and to understand concerns about the SVRA’s future. The public participation program involved conducting an online survey; conducting introductory meetings with stakeholders and holding public meetings; providing tours of Carnegie SVRA; distributing fact sheets, posting information and activities on a project website, and mailing notices to interested parties; attending events to alert visitors and off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreationists from other SVRAs about the Carnegie SVRA General Plan; conducting four public workshops; and hosting two online workshops. (See http://www.CarnegieGeneralPlan.com/document-library.)

During General Plan development, State Parks provided the following informational materials and opportunities for the public and stakeholders to participate and offer their input:

► Fact Sheet 1 (introduction to the preliminary General Plan): April 2012 ► Scoping/Public Workshop 1: May 21, 2012 ► Online Survey: May 22 to October 12, 2012 ► Fact Sheet 2 (update on the preliminary General Plan): October 2012 ► Introductory Stakeholder Meetings: July–November 2012 ► Carnegie SVRA Tours: 2012 and 2013 ► Concept Alternatives Workshop: June 10, 2013 ► Online Public Workshop: June 11–July 15, 2013 ► Preferred Concept Workshops: November 12 and November 16, 2013 ► Online Public Workshop: November 13–December 13, 2013 ► Fact Sheet 3 (update on the preliminary General Plan): October 2014 ► Visitor Appreciation Day Workshop: October 19, 2014

State Parks also plans to provide fourth and fifth fact sheets. The fourth fact sheet will announce the public comment period for the preliminary General Plan revision and DEIR, and will provide information about the preferred alternative and findings of the DEIR. The fifth fact sheet will provide an update on the draft General Plan and FEIR, and will announce the OHMVR Commission hearing for adoption of the General Plan revision and certification of the EIR. (See Section 1.5, “Environmental Review Process,” below.)


All materials developed in support of the public participation program are available on the Carnegie SVRA General Plan project website, http://www.CarnegieGeneralPlan.com.

1.3 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SCOPE OF THE DEIR

As required by Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the OHMVR Division issued a notice of preparation (NOP) of an EIR on May 10, 2012 (State Clearinghouse Number 2012052027). The NOP’s purpose was to identify agency and public concerns about potential impacts of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and to solicit comments on the scope of the DEIR. The NOP and written and verbal comments received during the 30-day public review period for the NOP are included in Appendix A of this DEIR.

In total, 213 comment letters were received in response to the NOP during the public comment period: one from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, four from regional and local agencies, 18 from organizations, and 190 from individuals. Comment received focused on the concern about potential resource damage from OHV recreation, and many of the desired uses at the SVRA. These issues are addressed in detail in the various resource sections of the DEIR. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held during the public workshop on May 21, 2012. Verbal comments were received during the scoping meeting. A summary of the comments received during the scoping meeting is included in Appendix A of this document.

1.4 FOCUS OF THE EIR

In compliance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the scope of the analysis in this DEIR was informed by the results of public workshop conducted and comments received during the NOP comment period. Chapter 3, “Environmental Analysis,” of this DEIR addresses environmental issues known to relate to the site and issues identified as being of community concern, as expressed at the workshops and during project scoping. Those issues are as follows:

► Aesthetics ► Air quality ► Biotic resources ► Cultural resources ► Geology, soils, minerals, and paleontological resources ► Greenhouse gas emissions ► Hazards and hazardous materials ► Hydrology and water quality ► Land use and planning ► Noise ► Population and housing ► Public services and utilities


► Recreation ► Transportation and traffic

Agriculture and forestry resources are addressed in Chapter 5, “Other CEQA-Required Analysis.”

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

As described in Section 1.3, State Parks issued an NOP informing agencies and the public that this DEIR would be prepared and soliciting input on the scope of issues to be addressed. The comments received were considered while this DEIR was prepared.

The OHMVR Division has filed a notice of completion with the State Clearinghouse, part of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, indicating that this DEIR is complete and available for review. In addition, a notice of availability of this DEIR has been filed with the State Clearinghouse; circulated to persons, organizations, and agencies on the project mailing list; and posted in local newspapers. The notice of availability describes the project and project location, identifies significant environmental impacts, specifies the review period, and identifies where this DEIR and accompanying General Plan are available for review.

Agencies and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in this DEIR. Comments should address the DEIR’s accuracy and completeness on environmental issues. Where possible, respondents should endeavor to provide information they feel is lacking, or should indicate where the information may be found.

After a 45-day public comment period, the OHMVR Division will review and consider all comments received on the project’s environmental impacts. If necessary, this DEIR analysis will be revised or expanded to address comments received during the public comment period. The revised DEIR and all responses to comments will be incorporated into a final EIR (FEIR).

The OHMVR Division will then consider certifying the FEIR. FEIR certification is not project approval or adoption, but a lead agency action finding that the environmental analysis is adequate and that CEQA obligations have been fulfilled. The OHMVR Commission holds authority to approve all OHMVR Division general plans and EIRs. This commission will determine whether to accept the certified EIR as an FEIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15166 and 15168 and adopt the Carnegie SVRA General Plan as a general plan under PRC Section 5002.2.

1.6 SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

This DEIR evaluates the goals, guidelines, proposed use areas, uses, and facilities described in the Carnegie SVRA General Plan for their potential effects on the environment. Also analyzed are potential impacts of actions that may be taken should the General Plan be adopted. The environmental analysis has been conducted concurrently with General Plan development. Impact minimization measures have


been incorporated into the General Plan wherever possible to help ensure that planned actions, including those to be implemented in the future, would not result in significant environmental impacts.

Therefore, the CEQA analysis detailed in this General Plan DEIR, which accompanies the Carnegie SVRA General Plan, is intended to be adequate for future projects that would be implemented in a manner consistent with the General Plan’s goals and guidelines herein and require no further mitigation. Some actions described in the General Plan may require additional CEQA analysis documentation after project details are known. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, all future projects that may be implemented if the Carnegie SVRA General Plan is adopted must undergo CEQA review, in light of the information in the General Plan EIR, to determine whether additional CEQA documentation is necessary. The type of additional documentation completed would be determined based on the provisions contained in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162–15164. When planning to implement future projects that require additional environmental review, the OHMVR Division may refer to this General Plan DEIR as a starting point for a “tiered CEQA analysis,” in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.7 DEIR CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION

This DEIR is organized into the following chapters:

► Summary: A summary is included at the beginning of this document to explain the conclusions of the DEIR’s analyses. Also addressed in the summary are issues of known controversy, environmental issues to be resolved, and alternatives considered.

► Chapter 1, “Introduction,” provides an overview of the DEIR’s purpose and the CEQA process, briefly describes the OHMVR Division’s planning and public outreach process, summarizes comments received on the scope of this DEIR, and describes subsequent environmental review that may be required in the future.

► Chapter 2, “Project Description,” discusses the environmental setting, past and current uses of Carnegie SVRA, project objectives, General Plan components included for analysis in this DEIR, the regional planning context, and intended uses of this DEIR.

► Chapter 3, “Environmental Analysis,” evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. Chapter 3 also presents the General Plan goals and guidelines that would reduce those potential impacts.

► Chapter 4, “Cumulative Analysis,” analyzes the potential cumulative impacts of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan in combination with past, present, and future projects.


► Chapter 5, “Other CEQA-Required Analysis,” analyzes environmental effects eliminated from future analysis, unavoidable significant environmental effects, significant irreversible environmental changes, and growth-inducing impacts.

► Chapter 6, “Alternatives to the Proposed Project,” considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the Carnegie SVRA General Plan that could avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project identified in Chapter 3. Chapter 6 also analyzes the No-Project Alternative and identifies the environmentally superior alternative, as required by CEQA.

► Chapter 7, “References,” lists all references used during the preparation of this DEIR, as well as citations for personal communications.

► Chapter 8, “Report Contributors,” lists all DEIR preparers and contributors.

Table 1-1 lists the locations of CEQA-required content in this DEIR.

Table 1-1. Location of CEQA-Required Content

CEQA Guidelines Section and Required Content Location in DEIR

15122: Table of Contents or Index Beginning of this document

15123: Summary EIR Summary, following the Table of Contents

15124: Project Description Chapter 2, Section 2.3, “Project Objectives” and Section 2.4, “General Plan Components” Chapter 1, “Introduction” (information about the Carnegie SVRA General Plan process)

15125: Environmental Setting Chapter 2, Section 2.1, “Environmental Setting” and “Existing Setting” within each topic area

15126: Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts

Chapter 3, “Environmental Analysis”

15126(a): Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project

EIR Summary Chapter 3, “Environmental Analysis,” within each topic area as “Summary of Significant Impacts”

15126(b): Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented

Chapter 5, Section 5.2, “Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts”

15126(c): Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented

Chapter 5, Section 5.3, “Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes”

15126(d): Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project

Chapter 5, Section 5.4, “Growth-Inducing Impacts”

15126(e): The Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects

Chapter 3, “Environmental Analysis,” within each topic area as “Mitigation Measures” EIR Summary, Section S.3, “Summary of Impacts and Mitigation”

15126(f): Alternatives to the Proposed Project Chapter 6, “Alternatives to the Proposed Project” EIR Summary, Section S.6, “Summary of Alternatives Considered”


Table 1-1. Location of CEQA-Required Content

CEQA Guidelines Section and Required Content Location in DEIR

15127: Limitations on Discussion of Environmental Impact

Chapter 5, Section 5.3, “Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes”

15128: Effects Not Found to be Significant Chapter 1, Section 1.4, “Focus of the EIR” and Chapter 5, Section 5.1, “Environmental Effects Eliminated from Further Analysis”

15129: Organizations and Persons Consulted Chapter 1, Section 1.2, “General Plan Process and Public Participation” Chapter 3, Section 3.4, “Cultural Resources” (“Native American Consultation” section) Chapter 7, “References” Chapter 8, “Report Contributors”

15130: Discussion of Cumulative Impacts Chapter 4, “Cumulative Analysis”

15131: Economic and Social Effects (optional topic) Throughout the document under discussions of recreation and visitor experience

Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2014


CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This chapter provides a description of the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan. As described in Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a complete project description must contain:

► the location and boundaries of the proposed project; ► a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project; ► a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and ► a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the environmental impact report (EIR).

By legal mandate (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5002.2), all units operated by State Parks must have a general plan prepared before developing new facilities that may permanently commit a resource to a particular use. General plans are broad-based policy documents that establish long-range visions and goals and provide direction on future types of improvements, services, and programs. General plans are intended to be used for many years. Therefore, a general plan establishes a decision-making framework consistent with the established vision, but it also is flexible enough to allow for changing conditions over time.

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan provides a description of much of the physical and regulatory setting and the project description used for the CEQA analysis in this draft EIR (DEIR). Chapter 4, “The Plan,” of the General Plan identifies proposed visitor experience areas and management goals and guidelines. These elements combine to serve as the project description used for this CEQA analysis. Chapter 4 of the General Plan is incorporated by reference herein, consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. A summary of the project description is provided below.

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CARNEGIE SVRA USE CHARACTERISTICS

This section provides an overview of the general character of Carnegie SVRA and the vicinity. This description includes the SVRA’s location, on-site activities, general environmental characteristics and resources, and surrounding development. Please see Chapter 2 of the General Plan for additional detail regarding current conditions and uses at Carnegie SVRA.

Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of Carnegie SVRA. The SVRA is located in unincorporated Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, approximately 15 miles east of Livermore and 12 miles southwest of Tracy. To the north is the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Experimental Test Site (Site 300) property. Open space and rural residential areas (ranchland) are located to the east, west, and south. The portion of Carnegie SVRA referred to as the expansion area is located immediately west of the original Carnegie SVRA and is currently not open to the public.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Project Description 2-1

Source: Data adapted by AECOM in 2012

Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 2-2 Project Description

Carnegie SVRA is made up of northeast-trending ridges with steep canyons and the Corral Hollow Creek floodplain. Corral Hollow Creek flows from west to east into the San Joaquin Valley. The hills rise abruptly from the floodplain with very steep slopes. A narrow, flat floodplain corridor characterized by riparian habitat parallels Corral Hollow Creek on the south side of Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road; the surrounding hills support grasslands, scrub, and oak woodlands.

The SVRA’s existing entrance is off Corral Hollow Road. The planning area, also referred to as “Carnegie SVRA” for the purposes of this environmental evaluation, consists of 4,675 acres: the original 1,575-acre SVRA and the 3,100-acre expansion area. State Parks also owns an additional 340 acres of immediately adjacent property, but because of deed restrictions, that SVRA acreage is not part of the planning area. Figure 2-2 illustrates the original SVRA and the expansion area.

Of the 340 acres of State Parks–owned land not included in the planning area, approximately 225 acres north of Tesla Road were purchased as buffer land. Approximately 110 acres south of Tesla Road are restricted to residential uses because this area also provides a buffer between the expansion area and non-state-owned residential properties. In addition, an area of approximately 5 acres north of Corral Hollow Road across from the original Carnegie SVRA contains a water treatment plant. No changes in land use are proposed for the 340 acres of State Parks–owned lands that are not included in the planning area.

Recreational uses at the original SVRA include off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails, tracks, hillclimbs, challenge areas, and camping. Day-use areas and a concession store (MotoMart) are available. Some areas are closed to use, including the Waterfall Canyon area and portions of the floodplain of Corral Hollow Creek. The expansion area has historically been grazed, although grazing depends on the availability of forage. Other land uses in the expansion area are related to easements, such as the Hetch Hetchy tunnel and power lines traversing the area.

Available Carnegie SVRA attendance data for fiscal year (FY) 2000–2001 to FY 2011–2012 show a peak of 72,815 vehicles (with 145,630 visitors and 109,223 OHVs, including event attendees) in FY 2001–2002, the year with highest attendance. The year with the lowest attendance in this time frame was FY 2010–2011, which had a total of 31,784 vehicles (with 63,568 visitors and 47,676 OHVs).

For the analysis in this DEIR, it is assumed that attendance at Carnegie SVRA would likely rise with population growth and general economic conditions in the surrounding region. Based on the California Department of Finance’s demographic projections for 2010 through 2060, San Joaquin County is expected to experience an average annual growth rate of 1.66 percent. Alameda County is expected to experience a smaller average annual growth rate of 0.21 percent.

Although the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would expand the OHV options at the SVRA and attendance would likely grow naturally, there would likely not be a “bump” in attendance solely as a


result of the new opportunities.1 Therefore, it is estimated that general economic conditions in the region have a larger effect on short-term attendance than new facility offerings. Furthermore, the expanded offerings in the expansion area would be brought online over time, and the Carnegie SVRA General Plan does not make schedule estimates that could be used to establish a “buildout” date.

As a conservative approach, the FY 2001–2002 peak vehicle count at the SVRA of 72,815 vehicles (with 145,630 visitors and 109,223 OHVs), together with the higher average annual population growth rate of 1.66 percent as identified for San Joaquin County, has generally been used to analyze potential effects associated with implementation of the General Plan. See the analyses presented in Chapter 3 of this DEIR for additional detail, and Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” which describes why the year with the lowest attendance was compared with future year 2030 projections to most conservatively represent the greatest net change.

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

SVRAs are OHV parks that are operated by the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division of State Parks. OHVs are land vehicles that are used mostly for recreation purposes, such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles, and 4-wheel-drive (4WD) trucks. The OHMVR Division is mandated to ensure that SVRAs are managed for long-term environmental sustainability and to comply with applicable environmental laws, guidelines, and regulations.

The OHMVR Division is required to manage SVRAs in accordance with management standards established for the OHMVR Program (PRC Sections 5090.2, 5090.35, and 5090.53). These management standards include soil conservation and resource management protocols (State Parks 2008).

The planning team took into account several considerations when it originally created a range of uses and potential alternatives for evaluation, before the team selected the preferred concept described in the General Plan. These considerations provided guidelines for the concept alternatives. If a concept alternative or use did not meet these guidelines, it was not considered as part of the General Plan process. The planning team’s assumptions are listed below.

1. Property ownership: The property is owned by State Parks and operated by the OHMVR Division. Planning efforts associated with the property must be consistent with the OHMVR Division’s mission statement.

2. State Parks land classification: The planning area is classified as SVRA lands by State Parks. Planning efforts must be consistent with statutory guidance for SVRA lands.

1 This lack of a bump in attendance solely as a result of new opportunities would be consistent with attendance data at Hollister Hills SVRA, where overall attendance did not increase after the Renz Property was opened in 2008. Although the Renz Property may have drawn additional riders, any effect was negated by the overall effect of the economic downturn, and attendance at Hollister Hills SVRA was actually lower in 2009 than in 2008.


Source: Data provided by State Parks in 2012 and compiled by AECOM in 2013

Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map


3. Purpose acquired and funding source: The expansion area was acquired with California’s OHV Trust Fund monies to expand Carnegie SVRA and to provide additional OHV recreation opportunities.

4. OHMVR Division Strategic Plan: The General Plan for the original SVRA and expansion area must be consistent with the goals, principles, and themes described in the strategic plan.

5. California Public Resources Code: Laws that include the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act of 2003 (PRC Section 5090.01 et seq.) direct how State Parks and SVRAs must be managed and what uses are allowable.

6. State and federal laws regarding resource protection: Any alternative must avoid or minimize harm to protected plants and animals and effectively manage cultural resources in accordance with applicable regulations.

7. Air quality plans/districts: Two different air districts govern the properties. The alternatives need to consider how the SVRA will comply with each air district’s rules.

8. Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment and Storm Water Management Plan: The plan must remain in compliance with the requirements listed in these documents.

Three concept alternatives were presented to the public starting on June 10, 2013 (as described further in Chapter 1, “Introduction”). The three concepts were developed using all of the following elements:

► ideas and comments collected from:

• a public meeting held in May 2012,

• additional comments submitted via e-mail and the General Plan website and in letters,

• an online survey, and

• stakeholder and agency meetings (historical societies, rider groups/concessionaires, neighbors, environmental groups, Native American groups); and

► an evaluation of potential constraints in the planning area, identified through review of the cultural resource inventory and maps, biological resource mapping and monitoring information, slopes and soils information, and mine safety considerations.

The three concept alternatives were as follows:

► Concept 1: Developed to provide a more developed and social experience (front country) in the original SVRA. Backcountry in the expansion area would have provided opportunities for more


solitude, less development, and a sense of adventure. OHV recreation in the expansion area would have been much less intense than in the original SVRA.

► Concept 2: Developed to be a medium-intensity plan concept for the expansion area. This concept alternative would have reflected no change in existing recreational land uses for the current SVRA. The emphasis was on providing education and interpretation opportunities in combination with OHV recreation.

► Concept 3: Developed to be the plan concept with the most intense proposed use for the expansion area. The expansion area would have been just as active as the original SVRA.

The preferred concept includes elements from all three concept alternatives. It addresses the concerns raised in comments and the feedback that the public, agencies, and many stakeholder groups provided on the concept alternatives. The planning team attempted to accommodate as many ideas as possible while staying consistent with the OHMVR Act and the OHMVR Division mission, draft vision, and statement of purpose presented in Section 2.3, “Project Objectives.”

Differences between the preferred concept and the three concept alternatives presented included changes in the types and locations of visitor experience areas, uses in those areas, and possible entrances and connecting trails and roads. The preferred concept avoids sensitive resources by taking into consideration cultural resources, biological resources, slopes and soils constraints, and mine safety.

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Project objectives are used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives to the proposed project. Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a description of project objectives. In addition to project objectives, the missions of State Parks and the OHMVR Division guide management of any SVRA.

2.3.1 MISSION STATEMENTS

STATE PARKS MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high‐quality outdoor recreation.

OFF-HIGHWAY MOTOR VEHICLE RECREATION DIVISION MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the OHMVR Division is to provide leadership statewide in the area of OHV recreation; to acquire, develop, and operate state-owned vehicular recreation areas; and to otherwise provide for a statewide system of managed OHV recreational opportunities through providing funding to other public agencies. The OHMVR Division also aims to ensure that quality recreational opportunities remain


available for future generations by providing for education, conservation, and enforcement efforts that balance OHV recreation impacts with programs that conserve and protect cultural and natural resources.

2.3.2 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan are as follows:

► Manage Carnegie SVRA for the protection of sensitive natural and cultural resources and high-quality OHV recreational experiences.

► Manage the entire SVRA in accordance with the purpose of acquisition.

► Promote public health and safety at Carnegie SVRA.

► Anticipate future demand for OHV recreation opportunities and identify strategies to accommodate them at Carnegie SVRA.

► Provide management options for operating all portions of Carnegie SVRA in keeping with California’s OHMVR Act of 2003, as amended.

► Increase the diversity of OHV opportunities at Carnegie SVRA.

► Provide interpretive opportunities for biological and cultural resources.

► Provide for adaptive management of park operations and resources.

► Plan orderly implementation of long-term capital improvements at Carnegie SVRA.

► Guide the enhancement of recreation opportunities that support family and community-oriented use.

► Provide a framework for the provision of adequate facilities for Carnegie SVRA management operations.

► Comply with resource protection requirements, including air quality plans, stormwater management plans, and regulations protecting biological and cultural resources.

2.4 GENERAL PLAN COMPONENTS

2.4.1 UNIT CLASSIFICATION

Carnegie SVRA was added to the California State Park system as an SVRA in July 1980. The site, which had been used by OHVs since the 1940s, was operated as a private motorcycle park from 1970 to 1979 before being purchased by State Parks using OHV funds. Legislative action (PRC Section 5006.48) authorized State Parks to plan, acquire, and develop the site for OHV use. From


1996 to 1998, State Parks used legislatively appropriated OHV Trust Funds to acquire an additional 3,100 acres of neighboring lands to provide additional OHV recreation opportunities. The additional acreage was classified as SVRA lands and added to Carnegie SVRA. The additional acreage is referred to as the expansion area. To date, the expansion area has not been open to public use.

2.4.2 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE

The purpose of Carnegie SVRA is to provide effectively managed, responsible OHV and related recreational opportunities while protecting and interpreting the SVRA’s valued cultural and natural resources.

2.4.3 SVRA VISION

Carnegie SVRA will be a regional destination where children and adults of all skill levels can ride, play, and learn in an outdoor recreational setting. Carnegie SVRA will continue to be an affordable location where visitors can enjoy a wide variety of OHV recreation. Carnegie SVRA will be a model of exciting and well-managed OHV recreation as well as excellent environmental stewardship. Visitors will be able to learn about and contribute to the long-term sustainability of diverse cultural and natural resources present within the SVRA.

2.4.4 PROPOSED LAND USE AND FACILITIES

For the purposes of the environmental evaluation presented in this DEIR, the term “facilities” is used to refer to anything that is part of the built environment. This term includes all facilities envisioned in the General Plan, including trails and concentrated riding areas, campgrounds, picnic areas, gathering areas, an entrance kiosk, a ranger station, a training site that could include classroom/meeting space, an interpretative facility/visitor center, concessions, staging and parking areas, restrooms, drainage facilities, signage, fencing, solar or other renewable-energy facilities, and access roads.

Uses would be developed consistent with the visitor experience areas described below in Section 2.4.5 and would compose a small portion of the total 4,675-acre planning area based on consideration of cultural resources, biological resources, slope and soil constraints, and mine safety, which were assessed during development of the preferred concept (described in Section 2.2).

CIRCULATION AND ACCESS

The SVRA is proposed to have multiple entrances, with up to four entrances used daily. Figure 2-3 shows the locations of the existing and potential new daily public entrances. The exact locations of these entrances may change slightly from those currently shown, depending on subsequent project-level analysis of site-specific resources and existing conditions.


TESLA COAL MINE SITE

A gathering area and interpretive facility is envisioned for the Tesla Coal Mine Site so visitors can learn about the important history of the area. For safety reasons, access to the actual mine site would be limited to guided tours. An interpretive center could be developed at the gathering area in the future. Interpretive facilities would include information on the history of the California Native Americans who inhabited the region. The exact boundary of the gathering area may be refined in the future based on site-specific studies and project-level planning.

RECREATION

The following are recreational goals for the SVRA, as defined through the planning process:

► Provide more recreational opportunities for beginner to intermediate OHV recreationists in addition to the intermediate to advanced opportunities already provided in the original SVRA.

► Provide multi-use OHV routes for ATVs, recreational OHVs (ROVs), 4WD vehicles, and off-highway motorcycles in the expansion area. Provide continued access for off-highway motorcycles in the original SVRA, and preserve other recreational facilities in the original SVRA.

► Develop a 4WD technical course and trail/road system at the far western edge of the expansion area.

► Provide trails for skills development and technical riding. Adaptively modify these trails over time to improve and provide new visitor experiences, consistent with resource management goals and guidelines in the General Plan.

► Develop new gathering areas, parking, and OHV training sites in the western part of the expansion area.

► Place additional picnic areas at various sites throughout the SVRA and in all types of visitor experience areas.

► Accommodate motorized off-highway access to nonmotorized recreation opportunities.

► Provide additional camping areas.

► Develop a training site for OHV recreation at the current location of the Carnegie Sector office. The training site could include office space, parking, camping, classroom/meeting space, a restroom, technical skills obstacles, and trails. This site could fulfill the need for a youth area and could be combined with an interpretive center. A maintenance facility may also be included in the area.


OPERATIONS

Managing the entire SVRA for visitor access and use will result in additional demands on operations. To accommodate these additional demands, the following operational improvements are envisioned in the General Plan:

► Staff will continue to use and maintain the existing maintenance yard. Additional maintenance space may be provided in the expansion area, if needed, to support operations of the entire SVRA.

► A ranger station will be accommodated at or near the entrance near the sector office.

► An interpretive facility will be accommodated in the area deemed most appropriate by future study.

► Facilities for communication or technology support could be located in any of the use areas, except for limited recreation areas. Some space within or near the special-event area will be designated as a helicopter landing site.

► With the expansion and full buildout of anticipated improvements, the OHMVR Division anticipates needing an additional seven full-time employees and seven to eight seasonal employees.

2.4.5 VISITOR EXPERIENCE AREAS

The General Plan defines 11 different visitor experience areas in the SVRA, each with different characteristics, activities or allowable uses, and resources and related management mandates (Figure 2-3). State Parks will manage natural and cultural resources in the visitor experience areas to protect their integrity and to comply with relevant state and federal laws and regulations regarding their management and protection. The resource management goals and guidelines described in General Plan Section 4.4 apply to all visitor experience areas.

Table 2-1 describes the visitor experience areas. The descriptions include the definition, allowable uses, and area-specific resource management prescriptions or considerations, if applicable. Resource management considerations are included only when there is an action or requirement for a specific visitor experience area beyond the general resource management goals and guidelines that apply in the entire SVRA.

2.4.6 GOALS AND GUIDELINES

Goals and guidelines were developed and are described in the General Plan to address existing issues and to provide ongoing guidance for management of Carnegie SVRA. The goals establish the purpose and desired future conditions of the SVRA, and the guidelines provide the direction that the OHMVR Division will consider to achieve these goals.


Source: Data from Great Outdoors compiled by AECOM in 2014

Figure 2-3. Preferred Concept Map


Table 2-1. Visitor Experience Areas

Color on Maps

Title Description

Limited Recreation Area

Definition: An area with a higher-than-average concentration of sensitive natural and/or cultural resources. Allowable Uses: Roads or trails may cross these areas to facilitate public egress/ingress and connectivity between other visitor experience areas; however, their footprint should be limited to the minimum necessary to serve their intended purpose, and they should be designed and managed to avoid or minimize impacts on the surrounding resources. No other facilities will be allowed. These areas could be available for nonmotorized recreational opportunities. Resource Management: These areas were chosen based on the presence of sensitive resources. Total Approximate Acres*: 1,090

Limited Recreation Overlay 1—Waterfall Canyon

Definition: An area that, because of water quality management restrictions, needs to be managed like a limited recreation area. Allowable Uses: Hiking may be allowed. This area could accommodate OHV facilities as long as certain guidelines are met. For instance, this area could be changed to an intermediate or advanced trail area in the future if there is an additional acquisition that would allow State Parks to provide adequate water quality management measures for the watershed consistent with the Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment and the Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA. Resource Management: This area is currently excluded from OHV recreation for water quality management purposes and will be managed according to the Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA or the most current water quality management prescriptions. Total Approximate Acres*: 88 (not included in the Limited Recreation Area total)

Limited Recreation Overlay 2—Tesla Mining Complex

Definition: An area that has a higher-than-average concentration of significant cultural resources and includes the Tesla Coal Mine Site, which poses some safety concerns. Allowable Uses: This area could accommodate facilities as long as certain guidelines are met. In the Tesla Mining Complex overlay area, a gathering area could be allowed and other limited facilities such as trail or road crossings may be allowed. The chosen sites would have to be evaluated and engineered for safety and monitored. If there were a potential impact on a cultural resource, the appropriate mitigation would have to be implemented to minimize or avoid significant impacts. Total Approximate Acres*: 240 (not included in the Limited Recreation Area total)

Advanced Trails Area

Definition: An area that provides more challenging OHV trails. Allowable Uses: This area will allow OHV trails and challenge areas. Trails for skills development and technical riding will be allowed. These trails could be adaptively modified over time to improve the visitor experience and provide new experiences. Examples of trails and experiences that could be found in these areas include minor hillclimbs/descents; a terrain park or trials trail for off-highway motorcycles; rocky trail sections; tight turns; roll and flow; and skills practice trails for off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, and/or ROVs. Trails should be designed and constructed to be narrow and to limit soil erosion. 4WD touring could be accommodated in the expansion area. Resource Management: Challenge areas would be allowed where most appropriate using site-specific studies and would be closed and rotated as needed to restore soil and/or vegetation. Total Approximate Acres*: 1,360



Color on Maps

Title Description

Intermediate/Beginner Trails Area

Definition: An area that provides OHV trails of easy to moderate difficulty levels. Allowable Uses: This area will allow OHV trails and challenge areas. Trails for skills development and technical riding are allowed. These trails could be adaptively modified over time to improve visitors’ experiences and provide new experiences. Examples of trails and experiences that could be found in these areas include minor hillclimbs/descents; terrain park or trials trail for off-highway motorcycles; rocky trail sections; tight turns, roll and flow; and skills practice trails for off-highway motorcycles, ATVs and/or ROVs. Trails should be designed and constructed to be wider than those in the advanced trails areas, and to have gradual turns and moderate trail slopes. 4WD touring could be accommodated in the expansion area. Resource Management: Challenge areas would be allowed where most appropriate using site-specific studies and would be closed and rotated as needed to restore soil and/or vegetation. Total Approximate Acres*: 1,201

Gathering and Service Areas

Definition: An area that provides places for visitors to gather and access services. Allowable Uses: Campgrounds, restrooms, picnic areas, parking areas, concessions, ranger station, entrance kiosk, staging, etc. Resource Management: Facilities and associated landscaping should be designed to assure safety and to provide an attractive natural setting, while limiting maintenance requirements. Total Approximate Acres*: 90

Gathering Areas Overlay

Definition: An area that could be used for a gathering and services area if needed. Allowable Uses: Uses for this area would be the same as for the underlying visitor experience area, unless it is decided that some or all of this area would be needed for a gathering and service area. If the area is needed, then the allowable uses for gathering and services areas would prevail. Resource Management: This area was chosen to avoid known sensitive natural and/or cultural resources. Before planning and building facilities, site-specific studies would be conducted. Total Approximate Acres*: 91

Distributed Recreation Area

Definition: An area in which OHV recreation is not limited to specific trails. Allowable Uses: Trails and experiences that could be found in these areas include hillclimbs/descents; tight turns, roll and flow; and skills practice trails for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. There may be small concentrated riding areas within distributed riding areas to provide opportunities such as hillclimbing or high banking. Resource Management: Distributed recreation areas will be clearly delineated and posted to limit visitors from riding off trail in adjacent areas not designated for distributed riding. Soil and vegetation restoration may be needed to limit soil erosion and to conserve the area’s natural character. Trails and concentrated riding areas within distributed riding areas may be changed over time to create new experiences and to restore vegetation and/or soils. Areas within the distributed recreation area may be closed to OHV use to conserve specific resources, to provide gathering areas for visitors, or to allow for management of a particular resource. A vegetative buffer will be maintained along corridors with properly sited and armored approaches and crossings to prevent erosion and protect water quality. Total Approximate Acres*: 430



Color on Maps

Title Description

Practice Area

Definition: An area that provides specialized opportunities for visitors of different age groups and experience levels to develop riding/driving skills. Allowable Uses: Uses in these areas may include tracks, trails, challenge courses, technical challenge areas, or other facilities for all types of OHV vehicles that allow riders and drivers to practice and/or challenge themselves. Facilities need to be carefully designed, constructed, and managed to create safe and enjoyable experiences. Total Approximate Acres*: 73

Special Event Area

Definition: An area that provides a space for competitive hillclimbing events. Allowable Uses: Hillclimbs, space for spectators, vendors, staging, and other related activities. The area needs to be secured during hillclimb events for the safety of competitors and other visitors. Resource Management: The special-event area will be opened and closed on a rotating basis for vegetation and/or soil restoration purposes. The area will be clearly delineated and posted to limit visitors from riding off trail in adjacent areas. Total Approximate Acres*: 19

Restricted Access Area

Definition: An area that provides a buffer between public uses and a neighboring property. Allowable Uses: Management-related activities such as cattle grazing, maintenance, repair, and patrolling. Total Approximate Acres*: 67

Notes: 4WD = four-wheel-drive; ATV = all-terrain vehicle; OHV = off-highway vehicle; ROV = recreational off-highway vehicle; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area

* Totals are approximate due to rounding and the planning area boundary used (which is approximate based on mapping available), and are greater than the approximately 4,675-acre planning area because the Gathering Areas Overlay overlaps with other visitor experience areas (see Figure 2-3).

Source: Data provided by State Parks and compiled by AECOM in 2014

The goals and guidelines apply to all Carnegie SVRA visitor experience areas. Where specific resource management is warranted for a particular visitor experience area, the applicable management strategies are outlined in Table 4-1 of the General Plan.

Management of the SVRA is undertaken in compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including the following:

► Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) ► Section 401 of the CWA ► Section 402 of the CWA ► Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 ► Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code ► Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act ► Federal Endangered Species Act ► California Endangered Species Act


► California Fish and Game Code ► California Public Resources Code ► California Vehicle Code

Detailed descriptions of these laws and regulations and their applicable sections are included in Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan.

This text below summarizes the goals proposed in the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. Section 4.4, “Goals and Guidelines,” in Chapter 4 of the General Plan provides the complete text of proposed goals and guidelines. Section 4.4.1 of the General Plan presents the parkwide goals and guidelines.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND OPPORTUNITIES

Primary visitor experience and opportunities goals include providing a broad range of OHV recreation experiences and opportunities for visitors to enjoy and appreciate (VEO Goal 1), providing state-of-the-art visitor-serving facilities to enhance the visitor experience (VEO Goal 2), and enhancing individual-, family-, and community-centered recreational opportunities (VEO Goal 3).

PHYSICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The General Plan includes physical resource management goals and guidelines for water resources, soils, and geology. Primary physical resource management goals and guidelines include managing the SVRA to protect jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, and waters of the state (Water Goal 1); protect water quality (Water Goal 2); conserve water resources (Water Goal 3); protect and conserve soil (Soils Goal 1); and minimize geologic hazards (Geo Goal 1), all while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

In addition, the General Plan includes goals and guidelines for anticipating issues related to flood control when planning for the development of the SVRA (Water Goal 4) and for promoting staff education and visitor awareness of paleontological resources and the procedures to follow if fossils are discovered (Geo Goal 2).

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

The General Plan includes natural resources goals and guidelines for natural resources management, plants, and wildlife. Primary natural resources goals and guidelines include managing Carnegie SVRA for a balance of uses that allow protection and stewardship of natural resources (NRM Goal 1); restoration or enhancement of natural habitats (NRM Goal 2); protection of special-status plants and sensitive natural communities (Plant Goal 1); and protection of native wildlife species, including special-status wildlife species and their designated habitats (Wildlife Goal 1), all while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.


CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Primary cultural resource management goals and guidelines include identifying, documenting, and evaluating cultural resources within Carnegie SVRA (CR Goal 1); protecting, stabilizing, and preserving cultural resources (CR Goal 2); and consulting with the Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok to identify ethnographic resources in Carnegie SVRA (CR Goal 3). In addition, the General Plan includes a goal and guidelines for ensuring that natural and cultural material and object collections at Carnegie SVRA will have a specific connection to the park’s natural and cultural history, or provide support for interpretive themes and programs (CR Goal 4).

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

Primary interpretive and educational goals and guidelines include providing relevant and thematic interpretive materials that address the SVRA’s sense of place and history and meet the needs and interests of the visitors (IE Goal 1); increasing visitors’ knowledge of and appreciation for recreational opportunities at the SVRA and in the region (IE Goal 2); expanding the understanding of ecological relationships and heightening awareness of and sensitivity to human impacts (IE Goal 3); and promoting safe and responsible OHV recreation (IE Goal 4).

PARK OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The General Plan includes goals and guidelines for park operations and maintenance. Primary goals and guidelines include providing visitor services and infrastructure that encourage responsible visitor use of Carnegie SVRA and meet visitor needs (OM Goal 1); maintaining and enhancing the quality of OHV recreational opportunities (OM Goal 2); providing facilities and services that contribute to the safety and convenience of visitors and staff (OM Goal 3); coordinating with special-event sponsors to ensure that special events are well managed and that appropriate visitor services are available (OM Goal 4); developing and maintaining SVRA facilities and monitoring OHV activities to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses (OM Goal 5); limit potential air quality impacts on residential properties within the planning area that could result from construction, maintenance, and OHV recreation activities (OM Goal 6); and managing the SVRA to maintain current aesthetic qualities and reduce visual impacts on surrounding areas that could result from construction maintenance, and OHV recreation activities.

VISITOR MANAGEMENT

The primary goal and guidelines related to visitor management include establishing and implementing an adaptive management process for managing visitor capacity at Carnegie SVRA in support of the SVRA’s purpose and vision (VM Goal 1).


CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

This chapter provides a programmatic analysis of the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan. As described in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” of this draft environmental impact report (DEIR), the approach to analyzing the General Plan’s environmental impacts is programmatic because the General Plan presents a framework for future management and park development.

The programmatic analysis of General Plan impacts addresses potential impacts related to all aspects of the General Plan. General Plan Chapter 4, “The Plan,” serves as the project description for this DEIR as described in DEIR Chapter 2. Much of the project description is presented at a programmatic level of detail, meaning that the project description lacks the detail that will be available when specific projects are proposed. Thus, to conduct this California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, assumptions were made about the results of implementing the proposed project. These assumptions are discussed in DEIR Chapter 3.

Similarly, General Plan Chapter 2, “Existing Conditions,” provides much of the physical and regulatory setting information used for this DEIR’s environmental analyses. That chapter is hereby incorporated by reference, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. Chapter 2 of the General Plan describes the geographical, physical, and management setting, including resource conditions and planning influences. This information is summarized at the beginning of each resource section in this DEIR. Generally, the General Plan itself presents the setting information relevant to the General Plan, and this DEIR provides supplemental setting information relevant to the environmental analysis.

The structure of the analysis is similar for each environmental issue. The analysis starts with a discussion of the existing environmental setting, and is followed by a programmatic discussion of potentially significant adverse effects resulting from implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan.

Each issue analysis includes the following sections:

► Existing Setting: This section describes the existing condition of the environmental issue being analyzed.

► Regulatory Setting: This section describes the applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations related to the environmental issue being analyzed.

► Thresholds of Significance: Thresholds for analysis are independently determined by considering the regional context and the setting. This section presents the guidelines used to identify how an impact is to be judged for each issue area in this DEIR specific to Carnegie SVRA.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Environmental Analysis 3-1

► Environmental Evaluation: This section presents the evaluation methodology and the analysis of each specific environmental issue area. It then identifies any potentially significant environmental impacts or explains why an impact would not occur.

► Summary of Significant Impacts: This section summarizes potentially significant impacts identified in the “Environmental Evaluation” section.

► Mitigation Measures: This section identifies mitigation measures that must be implemented to mitigate each impact found to be significant.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area 3-2 Environmental Analysis

3.1 AESTHETICS

This section describes aesthetic resources in the planning area. It also discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on aesthetics.

3.1.1 EXISTING SETTING

A description of the existing aesthetics resources in the planning area and vicinity is provided in Section 2.3.4 of the General Plan. Photographs depicting typical views in the planning area are also included in General Plan Section 2.3.4.

3.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING

No federal or state plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to aesthetics are applicable to the planning area. Section 2.7, “Planning Influences,” of the General Plan summarizes the regional plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to aesthetic resources at Carnegie SVRA. In particular, Section 2.7.2, “Regional Planning,” describes the Scenic Route Element and East County Area Plan in the Alameda County General Plan, and scenic routes in San Joaquin County.

Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan further describes the visual resource elements of the East County Area Plan (Alameda County 2002), and of the Resources section of the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 (San Joaquin County 1992), which contains goals and policies addressing scenic resources in the county, including enhancement of scenic routes. Corral Hollow Road is identified as a scenic route in the Resources section of the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010.

3.1.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on aesthetic resources if it would:

► have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;

► substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;

► substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or

► create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Aesthetics 3.1-1

Because an assessment of visual quality is often a subjective matter, one can debate whether a change in the visual character of a project site would be beneficial or adverse (thus causing a degradation of the visual quality). For this analysis, a conservative approach was used, and a substantial change to the visual character of the planning area would be considered an adverse impact. Therefore, a substantial change to the visual character of the planning area would be considered a degradation of the resource, and a potentially significant impact.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER IN THIS DEIR

The planning area is not located on or near a state scenic highway (Caltrans 2010); therefore, this topic is not addressed further in this draft environmental impact report. Corral Hollow Road and Tesla Road in the vicinity of the planning area are locally designated scenic routes, as discussed further in the evaluation below.

3.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation of potential impacts on aesthetic resources is based on a review of planning documents pertaining to the planning area and vicinity, including the Alameda County General Plan and San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. The review focused on inconsistencies and conflicts that could cause significant environmental impacts on aesthetic resources. Maps and aerial photographs were also reviewed. Potential changes to existing aesthetic resources that would result from implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan were evaluated. When the extent and implications of the visual changes were determined, consideration was given to:

► specific changes in the visual composition, character, and valued qualities of the affected environment;

► the visual context of the affected environment;

► the extent to which the affected environment contains places or features that have been designated in plans and policies for protection or special consideration; and

► the number of viewers, their activities, and the extent to which these activities are related to the aesthetic qualities affected by the project-related changes.

Created using geographic information system (i.e., GIS) applications, Figure 3.1-1 illustrates the results of a viewshed analysis that determined the visibility of the planning area from surrounding areas at an elevation of 6 feet. The purpose of the viewshed analysis was to quantify views of the planning area and offer a visual analysis to aid in the evaluation of potential impacts.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.1-2 Aesthetics

A 5-mile radius around the planning area is shown in Figure 3.1-1 for scale. Locations of higher visibility as depicted in the figure have views across the entire planning area, whereas locations of moderate visibility have only partial views and locations of lower visibility have very limited views of the planning area. Figure 3.1-1 provides a general analysis of potential views, and does not factor in trees, buildings, other structures, or atmospheric conditions (e.g., haze) that may affect visibility.1 Generally, irrespective of visual obstructions such as buildings or hillsides, a person can see out to a distance of approximately 2.7 miles at mean sea level and approximately 26.46 miles at an elevation of 500 feet (Research Maniacs 2014).


Figure 3.1-1 Carnegie SVRA Planning Area Viewshed

1 For the viewshed map (Figure 3.1-1), the color gradient is based on the number of points visible in the planning area. This viewshed is based on a 200-foot grid of points overlaid onto the planning area boundary, resulting in approximately 5,000 viewpoints. The viewshed calculated values ranging from 0 to 5,000, based on the number of points visible. The colors shown are as follows: 0 = blank (not visible); 1 = green; 2 = green-yellow; 3 = yellow; 4 = yellow-orange; 5 = orange; 6 = orange-red; and 7+ = red. If one-fifth or more of the planning area is visible from a location, it is shown as red (high visibility).


GENERAL PLAN IMPACT ANALYSIS

IMPACT 3.1-1

Effect on Scenic Vistas or Visual Character of the Site or Its Surroundings

Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road runs approximately 7.5 miles along the northern boundary of the planning area. Views of the planning area from this primary public road consist of developed areas of Carnegie SVRA such as the entrance station, campground, and main park road; motorcycle tracks in areas where off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation is not confined to specific trails; and hillsides covered with grassland, scattered oak trees, and chaparral. Corral Hollow Creek flows alongside Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road for much of its route, and rocky and steep creek banks and vegetation are visible from the roadway. Several rural residences, ranch roads, and ranch equipment are also present along the roadway.

Views to the east, west, and south of the planning area are of open space, large ranches, and rural residences. Views are partially obstructed by intrusive elements such as overhead power lines, fencing, previous grading or excavation associated with historical mining and landfill activities, roadway features, and existing Carnegie SVRA facilities. The area to the north is occupied by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Experimental Test Site (Site 300) property, which includes views of the facilities along the north side of Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road and atop the hills.

The planning area is located within northeast-trending ridges with steep canyons and the Corral Hollow Creek floodplain. The hills rise abruptly from the floodplain with very steep slopes, and observers cannot view hillsides beyond the first crest of hills to the south, so much of the planning area is outside of the viewshed of Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road. Limited recreation facilities or riding trails would be located on the higher peaks or on slopes visible from the main public road.

Limited ground disturbance would occur with construction of the facilities envisioned in the General Plan and no obtrusive OHV facilities would be constructed. (General Plan Figure 4-1, “Preferred Concept Map,” shows the location of 11 proposed visitor experience areas in the planning area.) Areas with trails, riding areas, gathering services, and practice areas and the special-event area (General Plan, Figure 4-1) would be concentrated away from higher peaks. Because only the higher peak areas are visible from areas outside of the local viewshed of the planning area (Figure 3.1-1), OHV activities would not be visually apparent from the surrounding viewshed, thus keeping existing scenic views largely unobstructed.

New structures envisioned in the General Plan, such as a ranger station, a training site, and an interpretive facility/visitor center, would be designed to be similar in appearance to existing SVRA facilities (see General Plan Section 2.2, “Existing Carnegie SVRA Land Use and Facilities”) and would be small relative to the viewshed, as recommended in OM Guideline 8.1 (shown at the end of this impact discussion). If necessary, California native tree species would be planted to screen the new


facilities from views and nonobtrusive colors would be used so the facilities would blend in with the environment. For these reasons, the new facilities would not substantially obstruct views of the surrounding areas. New structures would be designed to be similar in height to existing structures, and would be constructed in a style similar to the existing structures at the SVRA. This construction would be consistent with the existing character of the planning area as an OHV area, and with the surrounding rural area.

NRM Guideline 1.1 in the Carnegie SVRA General Plan states that visitor-serving facilities would be located in prior disturbed areas or in areas of relatively low resource value. NRM Guideline 1.5 states that new trail development would be focused in areas of relatively low habitat value. In addition, OM Guideline 5.4 states that fencing and buffer areas between Carnegie SVRA and adjacent properties would be maintained to minimize conflicts and prevent OHV use where it is not allowed. (These General Plan guidelines are shown below.) Implementing the General Plan’s goals and guidelines related to water, soils, natural resource management, plants, and wildlife also would reduce erosion and protect natural habitats in the planning area, which would reduce the potential for degradation of scenic resources and improve existing on-site scenic resources.

The planning area includes areas of Fremont cottonwood forest, blue oak woodland, valley oak woodland, and ghost pine woodland. A limited number of trees could be removed with the siting of specific structures envisioned in the General Plan. Individual tree removal has the potential to adversely affect the aesthetics of the planning area, depending on where the tree is located; however, the General Plan’s overall management direction, as supported by NRM Guideline 1.1 and Plant Guideline 1.6 of the General Plan (shown at the end of this impact discussion), call for the placement of visitor-serving facilities in prior disturbed areas or in areas of relatively low resource value and replacement of any trees removed and the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of native woodland. In addition, the area that would be converted to land cover other than the natural vegetative cover is very limited and makes up a very small fraction of the overall acreage of the SVRA.

Corral Hollow Road in the vicinity of the planning area is a San Joaquin County–designated scenic route, but there are no designated overlooks or viewpoints in or near the planning area. In addition, Tesla Road in the planning area is designated as a scenic rural recreation route in Alameda County. Implementing the General Plan would not change the overall aesthetic character along these routes. Areas with trails, riding areas, and the special-event area (General Plan, Figure 4-1) would be located primarily away from Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road. Views from the roadway would be of areas designated for limited recreation, as well as gathering services and practice areas, some of which are currently visible from the road.

► NRM Guideline 1.1: Locate visitor-serving facilities in prior disturbed areas or in areas of relatively low resource value to minimize disturbance to higher value habitat areas.


► NRM Guideline 1.5: Focus new trail development in areas of relatively low habitat value. Route new trails around the edges of high-quality habitat and include buffers to avoid habitat fragmentation. Maintain strict enforcement of riding destination requirements throughout the SVRA, according to the allowable uses in the respective visitor experience areas, and monitor for compliance. If noncompliance is documented, enact adaptive management techniques such as temporary closures or other measures proven effective at the SVRA.

► OM Guideline 5.4: Maintain the fencing and required buffer areas between Carnegie SVRA and adjacent properties to minimize conflicts and prevent OHV use where it is not allowed.

► OM Guideline 8.1: Design any new structures such that they are similar in height and scale to existing structures at the SVRA, and have an architectural style similar to the existing structures. Locate facilities with minimal impact on the viewshed. Utilize California native plant and tree species as necessary to screen new facilities from views.

► Plant Guideline 1.6: Limit removal of native trees. Any trees removed as a result of facilities construction shall be replaced, with the specific number of trees to be replaced determined during project-level planning. At both new and existing facilities, prohibit adverse indirect effects on native trees from root compaction and physical damage. Preserve or enhance the extent of native woodlands at the SVRA and look for opportunities for enhancement and restoration.

Implementing the General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or on the area’s visual character. Recreation facilities envisioned in the General Plan are consistent with the existing character of Carnegie SVRA and the surrounding area, new structures would not substantially obstruct scenic views, and the character of these facilities would be consistent with the existing character of the planning area and vicinity. Further, limited recreation or riding trails would be located on higher peaks; no substantial ground disturbance would occur and no permanent OHV facilities would be constructed in higher elevation areas visible from Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road. In addition, the goals and guidelines in the General Plan would protect scenic vistas from degradation. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

IMPACT 3.4-2

Increase in Light or Glare

Carnegie SVRA typically operates during the daylight hours, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Thus, artificial lighting is not required for the OHV activity areas. Figure 2-2 in the General Plan depicts the locations of the existing electrical lines in the planning area and vicinity.

Nighttime security lighting at new facilities envisioned in the General Plan would be installed for safety and security purposes. This lighting would be consistent with the security lighting used at existing


facilities. New facilities would not require the substantial use of reflective surfaces, such as windows or tin roofs. Implementation of General Plan OM Guideline 8.2 (presented below) would ensure that nighttime security lighting at the facilities would be designed to avoid light pollution. Specifically, lighting would be angled downward to provide targeted illumination and prevent light spillover into adjacent areas.

► OM Guideline 8.2: Implement the following actions to minimize potential light pollution or glare that could result from lighting for nighttime activities and security:

• Include shielding on any new light fixtures.

• Angle any new light fixtures downward to provide light spillover into adjacent areas.

• Avoid the use of reflective surfaces, such as tin roofs or reflective glass that could produce glare, on any new structures.

Because new nighttime security lighting would avoid light pollution and new lighting sources would be consistent with the area’s existing types of lighting, and because these facilities would be constructed without the use of highly polished or reflective materials, light or glare from the new facilities would not adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, no adverse effects are anticipated as a result of increased light or glare. This impact would be less than significant.


3.1.5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources.

3.1.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

No significant impacts on aesthetic resources would result from implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.2 AIR QUALITY

This section provides an analysis of the potential short-term and long-term air quality impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan. The planning area is located on the border of two counties that are part of two different air basins where two different air districts manage air quality. Therefore, impacts are analyzed for each geographic location. The methods used to analyze construction-related and operational emissions are consistent with the current recommendations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and California Air Resources Board (ARB).


The planning area is located on the border of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. These counties are part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), respectively. California’s air basins have been created to group together regions that have similar factors affecting air quality. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the level of emissions released by pollutant sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport, dilution, and generation of air pollutants include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and the presence of sunlight.

Existing air quality conditions in the planning area are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the emissions released by existing air pollutant sources. Because the planning area borders two air basins and would be expected to have some characteristics of and influence from both basins, this analysis presents the existing air quality conditions of both the SFBAAB and the SJVAB. The environmental factors and pollutant sources that affect ambient concentrations of air pollutants are discussed separately.

TOPOGRAPHY, METEOROLOGY, AND CLIMATE

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN

The SFBAAB covers approximately 5,540 square miles of complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and the San Francisco Bay. The SFBAAB also covers all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties; southern Sonoma County; and southwestern Solano County. The SFBAAB is generally bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Coast Ranges, and on the east and south by the Diablo Range. The planning area is located in the easternmost portion of the SFBAAB.

Meteorological conditions in the SFBAAB are warm and mainly dry in the summers, and mild and moderately wet in the winters. Marine air has a moderating effect on the climate during much of the year. Winds flow through the Golden Gate from the Pacific Ocean, but direct flow into eastern Alameda

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Air Quality 3.2-1

County is impeded by the East Bay hills. Marine air is mostly blocked from the area until late afternoons, except on days when deep marine inversions develop with strong onshore flows.

Winds from the west-southwest are most prevalent during spring and summer afternoons. These are the breezes that blow from the Pacific Ocean through gaps in the East Bay hills. When the ocean breeze is weak, winds become light and variable. In addition, a drainage flow typically develops at night. On clear nights with light winds, inversions develop in the coastal valleys, separating the surface wind flow from winds aloft. The drainage flow is usually light and stable, flowing toward the Carquinez Strait.

Temperatures in eastern Alameda County are typical of the Bay Area’s inland coast valleys, which are minimally affected by exposure to sea breezes. Typical temperatures during the summer (i.e., from June to August) are in the upper 80s Fahrenheit (°F) during the day and the mid-50s at night (WRCC 2012a). In the winter (from November to February), temperatures are typically in the upper 50s and low 60s during the day and the upper 30s to low 40s at night (WRCC 2012a). The planning area receives approximately 14 inches of annual precipitation, with most occurring in the winter months (WRCC 2012a).

The clear skies and relatively warm conditions that are typical in summer can combine with localized air pollutant emissions to elevate ground-level ozone levels. Air quality standards for ozone traditionally are exceeded in parts of the SFBAAB when conditions remain relatively stagnant for periods of several days during the warmer months. Weak wind-flow patterns combined with strong inversions substantially reduce normal atmospheric mixing. Key components of ground-level ozone formation are sunlight and heat; therefore, substantial ozone formation occurs only during the months from late spring through early fall.

Because the area’s meteorological conditions are conducive to a buildup of air pollutants and to the transport of air pollutants into the area from urbanized portions of both the Bay Area and the Central Valley, pollution potential is relatively high. Pollutants emitted in the more urbanized areas of the SFBAAB and transported from urban or industrial areas can contribute to localized air quality problems. The light winds that are common in winter can combine with surface-based inversions caused by the presence of cold air near the surface, thus trapping pollutants such as particulates (e.g., wood smoke) and carbon monoxide. This can lead to localized high concentrations of these pollutants.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN

The SJVAB, which occupies the area south of Sacramento and north of the Tehachapi Mountains, encompasses the San Joaquin Valley, the foothills, and San Joaquin Valley watersheds. Approximately 250 miles long and 35 miles wide on average, the SJVAB is a well-defined climatic region with distinct topographic features on three sides. The Coast Ranges, which have an average elevation of 3,000 feet, are located on the western border of the SJVAB. The San Emigdio Mountains, which are part of the Coast Ranges, and the Tehachapi Mountains, which are part of the Sierra Nevada, are both located in the southern portion of the SJVAB. The Sierra Nevada forms the eastern border of the SJVAB. No

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.2-2 Air Quality

topographic feature delineates the northern edge of the basin, but the SJVAB has jurisdiction south of Sacramento County. The SJVAB can be considered a “bowl” open only to the north.

The SJVAB is basically flat, with a downward gradient in terrain to the northwest. Air flows into the SJVAB through the Carquinez Strait, the only breach in the western mountain barrier, and moves across the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta from the San Francisco Bay Area. The mountains bordering the SJVAB to the east (the Sierra Nevada) create a barrier to airflow, which leads to entrapment of air pollutants when meteorological conditions are unfavorable for transport and dilution. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time.

Summer high temperatures are hot, often exceeding 100ºF. The average maximum temperature during the summertime (June to August) near the planning area is approximately 90ºF (WRCC 2012b). Winter temperatures are cool to cold, with minimum temperatures often dropping into the upper 30s. The average minimum temperature during the wintertime (November to February) is approximately 41ºF (WRCC 2012b). Most precipitation in the SJVAB occurs as rainfall during winter storms. The rare summertime precipitation falls in the form of convective rain showers. The amount of precipitation in the SJVAB decreases from north to south; the planning area receives an average of approximately 12 inches per year (WRCC 2012b).

The winds and unstable atmospheric conditions associated with the passage of winter storms result in periods of low air pollution and excellent visibility. Precipitation and fog tend to reduce or limit concentrations of some pollutants. For instance, clouds and fog block sunlight, which is necessary to fuel photochemical reactions that form ozone. Because carbon monoxide (CO) is partially water soluble, precipitation and fog also tend to reduce CO concentrations in the atmosphere. In addition, respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) can be washed from the atmosphere through wet deposition processes such as rain. However, between winter storms, high pressure and light winds lead to the creation of low-level temperature inversions and stable atmospheric conditions, resulting in the concentration of air pollutants (e.g., CO, PM10).

Summer is considered ozone season in the SJVAB. This season is characterized by poor air movement in the mornings and longer daylight hours. The longer daylight hours provide plentiful sunlight to fuel photochemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), resulting in ozone formation. During the summer, winds usually originate at the north end of the San Joaquin Valley and flow in a south-southeasterly direction through Tehachapi Pass and into the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SJVAPCD 2002).

EXISTING AIR QUALITY—CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS

ARB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focus on the following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. These are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be harmful to human health, and extensive health-


effects criteria documentation is available for them; thus, these pollutants are commonly referred to as “criteria air pollutants.”

Health-based air quality standards have been established for these pollutants by ARB at the state level and by EPA at the national level. These standards, which include a margin of safety, were established to protect the public from adverse health impacts resulting from exposure to air pollution. (California also has established standards for sulfates, visibility-reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.) A brief description of each criteria air pollutant, including its source types and health effects, is provided below along with the most current monitoring station data and attainment designations for the planning area. Table 3.2-1 presents the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

Table 3.2-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time

California Standardsa National Standardsb

Concentrationc Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) – Same as primary

standard 8 hours 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3)

Respirable particulate matter (PM10)

24 hours 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 –

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)

24 hours – 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard

Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 f 15 μg/m3

Carbon monoxide 8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

None 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

8 hours (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) –

Nitrogen dioxide g Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as primary standard

1 hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 0.100 ppb (188 μg/m3) None

Sulfur dioxide h

Annual arithmetic mean – 0.030 ppm (for certain areas) h –

24 hours 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas) h –

3 hours — – 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3) 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 μg/m3) –

Lead i,j

30-day average 1.5 μg/m3 – –

Calendar quarter – 1.5 μg/m3

(for certain areas) j Same as primary standard

Rolling 3-month average – 0.15 μg/m3 Visibility-reducing

particles k 8 hours See footnote k

No national standards Sulfates 24 hours 25 μg/m3 Hydrogen sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Vinyl chloride k 24 hours 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)


Table 3.2-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards

Notes: mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

b National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standards. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for further clarification and current national policies.

c Concentration expressed first in the units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and reference pressure of 760 torr; parts per million (ppm) in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

d National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse

effects of a pollutant. f On January 15, 2013, EPA announced it would revise the national annual PM2.5 standard to 12.0 µg/m3 to provide increased protection

against health risks. g To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each

site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

h On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard, the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical of 0.075 ppm.

i The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

j The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 µg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standards are approved.

k In 1989, ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and the “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Source: ARB 2012

OZONE

Ozone is a photochemical oxidant—that is, a substance whose oxygen combines chemically with another substance in the presence of sunlight—and the primary component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the air, but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor


emissions of ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. ROG emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. NOX refers to a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen that result from the combustion of fuels. A highly reactive molecule, ozone readily combines with many different components of the atmosphere. Consequently, high levels of ozone tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX levels are present to sustain the ozone formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, ozone levels decline rapidly. Because these reactions occur on a regional scale, ozone is a regional pollutant.

Ozone located in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) acts in a beneficial manner by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun. However, ozone located in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is a major health and environmental concern.

Meteorology and terrain play a major role in ozone formation. Generally, low wind speeds or stagnant air coupled with warm temperatures and clear skies provide the optimum conditions for ozone formation. As a result, summer is generally peak ozone season. Because of the reaction time involved, peak ozone concentrations often occur far downwind of the precursor emissions. In general, ozone concentrations over or near urban and rural areas reflect an interplay of emissions of ozone precursors, transport, meteorology, and atmospheric chemistry.

Ozone exposure causes adverse health effects primarily in the respiratory system. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of ozone affect not only sensitive receptors, such as asthmatics and children, but healthy adults as well. Exposure to ambient levels of ozone ranging from 0.10 to 0.40 part per million (ppm) for 1–2 hours has been found to substantially alter lung functions by increasing respiratory rates and pulmonary resistance, decreasing “tidal” volumes (the amount of air inhaled and exhaled), and impairing respiratory mechanics. Ambient levels of ozone exceeding 0.12 ppm are linked to symptomatic responses such as throat dryness, chest tightness, headache, and nausea.

CARBON MONOXIDE

CO is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Other nonroad engines and vehicles (such as construction equipment and boats) contribute about 22 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Higher levels of CO generally occur in areas with heavy traffic congestion. In cities, 85–95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are sources of CO indoors. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months when inversion conditions become more frequent, trapping the air pollution near the ground beneath a layer of warm air.


CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs by combining with hemoglobin, which normally supplies oxygen to the cells. However, CO combines with hemoglobin much more readily than oxygen does, drastically reducing the amount of oxygen available to the cells. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to CO concentrations include such symptoms as dizziness, headaches, and fatigue. CO exposure is especially harmful to individuals who suffer from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (EPA 2009).

PARTICULATE MATTER

PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires, and natural windblown dust. It also includes particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by condensation and/or transformation of SO2 and ROG (EPA 2009). PM2.5 is a subgroup of PM10 that consists of smaller particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (ARB 2009a:1-20).

The adverse health effects associated with PM10 depend on the specific composition of the particulate matter. For example, health effects may result from adsorption of metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other toxic substances onto fine particulate matter (referred to as the “piggybacking effect”), or from the presence of fine dust particles of silica or asbestos. Generally, both short-term and long-term exposure to elevated concentrations of PM10 may result in adverse effects. These effects may include breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, alterations to the immune system, carcinogenesis, and premature death (EPA 2009). PM2.5 poses an increased health risk because the particles can deposit deep in the lungs and may contain substances that are particularly harmful to human health.

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban environments. The major human-made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary internal combustion engines. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide, which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2 (EPA 2009). The combined emissions of nitric oxide and NO2 are referred to as NOX and reported as equivalent NO2. Because NO2 is formed and depleted by reactions associated with ozone, the NO2 concentration in a particular geographic area may not be representative of the local NOX emission sources.

Inhalation is the most common route of exposure to NO2. The severity of the adverse health effects depends primarily on the concentration inhaled, rather than the length of exposure. An individual may experience a variety of acute symptoms such as coughing, difficulty in breathing, vomiting, headache, and eye irritation during or shortly after exposure. Severe, symptomatic NO2 intoxication after acute exposure has been linked on occasion with prolonged respiratory impairment, with such symptoms as chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function (EPA 2009).


SULFUR DIOXIDE

SO2 is produced by such stationary sources as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, and pulp and paper mills. SO2 exposure causes adverse health effects primarily in the upper respiratory tract. SO2 is a respiratory irritant; the bronchioles constrict with inhalation of SO2 at 5 ppm or more. On contact with the moist mucous membranes, SO2 produces sulfurous acid, which is a direct irritant. The concentration, rather than the duration of exposure, is an important determinant of respiratory effects.

LEAD

Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in the air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

Until about 20 years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995 (EPA 2009).

EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline caused emissions of lead from the transportation sector to decline dramatically (95 percent between 1980 and 1999), and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Transportation sources, primarily airplanes, now contribute only 13 percent of lead emissions. A National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reported a 78 percent decrease in the levels of lead in people’s blood between 1976 and 1991. This dramatic decline can be attributed to the move from leaded to unleaded gasoline (EPA 2009).

MONITORING STATION DATA

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN Criteria air pollutants are monitored at multiple monitoring stations throughout the SFBAAB. The monitoring station closest to the planning area is the 793 Rincon Avenue station in Livermore, approximately 10 miles to the west. This monitoring station measures ozone, NO2, and PM2.5. In general, the ambient air-quality measurements from this station are representative of the air quality near the planning area because the monitoring station is located in the same air basin with similar natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) factors that affect air quality. In addition, ARB and EPA use these air monitoring data to designate areas for CAAQS and NAAQS, respectively. For the portion of the planning area that is located in the SJVAB, monitoring data from a station located in the SJVAB (the Tracy Airport station) are presented to represent current air quality conditions. Table 3.2-2 summarizes the air quality data from the 3 most recent years for which data are available (2011–2013).


Table 3.2-2. Summary of Applicable San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Annual Ambient Air Quality Data (2011–2013)a

2011 2012 2013

OZONE

Maximum concentration (1-hour/8-hour, ppm) 0.115/0.085 0.102/0.090 0.096/0.077

Number of days state standard exceeded (1-hour/8-hour) 3/9 2/4 3/2

Number of days national standard exceeded (1-hour/8-hour) b 0/2 0/3 0/1

CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) c

Maximum concentration (8-hour, ppm) 1.50 1.57 NA

Number of days state standard exceeded (8-hour) 0 0 NA

Number of days national standard exceeded (8-hour) 0 0 NA

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)

Maximum concentration (1-hour, ppm) 0.057 0.052 0.051

Number of days state standard exceeded 0 0 0

Annual average (ppm) 0.011 0.010 0.011

SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) d


Number of days standard exceeded (national/California) 0/0 0/0 0/0

Annual average (ppm) 0.001 NA NA

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)

Maximum concentration (μg/m3) (national/California) e 45.4/45.4 31.1/31.1 40.1/40.1

Number of days national standard exceeded (measured/calculated) f,g 2/2.0 0/0.0 4/4.0

Annual average (μg/m3) (national/California) 7.8/8.5 6.6/6.6 8.4/NA

RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10) h

Maximum concentration (μg/m3) (national/California) e 28.3/28.9 39.1/41.5 31.0/33.5

Number of days state standard exceeded (measured/calculated) f 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

Number of days national standard exceeded (measured/calculated) f 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

Annual average (μg/m3) (national/California) 13.9/14.2 13.1/13.5 14.0/14.5

Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = data not available or insufficient data to determine value; ppm = parts per million a Measurements were recorded at the 793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station in Livermore unless noted otherwise. b The 8-hour national ozone standard was revised to 0.075 ppm in March 2008. Statistics shown are based on the previous 0.08 ppm

standard. The 1-hour national ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005. Statistics for the 1-hour national ozone standard are shown for informational purposes.

c Measurements were recorded at the 9925 International Boulevard monitoring station in Oakland, which is approximately 32 miles northwest of the planning area. The 793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station also monitors for carbon monoxide; however, monitoring data for the most recent 3 years were incomplete.

d Measurements were recorded at the West Oakland monitoring station located at 1100 21st Street in Oakland, which is approximately 40 miles northwest of the planning area. The 793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station does not monitor for sulfur dioxide.

e State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons: State statistics are based on California-approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers. State statistics are based on local conditions while national statistics are based on standard conditions. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria.


Table 3.2-2. Summary of Applicable San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Annual Ambient Air Quality Data (2011–2013)a

f Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the level of the state daily standard or the national daily standard. Measurements are typically collected every 6 days. Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had measurements been collected every day. The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.

g The national 24-hour standard for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was revised from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006. Statistics shown are based on the 65 µg/m3 standard.

h Measurements were recorded at the Cupertino monitoring station located at 22601 Voss Avenue in Cupertino, which is approximately 33 miles southwest of the planning area and the closest monitoring station in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin that monitors for respirable particulate matter (PM10).

Source: ARB 2014

Table 3.2-2 lists the registered concentrations and exceedances of the CAAQS and NAAQS that occurred at this monitoring station from 2011 through 2013. During this period, the station registered multiple days above the state 1- and 8-hour ozone standards and the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The state CO, NO2, and SO2 standards were not exceeded in any of the last 3 years. The state 24-hour PM10 standard was not exceeded in any of the last 3 years. The national 24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded at least once a year in 2011 and 2013.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN Criteria air pollutants are monitored at multiple monitoring stations throughout the SJVAB. The monitoring station closest to the planning area is the Tracy Airport station in Tracy, approximately 7 miles to the east. This monitoring station measures ozone and NO2. In general, the ambient air-quality measurements from this station are representative of the air quality in the vicinity of the planning area. Table 3.2-3 summarizes the air quality data from the 3 most recent years for which data are available (2011–2013).

Table 3.2-3 lists the registered concentrations and exceedances of the CAAQS and NAAQS that occurred at this monitoring station from 2011 through 2013. During this period, the station registered multiple days above the state 1- and 8-hour ozone standards and the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The state CO, NO2, and SO2 standards were not exceeded in any of the last 3 years. The national 24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded multiple times in all of the past 3 years.

ATTAINMENT STATUS

To determine whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful, contaminant levels in ambient air samples are compared to the CAAQS and NAAQS. Both ARB and EPA use the type of monitoring data presented in Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 to designate an area’s attainment status relative to the CAAQS and NAAQS, respectively, for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are “nonattainment,” “attainment,” and “unclassified.” The “unclassified” designation is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards.


Table 3.2-3. Summary of Applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Annual Ambient Air Quality Data (2011–2013)a

2011 2012 2013

OZONE

Maximum concentration (1-hour/8-hour, ppm) 0.107/0.088 0.109/0.098 0.096/0.083

Number of days state standard exceeded (1-hour/8-hour) 3/21 8/36 1/5

Number of days national standard exceeded (1-hour/8-hour) b 0/8 0/16 0/2

CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) c

Maximum concentration (8-hour, ppm) 2.13 1.78 NA

Number of days state standard exceeded (8-hour) 0 0 NA

Number of days national standard exceeded (8-hour) 0 0 0

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)


Number of days state standard exceeded 0 0 0

Annual average (ppm) 0.006 0.007 0.006

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)

Maximum concentration (μg/m3) (national/California) e NA/35.1 NA/26.8 NA/56.3

Number of days national standard exceeded (measured/calculated) f,g NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA

State annual average (μg/m3) (national/California) NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA

RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)

Maximum concentration (μg/m3) (national/California c) 110.8/NA 73.4/NA 73.2/NA

Number of days state standard exceeded (measured/calculated) e 0/NA 0/NA 0/0.0

Number of days national standard exceeded (measured/calculated) f NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA

Annual average (μg/m3) (national/California) NA/17.5 NA/21.0 NA/22.6

Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = data not available or insufficient data to determine value; ppm = parts per million a Measurements were recorded at the Tracy Airport monitoring station unless noted otherwise. b The 8-hour national ozone standard was revised to 0.075 ppm in March 2008. Statistics shown are based on the previous 0.08 ppm

standard. The 1-hour national ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005. Statistics for the 1-hour national ozone standard are shown for informational purposes.

c Measurements were recorded at the Hazelton-Stockton monitoring station located at 1593 East Hazelton Street in Stockton, which is approximately 26 miles northeast of the planning area.

d Measurements were recorded at the Fresno–1st Street monitoring station located at 3425 North First Street in Fresno, which is the only monitoring station in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin that monitors for sulfur dioxide.

e State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons: State statistics are based on California-approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers. State statistics are based on local conditions while national statistics are based on standard conditions. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria.

f Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the level of the state daily standard or the national daily standard. Measurements are typically collected every 6 days. Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had measurements been collected every day. The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.

g The national PM2.5 24-hour standard was revised from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006. Statistics shown are based on the 65 µg/m3 standard. Source: ARB 2014


With respect to the CAAQS, the SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants. With respect to the NAAQS, the SFBAAB is designated as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants. Table 3.2-4 shows the SFBAAB’s most recent attainment designations.

Table 3.2-4. California and National Attainment Statuses for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

Pollutant

Designation/Classification

California National

Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment –

Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment

Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment/unclassifiable

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment

Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Nonattainment Unclassified

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment a

Lead Attainment Attainment

Sulfates Attainment

No national standards Hydrogen sulfide Unclassified

Vinyl chloride — b

Visibility-reducing particles Unclassified

Notes: a The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to

35 µg/m3 in 2006. On October 8, 2009, EPA designated the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard, effective December 14, 2009. BAAQMD had 3 years to develop a state implementation plan (SIP) demonstrating how the region would achieve the revised standard by December 14, 2014. The deadline for submitting the SIP for the new PM2.5 standard to EPA was December 14, 2012. On October 29, 2012, EPA issued a proposed rule-making determining that BAAQMD is in attainment of the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA is currently in the process of finalizing this rule-marking, which would then suspend SIP requirements to demonstrate how a region would achieve the standard as long as monitoring data continue to demonstrate attainment of the new PM2.5 standard.

b No information is available to designate the region for vinyl chloride.

Source: BAAQMD 2013

With respect to the CAAQS, the SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants. With respect to the NAAQS, the SJVAB is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5, and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants. Table 3.2-5 presents the current attainment status of the SJVAB.


Table 3.2-5. California and National Attainment Statuses for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Pollutant

Designation/Classification

California National

Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment/severe –

Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment/extreme a

Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment/unclassified Attainment/unclassified

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment/unclassified

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment/unclassified

Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment b

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment c

Lead Attainment No designation

Sulfates Attainment

No national standards Hydrogen sulfide Unclassified

Vinyl chloride Attainment

Visibility-reducing particles Unclassified

Notes: a The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. However,

in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved reclassification of the SFVAB to extreme nonattainment, effective June 4, 2010.

b On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the SJVAB to attainment for the PM10 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.

c The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the SJVAB as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, effective December 14, 2009.

Source: SJVAPCD 2013

EXISTING EMISSIONS—ALAMEDA COUNTY

Table 3.2-6 summarizes the emissions inventory for criteria air pollutants in Alameda County for various source categories. According to Alameda County’s emissions inventory, mobile sources are the largest contributor to the estimated annual average air pollutant levels of ROG, CO, and NOX, accounting for approximately 51 percent, 93 percent, and 92 percent, respectively, of the total inventory. Stationary sources in Alameda County are responsible for the majority (approximately 56 percent) of annual emissions of oxides of sulfur (SOX). Areawide sources (e.g., solvent evaporation, on-site fuel combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance equipment) account for approximately 81 percent and 59 percent of Alameda County’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, respectively.


Table 3.2-6. Summary of 2008 Estimated Emissions Inventory for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors (Alameda County)

Source Type/Category

Estimated Annual Average Emissions (Tons per Day)

ROG CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 0.30 3.97 5.15 0.80 0.47 0.47

Waste Disposal 4.25 0.38 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.02

Cleaning and Surface Coating 10.50 0.00 0.01 – 0.00 –

Petroleum Production and Marketing 2.24 – – 0.01 0.00 0.00

Industrial Processes 2.55 0.18 0.18 0.63 2.97 1.52

Subtotal (Stationary Sources) 19.84 4.53 5.44 1.47 3.46 2.01

Areawide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 15.38 – – – – –

Miscellaneous Processes 2.31 20.85 3.29 0.09 34.47 8.39

Subtotal (Areawide Sources) 17.69 20.85 3.29 0.09 34.47 8.39

Mobile Sources

On-Road Motor Vehicles 26.15 245.19 63.21 0.22 2.92 2.16

Other Mobile Sources 12.38 87.94 32.46 1.81 1.79 1.62

Subtotal (Mobile Sources) 38.53 333.13 95.67 2.03 4.72 3.78

Total for Alameda County 76.06 358.51 104.40 3.60 42.65 14.18

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOX = oxides of sulfur

Totals in table may not add exactly due to rounding.

Source: ARB 2009b

EXISTING EMISSIONS—SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Table 3.2-7 summarizes the emissions inventory for criteria air pollutants in San Joaquin County for various source categories. According to San Joaquin County’s emissions inventory, mobile sources are the largest contributor to the estimated annual average air pollutant levels of ROG, CO, and NOX, accounting for approximately 52 percent, 88 percent, and 86 percent, respectively, of the total inventory. Stationary sources in San Joaquin County are responsible for most (approximately 85 percent) of the SOX emissions.

Areawide sources (e.g., solvent evaporation, on-site fuel combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance equipment) account for approximately 80 percent and 57 percent of San Joaquin County’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, respectively.


Table 3.2-7. Summary of 2008 Estimated Emissions Inventory for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors (San Joaquin County)

Source Type/Category

Estimated Annual Average Emissions (Tons per Day)

ROG CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 0.46 4.13 6.72 2.04 0.45 0.40

Waste Disposal 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04

Cleaning and Surface Coating 2.25 0.00 – – 0.05 0.05

Petroleum Production and Marketing 1.36 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Industrial Processes 3.35 0.66 3.78 2.15 2.08 1.09

Subtotal (Stationary Sources) 7.53 4.94 10.56 4.22 2.63 1.58

Areawide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 7.84 – – – – –

Miscellaneous Processes 7.31 22.00 1.74 0.10 26.36 6.45

Subtotal (Areawide Sources) 15.15 22.00 1.74 0.10 26.36 6.45

Mobile Sources

On-Road Motor Vehicles 12.34 116.75 40.26 0.10 1.86 1.45

Other Mobile Sources 12.06 78.97 38.41 0.57 2.02 1.81

Subtotal (Mobile Sources) 24.39 195.72 78.66 0.67 3.88 3.26

Total for San Joaquin County 47.07 222.65 90.96 4.99 32.88 11.29

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOX = oxides of sulfur

Totals in table may not add exactly due to rounding.

Source: ARB 2009c

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Sensitive land uses or sensitive receptors are facilities that generally accommodate people who may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants. Commonly identified sensitive land uses are residences, hotels and motels, schools, preschools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement or convalescent homes, hospitals, and clinics.

The planning area is located in a rural area of both Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located at the northern boundary of the planning area along Corral Hollow Road. One residence typically occupied by one Carnegie SVRA staff member (and family) is located within the planning area. Campsites are also located in designated areas of the SVRA; however, these receptors would be located in the planning area for only a limited amount of time.


EXISTING AIR QUALITY—TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) (also referred to as hazardous air pollutants) are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. A TAC is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (ARB 2009a:1-34), most of the estimated health risk from TACs is attributed to relatively few compounds, the most dominant being particulate matter exhaust from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM). Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and the presence or absence of an emission control system.

The ambient monitoring data available for other TACs are not available for diesel PM because a standardized method for measuring diesel PM has not been established. However, ARB has made preliminary estimates of concentrations based on a particulate matter (PM) exposure method. This method uses ARB’s emissions inventory PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene (ARB 2009a:1-34). It should be noted that ARB has also designated asbestos and naturally occurring asbestos as a TAC.

EXISTING AIR QUALITY—ODORS

Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

The human nose is the sole device for sensing odors. The ability of people to detect odors varies considerably and is quite subjective. Some individuals can smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may be sensitive to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., an odor from a fast food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to result in complaints than a familiar one. This phenomenon is known as odor fatigue. A person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition occurs only with an alteration in the intensity.


The facilities associated with the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not include sensitive receptors that could be exposed to odor sources. Rather, the construction-related or operational activities associated with the General Plan have the potential to generate odors that could affect nearby receptors. The General Plan’s potential odor impacts are discussed in further detail in Impact 3.2-5. Among the industries and/or facilities that are typically associated with objectionable odors are wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical and fiberglass manufacturing plants, and food processing facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors are located on the northern edge of the planning area along Corral Hollow Road.


Air quality in the SFBAAB and SJVAB is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work both jointly and individually to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality in the SFBAAB and SJVAB are discussed in the “Air Quality Regulations” section in Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

As stated in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make determinations of significance with regard to air quality impacts. Thus, in addition to evaluating air quality impacts against the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis evaluates the air quality impacts of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan pursuant to the BAAQMD-recommended guidance and thresholds of significance. As described below, the thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and guidance from BAAQMD and SJVAPCD.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES THRESHOLDS

Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a significant air quality impact if it would:

► conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

► violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;

► result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);


► expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

► create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT-LEVEL THRESHOLDS

BAAQMD revised and updated its CEQA guidelines in May 2010 and adopted the new guidelines on June 2, 2010 (BAAQMD 2012). In March 2012, however, the Alameda County Superior Court struck down BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA guidelines, finding that the 2010 guidelines were a “project” requiring CEQA review and that no CEQA review was conducted for the 2010 guidelines before their adoption. Although the court recommended setting aside the 2010 guidelines until a full CEQA review is conducted, this analysis also uses the 2010 CEQA guidelines to evaluate the General Plan’s air quality impacts. The issues in the court order are not relevant to the question of whether BAAQMD’s analysis provides substantial evidence in support of the proposed thresholds. State Parks agrees that the thresholds are supported by substantial evidence, and thus has elected to make use of BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA guidelines and thresholds in this analysis.

Based on BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a significant air quality impact if any of the following scenarios would occur:

1. Criteria Air Pollutants:

Regional Significance Criteria: a.

− Average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, or (exhaust) PM2.5 associated with the General Plan would exceed 54 pounds per day (lb/day), or average daily construction emissions of PM10 exhaust emissions would exceed 82 lb/day; or

− Construction activities for the General Plan would not implement all of BAAQMD’s best management practices for fugitive dust control and basic construction mitigation measures; or

− Average daily operational emissions of ROG, NOX, or (exhaust) PM2.5 associated with the General Plan would exceed 54 lb/day, or average daily operational emissions of PM10 exhaust would exceed 82 lb/day; or

− Annual operational emissions of ROG, NOX, or (exhaust) PM2.5 associated with the General Plan would exceed 10 tons per year (tpy) or annual operational PM10 exhaust emissions would exceed 15 tpy.


Local CO Hotspots: b.

− The General Plan would fail to be consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or

− Implementation of the General Plan would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or

− General Plan–related traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

2. Odors: Implementation of the General Plan would site sensitive receptors (e.g., homes and schools) or substantial odor sources (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plants) in a location where a qualitative analysis of odor parameters, such as types of odor sources, frequency of odor events, distance and landscape between receptors and odor source(s), typical local wind speeds and directions, and odor complaint history, would demonstrate significant adverse effects.

3. Community Risk and Hazards: BAAQMD has developed health risk and hazard thresholds of significance for projects that would site new receptors. However, the General Plan would not involve siting any new sensitive receptors in the planning area, and therefore, evaluating these thresholds as part of this air quality analysis is not necessary. The following health risk thresholds pertaining to construction and operational emissions from the General Plan are still applicable:

Operational and Construction Risk: a.

− The General Plan’s construction and/or operational emissions would generate excess cancer risk levels of more than 10 in 1 million; or

− The General Plan would exceed BAAQMD-adopted screening tables for air toxics during construction and/or operational activities.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT PROJECT-LEVEL THRESHOLDS

Based on SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2002), implementation of the General Plan would result in a significant air quality impact if any of the following scenarios would occur:


CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS OR PRECURSORS ► Short-term construction-related emissions would violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Such violations are defined as follows:

• PM10: Emissions would exceed the SJVACPD-recommended threshold of 15 tpy, or SJVAPCD-required control measures in compliance with Regulation VIII, “Fugitive Dust Prohibition”; or other applicable SJVAPCD-recommended mitigation measures were not incorporated into the design of the General Plan or would not be implemented during construction of General Plan–related facilities.

• ROG and NOX: Emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD-recommended threshold of 10 tpy.

► Long-term operational (regional) emissions would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Such violations are defined as follows:

• PM10: Emissions would exceed the SJVACPD-recommended threshold of 15 tpy or SJVAPCD-required control measures in compliance with Regulation VIII, “Fugitive Dust Prohibition”; or other applicable SJVAPCD-recommended mitigation measures were not incorporated into the design of the General Plan or implemented during operation of General Plan–related facilities.

• ROG and NOX: Emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD-recommended threshold of 10 tpy.

► Long-term operational (local) emissions would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Such a violation would occur if CO emissions would exceed the 20 ppm (1-hour) or 9 ppm (8-hour) standard.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS ► Short-term construction-related or long-term operational emissions would expose sensitive receptors

to substantial pollutant concentrations, as defined below:

• exposure to a TAC identified by ARB, EPA, or both would exceed 10 in 1 million for excess cancer risk; or

• exposure to such a TAC would exceed a hazard index of 1 for noncancer risk at the maximally exposed individual.

ODORS ► Short-term construction or long-term operations would create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people, because General Plan implementation would locate receptors near an


existing odor source where one confirmed complaint or three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a 3-year period have been registered by:

• existing receptors as close as the planning area to the odor source; or

• existing receptors in the vicinity of a similar facility considering distance, frequency, and odor control, where there is currently no nearby development and for proposed odor sources near existing receptors.



The evaluation of the impacts of General Plan implementation on air quality was based on existing activities within Carnegie SVRA and the changes that could result from development and use of the 3,100-acre expansion area with implementation of the General Plan. In other words, this analysis evaluates the net change in operational emissions associated with implementation of the General Plan.

A baseline year of 2010 was selected because that was the year when Carnegie SVRA experienced the lowest attendance in the past 14 years. Year 2012 was the year when the notice of preparation for this environmental impact report (EIR) was filed, which is typically used for the baseline year in CEQA analyses; however, using year 2010 operational activity would result in a conservative and worst-case estimate of the General Plan’s net change in operational emissions. (A lower baseline would result in larger net change in operational emissions.) Thus, to be conservative, this analysis compared the future buildout year with activity levels from 2010 (the lowest attendance year) to determine the air quality impacts of implementing the General Plan. Future projections were made for 2030 because the proposed new features and facilities at Carnegie SVRA would be implemented gradually over the next 10–15 years. Data for 2001, which represented the historic peak in attendance at Carnegie SVRA, were also included in the analysis to demonstrate the range of activity levels at Carnegie SVRA. Year 2001 involved higher levels of attendance and off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity levels, which would result in a lower net increase in emissions associated with General Plan implementation. Therefore, as stated above, air quality impacts were conservatively determined using year 2010 activity levels (i.e., lower baseline activity levels resulting in higher net change), while the net change between the activity levels with General Plan implementation and the year 2001 activity levels are presented for informational purposes. The various analysis years and associated OHV activity levels are shown in further detail in Appendix B.

Historical SVRA attendance records (from 2000–2013) and transportation data collected as part of this draft environmental impact report (DEIR) were used to determine baseline counts of visitors, on-road vehicles, and OHVs and estimates of future counts (see Appendix B for additional details). In addition, site-specific visitor and activity data were collected by Carnegie SVRA staff members between October 4 and October 20, 2014, to assist in the development of emission estimates. A log sheet was


prepared and visitors were polled for the following information as they entered and/or left the park: OHV type, engine type (i.e., two-stroke or four-stroke for motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles [ATVs]), duration of visit, and OHV activity miles traveled during the visit (see Appendix B for additional details).

To compute emissions estimates, the activity data were combined with emission factors obtained from ARB’s Recreation Vehicle 2013 (RV2013) model (ARB 2013) for some OHVs (motorcycles and ATVs) and EMFAC 2011 for the on-highway light trucks, which are used to transport motorcycles and ATVs or are driven on-site as OHV 4x4 trucks. Emission factors from Chapter 13.2.2, “Unpaved Roads,” of EPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, were used along with on-site OHV activity data and manufacturer vehicle weights to estimate off-road emissions of fugitive dust from activities within Carnegie SVRA.


IMPACT 3.2-1

Conflict with or Obstruction of the Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan

Air quality plans describe the air pollution control strategies to be implemented by an air district, city, county, or region. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to maintain and/or achieve attainment of an NAAQS or a CAAQS. The latest plans issued by BAAQMD are the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and the 2005 Ozone Strategy (most recent triennial update). The latest plans prepared by SJVAPCD are the 2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan; 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard; and the 2007 Ozone Plan. These plans address reducing emissions of criteria pollutants and ambient concentrations of air pollutants, protecting public health, and achieving attainment of the federal and state standards for ozone and PM.

Two criteria are applicable to determining whether implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would substantially affect regional air quality. The first criterion is whether emissions associated with the General Plan would exceed the estimated air basin emissions used as the basis of the air quality plans, which are based in part on projections of population and vehicle miles traveled. The second criterion, which is discussed in Impact 3.2-2, is whether implementing the General Plan would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards.

The construction-related and operational impacts of the General Plan with regard to a potential conflict with or obstruction of an applicable air quality plan are discussed separately below.


CONSTRUCTION

Development in the planning area in various stages over a period of 10–15 years would generate exhaust emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 from the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment, material delivery and haul trucks, and worker commute trips. The air quality plan estimates the use of construction equipment in the region on an annual basis. Construction activities associated with the General Plan would not increase the assumptions for the use of off-road equipment. Specific designs for development in the planning area are limited; therefore, construction emissions would be estimated quantitatively at the detailed project level for each portion of the planning area that would be modified over the years.

For the overall development, construction would involve the use of large, diesel-powered equipment. Such equipment would produce temporary, intermittent air pollutant emissions that generally would be distributed over the extensive planning area. In cases when activities would be concentrated in time and area, construction emissions of fugitive PM dust could be substantial and result in a potentially significant impact. In addition, because the exact nature of construction activities and their intensity are not known at the time of this writing, construction-related ROG and NOX emissions have the potential to exceed SJVAPCD’s or BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Therefore, such emissions could exceed the estimated air basin emissions used as the basis for the applicable air quality plan. However, State Parks would implement OM Goal 6 and OM Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7 from the General Plan (listed below) to reduce these adverse effects on air quality.

OM Goal 6: Limit potential air quality impacts on residential properties within the planning area that could result from construction, maintenance, and OHV recreation activities.

► OM Guideline 6.1: Implement BAAQMD basic construction measures for all projects:

• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.


• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

• A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the soil transfer site within BAAQMD, with the telephone number and person to contact at Alameda County regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number also shall be visible, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

► OM Guideline 6.2: Implement BAAQMD additional construction measures as necessary for projects with construction emissions above the BAAQMD thresholds of significance:

• All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

• Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.

• Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

• The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

• All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

• Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

• The idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be minimized to 2 minutes.

• The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a projectwide fleet-average 20 percent reduction in emissions of NOX and 45 percent reduction in PM emissions compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late-model engines, low-emission


diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.

• Low–volatile organic compound (i.e., reactive organic gas) coatings shall be used beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3, “Architectural Coatings”).

• All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with best available control technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.

• All contractors shall use equipment that meets ARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.

► OM Guideline 6.3: Implement SJVAPCD Regulation VIII control measures for construction emissions of PM10 (required for all construction sites):

• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, that are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, and covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.

• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

• All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions through application of water or presoaking.

• With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition.

• When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.

• All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

• Following the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.


• Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.

• An owner/operator of any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day, or 20 or more vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles, shall implement measures to prevent carryout and trackout.

► OM Guideline 6.4: Implement SJVAPCD enhanced additional control measures for construction emissions of PM10 as necessary:

• Enhanced control measures (to mitigate PM10 impacts):

− Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. − Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways

from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

• Additional control measures (for projects that are large in area or located near sensitive receptors, or that for any other reason warrant additional emissions reductions):

− Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. − Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. − Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph.1 − Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

► OM Guideline 6.5: Implement SJVAPCD construction equipment mitigation measures (to reduce exhaust emissions) for projects that would exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOX:

• Use alternative-fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment.

• Minimize idling time (e.g., 5-minute maximum).

• Limit the hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use.

• Replace fossil-fueled equipment with electrically driven equivalents (provided they are not run via a portable generator set).

• Curtail construction during periods of high ambient concentrations of pollutants; this may include ceasing construction activity during the peak hour of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways.

• Implement activity management (e.g., rescheduling activities to reduce short-term impacts).

1 Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation.


► OM Guideline 6.6: Maintain a buffer of at least 250 feet around any residential properties within the planning area during and after implementation of the General Plan.

► OM Guideline 6.7: Conduct an environmental analysis for all construction projects located within 1,000 feet of any residents (on-site or off-site) to assess potential air quality impacts of construction-related emissions on the existing residence(s). If any significant impacts are determined pursuant to the applicable air district thresholds of significance (i.e., BAAQMD or SJVAPCD), the applicant and contractor shall implement all necessary measures to minimize emissions.

Implementing BAAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures would be mandatory for all construction activities performed in the Alameda County portion of the planning area and implementing SJVAPCD Regulation VIII would be mandatory for all construction activities performed in the San Joaquin County portion of the planning area. With adherence to OM Goal 6 and OM Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7, construction emissions would be reduced to a level less than the applicable BAAQMD or SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not be considered to generate emissions that would exceed the estimated and allowable air basin emissions and would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan. As a result, the construction impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant.

OPERATIONS

Operational activities at Carnegie SVRA have historically included hillclimbing and trail riding by off-highway motorcycles and ATVs and limited off-road course driving by four-wheel-drive or 4x4 trucks. These vehicles all produce exhaust emissions as they burn gasoline and fugitive PM dust as their tires entrain dirt into the air. OHV emissions vary widely based on vehicle type, engine type, activity, speed, and soil moisture content and composition in the SVRA OHV recreation areas.

To limit exhaust emissions, State Parks actively enforces California’s Red Sticker and Green Sticker Program for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs that operate at Carnegie SVRA. ARB regulations limit the use of OHVs that do not meet emission standards; the California Department of Motor Vehicles issues red and green stickers to the owners of noncompliant and compliant/exempt vehicles, respectively. Red stickers are issued for 2003 model year and newer OHVs that are not certified to the emission standards. Green stickers are issued for 2003 model year and newer OHVs that comply with the emission standards, and to all 2002 model year and older OHVs, effectively grandfathering them into the program.

All OHVs with green stickers may be used at any time of the year at any state or federal park that allows OHV use. However, ARB has defined a riding-season schedule for each park that generally limits the use of red-sticker vehicles to specific months, typically the fall, winter, and spring months when OHV emissions are less likely to adversely affect ambient air quality conditions. Some parks allow the use of red-sticker OHVs year round, but those parks are located in areas that are in attainment of ambient air quality standards. Carnegie SVRA’s red-sticker riding season is October 1 through April 30; therefore,


the use of noncompliant, red-sticker OHVs is prohibited during the summer, which is high-ozone season. Thus, exhaust emissions associated with operation of Carnegie SVRA would not obstruct implementation of the air quality plans.

Fugitive dust is the largest source of PM10 emissions at Carnegie SVRA. It is generated by vehicles at the entrance and in the parking, camping, and staging areas of the park, and by OHV tires spinning and lifting soil into the air in the riding areas. The soil’s silt and moisture content, vehicle weight and speed, and weather conditions affect the quantity of PM10 generated. To control some of these factors and limit the creation of fugitive dust, Carnegie SVRA limits vehicle speeds in the unpaved, non-OHV-riding areas (parking, camping, and staging areas) and applies dust suppressants annually and water as needed in these areas.

Regional air quality plans use land use designations and projected growth in local plans (e.g., general plans and specific plans) to estimate air quality emissions for the region. Thus, the regional air quality plans for the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley both account for OHV recreation areas and the types and volume of activities at Carnegie SVRA. In addition, the regional air quality plans would account for the Red Sticker and Green Sticker program with respect to air quality emissions. Therefore, expansion of the SVRA would be consistent with activities expected at this type of facility and with regional population growth assumed in the air quality plans. As a result, operational activities associated with the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not conflict with implementation of regional air quality plans. This operational impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.2-2

Violation of an Air Quality Standard or Substantial Contribution to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation

The construction-related and operational impacts of the General Plan with regard to a potential violation of an air quality standard or substantial contribution to an air quality violation are discussed separately below.

CONSTRUCTION

The General Plan includes development in the planning area with various facilities and recreation features that have not yet been defined. Regardless of the construction activities, the on-road trucks hauling materials to and from the site and the construction equipment used to construct the new features would generate emissions of criteria pollutants. Development in the planning area is expected to occur in stages over the next 10–15 years. Specific designs are limited; therefore, construction emissions would be estimated quantitatively at the detailed project level for each portion of the planning area that would be modified.

The use of heavy-duty off-road equipment, material delivery and haul trucks, and worker commute trips during construction activities for the General Plan would generate temporary, intermittent emissions of


NOX, SOX, CO, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. In addition, construction activities in unpaved areas would generate emissions of fugitive PM dust.

Construction emissions generally would be distributed over the planning area and spread out over many years, limiting ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the potential to contribute to or cause violations of air quality standards. However, in cases when construction activities would be concentrated in time and area, the exhaust and PM10 fugitive dust could contribute to a violation of an air quality standard. However, State Parks would implement OM Goal 6 and OM Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7 from the General Plan (shown above in the “Construction” discussion under Impact 3.2-1) to limit the generation of exhaust and fugitive PM dust emissions during construction activities.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, construction emissions would be reduced to a level less than the applicable BAAQMD or SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. As a result, the construction-related impact related to a potential violation of an air quality standard or substantial contribution to an air quality violation would be less than significant.

OPERATIONS

Activities at Carnegie SVRA would generate emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile sources as long as the site continues to be used for OHV recreation as described and envisioned in the General Plan. Mobile sources of criteria pollutants would include trips to and from Carnegie SVRA by SVRA staff members and visitors, and the existing and increased use of OHVs. Site maintenance activities would be infrequent and nominal; these negligible emissions are not included in the emissions estimates in Tables 3.2-8 and 3.2-9. State Parks would implement OM Goal 7 and OM Guidelines 7.1 through 7.3 from the General Plan (shown below) to help reduce emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile sources associated with OHV recreation.

OM Goal 7: Manage the SVRA to reduce to reduce regional air quality impacts from OHV recreation activities.

► OM Guideline 7.1: Prohibit OHV recreational activities within Carnegie SVRA on summer Spare the Air days designated by BAAQMD or SJVAPCD under their respective Healthy Air Living initiatives. Clearly post summer Spare the Air day alerts on the SVRA website on the soonest possible date, and send notifications through the listserv to avoid visitors unnecessarily traveling to the project site.

► OM Guideline 7.2: Provide regional air quality information (e.g., basics of air quality, local ambient pollutant concentrations, summer Spare the Air day alerts) on the website and at the SVRA entrance. Materials could include but are not limited to educational information about fugitive dust and ozone precursors, low-emission OHV engines and models, and health risk exposure.

► OM Guideline 7.3: During high-wind conditions, prohibit additional OHVs from entering the recreational trails and OHV areas.


Table 3.2-8. Baseline (2010) and Projected (2030) Operational Emissions of Air Pollutants

Daily Emissions

Source

Emissions (lb/day) a

ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Baseline Mobile Sources (2010) b

Visitor Vehicles 1.7 5.6 46 0.05 0.05 OHVs c 20.1 2.09 120 0.64 0.26 Fugitive Dust – – – 304 29.8

Baseline Subtotal 21.8 7.7 166 305 30.1 Projected Mobile Sources (2030) Visitor Vehicles 0.55 3.12 29.2 0.08 0.07 OHVs 3 49.9 6.92 288 1.06 0.80 Fugitive Dust – – – 937 91.9

2030 Subtotal 50.4 10.0 317 938 92.8 Net change in total emissions 29 2 151 633 63 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 54 54 – 82 54 Exceeds project threshold? No No NA Yes Yes

Annual Emissions

Source

Emissions (tons per year) a


Baseline Mobile Sources (2010) b

Visitor Vehicles 0.30 1.03 8.5 0.01 0.01 OHVs c 3.67 0.38 21.9 0.12 0.05 Fugitive Dust – – – 55.5 5.45

Baseline Subtotal 3.98 1.41 30.3 55.6 5.50 Projected Mobile Sources (2030) Visitor Vehicles 0.10 0.57 5.34 0.01 0.01 OHVs c 9.10 1.26 52.6 0.19 0.15 Fugitive Dust – – – 171 16.8

2030 Subtotal 9.20 1.83 57.9 171 16.9 Net change in total emissions 5 0.4 28 116 11 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10 – 15 10 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10 10 – 15 – Exceeds project threshold? No No NA Yes Yes Notes: BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CO = carbon monoxide; lb/day = pounds per day; NA = not applicable;

NOX = oxides of nitrogen; OHV = off-highway vehicle; PM10 = particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; tpy = tons per year

See Appendix B for detailed assumptions and emissions calculations. a Emissions calculated for annual operating conditions at Carnegie SVRA using on-site activity data and the EMFAC2011 and RV2013

emissions models. b As discussed in the “Evaluation Methodology” section, year 2010 was used as the baseline year to calculate the net change in operational

emissions associated with implementation of the General Plan. Year 2010 had the lowest attendance in the past 14-year period, which would result in the most conservative and worst-case estimate of the net change in operational emissions.

c Off-highway vehicles represent only emissions associated with visitor recreational vehicles. Emissions associated with maintenance activities are expected to be negligible and are not included in these emissions estimates.

Source: Data modeled by AECOM in 2014


Table 3.2-9. Alternate Baseline (2001) and Projected (2030) Operational Emissions of Air Pollutants Before and During Implementation (through 2030) of the General Plan

Daily Emissions

Source

Emissions (lb/day) a


Baseline Mobile Sources (2001) Visitor Vehicles 4.1 13.3 113 0.13 0.12 OHVs b 107 4.89 279 0.78 0.59 Fugitive Dust – – – 697 68.4

Baseline Subtotal 111 18.1 391 697 69.1 Projected Mobile Sources (2030) Visitor Vehicles 0.55 3.12 29.2 0.08 0.07 OHVs b 49.9 6.92 288 1.06 0.80 Fugitive Dust – – – 937 91.9

2030 Subtotal 50.4 10.0 317 938 92.8 Net change in total emissions -60 -8 -74 240 24 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 54 54 – 82 54 Exceeds project threshold? No No NA Yes No

Annual Emissions

Source

Emissions (tpy) a


Baseline Mobile Sources (2001) Visitor Vehicles 0.75 2.42 20.6 0.02 0.02 OHVs b 19.5 0.89 50.8 0.14 0.11 Fugitive Dust – – – 127 12.5

Baseline Subtotal 20.2 3.31 71.4 127 12.6 Projected Mobile Sources (2030) Visitor Vehicles 0.10 0.57 5.34 0.01 0.01 OHVs b 9.10 1.26 52.6 0.19 0.15 Fugitive Dust – – – 171 16.8

2030 Subtotal 9.20 1.83 57.9 171 16.9 Net change in total emissions -11 -1 -14 44 4 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10 – 15 10 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10 10 – 15 – Exceeds project threshold? No No NA Yes No/NA Notes: BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CO = carbon monoxide; lb/day = pounds per day; NA = not applicable;

NOX = oxides of nitrogen; OHV = off-highway vehicle; PM10 = particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; tpy = tons per year

See Appendix B for detailed assumptions and emissions calculations. a Emissions calculated for annual operating conditions for Carnegie SVRA using on-site activity data and the EMFAC2011 and RV2013

emissions models. b Off-highway vehicles represent only emissions associated with visitor recreational vehicles. Emissions associated with maintenance

activities are expected to be negligible and are not included in these emissions estimates. Source: Data modeled by AECOM in 2014


As shown in Table 3.2-8, the operational PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed SJVAPCD and BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, operation of Carnegie SVRA under the General Plan would generate emissions that exceed the allowable limits established by the air districts to avoid violating or contributing to a violation of air quality standards. As a result, this impact related to a potential violation of an air quality standard or substantial contribution to an air quality violation would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures

No feasible mitigation measures currently exist for directly treating emissions from OHV recreation, given the predominantly undeveloped, mountainous area of the planning area where water sources are limited and water and dust-suppressant application trucks would produce significant additional emissions of exhaust and fugitive PM dust. Implementation of OM Goal 7 and OM Guidelines 7.1 through 7.3 would help reduce annual and daily air quality emissions by restricting OHV recreation on summer Spare the Air days designated by BAAQMD or SJVAPCD and high-wind conditions, and by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to the SVRA, but the number of Spare the Air days and extreme weather events per year are not likely to reduce the overall impact to a less-than-significant level. Without any feasible mitigation measures to minimize the potentially significant operational impact, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

IMPACT 3.2-3

Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region is Nonattainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (Including Releasing Emissions that Exceed Quantitative Thresholds for Ozone Precursors)

As discussed in Impact 3.2-2, construction-related and operational activities at Carnegie SVRA would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in PM10 emissions of fugitive dust, for which both the SFBAAB and SJVAB are nonattainment based on the state standard. In addition, as shown in Tables 3.2-4 and 3.2-5, the SFBAAB and SJVAB, respectively, are designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ozone standards. Although a project could result in a net increase in air quality emissions, this impact evaluates whether that net increase in air quality emissions would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution. Projects that would generate air quality emissions that exceed applicable thresholds of significance would be considered to generate emissions above the allowable limit for the region to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards and would be cumulatively considerable.

CONSTRUCTION

During construction of facilities envisioned in the General Plan, however, State Parks would implement OM Goal 6 and OM Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7 from the General Plan (shown above in the “Construction” discussion under Impact 3.2-1) to limit the generation of exhaust and fugitive PM dust emissions.


With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, construction emissions would be reduced to a level less than the applicable BAAQMD or SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. As a result, the construction-related impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is nonattainment would be less than significant.

OPERATION

Operational activities at Carnegie SVRA would generate air quality emissions associated with recreational OHV activities, visitors coming to and leaving the SVRA, and periodic maintenance activities. As shown in Table 3.2-8, operation of Carnegie SVRA under the General Plan would not generate a net increase in operational emissions of ROG and NOX (i.e., ozone precursors) that would exceed SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. In addition, State Parks would implement OM Goal 7 and OM Guidelines 7.1 through 7.3 from the General Plan (shown above in the discussion of operational impacts under Impact 3.2-2) to help reduce emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile sources associated with OHV recreation. Therefore, the General Plan’s operational ozone precursor emissions would not be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to the nonattainment status of the SFBAAB or SJVAB. As shown in Table 3.2-8, however, operational activities at Carnegie SVRA would produce a net change in emissions of fugitive PM dust that would exceed SJVAPCD and BAAQMD thresholds of significance. As a result, the operational impact would be cumulatively potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required for the construction impact.

No feasible mitigation measures currently exist for directly treating dust generation, given the predominantly undeveloped, mountainous area of the planning area where water sources are limited and water and dust suppressant application trucks would produce significant additional emissions of exhaust and fugitive PM dust. Implementation of OM Goal 7 and OM Guidelines 7.1 through 7.3 would help reduce annual and daily air quality emissions by restricting OHV recreation on summer Spare the Air days designated by BAAQMD or SJVAPCD and high-wind conditions, and reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to the SVRA, but the number of Spare the Air days and extreme weather events per year are not likely to reduce the overall impact to a less-than-cumulatively-significant level. Without any feasible mitigation measures for directly treating fugitive dust generated by OHV activities, the operational impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is nonattainment would be significant and unavoidable.

IMPACT 3.2-4

Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations

Some members of the population are especially sensitive to emissions of air pollutants and should be given special consideration during the evaluation of a project’s air quality impacts. These people include children, older adults, those with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others


who engage in frequent exercise. Sensitive receptors typically consist of residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The construction-related and operational impacts of the General Plan with regard to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed separately below.

CONSTRUCTION

Because of the rural location of the planning area, the nearest sensitive receptors are primarily single-family residences located just outside of the northern edge of the planning area. One residence is located within the planning area itself, but it belongs to Carnegie SVRA and is occupied by an SVRA employee. The most likely source of TAC emissions during construction of new facilities and the grading of terrain would be diesel PM from heavy-duty equipment. Additional diesel PM emissions associated with construction material delivery trucks would occur along the main roadway providing access to Carnegie SVRA, minimizing impacts on any localized area. For the vehicles on-site, construction activities would occur at various locations around the large planning area, making them less concentrated. These activities would occur at least 500 feet from private residences and at least 250 feet from the residence within the planning area (see OM Guideline 6.6 in the General Plan, shown above under Impact 3.2-1). As determined by ARB, PM emissions from large roadways have been shown to drop approximately 70 percent at 500 feet from the emissions source (ARB 2005). Therefore, it is anticipated that because construction activities would be not be as intensive or continuous as a large roadway source, the buffer distances would be sufficient to reduce potential construction TAC emissions to a less-than-significant level. Construction emissions would also be spread out over the next 10–15 years, and for each individual project, construction activities would be temporary and intermittent as vehicles work in certain areas for limited amounts of time and do not operate continuously through each day.

With adherence to this General Plan guideline, it is anticipated that short-term construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. As a result, construction impacts would be less than significant.

OPERATIONS

Because of the distributed nature of the OHV use throughout the planning area, the likelihood that substantial pollutant concentrations would build up in any one location is very low. In addition, operational activities associated with the General Plan would involve primarily gasoline-fueled OHVs, which have considerably lower TAC emissions than diesel-fueled vehicles and do not emit diesel PM. Further, the OHV activities would occur throughout Carnegie SVRA. With adherence to OM Guideline 6.6 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.2-1), OHV activities would occur no closer than 250 feet to the nearest residential property. As a result, sensitive receptors would have limited exposure to TAC emissions during operational activities associated with the General Plan, and the operational impact would be less than significant.



IMPACT 3.2-5

Potential for Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People

The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors such as the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. Offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, but they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. The construction-related and operational impacts of the General Plan with regard to potential for objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people are discussed separately below.

CONSTRUCTION

Specific construction activities have not been defined for the 4,675-acre planning area, nor has a timeline been established for making a determination. However, it is expected that construction activities would involve using large trucks to bring materials to the site and heavy-duty diesel equipment to grade terrain and build facilities and structures at multiple small-scale locations during short time periods. Construction sites also are anticipated to be at least 500 feet from the nearest private residential property and at least 250 feet from the residence within the planning area (see OM Guideline 6.6 in the General Plan, shown above under Impact 3.2-1).

Exhaust from the expected types of vehicles and equipment has the potential to produce objectionable odors. Carnegie SVRA is located in a rural setting, and there is a lack of receptors, with fewer than 10 residential properties located within 1,000 feet of the planning area (see Figure 2-2). Therefore, odors from construction would be dispersed and would not affect a substantial number of people. The construction-related odor impact would be less than significant.

OPERATIONS

The use of OHVs at Carnegie SVRA would produce odors in the form of tailpipe exhaust. However, the extent of the odors would be limited to areas with vehicle use and would be distributed throughout the planning area. In addition, most sensitive receptors are sparsely located along the north side of the planning area and generally near the main road, Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road. One residence is located within the planning area itself, but it belongs to Carnegie SVRA and is occupied by an SVRA employee. The sensitive receptors are residential properties. The nearest home, including the Carnegie SVRA employee residence, would be approximately 250 feet away from the proposed vehicle use areas, providing plenty of distance for odors to disperse. Therefore, odors generated by operational activities at Carnegie SVRA would not affect a substantial number of people. The operational impact related to odors would be less than significant.




Implementing the General Plan and constructing additional facilities for recreational activities at Carnegie SVRA would result in significant air quality impacts from emissions of exhaust and fugitive PM dust. In addition, if several activities would be performed at the same time, in the same general area, and near sensitive receptors, a significant impact could result from construction of new vehicle trails; parking, picnic, and camping areas; and operational, learning, and/or visitor centers. However, construction is anticipated to occur over many years and would be distributed throughout the planning area. Construction activities also would be temporary and would not occur within 500 feet of sensitive receptors. These factors, combined with adherence to General Plan policies, would not result in significant construction-related impacts on air quality.

Operational emissions of fugitive PM dust also would be distributed throughout the existing Carnegie SVRA and expansion area, which would limit the impact on any specific sensitive receptors. In other words, no single sensitive receptor would be exposed to all of the fugitive PM dust emissions shown in Tables 3.2-8 and 3.2-9. Because of the rural nature of the SVRA, a substantial number of people would not be affected. The General Plan would be consistent with the regional air quality plans because the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not change the land use type and population growth figures used to develop local general plans, which are used as the basis of regional air quality plans. Therefore, from a planning perspective, the General Plan would be consistent with the land use type and population assumptions contained in the applicable air quality plans. As described above, however, the actual emissions levels associated with the General Plan would exceed the applicable PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Those fugitive dust emissions would likely remain localized to Carnegie SVRA because of the large mass associated with PM10, which causes the particles to fall out of the atmosphere quickly under normal weather conditions at the SVRA. The terrain, vegetation, and large park area would also limit the amount of PM10 that would travel beyond the boundaries of Carnegie SVRA. Nevertheless, as determined in Impacts 3.2-2 and 3.2-3, and as shown in Tables 3.2-8 and 3.2-9, the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with the General Plan would exceed SJVAPCD and BAAQMD thresholds of significance and this impact would be significant and unavoidable.


For the construction phase of General Plan implementation, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to standard and enhanced measures described in OM Goal 6 and OM Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7 from the General Plan. The measures focus on limiting emissions of exhaust and fugitive PM dust during subsequent construction activities associated with the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. Fugitive PM dust emissions from construction also would be naturally mitigated by the distributed nature of the activities throughout the SVRA, and during short periods of time over the course of several years.

Significant impacts on air quality would result during the operational phase of General Plan implementation, primarily because OHV operational activities would generate emissions of fugitive PM


dust, for which SJVAPCD and BAAQMD are designated as nonattainment for the state PM10 and PM2.5

standards. Mitigation measures to directly control operational fugitive PM dust emissions from OHV activities would not be feasible or reasonable for several reasons: the riding areas are remote; water resources are limited; and the means to distribute water and dust suppressants throughout Carnegie SVRA, most of which is inaccessible to large vehicles, would generate substantial emissions of diesel exhaust and additional fugitive dust to an already significant impact.


3.3 BIOTIC RESOURCES

This section briefly describes existing conditions in the planning area and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on biotic resources.


Section 2.3.2, “Biotic Resources,” of the General Plan provides a detailed description of the biotic resources (e.g., habitats, common and special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive natural communities) that occur in Carnegie SVRA. Figure 3.3-1 shows the habitat types found in the planning area. The following biotic resources in the planning area are particularly important:

► delineated wetland resources (ponds, streams, and creeks) (Figure 3.3-1);

► special-status plants observed in multiple locations (Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3);

► federally listed amphibians known to occur at Carnegie SVRA (California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii] [CRLF] and California tiger salamander [Ambystoma californiense] [CTS]);

► other special-status species (e.g., western spadefoot [Spea hammondii] and western pond turtle [Actinemys marmorata]) that use these on-site aquatic habitats for part of their life cycles (Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5); and

► special-status birds that are known to nest in the planning area, including golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), or that have been observed and may nest in the planning area (e.g., northern harrier [Circus cyaneus] and grasshopper sparrow [Ammodramus savannarum]) (Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5).

Information about the status of these species and their occurrence in the planning area is included in Tables 2-9 and 2-10 of the General Plan.


Biotic resources are subject to various federal, state, and regional plans, policies, regulations, and laws. Section 2.7, “Planning Influences,” of the General Plan summarizes the plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to biotic resources at Carnegie SVRA. In particular, Section 2.7.1, “Systemwide Planning,” describes the systemwide Wildlife Habitat Protection Program and the Habitat Monitoring System (HMS) used to monitor, evaluate, and manage habitats within each SVRA. Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” describes the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA); the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); the California Fish and Game Code regarding fully protected species, protection of bird nests, and streambed alteration agreements; California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) species designations; and the state’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Biotic Resources 3.3-1


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on biotic resources if it would:

► have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);

► have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;

► have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

► interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of nursery sites by native wildlife;

► conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or

► conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.


Because Carnegie SVRA is owned and operated by the State of California, it is not subject to local policies or ordinances. Nonetheless, State Parks’ Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division intends to manage Carnegie SVRA in a manner compatible with the values expressed by the surrounding community. Therefore, these policies and ordinances were considered during development of the General Plan goals and guidelines, and in this environmental evaluation. Because the General Plan was developed to preserve biotic resources on-site, no conflict with local ordinances would result. This issue is not discussed further in this draft environmental impact report (DEIR).

The expansion area is not within the coverage area of any adopted or proposed HCP or NCCP, and no HCP or NCCP is being developed for eastern Alameda County. An adopted HCP exists for San Joaquin County (the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan [SJMSCP]); however, the planning area is identified as an existing park under the SJMSCP and implementing the General Plan would not change that land use. Furthermore, State Parks is not a signatory to the SJMSCP. Therefore, no conflicts

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.3-2 Biotic Resources

Sources: AECOM 2012; USFS 2007; TRA 2010a

Figure 3.3-1. Habitat Types Found at Carnegie SVRA


Source: Data provided by State Parks in 2014, adapted by AECOM; data compiled by TRA in 2014; Ecosystems West 2004, adapted by AECOM in 2014

Figure 3.3-2. Special-status Plant Species


Source: CNDDB 2013

Figure 3.3-3. Special-status Plant Species Occurrences within a 5-Mile Search Radius


Source: Data provided by State Parks and adapted by AECOM in 2014

Figure 3.3-4. Special-status Bird, Amphibian, and Reptile Occurrences Recorded during Habitat Monitoring System Surveys


Source: CNDDB 2013

Figure 3.3-5. Special-status Animal Species Occurrences within a 5-Mile Search Radius


would occur between the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and any adopted HCP or NCCP. This issue is not discussed further in this DEIR.



The evaluation of potential impacts on biotic resources is based on regulatory agency information about the status and distribution of special-status plants and wildlife in the region; applicable regional planning and habitat management and monitoring documents; and biotic resource studies and impact analyses previously conducted at Carnegie SVRA, including the expansion area, and at other nearby sites. The following information sources and biotic resource studies were used in this impact analysis:

► CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2015)

► USFWS Endangered and Threatened Species Database (USFWS 2012)

► California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2012a)

► Listed Observed Plant and Animal Species, Alameda-Tesla, Carnegie SVRA and LLNL Site 300 Properties (CNPS 2012b)

► HMS reports for Carnegie SVRA (State Parks n.d.[a] through n.d.[g]) and unpublished HMS data from surveys conducted from 2011 through 2015

► Results of vegetation mapping for the planning area (AECOM 2012)

► Wetland delineation of the planning area (TRA 2010a) and subsequent verification by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2010)

► Biological Assessment for Carnegie SVRA and Mitchell Ravine Projects (TRA 2010b)

► A reconnaissance-level survey conducted in the planning area by AECOM biologists in 2011

► Site tour, meetings, and correspondence with representatives of USFWS, CDFW, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) during General Plan formulation

► East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Document (EACCS 2010)

► Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red-legged Frogs and California Tiger Salamanders (Ford et al. 2013)

► Alameda County Voluntary Local Program (Alameda County Resource Conservation District 2012)


► A Guidebook to Botanical Priority Protection Areas of the East Bay (Bartosh et al. 2010)

► Watershed Facilities Maintenance Project Biological Assessment (State Parks 2005)

► Inventory, Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, and Monitoring Program for Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, Tracy, CA (Kutilek et al. 1990)

► Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California (Jennings and Hayes 1994)

► Carnegie SVRA Inventory of Features (State Parks 1980)

AECOM biologists conducted a reconnaissance-level wildlife survey of Carnegie SVRA in early December 2011. This survey consisted of a combination of surveys conducted on foot and from a vehicle throughout the planning area. The purpose of the survey was to characterize wildlife habitat found at Carnegie SVRA and verify the habitat conditions described in previously prepared documents.

Vegetation in the planning area was mapped by AECOM in 2012 in support of the planning process. Multiple sources were used: previous vegetation mapping efforts in the planning area (State Parks 1980, 2000; Ecosystems West 2004), Existing Vegetation (Eveg) maps (USFS 2007), interpretation of aerial imagery, and field verification and refinement (AECOM 2012). In addition, floristic surveys were conducted throughout the planning area for 32 days between March 18 and July 24, 2003, and for 3 additional days between October 24 and November 4, 2003 (Ecosystems West 2004); floristic surveys of the expansion area were conducted April 20–24, June 30, and October 13, 1998 (State Parks 2000); and floristic surveys of select locations were conducted by AECOM and TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., during March, April, and May 2014.

In addition to the vegetation mapping, a delineation of wetlands and other waters of the United States has been conducted for the planning area (TRA 2010a) and verified by USACE (2010). Both geographic information system (GIS) shape files from the USACE-verified wetland delineation and ground-verified and refined vegetation layers were used to compile the vegetation map (Figure 3.3-1).

Incidental observations of wildlife species on the site, such as photographs of Townsend’s big-eared bats utilizing the Tesla Coal Mine, were also included in the assessment of biological resources on the site (de Silva, pers. comm., 2014).


The site of Carnegie SVRA has been used for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation since the 1940s. The expansion area comprises former grazing land among rolling hills, flat spaces where historic towns once thrived, the remnants of the former Tesla Coal Mine, and scattered prehistoric archaeological sites. Biotic resources in the original Carnegie SVRA are disturbed relative to their condition before OHV use. Biotic resources in the expansion area are less disturbed, but are not entirely pristine because of the effects of grazing, mining, and other past land uses.


One of the main objectives of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan is to manage the SVRA to protect and enhance the natural resources present, in addition to providing effectively managed, responsible OHV and related recreational experiences. To achieve this, Chapter 4 of the General Plan defines visitor experience areas that allow construction and operation of various new facilities over time: campgrounds, picnic areas, and supporting facilities; new entrances and management facilities; OHV trails and training areas; and similar facilities as defined for each experience area (Table 4-1 in the General Plan). New facilities would be located in the most appropriate locations of the planning area. The visitor experience areas were developed through a careful screening process of constraints mapping based on the location of known sensitive biological (and other) resources. Some visitor experience areas, such as the Limited Recreation Area, have very few allowable uses. Based on the resources known to be present, some visitor experience areas, such as the Limited Recreation Overlay 1—Waterfall Canyon, have specific resource management requirements.

The visitor experience areas presented in the General Plan were developed to protect those sensitive biological resources present. These proposed facilities allowable in each visitor experience area would be sited to maximize quality OHV recreational experiences while avoiding or minimizing impacts on sensitive biological resources and conserving natural resources in the most sensitive areas. In addition, the General Plan contains an extensive set of natural resource management (NRM), plant, and wildlife goals and guidelines aimed at the conservation, enhancement, and stewardship of biotic resources at the SVRA (vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands and other waters of the United States and of the state). Furthermore, the General Plan contains water quality–related goals and guidelines to protect the SVRA’s water quality, including that of the ponds and streams, to benefit the aquatic resources and habitat provided by these features.

Although avoiding and minimizing impacts on biological resources is an important objective of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan, it may not be possible to avoid all potential impacts on all biological resources and still provide OHV and related recreational opportunities in the planning area. For purposes of the General Plan and this evaluation, impacts on biological resources would be considered unavoidable if the overall purpose of the General Plan (providing OHV and other recreational activities) could not be achieved while still avoiding the potential impact on biological resources. However, as discussed in the impact assessment below, no significant unavoidable impacts on biological resources would occur with implementation of statutory and regulatory requirements and the General Plan goals and guidelines.

IMPACT 3.3-1

Potential Loss of or Disturbance to Special-Status Plants

Surveys for special-status plant species have been conducted in the planning area. Ecosystems West botanists conducted floristic surveys throughout the planning area for 32 days between March 18 and July 24, 2003, and for 3 additional days between October 24 and November 4, 2003. Jones & Stokes botanists conducted floristic surveys of the expansion area on April 20–24, June 30, and


October 13, 1998. Botanists from AECOM and TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., revisited the locations of previously recorded special-status plant occurrences during March, April, and May 2014. Information about special-status plant species documented in and near the planning area is included in Table 2-9 of the General Plan.

The special-status plant surveys discussed above and CNDDB records from these and other surveys in the region have documented 12 special-status plant species in the planning area and an additional 17 species within a 5-mile radius (Figure 3.3-2 and Figure 3.3-3), in areas supporting similar vegetation types, soils, geography, and other habitat characteristics as the planning area. No state-listed or federally listed plant species have been documented in the planning area. Large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), which is state and federally listed as endangered, is the only listed species documented within 5 miles of the planning area, and critical habitat for this species has been designated immediately north of Carnegie SVRA (Figure 3.3-1).

As shown in Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3, known occurrences of special-status plants are distributed at multiple locations throughout the planning area, although mostly in the expansion area. The distribution and abundance of special-status plant species can change over time, especially if site conditions change. The population sizes of many plant species, especially annuals, fluctuate drastically each year. Some plant species may not germinate or establish at all in a given year if climatic conditions are not right, such as during periods of drought or unseasonably high temperatures. A comprehensive survey of the entire planning area has not been conducted since 2003 because no actions have been proposed that could adversely affect special-status plants throughout the planning area. Project-specific surveys have been conducted in specific locations where actions that could affect special-status plants would occur, such as the 2010 Mitchell Ravine projects (TRA 2010b). Because the entire planning area has not undergone a comprehensive, protocol-level survey since 2003, special-status plant species may exist at additional locations besides those shown in Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3, and other special-status plant species that are known to occur nearby may be present in the planning area.

Activities envisioned in the General Plan include construction of campgrounds, picnic areas, and maintenance facilities and construction and operation of facilities, including OHV trails. With implementation of Plant Goal 1 and Plant Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on special-status plants. The applicable goal and guidelines are shown below.

Plant Goal 1: Manage the SVRA for a balance of uses that allow protection of special-status plants and sensitive natural communities while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

► Plant Guideline 1.1: Conduct protocol-level surveys for special-status plants on the sites of proposed facilities during the planning and design process. Conduct the surveys during the blooming season for all potentially occurring special-status plant species according to the most current methodology recommended by CDFW and USFWS, depending on the listing status of the species.


The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist familiar with the flora of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. Document the survey results in a written report submitted to the OHMVR Division. Map the location and extent of all occurrences of special-status plant species encountered during the surveys and maintain the data in the SVRA’s GIS database. Repeat special-status plant surveys every 5 years to ensure that data are current and account for long-term and seasonal variation.

► Plant Guideline 1.2: Prohibit impacts on existing occurrences of special-status plants during project implementation.

► Plant Guideline 1.3: Avoid siting facilities within 100 feet of known special-status plant occurrences to avoid indirect impacts. If these buffers cannot be maintained, use design features to protect the occurrences from indirect impacts.

Special-status plants would be identified during the planning and design phase and would be avoided through design. Therefore, with implementation of these General Plan guidelines, the impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-2

Potential Loss of or Substantial Disturbance to Riparian Habitat or Special-status Natural Communities

CDFW maintains a list of plant communities that are native to California. On that list, CDFW identifies “special-status natural communities” (sensitive natural communities), defined as communities that are of limited distribution statewide or in a county or region and often are vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. Four vegetation types present in the planning area are included in the CDFW list of special-status natural communities:

► Desert olive (Forestiera pubescens) patches—24 acres ► Choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) thickets—2 acres ► Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) forest—91 acres ► Valley oak (Quercus lobata) woodland—33 acres

Mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) thicket, present on 4 acres, is not on CDFW’s list of special-status natural communities. However, mule fat thicket is a riparian habitat subject to regulation under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, like the other riparian habitats in the planning area (Fremont cottonwood forest, valley oak woodland, and desert olive patches) that are included on CDFW’s list of special-status natural communities.

Some of the acreage of these riparian habitats occurs within the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of waters of the United States, including Corral Hollow Creek and Mitchell Ravine Creek, and thus would


be regulated under the CWA. Habitats that qualify as waters of the United States under the CWA are addressed under Impact 3.3-3. However, some acreage of riparian habitats is located above the OHWM, and thus would be regulated only under the California Fish and Game Code. Not all of the valley oak woodland and desert olive patches are found in riparian settings; therefore, they would not all be subject to regulation under Section 1602. They still would be considered special-status natural communities as designated by CDFW. Figure 3.3-1 shows the distribution of these natural communities in the planning area.

Implementation of Water Goal 1, NRM Goal 1, and NRM Goal 2 and their associated guidelines in the General Plan would avoid future development and improvements that would cause significant adverse effects on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. The applicable goals and guidelines for protecting riparian habitat and other sensitive habitats are shown below.

Water Goal 1: Manage the SVRA for the protection of jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, and waters of the state, while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

► Water Guideline 1.1: Avoid locating facilities in areas delineated as jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands; areas that qualify as waters of the state under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, and areas subject to CDFW regulation under California Fish and Game Code Section 1602. Where avoidance is not feasible, such as for trail crossings, design facilities to minimize impacts.

► Water Guideline 1.2: Work to attain no net loss of wetlands functions and values at the SVRA. If impacts on jurisdictional features cannot be fully avoided:

• Determine the acreage of direct impacts (i.e., fill of wetlands) and indirect impacts (i.e., alterations to wetland hydrology) that would result from project implementation.

• Provide compensatory mitigation such that the functions and values of all affected wetlands and other waters of the United States, waters of the state, and stream and riparian habitats protected under the California Fish and Game Code are replaced, restored, or enhanced on a “no net loss” basis. Restore, enhance, and/or replace wetland, water, and riparian habitat acreage at a location and by methods agreeable to USACE, the Central Valley RWQCB, CDFW, and/or USFWS as appropriate and depending on agency jurisdiction.

NRM Goal 1: Manage Carnegie SVRA for a balance of uses that allow protection and stewardship of natural resources while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.



► NRM Guideline 1.2: Before planning new visitor-serving or operations facilities, or expanding existing ones, conduct site-specific surveys/mapping of sensitive biological resources (such as special-status species and sensitive habitats) and take the location and extent of these resources into consideration during the planning and design process. Avoid affecting sensitive biological resources during planning, design, and construction. Utilize fencing and other methods to exclude public access in environmentally sensitive areas, as necessary. Conduct worker environmental awareness training for construction personnel before construction.

► NRM Guideline 1.3: In the event that disturbing a sensitive biological resource is unavoidable, minimize the disturbance to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project purpose, and identify and implement measures to offset those impacts in consultation with a qualified biologist and the appropriate resource agencies (e.g., CDFW, USFWS, USACE, and the Central Valley RWQCB), depending on the listing or protection status of the resource.

NRM Goal 2: Encourage a balance of uses that allow for the restoration or enhancement of natural habitats while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

► NRM Guideline 2.1: Implement an adaptive management plan for biological resources that combines the results of monitoring implemented through the HMS (NRM Guideline 1.4) and monitoring for soil conservation (Soils Guideline 1.2). Identify and establish adaptive management opportunity zones in areas of high-quality natural habitat and sensitive habitat, or where populations of special-status wildlife and plants occur or could occur (e.g., elderberry shrub or California tiger salamander breeding ponds). Implement management actions to protect these zones from activities that could disturb sensitive resources or to enhance/restore them as part of the adaptive management process.

► NRM Guideline 2.2: Implement adaptive management, including temporary or rotating closures, invasive species management, and habitat enhancement, to allow for natural regenerative processes to occur; enact these measures proactively. Use signage to inform visitors of areas that contain sensitive biological resources or are closed. Use interpretive materials to inform visitors of habitat enhancement and restoration activities to promote environmental stewardship.

► NRM Guideline 2.3: Manage SVRA landscapes to preserve natural vegetation and to enhance native California plant communities and associated habitat functions and values. Management strategies include habitat restoration and enhancement; invasive species management; focused propagation of desired species; fencing or other barriers to protect sensitive habitats such as riparian areas, to maximize natural recruitment of riparian species; controlled burns; managed grazing; or other management techniques proven beneficial to the maintenance of healthy natural ecosystems.

► NRM Guideline 2.4: Apply state-of-the-art science and ecological knowledge to the management of natural communities and associated habitat functions at the SVRA. Management strategies shall take current science and results from ongoing management and research into consideration. Work with


the academic community to continue to allow research at the SVRA and apply knowledge gained through on-site and off-site research to site-specific resource management. OHMVR Division environmental scientists shall conduct research and coordinate studies with research at other SVRAs, as appropriate.

Analysis shows that there is no potential for significant loss or disturbance of riparian and special-status natural communities because:

► riparian and sensitive natural communities would be identified during the planning and design phase and would be avoided through design;

► unavoidable impacts on riparian habitats and special-status natural communities would be offset through measures identified in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies, including compensating for unavoidable losses so that no net loss of riparian or sensitive natural communities would result; and

► the General Plan includes requirements for monitoring and adaptive management to enhance or restore habitats disturbed through General Plan activities.

As a result, this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-3

Potential Fill of Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands

The 2010 wetland delineation (verified by USACE) identified 78.39 acres of waters of the United States in the planning area, consisting of 63 acres of creeks, 4 acres of stock ponds, 0.29 acre of seeps, and 11.1 acres of other seasonal drainage features. Most of this acreage (approximately 63 acres) is contained within the channels of Corral Hollow Creek and Mitchell Ravine Creek. The 24 ponds and basins in the planning area make up approximately 4 acres. The only wetlands in the planning area not contained within the OHWM of a pond or creek are the 0.29 acre of seeps.

Visitor experience areas in the General Plan are defined so that new facilities would be constructed in areas that do not contain jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the United States. Implementation of Water Goals 1 and 2 and associated guidelines in the General Plan would avoid or minimize potential impacts on waters of the United States, including wetlands. The applicable guidelines for protecting wetlands and waters of the United States are Water Guidelines 1.1 and 1.2, which are shown under Impact 3.3-2, and Water Guideline 2.1, shown below.


Water Goal 2: Manage the SVRA for the protection of water quality while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

► Water Guideline 2.1: Avoid siting facilities in and immediately adjacent to riparian or stream corridors or within waters of the United States or the state, including seeps, ponds, or drainages. Stream corridors shall be managed with vegetated buffers and crossings shall be properly sited for circulation and designed to minimize erosion and other water quality impacts. Design measures may include but are not limited to:

• armoring approaches,

• providing sediment traps or filter areas,

• hardening the crossing surface,

• protecting the streambanks from vehicle backwash and overflow during flooding, and

• modifying super elevation (direction of tilt) such that roads and trails drain away from stream corridors to the extent possible.

• Culverts or bridge crossings shall be considered in highly erosive areas.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA, such as the construction of water crossings, would avoid significant adverse effects on waters of the United States, including wetlands. This impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-4

Impacts on Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Elderberry shrubs have been documented in the planning area (State Parks n.d.[b]). Therefore, the planning area provides potential habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (VELB), which is federally listed as threatened. Implementation of the General Plan could affect VELB if new facility construction, including trail placement, were to result in the removal of elderberry shrubs. Trail usage or road creation near elderberry shrubs also may result in indirect impacts because the resulting dust emissions or erosion could negatively affect the health or viability of remaining elderberry shrubs.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.3 specifies that new facilities would not be sited within 100 feet of elderberry shrubs. NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 are shown under Impact 3.3-2 and Wildlife Guideline 1.3 is shown below.


► Wildlife Guideline 1.3: Avoid siting facilities within 100 feet of elderberry shrub locations. If work or placement of facilities closer to existing shrubs is required, implement appropriate measures, developed in consultation with USFWS, to avoid or compensate for direct and indirect impacts on valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, elderberry shrubs would be identified during the planning and design phase and would be avoided by design, or State Parks would follow the General Plan guidelines regarding consultation with USFWS for activities that occur within 100 feet of elderberry shrubs. As a result, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on VELB and its habitat for two reasons, and this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-5

Potential Impacts on California Red-legged Frog

CRLF, which is federally listed as threatened and a California species of special concern, has been documented to occur in several ponds throughout the planning area, including all ponds in the expansion area except North Parcel and Ravine Ponds (State Parks n.d.[g]). CRLF also has been detected at Lower Juniper and Lime Kiln Ponds and Tyson’s Basin (State Parks n.d.[g]). In addition, CRLF may use suitable upland refugia habitats up to 2 miles from suitable breeding habitat (USFWS 2005). The entire SVRA and expansion area are also within designated critical habitat for CRLF. Implementation of the General Plan could affect CRLF if construction of new facilities, including trail placement, were to result in impacts on breeding habitat or remove CRLF-occupied burrows in upland refugia habitat. CRLF individuals also could be injured or killed by OHVs or other equipment on trails or roads in the planning area if they were present. Riding areas may also result in a reduction in ground squirrel burrows because disturbance from recreation-related activities may preclude squirrels from an area. This would result in an indirect effect on CRLF through a reduction in available upland/aestivation habitat.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resources value to the extent they are available, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive natural communities and other natural resources including CRLF breeding ponds and potential upland refugia habitats.

In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.2 in the General Plan requires planners to avoid siting new facilities within 150 feet of water features known or later identified to support CRLF and Wildlife Guideline 1.7 calls for implementation of appropriate measures to avoid or compensate for direct and indirect project


impacts on special-status amphibians in upland habitat. These specific guidelines applicable to the protection of CRLF are shown below.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.2: Avoid siting new facilities within 150 feet of pools known or later identified to support California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, or western spadefoot.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.7: If construction activities are planned within suitable upland habitat for special-status amphibians (California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, or western spadefoot) and within the known maximum upland dispersal distance of those species from known breeding habitat, develop and implement appropriate measures to avoid or compensate for potential direct and indirect impacts of project-specific activities on special-status amphibians in upland habitats. Before the start of construction, implement any protection or mitigation measures agreed upon during consultation with the wildlife agencies.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, CRLF breeding habitat would be avoided during the planning and design phase, and appropriate measures to avoid or compensate for impacts on CRLF individuals in suitable upland habitat would be developed and implemented, based on consultation with the wildlife agencies and qualified biologists. As a result, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on CRLF, and this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-6

Potential Impacts on Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (FYLF), a California species of special concern, has been documented to occur in Corral Hollow Creek (State Parks n.d.[g]). Implementation of the General Plan could affect FYLF if construction of new facilities, including trail placement, were to result in impacts on suitable stream habitat. In addition, FYLF adults and tadpoles crossing stream features in the planning area could be injured or killed by OHVs or other equipment. The species could be indirectly affected by changes in water quality associated with water crossings or other features constructed in suitable stream habitats.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources, including FYLF habitat. All of Corral Hollow Creek is within an area designated as a Limited Recreation Area. Therefore, placement of facilities are in these areas are either not allowed or subject to additional restrictions.


In addition, Water Guidelines 1.1 and 1.2 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) stipulate that stream features would be avoided. Adherence to Water Guideline 1.2 would minimize potential impacts on waters of the United States, including streams. Wetland habitat would be restored, enhanced, and/or replaced at an acreage and location and by methods agreeable to USACE, the Central Valley RWQCB, and/or CDFW, as appropriate and depending on agency jurisdiction.

Guidelines outlined under Water Goal 2 in the General Plan would protect the water quality of the aquatic resources in the planning area, to avoid indirect water quality impacts that would degrade waters of the United States and habitat for FYLF. Water Guideline 2.1 is shown under Impact 3.3-3 above. The remaining water guidelines that are applicable to protection of FYLF habitat are shown below.

► Water Guideline 2.6: To reduce erosion and sedimentation, improve areas that have experienced substantial erosion from surface water runoff as determined by annual inspections. Implement rehabilitation concepts for these features as described in the Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA or subsequent or replacement documents.

► Water Guideline 2.7: Close an area to OHV use if it has been determined that the area cannot feasibly be rehabilitated or reclaimed in accordance with OHMVR Division water quality management standards.

► Water Guideline 2.8: To minimize erosion problems, landslide hazards, and costly maintenance, consider invoking the temporary closure of portions or all of the SVRA based upon conditions established by the rain closure policy. That policy will be reviewed and updated as necessary.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, FYLF stream habitat would be avoided during the planning and design phase and impacts on stream habitat would require implementing measures to minimize impacts on water quality and on aquatic species, including FYLF. As a result, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on FYLF and its habitat, and this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-7

Potential Impacts on California Tiger Salamander

CTS, which is federally listed and state listed as threatened, is known to breed in several ponds throughout the planning area. This includes all ponds in the expansion area except North Parcel, Mitchell Ravine, and Mobile Home Ponds (State Parks n.d.[g]). CTS also may use suitable burrows in upland refugia habitat within 1.5 miles of suitable breeding locations. Implementation of the General Plan could affect CTS if construction of new facilities, including trail placement, were to result in impacts on breeding habitat or remove CTS-occupied burrows in upland refugia habitat. CTS


individuals also could be injured or killed by OHVs or other equipment operating on trails or roads in the planning area.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources, including CTS breeding ponds and potential upland refugia habitats.

In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.2 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-5) calls on planners to avoid siting new facilities within 150 feet of pools known to support CTS. Adherence to this guideline would avoid direct and indirect impacts on CTS breeding sites. In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.7 (also shown under Impact 3.3-5) calls for implementation of appropriate measures to avoid or compensate for direct and indirect project impacts on special-status amphibians in upland habitat.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, CTS breeding habitat would be avoided during the planning and design phase, and appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts on CTS individuals in suitable upland habitat. As a result, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on CTS and its habitat, and this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-8

Potential Impacts on Western Pond Turtle

Western pond turtle, a California species of special concern and petitioned for listing under ESA, is known to occur in several ponds throughout the planning area—Kiln Canyon Basin, Tesla Pond, Sector Office Pond, and Old Pipe Pond—and in the Tesla West portion of Corral Hollow Creek (State Parks n.d.[g]). In addition to using aquatic habitat, western pond turtle may use upland habitat up to 1,568 feet from aquatic habitats for egg laying. Implementation of the General Plan could affect western pond turtle if construction of new facilities, including trail placement, were to result in impacts on occupied aquatic habitat or affected nesting sites. Western pond turtle individuals also could be injured or killed by OHVs or other equipment on trails or roads in the planning area.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to


sensitive communities and other natural resources. This would include western pond turtle aquatic habitat and potential upland nesting habitats.

In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.2 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-5) requires planners to avoid siting new facilities within 150 feet of water features known to support western pond turtle. In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.7 (also shown under Impact 3.3-5) calls for implementation of appropriate measures to avoid or compensate for direct and indirect project impacts on special-status herpetofauna in upland habitats. Adherence to these guidelines would avoid direct impacts on western pond turtle aquatic and upland nesting sites.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on western pond turtle and its habitat for the following reasons:

► Western pond turtle aquatic habitat would be avoided during the planning and design phase.

► The General Plan guidelines require implementing measures to minimize impacts on aquatic species, including western pond turtle.

► Measures would be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on suitable upland nesting habitat.



IMPACT 3.3-9

Potential Impacts on Western Spadefoot

Western spadefoot, a California species of special concern, is known to breed in Corral Hollow Creek and rain pools that form in the creek’s floodplain within the existing SVRA riding area. It is possible that vehicular use within the riding area has facilitated the creation of hardpan depressions in the floodplain that pool water in the wet season. These pools and western spadefoot toads have been observed primarily in the riding area and not in the upper reaches of Corral Hollow Creek in the expansion area. The species has been observed to infrequently breed in CTS Pond and Tesla Stock Pond (State Parks n.d.[g]). This species is primarily terrestrial and spends most of its life cycle in upland habitats. Most western spadefoot individuals are found within 1,300 feet of suitable breeding habitats (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003). Implementation of the General Plan could affect western spadefoot if construction of new facilities or trail placement were to result in impacts on breeding habitat or remove spadefoot-occupied burrows in upland habitat. Western spadefoot individuals also could be injured or killed by OHVs or other equipment on trails or roads in the planning area.


NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources. This would include western spadefoot breeding ponds and potential upland habitats. The species is currently found primarily in the immediate vicinity of Corral Hollow Creek, which is within an area designated as a Limited Recreation Area, limiting the amount of new facilities or trail placement.

In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.2 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-5) calls on planners to avoid siting new facilities within 150 feet of water features known to support western spadefoot. Adherence to this guideline would avoid direct and indirect impacts on western spadefoot breeding sites. In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.7 (also shown under Impact 3.3-5) calls for implementation of appropriate measures to avoid or compensate for direct and indirect project impacts on special-status amphibians in upland habitat.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, western spadefoot toad breeding habitat would be avoided during the planning and design phase. In addition, projects with potential impacts on western spadefoot individuals in suitable upland habitat would require mitigation to avoid or minimize those impacts. As a result, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on western spadefoot and its habitat, and this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-10

Potential Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake

The Alameda whipsnake is federally listed and state listed as threatened. The species may be present in the planning area but has not been confirmed there to date. A whipsnake found in the planning area in 2007 was determined to be a hybrid of a chaparral whipsnake and Alameda whipsnake. A whipsnake that was not positively identified was found in 2013 and another whipsnake was seen in 2014. Both of these observations were at Tyson’s Basin. The planning area also is within designated critical habitat for the species. Alameda whipsnake may occupy all habitat types found within the planning area, with its preferred habitat being scrub.

Implementation of the General Plan may result in loss of preferred habitat (e.g., grassland and scrub habitats) for the Alameda whipsnake by removing vegetation to create trails, roads, and other facilities. Individuals, if present, also could be killed or injured by construction equipment or OHVs operating on trails or roads in the planning area. Any new development would also affect designated critical habitat for the species, which would require consultation with USFWS.


NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources. This would include preferred habitat for Alameda whipsnake in the planning area, such as scrub habitat types.

In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.4 in the General Plan (shown below), calls on planners to avoid siting new facilities within 150 feet of Alameda whipsnake habitat and implement measures to avoid or compensate for direct and indirect impacts.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.4: Avoid siting facilities within 150 feet of preferred Alameda whipsnake habitat, particularly scrub vegetation types. If placement of facilities within or adjacent to Alameda whipsnake habitat cannot be avoided, implement appropriate measures to avoid or compensate for direct and indirect impacts on Alameda whipsnake resulting from project-specific activities. Implement protection measures agreed upon during consultation with USFWS. Encourage further research into the presence of Alameda whipsnake at the site, to ensure that management is based on the best available knowledge of the species and its requirements.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, preferred habitat for Alameda whipsnake would be identified during the planning and design phase and would be avoided or minimized through design. In addition, State Parks would implement avoidance and mitigation measures, developed in consultation with USFWS, into the construction plans for areas within Alameda whipsnake habitat and would compensate for direct and indirect impacts. As a result, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on Alameda whipsnake and its habitat, and this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.3-11

Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds

Many bird species are known to nest in the planning area, including several special-status species such as golden eagle, tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). For example, golden eagle pairs have been documented foraging and nesting near Carnegie SVRA for several years (Hunt 2002; Hunt and Hunt 2006, 2013). Burrowing owls have been observed in the planning area and they may have active burrows on-site. Nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code (see Chapter 2 of the General Plan for a summary of these regulations). Construction of facilities, including trails, may result in the removal of suitable nesting habitat for various bird species. Construction noise and lighting also may result in


nest abandonment if construction occurs during the nesting season. Operational noise of OHVs may also result in nest abandonment if operation occurs near nest locations.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources. This would include preferred potential nesting habitat for birds while acknowledging that some bird species may potentially nest throughout the planning area. In addition, Wildlife Guidelines 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.9 in the General Plan (shown below) require that new facilities be sited to avoid known breeding locations of special-status species, including special-status birds, and that burrowing owl and nesting bird surveys be conducted before the start of any construction during the nesting season.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.1: Conduct annual (or more frequent) monitoring as part of the HMS, to look for signs of active use by burrowing owls. If signs are detected during monitoring, consider active management strategies to encourage and preserve use of the site by this species. Such strategies include placing new facilities away from any active burrowing owl; appropriate buffers shall be sized depending on the use of the burrow (nesting or wintering) and the disturbance impact, as described in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (DFG 2012) or subsequent version and/or consultation with CDFW.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.5: During placement of new facilities, avoid known breeding locations of all special-status avian species known to occur in the planning area.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.6: If construction activities are planned during the breeding season of common and special-status birds, conduct a preconstruction survey of the construction zone and establish an appropriate buffer (as determined by a qualified biologist) within 2 weeks of construction onset. If breeding birds are documented, establish appropriate buffer zones around the occupied nests to protect the birds until the young have fledged.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.9: Perform preconstruction surveys for active burrowing owl burrows for proposed construction that would occur within suitable burrowing owl habitat or within 500 feet of suitable burrowing owl habitat. Conduct preconstruction surveys according to current CDFW guidelines as described in their Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (DFG 2012) or subsequent version. Because burrowing owls can be present throughout the year, this guideline would be implemented in suitable burrowing owl habitat regardless of the time period for initiation of construction. If active burrowing owl burrows are found, CDFW would be consulted regarding appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, including no disturbance buffers, to be implemented during construction and any additional mitigation measures agreed upon during consultation with CDFW.


With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid significant adverse effects on nesting birds for the following reasons:

► Planning and design would be concentrated in disturbed areas that would have less value as nesting habitat.

► Preconstruction surveys would be conducted for activities that would occur during the bird nesting season, or year round for burrowing owl, to identify the locations of active bird nests or burrowing owl burrows.

► Nest and burrowing owl–occupied burrow buffers would be implemented during construction to avoid impacts on active nests.



IMPACT 3.3-12

Potential Impacts on San Joaquin Kit Fox

San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. This species may use the planning area for denning and foraging. No active kit fox dens have been documented in the planning area during monitoring by State Parks. However, CNDDB records from as recently as 2002 exist in the planning area for kit fox, and USFWS considers that kit fox has the potential to occur in the planning area. Should active kit fox dens be present in the planning area, construction of new facilities could result in the removal of active kit fox dens. In addition, kit foxes could be struck by OHVs or construction equipment operating on trails or roads in the planning area. Noise from OHV usage could also potentially result in kit fox individuals avoiding suitable habitat or abandoning active dens. However, kit foxes are primarily nocturnal, and they would likely be active when riders and construction equipment were not operating in the planning area. Thus, the potential for interaction between kit fox individuals and OHVs or construction equipment is minimal.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources. This would include potential denning, foraging, and movement habitats for San Joaquin kit fox.

In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.1 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-11) calls for monitoring as part of the HMS monitoring protocol to look for active kit fox dens in the planning area. If active dens were to be found, strategies that include not siting facilities within 100 feet of active dens


would be initiated based on USFWS guidelines (USFWS 2011). USFWS would be contacted regarding appropriate setbacks for a natal/pupping den if found, both occupied and unoccupied.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid potential adverse effects on San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat for the following reasons:

► Planning and design would be concentrated in disturbed areas or areas of low resource value that have less value as habitat for San Joaquin kit fox.

► Kit fox dens would be included in ongoing monitoring in the planning area to determine whether active dens were present.

► Active dens would be provided with a 100-foot or greater no-disturbance buffer as determined adequate during consultation with USFWS and CDFW, and State Parks would implement any additional avoidance and mitigation measures determined by USFWS and CDFW to be appropriate.



IMPACT 3.3-13

Potential Impacts on American Badger

American badger (Taxidea taxus) is present in the planning area. American badger individuals have been observed during ongoing habitat monitoring by State Parks (n.d.[d]). Construction of new facilities, including trail placement, could result in the removal of badger habitat. Should active badger dens be present in the planning area, construction of new facilities also could result in the removal of active badger dens. In addition, badgers potentially could be struck by OHVs or construction equipment operating on trails or roads in the planning area. Noise from OHV usage also could potentially cause badger individuals to avoid suitable habitat or abandon active dens. However, badgers are primarily nocturnal, and they would likely be active when riders and construction equipment were not operating in the planning area. Therefore, the potential for interaction between badger individuals and OHVs or construction equipment in the planning area is minimal.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-11) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources. This would include potential preferred denning, foraging, and movement habitats for American badger.


In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.1 in the General Plan (also shown above under Impact 3.3-11) would require monitoring as part of the HMS monitoring protocol to look for active American badger dens in the planning area. If active dens were found, strategies that include not siting facilities within 100 feet of active dens would be initiated.

With adherence to the guidelines in the General Plan, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid potential adverse effects on American badger and its habitat for the following reasons:

► Planning and design would be concentrated in disturbed areas or areas of low resource value that have less value as habitat for American badger.

► Potential badger dens would be included in ongoing monitoring in the planning area to determine whether active dens were present.

► Active dens, including natal dens, would be provided with a 100-foot no-disturbance buffer, and State Parks would implement additional avoidance and mitigation measures determined appropriate by a qualified biologist based on guidance from CDFW.



IMPACT 3.3-14

Potential Impacts on Special-status Bat Species

Special-status bat species—Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)—are present in the planning area (deSilva, pers. comm., 2014). Construction of new facilities, including trails, would not be expected to significantly reduce suitable foraging habitat for bat species on the site. However, construction of new facilities, including trail placement, could result in the removal of or disturbance to existing resting or maternity roost sites. Noise from OHV usage also could potentially cause bats to avoid suitable foraging habitat or abandon active roost sites.

NRM Guidelines 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.3-2) are designed to avoid or minimize and offset impacts on sensitive habitats and natural resources. These guidelines call for placing new facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of low resource value, avoiding known locations of sensitive resources when siting new facilities, and avoiding or minimizing disturbance to sensitive communities and other natural resources. This would include potential roosting habitats for sensitive bat species with the exception of trees. Tree roosting habitat for bats is specifically addressed in Wildlife Guideline 1.8 below.


In addition, Wildlife Guideline 1.8 in the General Plan (shown below) calls for preconstruction surveys for bat roosts within 100 feet of proposed construction sites and additional measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts on roosting bats.

► Wildlife Guideline 1.8: Perform a preconstruction survey for potential bat roosting habitat (large trees with cavities, rock outcrops, caves, mines) in proposed construction areas and a 100-foot buffer around the construction area (Western Bat Working Group 2007). Consult with the appropriate wildlife agencies regarding preparation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures before conducting any activity within 100 feet of known bat roost locations.

With adherence to the guidelines in the General Plan, future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA would avoid potential adverse effects on special-status bats and their habitat for the following reasons:

► Planning and design would be concentrated in disturbed areas or areas of low resource value that have less value as habitat for bat species.

► Areas with habitat elements that could support bat roosting sites within 100 feet of construction areas would be surveyed before construction.

► The wildlife agencies would be consulted about any construction with the potential to affect bat roost sites. State Parks would implement additional avoidance and mitigation measures as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist based on guidance from the wildlife agencies and the best available science.




Adoption of the General Plan would have the potential to result in impacts on sensitive natural communities, federally regulated wetlands and other waters of the United States, and special-status plant and wildlife species, including listed species. The General Plan includes goals and guidelines that would be followed during project planning and construction in the planning area to avoid or minimize the potential impacts on biotic resources. With adherence to these natural resource management goals and guidelines in the General Plan, impacts on biotic resources would be avoided or minimized.


No additional mitigation measures have been determined to be required. The existing goals and guidelines in the General Plan concerning natural resources are designed to avoid or minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur within Carnegie SVRA.


3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section describes cultural resources in the planning area. It also discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on cultural resources.


Section 2.3.3, “Cultural Resources,” in the General Plan describes the setting information for the planning area related to prehistoric land use patterns, ethnography, and the historic era. An extensive study conducted by the Anthropological Studies Center (ASC) at Sonoma State University (ASC 2010) indicated that the planning area contains a rich prehistory associated with the Northern Valley Yokuts and Ohlone Native American populations, and a rich and varied historic land use history dating from 1846 to present-day ranching. As part of its commitment to protecting cultural resources, Carnegie SVRA participates in the California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program, which consists of volunteers who monitor site conditions.

The ASC study updated the records of 10 previously identified sites and documented 60 previously unidentified resources. Of these 70 sites, six reflect prehistoric land use, 63 are the result of various historical uses, and one contains the remains of both prehistoric and historic-era occupation. State Parks determined that 18 of the historic resources are contributing elements of the Tesla Mining and Industry Historic District, which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) at the state level under Criteria A, B, C, and D, with a period of significance between 1855 and 1911. The Tesla Mining Complex, located on approximately 240 acres and shown as Limited Recreation Overlay 2 in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan, is a contributing element of the Tesla Mining and Industry Historic District (approximately 680 acres). Each contributing resource is associated with one of the following themes or subcontexts:

► Early Coal Exploration and Mining, 1855–1866 ► San Francisco and San Joaquin Coal Mining Company, 1890–1905 ► Sand Mining for Pacific Window Glass Company, 1890–1908 ► Clay Mining for Carnegie Brick and Pottery Works, 1901–1911

In a letter dated December 7, 2012, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 2012) concurred with State Parks’ determinations and its proposed list of contributors and noncontributors to the significance of the district.


Cultural resources are subject to various federal, state, and regional plans, policies, regulations, and laws. The “Cultural Resources” discussion in Section 2.7.3, “Planning Influences,” of the General Plan summarizes the plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to cultural resources at Carnegie SVRA. In

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Cultural Resources 3.4-1

particular, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, several sections of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and the California Health and Safety Code, and California Government Code Section 65352.3 (Senate Bill 18) are applicable. No regional or local plans, policies, regulations, or ordinances related to cultural resources are applicable to the planning area.


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources if it would:

► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines;

► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines; or

► disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines “substantial adverse change” as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings.

As cited in Section 15064.5, the lead agency shall consider a resource to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria for eligibility or is listed in a local historic register or deemed significant in a historical resource survey. A significant historical resource is one that meets one or more of the following CRHR criteria:

a. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

b. is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

c. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

d. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.



The evaluation of potential impacts on cultural resources is based on reviews of existing information about prehistoric and historic-era land use, as well as Native American consultation. The existing information is provided in A Cultural Resources Study of Portions of the Carnegie State Vehicular

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.4-2 Cultural Resources

Recreation Area Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, California (ASC 2010). This report includes a review of historic maps and cultural resource investigations that were conducted previously in the planning area and within a 0.25-mile radius of the planning area boundary. The maps and reports of those previous investigations are on file at two information centers of the California Historical Resources Information System: the Northwest Information Center, located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California, and the Central California Information Center, located at California State University, Stanislaus, in Turlock. In addition, the ASC reviewed the California Inventory of Historic Resources and the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (ASC 2010:42), California Historical Landmarks (ASC 2010:42), California Points of Historical Interest (ASC 2010:42), and Historic Properties Directory (through June 16, 2006) (ASC 2010:42).

The ASC’s cultural resource inventory, conducted from 2008 through 2010, covered 2,349 acres of Carnegie SVRA and incorporated the results of previous studies conducted by State Parks associate state archaeologists. Locations with impenetrable brush that prevented access and unsafe steep slopes were not inventoried. Based on this study, 10 previously recorded sites were updated and 60 new sites were recorded. In total, 70 sites have been documented; six of the sites are prehistoric, one is multicomponent (displaying both historic-era and prehistoric components), and 62 are historic sites (Table 3.4-1).

Table 3.4-1. Summary of Documented Resources

Historic-era Prehistoric Multicomponent (Prehistoric/Historic-era)

Total

Tesla Mining District—Contributing Components

18 – – 18

Tesla Mining District—Noncontributing Components

15 1a – 16

Individually Eligible/Significant Resources – 3 1a 4

Individually Not Eligible/Not Significant Resources

30 2 – 32

Total 63 6 1 70

Note: a Unevaluated – It is assumed that the prehistoric component is individually eligible.

Source: ASC 2010

The ASC also conducted preliminary evaluations of the recorded resources, according to NRHP and CRHR criteria. All of the mid-19th-century to early-20th-century mining resources and associated industrial and residential resources were organized and evaluated according to the NRHP criteria to determine whether they could be considered contributing elements of the Tesla Mining and Industry Historic District. Thirty-four of these resources were found to be part of the proposed historic-era district; of these resources, 18 were identified as contributing resources (historical resources) to the district, and the other 16 (15 historic-era sites and one prehistoric site) were found to be noncontributing resources.


The 16 resources identified as noncontributing to the proposed Tesla Mining and Industry Historic District and those located outside the district boundary were evaluated individually, according to NRHP and CRHR criteria. Based on these evaluations, 30 historic-era resources and two prehistoric resources lack either integrity, archaeological data potential, or interpretive values (or some combination of these), to the extent that they do not display adequate historical significance to be qualified for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR. Four prehistoric resources and the prehistoric component of a multi-component site were found to be eligible (historical resources).

It could not be determined whether one prehistoric site is eligible for listing; this site requires further research. Therefore, for the purposes of this draft environmental impact report, this resource is considered eligible pending further evaluation of NRHP and CRHR significance.

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

Native American consultation included correspondence between Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division archaeologists and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Correspondence included the archaeologists’ request for a records search of the sacred lands files and a Native American contact list for the planning area. A review of the sacred lands files by the NAHC failed to identify sacred sites in the planning area. However, consultation with the Native American tribes listed on the NAHC contact list, including site visits with five Native American groups between August and October 2012, yielded a different result. This consultation resulted in the identification of one sacred site and resource impacts on one culturally sensitive site and on botanical resources significant to the Native American community.

All tribes consulted expressed concerns regarding potential direct impacts associated with operation and management of the SVRA. As a result, consultation with these groups is ongoing.


IMPACT 3.4-1

Degradation of Prehistoric and Historic-Era Cultural Resources

Previous cultural resource inventories and Native American consultation have resulted in the documentation of a broad array of prehistoric and historic-era resources in the planning area that form a complex cultural landscape. These resources have the potential to be affected or otherwise degraded through natural processes such as erosion, recreational activities, and development of facilities and infrastructure.

Historical resources that have been determined NRHP eligible/CRHR significant consist of the Tesla Mining and Industry Historic District, a large and diverse property with 34 total historic-era resources (18 contributing and 16 noncontributing) and encompassing 680 acres, which includes the 240-acre Tesla Mining Complex. Along with the core mining and manufacturing areas of Tesla and Carnegie,


numerous outlying archaeological sites possessing varying degrees of integrity make up the district. The overall historic context of the Tesla Mining and Industry Historic District is mining in Corral Hollow, 1855 to 1911. Within that larger context, each contributing resource is associated with one of the following themes or subcontexts: early coal exploration and mining, 1855–1866; San Francisco and San Joaquin Coal Mining Company, 1890–1905; sand mining for Pacific Window Glass Company, 1890–1908; and clay mining for Carnegie Brick and Pottery Works, 1901–1911.

Sensitive prehistoric resources, which are not part of the defined historic-era district, consist of four NRHP eligible/CRHR significant prehistoric sites, and a fourth that has not been evaluated but is considered eligible/significant for planning purposes. Another 32 resources, two with prehistoric components and 30 that reflect historic-era occupation, lack either integrity or archaeological data potential to the extent that they do not display adequate historical significance to be qualified for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR. However, they possess interpretive and/or potential archaeological values that may be captured through more detailed recordation. This is particularly the case for the prehistoric lithic scatter and bedrock mortar site. The historic resources reflect early coal mining (1855–1866), ranching and gravel mining (1901–1911), sand and clay mining (1920–1960), and a 20th-century commemorative marker.

Forty-one of the remaining 42 resources reflect historic-era activities spanning from the early coal exploration and mining period (1855–1866) through mid-20th-century ranching. They lack either integrity, archaeological data potential, or interpretive values (or some combination of these), to the extent that they do not display adequate historical significance to be qualified for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR. The remaining resource appears to be a redeposited prehistoric collection of ground stone artifacts that were collected and archived at Carnegie SVRA.

Native American consultants have indicated that the expansion area is part of the cultural landscape that is an integral part of their ancestral spiritual (religious) practice. For this reason, Native Americans view the entire expansion area as requiring an extraordinary level of protection of the viewshed, the audio shed, and the natural environment.

The presence of known cultural resources in the planning area was carefully considered during development of the General Plan. The planning team used a cultural resources overlay map while developing the visitor experience areas and took the presence of sensitive resources into consideration when determining uses for each area.

In addition, the General Plan contains a detailed set of goals and guidelines aimed at protecting cultural resources present in the planning area so that the OHMVR Division will meet its mandate to protect cultural resources consistent with state law. Adherence to CR Goals 1 and 2 and associated guidelines in the General Plan (shown below) would avoid significant adverse impacts on cultural resources from future development and improvements at Carnegie SVRA. In particular, these measures stipulate that complete cultural resource studies/inventories would be conducted at each location proposed for ground


disturbance or development, and all known resources would be protected, stabilized, and preserved in place. Park undertakings would avoid or minimize significant impacts on known cultural resources.

As discussed above, complete cultural resource studies/inventories of Carnegie SVRA have been completed and used in the development of the General Plan, and an ongoing program has been implemented to maintain and update the existing cultural resource inventory, site recordation, evaluations, and ethnographic research for the SVRA. Furthermore, ongoing local Native American consultation and involvement in identifying, documenting, and evaluating prehistoric resources would contribute to the existing ethnographic and archaeological data and to identification and evaluation of additional Native American cultural resources in the planning area.

CR Goal 1: Identify, document, and evaluate cultural resources within Carnegie SVRA.

► CR Guideline 1.1: Although a complete cultural resource study/inventory of Carnegie SVRA was completed for this General Plan, develop an ongoing program to maintain and update the existing cultural resource inventory; site recordation and evaluation; global positioning system (GPS) recordation; historical, archaeological, and ethnographic research; and preparation of new and updated site records and archaeological survey reports for the cultural resources within Carnegie SVRA.

► CR Guideline 1.2: Nominate those cultural resources determined eligible by the State Historic Preservation Officer for listing in the NRHP. Determine resource eligibility of those cultural resources that have yet to be evaluated for listing in the NRHP or in the CRHR and nominate those cultural resources determined eligible.

► CR Guideline 1.3: Incorporate information from ongoing local California Native American consultation, ethnographic research, and involvement in the program of identifying, documenting, and evaluating cultural resources at Carnegie SVRA into cultural resource management. The information gained from ongoing local California Native American consultation and involvement will contribute to the existing ethnographic and archaeological data and could help in locating, identifying, and evaluating additional California Native American cultural resources within Carnegie SVRA.

CR Goal 2: Protect, stabilize, and preserve cultural resources.

► CR Guideline 2.1: Incorporate all known cultural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR, and all Native American cultural resources identified by local tribes and individuals as sacred or culturally significant, into an ongoing archaeological condition monitoring/assessment program that examines and documents the effects of visitor use and natural erosion. Examinations shall be conducted by a qualified state archaeologist and shall document current site conditions using Archaeological Site Condition Assessment Records, photographs, and GPS equipment. Mitigation measures shall be developed where considerable damage to sites is


identified. Such mitigation measures can include site-specific closures, revegetation, sign placement, fencing, site burial, education, and other applicable methods.

► CR Guideline 2.2: Protect, stabilize, and preserve in place all known cultural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, and all Native American ethnographic resources identified by local tribes and individuals as sacred or culturally significant, in accordance with PRC Sections 5024 and 5024.5 and Governor’s Executive Order B-10-11 (“Native American Consultation Policy”).

► CR Guideline 2.3: Develop and incorporate cultural resource management and protection measures, including procedures for site damage assessment, in wildfire plans and additional natural-disaster plans and procedures. Identify the cultural resources most vulnerable to impacts because of natural disaster, especially those either listed or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR, for implementation of such protection measures.

► CR Guideline 2.4: Design all SVRA undertakings, including routine maintenance and new facility development, to avoid or minimize significant impacts on all known cultural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, and all Native American ethnographic resources identified by local tribes and individuals as sacred or culturally significant. Knowledge of the location of these sites was taken into consideration when selecting the preferred concept and shall be taken into consideration during future site specific planning in all visitor experience areas.

► CR Guideline 2.5: Actively consult with local tribes and individuals (Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok) regarding the protection, preservation, and/or mitigation of culturally significant resources within Carnegie SVRA in compliance with Governor’s Executive Order B-10-11; the Natural Resources Agency’s Tribal Consultation Policy; and State Parks’ Departmental Notice 2007, Native American Consultation Policy and Implementation Procedures. Attempt to meet with California Native American tribes and individuals at least twice a year as part of Carnegie SVRA’s ongoing California Native American consultation efforts. Departmental Notice 2007, Native American Consultation Policy and Implementation Procedures, identifies the following nine areas of project activity where consultation between local California Native American tribes and individuals and State Parks is required:

• Acquisition of properties where cultural sites are present

• General Plan process and/or development of management plans

• Planning, design, and implementation of capital outlay and other public works and development projects

• Issues of concern identified by the tribes

• Plant and mineral gathering by Native Americans


• Access to California Native American ceremonial sites

• Archaeological permitting

• Mitigation of vandalism and development of protective measures at Native American sites

• Use of the Native voice in presenting the story of California Native Americans in park units

► CR Guideline 2.6: Provide annual cultural resource training to park staff members. Ensure that SVRA field staff, such as maintenance and trails team members, understand the procedures for what to do if cultural resources, and most importantly human remains, are inadvertently discovered during a project or a park visitor. Involve local California Native American guest speakers as participants in annual cultural resource training to share and teach park staff members about today’s local Native American population, their heritage, and the important role of cultural resource management in protecting their heritage. Inform State Park peace officers (SPPOs) about the location of known cultural resources most susceptible to looting, vandalism, or damage so that they can monitor site conditions and watch for site impacts and vandalism. Ensure that SPPOs have the latest information on cultural resource laws.

► CR Guideline 2.7: Maintain the existing California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program (CASSP), which includes ongoing site monitoring of known cultural resources conducted by trained volunteers. Provide annual CASSP training workshops that continue to educate CASSP volunteers in the basic fundamentals of archaeological methods to expand their archaeological monitoring skill sets. Involve the local California Native American tribes and individuals in CASSP and/or participation in the annual training opportunities so that they can be involved in monitoring and learning about their heritage sites.

► CR Guideline 2.8: Prohibit permanent modifications that would result in the destruction of cultural resources that the State Historic Preservation Officer has determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, but that are considered important because of their interpretive or potential archaeological values. Minimal facilities or nonpermanent activities could be allowed on or near these sites.

► CR Guideline 2.9: If cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during construction activities, cease construction activities within and in the vicinity of the find and consult an OHMVR Division archaeologist or other qualified cultural resource professional to determine the potential NRHP eligibility/CRHR significance of the find. If the find is determined to be significant, develop and implement mitigation measures in consultation with the qualified state archaeologist or cultural resource professional consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mitigation measures could include, but would not necessarily be restricted to, redesign to avoid the resource, archival research, additional in-field documentation, interpretive signage, or data recovery through excavation. If data recovery is the only feasible mitigation, a data


recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, should be prepared and adopted before any excavation. If the discovery is determined not to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, then no further investigations or mitigation of adverse effects is necessary.

► CR Guideline 2.10: Maintain appropriate confidentiality of all cultural resource descriptions, locations, and results of Native American consultation in conformance with Government Code Section 6254.10. This applies to archaeological site information maintained by State Parks, the State Historical Resources Commission, or the State Lands Commission.

► CR Guideline 2.11: In the event that human remains are discovered during project activities, temporarily halt all work at the discovery location and areas adjacent to the find. Leave any human remains and associated artifacts and features in place; avoid cleaning, photographing, or analyzing human remains or associated artifacts and features, and avoid removing them from the site. The State Parks employee or construction contractor must immediately contact the State Park District Superintendent to inform him/her of the find. The State Parks District Superintendent (or designee) will notify the county coroner, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the NAHC will be notified within 24 hours of the discovery if the coroner determines that the remains are Native American. In compliance with PRC Section 5097.98, the NAHC will immediately notify those person(s) believed to be the MLD of the deceased Native American. The MLD will complete his/her inspection and make recommendations for treating or disposing the human remains or associated grave goods. If a Native American monitor is at the park at the time of the discovery, and that person has been designated the MLD by the NAHC, the monitor, as a representative of the MLD, may make a recommendation of the appropriate disposition. Work will not resume in the area of the find until proper disposition is complete (PRC Section 5097.98).

► CR Guideline 2.12: Identify all the stakeholders and provide opportunities for their input through a semi-annual meeting designed to enhance all the recreational opportunities within the SVRA. Cultural resources management efforts are most successful when a local community is interested in preserving their values. Developing cultural resources management policies and strategic actions with partners and stakeholders demonstrates the intrinsic value of historical resources. Proactive management and diverse interpretation will help turn increased awareness into more enthusiastic partnerships.

With adherence to these General Plan goals and guidelines, the impact on prehistoric and historic-era cultural resources would be less than significant.



IMPACT 3.4-2

Potential Impacts on Ethnographic Resources

As part of public outreach and Native American consultation during development of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan, representatives of several local Native American groups—the Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok—expressed concerns about their ability to have access to natural and cultural resources at Carnegie SVRA.

To implement CR Goal 3 and the associated guidelines in the General Plan (shown at the end of this impact discussion), State Parks would consult with local California Native American tribes and individuals that have access to and use of culturally significant resources in Carnegie SVRA. This consultation would occur in compliance with State Parks’ Native American consultation policy (Departmental Notice 2007, Native American Consultation Policy and Implementation Procedures). Furthermore, PRC Section 5097.9 excludes public agencies from interfering with or prohibiting “the free expression or exercise of Native American religion as provided in the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.”

Access to and use of these resources by Native Americans would require issuance of a DPR 246 “Special Event” permit. Approval of a Special Event permit would allow managed access to and use of culturally significant resources in Carnegie SVRA by Native Americans while preventing inadvertent impacts on natural resources. The requesting Native American tribe, organization, and/or individual would need to complete the permit application, in consultation with the State Parks District Superintendent or an appointed Carnegie SVRA or OHMVR Division employee. The SVRA or OHMVR Division staff would gather the information required to complete the permit from the requesting party—intended date(s) of access, number of participating individuals, and location—and would respect the confidential and culturally significant nature of the request. The permit is required to comply with State Parks mandates and policies for natural resource management and additional Carnegie SVRA procedures, facilities, or resources, while enabling Carnegie SVRA State Parks peace officers and other staff members to be aware and supportive of such Native American traditional practices.

CR Goal 3: Consult with the Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok to identify ethnographic resources in Carnegie SVRA.

► CR Guideline 3.1: Conduct ethnographic studies using the historical accounts and ethnographic records of local California Native American groups (Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok) to identify and protect traditional cultural places, including sites of special cultural and/or religious significance that are located within Carnegie SVRA.

► CR Guideline 3.2: Identify and record traditional cultural places located within Carnegie SVRA in consultation with the local California Native American groups (Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok).


► CR Guideline 3.3: Develop interpretation and education programs in conjunction with the California Native American groups (Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok) to highlight their culture (both past and present), and their long-time use and association of areas within Carnegie SVRA.

► CR Guideline 3.4: Inform the local California Native American tribes and individuals that access and use of culturally significant and sacred sites within Carnegie SVRA will occur in compliance with State Parks’ Native American consultation policy (Departmental Notice 2007, Native American Consultation Policy and Implementation Procedures) and with PRC Section 5097.9.

With adherence to this General Plan goal and associated guidelines and issuance of a DPR 246 “Special Event” permit to enable Native American access to and use of culturally significant resources while preventing natural resource impacts, the impact on ethnographic resources would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.4-3

Adverse Effects of SVRA User Access on Ceremonial and/or Traditional Resources and Practices of Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok

Native American consultants have indicated that culturally significant resources are located in the expansion area; therefore, they have requested that public access to the expansion area be restricted.

As outlined in CR Guideline 2.5 in the General Plan (shown below), Carnegie SVRA staff would consult with local California Native American tribes and individuals (Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok) regarding the protection, preservation, and/or mitigation of culturally significant resources in Carnegie SVRA, in compliance with Governor’s Executive Order B-10-11; the Natural Resources Agency’s Tribal Consultation Policy; and State Parks’ Departmental Notice 2007, Native American Consultation Policy and Implementation Procedures. Carnegie SVRA staff would attempt to meet with local California Native American tribes and individuals at least twice a year as part of the SVRA’s ongoing Native American consultation efforts.

► CR Guideline 2.5: Actively consult with local tribes and individuals (Muwekma Ohlone, Mutsun Ohlone, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Miwok) regarding the protection, preservation, and/or mitigation of culturally significant resources within Carnegie SVRA in compliance with Governor’s Executive Order B-10-11; the Natural Resources Agency’s Tribal Consultation Policy; and State Parks’ Departmental Notice 2007, Native American Consultation Policy and Implementation Procedures. Attempt to meet with local California Native American tribes and individuals at least twice a year as part of Carnegie SVRA’s ongoing consultation efforts. Departmental Notice 2007, Native American Consultation Policy and Implementation Procedures, identifies the following nine areas of project activity where consultation between local California Native American tribes and individuals and State Parks is required:


• Acquisition of properties where cultural sites are present

• General Plan process and/or development of management plans

• Planning, design, and implementation of capital outlay and other public works and development projects

• Issues of concern identified by the tribes

• Plant and mineral gathering by Native Americans

• Access to California Native American ceremonial sites

• Archaeological permitting

• Mitigation of vandalism and development of protective measures at California Native American sites

• Use of the Native voice in presenting the story of California Native Americans in park units

Currently, access to the expansion area is restricted to Carnegie SVRA staff members. The results of the pending ethnographic study and further Native American consultation would guide all future management and planning efforts for particular locations in the expansion area, taking into account the need for Native American groups to have access to specific locations where they can access culturally significant resources. The results of the ethnographic study and further consultation would also be used to determine how to further protect culturally significant resources from adverse effects by SVRA visitors once the SVRA is open to the public, in addition to the goals and guidelines in the General Plan that are aimed at protection of these resources. Therefore, adherence to the General Plan would lift many of the restrictions that currently deny access by Native Americans to portions of Carnegie SVRA for cultural practices, while protecting the resources from adverse effects from Native American use or access by SVRA users. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.4-4

Potential for Access to Sensitive Cultural Resource Information by Unauthorized Groups or Individuals

Unauthorized access to sensitive cultural site locations and descriptions would have the potential to result in vandalism and/or unauthorized collection, which would adversely affect the integrity of cultural resources. CR Guideline 2.10 associated with CR Goal 2 in the General Plan (shown below) provides guidance for the handling of sensitive data. Specifically, California Government Code Section 6254.10 requires state and local agencies to keep confidential all records related to archaeological site descriptions, locations, reports, and records that are obtained through consultation with a Native


American tribe. In compliance with this law, the OHMVR Division has and would continue to provide cultural resource information only to those Native American consultants listed on the NAHC’s contact list.

CR Goal 2: Protect, stabilize, and preserve cultural resources.

► CR Guideline 2.10: Maintain appropriate confidentiality of all cultural resource descriptions, locations, and results of Native American consultation in conformance with Government Code Section 6254.10. This applies to archaeological site information maintained by State Parks, the State Historical Resources Commission, or the State Lands Commission.

Because the OHMVR Division would implement CR Guideline 2.10 and comply with state law requiring confidentiality of records related to archaeological site descriptions, locations, reports, and records obtained through consultation with a Native American tribe, this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.4-5

Inadvertent Impact on Unanticipated Finds

Cultural resources could be discovered inadvertently during construction activities proposed and envisioned in the General Plan. The OHMVR Division’s Cultural Resource Management Program promotes the protection, preservation, and interpretation of cultural resources throughout the park units managed by the OHMVR Division.

In addition, the General Plan includes specific goals and guidelines for the preservation, avoidance, and protection of cultural resources that may be present in Carnegie SVRA. CR Guideline 2.9 in the General Plan (shown below) addresses the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources.

► CR Guideline 2.9: If cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during construction activities, cease construction activities within and in the vicinity of the find and consult an OHMVR Division archaeologist or other qualified cultural resource professional to determine the potential NRHP eligibility/CRHR significance of the find. If the find is determined to be significant, develop and implement mitigation measures in consultation with the qualified state archaeologist or cultural resource professional consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mitigation measures could include, but would not necessarily be restricted to, redesign to avoid the resource, archival research, additional in-field documentation, interpretive signage, or data recovery through excavation. If data recovery is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, should be prepared and adopted before any


excavation. If the discovery is determined not to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, then no further investigations or mitigation of adverse effects is necessary.

With adherence to this General Plan guideline, this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.4-6

Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains

Because Native American human remains have been identified at one location in the planning area, the potential exists for additional remains to be discovered, either in the vicinity of this location or in other previously undisturbed contexts.

CR Guideline 2.11 in the General Plan (shown below) provides direction in the event that human remains are discovered during project activities.

► CR Guideline 2.11: In the event that human remains are discovered during project activities, temporarily halt all work at the discovery location and areas adjacent to the find. Leave any human remains and associated artifacts and features in place; avoid cleaning, photographing, or analyzing human remains or associated artifacts and features, and avoid removing them from the site. The State Parks employee or construction contractor must immediately contact the State Park District Superintendent to inform him/her of the find. The State Parks District Superintendent (or designee) will notify the county coroner, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours of the discovery if the coroner determines that the remains are Native American. In compliance with PRC Section 5097.98, the NAHC will immediately notify those person(s) believed to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD will complete his/her inspection and make recommendations for treating or disposing the human remains or associated grave goods. If a Native American monitor is at the park at the time of the discovery, and that person has been designated the MLD by the NAHC, the monitor, as a representative of the MLD, may make a recommendation of the appropriate disposition. Work will not resume in the area of the find until proper disposition is complete (PRC Section 5097.98).

With adherence to this General Plan guideline, this impact would be less than significant.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts on cultural resources.



No significant impacts on cultural resources would result from implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on geology, soils, minerals, and paleontological resources.


Section 2.3.1, “Physical Resources,” in the General Plan includes a discussion of the existing setting for geology, soils, minerals, and paleontological resources.


The “Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources Regulations” section in Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan includes a discussion of federal, state, and regional and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws applicable to geology, soils, minerals, and paleontological resources in the planning area.


GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS

Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on geology, soils, or minerals if it would:

► expose people, property, or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

• rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;

• strong seismic ground shaking;

• seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or

• landslides;

► result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources 3.5-1

► be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;

► be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;

► have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water;

► result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; or

► result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. A “unique paleontological resource or site” is one that is considered significant under the following professional paleontological standards.

An individual vertebrate fossil specimen may be considered unique or significant if it is identifiable and well preserved, and it meets one of the following criteria:

► a type specimen (i.e., the individual from which a species or subspecies has been described);

► a member of a rare species;

► a species that is part of a diverse assemblage (i.e., a site where more than one fossil has been discovered) wherein other species are also identifiable, and important information regarding life history of individuals can be drawn;

► a skeletal element different from, or a specimen more complete than, those now available for its species; or

► a complete specimen (i.e., all or substantially all of the entire skeleton is present).

The value or importance of different fossil groups varies, depending on the age and depositional environment of the rock unit that contains the fossils, their rarity, the extent to which they have already been identified and documented, and the ability to recover similar materials under more controlled conditions (such as for a research project). Marine invertebrates generally are common, the fossil record is well developed and well documented, and they would generally not be considered a unique

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.5-2 Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources

paleontological resource. Identifiable vertebrate marine and terrestrial fossils generally are considered scientifically important because they are relatively rare.


The planning area is located in a seismically active region; however, no enclosed bodies of water exist in the planning area that would be large enough to pose a hazard from seismic seiches. Because of the long distance of the planning area from the Pacific Ocean, tsunamis would not represent a hazard. Thus, no impact from seiches or tsunamis would occur. These issues are not discussed further in this draft environmental impact report.



The evaluation of geology, soils, minerals, and paleontological resources is based on current land uses in the planning area, and on changes that could occur at the SVRA and in the immediate surrounding area from implementation of the General Plan.


IMPACT 3.5-1

Seismically Induced Risks to People and Structures from Surface Fault Rupture, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking, and Liquefaction

The planning area is located near several known faults (see Figures 2-3 and 2-4 in the General Plan):

► A portion of the Greenville Fault touches the western portion of the expansion area and is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

► The Las Positas Fault, approximately 3.6 miles northwest of the expansion area, consists of two branches that intersect the Greenville Fault; the northern branch is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

► A portion of the Tesla Fault is within the expansion area south of Corral Hollow Creek, and earthquake epicenters have been reported near the Tesla Fault in the vicinity of the planning area.

► The Patterson Pass Fault branches from the Carnegie Fault just north of the expansion area, and seismic activity has been reported along its trace.

► The Calaveras and Hayward–Rodgers Creek Faults are located approximately 15 and 20 miles west of the planning area, respectively, and both are located in Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Active faults are more likely to result in surface fault rupture; thus, all the faults listed above are considered to have a potential to cause surface rupture. Portions of the Corral Hollow Fault (along the


bed of Corral Hollow Creek) and Carnegie Fault (north of Corral Hollow Creek), both currently inactive, are located in the planning area. Strong seismic ground shaking could occur during an earthquake on any of the faults listed above, or on other faults in the Bay Area, such as the San Andreas and Concord–Green Valley Faults. Therefore, surface fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking are potential hazards in the planning area.

Liquefaction potential is determined by the soil type, level and duration of seismic ground motions, type and consistency of soils, and depth to groundwater. As discussed above, several known faults are present either in or close to the planning area. Most rock formations in the expansion area that have been mapped, by Wagner et al. (1991), consist of older sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that are not expected to liquefy during an earthquake. However, the Holocene-age alluvium (recent stream deposits found along the bed of Corral Hollow Creek in the SVRA [Figure 2-3 in the General Plan]) has high liquefaction potential because of the unconsolidated nature of the soil, the shallow depth to groundwater, and the short distance to known active seismic sources. Therefore, liquefaction is a potential hazard along Corral Hollow Creek.

However, as required by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act), no buildings or other structures intended for human occupancy would be placed within 50 feet of the trace of any known fault.1 Proposed drainage facilities, buildings, and other structures must be designed according to the requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code (CBC). The CBC contains criteria specifically designed to reduce structural damage and personal injury from seismic events and liquefaction to the maximum extent practicable. As indicated in Geo Guideline 1.2 in the General Plan (shown below), to minimize liquefaction hazards, buildings or other structures intended for human occupancy would not be placed within 300 feet of Corral Hollow Creek unless a site-specific liquefaction analysis prepared by a geotechnical engineer determines otherwise. Recent stream deposits found along the bed of Corral Hollow Creek indicate that this area contains Holocene-age alluvium that could liquefy during an earthquake. Because liquefaction is a fault hazard, the same distance specified by the Alquist-Priolo Act for fault rupture is also applied to liquefaction absent a site-specific geotechnical report that would specify a different distance.

► Geo Guideline 1.2: To minimize seismic hazards from liquefaction, avoid placing buildings or other structures intended for human occupancy within 300 feet of Corral Hollow Creek unless a site-specific liquefaction analysis prepared by a geotechnical engineer determines otherwise.

With adherence to this General Plan guideline as well as compliance with the CBC and the Alquist-Priolo Act (which is required by law), the impact related to surface fault rupture, strong seismic ground

1 The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the construction of structures intended for human occupancy within 50 feet of the trace of any fault classified by the California Geological Survey as “active.” Although some of the faults in the SVRA have not been classified by the California Geological Survey as active, scientific publications investigating these faults (discussed under “Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources” in Section 2.3.1, “Physical Resources,” of the General Plan) indicate that some of them are active. Therefore, structures would not be placed within 50 feet of any known fault in order to protect public safety.


shaking, and liquefaction resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.

IMPACT 3.5-2

Risks to People and Structures from Landslides and Unstable Soils

Landslides may be the result of natural processes, such as seismic activity and intensive rainfall (in California, primarily during the winter months) on unstable slopes. Landslides also may be caused by construction activities, when heavy equipment is used or structures are installed on steep, unstable slopes without proper engineering controls. Mudflows are similar to landslides, but are composed primarily of mud and water. The same factors that trigger landslides also may trigger mudflows.

The San Pablo Group and the Tesla Formation both contain mudstone (in addition to other types of rocks). Because of the steep slopes present in the planning area, mudflows are a potential hazard during periods of heavy winter rainfall. As shown in Figure 2-3 of the General Plan, these two rock formations occur in east-west bands parallel to and north of Corral Hollow Creek. As shown in General Plan Figure 4-1, most of the area located on the Tesla Formation in the planning area is designated as limited recreation, and would contain only limited roads or trails necessary to provide connectivity within the SVRA. The San Pablo Group in the expansion area would be used only for intermediate/beginner trails; no structures would be placed in this area.

The landslide potential in the planning area has been investigated by Cotton (1972) and Nilsen (1972). As shown in Figure 2-5 of the General Plan, more than 50 percent of the expansion area and approximately 30 percent of the existing Carnegie SVRA consists of small to large landslides. As shown in General Plan Figure 2-3, the southern portion of the expansion area is located in the Franciscan Formation. The Franciscan Formation generally is weak, with slope stability ranging from very low to moderate (Cotton 1972). Cotton identified four large landslides in the southern portion of the expansion area. Both Cotton (1972) and Nilsen (1972) indicated that the older, deep-seated landslides were more stable. However, the smaller landslides could potentially be recent, shallow failures. Younger, shallower landslides have greater potential to be reactivated by such causes as changes in watershed hydrology, stream erosion, or seismically induced ground shaking.

As described previously, the planning area historically was used for mining activities and abandoned mine pits, and mine shafts are present in various locations. The soil around the abandoned mine shafts and pits may be unstable and subject to subsidence or collapse. Access to the Tesla Coal Mine Site would be limited to guided tours for public safety. However, visitors to other areas of the park could be subject to physical harm if access to abandoned mine shafts/pits were not controlled.

No structures would be installed in areas where mudflows could occur. However, to use the entire planning area for recreation and supporting management and operational activities, it would be


necessary to construct new trails and other facilities in areas of mapped landslides and in places where abandoned mine shafts or pits may be present. As indicated in Water Guideline 2.6 in the General Plan (shown at the end of this impact discussion), the planning area would be operated according to the Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA (SWMP) (State Parks 2011). The SWMP includes operational road and trail construction and rehabilitation measures that would be economical and feasible, and that are designed to reduce the downslope effects from road and trail drainage (including landslides). In addition, as indicated in Water Guideline 2.8 (also shown below), portions or all of the SVRA may be closed during periods of winter rainfall to reduce landslide hazards. The SVRA is currently closed during and immediately following strong winter storms and closure information is posted on the SVRA website. This practice will continue in the future during implementation of the General Plan.

By law, all buildings or other structures in the planning area must be designed according to the requirements of the CBC, which contains criteria for reducing structural damage and personal injury from geologic hazards (such as landslides) to the maximum extent practicable.

Soils Guideline 1.4 in the General Plan (shown at the end of this impact discussion) limits construction of trails and buildings, depending on the amount of slope. Because steeper slopes are more prone to landslides, adhering to this guideline would help reduce the potential damage if a landslide were to occur. Construction of buildings or other structures intended for human occupancy generally would be limited to locations that are outside mapped landslide areas. If landslide areas cannot be avoided entirely, site-specific building placement would be investigated by a licensed engineer, and all construction methods recommended by the engineer would be implemented to ensure public safety. In addition, State Parks personnel would periodically inspect trails that cross through landslide areas, and trails would be maintained and/or closed to preserve rider safety related to landslides as necessary.

Soils Guideline 1.1 (shown below) requires all Carnegie SVRA facilities to meet the current Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division Soil Standard and Guidelines (Soil Standard) (State Parks 2008:26). The Soil Standard states that trail and road networks should be designed to avoid known unstable areas such as landslides and earthflows, and that if an unstable area is unavoidable, an engineer or geologist is to be consulted to determine the proper layout and design of the trail or road.

Further, Geo Guideline 1.1 in the General Plan (also shown below) prohibits visitor access to mining sites (where unstable soils may be present), using signage and gates or other physical barriers.

► Water Guideline 2.6: To reduce erosion and sedimentation, improve areas that have experienced substantial erosion from surface water runoff as determined by annual inspections. Implement rehabilitation concepts for these features as described in the SWMP or subsequent or replacement documents.



► Soils Guideline 1.1: Manage Carnegie SVRA facilities to meet the current OHMVR Division Soil Standard or subsequent amendments or replacement documents.

► Soils Guideline 1.4: Use slope to help manage soils. A full range of park facilities may be considered on areas with less than 20 percent slopes. Trails may be constructed (with best management practices [BMPs]) in areas with slopes between 20 percent and 45 percent, but buildings should not be constructed in these areas. On areas with slopes in excess of 45 percent, trails and park facilities should be limited and serve only the most advanced riders. Appropriate BMPs should be implemented in each area to manage erosion potential.

► Geo Guideline 1.1: To prevent hazards associated with potentially unstable soils and ensure public safety, before allowing access to the expansion area, prohibit visitor access to abandoned mines through the use of signage and installation of gates or other barriers that physically block the mine opening.

With adherence to these General Plan guidelines and compliance with the CBC (which is required by law), the impact related to landslides and unstable soils resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.5-3

Potential for Short-Term Construction-Related Erosion and Loss of Topsoil

Project-related facilities, including trails, at Carnegie SVRA would be constructed on a variety of soil types. As shown in Table 2-3 in the General Plan, many of the soils in the SVRA are rated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as having a high runoff rate; these generally are the soils with a moderate to high clay content, because clay soils do not absorb water as well as sandy or loamy soils. Several of the soils also are rated by NRCS as being highly susceptible to wind erosion. Earthmoving activities associated with construction of the proposed facilities would temporarily disturb the soil and would expose disturbed areas to storm events. Rain of sufficient intensity could dislodge soil particles from the soil surface. If the storm were large enough to generate runoff, localized erosion could occur. On the steeper slopes, severe erosion could occur during winter rain events. In addition, summertime soil disturbance resulting from construction activities could result in soil loss from wind erosion.

However, as indicated in Water Guideline 2.4 in the General Plan (shown at the end of this impact discussion), State Parks would prepare a SWPPP as required by the NPDES Construction General


Permit for all projects subject to the permit. The SWPPP would include BMPs to reduce water quality degradation of receiving waters from construction activities. Construction-related BMPs from the OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control (OHV BMP Manual) (State Parks 2007a, or most current version at time of construction) that are specifically designed to reduce erosion and control sedimentation would be implemented at each construction site. BMPs that could be used during construction activities fall into the following broad categories: erosion prevention, surface stabilization, tracking control, runoff control, sediment control, and road and trail drainage (State Parks 2007a).

Examples of specific types of construction-related BMPs from the OHV BMP Manual that could be used include the following:

► Erosion control (e.g., blankets, mulches, hydroseeding techniques) ► Scour control (e.g., check dams and armoring as in upland swales and ditches) ► Sediment basins ► Sediment traps ► Silt fences ► Fiber rolls ► Track-walking techniques ► Dust control ► Tracking control ► Waste management

In addition, Water Guideline 2.2 in the General Plan (shown at the end of this impact discussion) calls for implementation throughout the planning area of the measures identified in the SWMP. The SWMP (State Parks 2011:33–36) includes a detailed set of requirements to control construction-related stormwater runoff: training of engineers and contractors, inspection and monitoring of the construction site, and use of BMPs in the OHV BMP Manual and/or the BMP handbooks published by the California Stormwater Quality Association. For each future construction project implemented as part of implementation of the General Plan, State Parks would implement a construction site management program that would include the following monitoring and reporting requirements outlined in the SWMP (State Parks 2011:34):

► Name of the inspector and contractor

► Date and time of the inspection

► Phase of construction

► Brief description of current construction activities

► List of each BMP installed at the site


► Statement of whether or not each BMP was installed and maintained in accordance with the SWPPP and OHV BMP Manual

► Brief description of any deficiencies noted with the BMPs

► Brief description of the maintenance requirements for each deficient BMP

► Evidence or lack of evidence of an off-site discharge of pollutants

The OHMVR Division would file copies of each inspection form in the sector office, along with the associated notice of intent and SWPPP. The OHMVR Division would track and monitor the number and nature of the deficiencies noted for each contractor. Any contractor that consistently failed to implement any component of the SWPPP would be dismissed.

Water Guideline 2.1 in the General Plan (shown below) calls on State Parks to avoid locating facilities within or immediately adjacent to riparian or stream corridors or within waters of the United States or the state (including seeps, ponds, or drainages), and states that stream corridors may be crossed only at designated crossing locations where required for circulation. Soils Guideline 1.1 (shown above under Impact 3.5-2) states that Carnegie SVRA facilities are to meet the current OHMVR Soil Standard (State Parks 2008), which contains trail design and construction criteria to limit erosion.

► Water Guideline 2.1: Avoid siting facilities in and immediately adjacent to riparian or stream corridors or within waters of the United States or the state, including seeps, ponds, or drainages. Stream corridors shall be managed with vegetated buffers and crossings shall be properly sited for circulation and designed to minimize erosion and other water quality impacts. Design measures include but are not limited to:

• armoring approaches, • providing sediment traps or filter areas, • hardening the crossing surface, • protecting the streambanks from vehicle backwash and overflow during flooding, and • modifying super elevation (direction of tilt) such that roads and trails drain away from stream

corridors.

Culverts or bridge crossings shall be considered in highly erosive areas.

► Water Guideline 2.2: Implement BMPs in operating the SVRA, consistent with the SWMP or applicable subsequent document. Monitor water quality regularly and implement adaptive management practices as warranted. Adaptive management practices used may include permanent or seasonal area closures, facility redesign, and hillside restoration.

► Water Guideline 2.4: Before, during, and after the construction of facilities proposed and envisioned in this General Plan, implement all water quality control measures required under the


National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit. Develop a storm water pollution prevention plan, including the identification of BMPs that must be implemented to reduce water quality degradation of receiving waters during and after construction activities. Incorporate construction BMPs from the OHV BMP Manual or subsequent applicable document, as appropriate.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with BMPs for each construction project subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit, the impact related to short-term construction-related erosion and loss of topsoil that could result from implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant. (See Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for additional detailed analyses related to erosion and sediment transport, particularly those related to project design and operation.)


IMPACT 3.5-4

Increase in Geologic Hazards from Expansive Soils

Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change. Over time, these volume changes can damage building foundations, underground utilities, and other subsurface facilities and infrastructure, if the facilities and infrastructure are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist damage caused by changing soil conditions. Placing buildings or constructing infrastructure on or in expansive soils can result in structural failure. As shown in Table 2-3 of the General Plan, many of the soil types in the planning area have a high shrink-swell potential. However, by law, drainage facilities, buildings, and other structures must be designed according to the requirements of the CBC, which contains criteria for reducing structural damage from expansive soils to the maximum extent practicable.

With compliance with the CBC, the impact related to expansive soils would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.5-5

Construction on Soils Unsuitable for Septic Systems

The General Plan discusses potential future construction of various new facilities, such as an entrance kiosk, ranger station, campgrounds, and picnic areas, along with a training site that could include classroom/meeting space and an interpretative facility/visitor center. These new amenities would require wastewater treatment for new restroom facilities. Based on a review of NRCS soil data (Table 2-3 in the General Plan), soils in the planning area are rated with a severe limitation because they would be unsuitable for conventional septic leach fields. Most soils in the planning area consist of a shallow layer of silt, sand, or clay, underlain by bedrock. In general, these shallow soils have a very low permeability rate (i.e., a high water-holding capacity), and thus tend to “perc” too slowly. In contrast, most bedrock


soils have a very high permeability rate (i.e., a very low water-holding capacity), and thus tend to “perc” too quickly. Both conditions would render the planning area’s soils unsuitable for conventional septic systems. All existing restroom facilities at the SVRA consist of either portable toilets or concrete vault toilets (where the wastewater is pumped and removed rather than percolated through the soil).

Geo Guideline 1.3 in the General Plan (shown below) calls for the use of wastewater containment systems (wastewater holding tanks, such as those used in portable toilets or concrete vault toilets) for all new restroom facilities with periodic removal, treatment, and disposal off-site by a licensed contractor. If construction of septic leach fields could not be avoided, an engineered septic system addressing soil limitations for septic treatment would be designed by a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer and would be constructed according to the engineer’s specifications.

► Geo Guideline 1.3: All new restrooms shall use wastewater containment systems (i.e., wastewater holding tanks such as those used in portable toilets or concrete vault toilets), with periodic removal, treatment, and disposal off-site by a licensed contractor. If construction of septic leachfields cannot be avoided, an engineered septic system should be designed by a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer and constructed according to the engineer’s specifications.

With adherence to this General Plan guideline, the impact related to soils that are unsuitable for conventional septic systems would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.5-6

Contribution to Loss of Locally and/or Regionally Important Mineral Resources

The planning area is not located within the boundaries of a mineral land classification study under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and therefore, is not part of a present-day, regionally designated “significant” mineral resource recovery zone (as classified by the California Geological Survey). However, as discussed in detail in the Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment (State Parks 2007b:28–33), coal, clay, gravel, lime, manganese, and sand were mined in and adjacent to the planning area between 1855 and 1960. Several coal mining companies explored, mined, and transported coal within Corral Hollow, most notably from the Tesla Coal Mine. Clay mining began in 1901 and continued intermittently in the expansion area until 1952.

Gravel was mined from the bed of Corral Hollow Creek near the mouth of Corral Hollow and at the former townsite of Carnegie. Gravel mining operations began in 1895 and ceased in 1947. A limestone quarry was mined from 1901 to 1904, for limestone used to make cement. Mining for manganese began in 1863, at a site located approximately 1 mile southeast of the planning area, and continued until 1922. Sand was mined from 1902 until 1960. The planning area is not located in a locally designated mineral-resource recovery area in the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 (San Joaquin County 1992:Chapter VI). The historic coal, clay, and gravel mining operations in the planning area are


mentioned in the mineral resources background discussion of the Alameda County General Plan (Alameda County 1994), but the planning area is not in a locally designated mineral-resource recovery area.

Carnegie SVRA was added to the State Park system as an SVRA in July 1980. The site, which had been used by off-highway vehicles (OHVs) since the 1940s, was operated as a private motorcycle park from 1970 to 1979 before being purchased by State Parks with OHV Trust funds. From 1996 to 1998, State Parks used legislatively appropriated OHV Trust funds to acquire an additional 3,100 acres of adjacent property (the expansion area) to provide additional OHV recreational opportunities; the expansion area was included as part of Carnegie SVRA at the time of purchase. Although the planning area contained mineral resources, a substantial amount of the area’s mineral resources was removed as a result of historic mining activities, which ended in 1960. Since that time, additional mineral resources (sand and gravel) have been discovered in the Corral Hollow alluvial fan deposits east of the planning area, near Carbona (south of Tracy). Mineral resource extraction has focused on that area since the 1970s (Jensen and Silva 1989).

Because the planning area was extensively mined for more than 100 years, substantial amounts of mineral deposits are no longer available. Therefore, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not result in the loss of regionally or locally designated “significant” deposits of mineral resources (i.e., deposits classified by the California Geological Survey as MRZ-2 or deposits listed in a general plan as locally important). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.5-7

Potential for Damage to or Destruction of Unique Paleontological Resources

A detailed assessment of paleontological resources and sensitivity determination for each rock formation present in the planning area is provided in Table 2-5 of the General Plan, and the location of the geologic formations in the planning area is shown in Figure 2-3. As shown in Table 2-5, the Holocene alluvium and Franciscan chert formations are considered to be of low paleontological sensitivity; therefore, construction-related earthmoving activities in these formations would have a minor effect on unique paleontological resources.

However, other rock formations in the planning area are considered to be of moderate to high paleontological sensitivity because of the number of fossils that have been recovered previously from them in and near the planning area, and in other locations in northern and central California. Thus, a potential exists for additional, similar fossil remains to be uncovered during construction-related earthmoving activities in the Contra Costa and San Pablo Groups; the Tesla, Moreno, and Panoche Formations; and the Franciscan Mélange. Therefore, previously unknown, unique paleontological


resources could be damaged during construction-related earthmoving activities in the planning area within these rock formations. The impact would be potentially significant.

However, Geo Guideline 2.1 in the General Plan (shown below) calls for State Parks to provide paleontological resource training to park staff members. This training would include information about the areas most likely to contain unique paleontological resources, education on current paleontological resource laws, and procedures to be followed if paleontological resources were discovered inadvertently during construction. In addition, Geo Guideline 2.2 (also shown below) states that if paleontological resources are discovered inadvertently during construction activities, construction activities would cease at the fossil location and within the immediate vicinity, and an OHMVR Division archaeologist or other qualified paleontological resource professional would be consulted to determine the potential significance of the find.

Should a fossil be determined to be a unique paleontological resource, a recovery plan consistent with SVP (1996) criteria would be developed and implemented. The recovery plan may include a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings.

► Geo Guideline 2.1: Provide annual paleontological resource training to SVRA staff members. Inform State Parks peace officers (SPPOs) about the areas most likely to contain the unique paleontological resources that would be most susceptible to looting, vandalism, or damage by SVRA visitors, so that the SPPOs can watch for site impacts and vandalism. Also educate the SPPOs on current laws related to paleontological resources. SVRA field staff such as maintenance and trails team members shall be educated on what to do if paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during a project. All SVRA staff members shall be educated on what to do if they or SVRA visitors find a paleontological object.

► Geo Guideline 2.2: If paleontological resources are discovered inadvertently during construction activities, cease construction activities within and in the vicinity of the fossil and consult an OHMVR Division archaeologist or other qualified paleontological resource professional to determine the potential significance of the find. If the fossil is determined to be a unique paleontological resource, develop and implement a recovery plan consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 1996) criteria. The recovery plan may include but is not limited to a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, construction-related effects from inadvertent damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources would be avoided. The impact would be less than significant.




Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to geology, soils, minerals, and paleontological resources.


All impacts related to geology, soils, minerals, and paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute cumulatively to global climate change. The proper context for addressing this issue in an environmental impact report is in an assessment of cumulative impacts; it is unlikely that a single project will contribute significantly to climate change, but cumulative emissions from many projects could affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system. Unlike the locations of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of localized or regional concern, the locations where GHG emissions are generated are not much of a concern. Rather, the total amount and types of GHG emissions ultimately have the most significant effect on climate change.

As described further in Chapter 4, “Cumulative Analysis,” cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. A lead agency should generally undertake a two-step analysis when it determines the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions. The first question to ask is whether the combined effects of both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question to ask is whether “the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” and thus significant in and of themselves.

This section provides background information about GHG emissions and climate change and discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework for GHG emissions. GHG impacts associated with the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan are evaluated using local thresholds and criteria, when available. Federal and/or state thresholds are added to provide context for the proposed project’s GHG emissions.


EXISTING CLIMATE

The term “climate” refers to the accumulation of daily and seasonal weather events over a long period of time, whereas “weather” is defined as the condition of the atmosphere at any particular time and place (Ahrens 2003:16). The planning area is located in a climatic zone characterized as dry-summer subtropical or Mediterranean (abbreviated Cs) on the Köppen climate classification system. The Köppen system’s classifications are based primarily on annual and monthly averages of temperature and precipitation.

See Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” for a description of the meteorology and climate of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.6-1

ATTRIBUTING CLIMATE CHANGE—THE PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC BASIS

Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. When high-frequency solar radiation (such as visible light) enters the earth’s atmosphere from space (the sun), a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion is reflected back toward space. However, the re-radiated energy by the earth is not the same high-frequency solar radiation that was received; rather, it is lower frequency infrared radiation (thermal energy). The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Thus, because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it will emit lower frequency (longer wavelength) radiation—that is, infrared radiation. When infrared radiation comes into contact with GHGs in the atmosphere, a portion of that thermal energy can be absorbed by the GHG molecule, re-radiated back toward the earth’s surface, or both. In either case, heat is “trapped” within the earth’s atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the “greenhouse effect,” is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would not be able to support life as we know it.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the earth’s greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and high–global warming potential (high-GWP) GHGs. High-GWP gases are typically emitted at lower rates than CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide; however, emissions of these gases could still make a significant contribution to climate change because high-GWP GHGs are more effective at absorbing outgoing infrared radiation than CO2.

The concept of CO2-equivalency (CO2e) is used to account for the different potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation. This potential, known as the GWP of a GHG, depends on the lifetime or persistence of the gas molecule in the atmosphere, its ability to absorb/trap infrared radiation, and the spectrum of light energy (range of wavelengths and frequencies) absorbed by the gas molecule. Every GHG’s GWP is measured relative to CO2, which has a GWP of 1.

High-GWP GHGs include ozone-depleting substances, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons, in addition to their replacements, hydrofluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are also high-GWP GHGs. Anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of these GHGs have led to atmospheric levels of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations, thus intensifying the greenhouse effect. Such emissions have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, with corresponding effects on global circulation patterns and climate (IPCC 2007:665). CO2 emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion for energy-related activities are the primary contributors to human-induced climate change (EPA 2014).

Climate change is a global problem because GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for a long enough time to

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.6-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

be dispersed around the globe, continually contributing to the greenhouse effect. The exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule depends on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, but more CO2 is currently emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered. CO2 sinks or reservoirs include vegetation and the ocean, which respectively absorb CO2 through photosynthesis and dissolution, two of the most common processes of CO2 sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 54 percent is sequestered through ocean uptake, Northern Hemisphere forest regrowth, and other terrestrial sinks within a year, and the remaining 46 percent remains stored in the atmosphere (Seinfeld and Pandis 1998:1091).

Similarly, effects of GHGs are borne globally, in contrast with the localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and TACs. GHG emissions generated in the United States could contribute to climate change impacts in other countries or continents. The quantity of GHG emissions necessary to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; suffice it to say that the quantity is enormous, and no single project would be expected to measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or in the global or local climate or microclimate.

ATTRIBUTING CLIMATE CHANGE—GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural emissions sectors (ARB 2014). In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (ARB 2014).

Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Emissions of methane, a highly potent GHG, result from off-gassing—the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions. Such emissions are largely associated with anaerobic conditions (lack of oxygen) found in natural resources (e.g., wetlands), agricultural practices, and landfills. Nitrous oxide emissions are also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management.

Land use decisions and development projects are not themselves GHG emissions sectors; however, land use decisions can affect the rate at which GHGs are emitted from several sectors (e.g., transportation, energy consumption, water, and waste). In addition, activities associated with the long-term operation of development projects can result in direct or indirect GHG emissions. Direct emissions are GHG emissions generated at the site of consumption. For example, using natural gas for space or water heating generates direct GHG emissions because the natural gas is combusted at the site where the heat is used. Conversely, using electricity generates indirect GHG emissions because although the consumer may use the electricity at his or her home, the generation of that electricity and subsequent emissions of GHGs (if fossil fuels are used for generation) are likely occurring off-site. The following sections describe the major GHG emission sectors and their associated emissions at the state and local levels.


STATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY

As the second largest emitter of GHGs in the United States and 12th to 16th largest in the world, California contributes a large quantity of GHGs to the atmosphere (CEC 2006:i). Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion and are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation industry, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, and agriculture (ARB 2014). In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (ARB 2014) (Figure 3.6-1).

Source: ARB 2014

Figure 3.6-1. 2012 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector

LOCAL INVENTORY

ALAMEDA COUNTY

A portion of the planning area is located in unincorporated Alameda County. In 2008, a GHG emissions inventory was developed for unincorporated Alameda County for operational year 2003 (Alameda County 2008). The GHG emissions for the unincorporated county totaled approximately 736,579 metric tons (MT) CO2e in 2003. Of this total, on-road transportation emissions accounted for 46 percent of emissions, followed by approximately 27 percent and 23 percent, respectively, from residential and commercial/industrial land uses (Alameda County 2008). It should be noted that Alameda County’s transportation sector did not include GHG emissions from off-road vehicles, which would include off-highway vehicles (OHVs) used at the Carnegie SVRA.

Transportation 36%

Electric Power 21% Commercial and

Residential 9%

Industrial 19%

Recycling and Waste 2%

High GWP 4%

Agriculture 8%


SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

A portion of the planning area is located in unincorporated San Joaquin County. In 2009, San Joaquin County government developed a GHG inventory for the unincorporated land uses, as well as for government operations for operational year 2007. For year 2007, unincorporated San Joaquin County generated approximately 4,832,019 MT CO2e (San Joaquin County 2009). The majority of the unincorporated county’s GHG emissions were generated by the transportation sector, accounting for approximately 62 percent of the region’s total GHG emissions. These emissions were followed by GHG emissions from agriculture and electricity consumption, which respectively accounted for approximately 20 percent and 11 percent of the region’s emissions (San Joaquin County 2009). It should be noted that San Joaquin County’s transportation sector did not include GHG emissions from OHVs.


Every nation emits GHGs and thus makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change. Thus, cooperation on a global scale will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions to a level that can help to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions. Federal, state, and regional and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws regarding GHG emissions that are relevant to land use planning are discussed under “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations” in Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan.


The thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant GHG emissions impact if it would:

► generate GHG 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 GHGs.

As stated in Appendix G, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the above determinations. Activities associated with the General Plan would occur in both the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, where air quality is regulated by BAAQMD and SJVAPCD, respectively; thus, the thresholds of significance established by both air districts could be used to evaluate emissions associated with the General Plan.


BAAQMD had previously adopted thresholds, identified below; however, because of a recent Alameda County Superior Court decision, these thresholds are effectively on hold while BAAQMD appeals the court’s decision. The thresholds included a “bright-line” threshold and an “efficiency” threshold, which are more applicable to residential, commercial, and mixed-use development projects. (The GHG efficiency threshold measures GHG emissions per service population, where service population equals the sum of population and employment of the project.) Also included was a stationary-source threshold.

Although BAAQMD’s 2010 Guidelines are under legal review, the issues in the court order are not relevant to whether or not BAAQMD’s analysis provides substantial evidence in support of the proposed thresholds. Therefore, BAAQMD’s proposed thresholds of significance are considered in this analysis to evaluate the GHG emissions associated with General Plan implementation.

SJVAPCD adopted a set of GHG best-performance criteria for land use development projects, and a project’s impact significance would be determined on the level of implementation achieved. However, this method of impact assessment is most accurately applied to residential, commercial, and mixed-use development projects and would not be applicable to a recreational project such as the Carnegie SVRA General Plan.

In light of the lack of established GHG emissions thresholds that would apply to the General Plan (i.e., off-road vehicle recreational facility), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association suggests that lead agencies identify thresholds of significance applicable to a proposed project that are supported by substantial evidence and linked with the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Therefore, to establish additional context for considering the order of magnitude of GHG emissions associated with General Plan implementation, this analysis accounts for the following considerations by other government agencies and associations about what levels of GHG emissions constitute a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to climate change:

► Facilities (stationary, continuous sources of GHG emissions) that generate more than 25,000 MT CO2e per year must report their GHG emissions to the California Air Resources Board pursuant to AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (ARB 2011).

► The South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted a threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for stationary sources (SCAQMD 2008).

► Stationary sources that generate more than 10,000 MT CO2 per year may be required to participate in the cap-and-trade program through the Western Climate Initiative (WCI 2009).

► BAAQMD had previously adopted 10,000 MT CO2e per year as the significance threshold for operational GHG emissions from stationary-source projects (BAAQMD 2010).




At the time of this analysis, the construction activities associated with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan have not been fully defined; therefore, at this time, the discussion of construction emissions is limited to qualitative assessments based on potential activities.

With implementation of the General Plan, long-term operational GHG emissions would be generated by visitors and Carnegie SVRA maintenance staff members entering and exiting the SVRA, and by OHVs (e.g., off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, four-wheel-drive vehicles) engaging in on-site recreational activities. Maintenance activities would be infrequent and nominal, and thus, these negligible emissions are not included in the emissions estimates presented in Table 3.6-1. Long-term operational GHG emissions were quantified using the same methods and assumptions as those described in Section 3.2, “Air Quality.” RV2013 and EMFAC2011, which were used to model air quality emissions, are also able to provide outputs for GHG emissions.

Indirect GHG emissions could include off-site emissions occurring as a result of the SVRA’s use of electricity, water consumption, and solid waste disposal associated with facilities (including new buildings and infrastructure) proposed as part of the General Plan. However, as discussed above, the construction plans for the SVRA have not been defined at the time of this analysis, so quantifying the long-term indirect GHG emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan would be speculative. Based on the limited information available, however, it is anticipated that new facilities envisioned in the General Plan would result in minimal increases in energy consumption, water consumption, and waste disposal during SVRA operations. In addition, the long-term operational GHG emissions generated by any new facilities would be evaluated under CEQA when these facilities are proposed for construction or expansion. Therefore, GHG emissions from indirect sources were not quantified in this analysis.

The net change in long-term operational GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan was compared to the surrogate thresholds of significance listed above to determine significance. In addition, the SVRA’s design and purpose were evaluated against the AB 32 Scoping Plan to determine its consistency with the applicable GHG reduction plan.


IMPACT 3.6-1

Direct or Indirect Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions that May Have a Significant Effect on the Environment

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan would expand the existing recreational OHV facilities to include new structures such as a museum and/or visitor center, allow for a broader range of activities, and develop new OHV routes. Construction activities related to the new structures and recreational features would be


developed across a 10- to 15-year time frame and the vast acreage of the planning area. As a result, construction would produce short-term, localized GHG emissions from the operation of heavy-duty diesel equipment, material delivery trucks, and worker vehicles. The precise specifications for the proposed facilities have not been determined at the time of this analysis, but the proposed facilities are anticipated to be minimal and would not require intensive construction activities. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions are expected to be much less than the example thresholds of significance presented above in Section 3.6.3, and construction-related GHG impacts on the environment would be less than significant.

It is anticipated that as a result of projected population growth increases in Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, both the number of visitors coming to Carnegie SVRA and the amount of activity by off-road recreational vehicles (e.g., vehicle miles traveled) would increase. In addition, because of the expanded facilities, it is anticipated that maintenance of recreational trails would increase proportionally. These increased activity levels would result in an increase in the SVRA’s annual GHG emissions from visitor vehicles and OHVs. As discussed above, all operational emissions were quantified using the same assumptions and methods described in Section 3.2, “Air Quality.”

Table 3.6-1 presents the estimated existing baseline GHG emissions (2001, high-attendance year; 2010, low-attendance year), projected future emissions (2030), and net change in operational GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. The net changes in GHG emissions that would result from implementing the General Plan would be a decrease of approximately 108 MT CO2e per year for 2001–2030 and an increase of 1,159 MT CO2e per year for 2010–2030. Both changes are well below all the currently adopted thresholds of significance.

Table 3.6-1. Summary of Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan1

Source of Emissions

MT CO2e per year

Existing Emissions (2001)2

Existing Emissions (2010)2

Projected Emissions (2030)

Net Change1

(2001–2030) Net Change1

(2010–2030)

Visitor vehicles3 2,123 940 1,978 (145) 1,038

OHVs4 144 60 181 37 121

Total operational emissions 2,267 1,000 2,159 (108) 1,159

Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; OHV = off-highway vehicle; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area 1 Net decreases are shown in parenthesis. 2 Existing emissions from OHVs rounded to the nearest MT CO2e per year. 2001 represents the highest-attendance year and 2010

represents the lowest-attendance year. The net change between year 2010 and buildout year 2030 is used to conservatively evaluate the net change in operational greenhouse gas emissions associated with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan.

3 Mobile-source emissions estimated including California’s Pavley clean-air standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 4 OHVs only represent emissions associated with visitor recreational vehicles. Emissions associated with maintenance activities are expected

to be negligible and are not included in these emissions estimates.

Source: Modeling performed by AECOM in 2014; Appendix B


It should be noted that the long-term operational emissions associated with new structures, increased trail maintenance activities, and general conditions in the planning area are not included in the emissions estimates presented in Table 3.6-1. However, based on the anticipated level of facilities development (i.e., newly constructed buildings) associated with the General Plan, it is highly unlikely that the operational GHG emissions associated with General Plan implementation would exceed the surrogate thresholds of significance, even when those emissions are added to the net change.

The purpose of this analysis is to put the General Plan’s GHG emissions in the appropriate statewide context to evaluate whether the contribution of General Plan implementation to the global impact of climate change would have a significant impact on the environment. The GHG emissions associated with the General Plan fall well below the adopted thresholds discussed above and would not be considered a significant contribution that would affect the environment. Therefore, the operational GHG emissions that would result from implementing the General Plan would not have a significant impact on the environment, either directly or indirectly. This impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.6-2

Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

In addition to evaluating a project’s annual contribution of GHG emissions, it is equally important to evaluate the design and purpose of a project with respect to applicable plans and strategies for GHG emissions reduction. At the time of this analysis, San Joaquin County, the location of the eastern half of the planning area, has not developed a climate action plan. The expansion area is located completely in Alameda County. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors considered a climate action plan in February 2014, but the plan has not yet been officially adopted. Furthermore, the draft Alameda County (Unincorporated Areas) Community Climate Action Plan does not address OHVs. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, along with the statewide GHG reduction plan, is used to evaluate the General Plan.

The AB 32 Scoping Plan does not specifically address off-road recreational vehicles; however, it does discuss efficiency strategies and low-carbon fuels for OHVs as a strategy to achieve reductions from the transportation sector. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is currently being implemented throughout the state and fuels used for visitor vehicles and OHVs would purchase Low Carbon Fuel Standard fuels. Continuing implementation of and compliance with California’s Red Sticker and Green Sticker Program (discussed in Section 3.2, “Air Quality”) would also limit GHG emissions. Furthermore, Table 3.6-1 shows that the net change associated with development in the planning area would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance when compared to either baseline year. The approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Considering this information, the design and purpose of the Carnegie SVRA


General Plan would not conflict with implementation of the AB 32 Scoping Plan, or with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.



Adoption of the General Plan and implementation of the resulting actions would not result in any significant impacts.


No significant impacts related to GHG emissions would result from implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

This section describes existing conditions related to hazards and hazardous materials in the planning area. It also discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework, and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan related to hazards and hazardous materials.


“Hazardous materials” are both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. Federal regulations define a hazardous material as “a substance or material that … is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce” (Title 49, Section 171.8 of the Code of Federal Regulations [49 CFR 171.8]). Section 25501 of the California Health and Safety Code defines a “hazardous material” as follows:

Hazardous material means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

Section 25141(b) of the California Health and Safety Code defines “hazardous wastes” as wastes that:

…because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness [, or] pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

One hazardous materials site, the Tesla Coal Mine Site, is located within the boundaries of the planning area. Two additional active hazardous materials sites are located near the planning area: the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Experimental Test Site (Site 300) property and SRI International. Accordingly, the land within and surrounding the planning area is not entirely pristine because of the effects of mining and other past and current land uses. The following is a more detailed description of each of the aforementioned hazardous materials sites and current site conditions.

TESLA COAL MINE AND SURFACE WORKINGS

The Tesla Coal Mine Site is located in the northwest portion of the planning area, south of Tesla Road. (See Figure 4-1, “Limited Recreation Overlay 2—Tesla Mining Complex,” in the General Plan for the

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.7-1

general area.) The Tesla mine was operated for the production of coal from 1890 to 1905, and for the production of clay and glass sand until 1911. Intermittent underground and surface mining occurred at the site in the 1920s and 1930s. In the 1940s and 1950s, surface mining for clay and glass was carried out using shovels and scrapers.

The major underground mine entries at the Tesla Coal Mine included a main shaft, five coal adits, one sand adit, one clay shaft, and one clay adit. Surface workings that supported mining activities were located primarily around the main shaft and in the vicinity of the main adit. The following discussion of Tesla Coal Mine shafts, adits, and the associated surface workings is from the Tesla Mine Characterization Report (Resource Design Technology 2002).

MAIN SHAFT

The main shaft, at an elevation of approximately 1,000 feet, was inclined to the northeast and was sunk to a depth of 800 feet in a hanging wall of sandstone. At intervals of 200 feet, levels were driven off the shaft, extending 1,333 feet east and 2,616 feet west of the main shaft. Mining maps show an exploration tunnel heading south from the main shaft for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet on the 600-foot level.

A shaft house and hoisting plant were located at the main shaft, and a large coal washing plant extended down the hillside. Directly below the main shaft sat the coal bunkers, boiler house, and condenser plant. The main shaft was used as a garbage dump for many years, until it was filled with rock and soil by bulldozing around the shaft collar. This created a shallow surface depression, known as the “thousand gallon pond.”

MAIN ADIT

The main coal adit (Tunnel No. 3) was approximately 100 feet lower in elevation and was located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the main shaft. The main adit extended about 3,150 feet northwest of the portal. A drift from the main adit extended 3,417 feet to the west and a second drift extended 1,066 feet to the east. The portal of the main adit was bulldozed shut and is difficult to find from surface indications; however, the main adit can be identified in historical photos. Several small workshops, a compressor, electrical shops, the car repair and mechanics shop, a blacksmith shop, and a large warehouse were located in the vicinity of the main adit. A northeast-southwest trending waste dump was located along the slope at the portal of the main adit.

OTHER MINE WORKINGS

An upper coal adit (Tunnel No. 1) was approximately 1,050 feet north of the main adit. This adit followed the Eureka coal seam for approximately 1,066 feet.

A third coal adit was in the ravine below the main adit at an elevation of 950 feet. The adit headed north for 200 feet and ended at the intersection with the Eureka coal seam. A small tailing pile remains and the

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.7-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

adit still is open for at least 50 feet. Two additional coal adits were located nearby but are no longer visible.

A glass sand adit was at an elevation of 1,100 feet just north of Tunnel No. 1. The adit followed the sand bed westward for about 100 feet. Several raises and chutes are opened in the sand bed on the south side of the main haulage adit. This adit is still open, but the wooden sand bunker below it has collapsed.

A clay adit was located approximately 1,000 feet to the east on the railroad bed grade, at an elevation of 900 feet. This adit headed north for approximately 600 feet from the portal. Drifts ran east and west from this adit.

The Ryan Clay Mine was located east of the Tesla Coal Mine. The clay mine was developed by an inclined shaft; however, the extent of the workings is unknown.

TESLA MINE SITE SOIL CHARACTERIZATION

Extensive mining activities led to the formation of tailing piles along Corral Hollow Creek. The area between the main adit of the Tesla Mine and Corral Hollow Creek was used as a disposal area for coal tail pilings from 1890 to 1905. The remains of these pilings extend along the north bank of Corral Hollow Creek for approximately 1,000 feet.

In 2005, Salix Applied Earthcare and Geosyntec identified seven test pit locations that then were excavated to identify subsurface soil information:

► Test Pit A—near the western end of the tailing pile, adjacent to Corral Hollow Creek

► Test Pit B—in the sandy material downgradient from the Tesla Mine’s main shaft

► Test Pit C—at the toe of the tailing pile south of the “thousand gallon pond” and north of the main access road

► Test Pit D—in a flat area between the main access road and the slope of the tailing pile approximately 500 feet east of Test Pit C

► Test Pits E1, E2, and E3—in a single line perpendicular to the proposed realignment of Corral Hollow Creek

Soil samples were collected near the Tesla Coal Mine, from tailing piles along Corral Hollow Creek (Test Pit A) and from landlocked tailing piles below the main adit of Tesla Mine (Test Pit C), to determine whether soils contained metal concentrations in excess of hazardous-waste criteria. The soil samples were analyzed using the California Waste Extraction Tests (WET) method to determine metal concentrations.


The total metals concentrations in all soil samples were consistently lower than hazardous-waste criteria (State Parks 2007:83, 85). Soil samples collected from Test Pits A and C exhibited acidic characteristics, with a pH ranging from 2.9 to 4.4. Soil samples from Test Pit A that were taken directly from the tailing pile exhibited detectable concentrations of WET metals (i.e., arsenic, barium copper, iron, lead mercury, selenium, vanadium, and zinc). However, the total metal concentrations did not exceed the hazardous-waste criteria (State Parks 2007:85).

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY, SITE 300

LLNL Site 300 covers approximately 11 square miles north of Corral Hollow Road, straddling the Alameda/San Joaquin County line (see Figure 2-1, “Surrounding Land Uses,” in Chapter 2 of the General Plan). LLNL has owned and operated Site 300 for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since the 1950s. Site 300 is primarily a high-explosives test facility that supports LLNL’s weapons program in research, development, and testing associated with weapons components. This work has involved processing explosives; preparing new explosives; and pressing, machining, and assembling explosives components. Workers at Site 300 also have conducted hydrodynamic testing to verify computer simulation results, obtained equation-of-state data for weapons materials, evaluated material behavior at assembly joints and welds, evaluated the quality and uniformity of implosion, and evaluated the performance of postnuclear test design modifications. Over the years, these activities have caused the groundwater and soil to become contaminated by solvents and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), tritium, uranium-238, high explosive compounds, nitrate, and perchlorate (DOE 1999:1-2). Because of contaminants found in groundwater at Site 300 and the tonnage of material deposited in Site 300 landfills, Site 300 was added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)–maintained Superfund National Priorities List on August 30, 1990 (EPA Superfund Site Identification No. CA 2890090002).

INVESTIGATIONS AND REMEDIATION

Before August 1990, investigations of potential chemical contamination at LLNL Site 300 were conducted under the oversight of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Since 1990, when EPA designated Site 300 as a Superfund site, all investigations at Site 300 have been conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) under the oversight of EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Central Valley RWQCB. (See the discussion of CERCLA under “Federal Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws” in Section 3.7.2 below.) In June 1992, EPA, DOE, DTSC, and the Central Valley RWQCB signed a federal facility agreement to provide the framework for site cleanup and preparation of necessary regulatory documents to achieve the goals delineated in CERCLA.

Contamination at LLNL Site 300 was addressed through a combination of removal and remedial actions. In 1994, DOE completed a sitewide remedial investigation report that characterized groundwater and soil contamination at Site 300 and evaluated the potential for future human-health hazards from


exposure to on-site contamination. In 1999, a sitewide feasibility study was prepared that developed and evaluated alternatives for remedial actions. A sitewide proposed plan that was prepared in 2000 identified DOE’s preferred interim remedial actions. In February 2001 an interim sitewide record of decision (ROD) for Site 300 was signed, allowing interim remediation activities to begin while DOE continued to test and evaluate cleanup technologies and negotiated final groundwater cleanup standards. A final sitewide ROD for a portion of LLNL Site 300 was signed in June 2008, indicating that remedial actions had been completed and that no unacceptable risks would be posed to human health or the environment.

PIT 6 LANDFILL

LLNL Site 300 is divided into nine operable units to allow administrators to track the progress of contamination remediation. The operable units were determined by the specific locations, nature, and extent of contamination. The Pit 6 Landfill (Operable Unit 3) is north of Corral Hollow Road on approximately 2.6 acres near the southern boundary of Site 300.

The Pit 6 Landfill is located approximately 0.6 mile east of the planning area. Active groundwater wells that provide water supplies to Carnegie SVRA and surrounding areas are approximately 1,000 feet east of the landfill. From 1964 to 1973, approximately 1,900 cubic yards of waste materials were placed in nine unlined debris trenches at the Pit 6 Landfill (DOE 1999:1-3). The buried materials included laboratory and shop debris and biomedical waste. Plumes of VOCs and tritium originating from the landfill were identified in groundwater and were determined to be primary contaminants of concern (COCs) (DOE 1999:1-3). Perchlorate and nitrate also were detected in groundwater to a lesser extent and were identified as secondary COCs. No COCs were identified in surface or subsurface soils (DOE 1999:1-3).

The landfill was capped as a removal action in 1997, to prevent further leaching of contaminants from the buried waste and mitigate potential inhalation risks. The engineered, multilayer cap was intended to prevent infiltration of rainwater into the landfill, mitigate potential damage by burrowing animals and vegetation, prevent potential hazards caused by collapses of void spaces in the buried waste, and prevent the potential flux of VOC vapors through the soil. A diversion channel on the north side of the engineered cap and drainage channels on the east, west, and south sides minimize flows of surface water onto the landfill.

The interim ROD for the Pit 6 Landfill identified monitored natural attenuation as the remedy for VOCs and tritium in groundwater at the landfill. This process allows contaminants to degrade naturally in the environment while remaining under close observation and includes protocols to assess the progress of remediation (DOE 2001:2-96). DOE monitors groundwater elevations and contaminants regularly to evaluate the efficacy of the natural-attenuation remedy in reducing contaminant concentrations and detect any new releases of chemicals from the landfill. Primary and secondary groundwater COCs at the Pit 6 Landfill show stable to decreasing trends. Groundwater beneath the landfill remains well below the buried landfill waste, and VOCs have not migrated to groundwater supply wells (DOE 2008:2-24).


SRI INTERNATIONAL

SRI International is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts client-sponsored research and development projects for government agencies, commercial businesses, foundations, and other organizations. The institute operates a 480-acre explosives testing facility, Corral Hollow, south of Carnegie SVRA. The Corral Hollow facility is accessed by SRI Road, a paved road that runs through the active riding areas of the park (see General Plan Figure 2-1, “Surrounding Land Uses”). The road starts at the entrance to Kiln Canyon Trail and runs along the eastern boundary of the Kiln Canyon subwatershed, terminating at the testing facility. Because the road is in an active riding area, it is gated and fenced off, and it is not accessible to riders (State Parks 2007:39).

SRI International’s Corral Hollow facility, established in 1967, is used primarily for U.S. Department of Defense research projects under contract with SRI International. These projects frequently require the use of explosive charges to test how models and materials withstand the explosive conditions commonly associated with defense operations. Corral Hollow has five explosives testing areas; a magazine area that houses all explosives on the site; a make-up area, used to prepare explosives; machine, welding, and carpentry shops; and meeting rooms (SRI International 2014). It also contains specialized facilities such as a shock tube for explosive airblast simulation, a large water pool for underwater explosion experiments, and a gas-propelled-projectile launch facility for impact studies (SRI International 2013).

Before May 1988, a portion of one aboveground explosive testing area (Area 2) was used to detonate and burn scrap explosives that were left over from tests. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) (now known as the California Department of Public Health) considered this activity to be thermal treatment of hazardous waste. In late 1988, DHS took two soil samples in this section of Area 2 and analyzed them for heavy metals. According to DHS, no elevated levels of heavy metals were detected in either sample. The section of Area 2 where scrap explosives were disposed does not appear to pose a problem to air, groundwater, or surface water pathways. In March 1989, SRI International and DHS entered into a consent agreement and an order stipulating that SRI would no longer detonate or burn excess scrap explosives in Area 2. All scrap explosives generated at Corral Hollow since May 1988 are saved and then used in research activities or training demonstrations (Ecology and Environmental, Inc. 1990).

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES

California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4201–4204 and Government Code Sections 51175–51189 require the identification of fire hazard severity zones in California. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has established a system for classifying fire hazard severity. Fire hazard severity zones are measured qualitatively, based on vegetation, topography, weather, crown fire potential (a fire’s tendency to burn upward into trees and tall brush), ember production, and movement within the area of question. The planning area has been identified as being in two fire hazard severity zones.


Fire prevention areas considered to be under state jurisdiction are referred to as “state responsibility areas.” In state responsibility areas, CAL FIRE is required to delineate three hazard ranges: moderate, high, and very high. Only the very high fire hazard severity zones must be identified in “local responsibility areas,” which are under the jurisdiction of local entities (e.g., cities, counties).

The planning area is located within a State Responsibility Area, as identified by CAL FIRE. Most of the planning area is within the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with the exception of a portion located along Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road that lies within the Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2007a, 2007b). CAL FIRE’s Santa Clara Ranger District has primary responsibility for fire protection in the planning area.


FEDERAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS

HAZARDOUS-MATERIALS HANDLING

EPA is primarily responsible for enforcing and implementing federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable regulations are contained mainly in CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. Management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws:

► Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA): The RCRA (42 U.S. Code [USC] 6901 et seq.) established an all-encompassing federal regulatory program for hazardous substances. Under the RCRA, EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, which specifically prohibits the use of certain techniques to dispose of various hazardous substances. EPA has delegated regulation oversight of many of the RCRA requirements to DTSC.

► Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980: CERCLA, also called the Superfund Act (42 USC 9601 et seq.), required creation of a trust fund to provide broad federal authority for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment.

► Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: CERCLA created the Superfund hazardous substance cleanup program (Public Law 96-510, enacted December 11, 1980). The program was enlarged and reauthorized by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499).

These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that generate, use, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials. EPA compiles a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United


States and its territories, known as the National Priorities List. These locations are commonly referred to as “Superfund sites.” EPA provides oversight and supervision for federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions and treatment standards.

In addition, the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 states the planning requirements for hazardous materials, to help protect local communities in the event of accidental release of hazardous substances. The Construction Safety and Health Outreach Program of the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regulates use and safety considerations related to blasting activities. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulates storage of explosives and blasting agents (27 CFR 55, “Commerce in Explosives”).

WORKER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

OSHA is responsible at the federal level for ensuring worker safety. OSHA sets federal standards for implementation of workplace training, exposure limits, and safety procedures for the handling of hazardous substances (as well as other hazards). OSHA also establishes criteria by which each state can implement its own health and safety program.

NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan is the federal plan for responding to oil spills and releases of hazardous substances. The contingency plan established the National Response Team and its roles in the National Response System. The National Response Team plans and coordinates response to major discharges of oil or hazardous waste, provides guidance to regional response teams, coordinates a national program of preparedness planning and response, and facilitates research to improve response activities.

STATE PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS

California has been granted primary oversight responsibility by EPA to administer and enforce hazardous-waste management programs. DTSC, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the Integrated Waste Management Act also regulate the generation of hazardous materials. State regulations have detailed planning and management requirements so that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, transported, and disposed properly, to reduce risks to human health and the environment. Key elements of state laws pertaining to hazardous wastes are highlighted below, with references to California code sections for more detailed information.

HAZARDOUS-MATERIALS HANDLING

The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985, also known as the Business Plan Act, requires preparation of hazardous-materials business plans and disclosure of hazardous materials inventories. A hazardous-materials business plan is to include an inventory of


hazardous materials handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee training in safety and emergency response procedures (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1).

Statewide, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for management of hazardous materials, and it delegates its authority to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the state. Local agencies, including the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and the Solid Waste Division of the San Joaquin County Department of Public Works, administer these laws and regulations.

Sections 12101–12103 of the California Health and Safety Code require that permits be obtained by those who manufacture, transport, possess, or use explosives. The jurisdiction(s) in which the explosives are going to be transported or used must endorse the permits.

WORKER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Cal/OSHA regulations pertaining to the use of hazardous materials in the workplace (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8) include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, warnings about exposure to hazardous substances, and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans. Hazard communication program regulations that are enforced by Cal/OSHA require workplaces to maintain procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, inform workers about the hazards associated with hazardous substances and their handling, and prepare health and safety plans to protect workers at hazardous waste sites. Employers also must make material safety data sheets available to employees and document employee information and training programs.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO HAZARDOUS-MATERIALS INCIDENTS

California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services that are provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous-material incidents is one part of this plan. The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) manages the plan and coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the California Environmental Protection Agency, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Central Valley RWQCB.

HAZARDOUS-MATERIALS TRANSPORT

The California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation, and DTSC are responsible for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to transportation emergencies involving hazardous materials.


Regulations governing hazardous-materials transport are included in the California Vehicle Code (CCR Title 13), the State Fire Marshal Regulations (CCR Title 19), and CCR Title 22.

Hazardous materials can be transported only under a registration issued by DTSC. ID numbers are issued by DTSC or EPA to track hazardous-waste transporters and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for hazardous materials. The ID number is used to identify the hazardous-waste handler and to track waste from point of origin to final disposal. All materials transport takes place under a manifest, and compliance with Title 22 requires that transporters take immediate action to protect human health and the environment in the event of spill, release, or mishap.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65962.5 (CORTESE LIST)

The provisions of Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” after the legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it. The Cortese List is a planning document used by state and local agencies to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA’s) requirement to provide information about the location of hazardous-materials release sites. Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies must provide additional information for the Cortese List about releases of hazardous materials.

CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATED SITES

Several state regulatory structures govern cleanup of contaminated sites in California. Many of these programs are regulated by DTSC: RCRA corrective actions, state Superfund sites, brownfields programs, and voluntary cleanups. The SWRCB (through RWQCBs and some local agencies) regulates releases with the potential to affect water resources under programs such as the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Program and the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Program. Regulatory authority for these programs may be delegated by the federal government (as with RCRA corrective actions directed by DTSC) or may be found in the California Health and Safety Code. The specifics of these regulations vary. Generally, however, they require that sites where hazardous materials have been released be reported, investigated, and remediated, and that any hazardous materials be disposed appropriately. These programs govern a range of pollutants, such as solvents, petroleum fuels, heavy metals, and pesticides in surface water, groundwater, soil, sediment, and air.

LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES

Although the local general plans of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties do not directly apply to state-controlled properties, they affect the land uses that surround the planning area, and therefore, the land use context.


ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

The Safety Element of the Alameda County General Plan (Alameda County 2014:29) includes a goal to reduce the risk of urban and wildland fire hazards (Goal 2).

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2010

The Public Health and Safety Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 (San Joaquin County 1992:V-12) includes objectives and policies (i.e., Objective 1 and Objective 2 and Policies 1-4) that are relevant to hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

Alameda County is a member agency of the multi-jurisdictional local hazard mitigation plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (ABAG 2010:iii). The plan’s goal is to maintain and enhance a disaster-resistant region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters (ABAG 2010:vii).

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD FUNCTIONAL PLAN

Implementing San Joaquin County’s Multi-Hazard Functional Plan provides an effective and combined local, regional, state, and federal response to an emergency. Under this plan, common emergency management systems (developed by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services [now known as Cal EMA] through the Standardized Emergency Management System process) are an integral part of San Joaquin County’s response system. The plan provides guidance to explain its emergency management and specific procedures for persons assigned to the emergency organization (San Joaquin County 1994:1).

SPARK ARRESTER REGULATIONS

PRC Section 4442 and California Vehicle Code Section 38366 state that no person is to use, operate, or be allowed to use or operate any off-highway vehicle (OHV) on any forest-covered land, brush-covered land, or grass-covered land unless the vehicle is equipped with a spark arrester that is maintained in effective working order. In addition, a spark arrester that is affixed to an exhaust system cannot be placed or mounted in a way that will allow flames or heat from the exhaust system to ignite any flammable material.


Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:

► create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;


► 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;

► emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;

► be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;

► result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport;

► result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip;

► impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency-response plan or emergency-evacuation plan; or

► expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.


Activities envisioned in the General Plan would not be located on any site that has been included on a list of hazardous-materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Pit 6 Landfill, which is part of the LLNL Site 300 Superfund site, is located approximately 0.6 mile east of the planning area. Active groundwater wells that provide water supplies to Carnegie SVRA and surrounding areas are located approximately 1,000 feet east of the Pit 6 Landfill. Plumes of VOCs and tritium originating from the landfill were identified in groundwater and were determined to be primary COCs, and perchlorate and nitrate were detected in groundwater to a lesser extent and were identified as secondary COCs. Groundwater elevations and contaminants are monitored regularly, to evaluate the efficacy of the natural-attenuation remedy in reducing contaminant concentrations and detect any new releases of chemicals from the landfill. Primary and secondary groundwater COCs at the Pit 6 Landfill show stable to decreasing trends. Groundwater beneath the landfill remains well below the buried landfill waste, and VOCs have not migrated to groundwater supply wells. No COCs were identified in surface or subsurface soils. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not be affected by hazardous materials from LLNL Site 300. This issue is not discussed further in this draft environmental impact report (DEIR).


No schools are located within 0.25 mile of Carnegie SVRA. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not affect any schools. This issue is not discussed further in this DEIR.

The planning area is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not affect any public airports or private airstrips. These issues are not discussed further in this DEIR.

Implementation of the General Plan would not result in impacts on existing roadways (see Section 3.14, “Transportation and Traffic,” of this DEIR) that could interfere with adopted emergency evacuation routes or emergency vehicle access. Designated segments of the multiple-use trail system would continue to provide emergency access in the planning area, and multiple entrances that would be created with implementation of the General Plan would provide additional emergency access. This issue is not discussed further in this DEIR.



This analysis considered potential impacts related to hazards that are associated with the historic and current use of the planning area and its surroundings; the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; wildland fire protection; and emergency response. It also analyzed potential impacts related to hazardous materials that could be introduced if the General Plan were implemented.

The evaluation of potential impacts is based on a preliminary review of environmental risk databases—including DTSC’s EnviroStor database, EPA’s Envirofacts website, and the SWRCB’s GeoTracker website—and CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. In addition, reports documenting potential hazardous conditions in and near the planning area were reviewed, including RODs for LLNL Site 300, the Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment (State Parks 2007), and the Tesla Mine Site Characterization Report for Carnegie SVRA (Resource Design Technology 2002).

The information obtained from these sources (Table 3.7-1) was used to establish existing conditions, evaluate the significance of potential environmental impacts based on the thresholds of significance presented above, and determine whether any known hazardous materials may be present at active sites within 0.5 mile of the planning area.

The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, also known as the EnviroStor database, is maintained by DTSC as part of the requirements specified in PRC Section 65962.5 (the Cortese List). In the EnviroStor database, DTSC identifies sites that have known contamination and sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database lists federal Superfund sites (National Priority List sites); state response sites, including military facilities and State Superfund sites; voluntary cleanup sites; and school sites.


Table 3.7-1. Active Hazardous-Materials Sites in and near the Planning Area

Site Name and Address Database Status

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 15999 Corral Hollow Road Tracy, CA

GeoTracker, EnviroStor, Envirofacts Remediation

SRI International Corral Hollow Road Tracy, CA

EnviroStor, Envirofacts Undergoing closure

Tesla Coal Mine 17999 Tesla Road Livermore, CA

GeoTracker Open

Sources: DTSC 2013; SWRCB 2013; EPA 2013

The GeoTracker database is an information management system related to groundwater that is maintained by the SWRCB. The SWRCB uses GeoTracker to maintain data about leaking underground storage tanks and other types of soil and groundwater contamination, along with associated cleanup activities, as required by PRC Section 65962.5.

EPA’s Envirofacts website identifies toxic releases, hazardous waste, and other violations. Envirofacts presents information from several regulatory agencies and databases, including EPA, DTSC, and Cal EMA. This database also contains environmental information that is maintained by EPA, such as the locations of releases of more than 650 toxic chemicals, water discharge permit compliance, hazardous waste handling processes, Superfund status, and air emission estimates.


IMPACT 3.7-1

Potential Risks Associated with the Routine Use, Transport, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials typically used in construction operations such as diesel fuel, solvents, and paints would likely be used during construction activities associated with General Plan implementation. Hazardous materials used during construction activities would be handled and stored in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations, thus minimizing any potential for an accidental release of or exposure to such materials.

The enhancement and expansion of facilities and recreational opportunities at Carnegie SVRA is not anticipated solely to attract additional visitors to the SVRA; however, attendance is anticipated to increase over time, which would increase the use of gasoline and oils needed for the operation of OHVs. The increased use of these common materials would not create a substantial hazard to the public or environment because individuals would handle relatively small volumes of them to operate OHVs at Carnegie SVRA. In addition, OM Guideline 3.11 in the General Plan (shown below) requires SVRA staff members to promptly clean up hazardous spills and dispose of trash for the health and safety of the environment. Furthermore, OM Guideline 3.4 (also shown below) requires that construction,


maintenance, and operation of all facilities occur in compliance with federal, state, and local regulatory requirements regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous materials for the protection of surface water and groundwater, soils, and people.

► OM Guideline 3.4: Construct, maintain, and operate all facilities in compliance with all federal, state, and local regulatory requirements regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous materials for the protection of surface water and groundwater, soils, and people.

► OM Guideline 3.11: Promptly clean up and dispose of trash and hazardous spills for the health and safety of the environment and the public and to encourage good visitor stewardship of the SVRA.

Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.7-2

Potential Health Hazards from Exposure to Existing Hazardous Materials at the Tesla Coal Mine Site

Implementation of the General Plan would provide for a gathering area, an interpretive facility, and potentially other limited facilities, such as trail or road crossings, near the Tesla Coal Mine Site. Tailing piles are present along Corral Hollow Creek, and the area between the main adit of the Tesla Coal Mine and Corral Hollow Creek was used as a disposal area for coal tail pilings.

As described above, soil samples were collected near the Tesla Coal Mine Site, from tailing piles along Corral Hollow Creek and landlocked tailing piles below the main adit of the Tesla Coal Mine, to determine whether soils contained metal concentrations in excess of hazardous-waste criteria. Analysis of the soil samples using the WET method determined that the total metals concentrations (i.e., arsenic, barium copper, iron, lead mercury, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) in all soil samples were consistently lower than hazardous-waste criteria (State Parks 2007:83, 85). Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not result in exposure to hazardous materials that could pose a health risk to the public. This impact would be less than significant.



IMPACT 3.7-3

Potential Public Safety Hazards from Recreational Uses Near the Tesla Coal Mine Site

Implementation of the General Plan would provide limited recreational uses near the Tesla Coal Mine Site. As shown in Figure 4-1, “Preferred Concept Map,” of the General Plan, the Tesla Coal Mine Site is in the “Limited Recreation Overlay 2—Tesla Mining Complex” visitor experience area. Allowable land uses in the Tesla Mining Complex overlay area include a gathering area, an interpretive facility, and potentially other limited facilities, such as trails or road crossings. The chosen sites for these uses would be evaluated and engineered for safety based on site-specific conditions. Access to the actual mine site would be limited to guided tours, and the exact boundary of the gathering area may be refined in the future based on site-specific studies. In addition, OM Guideline 3.3 in the General Plan requires that clear signage and/or fencing be provided as appropriate around potentially hazardous areas, including the Tesla Coal Mine Site:

► OM Guideline 3.3: Provide clear signage and/or fencing as appropriate around areas of known potential hazard, such as deep gullies, drop-offs, or restricted areas such as the Tesla Coal Mine Site.

Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not result in safety hazards to the public from recreational uses near the Tesla Coal Mine Site. This impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.7-4

Potential Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fire

Activities envisioned in the General Plan could ignite a wildland fire as a result of sparks from OHVs, four-wheel-drive (4WD) vehicles, and off-highway motorcycles, which then could spread to adjacent areas. Implementation of the General Plan is expected to generate an increase in the number of visitors to the SVRA over time, thus in turn increasing the risk of an accidental wildland fire. Implementation of the General Plan also could result in construction of new structures, thus increasing the risk of potential damage to structures from wildland fire. In addition, activities taking place at SRI International, adjacent to the planning area, could accidentally ignite a fire that could spread to the SVRA.

Most of the planning area is located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with the exception of a portion located along Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road that is in a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2007a, 2007b). Carnegie SVRA’s on-site roads and trail network would serve as a firebreak system. Designated segments of the multiple-use trail system would provide emergency access for wildfire suppression. State Parks staff members also would maintain a truck with a water tank and pumping capability on-site. Fire tools and limited water supplies would be carried by patrol vehicles. During periods of high fire danger, temporary closures also may be implemented for 4WD vehicles and other vehicles equipped with catalytic converters, if warranted to reduce fire risk.


Multiple entrances proposed under the General Plan would provide additional emergency access to Carnegie SVRA. In addition, implementation of OM Guideline 3.5 in the General Plan would help to prevent accidental fire ignition and spread of wildfire to adjacent areas because OHVs would be monitored for spark arresters and fuel handling practices would be monitored:

► OM Guideline 3.5: Prevent accidental fire ignition and spread of wildfire to adjacent areas by monitoring OHVs for spark arresters and by monitoring fuel handling practices.

Because access to the SVRA would be improved with implementation of the General Plan, and General Plan guidelines would be followed to reduce the risk of starting accidental wildland fires, the potential for exposure to people and structures to the risks associated with wildland fires would not be substantial. The impact would be less than significant.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.


No significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would result with implementation of the General Plan and no mitigation is required.


3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

This section addresses drainage, hydrology, erosion and sediment transport, stream geomorphology, and water quality in the planning area. It analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on hydrology and water quality.


Section 2.3.1, “Physical Resources,” of the General Plan includes a discussion of the existing hydrology and water quality setting.


The “Hydrology and Water Quality Regulations” section in Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan describes the federal, state, and regional and local regulations applicable to hydrology and water quality in the planning area.


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would:

► violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge or stormwater runoff requirements, state or federal antidegradation policies, enforceable water quality standards contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) or statewide water quality control plans, or federal rulemakings to establish water quality standards in California;

► 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 that would result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation; or that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding;

► create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;

► otherwise substantially degrade water quality;

► substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8-1

(e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);

► place housing, or structures that would impede or redirect flood flows, within a 100-year (0.01 percent annual exceedance probability [100-year flood event]) flood hazard area; or

► expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

The water supply for the planning area would be obtained from on-site groundwater wells. Potential impacts associated with the use of groundwater are evaluated in Section 3.12, “Public Services and Utilities.”


IMPACT 3.8-1

Creation or Contribution of Runoff Water Exceeding the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Providing Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff that Could Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements

Pollutants of concern for Carnegie SVRA management include any pollutants that could be generated by past, present, and future land use activities. In the planning area, this would include historic activities such as mining that may have created a perpetual source of pollutants (i.e., tailing piles), present activities such as off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and planned future construction and operational activities that could create a new source of pollutants.

Proposed new facilities may include visitor entrance kiosks, a ranger station, a training site with a classroom/meeting space, an interpretative facility/visitor center, camping areas, OHV training facilities, and OHV trails. Small concrete pads also could be constructed as part of camping or picnic facilities (e.g., for new vault toilets) and for a helicopter landing pad. The primary construction in the planning area would be to create new trails and access roads for SVRA visitors. Typical operation and maintenance activities in the planning area would include washing, fueling, repair, and maintenance of equipment and vehicles in a specified area; repair of roadways and trails; landscaping; vector and weed control; painting; removal of sanitary waste; litter control; additional OHV use; and patrols by State Parks peace officers.

Both construction and routine operation and maintenance activities often require the use of chemicals and materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, waste materials, fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides) that can be detrimental to the quality of receiving water. Furthermore, construction activities can redistribute pollutant sources associated with historic uses. Pollutants can be transported into receiving water bodies through stormwater runoff and OHV use.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area 3.8-2 Hydrology and Water Quality

The Basin Plan (Central Valley RWQCB 2011) sets forth water quality standards for surface waters and groundwater in the region. These standards include both designated beneficial uses of the water and the narrative and numeric objectives that must be maintained or attained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan does not specify beneficial uses or water quality objectives for Corral Hollow Creek. According to the tributary rule, the beneficial uses assigned to any downstream water body also would apply to the creek. However, Corral Hollow Creek often infiltrates within the western reaches of the San Joaquin Valley, and it lacks a surface connection to the San Joaquin River most of the time, connecting via surface water only during large and extended storm events. As a result, downstream water bodies are directly affected only occasionally by water quality in Corral Hollow Creek. The Basin Plan specifies general water quality objectives for all water bodies within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin. These objectives include numeric and narrative standards that are designed to preserve the quality of the receiving waters.

Based on the potential pollutant sources in the planning area and water quality objectives presented in the Basin Plan, the following constituents have been identified as pollutants of concern in the planning area (State Parks 2011:11–13):

► Sediment. Sediments consist of total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and bed load material. Erosion, transport, and deposition of sediment in surface waters can degrade water quality, in addition to inundating riparian vegetation (thereby reducing beneficial habitat structure in stream channels).

► Heavy Metals. The results of water quality sampling presented in the watershed assessment (State Parks 2007a:146–168) indicated that concentrations of heavy metals generally were low, only exceeding the California Toxics Rule criteria for copper in one sample. However, metals such as copper, zinc, and chromium were selected as pollutants of concern because they are prevalent in OHV components and can be deposited in the watershed through typical vehicle wear and leaks. Additional sources of metals are fuels, adhesives, paints and other coatings, buildings, infrastructure, and the remnants of tailing piles associated with historic mining activities. Metals are of concern because of their acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic life and their potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. The soils analysis of the tailings piles, performed by Salix and Geosyntec, did not reveal hazardous levels of chemical constituents (although the tailings are contributing total suspended solids to Corral Hollow Creek) (State Parks 2007a:126).

► Nutrients. Nutrients are inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. Potential sources of nutrients in the planning area are decomposition of organic matter, fertilizers from landscaped areas, and atmospheric deposition. Excess nutrients can contribute to surface algal scum and water discoloration.


► Pathogens. Potential sources of pathogens in the planning area consist of waste from domestic pets, wildlife, cattle and livestock, and humans, as well as leaking septic tanks. If transported to receiving waters, pathogens can pose a direct health risk to humans.

► Pesticides. Pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) are chemical compounds commonly used to control insects, rodents, plant diseases, and weeds. Excessive application of a pesticide may cause runoff to contain toxic levels of its active component. (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has restricted the use of organophosphorus pesticides, including diazinon and chlorpyrifos, and State Parks does not use them in the planning area.)

► Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Potential sources of oil, grease, and other petroleum hydrocarbons in the planning area consist of spills and leaks of fuels and lubricants, atmospheric deposition, wearing of tires, and deposition from vehicle exhaust. Petroleum hydrocarbons, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can accumulate in aquatic organisms from contaminated water, sediments, and food, and they are toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations. Hydrocarbons can persist in sediments for long periods and can result in adverse effects on the diversity and abundance of benthic communities.

► Trash and Debris. Trash (e.g., paper, plastic, polystyrene packing foam, aluminum materials) and biodegradable organic matter (e.g., leaves, grass cuttings, food waste) are general waste products that are deposited by anthropogenic (human-caused) and natural processes. The primary source of trash and debris in the planning area is deposition by park visitors. The presence of trash and debris may adversely affect water bodies’ recreational value and aquatic habitat. Excess organic matter can create high biochemical oxygen demand in a stream, thereby lowering the water quality. In addition, in areas where stagnant water exists, the presence of excess organic matter can result in the growth of undesirable organisms and the release of odorous and hazardous compounds, such as hydrogen sulfide.

Regular operation and maintenance activities can be addressed through best management practices (BMPs), monitoring, and staff and public awareness, but concerns may arise about the direct effects of OHV use along stream crossings. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has conducted studies evaluating OHV stream crossing effects on water quality. USFS concluded that unimproved crossings have more effects on water quality than improved fords (in channel crossings), culverts, and bridges (USFS 2006). The research leading to that conclusion compared concentrations of suspended sediment (both upstream and downstream of each crossing type) on flowing streams during construction, maintenance, and traffic use. The results varied quite a bit but showed that, for culverts and fords, sediment increased downstream during active construction and occasionally during a subsequent rainfall. Traffic usually produced detectable increases downstream. The longer-term effects of fords on water quality appeared to depend on factors such as the type of surfacing on the ford and its approaches, vehicle type and use level, and time since disturbance for reconstruction or maintenance. Oil, grease, and other chemical


pollutants can wash off as vehicles drive through the water. USFS noted no evidence that these pollutants cause detectable or substantial water quality problems at fords.

Preliminary monitoring results from three streams in the Fishlake National Forest in Utah, discussed in the USFS report, showed how OHV traffic through fords affects turbidity, streambed fines, and concentrations of volatile organic compounds and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The referenced study measured downstream turbidity and numbers of vehicles crossing an unimproved ford over several years, and established a relationship between the two parameters. Turbidity attenuated rapidly with distance downstream from one study crossing, and pebble counts demonstrated that the percentage of fines in the streambed near the crossing increased after a 6-day OHV event (i.e., 200–500 crossings).

Driving across an unprotected streambed also may mobilize sediment that already is present but otherwise would not be transported during low flows. USFS summarized a study comparing natural (unimproved) fords to hardened fords and found much less sediment appeared downstream of a hardened ford after vehicles crossed. Although naphthalene and gas- and diesel-range organic compounds were detected during the study of the OHV event referenced in the USFS report, all were below levels of concern for ambient surface water. The study concluded that, for the hydrocarbon parameters measured, OHV traffic did not appear to cause substantial damage to the aquatic environment.

Under the Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA (SWMP), structures, roads, and trails in the planning area would be properly sited with vegetated buffers. In addition, stream crossings would be sited for circulation and design measures that would reduce erosion, minimize the downstream sedimentation effects of crossings, and limit other water quality effects. Three of the five existing stream crossings in the planning area have already been hard surfaced, and hard surfacing of the remaining crossings is planned as part of the SWMP. In addition, culverts or bridge crossings would be considered in highly erosive areas. Design measures for roads and trails may include providing sediment traps or filter areas, armoring stream channel approaches, hardening the stream crossing surface, protecting streambanks from vehicle backwash and overflow during flooding, and modifying super elevation (direction of tilt) so that roads and trails drain away from stream corridors to the extent possible.

Water Guidelines 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 in the General Plan (shown below along with the other General Plan guidelines referred to here) call for implementation of the stormwater management program and site-specific BMPs in accordance with the SWMP (or applicable subsequent document) and the OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control (OHV BMP Manual). Water Guideline 2.5 calls for incorporation of permanent water quality control features, as appropriate, when detailed designs for future facilities are prepared. Criteria from the SWMP, the OHV BMP Manual, and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines (Soil Standard) are to be incorporated into site-specific facility designs. Water Guideline 2.6 calls for improvement and rehabilitation, as described in the SWMP, of any degraded areas where substantial erosion from surface water runoff has occurred. Water Guidelines 2.7 and 2.8 call for the closure of


portions of the planning area to visitor use if standards in the SWMP, the OHV BMP Manual, and the OHMVR Division Soil Standard cannot be met. Closure also may occur during rainfall events to reduce erosion and landslide hazards. Water Guideline 2.9 restricts the use of certain types of tires and other recreational vehicle accessories that tend to accelerate erosion. Based on the visitor experience areas presented in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan, a full range of park facilities may be considered on areas with less than 20 percent slopes. Trails may be constructed (with BMPs) in areas with slopes between 20 percent and 45 percent, but buildings are not to be constructed in these areas. On areas with slopes in excess of 45 percent, trails and park facilities are to be limited and are to serve only the most advanced riders. BMPs would be implemented in each area to manage erosion potential.

In addition, Soils Guideline 1.5 in the General Plan (shown below) states that hillclimbing activities are to be restricted to the hills adjacent to Corral Hollow Creek. Soils Guideline 1.5 also says that soils mapped as Altamont clay (0–65 percent slope) and Saurin loam and clay loam (0–65 percent slope) are the preferred locations for these activities because the clay content renders them less susceptible to erosion. BMPs would be implemented throughout the planning area in both the Corral Hollow and Arroyo Seco watersheds.






• modifying super elevation (direction of tilt) such that roads and trails drain away from stream corridors.


► Water Guideline 2.2: Implement BMPs in operating the SVRA, consistent with the SWMP or applicable subsequent document. Monitor water quality regularly and implement adaptive management practices as warranted. Adaptive management practices used may include permanent or seasonal area closures, facility redesign, and hillside restoration.

► Water Guideline 2.3: Implement the requirements of the SWMP or subsequent amendments or replacement documents. These requirements include use of sediment basins, revegetation and


erosion control blankets, dust suppressants, gully rehabilitation, and monitoring for water quality as prescribed in the plan and may include additional measures in the future.

► Water Guideline 2.4: Before, during, and after the construction of facilities proposed and envisioned in this General Plan, implement all water quality control measures required under the NPDES Construction General Permit. Develop a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including the identification of BMPs that must be implemented to reduce water quality degradation of receiving waters during and after construction activities. Incorporate construction BMPs from the OHV BMP Manual or subsequent applicable document, as appropriate.

► Water Guideline 2.5: When developing detailed plans for facilities proposed and envisioned in this General Plan, incorporate permanent water quality control features, as appropriate, with guidance from the SWMP and any subsequent amendments or replacement documents. Incorporate information from the OHV BMP Manual and the OHMVR Soil Standard (or subsequent amendments) as appropriate to designs. Select water quality control features appropriate to site conditions at Carnegie SVRA and consistent with state-of-the art science on water quality management.

► Water Guideline 2.6: To reduce erosion and sedimentation, improve areas that have experienced substantial erosion from surface water runoff as determined by annual inspections. Implement rehabilitation concepts for these features as described in the SWMP or subsequent or replacement documents.

► Water Guideline 2.7: Close an area to OHV use if it has been determined that the area cannot feasibly be rehabilitated or reclaimed in accordance with OHMVR Division water quality management standards.


► Water Guideline 2.9: Prohibit recreational use of special vehicles and accessories, such as “widowmaker” tires, chained tires, or tracked vehicles, in the SVRA unless special permission is given by the District Superintendent. The District Superintendent has the authority to prohibit use of any vehicle or accessory that is inappropriate in the SVRA.

► Soils Guideline 1.5: Restrict hillclimbing activities to the hills adjacent to Corral Hollow Creek. In this area, soils mapped as Altamont clay (0–65 percent slope) and Saurin loam and clay loam (0–65 percent slope) are preferred for intensive hillclimbing.

Based on discussions between the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the OHMVR Division, the planning area appears to fit within the nontraditional small municipal separate storm sewer


system program. (See the “Hydrology and Water Quality Regulations” section in Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan.) The SWRCB’s General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (WQ Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) (MS4 General Permit) requires dischargers to develop and implement a stormwater management plan with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” performance standard that is specified in Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402(p).

The Carnegie SWMP was developed to comply with the MS4 General Permit. It was designed to reduce or eliminate pollutant discharges from the planning area (according to the “maximum extent practicable” performance standard specified in CWA Section 402[p]) by providing descriptive BMPs that are currently being used or are proposed for stormwater management in the planning area. These BMPs fall under six program areas (also referred to as Minimum Control Measures) that are required by the SWRCB, plus a seventh program area related specifically to OHV management:

► Public Education ► Public Participation ► Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ► Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control ► Post Construction Stormwater Management ► Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping ► OHV Trails and Facilities Management

The SWRCB requires that an element be included regarding detection and elimination of illicit discharges, to encourage operators to develop an extensive awareness of their storm sewer systems and the potential situations that can result in an illicit discharge. State Parks has implemented and would continue to implement BMPs throughout the planning area to reduce runoff and control erosion, using sediment ponds, erosion control blankets, seed, mulch, fiber rolls, gully rehabilitation, and dust suppressants. To meet the minimum requirements for detection and elimination of illicit discharges as required by the MS4 General Permit, the Carnegie SWMP contains the following key requirements (State Parks 2011:25–31):

► mapping of pollutant sources;

► signage explaining why discharges are detrimental and directing visitors to contact park headquarters if an illicit discharge is observed;

► an inspection and elimination program that includes:

• regular detailed visual inspections of the planning area, with results recorded on an inspection form filed at the park headquarters, including the type of discharge and the corrective measure taken; and


• investigation of illicit discharges that are brought to the attention of park staff by visitors, also requiring that results be recorded on an inspection form filed at the park headquarters, including the type of discharge and the corrective measure taken; and

► dissemination of educational materials to park visitors.

To meet the minimum requirements for pollution prevention and good housekeeping as required in the MS4 General Permit, the Carnegie SWMP includes the following key requirements (State Parks 2011:41–46):

► presentation of an annual training program for all maintenance personnel, to educate Carnegie SVRA staff members about proper operation and maintenance techniques, designed to minimize or prevent pollutants from being mobilized into receiving water bodies;

► enforcement of vehicle and equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing standards, such as inspection and prompt repair of leaks and limiting vehicles washing to designated areas;

► implementation of appropriate hazardous-materials handling and storage procedures;

► spill prevention and control, as specified in the injury and illness prevention plan prepared by State Parks for the planning area;

► proper waste storage and litter control; and

► implementation of sanitary/septic tank management procedures, designed to prevent contamination of surface water or groundwater.

The SWMP also includes detailed requirements to reduce erosion and sediment transport, in the Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control, Post Construction Storm Water Management, and OHV Trails and Facilities Management elements (discussed further in Impacts 3.8-2, 3.8-3, and 3.8-4).

Currently, State Parks does not have a separate storm sewer system to manage stormwater runoff from the planning area. Runoff from the planning area infiltrates into the subsurface, evaporates, or flows directly into Corral Hollow Creek and its tributaries as surface water runoff. Three primary sediment basin systems in the planning area help to reduce pollutant transport into Corral Hollow Creek, and the SWMP includes BMPs that would be implemented to augment and improve each of them as follows (State Parks 2011:60–61):

► Tyson Basin System. This subwatershed (400 acres) is buffered from Corral Hollow Creek by a 10,000-square-foot basin (Tyson Basin). An additional sediment basin, the Tyson Pretreatment Basin, is proposed immediately upstream of the Tyson Basin to augment the treatment effectiveness of the existing sediment basin. The basin would serve as a pretreatment facility for removal of large particles. Flows from the pretreatment basin would enter the existing Tyson Basin via a buried


polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The inlet pipe to the Tyson Basin would discharge to a riprap apron, to prevent scouring. Adding the pretreatment basin would reduce the maintenance requirements of the existing Tyson Basin and would substantially reduce sediment transport into Corral Hollow Creek from this location. Collectively, the Tyson Basin and the new pretreatment basin would provide 48 hours of detention time for water quality treatment.

► Carrol Basin System. Over the past 30 years, flows from the Carrol Canyon subwatershed (328 acres) have been treated by the 4,500-square-foot Carrol Basin. Relocating and enlarging the basin or adding a sediment basin to increase the capacity either upstream or downstream of the current basin has been proposed. A PVC skimmer may be used to drain the basin.

► Kiln Basin System. Currently, the Kiln Canyon subwatershed (383 acres) is buffered from Corral Hollow Creek by the 1,800-square-foot Kiln Basin. A new sediment basin is proposed near the base of Kiln Canyon to augment the current capacity. Because the basin would be located in a high-traffic area, it would be surrounded by a barrier to prevent rider access. The basin would be designed to provide 48 hours of detention time and would help to manage stormwater runoff from any trails or roadways located in the upper portions of Kiln Canyon.

The planned improvements to these basins would increase the effectiveness of the sediment basin systems in the planning area by increasing the sediment holding capacity, reducing the rate of stormwater runoff, and reducing turbidity and sediment deposition downstream in Corral Hollow Creek.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines and the Carnegie SWMP, the impact related to a potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.8-2

Creation of or Contribution to Erosion and Stormwater Runoff by Short-Term Construction Activities

Construction activities associated with General Plan implementation such as grading, excavation, and trenching would result in ground disturbance. As described in Impact 3.8-1, only limited excavation would be required for new facilities. Construction would be required primarily for new trails and access roads.

Excavation or other disturbance of portions of the planning area by earthmoving activities, particularly during a rainstorm, would substantially increase the potential for soil erosion, stormwater runoff, and downstream transport of pollutants (including sediment). As shown in Table 2-3, “Characteristics of Soil Types in the Planning Area,” in the General Plan, most of the soils in the planning area fall into hydrologic soil groups C and D. These broad-level U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service ratings indicate that the runoff rates for most soils in the planning area would be high, especially if the soils were to be denuded of vegetation and subjected to compaction.


As also shown in General Plan Table 2-3, the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service has rated several of the soils in the planning area with moderate to high susceptibility to wind erosion. Salix and Geosyntec indicated that measured average wind velocities in the SVRA vicinity during the summer months (June through August) ranged from 14 to 17 miles per hour (mph) and maximum velocities ranged from 25 to 27 mph. Wintertime average velocities ranged from 7 to 8 mph and maximum velocities ranged from 16 to 18 mph (State Parks 2007a:89).

Furthermore, the potential for leaks from construction equipment (e.g., from fuels, oils, and lubricants) and accidental spills of other hazardous materials would exist during the construction process. Earth-disturbing activities during construction in the planning area would be short term and temporary; however, soil erosion, stormwater runoff, siltation, and accidental discharges of construction-related hazardous materials could degrade the water quality of Corral Hollow Creek, Arroyo Seco, and/or groundwater.

However, as indicated in Water Guideline 2.4 of the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.8-1), State Parks would prepare a SWPPP for projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land, as required under the NPDES Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would include BMPs to reduce water quality degradation of receiving waters by construction activities. BMPs would be implemented throughout the planning area. Construction-related BMPs from the OHV BMP Manual (State Parks 2007b), specifically designed to reduce erosion and control pollutant transport, would also be implemented at each construction site. BMPs that could be used during construction activities fall into the following broad categories: erosion prevention, surface stabilization, tracking control, runoff control, sediment control, and road and trail drainage (State Parks 2007b).

The following are examples of specific types of BMPs from the OHV BMP Manual that could be used during construction:

► Erosion control (e.g., blankets, mulches, hydroseeding techniques) ► Scour control (e.g., check dams and armoring as in upland swales and ditches) ► Sediment basins ► Sediment traps ► Silt fences ► Fiber rolls ► Track-walking techniques ► Dust control ► Tracking control ► Waste management

With adherence to General Plan Water Guideline 2.2 (shown above under Impact 3.8-1), the stormwater quality and erosion control measures that are identified in the SWMP would be implemented throughout the planning area. BMPs also would be implemented throughout the planning area in both the Corral


Hollow and Arroyo Seco watersheds. The SWMP includes a detailed set of requirements to control construction-related stormwater runoff (State Parks 2011:33–36): training of engineers and contractors, inspection and monitoring of the construction site, and use of the BMPs in the OHV BMP Manual and/or the BMP handbooks published by the California Stormwater Quality Association.

State Parks also would implement a construction site management program that would include the following monitoring and reporting requirements (State Parks 2011:34):

► Name of the inspector and contractor

► Date and time of the inspection

► Phase of construction

► Brief description of current construction activities

► List of each BMP installed at the site

► Statement of whether or not each BMP was installed and maintained in accordance with the SWPPP and OHV BMP Manual

► Brief description of any deficiencies noted with the BMPs

► Brief description of the maintenance requirements for each deficient BMP

► Evidence or lack of evidence of an off-site discharge of pollutants

The OHMVR Division would file copies of each inspection form in the sector office, along with the associated notice of intent and SWPPP. The OHMVR Division would track and monitor the number and nature of the deficiencies noted for each contractor. Any contractor that consistently failed to implement any component of the SWPPP would be dismissed.

Furthermore, the OHMVR Division has developed and would implement an injury and illness prevention plan, including emergency containment and cleanup procedures.

A SWPPP requires implementation of permanent BMPs and associated maintenance (as addressed in the discussion of Impact 3.5-3, “Potential for Short-Term Construction-Related Erosion and Loss of Topsoil,” in Section 3.5, “Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources”). With adherence to Water Guideline 2.1 (shown above under Impact 3.8-1), facilities would not be located within or immediately adjacent to riparian or stream corridors or within waters of the United States or the state (including seeps, ponds, or drainages). Water Guideline 2.5 (also shown above under Impact 3.8-1) calls for incorporation, as appropriate, of permanent water quality control features when detailed designs for future facilities are prepared. Criteria from the SWMP, the OHV BMP Manual, and the OHMVR Division Soil Standard would be incorporated into site-specific facility designs.


Also, with adherence to Soils Guideline 1.1 in the General Plan (shown below), all Carnegie SVRA facilities would meet the OHMVR Division Soil Standard (State Parks 2008), which contains trail design and construction criteria that are designed to limit erosion.

► Soils Guideline 1.1: Manage Carnegie SVRA facilities to meet the current OHMVR Division Soil Standard or subsequent amendments or replacement documents.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, the water quality impact from short-term construction-related erosion and stormwater runoff would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.8-3

Contribution to Transport of Sediment and Other Pollutants from Operations, Leading to Erosion and Stormwater Runoff

Visitor use of Carnegie SVRA would disturb the soil, and human activity would increase the potential for erosion. Specifically, the development of structures and soil compaction would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the amount and rate of surface water runoff. The removal of vegetative cover also would increase erosion potential. In addition, erosion may occur in places where unprotected soil surfaces are exposed to regular or continual disturbance (e.g., OHV use). The degree of erosion that these activities may cause and the resulting amount of pollutants (including sediment) transported would depend on soil conditions, climate, and the frequency and amount of disturbance.

As described in Section 2.3.1, “Physical Resources,” of the General Plan, the sources of erosion in the planning area consist of roads and trails, trail and stream crossings, gullies, tailings piles, former livestock grazing, and sheet erosion. Four tributaries drain to Corral Hollow Creek in the planning area. Three of these tributaries enter sediment basins before joining the creek, while the fourth enters a series of rock check dams and biofiltration areas designed to slow flows and capture sediment. In addition to the sediment basins, which are cleaned annually if the respective basin capacity is reached, several of the subwatershed drainages have rock check dams installed, to limit incision caused by stormwater and capture suspended sediments.

Surface water runoff from the drainage areas located within the planning area (shown in General Plan Figure 2-7) discharges directly to Corral Hollow Creek. In addition, a small portion of the western planning area is located in the Arroyo Seco watershed. Salix and Geosyntec (State Parks 2007a:66–112) provided a detailed review of conditions in the planning area and performed hydrologic modeling to determine runoff and erosion potential in the Corral Hollow watershed. A summary of the modeling results is included in Section 2.3.1 of the General Plan.

The conclusion of the modeling conducted for the watershed assessment considered the relative quantities of sediment lost from existing and projected future uses, the probability of future erosion, and the likelihood of sediment delivery to the creek. Protective measures were developed for each


inventoried feature. These measures were designed to provide economical and feasible solutions for preventing and reducing erosion and the transport of sediment and other pollutants. The measures would be implemented throughout the planning area in both the Corral Hollow and Arroyo Seco watersheds. The three primary sediment basin systems in the planning area would help to reduce pollutant transport into Corral Hollow Creek, and the Carnegie SWMP includes BMPs that would augment and improve each of them (see Impact 3.8-1).

The measures recommended in the watershed assessment were incorporated into the SWMP (State Parks 2011). The goal of the SWMP is to reduce or eliminate pollutant discharges from the planning area according to the “maximum extent practicable” performance standard specified in CWA Section 402(p). The SWMP is designed to achieve this goal by describing the BMPs that are currently being used or are proposed for stormwater management in the planning area. BMPs are included in the SWMP as required by the MS4 General Permit. These BMPs fall under six program areas (also referred to as Minimum Control Measures) required by the SWRCB, plus a seventh program area related specifically to OHV management:

► Public Education ► Public Participation ► Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ► Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control ► Post Construction Storm Water Management ► Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping ► OHV Trails and Facilities Management

The OHV trails section of the SWMP (State Parks 2007a:48–65) states that trails must be evaluated for soil loss, and that structural and nonstructural BMPs for stormwater control (and a monitoring program) must be developed and implemented. The program to minimize soil loss from trails focuses on the following key components:

► Reducing trail density ► Breaking hydrological connections ► Reducing the velocity of concentrated flows ► Developing sustainable trails ► Minimizing soil disturbance during storm events ► Educating OHV users to “stay on trails”

The program to reduce erosion from stormwater emphasizes methods of capturing sediment to the maximum extent practicable before the stormwater enters Corral Hollow Creek. This program focuses on the following key components:

► increasing vegetation cover near drainages;


► slowing and temporarily retaining stormwater within the subtributaries to Corral Hollow Creek using check dams and vegetation; and

► improving the Tyson, Carrol, and Kiln sediment basin systems to increase holding capacity and provide stormwater retention for a 48-hour period.

To monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs in each program, the SWMP includes a series of measurable goals, established for each minimum control measure. Measurable goals are intended to gauge compliance with the MS4 General Permit and the effectiveness of the SWMP. The goals were selected specifically for each BMP; they take into account the site conditions, climate, and land use activities. Examples of measurable goals include constructing a sediment basin, monitoring for specific turbidity limits, implementing a public-awareness program, and continuing to use a properly installed and maintained vehicle wheel-wash facility. Measurable goals also include conducting quantifiable assessments of the number of educational brochures distributed, the average score on a training quiz, or the number of illicit discharges recorded during a permitting cycle. The SWMP also includes an implementation schedule for each BMP. The implementation schedule generally follows the 5-year permitting cycle.

Water Guidelines 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.8-1 along with the other Water guidelines referred to here) call for implementation of the stormwater management program and site-specific BMPs in accordance with the SWMP or applicable subsequent document and the OHV BMP Manual. Water Guideline 2.5 calls for incorporation of permanent water quality control features, as appropriate, when detailed designs for future facilities are prepared. Criteria from the SWMP, the OHV BMP Manual, and the OHMVR Division Soil Standard would be incorporated into site-specific facility designs. Water Guideline 2.6 calls for improvement and rehabilitation, as described in the SWMP, of any degraded areas where substantial erosion from surface water runoff has occurred. Water Guidelines 2.7 and 2.8 call for the closure of portions of the planning area to visitor use if standards in the SWMP, the OHV BMP Manual, and the OHMVR Division Soil Standard cannot be met. Closure also may occur during rainfall events, to reduce erosion and landslide hazards. Water Guideline 2.9 restricts the use of certain types of tires and other recreational vehicle accessories that tend to accelerate erosion. Based on the visitor experience areas presented in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan, a full range of SVRA facilities may be considered on areas with less than 20 percent slopes. Trails may be constructed (with BMPs) in areas with slopes between 20 percent and 45 percent, but buildings are not to be constructed in these areas. On areas with slopes in excess of 45 percent, trails and park facilities are to be limited and serve only the most advanced riders. BMPs would be implemented in each area to manage erosion potential.

Soils Guideline 1.5 in the General Plan (also shown above under Impact 3.8-1) states that hillclimbing activities are to be restricted to the hills adjacent to Corral Hollow Creek, and that soils mapped as Altamont clay (0–65 percent slope) and Saurin loam and clay loam (0–65 percent slope) are the preferred locations for these activities because the clay content renders them less susceptible to erosion.


With adherence to these General Plan guidelines, the operational impact on surface water quality caused by erosion and transport of sediment and other pollutants would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.8-4

Potential for Substantial Alteration of Drainage Patterns, Resulting in Substantial Erosion or Flooding from Increased Surface Water Runoff

New development and redevelopment could result in changes to drainage patterns and increases in impervious surface area that would increase the volume and peak-flow rate of the runoff. This runoff could result in increased erosion and/or flooding if left unchecked.

As stated previously, the General Plan contemplates installation of only a limited number of new buildings and concrete pads. The primary new facilities in the planning area would be new trails and access roads. For new creek crossings, State Parks would either employ culverts or harden the creek bottom surface at the crossing (e.g., using articulated concrete block) to prevent erosion and avoid streamflow obstruction. The installation of new roads, trails, and stream crossings would be controlled by the design, construction, and monitoring criteria that are specified in the OHV BMP Manual (State Parks 2007b), the OHMVR Division Soil Standard (State Parks 2008), and the SWMP (State Parks 2011).

The SWMP contains a postconstruction stormwater management element (State Parks 2011:37–40), as required by the MS4 General Permit. This element entails implementing the following components:

► criteria contained in the OHV BMP Manual;

► site planning procedures, using a Project Evaluation Form developed by State Parks, wherein park personnel would assess the compatibility of proposed facilities with existing landscape features, such as proximity to watercourses and stormwater facilities; and

► site-specific and structural BMPs such as:

• storage of soil, gravel, and construction materials in permanent, enclosed concrete bins;

• use of gravel-filled bags to stabilize minor hillside work;

• watering of trails and roads during and after maintenance activities to ensure compaction of materials;

• grading of roads and installation with rolling dips to reduce accelerated erosion and decrease gully generation; and


• use of fencing, large rocks, tree limbs, and hay bales to provide buffer or exclusion zones to prevent OHV access.

Water Guidelines 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.8-1 along with the other Water guidelines referred to here) call for implementation of the stormwater management program and site-specific BMPs in accordance with the SWMP or applicable subsequent document and the OHV BMP Manual. Water Guideline 2.5 calls for incorporation of permanent water quality control features, as appropriate, when detailed designs for future facilities are prepared. Criteria from the SWMP, the OHV BMP Manual, and the OHMVR Division Soil Standard would need to be incorporated into site-specific facility designs. Water Guideline 2.6 calls for improvement and rehabilitation, as described in the SWMP, of any degraded areas where substantial erosion from surface water runoff has occurred. Water Guidelines 2.7 and 2.8 call for the closure of portions of the planning area to visitor use if standards in the SWMP, the OHV BMP Manual, and the OHMVR Division Soil Standard could not be met. Closure also may occur during rainfall events, to reduce erosion and landslide hazards. Water Guideline 2.9 restricts the use of certain types of tires and other recreational vehicle accessories that tend to accelerate erosion.

In addition, Soils Guideline 1.4 in the General Plan (shown below) limits the future construction of new facilities, depending on the amount of slope to help control erosion. Soils Guideline 1.5 (shown above under Impact 3.8-1) states that hillclimbing activities are to be restricted to the hills adjacent to Corral Hollow Creek, and soils mapped as Altamont clay (0–65 percent slope) and Saurin loam and clay loam (0–65 percent slope) are the preferred locations for these activities because the clay content renders them less susceptible to erosion. BMPs would be implemented throughout the planning area, in both the Corral Hollow and Arroyo Seco watersheds.

► Soils Guideline 1.4: Use slope to help manage soils. A full range of park facilities may be considered on areas with less than 20 percent slopes. Trails may be constructed (with BMPs) in areas with slopes between 20 percent and 45 percent, but buildings should not be constructed in these areas. On areas with slopes in excess of 45 percent, trails and park facilities should be limited and serve only the most advanced riders. Appropriate BMPs should be implemented in each area to manage erosion potential.

With adherence to the General Plan guidelines, the impact from substantial alteration of drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or flooding from increased surface water runoff would be less than significant.



IMPACT 3.8-5

Potential for Substantial Interference with Groundwater Recharge

The planning area is not located in a groundwater basin as defined by the California Department of Water Resources in Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2014). Groundwater Basin 2-19, Livermore Valley, is located west of the planning area and Groundwater Basin 5-22.15, San Joaquin Valley Tracy, is located to the east. In this undefined groundwater area where water is drawn from fractured bedrock, groundwater quantity and quality varies from well site to well site because of the unpredictable yields of the fractured rock system that typifies the regional geology.

The primary source of groundwater recharge in the planning area is located within the alluvial soils in and around Corral Hollow Creek. However, groundwater recharge also occurs throughout the planning area as rainfall penetrates through the shallower soil layers and into the cracks of fractured bedrock on the hillsides.

Salix and Geosyntec indicated that less than 5 percent of the existing planning area consists of impervious surfaces (State Parks 2011:25). The General Plan contemplates installing only a limited number of new buildings and concrete pads, which would be small and few compared to the large amount of pervious acreage in the planning area.

Most of the new facilities would be associated with roads and trails. As described in Impact 3.8-1, planned improvements would increase the effectiveness of the existing sediment basin systems by increasing the stormwater holding capacity that allows infiltration to groundwater. Furthermore, Water Guideline 2.1 in the General Plan (shown below) requires the management of vegetated buffers along stream corridors that would allow for continued infiltration in those areas. Also, although OHV use would result in compaction of the roads and trails over time, the trails would not be hard surfaced, and some infiltration to groundwater would still occur.







• modifying super elevation (direction of tilt) such that roads and trails drain away from stream corridors.


Therefore, the impact related to substantial interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.8-6

Potential to Create Hazards to People and Structures from Flooding

The General Plan process did not consider the construction of new housing anywhere in the planning area. Furthermore, the planning area is not located in an area that is protected by a levee or dam. However, the draft preferred concept plan shown in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan indicates that a gathering/services area would be located in Carnegie SVRA on the north side of Corral Hollow Creek. Potential uses in this gathering/services area could include campgrounds, picnic areas, restrooms, parking areas, concessions, a ranger station, a training site (that could include a classroom/meeting space), and an interpretative facility/visitor center. As shown in Figure 3.8-1, approximately 27.5 acres of the gathering/services area would be located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain.

Several floods have been recorded in Corral Hollow Canyon during historic time. A flood in 1862 destroyed the workings associated with coal mining enterprises in the canyon. Another flood in 1909 damaged the Carnegie brick and pottery works. In 1911, a third flood destroyed the railroad (built by John Treadwell, which became part of the transcontinental Western Pacific Railway Company in 1903) along with the pottery workings and some of the coal workings associated with the Tesla and Carnegie mining operations. (State Parks 2007a.)

It is not anticipated that new facilities would be placed in the 100-year floodplain. If new facilities were placed in the 100-year floodplain, however, the potential would exist for structural damage and personal injury if a flood were to occur. Furthermore, a ranger station, training site, or interpretative facility/visitor center, if placed in the 100-year floodplain, could potentially impede flood flows. Salix and Geosyntec (State Parks 2007a:113–118) prepared a hydraulic analysis for the floodplain area along Corral Hollow Creek within the original Carnegie SVRA (which they indicated was intended for use if structures were installed within the floodplain), and as supporting documentation for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA.

However, the modeling for that analysis was conducted for a proposed stream restoration project that would have involved installing bioengineered and gabion-type structures for streambank stabilization, constructing engineered low-water stream crossings, and excavating and realigning Corral Hollow


Sources: FEMA 2009; data compiled by AECOM in 2014

Figure 3.8-1. Conceptual Facilities and the 100-Year Floodplain


Creek. This stream restoration project has not been implemented, and discussions between State Parks and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board have concluded that it may never be implemented. Because the hydraulic analysis assumed that the stream restoration features and realignment would be implemented before development of any structures, the modeling results in the watershed assessment cannot be used for this impact analysis related to the future placement of structures within the 100-year floodplain.

Water Guideline 4.1 in the General Plan (shown below) calls on State Parks personnel to avoid flood hazard areas in the Corral Hollow Creek floodplain in detailed site-specific plans for facilities. This guideline provides for locating new facilities outside flood hazard areas. In the unlikely event that facilities must be placed in the floodplain, facilities are to be designed to withstand occasional flooding, minimize effects of seasonal flooding, and protect visitors from flood hazards through design and adaptive management measures. Structures that must be located within potential flood areas are to be designed to avoid substantially impeding or redirecting flood flows. In addition, if buildings are planned for development in the 100-year floodplain, State Parks should prepare a hydraulic analysis:

► Water Guideline 4.1: When developing detailed plans for facilities envisioned in this General Plan, consider flood hazard areas in the Corral Hollow Creek floodplain. Design facilities to be located outside of the flood hazard areas wherever possible. If facilities cannot be located outside of potential flood hazard areas, they should be designed to withstand occasional flooding; minimize effects on facilities from seasonal flooding; and protect visitors from flood hazards through design, and through applications of adaptive management such as seasonal closures of areas at risk of flooding. If structures must be located within potential flood areas, they should be designed such that the structure does not substantially impede or redirect flood flows.

If buildings (i.e., a ranger station, training facilities, or a visitor/interpretative center) are planned for development in the 100-year floodplain, State Parks should do the following:

• Prepare an analysis using a standard hydraulic model, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System. Model existing and projected water surface elevations, flow rates, and flow widths for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year (0.01 annual exceedance probability) storm events. The modeling results will demonstrate that flood flows will be appropriately channeled and contained, so that the risk to people or damage to structures within or downgradient from the proposed development in the Carnegie SVRA stream reach will not occur. The modeling results also will demonstrate that hydromodification will not be increased from predevelopment levels, indicating that existing stream geomorphology will not be altered.

• Prepare and submit a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to FEMA, showing the existing 100-year (0.01 annual exceedance probability) floodplain for the site, and obtain an approved Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA for the proposed developed condition.


Campgrounds, picnic areas, restrooms, and parking areas will not be included in these requirements.

Given these restrictions, it is highly unlikely that any development would occur in the floodplain and guidelines are in place to protect people and structures from flooding in the unlikely event that facilities must be placed in the floodplain. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.


Impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan.


3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING

This section describes existing land use and conditions in the planning area. It also discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan related to land use and planning.


Section 2.1 of the General Plan describes regional and surrounding land uses, and General Plan Section 2.2 describes existing land uses and facilities in the planning area. Land uses near the planning area are shown in Figure 2-1 of the General Plan.



No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to land use are applicable to the planning area.


Section 5090.43 of the California Public Resources Code outlines the following policies pertinent to Carnegie SVRA:

(a) State vehicular recreation areas shall be established on lands where there are quality recreational opportunities for off-highway motor vehicles and in accordance with the requirements of Section 5090.35. Areas shall be developed, managed, and operated for the purpose of making the fullest public use of the outdoor recreational opportunities present. The natural and cultural elements of the environment may be managed or modified to enhance the recreational experience consistent with the requirements of Section 5090.35.

(b) Lands for state vehicular recreation areas shall be selected for acquisition so as to minimize the need for establishing sensitive areas.

(c) After January 1, 1988, no new cultural or natural preserves or state wildernesses shall be established within state vehicular recreation areas. To protect natural and cultural values, sensitive areas within state vehicular recreation areas may be designated by the division if the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation therefore. These sensitive areas shall be managed by the division in accordance with Sections 5019.71 and 5019.74, which define the purpose and management of natural and cultural preserves.

If facility use by off-highway motor vehicles damages natural or cultural resources, appropriate measures must be taken to protect these lands from further damage. These measures may include

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Land Use and Planning 3.9-1

building physical barriers and will include restoring natural resources and repairing damage to cultural resources.

State Parks prepares general plans for its park units (e.g., SVRAs), which direct the long-range development and management of those park units by providing broad policy and program guidance. Every State Park unit must have an approved general plan before any major park facilities can be developed. State Parks adopted the first general plan for Carnegie SVRA in 1981. Revising the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a new, broad-based policy document, to establish a long-range vision for the SVRA (including the expansion area) and provide goals and guidelines directing future improvements, services, and programs. This draft environmental impact report (DEIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of General Plan implementation on the planning area.

LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES

The Alameda County General Plan, San Joaquin County General Plan 2010, and related planning documents are comprehensive guides to development in the two counties. They include coordinated implementation programs to achieve desired community goals and objectives. Land use decisions about topics such as area plans, zonings, subdivisions, and public-agency projects must be consistent with the general plans. Because Carnegie SVRA is owned and operated by the state, it is not subject to local policies or ordinances. Nonetheless, State Parks’ Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division intends to develop Carnegie SVRA in a manner compatible with the surrounding community. Therefore, these policies and ordinances were considered as part of this environmental evaluation.

ALAMEDA COUNTY

EAST COUNTY AREA PLAN The Alameda County General Plan includes various area plans covering the unincorporated county. The East County Area Plan (ECAP) covers 418 square miles in the eastern portion of Alameda County, including the area surrounding Bethany Reservoir. The ECAP was adopted in 1994 and amended in 2002. The plan identifies the need for public facilities and services in eastern Alameda County, and it provides the basis for county zoning and approvals and other regulatory actions (Alameda County 2002). In November 2000, Alameda County voters passed Measure D, which amended the ECAP to specify the location and definition of land uses in eastern Alameda County. No goals or policies identified in the ECAP are applicable to the planning area.

Most of the expansion area is designated by the ECAP as Large Parcel Agriculture. Lands in the westernmost portion of the planning area in Alameda County and in the eastern portion of the expansion area are designated as Parklands. Lands north of Carnegie SRVA are designated as Major Public, and the lands north of the expansion area are designated as Large Parcel Agriculture (see Figure 2-21, “County-Designated Land Uses in and near the Planning Area,” in the General Plan). The ECAP describes these land use designations as follows (Alameda County 2002):

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.9-2 Land Use and Planning

► Large Parcel Agriculture. This designation represents agricultural lands with a minimum parcel size of 100 acres. The Large Parcel Agriculture designation allows agricultural uses, processing facilities, and limited support service; secondary residential units; visitor-serving commercial facilities; recreational uses, public and quasi-public uses; utility corridors; and similar uses compatible with agriculture.

► Major Public. This designation provides for government-owned regional and subregional facilities such as hospitals, jails, colleges, civic centers, and similar and compatible uses.

► Parklands. This designation provides for existing and planned public parks, open space, and recreational uses, including community, subregional, and regional facilities.

ALAMEDA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The Alameda County Zoning Ordinance presents a comprehensive guide for development in Alameda County. It provides a coordinated implementation program to help achieve desired community goals and objectives. Although the Zoning Ordinance does not apply directly to state-controlled properties, it does directly affect the surrounding land uses, and therefore, the overall context of the planning area.

The portion of the planning area that is located in Alameda County is zoned as a U District. As described in Section 17.50.010 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance, U Districts were originally established to include all unincorporated territory of the county not located in any other district. U Districts require special interim controls. Specifically, every use not otherwise prohibited by law is a conditional use in a U District and may be permitted only if approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Existing uses are permitted to continue in this district (Alameda County 2013:Chapter 17.50).

The expansion area is zoned as an Agricultural District. This district was established to promote implementation of the Alameda County General Plan’s land use proposals for agricultural and other nonurban uses, to conserve and protect existing agricultural uses, and to provide space for and encourage such uses in locations where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare (Alameda County 2013:Chapter 17.06). Allowable land uses include single-family dwelling units, agricultural land uses, grazing, fish hatcheries and rearing ponds, private and public hiking and riding trails, and boarding stables.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN The San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 was adopted on July 29, 1992. The general plan provides guidance for future growth in a manner that preserves San Joaquin County’s natural and rural assets. Most urban growth is directed to existing urban communities. No goals or policies identified in the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 are applicable to the planning area.


In June 2008, San Joaquin County began a process to update the 1992 general plan. San Joaquin County prepared a draft program EIR for the adoption and implementation of the 2035 San Joaquin County General Plan Update. In October 2013, a notice of preparation was circulated for public review and a public scoping meeting was held. The public review period for the draft program EIR was from October 21 through December 5, 2014 (San Joaquin County 2013).

Most of the planning area is designated as Public, but the narrow strip of the planning area along Corral Hollow Road is designated as Open Space–Resource Conservation. Lands north of the planning area also are designated as Public, and lands south and east of the planning area are designated as Agriculture-General (see Figure 2-21 in the General Plan). The San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 describes these land use designations as follows (San Joaquin County 1992):

► Agriculture-General. This designation represents areas generally committed to agriculture with viable commercial agricultural enterprises that require large land areas.

► Public. This designation provides for major institutional facilities.

► Open Space–Resource Conservation. This designation provides for those areas with significant resources that are generally to remain in open space.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The San Joaquin County Zoning Ordinance is codified as Title 9 of the San Joaquin County Code (San Joaquin County 2012). The planning area is included in the P-F (Public Facilities) zone, which provides for the establishment of the following types of facilities and areas:

► Major correctional, medical, and infrastructure facilities

► Publicly owned recreation facilities and areas and similar facilities and areas

► Educational facilities meeting state requirements for primary, secondary, and higher education

► Police and fire protection facilities

► Public facilities and supporting uses in areas where they are most likely to benefit San Joaquin County residents

The P-F zone implements the Public Facilities land use category of the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010.

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) manages public parks and trails in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. EBRPD’s 2007 and 2013 Existing and Potential Parklands and Trails Maps both identify the expansion area (listed on both maps as “Tesla/Carnegie SVRA”) as potential EBRPD parklands


(EBRPD 2007, 2013). The Master Plan 2012 refers to the expansion area (identified as “Tesla”) as a potential regional preserve (EBRPD 2012:71, 79).

On July 10, 2012, OHMVR Division staff members met with representatives of EBRPD to discuss the Carnegie SVRA General Plan, and specifically, the expansion area. OHMVR Division staff members provided background on the expansion area and communicated to the EBRPD representatives that the expansion area was not available for EBRPD to acquire or manage. The OHMVR Division welcomed EBRPD’s participation as a stakeholder in the Carnegie SVRA General Plan process (State Parks 2012).


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on land use planning and policy issues if it would:

► physically divide an established community;

► conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or

► conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP).


A single permanent residence is located in Carnegie SVRA. No seasonal on-site housing for temporary employees is available during the busy season. State Parks also owns several single-family residences outside the planning area, along both sides of Corral Hollow Creek between Mitchell Ravine and the Tesla Coal Mine Site, and two private residential areas containing single-family dwellings are situated along Corral Hollow Creek near Mitchell Ravine. These residences are not known formally or informally as an established community. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not physically divide an established community. This issue is not discussed further in this DEIR.

The expansion area is not within the coverage area of any adopted or proposed HCP or NCCP, and no HCP or NCCP is being developed for eastern Alameda County. An adopted HCP exists for San Joaquin County (the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan [SJMSCP]); however, the planning area is identified as an existing park under the SJMSCP, and implementing the General Plan would not change that land use. Furthermore, State Parks is not a signatory to the SJMSCP. Therefore, no conflicts would occur between the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and any adopted HCP or NCCP. This issue is not discussed further in this DEIR.




As stated previously, Carnegie SVRA is owned and operated by the state; therefore, it is not subject to local policies or ordinances. Nonetheless, the OHMVR Division intends to develop Carnegie SVRA in a manner compatible with the surrounding community. Therefore, Alameda County and San Joaquin County land use designations and zoning for the planning area were considered as part of this analysis.

The evaluation of the potential impacts of General Plan implementation related to land use and planning is based on a review of planning documents pertaining to the planning area and vicinity, including the ECAP (Alameda County 2002) and the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 (San Joaquin County 1992). The focus of the review was on inconsistencies and conflicts that could cause a significant environmental impact.

Any consistency issues between General Plan implementation and ECAP or San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 land use designations and zoning would be issues related to land use regulations. They would not be issues related to a physical environmental consequence of implementation. Therefore, any such consistency issues, in and of themselves, would not be considered a significant impact under CEQA, because the state cannot force the counties to change their general plans and the counties have no jurisdiction over state property. Specific impacts and consistency issues associated with other resource and issue areas are addressed in each technical section of this DEIR, as appropriate. These technical sections provide a detailed analysis of other relevant physical environmental effects that could result from General Plan implementation.


IMPACT 3.9-1

Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations

Most of the expansion area is designated by the ECAP as Large Parcel Agriculture and zoned Agricultural District. The Large Parcel Agriculture land use designation identifies agricultural lands with a minimum parcel size of 100 acres. The Agricultural District zoning is intended to promote agricultural and other nonurban uses, to conserve and protect existing agricultural uses, and to provide space for and encourage such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary. The Large Parcel Agriculture land use designation and Agricultural District zoning are used for parks and recreation facilities and for private and public hiking and riding trails. Lands in the westernmost portion of the planning area (in Alameda County and the eastern portion of the expansion area) are designated as Parklands and zoned U District. The Parklands land use designation includes existing and planned public parks, open space, and recreational uses, including community, subregional, and regional facilities. The U District zoning includes all unincorporated territory of the county not located in any other district and allows existing land uses to continue.


Most of the planning area in San Joaquin County is designated as Public, and the narrow strip of the planning area along Corral Hollow Road is designated as Open Space–Resource Conservation. All of the planning area is zoned by San Joaquin County as P-F (Public Facilities). The Public land use designation is used for major institutional facilities, including parks and recreation facilities, and the Open Space–Resource Conservation land use designation is used for areas with significant resources that generally are to remain open space. The P-F zoning provides for the establishment of public and quasi-public facilities, including parks and recreation facilities.

Activities envisioned in the General Plan, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, gathering areas, off-highway vehicle trails and facilities, and operational improvements, would expand the existing recreational uses of Carnegie SVRA and would result in an expansion of recreational uses in the expansion area. Figure 4-1 of the General Plan shows the preferred land use concept for the planning area. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the ECAP and San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 land use designations and zoning for the planning area.

State Parks land use guidelines and regulations, described in Section 5090.43 of the California Public Resources Code, regulate development in Carnegie SVRA. As described in Chapter 4 of the General Plan, Carnegie SVRA includes 11 proposed visitor experience areas, each with different characteristics, activities, or allowable uses, and resources and related management mandates. In all of the visitor experience areas, State Parks would manage natural and cultural resources to protect their integrity and comply with relevant state and federal laws and regulations regarding their management and protection. Table 4-1 of the General Plan provides descriptions of the visitor experience areas, including definitions, allowable uses, and area-specific resource management prescriptions or considerations, if applicable. Resource management goals and guidelines described in Section 4.4 of the General Plan would apply to all visitor experience areas.

General Plan implementation would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no impact would occur.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to land use and planning.


No significant impacts related to land use and planning would result with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.10 NOISE

This section describes ambient noise conditions in the planning area. It also discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential noise impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan.


Applicable acoustical terminology, the existing sound environment, and existing noise-sensitive land uses are described in Section 2.3.5 of the General Plan. Appendix C of this draft environmental impact report (DEIR) provides additional information about environmental noise. General Plan Section 2.3.5 also describes an ambient-noise-level measurement survey conducted by AECOM from Friday, February 22, through Monday, February 25, 2013, to quantify the existing acoustical environments in the planning area. Measurements of ambient sound levels were conducted at three locations, as described in Section 2.3.5. Figure 2-20 in the General Plan illustrates the three measurement locations and shows the locations of residences near and in the planning area. Table 3.10-1 summarizes the results of the noise surveys.

EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE

Traffic noise is the dominant noise source in the planning area and is influenced by the main road (Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road) adjacent to the planning area. Existing noise levels from vehicle traffic in the planning area vicinity, including regional roadways, were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic count data provided by the traffic consultant for the Carnegie SVRA General Plan (KD Anderson & Associates 2012; Appendix D). The FHWA model is based on California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receptor, and ground attenuation factors considered.

Table 3.10-2 summarizes the modeled traffic noise levels, provides noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of each major roadway in the vicinity of the planning area, and lists distances from the roadway centerlines to the 60-A-weighted decibel (dBA), 65-dBA, and 70-dBA day-night average noise level (Ldn) traffic noise contours. These traffic noise modeling results are based on existing peak-hour traffic volumes. As shown in Table 3.10-2, the location of the 60-dBA Ldn contour ranges from 5 feet to 202 feet from the centerline of the modeled roadways. The extent to which existing land uses in the planning area are affected by existing traffic noise depends on their proximity to the roadways and their individual sensitivity to noise.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Noise 3.10-1

Table 3.10-1. Summary of Noise Measurements

Noise Level Measurement Location

A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)

Day (Hourly Leq) Night (Hourly Leq) Day (Lmax) Night (Lmax)

Avg. Min Max Avg. Min Max Avg. Min Max Avg. Min Max

Weekend Days

Location 1: At the repeater area, southeast of Carnegie SVRA by the intersection of Stanford Research Institute (SRI) Road and Carnegie SVRA boundary fence

48 35 55 49 34 58 64 44 79 58 37 74

Location 2: At Tyson’s Basin in the day use area between the maintenance yard and the ranger station 65 48 70 52 36 59 80 62 92 62 53 75

Location 3: At a residential property (16961 Tesla Road) located in the northwest corner of the original Carnegie SVRA, and south of Tesla Road

59 39 74 47 35 56 64 54 106 57 44 65

Weekdays

Location 1: At the repeater area, southeast of Carnegie SVRA by the intersection of Stanford Research Institute (SRI) Road and Carnegie SVRA boundary fence

43 37 49 43 34 49 59 52 65 52 36 70

Location 2: At Tyson’s Basin in the day use area between the maintenance yard and ranger station 49 49 61 54 34 59 76 65 82 61 53 66

Location 3: At a residential property (16961 Tesla Road) located in the northwest corner of the original Carnegie SVRA, and south of Tesla Road

45 45 54 50 35 54 63 57 82 55 53 65

Hillclimb Event

Measured noise level at 50 feet along the track 81 dBA Leq to 84 dBA Leq

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = energy-equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area

Source: Measurements collected by AECOM in 2013

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area 3.10-2 Noise

Table 3.10-2. Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Levels Modeled in the Vicinity of the Planning Area

Roadway Segment Ldn, 100 Feet

from Roadway Centerline (dBA)

Distance (feet) from Roadway Centerline to Ldn Contour

From To 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA

Weekdays

Tesla Road Vasco Road West of Vasco Road 64.6 44 94 202

Tesla Road Vasco Road East of Vasco Road 61.6 28 60 129

Vasco Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 58.8 18 39 83

Tesla Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 61.6 28 60 129

Tesla Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 59.7 21 45 96

Greenville Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 54.9 10 21 46

Greenville Road Tesla Road South of Tesla Road 48.8 4 8 18

Corral Hollow Road SVRA park access West of SVRA park access 57.4 15 31 67

Corral Hollow Road SVRA park access East of SVRA park access 57.5 15 32 68

SVRA park access Corral Hollow Road South of Corral Hollow Road 40.7 1 2 5

Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps West of SB ramps 57.9 16 34 73

Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps East of SB ramps 59.5 20 43 93

I-580 SB off-ramp 1-580 SB Corral Hollow Road 55.9 11 25 53

I-580 SB on-ramp Corral Hollow Road 1-580 SB 55.5 11 23 50

Corral Hollow Road I-580 NB ramps West of NB ramps 59.5 20 43 93

Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps East of NB ramps 60.0 21 46 99

I-580 NB off-ramp 1-580 NB Corral Hollow Road 50.4 5 11 23

I-580 NB on-ramp Corral Hollow Road 1-580 NB 48.2 4 8 16

Altamont Pass Road I-580 WB ramps West of ramps 57.8 15 33 72

Altamont Pass Road I-580 WB ramps East of ramps 57.5 15 31 68

I-580 WB off-ramp I-580 WB Altamont Pass Road 59.1 19 40 87

I-580 WB on-ramp Altamont Pass Road I-580 WB 57.4 14 31 67

Southfront Road I-580 EB ramps West of ramps 54.9 10 21 46

Southfront Road I-580 EB ramps East of ramps 57.5 15 31 68

I-580 EB off-ramp I-580 EB Southfront Road 55.2 10 22 48

I-580 EB on-ramp Southfront Road I-580 EB 58.8 18 39 83

Saturdays

Tesla Road Vasco Road West of Vasco Road 60.9 25 53 115

Tesla Road Vasco Road East of Vasco Road 58.4 17 36 78

Vasco Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 56.0 12 25 54


Table 3.10-2. Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Levels Modeled in the Vicinity of the Planning Area

Roadway Segment Ldn, 100 Feet

from Roadway Centerline (dBA)

Distance (feet) from Roadway Centerline to Ldn Contour

From To 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA

Tesla Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 58.4 17 36 78

Tesla Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 55.9 12 25 54

Greenville Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 51.6 6 13 27

Greenville Road Tesla Road South of Tesla Road 50.5 5 11 23

Corral Hollow Road SVRA park access West of SVRA park access 51.2 6 12 26

Corral Hollow Road SVRA park access East of SVRA park access 51.3 6 12 26

SVRA park access Corral Hollow Road South of Corral Hollow Road 42.9 2 3 7

Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps West of SB ramps 51.6 6 13 27

Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps East of SB ramps 55.2 10 22 48

I-580 SB off-ramp 1-580 SB Corral Hollow Road 50.7 5 11 24

I-580 SB on-ramp Corral Hollow Road 1-580 SB 48.3 4 8 17

Corral Hollow Road I-580 NB ramps West of NB ramps 55.2 10 22 48

Corral Hollow Road I-580 NB ramps East of NB ramps 56.8 13 28 61

I-580 NB off-ramp 1-580 NB Corral Hollow Road 52.1 6 14 30

I-580 NB on-ramp Corral Hollow Road 1-580 NB 50.2 5 10 22

Altamont Pass Road I-580 WB ramps West of ramps 51.5 6 13 27

Altamont Pass Road I-580 WB ramps East of ramps 53.4 8 17 36

I-580 WB off-ramp I-580 WB Altamont Pass Road 51.1 5 12 25

I-580 WB on-ramp Altamont Pass Road I-580 WB 52.6 7 15 32

Southfront Road I-580 EB ramps West of ramps 50.0 5 10 21

Southfront Road I-580 EB ramps East of ramps 53.4 8 17 36

I-580 EB off-ramp I-580 EB Southfront Road 52.7 7 15 33

I-580 EB on-ramp Southfront Road I-580 EB 51.7 6 13 28

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; EB = eastbound; I-580 = Interstate 580; Ldn = day-night average noise level; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area; WB = westbound

Source: Modeled by AECOM in 2014



Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” in the General Plan identifies federal, state, and local plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to noise that are applicable to the planning area. In addition, the federal recommendations described in this section were considered in this analysis.

The discussion presented below in Section 3.10.3, “Thresholds of Significance,” is based on recommendations made in August 1992 by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance on assessing increases and decreases in noise levels relative to the ambient noise condition resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, they are commonly applied to all sources of noise and described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn. Specifically, they provide a good correlation to transportation-related noise sources.


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant noise impact if it would:

► expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

► expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;

► create a substantial permanent increase in noise exposure relative to ambient noise levels in the project vicinity;

► create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in noise exposure relative to ambient noise levels in the project vicinity; or

► for a project located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public, public-use, or private airport/airstrip, expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.

These significance criteria are applied broadly. Under CEQA, the required analysis extends only to whether the project will cause impacts on the existing environment and the following assessments are limited to impacts on existing noise-sensitive uses outside of the planning area boundary. In some community noise assessments, impacts may be considered less than significant if increases in community noise levels associated with a project’s implementation would not exceed 3 dB at noise-sensitive locations in that project’s vicinity.


One limitation to using a single value to evaluate an impact related to a noise-level increase would be the failure to account for the existing ambient noise levels to which the receivers are accustomed. Studies assessing the percentage of people highly annoyed by changes in noise levels indicate that when ambient noise levels are low, a greater change is needed to cause a response. As ambient noise levels increase, a lesser change in noise levels is required to elicit substantial annoyance.

In practice, more specific professional standards have been implemented. These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local or regional planning criteria or ordinances or substantially increase noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses. For Carnegie SVRA, the significance of anticipated noise effects is based on a comparison between predicted noise levels and noise criteria defined by Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, the California Department of Transportation, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Because Carnegie SVRA is owned and operated by the State of California, it is not subject to local policies or ordinances. Nonetheless, the OHMVR Division intends to develop Carnegie SVRA in a manner compatible with the surrounding community. Therefore, local policies and ordinances were considered as part of this environmental evaluation, and these policies were used as thresholds of significance in this analysis.

Based on the noise standards from the noise elements of the general plans for Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, noise impacts in those counties are considered significant if existing noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 55 dBA Ldn (Alameda County) or 65 dBA Ldn (San Joaquin County), or to interior noise levels in excess of 45 dBA Ldn (Alameda and San Joaquin Counties).

Based on the noise standards from the municipal codes for Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, noise impacts in those counties are considered significant if existing noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to daytime noise levels in excess of 50 dBA Ldn (Alameda County) or 65 dBA Ldn (San Joaquin County), or to nighttime noise levels in excess of 45 dBA Ldn (Alameda and San Joaquin Counties).

A significant project-related impact with respect to ambient conditions would occur if the project were to result in a +5 dB traffic noise level increase relative to ambient (no project) traffic noise levels less than 60 dB Ldn, a +3 dB increase relative to ambient levels of 60–65 dB Ldn, or a +1.5 dB increase relative to ambient levels above 65 dB Ldn. These criteria are consistent with the FICON criteria established in 1992 in the Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues (FICON 1992:3-15 through 3-17).


Because of the distance between facilities envisioned in the General Plan and existing acoustically sensitive uses, General Plan–related construction and operations are not expected to produce substantial


vibration levels at acoustically sensitive receptors outside of the planning area. Therefore, vibration-related impacts are not discussed further in this DEIR.

The nearest airport to the planning area is Tracy Municipal Airport, located in the city of Tracy approximately 6 miles from the planning area. The nearest airstrip to the planning area is Meadowlark Field, located approximately 3.5 miles west of the planning area. General Plan implementation would not expose any noise-sensitive receptors to excessive aircraft noise. The planning area is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public, public-use, or private airport/airstrip. Thus, no impact related to aircraft noise would occur, and this topic is not discussed in this DEIR.



Noise from recreational activities associated with the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan was estimated based on noise level restrictions provided in the California Vehicle Code. According to Vehicle Code Section 38370(h)(1):

Noise emissions of competition off-highway vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1998, shall be limited to not more than 96 dBA, and if manufactured prior to January 1, 1998, to not more than 101 dBA, when measured from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under Standard J-1287, as applicable. Noise emissions of all other off-highway vehicles shall be limited to not more than 96 dBA if manufactured on or after January 1, 1986, and not more than 101 dBA if manufactured prior to January 1, 1986, when measured from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under Standard J-1287, as applicable.

For the purposes of this analysis, OHVs operating at Carnegie SVRA are assumed to generate noise levels not exceeding 96 dBA at a distance of 20 inches.

To assess potential short-term noise impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan, nearby sensitive receptors and their relative exposure to noise were identified. The noise levels from activities that could be heard at these sensitive receptors were predicted using the federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006:Chapter 12).

Regarding increases in traffic noise during project operation, AECOM created models of noise levels at affected roadway segments (e.g., Tesla Road) using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD-77-108) (FHWA 1978) and traffic data (e.g., average daily traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, percent distribution of vehicle types) from traffic count data provided by KD Anderson & Associates (2012). This model is based on the CALVENO reference noise emission factors for automobiles,


medium trucks, and heavy trucks, and it accounts for vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and ground attenuation factors. The model does not assume that the noise would be shielded by anything natural or human-made (e.g., vegetation, berms, walls, buildings); therefore, it is a conservative estimate. Increases in traffic noise levels attributable to implementation of the General Plan were calculated by comparing the predicted noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of the road with and without Carnegie SVRA–generated traffic under existing and cumulative conditions.

Regarding project-related construction traffic, to create a minimum perceptible increase (+3 dBA) in traffic noise, the number of trips would need to double (i.e., increase by 100 percent). Given the scale of facilities envisioned with the General Plan and the fact that the facilities would be constructed over time, the anticipated temporary and short-term increase in traffic volumes from construction activities would be substantially less than 100 percent.

All noise measurements from the 2013 noise survey were taken using Larson-Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 and 824 precision integrating sound level meters. The meters were calibrated before the measurements using an LDL Model CA200 acoustical calibrator. The measurement equipment used meets the applicable criteria established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Class 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). Measurement microphones were placed on tripods approximately 5 feet above the ground, and were equipped with appropriate wind screens. The sound level meters were programmed to record hourly sound levels in terms of the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period (Lmax), and other statistical descriptors.

Atmospheric conditions were observed during the 2013 noise survey. Wind speeds typically ranged from 3 to 12 miles per hour. Temperatures ranged from 32 to 63 degrees Fahrenheit, with humidity (approximately 40–70 percent). These atmospheric conditions were verified using historical data from Weather Underground (2013). In general, the atmospheric conditions from February 22–25, 2013, were appropriate for environmental acoustics measurements.


IMPACT 3.10-1

Increased Off-Site Noise Levels Related to Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The community noise survey for this DEIR was conducted during the peak activity season in 2013, but OHV activity at Carnegie SVRA was not audible at off-site sensitive receptors (45 dBA Leq at the residence shown as Location 3 in Table 3.10-1 and General Plan Figure 2-20). Because the planning area is surrounded by steep, rolling hills that buffer, echo, and contain sound, OHV use currently does not contribute to ambient sound levels at nearby private residences during the peak season. However, when surrounding traffic noise is low, such as on weekends, OHV activities at Carnegie SVRA would be audible (59 dBA Leq at the residence shown as Location 3 in Table 3.10-1 and General Plan Figure 2-20) to people using outside areas at these residences.


Vehicles traveling to the SVRA with the addition of the expansion area are estimated to increase by slightly less than 2.5 times by 2030 when compared to 2012 traffic counts, for a projected total of 97,932 in 2030 after buildout of the facilities envisioned in the General Plan, compared to 40,202 vehicles counted in 2012. OHVs at Carnegie SVRA are approximately 1.5 times the total number of vehicles that visit the SVRA. Special events at the SVRA are anticipated to attract approximately the same number of visitors and OHVs (or slightly more, about 1.5 times) as a typical peak weekend-use day (the special-event area is located in the original SVRA and is shown in Figure 2-3 of this DEIR). Therefore, it is estimated that 2030 OHV use would potentially increase four times (2.5 + 1.5) over existing use, and would translate to a doubling of the noise source twice (or fourfold increase). Doubling the noise source would result in a noise-level increase of 3 dB. Therefore, the fourfold increase (in the worst-case scenario or weekends in 2030) in OHV use over the current use would result in an approximately 6-dBA noise level increase over the current or existing noise levels of 45 dBA to 59 dBA. The ambient noise levels measured closest to the noise-sensitive receptor (Location 3, Table 3.10-1 and General Plan Figure 2-20) ranged from 45 dBA to 59 dBA on weekdays and weekends, respectively. The estimated 6-dBA noise level increase would exceed the established threshold of 50 dBA Ldn (Alameda County) or 65 dBA Ldn (San Joaquin County), or nighttime noise levels in excess of 45 dBA Ldn (Alameda and San Joaquin Counties). Measured existing noise levels during the noisiest event (hillclimb) at Carnegie SVRA ranged between 81 dBA Leq and 84 dBA Leq, at 50 feet (Table 3.10-1) from motorcycle concentrations and along the hillclimb tracks. The estimated 6-dBA noise level increase would exceed the established threshold of a 5-dBA increase in ambient noise levels, which is considered “readily perceptible” (Caltrans 2009:7-5).

Because off-site noise levels related to OHV use would increase substantially, noise from increased recreational activities over time with implementation of the General Plan would be significant. However, Carnegie SVRA General Plan OM Guidelines 5.2, 5.4, and 5.5 require implementation of a number of noise-reduction measures at the park:

► OM Guideline 5.2: Require that noise levels not exceed applicable jurisdiction (county) noise standards for 24-hour exposure at or beyond the boundary line of the SVRA. In the SVRA, similar limits shall be met in areas of permanent human habitation (e.g., residences). All vehicles operating in the SVRA shall meet applicable noise limits set in the California Vehicle Code.

► OM Guideline 5.4: Maintain the fencing and required buffer areas between Carnegie SVRA and adjacent properties to minimize conflicts and prevent OHV use where it is not allowed.

► OM Guideline 5.5: Place rest areas and steep uphill grades at locations to provide a barrier effect and/or increased distance to noise-sensitive uses.

In addition, Carnegie SVRA is required to maintain instrumentation and trained personnel to enforce the California Vehicle Code regulation concerning excessive vehicle noise.

Implementing these measures would reduce operational noise impacts within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors (private and state residential properties along Tesla Road northwest of the original SVRA)


such that ambient noise levels would increase by less than 5 dBA. These measures include restricting hours of operation, maintaining the fencing and required buffer areas1 between Carnegie SVRA and adjacent private properties (OM Guideline 5.4), placing rest areas and steep uphill grades at sensitive locations to provide a barrier2 effect and/or increased distance to noise-sensitive uses (OM Guideline 5.5), and applying California Vehicle Code regulation concerning excessive vehicle noise that would reduce noise related to operational activities. Therefore, with adherence to these General Plan guidelines and compliance with the California Vehicle Code, the impact related to increases in off-site noise levels related to OHV activities would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.10-2

Increased Off-Site Noise Levels Related to Traffic

Traffic noise modeling was conducted using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model and traffic data provided by the project traffic engineer (KD Anderson & Associates 2014). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for both existing conditions and future conditions with implementation of the General Plan.

Traffic noise predictions are based on 24-hour roadway counts and peak-hour intersection counts. Traffic volumes were taken from the project traffic report (KD Anderson & Associates 2012). For modeling purposes, future (year 2030) roadway geometries, traffic mix, and speed conditions are assumed to remain the same as existing conditions. Table 3.10-3 summarizes the modeling and predicted noise level increases expected following implementation of the General Plan. Figure 3.10-1 shows the modeled roadway segments.

The extent to which noise-sensitive receptors in the planning area are affected by traffic noise depends on their proximity to the roadways and their individual sensitivity to traffic noise. As shown in Table 3.10-3, future (year 2030) increases in traffic noise levels would range from 0.2 dB to 13.4 dB. The greatest increase would occur along the Interstate 580 (I-580) on- and off-ramps at Corral Hollow Road to the east of I-580 on- and off-ramps at Greenville Road to the west of the planning area. However, no noise-sensitive receptors are located within 100 feet of the I-580 on- and off-ramps. Current traffic volumes are low in areas where larger increases in traffic noise are expected with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, although increases may occur in these areas, the overall noise level would remain at or below 60 dBA Ldn for roads in Alameda County and 65 dBA Ldn for roads in San Joaquin County with implementation of the General Plan (Table 3.10-3).

1 Noise generated from mobile sources (i.e., roadways, railways) generally increases or attenuates at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dB per doubling of distance (dB/DD). Point (stationary) noise sources, such as construction equipment, spread with more spherical dispersion patterns and increase or attenuate at a rate of 6 dB/DD (hard ground) to 7.5 dB/DD (soft ground). The OHV activities are considered moving point sources for noise modeling and have similar drop-off rates as described for stationary (construction equipment) noise sources.

2 A sound berm would reduce at least 10 dB (FHWA 2011).


Table 3.10-3. Summary of Future Noise Levels Modeled for Traffic in the Planning Area

Roadway Segment

Ldn, 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline (dBA) Project

Net Change

Significant Impact?2

From To Existing

Conditions1 Future

Conditions1

Weekdays Tesla Road Vasco Road West of Vasco Road 64.6 65.7 1.1 No Tesla Road Vasco Road East of Vasco Road 61.6 63.4 1.8 No Vasco Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 58.8 59.2 0.4 No Tesla Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 61.6 63.4 1.8 No Tesla Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 59.7 63.4 3.7 No Greenville Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 54.9 58.2 3.3 No Greenville Road Tesla Road South of Tesla Road 48.8 51.0 2.1 No

Corral Hollow Road SVRA park access West of SVRA park access 57.4 61.4 4.0 No

Corral Hollow Road SVRA park access East of SVRA park access 57.5 61.5 4.0 No

SVRA Park Access Corral Hollow Road

South of Corral Hollow Road 40.7 41.7 1.0 No

Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps West of SB ramps 57.9 62.2 4.2 No Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps East of SB ramps 59.5 63.2 3.6 No I-580 SB off-ramp 1-580 SB Corral Hollow Road 55.9 60.2 4.4 No I-580 southbound on-ramp

Corral Hollow Road 1-580 SB 55.5 60.2 4.7 Yes3

Corral Hollow Road I-580 NB ramps West of NB ramps 59.5 63.2 3.6 No Corral Hollow Road I-580 SB ramps East of NB ramps 60.0 60.1 0.2 No I-580 northbound off-ramp 1-580 NB Corral Hollow Road 50.4 55.0 4.6 Yes3

I-580 northbound on-ramp

Corral Hollow Road 1-580 NB 48.2 61.6 13.4 Yes3

Greenville Road Altamont Pass Road

North of Altamont Pass Road 57.8 62.8 5.0 Yes3


South of Altamont Pass Road 57.5 64.3 6.8 Yes3

Altamont Pass Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 59.1 60.3 1.2 No Altamont Pass Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 57.4 61.5 4.1 No Greenville Road Southfront Road North of Southfront Road 54.9 64.1 9.2 Yes3 Greenville Road Southfront Road South of Southfront Road 57.5 64.2 6.7 Yes3 Southfront Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 55.2 NA NA No Southfront Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 58.8 61.9 3.1 No Saturday Tesla Road Vasco Road West of Vasco Road 60.9 61.9 1.0 No Tesla Road Vasco Road East of Vasco Road 58.4 60.0 1.6 No Vasco Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 56.0 56.6 0.6 No Tesla Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 58.4 60.0 1.6 No


Table 3.10-3. Summary of Future Noise Levels Modeled for Traffic in the Planning Area

Roadway Segment

Ldn, 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline (dBA) Project

Net Change

Significant Impact?2

From To Existing

Conditions1 Future

Conditions1

Tesla Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 55.9 59.8 3.8 No Greenville Road Tesla Road North of Tesla Road 51.6 54.9 3.3 No Greenville Road Tesla Road South of Tesla Road 50.5 53.1 2.6 No

Corral Hollow Road4 SVRA park access West of SVRA park access 51.2 55.1 3.9 No

Corral Hollow Road4 SVRA park access East of SVRA park access 51.3 55.2 3.9 No

SVRA park access4 Corral Hollow Road

South of Corral Hollow Road 42.9 43.8 0.9 No

Corral Hollow Road4 I-580 SB ramps West of SB ramps 51.6 57.5 5.9 Yes3 Corral Hollow Road4 I-580 SB ramps East of SB ramps 55.2 60.1 4.8 Yes3 I-580 southbound off-ramp4 1-580 SB Corral Hollow Road 50.7 55.5 4.9 Yes3

I-580 southbound on-ramp4

Corral Hollow Road 1-580 SB 48.3 53.7 5.4 Yes3

Corral Hollow Road I-580 NB ramps West of NB ramps 55.2 60.1 4.8 Yes3

Corral Hollow Road I-580 northbound ramps East of NB ramps 56.8 60.9 4.1 No

I-580 northbound off-ramp 1-580 NB Corral Hollow Road 52.1 57.3 5.2 Yes3

I-580 northbound on-ramp

Corral Hollow Road 1-580 NB 50.2 56.7 6.5 Yes3


North of Altamont Pass Road 51.5 59.3 7.8 Yes3


South of Altamont Pass Road 53.4 60.9 7.4 Yes3

Altamont Pass Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 51.1 54.9 3.8 No Altamont Pass Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 52.6 58.8 6.2 Yes3 Greenville Road Southfront Road North of Southfront Road 50.0 60.8 10.9 Yes3 Greenville Road Southfront Road South of Southfront Road 53.4 60.6 7.2 Yes3 Southfront Road Greenville Road East of Greenville Road 52.7 NA NA No Southfront Road Greenville Road West of Greenville Road 51.7 57.8 6.2 Yes3

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; I-580 = Interstate 580; Ldn = day-night average noise level; NA = not available; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area

See Figure 3.10-1 for roadway locations. 1 Traffic noise levels are predicted at a standard distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline and do not account for shielding from

existing noise barriers or intervening structures. Traffic noise levels may vary depending on actual setback distances and localized shielding.

2 Significant impacts calculated using Federal Interagency Committee on Noise recommendations. 3 No sensitive receptors are located adjacent to these roadway segments. 4 Roadways are within San Joaquin County; other roads are within Alameda County.

Source: Modeled by AECOM in 2014


Sources: Data provided by State Parks in 2012 and compiled by AECOM in 2015

Figure 3.10-1. Roadway Segments Used for Off-site Traffic Noise Modeling


Future construction activities for facilities envisioned in the General Plan are anticipated to result in a short-term, temporary addition of haul trucks along Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road. The existing peak-hour traffic volume on weekdays along Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road near the original SVRA access road is 281 vehicles per hour from the east and 285 vehicles per hour from the west. For construction activities to create a significant increase (+3 dBA) in traffic noise, the number of trips would need to double (i.e., increase by 100 percent). However, the anticipated temporary and short-term increase in traffic from construction activities would be substantially less than 100 percent, given the scale of facilities envisioned with the General Plan and the fact that the facilities would be constructed over time.

Because construction activities for the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not increase off-site traffic noise levels substantially and General Plan implementation would not increase off-site traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors, the impact of off-site noise levels related to traffic would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.10-3

Increase in Temporary, Short-Term Off-Site Noise Levels during Construction and Maintenance

Construction and maintenance activities for facilities envisioned in the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would generate short-term, temporary, and intermittent noise at or near individual noise-sensitive locations near the planning area. Noise levels generated during construction and maintenance would fluctuate depending on the physical location of construction activities at the SVRA, and on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of equipment. Noise levels from construction and maintenance activities are typically considered a point source, and drop off at a rate of 6 dB/DD over hard site surfaces such as streets and parking lots. Noise levels drop off at a rate of approximately 7.5 dB/DD over soft site surfaces such as grass fields and open terrain with vegetation (FTA 2006:2-10 through 2-11).

Equipment required for construction and maintenance activities in the planning area would consist of a paver, backhoe, bulldozer, tractor, and various trucks. The maximum noise levels produced by one of these types of equipment, at a distance of 50 feet and without the implementation of noise controls, could range from 80 to 85 dBA Lmax (Table 3.10-4). Noise levels vary for individual pieces of equipment because equipment comes in different sizes and with different engines. Noise levels for construction equipment also vary as a function of the activity level or duty cycle. Typical construction projects, with equipment moving from one point to another, including work breaks and idle time, have long-term noise averages that are lower than many short-term noise events. Additionally, noise levels are calculated from the center of the activity because of the dynamic nature of a construction site. Using these parameters, construction activities, including the simultaneous operation of multiple pieces of equipment, were modeled to generate a combined noise level of 90 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the center of construction activity (Appendix C).


Table 3.10-4. Typical Noise Levels Caused By Construction Equipment1

Equipment Type Typical Noise Level

(dBA Lmax) at 50 feet

Backhoe 80

Concrete mixer truck 85

Concrete pump truck 82

Dozer 85

Dump truck 84

Generator 82

Grader 85

Paver 85

Tractor 84

Total Noise Level (Lmax) 93

Total Noise Level (Leq) 90

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = energy-equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period 1 All equipment fitted with properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are

the actual measured noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment.

Sources: BBN 1981:8-4 through 8-5; FTA 2006:12-6 through 12-7; FHWA 2006:3

The closest private residence is located along Tesla Road approximately 200 feet from the northwestern boundary of the original SVRA. With implementation of OM Guideline 6.6 in the General Plan (listed at the end of this impact discussion), a minimum 250-foot buffer would be maintained around the residence within the planning area. The intervening ground type is primarily open space and is considered acoustically soft. When modeled using FTA noise methodology (FTA 2006:12-1 through 12-15) and the above parameters, noise from construction and maintenance activities would generate a combined noise level of 74 dBA Leq at this residence along Tesla Road.

Construction noise would be temporary and the existing noise environment surrounding Carnegie SVRA is already relatively loud because of OHV use, explosives testing, and traffic along Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road. Ambient noise levels measured at the western boundary of the SVRA closest to this noise-sensitive receptor (Location 3 in Table 3.10-1) ranged from 45 to 59 dBA Leq on weekdays and weekends, respectively. Anticipated noise levels generated by construction and maintenance activities (74 dBA Leq) could exceed existing noise levels in this area by 15 to 29 dBA on weekdays and weekends, respectively, and would exceed the daytime standard of 50 dBA Ldn and nighttime standard of 45 dBA Ldn, established in Municipal Code of Alameda County. However, Carnegie SVRA General Plan OM Guideline 5.2 (shown above under Impact 3.10-1) and OM Guideline 5.3 (shown below) require implementation of noise-reduction measures during construction and maintenance activities within 500 feet of the residences.


► OM Guideline 5.3: Employ practices to reduce noise levels for noise-sensitive receptors during construction of facilities. Reduce noise generated during construction and maintenance activities by:

• properly maintaining equipment with noise-reduction devices in accordance with manufacturer specifications (e.g., mufflers, shrouds, filters);

• using quieter than standard equipment when possible (e.g., electrically powered equipment);

• limiting activities to between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (excluding emergency work);

• restricting equipment travel and use within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors, unless the equipment used would not exceed the daytime standard of 50 dBA Ldn and nighttime standard of 45 dBA Ldn at the property line of noise-sensitive receptors;

• turning off equipment during prolonged periods of nonuse;

• restricting alarms to warn of safety issues only;

• using noise-attenuating buffers when activities take place within 500 feet of adjacent sensitive receptors (e.g., berms, stationary barriers, noise blankets, shrouds);

• following standard construction practices;

• locating equipment staging areas and material loading and unloading zones greater than 500 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor;

• using rubber-tired equipment as much as feasible to minimize groundborne noise; and

• locating any stationary noise sources (e.g., generators) within noise enclosures.

► OM Guideline 6.6: Maintain a buffer of at least 250 feet around any residential properties within the planning area during and after implementation of the General Plan.

Implementing the General Plan guidelines would reduce temporary, short-term construction and maintenance noise impacts within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors such that ambient noise levels would increase by less than 5 dBA. The measures included in the guidelines include restrictions on hours of operation, equipment movements, noise barriers, additional noise-muffling devices on equipment, and idling restrictions that would reduce noise related to construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of the General Plan guidelines, the impact related to increases in temporary short-term off-site noise levels during construction and maintenance activities would be less than significant.




Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant noise impacts on noise-sensitive receptors.


No significant impacts on noise resources would result with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING

This section describes population and housing in the planning area. It also discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on population and housing.


One permanent residence typically occupied by one SVRA staff member (and family) is located in the planning area. No seasonal on-site housing for temporary employees is available during the busy season. SVRA employees typically commute to the SVRA from surrounding communities. State Parks owns several single-family residences outside the planning area, along both sides of Corral Hollow Creek between Mitchell Ravine and the Tesla Coal Mine Site. Some of these residences house State Parks employees, including two State Parks peace officers who are available after hours for campground emergencies.

Two private residential areas containing single-family dwellings and a small rodeo arena also are situated along Corral Hollow Creek near Mitchell Ravine. A few houses in the upper portion of the Corral Hollow watershed belong to private ranchers (State Parks 2007:36–38).

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Experimental Test Site (Site 300) property is located north of the original Carnegie SVRA and SRI International owns land south of the original Carnegie SVRA. Open space, ranches, and rural residences are located to the north, west, and south of the expansion area, as well as to the east and south of the original Carnegie SVRA.



No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to population and housing issues are applicable to the planning area.


No state plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to population and housing issues are applicable to the planning area.

REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES

No regional or local plans, policies, regulations, or ordinances related to population and housing issues are applicable to the planning area.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Population and Housing 3.11-1


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on population and housing if it would:

► induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure);

► displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or

► displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.


A single permanent residence is present in the planning area. No seasonal on-site housing for temporary employees is available during the busy season. None of the activities envisioned in the General Plan, such as construction of campgrounds and picnic areas, and construction and operation of off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails, would affect the existing private residences outside the planning area along Corral Hollow Creek between Mitchell Ravine and the Tesla Coal Mine Site. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not displace a substantial number of existing residences or people to necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. These issues are not discussed further in this draft environmental impact report.



The evaluation of population and housing facilities is based on existing land uses in the planning area, and on changes that could occur in the surrounding area from implementation of the General Plan.


IMPACT 3.11-1

Inducement of Substantial Population Growth, Directly or Indirectly

With the expansion and full buildout of anticipated improvements with the General Plan, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division anticipates needing an additional seven full-time employees and seven to eight seasonal employees. It is anticipated that these employees would commute from surrounding communities. The General Plan does not propose to construct or enable any residential units in the planning area or surrounding area, directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.11-2 Population and Housing

indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads and other infrastructure). The General Plan would provide for additional camping and concessions in the planning area, identified as the “Gathering/Service Area” along West Corral Hollow Road and Tesla Road (see Figure 2-3, “Preferred Concept Map,” and Table 2-1, “Visitor Experience Areas,” in Chapter 2). The “Potential Gathering Area Overlay” area in the expansion area would be the same as the underlying visitor experience area, unless some or all of this area would be needed for a gathering and service area. If such an area is needed, then the allowable uses for a gathering and service area would prevail. Camping and concession activities in the SVRA would be provided for SVRA visitors who engage in OHV recreational activities.

The camping, concessions, and infrastructure that the General Plan envisions for construction in Carnegie SVRA would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth in the surrounding area. Furthermore, an increase in the number of visitors to the SVRA over time would not result in an increase in the population residing in the surrounding area.

The only infrastructure (i.e., roadways, water supply) to be constructed with implementation of the General Plan would be that necessary to serve visitors to Carnegie SVRA and staff members working at the site. All of the infrastructure facilities envisioned in the General Plan would be internal to the SVRA. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the planning area or surrounding area. No impact would occur.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to population and housing.


No significant impacts related to population and housing would result with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Population and Housing 3.11-3

3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

This section describes existing conditions for public services and utilities in the planning area. It also discusses the state and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on public services and utilities.


The existing setting for public services and utilities is described in detail in Chapter 2, “Existing Conditions,” of the General Plan. Specifically, Section 2.4.2, “Public Safety,” characterizes security and emergency services in the planning area, including fire protection, medical aid, and emergency access and egress. Section 2.2.3, “Facilities,” includes a description of electrical service, telecommunications, water delivery and wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal at Carnegie SVRA. Figure 2-1 of the General Plan depicts the location of a water treatment facility (with a well) on State Parks–owned land north of Corral Hollow Road, and Figure 2-2 depicts the locations of the existing electrical lines and easement in the planning area and vicinity.



No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to public services and utilities are applicable to the planning area.


CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 created the California Integrated Waste Management Board, now known as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalRecycle is the agency designated to oversee, manage, and track the 92 million tons of waste that are generated in California each year. CalRecycle provides grants and loans to help cities, counties, businesses, and organizations meet the state’s waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. CalRecycle promotes a sustainable environment in which these resources are not wasted, but can be reused or recycled. In addition to many programs and incentives, CalRecycle promotes the use of new technologies to divert resources away from landfills.

2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE

The standards included in the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations) became effective on January 1, 2014. The CALGreen Code was developed to enhance building design and construction and encourage the use of sustainable construction practices in several categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Public Services and Utilities 3.12-1

efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality (California Building Standards Commission 2013:Section 101.2).

CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

In accordance with Title 8, Section 1270, “Fire Prevention,” and Section 6773, “Fire Protection and Fire Equipment,” of the California Code of Regulations, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include guidelines for handling highly combustible materials; fire hose sizing requirements; restrictions on the use of compressed air; access roads; and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.

FIRE CODES AND GUIDELINES

The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. The code addresses the topics of fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards, storage and use of hazardous materials, provisions to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and other fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The California Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

State fire regulations are set forth in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which regulates building standards (as established in the California Building Standards Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices (e.g., extinguishers, smoke alarms), and fire suppression training.

SPARK ARRESTER REGULATIONS

Section 4442 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 38366 of the California Vehicle Code prohibit the use or operation of any off-highway motor vehicle on land covered by forest, brush, or grass unless the vehicle is equipped with a spark arrester that is maintained in effective working order. In addition, a spark arrester affixed to the exhaust system cannot be placed or mounted in such a manner as to allow flames or heat from the exhaust system to ignite flammable material.

REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES

ALAMEDA COUNTY ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS ORDINANCE

The Alameda County Municipal Code (Title 15, Chapter 15.18) outlines requirements for obtaining permits for on-site wastewater disposal systems, including those for septic systems. The ordinance also ensures compliance with applicable standards, laws, and guidelines as adopted and/or modified by the

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.12-2 Public Services and Utilities

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL STANDARDS

The San Joaquin County Ordinance Code (Title 9, Section 9-1105) regulates on-site wastewater disposal systems, including septic systems and chemical and vault toilets. San Joaquin County’s on‐site wastewater ordinance regulates and establishes standards for design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, replacement, alteration, enlargement, repair, and abandonment of on‐site wastewater treatment, conveyance, and dispersal systems. The ordinance also ensures compliance with applicable standards, laws, and guidelines, as adopted and/or modified by the SWRCB and the Central Valley RWQCB. The ordinance requires a site evaluation as part of obtaining a permit for construction of an on‐site wastewater system and examines factors affecting the design of on‐site wastewater systems (San Joaquin County 2003).


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on public services and utilities if it would:

► have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing or permitted entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements;

► require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

► exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB;

► result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;

► generate solid waste beyond the capacity of existing landfills;

► violate federal, state, or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; or

► result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, or parks.



Implementation of the General Plan would not include any new housing to generate residents who would increase demands for schools or parks. This issue is not discussed further in this DEIR.



The evaluation of potential impacts related to public services and utilities is based on a review of emergency services (park security, fire protection, medical aid, and emergency access and egress) and utilities (electricity and telecommunications services, water delivery, wastewater treatment facilities, and solid waste). Impacts were evaluated in relation to actions needed for General Plan implementation that potentially could lead to physical environmental effects.

Impacts related to stormwater management and water quality are addressed in Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” of this DEIR.


IMPACT 3.12-1

Increased Demand for Potable and Nonpotable Water Supplies and Infrastructure

Implementation of the General Plan would increase demand for potable and nonpotable water supplies at Carnegie SVRA. Currently, potable water is required for coin-operated showers, restrooms, and water faucets. The use of these facilities would likely increase with greater visitor use anticipated over time, resulting in an increase in water demand. New structures constructed as a result of General Plan implementation, such as office spaces, classroom/meeting spaces, and a museum and/or visitor center, also would increase demand for potable water.

Potable water supplies would continue to be provided by the on-site well and a 132,000-gallon water treatment (chlorine/disinfectant) plant located on State Parks–owned land north of Corral Hollow Road. This potable water well is capable of producing approximately 28,800 gallons per day, or 10.5 million gallons per year. Carnegie SVRA requires approximately 5.9 million gallons of potable water per year. (Note that State Parks is currently implementing the state-mandated 20 percent reduction in water use, and that in 2014, potable water use totaled approximately 3.1 million gallons for the year.) The General Plan estimates that the average visitation over the last 10 years (i.e., from fiscal year 2000–2001 to fiscal year 2011–2012) is approximately 114,000 visitors. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” it is assumed that attendance at Carnegie SVRA would likely rise with population growth and general economic conditions in the surrounding region. It is conservatively estimated that attendance could reach 195,863 visitors by 2030, an increase of approximately 29 percent compared to the average visitation of 114,000 visitors. Given a corresponding increase in demand for potable water from the approximately 5.9 million gallons used annually, it is conservatively estimated that water demands could


increase to 7.6 million gallons per year. Given that the potable-water well is capable of producing 10.5 million gallons per year, sufficient potable water supplies are available to serve new development envisioned in the General Plan.

Nonpotable water is used for dust control as needed, fire protection, and landscape irrigation. If needed, nonpotable water supplements a dust suppressant (e.g., Dust-Off) that is applied to the main park road, campgrounds, and staging areas. Tracks and the 4x4 challenge area also require watering in summer months to control dust and minimize soil movement. State Parks is currently implementing the state-mandated 20 percent reduction in water use, and in 2014, nonpotable water for these uses totaled approximately 3.8 million gallons for the year. An existing nonpotable-water well is located adjacent to the potable wells and can produce 64,800 gallons per day, or 23.7 million gallons per year. As shown in Figure 4-1 and Table 4-1 of the General Plan, implementation of the General Plan would require additional nonpotable water for dust control of new tracks and challenge areas in the practice area, and potentially new challenge areas in the intermediate/beginner trails and advanced trails areas. Any new landscaping would also require nonpotable water for irrigation, and nonpotable water would continue to be used for fire protection in the planning area. Because average (nondrought) nonpotable water use represents only about one-third of the nonpotable-water well’s capacity, and given the limited number of new facilities that would be developed with the General Plan that would require additional nonpotable water, it is not anticipated that demands for nonpotable water would exceed the nonpotable-water well’s capacity of 23.7 million gallons per year.

In addition, implementation of Water Goal 3 and associated guidelines in the General Plan (shown below) would ensure that future development and improvements in Carnegie SVRA would conserve water resources. Water Guideline 3.1 directs planners to assess available water sources during development of new facilities, so that sufficient water supplies would be available to meet the water demands for operation and maintenance of those new facilities. Water Guideline 3.2 supports the use of recycled water for dust control and irrigation, as allowed by water quality and health regulations and as available at the site or nearby. Water Guideline 3.3 requires management of facilities to accommodate periods of drought or low water supply, by restricting the use of water for dust control and using alternative dust suppression methods, as necessary. Water Guideline 3.4 requires implementation of water conservation measures to reduce water use by 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020 as measured against a 2010 baseline. Plant Guideline 1.4 calls for reduction of water demands for landscape irrigation by selecting plants that require little or no irrigation. In addition, the design and construction of all facilities must comply with the water quality conservation requirements cited in Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code.

Water Goal 3: Manage the SVRA to conserve water resources while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

► Water Guideline 3.1: When developing detailed plans for facilities envisioned in this General Plan, assess available water sources that will yield sufficient water supplies needed for operation and


maintenance of the facilities. Develop water supply as appropriate in compliance with state regulatory requirements.

► Water Guideline 3.2: Use recycled water, as available, for dust control and irrigation as allowed by water quality and health regulations and as available at the site or nearby.

► Water Guideline 3.3: Manage facilities to accommodate periods of drought or low water supply. Restrict the use of water for dust control, and use alternative dust suppression methods as necessary.

► Water Guideline 3.4: Implement water conservation measures that will reduce water use by 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020 as measured against a 2010 baseline in accordance with Executive Order B-18-12 issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. on April 25, 2012, and with the Proclamation of a State of Emergency signed on January 17, 2014, and the Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency signed on April 25, 2014.


► Plant Guideline 1.4: Use drought-tolerant plants, and whenever feasible, use plants native to the site for landscaping. Select plants that require little or no irrigation. If irrigation is required for plant establishment, use temporary irrigation methods that allow a gradual tapering off of watering over a 3- to 5-year period. Regulate water pressure at a level that applies sufficient water without causing erosion, damage to plants, or runoff.

Expanded or new on-site water distribution systems would be installed as necessary. Any substantial future development that would create a demand for water requiring additional water supplies and treatment would be subject to project-level CEQA analysis and mitigation, if necessary. As stated previously, buildout of the General Plan is estimated to require approximately 7.6 million gallons of potable water per year. Because the potable-water well is capable of producing 10.5 million gallons per year, sufficient potable water supplies are available to serve new development envisioned in the General Plan. In addition, use of nonpotable water represents only about one-third of the nonpotable-water well’s capacity. Given the limited number of new facilities that would be developed with the General Plan that would require additional nonpotable water, it is not anticipated that demands for nonpotable water would exceed the nonpotable-water well’s capacity of 23.7 million gallons per year. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements or result in the construction of new or expansion of existing water treatment facilities. This impact would be less than significant.



IMPACT 3.12-2

Increased Demand for Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Infrastructure

All wastewater at Carnegie SVRA is disposed of through septic tanks with leach lines, or through chemical or vault toilets that are pumped out for off-site disposal. The use of existing facilities would likely increase over time as the number of SVRA visitors increases. New facilities envisioned in the General Plan, such as campgrounds, gathering areas, office space, classroom/meeting space, and a museum and/or visitor center, would require additional restrooms.

New septic systems and vault and chemical toilets would comply with the requirements outlined in Title 15, Chapter 15.18 of the Alameda County Municipal Code or in Title 9, Section 9-1105 of the San Joaquin County Ordinance Code. These ordinances establish and regulate standards for design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of on‐site facilities. They also ensure compliance with applicable standards, laws, and guidelines as adopted and/or modified by the SWRCB and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or Central Valley RWQCB. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or Central Valley RWQCB or result in the construction of new or expansion of existing regional wastewater treatment facilities. This impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.12-3

Increased Demand for Utility Services and Infrastructure

Construction of the new facilities envisioned in the General Plan (e.g., office spaces, classroom/meeting spaces, and a museum and/or visitor center) would increase demand for electricity, telephone services, and related infrastructure. However, these facilities would be moderate in size and would not substantially increase electrical demand in the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) service area. Many improvements would not require power (e.g., primitive campgrounds, gathering areas, picnic areas, and OHV trails and training sites). PG&E would install new on-site electrical distribution lines as necessary by extending its existing infrastructure. In addition, adherence to OM Guideline 1.3 in the General Plan (shown below) would promote opportunities to incorporate sustainability into SVRA development, operations, and maintenance. Sustainability initiatives could include supporting and encouraging the use of electric vehicles, promoting energy efficiency, using reclaimed water, and applying energy efficiency and green building standards to new construction and other initiatives that may be developed in the future.

AT&T would continue to provide telephone services. The services are brought to the park via aboveground cables, and the primary communication cable system parallels Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road, with secondary cables branching off at individual residences and facilities. AT&T would provide services to the SVRA by extending its existing facilities, as necessary.


► OM Guideline 1.3: Promote opportunities to incorporate sustainability into SVRA development, operations, and maintenance. Sustainability initiatives could include supporting and encouraging the use of electric vehicles, promoting energy efficiency, using reclaimed water, and applying energy efficiency and green building standards to new construction and other initiatives that may be developed in the future.

Because implementation of this guideline and the rest of the General Plan would not result in the need for new or expanded regional or local infrastructure or supplies, this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.12-4

Increased Demand for Solid Waste Disposal and Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations

Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased generation of solid waste as a result of the increased visitation to the SVRA that is anticipated over time. In 2014, solid waste generated at the SVRA totaled 90.2 tons. Solid waste disposal services are provided at Carnegie SVRA by Delta Disposal Service Company. As future demand warrants, Delta Disposal Service Company would provide the additional needed service and maintenance.

Solid waste is transported to the Foothill Sanitary Landfill. The landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 1,500 tons per day, a total maximum permitted capacity of 13.8 million cubic yards, and a remaining capacity of approximately 1.25 million cubic yards. The landfill’s anticipated closure date is December 31, 2082. (CalRecycle 2014.) Therefore, the Foothill Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to meet Carnegie SVRA’s future needs for solid waste disposal. In addition, Carnegie SVRA would continue to implement recycling programs to reduce solid-waste generation and the General Plan does not include any components that would violate applicable federal, state, or local solid waste regulations. Operation of Carnegie SVRA would comply with applicable solid waste regulations, including those related to recycling.

Because implementation of the General Plan would not require the expansion of existing or construction of new landfills, this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.12-5

Increased Demand for Fire Protection Services

Implementation of the General Plan alone is not anticipated to increase the number of visitors to Carnegie SVRA. As discussed further in Section 3.14, “Transportation and Traffic,” attendance at the SVRA is anticipated to increase by approximately 35 percent by 2030 as a result of general economic conditions. Increased attendance over time has the potential to increase demand for fire protection


services. With construction of the recreation facilities envisioned in the General Plan (e.g., campgrounds, gathering areas, picnic areas, and OHV trails), a larger area would be available in which visitors could recreate, thereby increasing the potential for accidental fires and the need for fire suppression.

Designated segments of the multiple-use trail system in the existing Carnegie SVRA provide emergency access for wildfire suppression and would continue to do so in the future. The same approach would be taken in the expansion area, where ranch roads currently fulfill this function. The SVRA staff also maintains a truck with a water tank and pumping capability on-site. Fire tools and limited water supplies are carried by patrol vehicles. SVRA staff members would respond to fire-related emergencies.

Any new structures constructed as part of the General Plan (e.g., office space, classroom/meeting space, and a museum and/or visitor center) would be required to incorporate California Fire Code requirements, as summarized in Section 3.12.2, “Regulatory Setting.” Emergency access to Carnegie SVRA would continue to be provided by Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road. The multiple entrances that are proposed in the General Plan would provide additional emergency access to the portions of Carnegie SVRA not currently open to public use. All new facilities would be accessible using standard fire equipment, and implementation of the General Plan would not create a need for additional fire equipment and fire department personnel.

Adherence to OM Goal 3 and OM Guidelines 3.5, 3.9, 3.10, and 3.13 in the General Plan (shown below) would provide for facilities and services that would contribute to the safety of SVRA visitors and staff members. In particular, OM Guideline 3.5 aims to prevent accidental fire ignition and the spread of wildfire to adjacent areas through monitoring of OHVs for spark arresters and monitoring of fuel handling practices. OM Guideline 3.9 requires that the adequate provision for and access of emergency personnel be considered during planning for development of new facilities. OM Guideline 3.10 calls for providing adequate, easily accessible supplies of emergency response materials on-site and appropriately training staff members in emergency response practices. In addition, OM Guideline 3.13 requires continued coordination with state and local districts and agencies for emergency response.

OM Goal 3: Provide facilities and services that contribute to the safety and convenience of visitors and staff.

► OM Guideline 3.5: Prevent accidental fire ignition and spread of wildfire to adjacent areas by monitoring OHVs for spark arresters and by monitoring fuel handling practices.

► OM Guideline 3.9: Plan and design facilities to allow ease of access for emergency personnel and to allow a clear view of visitors by State Parks peace officers (SPPOs). Locate restroom facilities in visible locations; avoid locating restroom facilities in remote locations.


► OM Guideline 3.10: Ensure that supplies of emergency response materials kept on-site are adequate and easily accessible. Ensure that staff members are adequately trained in emergency response practices.

► OM Guideline 3.13: Continue to coordinate with state and local districts and agencies for emergency response.

Because the demand for fire protection services would not increase substantially and existing SRVA employees would be sufficient to address fire-related emergencies, and with adherence to the guidelines in the General Plan, existing fire protection services would be adequate to meet demand and implementation of the General Plan would not result in the construction of new or expansion of existing fire service facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.12-6

Increased Demand for Security and Emergency Services

Implementation of the General Plan would provide more recreational opportunities for beginner to intermediate OHV riders by creating new gathering areas, picnic areas, camping areas, riding trails, skills development and training sites, and a four-wheel-drive technical course. These new facilities would increase the area where visitors could recreate in Carnegie SVRA. Attendance is anticipated to increase over time, potentially resulting in an increased demand for security and emergency response. However, future development of Carnegie SVRA would continue to be focused on community- and family-oriented OHV uses. The family-focused atmosphere and focus on novice and intermediate riding conditions at the SVRA would help to minimize the risk of potential emergency and security situations (e.g., high-risk challenges or high-speed collisions).

Security and first-responder medical aid in the SVRA is provided by SPPOs. SPPOs patrol State Parks lands 7 days a week and provide all public safety functions. In addition, the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department’s Off-Road Enforcement Unit assists park staff members with special events at Carnegie SVRA upon request, and vice versa.

The need for security and emergency services would likely increase slightly over time with implementation of the General Plan. Under typical operating conditions, however, the full-time SPPOs who currently serve Carnegie SVRA would be sufficient to meet this need. SPPOs would continue to patrol the SVRA during open hours, would still be the first to respond to security and medical emergencies, and would continue to be backed up by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, to provide adequate response should an emergency require outside attention. Additional staffing may be required and would continue to be used during special events, consistent with staffing levels provided at special events currently held at other SVRA facilities.


Adherence to guidelines associated with OM Goal 3 in the General Plan (shown above under Impact 3.12-5) would ensure the availability of facilities and services that would contribute to the safety of visitors and staff members. In particular, OM Guideline 3.9 requires that the adequate provision and access of emergency personnel be considered during planning for development of new facilities, and that SPPOs be allowed a clear view of visitors. OM Guideline 3.13 requires continued coordination with state and local districts and agencies for emergency response.

Because the demand for security and emergency services would not increase substantially, implementation of the General Plan would not result in the construction of new or expansion of existing emergency services facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to public services and utilities.


No significant impacts related to public services and utilities would result with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.13 RECREATION

This section describes existing recreation conditions in the planning area. It also discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan on recreation.


The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act of 2003 (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5090.01 et seq.) authorizes and directs State Parks to implement and administer a program to manage and enhance off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreational uses and motorized off-highway access to nonmotorized recreation (State Parks 2009:ii). The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division of State Parks administers the OHMVR Program.

In 1980, approximately 200,000 motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) were registered in California (State Parks 2009:19). By 2000, the number of OHV registrations had increased to slightly more than 400,000 (State Parks 2011:13). The OHV registrations increased to approximately 1,110,000 in 2008 and decreased to approximately 930,000 in 2012.

California has eight SVRAs. From 2001 through 2006, visitation to these SVRAs nearly doubled, from approximately 2.25 million to approximately 4 million. Visits to the SVRAs and to State Park units in general decreased after 2006. According to the California Employment Development Department, California’s unemployment rates had risen to one of the highest levels in recorded history by 2009. Statewide, SVRA visitation data show a strong parallel with the Employment Development Department’s findings related to job loss and unemployment. When the recession began in 2007, SVRA attendance began to fall as well. However, registration data collected by the California Department of Motor Vehicles indicate that owners of OHVs maintained current registrations on existing equipment. These trends suggest that owners of registered OHVs may have chosen to recreate closer to home, rather than driving long distances to one of the eight SVRAs (State Parks 2011:13).

California’s employment situation has been staging a comeback since 2009. Californians are returning to work and beginning to recover from the economic downturn. Statewide SVRA attendance for 2010–2012 did not appreciably decline as it did during the recession years, indicating that as the overall economy has started to emerge from the recession, SVRA visitation has stabilized and begun to trend upward (State Parks 2014:107). The number of annual visitors to Carnegie SVRA decreased from approximately 120,000 in 2006 to approximately 67,000 in 2010. In 2013, visitation had increased back to approximately 86,000 (State Parks 2013).

Furthermore, at its meeting held July 25, 2013, the California Air Resources Board presented a report on proposed regulations associated with OHVs. The report projected that after declining dramatically during the recession, new OHV sales in California were expected to rebound in correlation with new

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Recreation 3.13-1

housing starts. Therefore, as the economic outlook improves, the number of visits to California’s SVRAs is anticipated to rebound and trend toward pre-recession figures (State Parks 2014:107).

OHMVR DIVISION STRATEGIC PLAN 2009

In 2009, the OHMVR Division approved the California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division Strategic Plan 2009. The strategic plan was prepared in response to increasing pressures on existing OHV areas and the closure of many areas formerly open to OHV recreation.

As described in the strategic plan, the OHMVR Program is carried out through two basic components. The first is a system of eight SVRAs. The SVRAs provide motorized recreational activities on approximately 120,000 acres of State Parks–owned and managed lands dedicated to OHV recreation and related uses. Units are managed to provide public safety, protect sensitive natural and cultural resources, and mitigate conflicts between various stakeholders. The second component is a grant program that provides financial assistance to local and federal agencies and to Native American Tribes, nonprofits, and educational institutions. Along with the SVRAs, OHV opportunities on federal and other lands are an essential element of the OHMVR Program. The financial assistance provided through the grant program enables other agencies to implement OHV programs that maintain OHV recreational opportunities. Funds also are available to counties and other local communities affected by OHV uses and impacts, including trespass, noise, and other nuisances that require regulatory action, education, and law enforcement (State Parks 2009:ii).

The goals of the California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division Strategic Plan 2009 are as follows (State Parks 2009:vii):

► GOAL 1—Sustain Existing Opportunity: Protect, preserve, and enhance existing OHV opportunities in a manner that ensures well managed, interesting, and high quality experiences, and address the environmental impacts that may be associated with those activities.

► GOAL 2—Increase OHV Opportunity: Add new OHV opportunities where appropriate and needed to replace loss of existing opportunities and respond to changing and future demand.

► GOAL 3—Staff Development: Enhance the abilities of Program managers and staff dedicated to the development, management, and implementation of the OHMVR Program.

► GOAL 4—Develop an Informed and Educated Community: Achieve a highly informed and educated community associated with OHV recreational activities, dedicated to safe and lawful OHV operation and responsible environmental stewardship.

► GOAL 5—Cooperative Relationships: Establish and maintain productive relationships between individuals, organizations, industry, and government agencies to cooperatively identify problems and develop and implement solutions to advance the Mission and Goals of the OHMVR Program.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.13-2 Recreation

► GOAL 6—Informed Decision Making: Improve the quality, quantity, and accessibility of information needed to support sound decision making, transparency of administration, and communication with the interrelated groups interested in, and associated with, the OHMVR Program.

CARNEGIE SVRA

By the early 1940s, motorcyclists had begun using Corral Hollow for OHV recreation. In 1970, the Carnegie SVRA parcel was purchased for a private motorcycle park, known as the Carnegie Cycle Park. Because of increasing insurance costs and operating expenses, the property was sold to the state in 1979, and became Carnegie SVRA (State Parks 2011:17).

From 1996 to 1998, State Parks used legislatively appropriated OHV Trust funds to acquire an additional 3,100 acres of property immediately west of Carnegie SVRA, to provide additional OHV recreation opportunities. The additional acreage is referred to in the General Plan as the “expansion area.” It was included as part of Carnegie SVRA at the time of purchase.

The portion of Carnegie SVRA currently open to the public encompasses 1,575 acres. The SVRA is especially suited for off-highway motorcycle use because of its steep hills and narrow trails. The facility also provides opportunities for four-wheel-drive vehicles, ATVs, and recreational utility vehicles that include trails, open riding, a 4x4 play area and obstacle course, and motorcycle and ATV tracks. The valley floor offers a variety of tracks, including a motocross track for off-highway motorcycles only, an ATV/motocross track, a children’s track designated for vehicles with small engines up to 70cc, and a beginner track designated for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs with engines up to 110cc. Carnegie SVRA offers both day-use areas and 23 overnight campsites. The 3,100-acre expansion area is not currently open the public or available for recreation use.

Most visits to Carnegie SVRA occur between October and April, which also is the time when red-sticker vehicles1 are allowed to operate at the SVRA. Carnegie SVRA hosts a variety of OHV special events. Each spring, Carnegie SVRA hosts the National Championship Hillclimbs and District 36 Motorcycle Club Hare Scramble off-road motorcycle race. The State Championship Hillclimbs take place in the fall. A visitor appreciation day is held annually at the SVRA. Throughout the year, manufacturers test their product lines in the park, provide riding instruction for their staff members, and use the rugged terrain to test for vehicle safety.

Carnegie SVRA is a training site for several public safety agencies. All of the following nearby agencies use the SVRA’s rugged terrain for OHV law enforcement pursuit training: the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, Oakland Police Department, San Francisco Police Department, East Bay Regional

1 Red stickers are issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles only for model year 2003 and newer OHVs that are not certified to California OHV emission standards and that have a “3” or “C” in the eighth position of the vehicle identification number. Red stickers allow seasonal use only in California OHV riding areas.


Park District, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Security, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SURVEY

A survey was posted on the Carnegie SVRA General Plan website (http://www.CarnegieGeneralPlan.com) for a 6-month period starting in May 2012. The survey consisted of 15 questions and was intended to gather information about visitor demographics, visitor experiences, and potential improvements to the park. A total of 934 individuals responded to the survey. Although establishing a representative sample of a population using a voluntary Internet survey generally is difficult, a minimum sample size of 383 would permit a 95 percent confidence level and 5 percent margin of error for survey results, based on the 2012 park attendance of 84,690 people (Raosoft 2004).

Based on the survey results, the median distance traveled to Carnegie SVRA was 31 miles; however, many visitors came from Southern California and outside the state. Many respondents to the survey were frequent visitors to Carnegie SVRA; more than 50 percent had been there at least six times in the 12 months before the survey. Only 7 percent of the respondents had never visited the SVRA (State Parks 2013).

Sixty percent of visitors had been coming to the SVRA for more than 10 years. Close to 40 percent of those who had visited for more than 10 years said that they came more than 10 times a year, and more than 60 percent said that they came more than six times a year. Although the SVRA’s 23 campsites can accommodate trailers, the SVRA is used primarily by visitors with OHVs, and nearly 80 percent of the visitors ride dirt bikes (State Parks 2013).

The majority (60 percent) of respondents said that they visit Carnegie SVRA because it is the closest OHV recreation area to their homes. Variety of terrain, specific trails, and landscape/scenery also were important reasons for visiting Carnegie SVRA. Very few respondents chose Carnegie SVRA because it is considered less crowded than other recreation areas. An overwhelming number of respondents said that they visit Carnegie SVRA to ride off-highway motorcycles (State Parks 2013).

Survey respondents visiting OHV facilities other than Carnegie SVRA reported that Hollister Hills (San Benito County) is their predominant choice. Stonyford (Mendocino County) and Foresthill (Placer County) are the second and third most visited OHV facilities. Other OHV facilities visited by the respondents included Cow Mountain (Lake and Mendocino Counties), Clear Creek (San Benito and Fresno Counties), Frank Raines (Stanislaus County), Georgetown (El Dorado County), Hungry Valley (Ventura and Los Angeles County), Mammoth Bar (Placer County), Metcalf (Santa Clara County), Prairie City (Sacramento County), Pi-Pi Valley (Amador County), and Oceano Dunes (San Luis Obispo County) (State Parks 2013).




No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws regarding recreation are applicable to the planning area.


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

The founding legislation (1971) for the establishment of OHV facilities and the subsequent revisions to this law authorize and direct State Parks to implement and administer a program to manage and enhance OHV recreational uses and motorized off-highway access to nonmotorized recreation (PRC Section 5090.01 et seq.). State Parks is charged with administering the state’s OHMVR Program to provide high-quality OHV recreation opportunities and address the effects inherent with those activities (State Parks 2009:ii).

Amendments in 1982 created an OHMVR Commission to allow public input and provide policy guidelines for the OHMVR Program. Certain aspects, such as the way in which funding is allocated and the roles and the responsibilities of the OHMVR Commission, have changed over time. The OHMVR Act of 2003 was enacted under PRC Section 5090.01 et seq., and the Chappie-Z’berg Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 is part of the California Vehicle Code in Section 38000 et seq. (State Parks 2009:2–3).

The legislation requires maintenance and oversight to allow for sustainable OHV use, consistent with good environmental stewardship. The legislation also provides for expansion and management of existing OHV areas for long-term use. Another OHMVR Program component supports motorized off-highway access to nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Furthermore, the founding legislation requires the OHMVR Program to receive equal priority with other State Parks programs (State Parks 2009:2–3).

Policies pertaining to SVRAs, outlined in PRC Section 5090.43, are as follows:

(a) State vehicular recreation areas shall be established on lands where there are quality recreational opportunities for off-highway motor vehicles and in accordance with the requirements of Section 5090.35. Areas shall be developed, managed, and operated for the purpose of making the fullest public use of the outdoor recreational opportunities present. The natural and cultural elements of the environment may be managed or modified to enhance the recreational experience consistent with the requirements of Section 5090.35.

(b) Lands for state vehicular recreation areas shall be selected for acquisition so as to minimize the need for establishing sensitive areas.


(c) After January 1, 1988, no new cultural or natural preserves or state wildernesses shall be established within state vehicular recreation areas. To protect natural and cultural values, sensitive areas within state vehicular recreation areas may be designated by the [OHMVR] Division if the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation therefore. These sensitive areas shall be managed by the [OHMVR] Division in accordance with Sections 5019.71 and 5019.74, which define the purpose and management of natural and cultural preserves.

If off-highway motor vehicle use results in damage to any natural or cultural values, appropriate measures shall be taken to protect these lands from any further damage. These measures may include the erection of physical barriers and shall include the restoration of natural resources and the repair of damage to cultural resources.

State Parks prepares general plans for its park facilities. A park general plan directs the long-range development and management of a park by providing broad policy and program guidance. A California State Park must have an approved general plan before any major park facilities can be developed.

OFF-HIGHWAY MOTOR VEHICLE RECREATION ACT

The OHMVR Act requires the OHMVR Division to implement and administer the OHMVR Program, which provides and supports sustainable, ecologically based opportunities for OHV recreation at specified areas throughout the state (PRC Section 5090 et seq.). The act states that effectively managed areas and adequate facilities for the use of OHVs, conservation, and enforcement are essential for ecologically balanced recreation.

REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES

No regional or local plans, policies, regulations, or ordinances related to recreation are applicable to the planning area.


Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on recreation if it would:

► increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or

► include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.



As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” activities envisioned in the General Plan, such as construction of campgrounds and picnic areas and construction and operation of OHV trails, would create additional recreational opportunities at Carnegie SVRA. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities to the extent that substantial physical deterioration of any facility would occur or be accelerated. This issue is not discussed further in this draft environmental impact report (DEIR).



The evaluation of potential impacts of General Plan implementation on recreation facilities is based on research on existing conditions at Carnegie SVRA, and on an analysis of the potential for implementation of the General Plan to result in changes to the physical environment.


IMPACT 3.13-1

Recreational Facilities or Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities that May Have an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment

Activities envisioned in the General Plan, such as construction of campgrounds and picnic areas and construction and operation of OHV trails and other facilities, could result in adverse physical impacts on the environment. The General Plan establishes the long-range purpose and vision for Carnegie SVRA. The General Plan’s goals and guidelines provide guidance on how to achieve the purpose, vision, and management intent for the SVRA. The goals and guidelines address known planning issues while providing a foundation for resource protection, development, operation and management, and interpretation of the SVRA. They also provide a framework for subsequent planning and development for the General Plan’s concepts. As outlined in Chapter 4 of the General Plan, natural and cultural resources in the visitor experience areas are to be managed to protect their integrity and comply with relevant state and federal laws and regulations regarding their management and protection.

This DEIR provides assumptions for the overall level of development that could occur under the General Plan. Figure 4-1 in the General Plan shows the location of 11 proposed visitor experience areas, each with different characteristics, activities, or allowable uses; resources; and related management requirements. General Plan Table 4-1 provides descriptions of the visitor experience areas. The descriptions define each area and its allowable uses, and discuss area-specific resource management considerations, if applicable. In Table 4-1, resource management considerations are included only when an action or requirement exists for a specific visitor experience area beyond the general resource management goals and guidelines that apply to the entire SVRA.


Resource management goals and guidelines, described in Section 4.4 of the General Plan, apply to all visitor experience areas. As detailed in Section 4.4.1, the physical resource management goals provide for the protection of water quality, soils, and geology. The natural resource management goals provide for the protection and stewardship of natural resources while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

Because new recreation facilities would be constructed in the planning area as envisioned by the General Plan, the construction of the new facilities has been analyzed at a program level throughout Chapter 3 of this DEIR. The General Plan includes goals and guidelines, and this DEIR includes mitigation measures where necessary, that would reduce or avoid potential impacts. No additional potentially significant impact related to construction of the recreation facilities would occur beyond those that are comprehensively analyzed throughout this DEIR. Future facility construction plans would be subject to project-level CEQA analysis and mitigation, if necessary. Thus, the impact would be less than significant.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to recreation.


No significant impacts related to recreation would result with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

This section describes existing roadways in the planning area, intersection and roadway volumes, and levels of service (LOS). It also characterizes traffic levels at Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) and the regional distribution of traffic related to SVRA operations. The analysis in this section is based on the traffic study provided in Appendix D. In addition, this section discusses the federal, state, and local regulatory framework and analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan on transportation and traffic.


A description of regional and surrounding land use and facilities is provided in Section 2.1 of the General Plan. General Plan Section 2.2 characterizes existing land uses, circulation, access, and facilities in the planning area.

The planning area is located along Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road, midway between Livermore and Interstate 580 (I-580), straddling Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. The roadway is called Tesla Road in Alameda County and Corral Hollow Road in San Joaquin County. Carnegie SVRA provides recreation opportunities for off-highway motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, and four-wheel-drive recreationists. The facility is open from 8 a.m. until dusk, 7 days a week. One primary park entrance from Corral Hollow Road currently provides access to the site (see Figure 4-1 of the General Plan).

EXISTING ROADWAYS

The study area for the traffic analysis includes intersections and roadway segments near Carnegie SVRA that provide both regional access and direct local access to the SVRA. The following intersections and roadway segments were studied to identify the potential effects of changes in the study area:

► Tesla Road/Vasco Road ► Tesla Road/Greenville Road ► Corral Hollow Road/SVRA park access ► Corral Hollow Road/I-580 southbound ramps ► Corral Hollow Road/I-580 northbound ramps ► Southfront Road/I-580 eastbound ramps ► Altamont Pass Road/I-580 westbound ramps ► Corral Hollow Road west of SVRA park access (roadway segment)

Nearby roadways are summarized below.

Corral Hollow Road provides regional access to I-580, which is approximately 4 miles east of the planning area. The roadway extends west from I-580 to the planning area and then continues as Tesla Road from the Alameda County line into the city of Livermore. In the vicinity of the planning area,

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Transportation and Traffic 3.14-1

Corral Hollow Road is a two-lane rural facility that follows the area’s rolling terrain. The roadway provides 11- to 12-foot travel lanes with 0- to 1-foot shoulders. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour. Access to Carnegie SVRA is provided via Corral Hollow Road just east of the Alameda County line. A stop sign controls access to Corral Hollow Road from the SVRA. There is no left-turn lane on Corral Hollow Road at its intersection with the SVRA access road. Corral Hollow Road adjacent to Carnegie SVRA carries an average of 2,400 daily vehicles on weekdays, with average daily volumes decreasing to 900 vehicles on weekends. Weekday volumes on Corral Hollow Road and Tesla Road are heavily influenced by commuter traffic because the roadways provide an alternate route to I-580 between Tracy and Livermore. The San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 classifies Corral Hollow Road as a “Major County Road.”

Tesla Road is a two-lane rural road that extends from the Alameda/San Joaquin County line west to South Livermore Avenue. The roadway provides access to Carnegie SVRA from the Livermore area and intersects several north-south roadways in Livermore, which in turn provide access to I-580 through Livermore. The roadway adheres to the rolling terrain from the Alameda County line west to Greenville Road and generally provides 12-foot travel lanes with 1- to 2-foot paved shoulders. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. West of Greenville Road, the facility is relatively flat and straight and provides 12-foot travel lanes with 6-foot bike lanes. The Circulation Element of the City of Livermore General Plan classifies Tesla Road as a “Major Street” west of Greenville Road.

Greenville Road is a north-south roadway that links Tesla Road in the south to Altamont Pass Road in the north at I-580. The facility is mostly a two-lane road, widening to four lanes at its northerly terminus near I-580. Two travel lanes are provided at the I-580 undercrossing and connection to Altamont Pass Road. Access to westbound I-580 is provided via Altamont Pass Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Greenville Road. Stop signs control the Greenville Road/Tesla Road intersection at all approaches. The roadway carries an average of approximately 4,000 vehicles per day in the south at Tesla Road and 10,500 vehicles per day in the north at Altamont Pass Road. The Circulation Element of the City of Livermore General Plan classifies Greenville Road as a “Major Street” north of Tesla Road.

Vasco Road extends from Tesla Road in the south through Livermore and provides an interchange with I-580. A traffic signal controls the Vasco Road/Tesla Road intersection. The roadway is a two-lane facility with a center turn lane in the south and widens to a four-lane facility at East Avenue. The roadway carries an average of approximately 9,500 vehicles per day in the south and 31,000 vehicles per day to the north near I-580. The Circulation Element of the City of Livermore General Plan classifies Vasco Road as a “Major Street.”

Southfront Road parallels I-580 and provides a connection from the eastbound I-580 hook ramps to Greenville Road. This segment of Southfront Road is a four-lane facility. A traffic signal controls the Southfront Road/Greenville Road intersection.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 3.14-2 Transportation and Traffic

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Figure 3.14-1 displays the existing peak-hour intersection and roadway volumes used for this analysis. Counts of peak-hour turning movements and 24-hour roadway counts were conducted in December 2011 and April 2012 (Appendix D). Intersection traffic counts were conducted for 2-hour intervals to isolate the volumes for the weekday p.m. and Saturday p.m. peak hours. Counts were conducted during clear-weather days. Because the April 2012 traffic counts were generally slightly higher than the December 2011 counts, the April 2012 counts are presented here and used in the environmental analysis.

EXISTING ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

Tables 3.14-1 and 3.14-2 summarize existing peak-hour intersection and roadway LOS in the traffic study area. Five of the six intersections controlled by stop signs experience satisfactory LOS operations (LOS A–C) during both the weekday and Saturday peak hours. The Altamont Pass Road/westbound I-580 ramp intersection experiences unsatisfactory (LOS F) delays at the northbound approach during the weekday peak hour. This condition is associated with left turns from the off-ramp as motorists attempt to access westbound Altamont Pass Road. Existing left-turn volumes at this location do not currently satisfy peak-hour volume thresholds for installing a traffic signal. The signalized Tesla Road/Vasco Road intersection provides satisfactory LOS operations (LOS B–C) during the Saturday and weekday peak traffic hours, respectively.

Table 3.14-1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service

Control Weekday P.M. Peak Saturday P.M.

LOS Delay LOS Delay

Tesla Road/Vasco Road Signal C 24.6 B 19.6

Tesla Road/Greenville Road Four-way Stop B 14.5 A 8.2

Corral Hollow Road/SVRA access WB left turn NB approach

NB Stop A B

7.9

10.2

A A

7.3 8.8

Corral Hollow Road/SB I-580 WB left turn SB approach

SB Stop A C

8.0

16.0

A A

7.3 9.8

Corral Hollow Road/NB I-580 EB left turn NB approach

NB Stop A B

7.5

13.4

A A

7.6 9.8

Southfront Road/EB I-580 Three-way Stop B 12.3 A 8.1

Altamont Pass Road/WB I-580 WB left turn NB approach

NB Stop A F

9.0

75.5

A A

7.6 9.5

Notes: EB = eastbound; I-580 = Interstate 580; LOS = level of service (delay is in seconds); NB = northbound; SB = southbound; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area; WB = westbound

Source: Data compiled by KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. in 2012


The Corral Hollow Road access to Carnegie SVRA experiences satisfactory LOS A–B operations. The relatively low volume of existing traffic turning left into the SVRA does not currently warrant a left-turn lane on Corral Hollow Road.

Table 3.14-2 summarizes existing peak-hour roadway operations on Corral Hollow Road adjacent to the planning area. The roadway operates satisfactorily at LOS C and LOS A, respectively, during the weekday and Saturday study periods.

Table 3.14-2. Existing Roadway Levels of Service

Location Number of

Lanes LOS

Standard

Weekday Saturday

Peak-Hour Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Peak-Hour Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Corral Hollow Road west of SVRA Access

2 D 281 0.15 C 67 0.04 A

Notes: LOS = level of service; V/C = volume-to-capacity


Because of the frequency of accidents along Tesla Road between Livermore and the San Joaquin County line (95 incidents within a 5-year period), Alameda County’s Public Works Agency recently began a safety study of this roadway segment. This study is intended to identify and recommend potential future safety improvements for the roadway, but no widening or capacity improvements are under consideration.

Traffic counts at the access road to Carnegie SVRA showed a traffic volume of 26 vehicles during the weekday p.m. peak hour (between 4 and 6 p.m.), with a daily two-way volume of 242 vehicles. Saturday (midday) counts showed a volume of 43 vehicles, with a daily two-way volume of 552 vehicles. Based on these counts, Table 3.14-3 summarizes the number of vehicle trips being generated at Carnegie SVRA along with the peak-hour directional split into and out of the SVRA. Daily traffic counts show that 121 vehicles accessed Carnegie SVRA on a weekday and 276 vehicles accessed the SVRA on a Saturday.

Table 3.14-3. Traffic Counts at Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area

Location

Weekday Saturday

Daily P.M. Peak Hour

Daily Midday Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Carnegie SVRA access 242 50% 50% 26 552 48% 52% 43

Notes: SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area



Source: KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. 2014

Figure 3.14-1. Existing Volumes


The daily traffic-count information shows weekday activity occurring primarily from about noon until 7 p.m., with Saturday traffic distributed throughout the day. Saturday traffic generally consisted of arrivals in the morning and departures in the afternoon, with a balance of inbound and outbound traffic around midday.

Based on peak-hour intersection counts, 45 percent of the traffic generated by Carnegie SVRA was oriented to the west on Tesla Road and 55 percent was oriented to the east on Corral Hollow Road. Table 3.14-4 summarizes the estimated regional distribution of traffic generated by Carnegie SVRA, based on spot observations at study intersections of motorists transporting off-road vehicles such as motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles.

Table 3.14-4. Regional Distribution Of Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area Traffic

Location and Direction Percent of SVRA Trips

North on Corral Hollow Road beyond I-580 15%

South on I-580 from Corral Hollow Road 35%

North on I-580 from Corral Hollow Road 5%

North on Greenville Road 15%

North on Vasco Road 10%

West on Tesla Road beyond Vasco Road 20%

Total 100%

Notes: I-580 = Interstate 580; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area


Roadways and most study intersections that provide access to the planning area currently operate at a satisfactory LOS. The Altamont Pass Road/westbound I-580 ramp study intersection experiences unsatisfactory (LOS F) delays at the northbound approach during the weekday peak hour. These delays are associated with motorists making left turns from the off-ramp when attempting to access westbound Altamont Pass Road. Existing left-turn volumes at this location do not currently satisfy peak-hour volume thresholds for installing a traffic signal.

On average, the quantity of traffic generated by Carnegie SVRA is approximately 240 daily vehicles per weekday, based on April 2012 traffic counts. Weekend daily volumes average approximately 550 vehicles on Saturday; however, background traffic volumes on Corral Hollow Road and Tesla Road are considerably lower on Saturday than on weekdays.


The “Transportation and Traffic” section in Section 2.7.3, “Regulatory Influences,” of the General Plan includes a discussion of federal, state, and regional and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws applicable to transportation and traffic in the planning area.



Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on transportation and traffic if it would:

► conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized 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;

► conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;

► substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);

► result in inadequate emergency access; or

► conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

A traffic impact may be considered significant if it renders an unacceptable LOS on a street segment, at a signalized intersection, or at a stop sign–controlled intersection, or if it worsens already unacceptable conditions. Local jurisdictions and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopt minimum LOS standards for use in traffic studies and environmental impact reports (EIRs).

For this study, the significance of a project’s impact on traffic operating conditions is based on a determination of whether resulting LOS is considered acceptable. An impact of implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan on traffic conditions is considered significant if implementation of the General Plan would cause LOS to change from levels considered acceptable to levels considered unacceptable, or would noticeably worsen already unacceptable LOS at an intersection. The following sources have been reviewed:

1. San Joaquin County Traffic Study Guidelines. The guidelines note that all San Joaquin County roadways (as defined in the county’s general plan) should operate at LOS C or better (except in a city sphere of influence where the city has adopted LOS D). Intersections should operate at an overall LOS D or better on minor arterials and roadways of higher classification, and LOS C on all other roads. All freeways and state highways should operate at LOS D.


2. City of Livermore General Plan. The City of Livermore General Plan 2003–2025 (City of Livermore 2013) indicates that the City of Livermore will allow a minimum operating standard of mid-level LOS D (45-second average delay threshold) at signalized intersections. Policies also identify intersections near freeway interchanges where LOS E operation is the standard. Identified locations include the Altamont Pass/I-580 westbound ramp intersection and the Southfront Road/I-580 eastbound ramp intersection locations analyzed in this draft EIR (DEIR) section.

3. City of Tracy General Plan. The City of Tracy General Plan (City of Tracy 2011) indicates that the City of Tracy) will call for an average peak-hour LOS D or better on all existing or future streets, with two exceptions: LOS E or lower is allowed on streets and intersections within one-quarter mile of any freeway; LOS E or lower is allowed in the Downtown and Bowtie areas of Tracy.

4. Caltrans Interstate 580 Transportation Concept Report. This concept report (Caltrans 2014) identifies the concept LOS for mainline I-580 in this area as LOS C. The concept report does not specifically address ramp intersection operations.

Based on the above information, this analysis uses the following LOS thresholds to identify potentially significant impacts on roadways and intersections:

► an LOS D operating threshold for roadways and intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans or San Joaquin County, and

► the City of Livermore mid-level LOS D threshold for intersections within the Livermore sphere of influence.

This latter mid-level LOS D policy would apply to the intersections of Tesla Road with Greenville Road and Vasco Road. The LOS D operating threshold would apply to the balance of the study intersections.

At intersections controlled by side-street stop signs, a supplemental signal warrant analysis is also typically used to determine the adequacy of operations and/or the need for improvements. Because minor street traffic can experience significant delays when accessing a major street, side-street delays at any single approach are typically not considered significant unless side-street volumes are large enough to meet peak-hour warrants for installing a traffic signal.


Implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns; therefore, these topics are not addressed further in this DEIR.




The evaluation of potential impacts related to transportation and traffic considered long-term forecasted conditions that take into account projected population growth in the local counties and implementation of the proposed Carnegie SVRA General Plan. Cumulative conditions have been evaluated within the context of future traffic conditions projected for a year-2030 planning horizon.

For this analysis, the length of delays experienced by motorists on each approach has been calculated and the approaches experiencing the highest delays have been reported. Intersection operations have been quantified based on procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010). These procedures are consistent with those identified in the City of Livermore General Plan 2003–2025 and the San Joaquin County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, and with the procedures used by Caltrans.

Unsignalized intersections operating at poor LOS have been evaluated using the peak-hour warrant (Warrant Number 3) as presented in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This warrant was applied where the minor street experiences long delays in entering or crossing the major street for at least one hour of the day.

BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS

Traffic volume forecasts for a year-2030 planning horizon use roadway and intersection volume projections derived from several sources:

► Forecasts of weekday p.m. peak-hour intersection turning movements as developed for the City of Livermore General Plan 2003–2025 Circulation Element Update (City of Livermore 2013). These volume projections, provided by the City of Livermore, have been used to analyze intersections in the traffic study area located within the City of Livermore’s sphere of influence and to project future traffic volumes on Tesla Road east of Livermore.

► Weekday p.m. peak-hour roadway volume projections obtained from the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ regional traffic model. This information was used to identify projected traffic volumes on Corral Hollow Road and at the Corral Hollow Road/I-580 interchange.

► Traffic information contained in the “Traffic and Circulation” section of the City of Tracy General Plan Draft Supplemental EIR (City of Tracy 2009). This information was also used to develop projected traffic volumes on Corral Hollow Road at the I-580 interchange.

These sources have been used to identify projected increases in weekday peak-hour traffic volumes in the traffic study area. For the Saturday analysis, the existing relationship between weekday peak-hour and Saturday traffic volumes has been used to forecast Saturday volumes for the 2030 planning horizon.


FUTURE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Planned roadway improvements in the traffic study area that have been identified in applicable planning documents to support projected long-term traffic conditions (to which implementation of the General Plan would not significantly contribute, as discussed in Impact 3.14-1 below) have been identified:

► Corral Hollow Road at I-580—The City of Tracy General Plan Draft Supplemental EIR (City of Tracy 2009) indicates the need to widen Corral Hollow Road to four lanes over I-580 and adjacent to the Tracy Hills Specific Plan area southwest of I-580, and to reclassify the roadway from a County Road to a Major/Minor Arterial to support the city’s general plan. The EIR does not specifically analyze the interchange ramp intersections and indicates that a new interchange configuration has not been identified. However, it states that a new interchange configuration would likely require an upgrade from the existing rural configuration to an urban design as the area develops.

The Caltrans District 10 transportation concept report for I-580 (Caltrans 2014) also states that improving the interchange at Corral Hollow Road is a planned project, but not programmed at this time.

The San Joaquin Council of Governments’ 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Project List (SJCOG 2014) includes funding for environmental work related to modifications to the existing Corral Hollow Road interchange, but funding for interchange reconstruction has not been identified. Therefore, initial analysis of this interchange under year-2030 conditions assumes the existing roadway and interchange configuration.

► Greenville Road at I-580—The Circulation Element of the City of Livermore General Plan 2003–2025 (City of Livermore 2013) identifies construction of a new interchange on Greenville Road at I-580. This improvement is included in the City of Livermore 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan, Fiscal Years 2014–2015 through 2016–2017 (City of Livermore 2014) and the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan (Alameda County Transportation Commission 2012). The interchange would replace the existing frontage road ramps that currently provide access to I-580 just west of Greenville Road. Greenville Road would also be widened from four to six lanes north of National Drive. These improvements have been assumed to be in place under year-2030 traffic conditions analyzed in this report.

► Greenville Road/Tesla Road intersection—The Circulation Element of the City of Livermore General Plan 2003–2025 (City of Livermore 2013) also identifies installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. This improvement has been assumed to be in place under year-2030 traffic conditions analyzed in this report.


YEAR-2030 CARNEGIE SVRA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

For this analysis, it is assumed that attendance at Carnegie SVRA would likely rise with population growth and general economic conditions in the surrounding region. Based on the California Department of Finance’s demographic projections for 2010 through 2060, San Joaquin County is expected to experience an average annual growth rate of 1.66 percent. Alameda County is expected to experience a smaller average annual growth rate of 0.21 percent.

Although the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would expand the off-highway vehicle (OHV) options at the SVRA and attendance would likely grow naturally, there would likely not be a “bump” in attendance solely as a result of the new opportunities. This lack of a bump would be consistent with attendance data at Hollister Hills SVRA, where overall attendance did not increase after the Renz Property was opened in 2008. Although the Renz Property may have drawn additional riders, any effect was negated by the overall effect of the economic downturn, and attendance at Hollister Hills SVRA was actually lower in 2009 than in 2008. Therefore, based on this example, it is estimated that general economic conditions in the region have a larger effect on short-term attendance than new facility offerings. Furthermore, the expanded offerings in the expansion area would be brought online over time, and the Carnegie SVRA General Plan does not make schedule estimates that could be used to establish a “buildout” date.

Projected population growth and attendance data collected by local park staff members have been used to project year-2030 traffic conditions at Carnegie SVRA. Available attendance data for fiscal year (FY) 2000–2001 to FY 2011–2012 show a peak of 72,815 vehicles (including event attendees) in FY 2001–2002, the year with highest attendance. The year with the lowest attendance in this time frame was FY 2010–2011, which had a total of 31,784 vehicles. Peak-hour and daily weekday and Saturday traffic volumes at the SVRA entrance were conducted in April 2012 for this analysis. Attendance data collected by park staff members for calendar year 2012 indicate 40,202 vehicles at Carnegie SVRA.

The FY 2001–2002 peak vehicle count at the SVRA of 72,815 vehicles, together with the higher average annual population growth rate of 1.66 percent as identified for San Joaquin County, has been used to estimate year-2030 traffic volumes at the SVRA. These factors have been applied to the observed April 2012 traffic counts conducted at the SVRA to identify daily and peak-hour volumes for weekday and Saturday conditions. The resulting traffic volume projections are estimated to represent a conservatively high estimate of future traffic volumes generated by Carnegie SVRA. Resulting year-2030 forecasts represent an increase in traffic volumes at the SVRA of slightly less than 2.5 times the levels observed in conjunction with the 2012 traffic counts conducted at Carnegie SVRA.

Table 3.14-5 summarizes the resulting number of trips projected to be generated by Carnegie SVRA under year-2030 conditions. As shown, 588 daily weekday trips are projected, with 1,340 daily trips on a Saturday. Projected peak-hour volumes consist of 63 weekday and 105 Saturday trips in and out of the SVRA access points.


Table 3.14-5. Estimated Year-2030 Traffic Volumes, Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area

Location

Weekday Saturday

Daily

P.M. Peak Hour

Daily

Midday Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Carnegie SVRA 588 50% 50% 63 1,340 48% 52% 105

Note: SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area


Carnegie SVRA currently has one main entrance and several additional entrances for special purposes, including a special-event entrance and a public exit/entrance for the campground that opens when the main SVRA entrance closes. No direct road or trail connects the original SVRA and the expansion area. Several gates provide access to the expansion area from Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road.

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan identifies three potential access points to the SVRA in addition to the existing main entrance. These general-access points are identified as locations A, B, and C in Figure 3.14-2. These access points were selected to provide a range of potential ways to access the site while maintaining safe conditions along Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road. The exact locations of these entrances will be determined based on a subsequent project-level analysis of site-specific resources and existing conditions.

The traffic analysis assumes four access points to Carnegie SVRA under year-2030 conditions. For the analysis, it is assumed that the existing entrance would continue to function as the main entrance to the SVRA and carry approximately 50 percent of the traffic in and out of the SVRA. The balance of traffic in and out of the SVRA has been assumed to be spread evenly over the three additional access points. Figure 3.14-2 displays traffic volumes projected to be generated by Carnegie SVRA at each of the four entrance points. Figure 3.14-3 displays total projected year-2030 traffic volumes at each study intersection.


IMPACT 3.14-1

Potential for Degradation of Year-2030 Roadway and Intersection Levels of Service

Tables 3.14-6 and 3.14-7 summarize projected peak-hour intersection and roadway LOS in the traffic study area. Satisfactory LOS operations (LOS A–C) are projected in most of the study area, with the exception of the I-580 southbound ramp intersection at Corral Hollow Road. This intersection is projected to experience unsatisfactory (LOS F) delays for the southbound ramp approach during the weekday peak hour.


Table 3.14-6. Year-2030 Intersection Levels of Service

Location Control

Weekday P.M. Peak Saturday P.M.

LOS Delay LOS Delay

Tesla Road/Vasco Road Signal C 31.2 C 23.5

Tesla Road/Greenville Road Signal C 32.3 B 12.6

Corral Hollow Road/SVRA existing main access

WB left turn

NB approach

NB Stop

A

B

8.9

13.5

A

A

7.3

9.0

Corral Hollow Road/SB I-580

WB left turn

SB approach

SB Stop

B

F

10.1

>500

A

C

7.6

15.8

Corral Hollow Road/NB I-580

EB left turn

NB approach

NB Stop

A

C

8.1

20.8

A

B

8.5

11.7

Greenville Road/EB I-580 Signal B 18.0 B 12.8

Greenville Road/WB I-580 Signal B 19.4 B 13.7

Tesla Road/new SVRA access (three locations)

WB left turn

NB approach

NB Stop

A

B

8.8

13.2

A

A

7.3

8.9

Notes: EB = eastbound; I-580 = Interstate 580; LOS = level of service (delay is in seconds); NB = northbound; SB = southbound; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area; WB = westbound


Table 3.14-7. Year-2030 Roadway Levels of Service

Location Number of

Lanes LOS

Standard

Weekday Saturday

Peak-Hour Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Peak-Hour Volume

V/C Ratio LOS

Corral Hollow Road west of SVRA existing access driveway

2 D 710 0.27 D 165 0.08 B

Notes: LOS = level of service; SVRA = State Vehicular Recreation Area; V/C = volume-to-capacity




Figure 3.14-2. SVRA Traffic



Figure 3.14-3. Total Traffic Year 2030


The Corral Hollow Road/southbound I-580 ramp intersection would operate at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour under 2030 Cumulative conditions without project traffic. During these peak-hour conditions, LOS F operation would occur because 640 vehicles would be turning left from the southbound I-580 exit ramp onto Corral Hollow Road toward Tracy. LOS for other directions of travel at the intersection would be LOS A–B.

Implementation of the General Plan would add approximately 40 vehicles to this intersection during the p.m. peak hour, which would compose 2 percent of total intersection volumes projected for the intersection. The approximately 40 vehicles would consist of about 22 vehicles traveling eastbound on Corral Hollow Road at the intersection, about 16 vehicles traveling westbound, and about two vehicles exiting southbound I-580 and turning right onto Corral Hollow Road to reach Carnegie SVRA. These project trips would not have a significant effect on projected intersection delays and would not change projected LOS.

Because implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not generate trips in the affected direction (left-turning traffic from southbound I-580 onto eastbound Corral Hollow Road), General Plan implementation would not result in a considerable contribution to this existing significant impact. This impact of the General Plan would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.14-2

Potential for Operational Degradation at Access Points to Carnegie SVRA

The Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road access points to Carnegie SVRA are projected to operate satisfactorily with implementation of the General Plan. LOS A–B operations are projected at each access point. The projected increase in background traffic on Corral Hollow/Tesla Road would result in some additional delay at the SVRA entrances compared to existing conditions, but would not result in unsatisfactory LOS. The additional planned access points would result in relatively low driveway volumes at any one location. Forecast volumes in and out of the existing main entrance are projected to be only slightly higher than existing traffic volumes. Moderate fluctuations in the use of any one access point are also not projected to significantly change projected LOS. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.



IMPACT 3.14-3

Potential for Degradation of Roadway Operations on Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road

Future access points were selected to provide a range of potential ways to access Carnegie SVRA while maintaining safe conditions along Tesla Road/Corral Hollow Road. The exact locations of these entrances will be determined based on a subsequent project-level analysis of site-specific resources and existing conditions.

The Area A entrance could be located along a relatively straight segment of Tesla Road. Adequate sight distance is available to safely accommodate a driveway entrance.

The Area B entrance would have some constraints because of the horizontal and vertical alignment of Tesla Road through this area. The entrance would likely need to be located on the outside of any existing horizontal curves to provide adequate sight distance. Roadside earthwork may be required to provide adequate sight distance.

The Area C entrance could be located along the outside of a relatively large-radius horizontal curve that exists in this area of Tesla Road. It appears that adequate sight distance could be provided in this area to safely accommodate a driveway entrance.

Table 3.14-7 above summarizes projected peak-hour roadway operations on Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road adjacent to Carnegie SVRA. As shown, future increases in traffic volumes are projected to result in LOS D and LOS B operations on the roadway during the weekday and Saturday study periods, respectively. Continued increases in weekday p.m. peak-hour commuter traffic in the eastbound direction are projected to result in acceptable (LOS D) roadway operations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.


IMPACT 3.14-4

Potential for Special Events to Adversely Affect Peak-Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes, On-Site Parking, Circulation, or Pedestrian Safety or to Obstruct Emergency Access

Special events that have occurred at Carnegie SVRA in the past include the visitor appreciation day, motorcycle hillclimb competitions, and motocross races. These events are generally held on weekends. Based on attendance observations at Carnegie SVRA and other similar SVRAs with existing developed facilities, vehicular volumes at special events would be similar to or slightly higher in magnitude than those on a typical peak Saturday. As indicated in Table 3.14-7 above, projected peak-hour roadway operations on Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road adjacent to Carnegie SVRA during the Saturday study period would result in LOS B operations on the roadway. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.


Issues associated with special events include access management, and management of on-site circulation and parking areas. Because special events such as motocross races typically generate a larger proportion of visitors traveling in motor homes and/or towing large trailers, these vehicles may cause on-site parking and circulation issues. Unmanaged parking has the potential to result in safety concerns for pedestrian traffic and obstruct emergency access.

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan includes the following goals and guidelines to address these issues:

OM Goal 3: Provide facilities and services that contribute to the safety and convenience of visitors and staff.

► OM Guideline 3.6: Design and maintain all access roads and entrances according to applicable safety standards.

► OM Guideline 3.7: Provide signage directing visitors to exit points for ease of egress in case of emergency.

► OM Guideline 3.9: Plan and design facilities to allow ease of access for emergency personnel and to allow clear view of visitors by State Parks peace officers. Locate restroom facilities in visible locations; avoid locating restroom facilities in remote locations.

OM Goal 4: Coordinate with special-event sponsors to ensure that special events are well managed and that appropriate visitor services are available.

► OM Guideline 4.2: Design and implement parking management plans to accommodate increased demand during special events.

► OM Guideline 4.3: During special events, implement dust control measures in dirt parking areas and traffic and parking measures, such as clearly defined staging and unloading areas for OHVs, designated parking areas for large vehicles and trailers, defined parking lots for regular-sized vehicles, designated emergency vehicle parking and access routes, barricades to direct vehicles and pedestrians. Provide travel and parking information in special-event publications.

With implementation of these General Plan goals and guidelines, this impact would be less than significant.



Adoption of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan and implementation of resulting actions would not result in significant impacts related to transportation and traffic.



No significant impacts related to transportation and traffic would result with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


CHAPTER 4 – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 15130 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) discuss the cumulative impacts of a project and determine whether the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” According to CEQA, incremental effects of an individual 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 (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21083[b][2]). “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other reasonably foreseeable projects that are closely related to the proposed project.

For purposes of this draft EIR (DEIR), the project would have a significant cumulative effect if:

► the cumulative effects of other past, current, and probable future projects without the project are not significant and the project’s incremental impact is substantial enough, when added to the cumulative effects, to result in a significant impact; or

► the cumulative effects of other past, current, and probable future projects without the project are already significant and the project contributes measurably to the effect. A cumulative effect is “measurable” if the impact is noticeable or exceeds an established threshold of significance.

Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states:

The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.

4.2 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

The geographic area that could be affected by implementing the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan varies depending on the type of environmental resource being considered. Each section of this DEIR considers the specific geographic segment that is directly related to the

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Cumulative Analysis 4-1

individual topic addressed. For example, some air quality impacts are analyzed based on regional-scale growth; thus, a regional perspective must be used to assess cumulative air quality impacts. Other environmental topics, like noise, require consideration of a smaller, more localized area that surrounds the immediate project area. Table 4-1 presents the geographic scales associated with the different resources addressed in this DEIR analysis.

Table 4-1. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts

Resource Issue Geographic Scope of Impacts

Aesthetics Local and regional

Air Quality Local (carbon monoxide, particulate matter, air toxics) and air basin/regional (ozone and particulate matter)

Biotic Resources Local and regional

Cultural Resources Local and regional

Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources Local and regional

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Local

Hydrology and Water Quality Local and regional areas within the same watershed and aquifer

Land Use and Planning Local and regional

Noise Local

Population and Housing Local

Public Services and Utilities Local and regional

Recreation Local and regional

Transportation and Traffic Local and regional


4.3 CUMULATIVE FORECASTING METHODOLOGY

The CEQA Guidelines allow for use of either the list method or the regional-growth-projections method to determine the scope of related projects for the cumulative impacts analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). The list method involves preparing a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects that produce or would produce related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the lead agency. The regional-growth-projections method involves preparing a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or a related planning document that is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions.

Both approaches were used in this DEIR because although the Carnegie SVRA General Plan identifies specific land uses for a specific locality, the General Plan would be implemented in an area that has experienced and will continue to experience regional growth. This method allows for a thorough,

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 4-2 Cumulative Analysis

project-based cumulative analysis within the defined plan area. However, certain issues that extend far beyond the project vicinity (e.g., air quality, global climate change) also rely on projections.

4.3.1 REGIONAL GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Carnegie SVRA is located in unincorporated Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. As determined through visitor surveys, visitors to Carnegie SVRA are primarily from the local area (the median distance traveled to Carnegie SVRA by survey respondents was 31 miles) (State Parks 2013). Implementing the General Plan would enhance recreational opportunities for the surrounding community.

San Joaquin and Alameda Counties are expected to experience population growth at the levels shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Regional Growth Projections

Jurisdiction

Year Total Increase,

2010–2060 Percent Change,

2010–2060 Percent Average

Annual Growth Rate1 2010 2040 2060

Alameda County 1,513,236 1,678,565 1,675,011 161,775 10.69 0.21

San Joaquin County 686,588 1,213,708 1,538,313 851,725 124.05 1.66

Note: 1 The average annual growth rates were calculated using the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) formula, R= [(P(tn)/P(to))^(1/tn-to-1)]-1,

where R= the average annual growth rate, P(tn)= the population at the end of the period, P(to)= the population at the beginning of the period, tn= the year marking the end of the period, and to= the year marking the beginning of the period.

Source: California Department of Finance 2013; data compiled by AECOM in 2014

Attendance at Carnegie SVRA decreased from approximately 120,000 in 2006 to approximately 67,000 in 2010. The decrease could have been caused in part by the 2008 recession and the resulting decrease in disposable household incomes. In 2013, visitation increased to approximately 86,000, probably the result of a recovering economy.

This type of regional, local, and SVRA attendance growth has the potential to result in numerous environmental issues: traffic congestion, degradation of air quality, loss of biological habitat, degradation of water quality, and other environmental changes. This cumulative analysis considers the regional growth trends and the specific projects discussed below.

4.3.2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS IN THE VICINITY

Information about past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and identified project impacts was gathered from San Joaquin and Alameda Counties through review of available environmental documentation and consultation with planning staff members (conducted in September 2014). Table 4-3 shows a summary of project information and identified projects for these counties, and Figure 4-1 shows the location of each of these identified projects.


Table 4-3. Cumulative Projects

Project Name Project Description Location Potential Impacts Status

Alameda County

Altamont Winds, Inc. Permit Modification—Application No. PLN2011-102

Operational modifications to the existing conditional use permits. The modifications remove the requirements for phased decommissioning and seasonal shutdowns. They also provide for shutdown of 100% of the applicant’s turbines by the end of 2015 and decommissioning 1–2 years thereafter.

North and south of I‐580 in the Altamont Hills of eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, near their boundaries with San Joaquin County

Project issues included air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, noise, and hazards and hazardous materials.

Project approved on July 18, 2013, by East County Board of Zoning Adjustments.

Altamont Winds, Inc. Permit Modification— Application No. PLN2014-28

Modifications to the existing 16 conditional use permits, as modified in 2013 by application PLN2011-102 above. Also, request for a second modification of year-2005 conditional use permits that would allow shutdown of the turbines by the end of 2018 and decommissioning 1–2 years thereafter.

Same as above Project issues included biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials.

Notice of preparation for a supplemental EIR (SEIR) issued on September 15, 2014. Draft SEIR published November 17, 2014. Final SEIR certified by East County Board of Zoning Adjustments February 2, 2015. Appeals under consideration.

Sand Hill Wind Project—Application No. PLN2013-13

Removal and replacement of 70–80 existing wind turbines with 40 new wind turbines to reduce impacts on birds and bats. Impacts of future repowering of an additional 320–330 existing turbines, with new turbines also evaluated on a programmatic level in the EIR.

Same as above Project issues included aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; greenhouse gas emissions; hydrology and water quality; noise; and transportation and traffic.

Project approved and notice of determination filed on May 27, 2014.


Table 4-3. Cumulative Projects

Project Name Project Description Location Potential Impacts Status

Alameda County

Greenville Road Subdivision Project

Subdivision of the 160-acre site into eight 20-acre parcels, overall site grading, construction of irrigation ponds to support a proposed olive orchard, approval of building envelopes or sites on each of the eight lots where construction of single-family homes would occur in the future, and construction of a 3,600-foot emergency vehicle access.

Corner of Greenville Road and Cedar Mountain Road, approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the city of Livermore

Project issues included air quality, biological resources, geology, hydrology, noise, and traffic.

Proposed project pending approval.

Concannon Vineyard Warehouse/Administration Building Project

Construction of a new 50,615-square-foot building to provide additional storage space for wine supplies and materials (e.g., dry bottles and boxes, packaged cases of wine), and administrative offices for existing employees.

On South Livermore Avenue, near Concannon Boulevard, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the city of Livermore

Project issues included cultural resources, geology and soils, and utilities.

Proposed project pending approval.

Notes: EIR = environmental impact report; I-580 = Interstate 580; NA = not applicable

Sources: Alameda County 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2014; data compiled by AECOM in 2014

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

As described in Table 4-1 and the rest of Section 4.2, the cumulative scenario for the various environmental disciplines differs depending on the potential area of effect. For example, the cumulative analysis for regional air quality considers impacts on the entire air basin because air quality impacts occur on a regional or basin-level scale, while the cumulative analysis for archaeology is limited to a local scale because the ground-disturbing activities would be local. The cumulative setting, limitations, and analysis for each discipline are discussed as appropriate below.

4.4.1 AESTHETICS

Visual resources can be either localized or of regional concern, depending on the overall aesthetic environment. Because portions of the higher peaks within Carnegie SVRA are visible from outside the planning area and because there are visually dominant features in the planning area, the cumulative visual environment is the local and regional area.



Figure 4-1. Cumulative Projects


Implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would add new trails and other facilities to Carnegie SVRA; however, as shown in General Plan Figure 4-1, “Preferred Concept Map,” areas with trails, riding areas, gathering services, practice areas, and the special-event area would be concentrated away from higher peaks, so off-highway vehicle (OHV) activities would not be visually apparent from a regional perspective. In addition, at a local level, new structures envisioned in the General Plan would be similar in appearance to existing SVRA structures and would be small relative to the viewshed. California native tree species would be planted if necessary, and nonobtrusive colors would be used to screen new structures from views. The siting of specific facilities such as campgrounds or trails may result in limited tree removal, which could adversely affect the aesthetics of the local area; however, the General Plan’s overall management direction, as supported by goals and associated guidelines, calls for the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of native woodland. Implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not substantially change the overall existing visual character of the area.

Other nearby projects discussed in Table 4-3 would alter the existing visual environment. However, facilities envisioned in the General Plan would not combine visually with these projects. Therefore, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.

4.4.2 AIR QUALITY

A regional approach is taken when evaluating potential cumulative impacts on air quality in the local air basin in which a project is located. The original Carnegie SVRA is located within both the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, and the expansion area is located completely within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. As a result, cumulative air quality impacts are considered across a broad geographical area.

As discussed in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” the impacts of criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions from General Plan construction activities would be temporary, intermittent, and localized, and such emissions would cease after each proposed structure or recreational feature is completed. Emissions could be substantial depending on the spatial and temporal extent and level of construction activity, but with implementation of management practices and other measures included in the General Plan goals and guidelines, impacts would be less than significant. Because the construction impacts would be short term, construction activities for the General Plan would not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment.

Increased operational activities at Carnegie SVRA, caused primarily by projected population growth in the region, would lead to additional visitors and increased emissions of air pollutants. As indicated in Tables 3.2-8 and 3.2-9 in Section 3.2, emissions of oxides of nitrogen, reactive organic gases, and carbon monoxide would increase in the future. Cleaner fuels and vehicles would cause the net change in total emissions to remain below significance thresholds, however, and could even cause total emissions to decrease depending on actual attendance at Carnegie SVRA.


Regarding operational emissions of respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), the projected net change would be greater than the significance threshold. Considering the nonattainment status of both the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins with respect to the California PM10 standard, operational emissions associated with General Plan implementation could be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing air quality impact.

Regional air quality plans prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District account for emissions from OHV recreational activities. Future increases in visitor attendance to Carnegie SVRA were tied to population-growth projections for Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, an approach that is consistent with the projections incorporated into the plans. In addition, the remote location of Carnegie SVRA, the vast acreage of the recreational area, and the propensity of PM10 to quickly fall out of the atmosphere under average weather conditions in the region would limit the amount of PM10 that would leave the boundaries of the planning area. However, with the resulting increase in operational activities, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to significant cumulative impacts on regional air quality. This is discussed in Section 3.2.

4.4.3 BIOTIC RESOURCES

Implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would have a potentially significant impact on biological resources in the region. Habitat that could support special-status plant and wildlife species exists in the planning area and several special-status species have been documented at the SVRA. For example, several ponds in the planning area are known to support California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and western spadefoot toad, all of which are listed or special-status species. Carnegie SVRA also contains suitable movement, denning, and foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox and suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of bird species. Expanding Carnegie SVRA and constructing and operating the facilities described in the General Plan has the potential to result in impacts on these species.

Implementing the natural resources goals and guidelines in the General Plan would serve to protect and conserve the natural resources on-site and minimize potential impacts on common and special-status plant and wildlife species that occur or may occur at Carnegie SVRA. These goals and guidelines are designed to allow existing biological resources to persist at the SVRA after the General Plan is implemented. The General Plan’s goals and guidelines require appropriate planning, restrictions, and stewardship to protect and enhance on-site biological resources. Any sensitive biological resources that may be affected by implementation of any aspect of the General Plan would be protected, restored, or enhanced, and General Plan–related activities would comply with all applicable permit conditions. The appropriate regulatory agencies (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board) would be consulted before construction of any project element that may result in impacts on natural


resources under their jurisdiction. The natural resource goals and guidelines also include provisions for maintaining strict enforcement of riding destination requirements throughout the SVRA according to the allowable uses in the respective visitor experience areas, which will be monitored to ensure that riders comply with the rules and regulations and do not ride outside of designated areas.

With incorporation of the General Plan goals and guidelines and any applicable permit conditions, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact on biological resources in the region.

4.4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural and ethnographic resources are known to exist throughout central California and are not limited to any specific locale. For this reason, the geographic scope for considering cumulative impacts on these resources generally includes the local geography, including any resources that have been physically identified or could be discovered in the planning area, as well as the broader regional geography of the northern San Joaquin Valley. Cumulative impacts on historical and unique archaeological resources are determined based on an analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions near the planning area in combination with potential effects within the planning area itself. In general, archaeological resources found in the Central Valley are remnants of thousands of years of human occupation. Previous development has disturbed or destroyed numerous archaeological and ethnographic sites, and has degraded the fabric and integrity of historic-era landscapes surrounding Carnegie SVRA.

As discussed in Section 3.4, “Cultural Resources,” intensive cultural investigations have been completed, including consultation with interested Native American individuals and organizations. These investigations have identified historic and prehistoric resources that have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and significant under California Register of Historical Resources criteria. One additional prehistoric resource has not been evaluated but is considered eligible/significant for planning purposes. Further, Native American consultants have indicated that the expansion area is part of the larger cultural landscape that is an integral part of their ancestral spiritual (religious) practice. Also, undiscovered cultural resources might be present in the planning area.

With implementation of CR Goals 1, 2, and 3 and associated guidelines from the General Plan, impacts on prehistoric and historic-era resources and human interments would be less than significant. Implementing these goals and guidelines also would ensure that General Plan activities would not incrementally contribute to significant cumulative impacts on important cultural resources in the planning area, and would ensure compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and related provisions of the California Public Resources Code. Consequently, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources.


4.4.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The planning area and Alameda County are located within the Coast Ranges, while most of San Joaquin County is located in the Central Valley. Geologic formations and soil types vary depending on project location, and therefore are site specific. The planning area is underlain by and adjacent to several known active and inactive faults. As a result, infrastructure in the planning area could be subject to damage from surface fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking. The planning area contains unstable soils along the bed of Corral Hollow Creek that could liquefy during a seismic event. In addition, parts of the planning area are underlain by expansive soils and are subject to landslides. Finally, the planning area’s soil types are subject to erosion. However, adherence to General Plan Geo Guidelines 1.1 through 1.3, Soils Guidelines 1.1 and 1.4, and Water Guidelines 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, and 2.8 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils.

Past, present, and future activities in the planning area, in Alameda County, and to a lesser extent in San Joaquin County could expose structures and people to seismic hazards and hazards from unstable soils similar to those described above. However, each present or future project that entails the construction of structures must individually meet requirements of the California Building Standards Code, which has been specifically designed to reduce the risk of damage from seismic events and other geologic and soils hazards to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, no additive effect would result and a cumulatively considerable impact related to seismic or geologic hazards would not occur.

Past and present uses in the planning area have exposed soil to wind and water erosion as new trails and structures have been constructed. Construction activities for planned future uses also would result in short-term exposure to erosion. However, State Parks would prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) with best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce erosion, as required by law under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit (General Plan Water Guideline 2.4). In addition, State Parks would implement the Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA (SWMP) (State Parks 2011), which comprehensively lists site-specific BMPs for reducing erosion in the planning area that have been developed after several years of on-site studies (General Plan Water Guideline 2.2). Construction-related BMPs from the OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control (OHV BMP Manual) (State Parks 2007a) that are specifically designed to reduce erosion and control sedimentation would be implemented at each construction site. In addition, adherence to General Plan Soils Guideline 1.1 would require that Carnegie SVRA facilities be managed to meet the current OHMVR Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines (State Parks 2008), which contains trail design and construction criteria designed to limit erosion.

With adherence to the water and soils guidelines contained in the General Plan, and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP as required by law, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative construction-


related erosion impact. (Long-term cumulative impacts related to erosion are discussed below in Section 4.4.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”)

MINERAL RESOURCES

The presence of mineral resources is dependent on the type of geologic formation, which varies from location to location and therefore is site specific. As discussed in detail in the Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment (State Parks 2007b:28–33), coal, clay, gravel, lime, manganese, and sand were extensively mined in and adjacent to the planning area from 1855 to 1960. Additional mineral resources (i.e., sand and gravel) have since been discovered in the Corral Hollow alluvial fan deposits east of the planning area, near Carbona (south of Tracy); mineral resource extraction has focused on that area since the 1970s (Jensen and Silva 1989).

The planning area is not located within the boundaries of a mineral land classification study authorized by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and therefore is not part of a present-day, regionally designated “significant” mineral resource recovery zone (as classified by the California Geological Survey). The planning area also is not located in a locally designated mineral resource recovery area in either the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 (San Joaquin County 1992:Chapter VI) or the Alameda County General Plan (Alameda County 1994).

Large quantities of mineral deposits have already been removed from the planning area during historic mining activities that occurred over a 100-year period; the planning area is not classified as a present-day regionally or locally important mineral resource recovery area; and mining activities would not be permitted within the planning area because they would be incompatible with the California State Park system’s use goals. Therefore, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not result in the loss of regional or locally designated important mineral resources, and would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Fossils are increasingly being discovered during development-related excavation and earthmoving activities throughout the state. The value or importance of different fossil groups varies depending on the age and depositional environment of the rock unit that contains the fossils, their rarity, the extent to which they have already been identified and documented, and the ability to recover similar materials under more controlled conditions (such as for a research project). Unique, scientifically important fossil discoveries are relatively rare, and the likelihood of encountering them is site specific and based on the type of specific geologic rock formations found underground. These geologic formations vary from location to location.

Portions of the planning area are underlain by the Contra Costa and San Pablo Groups; the Tesla, Moreno, and Panoche Formations; and the Franciscan Melange. Because of the large number of vertebrate fossils recovered from these formations near the planning area (and within the planning area,


in the case of the Franciscan Melange) and from other northern and central California locations, they are considered paleontologically sensitive rock units. This suggests that the potential exists for construction-related earth-moving activities in these formations in the planning area to uncover additional, similar fossil remains. However, adherence to General Plan Geo Guidelines 2.1 and 2.2 would result in less-than-significant impacts on unique paleontological resources.

Unique paleontological resources are site specific; the probability that any project would encounter unique, scientifically important fossils is generally low; and benefits would result from recovery and further study of those fossils if encountered. Therefore, present and future activities in the planning area, including those associated with implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan, would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to paleontological resources.

4.4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Under CEQA, the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on global climate change are considered inherently cumulative; therefore, project-related GHG emissions should be evaluated as cumulative impacts. As detailed in Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Carnegie SVRA’s projected GHG emissions would be well below all adopted surrogate significance thresholds, above which the emissions could be considered significant. It is concluded that GHG emissions resulting from General Plan implementation would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on the environment, and they would not conflict with California’s GHG reduction goals and strategies, as described in Assembly Bill 32.

In addition, the General Plan contains policies that would serve to further reduce projected GHG emissions, such as incorporating sustainability into Carnegie SVRA development, operations, and maintenance; supporting the use of electric OHVs; and encouraging visitors and OHV recreationists to protect natural resources and incorporate sustainable practices.

Activities associated with implementation of the General Plan would not generate GHG emissions that could be considered substantial. Therefore, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions.

4.4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials associated with past or current uses of a project site usually occur on a project-by-project basis, and are generally limited to the specific project site. As described in Section 3.7, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” hazardous materials typically used in construction, such as diesel fuel, solvents, and paints, would likely be used during construction activities for implementation of the General Plan. Attendance at Carnegie SVRA is anticipated to increase over time, which would increase the use of gasoline and oils needed to operate OHVs. The increased use of


these common materials would not create a substantial hazard to the public or environment because individuals would handle relatively small volumes of them. No planned projects that would use, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials are anticipated in the immediate vicinity of Carnegie SVRA. SVRA facilities would be constructed, maintained, and operated in compliance with federal, state, and local regulatory requirements regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.

4.4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

SURFACE WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER RUNOFF

Construction activities for the General Plan would involve grading and earthmoving that could result in soil erosion and stormwater discharges of suspended solids, increased turbidity, and potentially mobilization of other pollutants from project-related construction sites. This contaminated runoff could enter Corral Hollow Creek, Arroyo Seco Creek, or other on-site drainage channels and ultimately drain off-site. Contaminants such as fuels, oils, paints, solvents, cleaners, and concrete could be accidentally spilled during construction activities in the planning area, resulting in contamination of the soil surface. However, State Parks would prepare and implement a SWPPP with BMPs designed to reduce erosion, as required by law under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit (General Plan Water Guideline 2.4).

State Parks also would implement the SWMP (State Parks 2011), which comprehensively lists site-specific BMPs for reducing erosion in the planning area that have been developed after several years of on-site studies (General Plan Water Guideline 2.2). These studies included site-specific hydrologic modeling conducted to support the proposed BMPs (see the Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment [State Parks 2007b:66–112]). Therefore, adherence to the General Plan would result in less-than-significant short-term water quality and erosion impacts from construction activities. Because present and future projects in the planning area would be required to adhere to these policies, implementing the General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to short-term surface water quality and stormwater runoff.

Implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would create new impervious surfaces in the long term. These impervious surfaces would increase the volume and peak discharge rate of stormwater runoff generated in the planning area. They also could cause or contribute to long-term discharges of urban contaminants (e.g., sediment, oil and grease, fuel, trash, and pesticides). Past activities in the planning area, such as mining and OHV use, have resulted in increased stormwater runoff and erosion on hillsides, which in turn have transported sediment and other pollutants into local drainages such as Corral Hollow Creek. However, the SWMP (State Parks 2011) contains more than 70 pages of detailed, site-specific stormwater and erosion management elements with BMPs that were developed after years


of study specifically to reduce stormwater runoff and erosion from future operational activities within the planning area. In addition, the installation of new roads, trails, and stream crossings would be controlled by the design, construction, and monitoring criteria that are specified in the OHV BMP Manual (State Parks 2007a), the OHMVR Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines (State Parks 2008), and the SWMP (State Parks 2011). With adherence to General Plan Water Guidelines 2.1 through 2.9 and Soils Guidelines 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5, impacts related to long-term surface water quality would be less than significant.

All development projects near Carnegie SVRA would be required to adhere to all applicable permitting requirements regarding water quality, such as preparing and implementing a SWPPP, thus minimizing the potential for water quality impacts. Because present and future projects in the planning area would be required to adhere to the General Plan policies noted above, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to long-term surface water quality and stormwater runoff.

SURFACE DRAINAGE AND FLOODING

The General Plan contemplates installation of only a limited number of new buildings and concrete pads. These new buildings and pads would be few and small, and would result in only minor surface alterations relative to the size of the planning area. The primary new facilities in the planning area would consist of new trails and access roads. At new creek crossings, either culverts would be employed or the creek bottom surface would be hardened at the crossing (e.g., using articulated concrete block) to prevent erosion and ensure that streamflow would be unobstructed. The installation of new roads, trails, and stream crossings would be controlled by the design, construction, and monitoring criteria specified in the OHV BMP Manual (State Parks 2007a), the OHMVR Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines (State Parks 2008), and the SWMP (State Parks 2011), as required by General Plan Water Guidelines 2.1 through 2.9. Therefore, the proposed buildings, roads, and trails would not alter drainages in a way that would substantially increase the potential for flooding, nor would a cumulatively significant flooding impact from alteration of drainages occur.

However, a gathering/services area would be located in the original Carnegie SVRA on the north side of Corral Hollow Creek. Potential uses of this area could include campgrounds, picnic areas, restrooms, parking areas, concessions, a ranger station, a training site (that could include classroom/meeting space), and an interpretative facility/visitor center. As shown in Figure 3.8-1, approximately 27.5 acres of the gathering/services area would be located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain.

Water Guideline 4.1 in the General Plan calls for locating new facilities outside flood hazard areas wherever possible. Should this not be possible, facilities would need to be designed to withstand occasional flooding; to minimize effects on facilities from seasonal flooding; and to protect visitors from flood hazards through design and the use of adaptive management measures such as seasonal closures of


areas at risk of flooding. This guideline provides that if structures must be located within potential flood areas, they are to be designed to avoid substantially impeding or redirecting flood flows. Further, if buildings are planned for development in the 100-year floodplain, State Parks would prepare a hydraulic analysis to demonstrate that flood protection meeting FEMA’s criteria for protecting against a 100-year (0.01 annual exceedance probability) flood would be provided, that hydromodification effects on stream channel geomorphology would not occur, and that the downstream flood hazard would not increase substantially.

For these reasons, the impact of constructing General Plan–related facilities within the 100-year floodplain would be less than significant, and implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to placement of structures within a flood hazard area.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

The planning area is located in an undefined groundwater area, where water is drawn from fractured bedrock. Groundwater quantity and quality varies from well site to well site because of the unpredictable yields of the fractured rock system that typifies the regional geology. The primary source of groundwater recharge in the planning area is located within the alluvial soils in and around Corral Hollow Creek. However, groundwater recharge occurs throughout the planning area as rainfall penetrates the shallower soil layers and enters the cracks of fractured bedrock on the hillsides.

Salix and Geosyntec indicated that less than 5 percent of the original SVRA consists of impervious surfaces (State Parks 2011:25). The General Plan contemplates installation of only a limited number of small new buildings and concrete pads. These buildings and pads would be small and few relative to the large amount of pervious acreage in the planning area. Most new facilities would be associated with roads and trails. As described in Impact 3.8-1, the planned improvements would increase the effectiveness of the existing sediment basin systems by increasing the stormwater holding capacity that allows infiltration to groundwater. Furthermore, vegetated buffers are proposed along stream corridors, allowing for continued infiltration in those areas. Finally, although OHV use would result in compaction of the roads and trails over time, the trails would not be hard surfaced; therefore, some infiltration to groundwater would still occur.

Therefore, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not result in substantial interference with groundwater recharge and would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to groundwater recharge.

4.4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Alameda and San Joaquin Counties are expected to experience population growth as shown in Table 4-2. Under cumulative conditions, future growth may result in a variety of physical impacts related to consistency with adopted land use plans. Impacts involving adopted land use plans or policies


generally would not combine to result in cumulative impacts. The determination of significance for impacts related to land use issues considers whether a project would conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. Such a conflict is site specific; it is addressed on a project-by-project basis.

As discussed in Section 3.9, “Land Use and Planning,” activities proposed under the General Plan would be consistent with the land use designations and zoning for the planning area, as presented in Alameda County’s East County Area Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010, and the General Plan is consistent with State Parks guidelines and regulations. Land use impacts occur on a project-specific basis rather than a cumulative basis, and the General Plan would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact on land use and planning.

4.4.10 NOISE

The primary noise sources at Carnegie SVRA are vehicle traffic on Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road, explosives testing, aircraft overflights, and OHV activities. Ambient noise levels in the area are influenced by traffic on major roads such as Tesla Road and Corral Hollow Road. The General Plan does not propose to construct or enable any residential units in the planning area or surrounding area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., by extending roads and other infrastructure). As discussed in Section 3.10, “Noise,” the only infrastructure (roadways, water supply) to be constructed with General Plan implementation would be that necessary to serve Carnegie SVRA visitors and staff members working at the site. All infrastructure facilities envisioned in the General Plan would be internal to Carnegie SVRA.

Implementing the General Plan would increase traffic in the local area over time (as detailed in Section 3.14, “Transportation and Traffic”). As shown in Table 3.10-3, “Summary of Future Noise Levels Modeled for Traffic in the Planning Area,” of Section 3.10, “Noise,” future (year 2030) increases in traffic noise levels would range from 0.2 to 13.4 decibels. The greatest increases would occur along the Interstate 580 (I-580) on- and off-ramps at Corral Hollow Road east of the planning area and the I-580 on- and off-ramps at Greenville Road west of the planning area. However, no noise-sensitive receptors are located within 100 feet of the I-580 on- and off-ramps. In areas where larger increases in traffic noise are expected with implementation of the General Plan, low traffic volumes currently exist. Thus, although noise levels may increase in these areas with General Plan implementation, the overall noise level would remain at or below 60 A-weighted decibels day-night average noise level (dBA Ldn) (as shown in Table 3.10-3) for roads in Alameda County and at or below 65 dBA Ldn (as shown in Table 3.10-3) for roads in San Joaquin County.

As described in Impact 3.10-1, ambient noise levels would increase by 7.5 dBA with implementation of the General Plan, which would exceed the threshold of 5 dBA. Implementing the guidelines listed under


General Plan OM Goal 5 would reduce operational noise impacts within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors to a sufficient degree that ambient noise levels would increase by less than 5 dBA. In addition, as discussed above in Table 4-3, no planned or future projects that would substantially change the noise environment are anticipated in the immediate vicinity of Carnegie SVRA.

For these reasons, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not result in a significant impact on noise resources and would not make a considerable incremental contribution to a cumulatively significant impact on noise.

4.4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING

The General Plan does not propose to construct or enable any new residential units in the planning area or surrounding area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., by extending roads and other infrastructure). As discussed in Section 3.11, “Population and Housing,” the only infrastructure (roadways, water supply) to be constructed with implementation of the General Plan would be that necessary to serve Carnegie SVRA visitors and staff members working at the site. All infrastructure facilities envisioned in the General Plan would be internal to Carnegie SVRA. Therefore, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the planning area or surrounding area and would not make a considerable incremental contribution to a cumulatively significant impact on population and housing.

4.4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

The cumulative analysis of public services and utilities is typically based on the local community being served and the potential impacts on that provision of service. Implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would enhance the existing uses at the SVRA and may slightly increase the need for public services such as emergency medical services and utilities such as water supplies and electrical transmission. However, as discussed in Section 3.12, “Public Services and Utilities,” the increase in demand would be minor, would not exceed existing capacities for potable and nonpotable water supplies, and would not affect the ability of local service providers to adequately serve the rest of the community. Existing emergency service responders and utility capacities are expected to be sufficient to meet any increase in demand for emergency services at Carnegie SVRA. In addition, projects located in other jurisdictions may be served by different providers or agencies. For these reasons, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact on public services and utilities.

4.4.13 RECREATION

Activities envisioned in the General Plan, such as constructing campgrounds and picnic areas and constructing and operating OHV trails and other facilities, could result in adverse physical impacts on the environment. This DEIR provides assumptions regarding the overall level of development that could occur under the General Plan (as shown in General Plan Figure 4-1). Because new recreation facilities would be constructed in the planning area as envisioned by the General Plan, the cumulative scenario


associated with construction of the new facilities has been analyzed at a program level throughout this DEIR. No potentially significant cumulative impacts related to construction of the recreation facilities would occur beyond those that are comprehensively analyzed throughout this cumulative impact analysis. Thus, implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

4.4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

As described in Section 3.14, “Transportation and Traffic,” the analysis conducted for this DEIR considered long-term forecasted conditions that take into account projected population growth in Alameda and San Joaquin Counties and implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. Cumulative conditions have been evaluated within the context of future traffic conditions projected for a year-2030 planning horizon.

The Corral Hollow Road/southbound I-580 ramp intersection would operate at level of service (LOS) F during the weekday p.m. peak hour under 2030 Cumulative conditions without project traffic (Tables 3.14-7 and 3.14-8). Implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would add approximately 40 vehicles to this intersection during the p.m. peak hour; this would comprise 2 percent of total intersection volumes projected for the intersection. These project trips would not have a significant effect on projected intersection delays and would not change projected LOS.

Access points to Carnegie SVRA and roadway operations on Corral Hollow Road/Tesla Road under cumulative conditions and with special events would operate satisfactorily with implementation of the General Plan. The Carnegie SVRA General Plan includes operations and maintenance goals and guidelines to minimize the potential for special events at Carnegie SVRA to adversely affect on-site parking, circulation, pedestrian safety, and emergency access. No significant impacts related to transportation and traffic would result, and implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact on transportation and traffic.


CHAPTER 5 – OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The following topic was eliminated from full analysis in this draft environmental impact report (DEIR) because no potential exists for significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) General Plan related to this issue. A brief reason for elimination is provided below.

5.1.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” no agricultural land uses occur in the planning area. Most of the expansion area consists of open grassland that historically has been used for cattle grazing, most recently through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with State Parks’ Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division. The MOU expired in 2013, and no MOU currently is in effect for cattle grazing in the expansion area.

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) compiles maps of Important Farmland. The DOC Division of Land Resource Protection’s Important Farmland maps for Alameda and San Joaquin Counties designate the planning area as Grazing Land (DOC 2011, 2012a). Therefore, no agricultural land designated as Important Farmland is located in the planning area. Implementation of the General Plan would not include other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of agricultural land, including Important Farmland, to nonagricultural uses.

In addition, Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines focuses the analysis of direct conversion of agricultural land based on DOC’s definition of Important Farmland. Because the planning area is designated as Grazing Land, no conversion of Important Farmland would occur. No Williamson Act contracts are associated with parcels in the planning area (DOC 2012b, 2013).

The portion of the planning area that is located in Alameda County is zoned as a U District, which includes all unincorporated territory of the county that is not located in any other district. The expansion area is zoned as an Agricultural District. Implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with existing zoning or a Williamson Act contract.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines defines “forestland” as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and woodland vegetation of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources—timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, or recreation—and other public benefits (California Public Resources Code

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Other CEQA-Required Analysis 5-1

[PRC] Section 12220[g]). The following are the approximate acreages and locations of forestland in the planning area:

► 91 acres of Fremont cottonwood forest, along Corral Hollow Creek

► 1,291 acres of blue oak woodland, throughout the planning area

► 33 acres of valley oak woodland, along Arroyo Seco Creek and two tributaries

► 100 acres of ghost pine woodland, along the lower slopes of Corral Hollow Creek in the southern portion of the expansion area and around the Tesla Coal Mine Site

In total, approximately 33 percent of the planning area is mapped as forestland, and thus satisfies the requirements of PRC Section 12220(g). Blue oak woodland accounts for approximately 28 percent of the planning area and the largest percentage of forestland in the planning area. Fremont cottonwood forest, valley oak woodland, and ghost pine woodland account for 2 percent, 0.8 percent, and 2.2 percent, respectively, of the total forestland in the planning area.

A limited number of trees could be removed with the siting of specific structures envisioned in the General Plan. The General Plan’s overall management direction calls for the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of native woodland. Implementation of NRM Goal 1, Plant Goal 1, and associated General Plan guidelines would avoid future development and improvements in the planning area that would result in significant adverse effects on forestland:

NRM Goal 1: Manage Carnegie SVRA for a balance of uses that allow protection and stewardship of natural resources while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.


► NRM Guideline 1.2: Before planning new visitor-serving or operations facilities, or expanding existing ones, conduct site-specific surveys/mapping of sensitive biological resources (such as special-status species and sensitive habitats) and take the location and extent of these resources into consideration during the planning and design process. Avoid affecting sensitive biological resources during planning, design, and construction. Utilize fencing and other methods to exclude public access in environmentally sensitive areas, as necessary. Conduct worker environmental awareness training for construction personnel before construction.

► NRM Guideline 1.3: In the event that disturbing a sensitive biological resource is unavoidable, minimize the disturbance to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project purpose, and identify and implement measures to offset those impacts in consultation with a qualified biologist and the appropriate resource agencies (e.g., the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], the

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 5-2 Other CEQA-Required Analysis

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board), depending on the listing or protection status of the resource.

► NRM Guideline 1.4: Continue to implement the OHMVR Division’s Habitat Monitoring System (HMS) consistent with State Parks’ resource management directives, and with the specific biological provisions that outline management programs for working with natural processes of vegetation succession, controlling the spread of noxious and invasive weeds, and protecting natural wildlife habitat. Use the HMS as a tool to aid in the implementation of park-specific monitoring and adaptive management, with a focus on trends in percent habitat cover, focal species distribution and abundances, and comparisons between riding and nonriding areas. When completed, incorporate use of the HMS data management system to accumulate, standardize, and analyze records of plants, animals, and habitats in the planning area and guide adaptive management.

► NRM Guideline 1.5: Focus new trail development in areas of relatively low habitat value. Route new trails around the edges of high-quality habitat and include buffers to avoid habitat fragmentation. Maintain strict enforcement of riding destination requirements throughout the SVRA, according to the allowable uses in the respective visitor experience areas, and monitor for compliance. If noncompliance is documented, enact adaptive management techniques such as temporary closures or other measures proven effective at the SVRA.


► Plant Guideline 1.1: Conduct protocol-level surveys for special-status plants on the sites of proposed facilities during the planning and design process. Conduct the surveys during the blooming season for all potentially occurring special-status plant species according to the most current methodology recommended by CDFW and USFWS, depending on the listing status of the species. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist familiar with the flora of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. Document the survey results in a written report submitted to the OHMVR Division. Map the location and extent of all occurrences of special-status plant species encountered during the surveys and maintain the data in the SVRA’s Geographic Information System database. If construction of facilities is delayed, repeat special-status plant surveys every 5 years to ensure that data are current and account for long-term and seasonal variation.

► Plant Guideline 1.2: Prohibit impacts on existing occurrences of special-status plants during project implementation.

► Plant Guideline 1.3: Avoid siting facilities within 100 feet of known special-status plant occurrences to avoid indirect impacts. If these buffers cannot be maintained, use design features to protect the occurrences from indirect impacts.


► Plant Guideline 1.4: Use drought-tolerant plants, and whenever feasible, use plants native to the site for landscaping. Select plants that require little or no irrigation. If irrigation is required for plant establishment, use temporary irrigation methods that allow a gradual tapering off of watering over a 3- to 5-year period. Regulate water pressure at a level that applies sufficient water without causing erosion, damage to plants, or runoff.

► Plant Guideline 1.5: Monitor for existing and/or incipient populations of invasive weeds annually. If new invasive weeds are documented, implement actions to prevent their establishment and spread before they become established or occupy large portions of the SVRA. Maintain weed management practices for the SVRA consistent with OHMVR Division policies or other applicable guidance and based on best available science.

► Plant Guideline 1.6: Limit removal of native trees. Any trees removed as a result of facilities construction shall be replaced, with the specific number of trees to be replaced determined during project-level planning. At both new and existing facilities, prohibit adverse indirect effects on native trees from root compaction and physical damage. Preserve or enhance the extent of native woodlands at the SVRA and look for opportunities for enhancement and restoration.

The planning area is not zoned as forestland, timberland, or a Timberland Production Zone. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestry resources.

5.2 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), an environmental impact report (EIR) must describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less-than-significant level. Chapter 3 of this DEIR describes potential environmental impacts that may occur with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan. For all issue areas except operational air quality impacts, implementation of the General Plan would not result in unavoidable significant environmental impacts. As described in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” the following impacts would be significant and unavoidable during General Plan operations only, because no feasible mitigation measures currently exist to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level (the corresponding construction-related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation):

► Impact 3.2-2, “Violation of an Air Quality Standard or Substantial Contribution to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation”

► Impact 3.2-3, “Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region is Nonattainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (Including Releasing Emissions that Exceed Quantitative Thresholds for Ozone Precursors)”


5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c), an EIR must include a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. The EIR must analyze the extent to which the project’s primary and secondary effects would affect the environment and commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would not be able to reverse. Irretrievable commitment of these resources must be evaluated to ensure that such consumption is justified. Implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would cause the following irreversible environmental changes:

► The natural environment would be altered as a consequence of the development process. Implementing the General Plan would expand the existing recreational uses of Carnegie SVRA and would result in new recreational uses in the expansion area. This commitment of land resources would be consistent with the land use designations and zoning for the planning area and would improve the recreational opportunities offered at Carnegie SVRA that are specifically important for the OHV community. The natural resource management goals in the General Plan provide for the protection and stewardship of natural resources while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

► Requirements for public services and utilities would increase slightly, representing a permanent commitment of these resources. As described in Section 3.12, “Public Services and Utilities,” implementing the General Plan would not result in the need for new or expanded regional or local utility infrastructure or supplies.

► Nonrenewable natural resources would be used for construction and operation of facilities envisioned in the General Plan. Resources may include diesel, gasoline, or oil for construction equipment; propane to provide power, heating, and cooling to buildings; and gasoline and oil for OHV operation. The energy consumed in future development and maintenance of Carnegie SVRA would be considered a permanent investment. This impact would be reduced by following sustainable practices in site design, construction, maintenance, and operations that are generally practiced by the OHMVR Division, and that are proposed in OM Guideline 1.3 in the General Plan:

• OM Guideline 1.3: Promote opportunities to incorporate sustainability into SVRA development, operations, and maintenance. Sustainability initiatives could include supporting and encouraging the use of electric vehicles, promoting energy efficiency, using reclaimed water, and applying energy efficiency and green building standards to new construction and other initiatives that may be developed in the future.

Sustainable practices used in design, construction, and management may include the use of green building standards, resource conservation, recycling, and energy efficiency. With implementation of


the General Plan, the overall rate of use of renewable natural resources would not increase substantially or result in the depletion of any renewable resource.

► Various renewable natural resources would be used, such as water and lumber for construction and operations. Facilities associated with the General Plan would be a relatively minor consumer of these supplies relative to other types of development throughout the region. In addition, implementing Water Goal 3 and associated guidelines in the General Plan would ensure that future development and improvements in Carnegie SVRA would conserve water resources:

Water Goal 3: Manage the SVRA to conserve water resources while maintaining a quality OHV recreational experience.

• Water Guideline 3.1: When developing detailed plans for facilities envisioned in this General Plan, assess available water sources that will yield sufficient water supplies needed for operation and maintenance of the facilities. Develop water supply as appropriate in compliance with state regulatory requirements.

• Water Guideline 3.2: Use recycled water, as available, for dust control and irrigation as allowed by water quality and health regulations and as available at the site or nearby.

• Water Guideline 3.3: Manage facilities to accommodate periods of drought or low water supply. Restrict the use of water for dust control, and use alternative dust suppression methods as necessary.

• Water Guideline 3.4: Implement water conservation measures that will reduce water use by 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020 as measured against a 2010 baseline in accordance with Executive Order B-18-12 issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. on April 25, 2012, and with the Proclamation of a State of Emergency signed on January 17, 2014, and the Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency signed on April 25, 2014.

With implementation of the General Plan, the overall rate of use of renewable natural resources would not increase substantially or result in the depletion of any renewable resource.

5.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must discuss the ways the project could foster economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding area. Induced growth is any growth that exceeds planned growth and results from new development that would not have taken place in the absence of the proposed project. A project can be determined to have a growth-inducing impact if it directly or indirectly removes obstacles to growth or encourages or facilitates other actions considered to be “growth accommodating.” Growth inducement itself is not an adverse environmental effect, but it may lead to environmental impacts such as increased traffic and noise,


degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or wildlife habitats, or conversion of open space land to urban uses.

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan not propose to construct or enable any residential units in the planning area or surrounding area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., by extending roads and other infrastructure), and thus would not facilitate growth in the area.

Although the General Plan would expand OHV options in the planning area, and attendance would likely grow naturally, there would not be a “bump” in attendance solely because of the new opportunities. Instead, an increase in attendance is expected as a result of general economic conditions in the region, rather than expansion of SVRA facilities. Furthermore, the expanded offerings in the expansion area would likely be brought online over time, and the General Plan does not currently make schedule estimates that could be used to establish a “buildout” date.

The construction of infrastructure is often considered an action that removes obstacles to growth in an area. The site is currently served by existing roadways, utilities, and public services. New infrastructure (e.g., office spaces, classroom/meeting spaces, and a museum and/or visitor center) that would be installed with implementation of the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would serve only the SVRA’s on-site facilities and would not extend off-site or result in service expansions that could serve or accommodate other future development in the planning area.

Carnegie SVRA historically has served and currently serves as an OHV recreation area and social gathering location for the OHV community. The Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not lead to significant new residential development or foster significant economic or population growth.

For these reasons, implementation of the General Plan would not result in primary or secondary environmental effects related to additional growth.


CHAPTER 6 – ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines details the guiding principles for analyzing alternatives in this draft environmental impact report (DEIR):

► Consider alternatives that could reduce or eliminate any significant environmental impacts of the proposed project (the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area [SVRA] General Plan), including alternatives that may be more costly or could otherwise impede the project’s objectives.

► Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.

► Evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.

The Carnegie SVRA General Plan was developed concurrently with this DEIR. Development of the General Plan was guided by the goal to develop a management plan that avoids significant impacts on the environment. Thus, the General Plan is largely “self-mitigating” and implementing the Carnegie SVRA General Plan would not result in significant impacts on the environment, with the exception of air quality impacts related to operations, which are significant and unavoidable. Therefore, no alternatives exist that could reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. However, the alternatives presented in this chapter each have the potential to minimize several less-than-significant impacts.

Because the General Plan was developed with the intent to attain all project objectives while minimizing environmental impacts, it is difficult to develop alternatives that could reduce environmental impacts while feasibly attaining most of the project objectives. Therefore, this chapter describes a range of reasonable alternatives that could attain some of the project objectives.

This chapter evaluates the merits of the alternatives compared with the proposed project, the Carnegie SVRA General Plan, as described in Chapter 4 of the General Plan.

Two project alternatives—the No-Project Alternative and the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative—are discussed further in this chapter. A discussion of alternatives that were considered but rejected from further evaluation is provided below in Section 6.1.

Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines permits evaluation of alternatives in less detail than is used to evaluate the proposed project. The project alternatives, including the No-Project Alternative, are described in this DEIR to allow for a meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison of these alternatives with the proposed project, the Carnegie SVRA General Plan.

The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of alternatives to the proposed project and the positive and negative aspects of those alternatives when compared with the

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project 6-1

General Plan. Section 6.4 summarizes these findings and makes a conclusion about which alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

6.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION

The planning team took into account several considerations when it originally created a range of uses and potential alternatives for evaluation, before the team selected the preferred concept described in the General Plan. These considerations provided guidelines for the concept alternatives. If a concept alternative or use did not meet these guidelines, it was not considered as part of the General Plan process. The planning team’s assumptions are listed below.

1. Property ownership: The property is owned by State Parks and operated by the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division. Planning efforts associated with the property must be consistent with the OHMVR Division’s mission statement.

2. State Parks land classification: The planning area is classified as SVRA lands by State Parks. Planning efforts must be consistent with statutory guidance for SVRA lands.

3. Purpose acquired and funding source: The expansion area was acquired with California’s Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trust Fund monies to expand Carnegie SVRA and to provide additional OHV recreation opportunities.

4. OHMVR Division Strategic Plan: The General Plan for the original SVRA and expansion area must be consistent with the goals, principles, and themes described in the strategic plan.

5. California Public Resources Code: Laws that include the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act of 2003 (California Public Resources Code Section 5090.01 et seq.) direct how State Parks and SVRAs must be managed and what uses are allowable.

6. State and federal laws regarding resource protection: Any alternative must avoid or minimize harm to protected plants and animals and effectively manage cultural resources in accordance with applicable regulations.

7. Air quality plans/districts: Two different air districts govern the properties. The alternatives need to consider how the SVRA will comply with each air district’s rules.

8. Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment and Storm Water Management Plan: The plan must remain in compliance with the requirements listed in these documents.

Three concept alternatives were presented to the public starting on June 10, 2013 (as described further in Chapter 1, “Introduction”). The three concepts were developed using all of the following elements:

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 6-2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project

► ideas and comments collected from:

• a public meeting held in May 2012,

• additional comments submitted via e-mail and the General Plan website and in letters,

• an online survey, and

• stakeholder and agency meetings (historical societies, rider groups/concessionaires, neighbors, environmental groups, Native American groups); and

► an evaluation of potential constraints in the planning area, identified through review of the cultural resource inventory and maps, biological resource mapping and monitoring information, slopes and soils information, and mine safety considerations.

The three concept alternatives were as follows:

► Concept 1: Developed to provide a more developed and social experience (front country) in the original SVRA. Backcountry in the expansion area would have provided opportunities for more solitude, less development, and a sense of adventure. OHV recreation in the expansion area would have been much less intense than in the original SVRA.

► Concept 2: Developed to be a medium-intensity plan concept for the expansion area. This concept alternative would have reflected no change in existing recreational land uses for the current SVRA. The emphasis was on providing education and interpretation opportunities in combination with OHV recreation.

► Concept 3: Developed to be the plan concept with the most intense proposed use for the expansion area. The expansion area would have been just as active as the original SVRA.

The preferred concept includes elements from all three concept alternatives. It addresses the concerns raised in comments and the feedback that the public, agencies, and many stakeholder groups provided on the concept alternatives. The planning team attempted to accommodate as many ideas as possible while staying consistent with the OHMVR Act and the OHMVR Division mission, draft vision, and statement of purpose presented in Section 2.3, “Project Objectives.”

Differences between the preferred concept and the three concept alternatives presented included changes in the types and locations of visitor experience areas, uses in those areas, and possible entrances and connecting trails and roads. The preferred concept avoids sensitive resources by taking into consideration cultural resources, biological resources, slopes and soils constraints, and mine safety.

During the preparation of this DEIR, an Air Quality Alternative was also considered to address the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts related to operations that are discussed in Section 3.2,


“Air Quality.” The alternative evaluated the potential to limit OHV recreational activities within Carnegie SVRA on Spare the Air days designated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) or San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) under their respective Healthy Air Living initiatives. Facilities development and OHV uses in the planning area would have otherwise been the same as under the proposed project. Instead of including this alternative, the planning team decided that the components of the alternative would be valuable additions to the General Plan to help reduce emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile sources associated with OHV recreation. Therefore, OM Goal 7 and OM Guidelines 7.1 through 7.3 (shown below) have been incorporated into the General Plan.

OM Goal 7: Manage the SVRA to reduce to reduce regional air quality impacts from OHV recreation activities.

► OM Guideline 7.1: Prohibit OHV recreational activities within Carnegie SVRA on summer Spare the Air days designated by BAAQMD or SJVAPCD under their respective Healthy Air Living initiatives. Clearly post summer Spare the Air day alerts on the SVRA website on the soonest possible date, and send notifications through the listserv to avoid visitors unnecessarily traveling to the project site.

► OM Guideline 7.2: Provide regional air quality information (e.g., basics of air quality, local ambient pollutant concentrations, summer Spare the Air day alerts) on the website and at the SVRA entrance. Materials could include but are not limited to educational information about fugitive dust and ozone precursors, low-emission OHV engines and models, and health risk exposure.

► OM Guideline 7.3: During high-wind conditions, prohibit additional OHVs from entering the recreational trails and OHV areas.

6.2 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

6.2.1 DESCRIPTION

CEQA requires an evaluation of the “no project” alternative and its impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]). The purpose of describing and analyzing the No-Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the Carnegie SVRA General Plan with the impacts of not approving the General Plan. The following discussion characterizes the physical conditions likely to exist in the future if the project (the Carnegie SVRA General Plan) were not approved and implemented.

Without the General Plan update (i.e., with the No-Project Alternative), the portion of Carnegie SVRA currently open to the public would remain at 1,575 acres and the 3,100-acre expansion area would not be available for recreation or other uses if State Parks continued to own the property and it would remain


closed to the public. Grazing has historically occurred in the expansion area, therefore, this area could potentially be used for grazing under this alternative, if leases were renewed.

Current operation and management patterns in the original SVRA and expansion area would be expected to continue, including resource management and monitoring activities. No new facilities would be developed in the expansion area. The only activities that would occur are activities designed to improve environmental conditions at the SVRA and comply with the Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA (e.g., water quality and habitat improvements) that are currently being conducted to keep up with maintenance and are necessary to maintain safe conditions. OHV use and social gatherings would continue in the portion of the SVRA that would remain open to the public.

Visitation increases under the No-Project Alternative would be similar to those anticipated with the proposed project, but would be accommodated only at the original SVRA. Attendance would likely grow naturally as the population in the region increases and economic conditions improve. However, without the General Plan update, the SVRA would have fewer recreational opportunities available than with implementation of the proposed project.

6.2.2 EVALUATION

If the General Plan were not approved and implemented and the facilities envisioned in the General Plan were not constructed, impacts related to aesthetics, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise, public services and utilities, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation and traffic would likely be less than those that would occur under the proposed project. Air quality impacts are significant under baseline conditions, so they would remain significant with the No-Project Alternative. The regional population would grow and OHV use in the state likely would continue to grow, thus causing use of the original Carnegie SVRA to increase. No buildings or facilities would be developed that would affect visual resources or the noise setting in the expansion area, or that would increase demand for public services and utilities. The expansion area has been grazed historically and could be subjected to visual impacts from grazing. No new OHV facilities would be constructed that, by their construction, could affect transportation and traffic, or cause an increase in emissions of air pollutants and GHGs.

Impacts related to land use and planning, minerals, paleontological resources, and population and housing would remain largely the same as under the proposed project (i.e., preferred concept), and would be less than significant. The Carnegie SVRA General Plan includes many guidelines that would improve conditions related to water quality and erosion and would protect, preserve, and restore biological, cultural, and geological resources while providing for additional recreation activities. However, management of the SVRA is undertaken in compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, so with the No-Project Alternative, impacts on biotic resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and geology and soils in the expansion area would remain largely the same as under the proposed project. Over time, the heavier use of the original SVRA by a larger number of visitors could increase environmental pressures on these environmental resources that


would not be offset by implementation of the General Plan’s goals and guidelines. Thus, impacts on recreation could be greater than impacts of the proposed project, and impacts on biotic resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and geology and soils in the original Carnegie SVRA could be greater than impacts of the proposed project.

6.3 REDUCED DEVELOPED USE AREA ALTERNATIVE

6.3.1 DESCRIPTION

If the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative were implemented, developed and OHV uses in the planning area would be restricted to a smaller area. The Limited Recreation visitor experience area would apply to all drainages, ponds, and seeps in the planning area (with a minimum 150-foot buffer around these features), and to all blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland areas in the expansion area. Further, allowable uses in the Limited Recreation visitor experience area would be limited to nonmotorized recreational opportunities, except at permitted crossings needed to provide site access. All goals and guidelines would be implemented as described in the General Plan.

6.3.2 EVALUATION

If the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative were implemented, impacts related to biotic resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality would be reduced. Impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, minerals, noise, paleontological resources, population and housing, public services and utilities, recreation, and transportation and traffic would remain largely the same.

Under the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative, many of the facilities envisioned in the General Plan would be built. However, the area designated for developed and OHV uses would be located on a smaller footprint than the area designated for such uses by the proposed project. These uses would be located away from drainage areas, ponds, and seeps in the planning area and away from oak woodland areas in the expansion area. Thus, impacts of the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative on biotic resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality would be less than the impacts that would occur if the General Plan were implemented.

The General Plan includes goals and guidelines to minimize impacts on biotic resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality to less-than-significant levels (evaluated in Sections 3.3, 3.5, and 3.8, respectively, of the DEIR). However, the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative would further limit development of facilities and OHV use. Special-status plants, riparian habitats, and waters of the United States in the Limited Recreation areas would receive increased avoidance buffers beyond those identified as protective in the General Plan, thereby also benefiting geology and soils and hydrology and water quality. The additional buffers also would limit disturbance of potential habitat for California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, western spadefoot toad, Alameda whipsnake, and nesting birds.


Apart from the increased buffer areas, the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative would in effect “isolate” certain use areas by establishing buffers around the communities to be protected, as shown in Figure 6-2. For example, many of the advanced riding areas in the southern portion of the expansion area would be completely surrounded by Limited Recreation areas under this alternative and would not be accessible from the intermediate or other riding areas. Therefore, the footprint of areas not available to OHV use would be much larger than the area created by the original buffers. This would severely limit the overall acreage of the expansion area available to OHV recreation and would make it impossible for the General Plan to achieve its goal of providing enhanced OHV recreation opportunities in accordance with the purpose of the acquisition.

6.4 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

Under the proposed project and the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative, the facilities envisioned in the General Plan would be developed, and goals and guidelines would be implemented as described in the General Plan. On the other hand, under the No-Project Alternative, many management goals and guidelines for preserving and restoring natural resources would not be implemented beyond the level required by laws or regulations. For this reason, the No-Project Alternative is not considered the environmentally superior alternative.

As shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, the Reduced Development Use Area Alternative would limit OHV use areas in the planning area. Isolated patches of advanced trails in the expansion area would be rendered unusable because of access limitations, the areas for advanced trails and intermediate/beginner trails would be substantially reduced, and the potential gathering area would be reduced in size by about one-third.

The Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative was developed to further limit development of facilities and OHV use in areas where a variety of sensitive resources have been documented to occur. Because the facilities that would be developed under the proposed project would be similar to those developed under the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative, the types of construction-related and operational environmental impacts would be similar. Generally, however, environmental impacts would occur to a lesser degree than under the proposed project, given the increased Limited Recreation areas. For this reason, the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative.

However, the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative does not meet the project objectives. Specifically, this alternative would not:

► manage Carnegie SVRA for the protection of sensitive natural and cultural resources and high-quality OHV recreational experiences;

► manage the entire SVRA in accordance with the purpose of acquisition;


► anticipate future demand for OHV recreation opportunities and identify strategies to accommodate them at Carnegie SVRA;

► provide management options for operating all portions of Carnegie SVRA in keeping with California’s Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 2003, as amended; or

► increase the diversity of OHV opportunities at Carnegie SVRA.

The proposed project would provide the best balance between resource protection and recreational use of Carnegie SVRA.


Source: Great Outdoors 2014, data compiled by AECOM in 2014

Figure 6-1. Draft Preferred Concept


Source: Great Outdoors 2014, data compiled by AECOM in 2014

Figure 6-2. Draft Preferred Concept - Expanded Limited Recreation


CHAPTER 7 – REFERENCES

7.1 SUMMARY

No references cited.

7.2 CHAPTER 1, “INTRODUCTION”


7.3 CHAPTER 2, “PROJECT DESCRIPTION”

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2008. 2008 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines. 2008 Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program Regulations. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.

State Parks. See California Department of Parks and Recreation.

7.4 CHAPTER 3, “ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS”

7.4.1 SECTION 3.1, “AESTHETICS”

Alameda County. 2002. East County Area Plan, Revised by Initiative November 2000. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors May 2002.

California Department of Transportation. 2010. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. San Joaquin and Alameda Counties. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed September 4, 2014.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Research Maniacs. 2014. How Far Can the Human Eye See on the Ocean? Available: http://researchmaniacs.com/QuestionsAnswers/HowFarCanTheHumanEyeSeeOnTheOcean.html. Accessed September 12, 2014.

San Joaquin County. 1992 (July). San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. Adopted by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors July 29, 1992. Stockton, CA. Volume I—Section VI, “Resources.”

7.4.2 SECTION 3.2, “AIR QUALITY”

ARB. See California Air Resources Board.

BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR References 7-1

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012 (May). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. San Francisco, CA.

———. 2013. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. Accessed February 22, 2013.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Sacramento, CA.

———. 2009a. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition. Sacramento, CA: Planning and Technical Support Division.

———. 2009b. 2008 Estimated Annual Average Emissions: Alameda County. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat_query.php?F_DIV=-4&F_DD=Y&F_YR=2008&F_SEASON=A&SP=2009&F_AREA=CO&F_CO=1. Accessed February 22, 2013.

———. 2009c. 2008 Estimated Annual Average Emissions: San Joaquin County. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat_query.php?F_YR=2008&F_DIV=-4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2009&F_AREA=CO&F_CO=39&F_COAB=Y. Accessed February 22, 2013.

———. 2012 (June 7). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2013.

———. 2013 (May). Attachment C: Emissions Estimation Methodology for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. Sacramento, CA: Planning and Technical Support Division.

———. 2014. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics Top 4 Summary. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed November 11, 2014.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002 (January 10). Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. January 10, 2002 revision; adopted August 20, 1998. Fresno, CA: Planning Division, Mobile Source/CEQA Section.

———. 2013. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available: http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed February 22, 2013.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Criteria Air Pollutant Information. Available: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/. Accessed August 19, 2009.

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 7-2 References

Western Regional Climate Center. 2012a. Livermore, California (044997): Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Period of Record: 1/1/1903 to 9/30/2012. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca4997. Accessed February 25, 2013.

———. 2012b. Tracy Pumping Plant, California (049001): Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Period of Record: 2/1/1955 to 9/30/2012. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca9001. Accessed February 25, 2013.

WRCC. See Western Regional Climate Center.

7.4.3 SECTION 3.3, “BIOTIC RESOURCES”

AECOM. 2012 (February 27). Vegetation Classification and Mapping Report. Sacramento, CA. Memorandum report to Clint Elsholz, California Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento, CA.

Alameda County Resource Conservation District. 2012 (July 6). Voluntary Local Program. Livermore, CA.

Bartosh, H., L. Naumovich, and L. Baker. 2010. A Guidebook to Botanical Priority Protection Areas of the East Bay. East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012 (March 7). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. n.d[a]. 2003 Annual Habitat Monitoring Report: Carnegie State Vehicle Recreation Area. Sacramento, CA: Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Program, Natural Resources Division.

———. n.d.[b]. Carnegie and Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Areas: 2004–2005 Biological Surveys. Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment Program, Natural Resources Division.

———. n.d.[c]. 2006 Habitat Monitoring Report: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Areas and Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area. Natural Resources Division.

———. n.d.[d]. 2007 Habitat Monitoring Report: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area and Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area. Natural Resources Division.

———. n.d.[e]. 2008 Habitat Monitoring Report: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area. Natural Resources Division.

———. n.d.[f]. 2009 Habitat Monitoring Systems Report: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area.

———. n.d.[g]. 2010 Habitat Monitoring Systems Report: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area.


———. 1980. Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area Inventory of Features. Sacramento: Resource Protection Division.

———. 2000. Carnegie State Vehicle Recreation Area General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. Livermore, CA. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. San Jose, CA.

———. 2005. Watershed Facilities Maintenance Project Biological Assessment. Prepared by EDAW.

California Native Plant Society. 2012a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Available: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/Home. Accessed October 3, 2012.

———. 2012b. Listed Observed Plant and Animal Species, Alameda-Tesla, Carnegie SVRA and LLNL Site 300 Properties.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2013 (December). GIS data for sensitive species occurrences for California in polygon format. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/rf_ftpinfo.asp. Accessed December 3, 2013.

———. 2015 (March). RareFind 5 (Commercial Version): An Internet Application for the Use of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Accessed April 1, 2015.

CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.

de Silva, Tara. Environmental Scientist. Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Tracy, CA. November 5, 2014—e-mail to Petra Unger of AECOM regarding additional biological resources information (large-flowered fiddleneck introduction, potential Alameda whipsnake sightings, golden eagle studies, and Townsend’s big-eared bat identification) to incorporate into the Carnegie SVRA DEIR.

DFG. See California Department of Fish and Game.

EACCS. See East Alameda County Conservation Strategy.

East Alameda Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. 2010 (October). Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared by ICF International. San Jose, CA.

Ecosystems West. 2004. Botanical Survey of the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, California.


Ford, L. D., P. A. Van Hoorn, D. R. Rao, N. J. Scott, P. C. Trenham, and J. W. Bartolome. 2013. Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red-legged Frogs and California Tiger Salamanders. Livermore, CA: Alameda County Resource Conservation District.

Hunt, G. 2002 (July). Golden Eagles in a Perilous Landscape: Predicting the Effects of Mitigation for Wind Turbine Blade Strike Mortality. Prepared for California Energy Commission.

Hunt, G., and T. Hunt. 2006 (June). The Trend of Golden Eagle Territory Occupancy in the Vicinity of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: 2005 Survey. Prepared for California Energy Commission.

———. 2013 (October). Golden Eagle Territory Occupancy and Reproduction in the Vicinity of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: 2013 Survey Results. Prepared for East Bay Regional Park District.

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994 (November). Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Davis, CA, and Portland, OR. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA.

Kutilek, M. J., H. S. Shellhammer, and W. Bros. 1990. Inventory, Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, and Monitoring Program for Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, Tracy, CA. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University, Biology Department.

Semlitsch, R. D., and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biological Criteria for Buffer Zones Around Wetlands and Riparian Habitats for Amphibians and Reptiles. Conservation Biology 17(5):1219–1228.


TRA. See TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc.

TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. 2010a (May). Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area and Alameda-Tesla Property Revised Preliminary Delineation of Waters and Wetlands. Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division, Rancho Cordova, CA.

———. 2010b. Biological Assessment for Carnegie SVRA and Mitchell Ravine Projects. Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation.

USACE. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010 (August 12). Concurrence letter to Jennifer Buckingham, California Department of Parks and Recreation, regarding May 2010 request for preliminary


jurisdictional determination for Carnegie State Vehicle Recreation Area site. Regulatory Division SPK-2003-00354. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, California Delta Branch.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005 (August). Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.

———. 2011 (January). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

———. 2012. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May Be Affected by Projects in Requested USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangles. Online document number 121003032907. Available: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists.cfm. Database updated September 18, 2011. Accessed October 3, 2012.

U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Existing vegetation (Eveg) GIS data. McClellan, CA: Pacific Southwest Region, Remote Sensing Lab. Tiles 27A and 28.

USFS. See U.S. Forest Service.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Western Bat Working Group. 2007 (August 23). Colorado Bat Conservation Plan. Appendix A, “Considerations for Bat Roost Protection.” Western Bat Working Group, Colorado Committee.

7.4.4 SECTION 3.4, “CULTURAL RESOURCES”

Anthropological Studies Center. 2010. A Cultural Resources Study of Portions of the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, California. Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, CA.

ASC. See Anthropological Studies Center.

California Office of Historic Preservation. 2012 (December 7). Determination of Eligibility for Recorded Resources at Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. Letter of concurrence from Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D., State Historic Preservation Officer, to Cathy Taylor, Division Chief, Archaeology, History & Museums Division, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA.

OHP. See California Office of Historic Preservation.


7.4.5 SECTION 3.5, “GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES”

Alameda County. 1994 (May). Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan. Adopted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors November 23, 1976; amended May 5, 1994, Board of Supervisors Resolution 94-272.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2007a (November). OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA, and Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA.

———. 2007b (June). Final Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment. Prepared by the Twin Cities District, Rancho Cordova, CA, in partnership with Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA, and Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA.

———. 2008. 2008 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines. 2008 Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program Regulations. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.

———. 2011 (August). Storm Water Management Plan for Carnegie SVRA. Prepared by the Twin Cities District, Rancho Cordova, CA, in partnership with Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA, and Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA.

Cotton, W. R. 1972. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Franciscan Rocks in the Central Part of the Diablo Range, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties, California. Basic Data Contribution 39. San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.

Jensen, L. S., and M. A. Silva. 1989. Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Stockton-Lodi Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 160, Plate 14. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology.

Nilsen, T. H. 1972. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of Parts of the Altamont and Carbona 15-minute Quandrangles, Alameda County, California. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-321. Scale = 1:62,500. San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.

San Joaquin County. 1992 (July). San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. Adopted by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors July 29, 1992. Stockton, CA. Volume I—Section V, “Public Health and Safety,” and Section VI, “Resources.”

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1996. Conditions of Receivership for Paleontologic Salvage Collections (Final Draft). Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 166:31–32.



SVP. See Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Wagner, D. L., E. J. Bortugno, and R. D. McJunkin. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco–San Jose Quadrangle. Scale = 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5. Sacramento, CA.

7.4.6 SECTION 3.6, “GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS”

Ahrens, D. C. 2003.Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, and the Environment. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole, Inc.

Alameda County. 2008 (November). Alameda County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis: 2003 Emissions Inventory for the Unincorporated Areas and County Governments Operations. Executive Summary. Oakland, CA.

ARB. See California Air Resources Board.

BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010 (May). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA.

California Air Resources Board. 2011. Final Regulation Order Subchapter 10. Climate Change Amendments to the Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/regulation/mrr_2010_clean.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2012.

———. 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012—by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014-03-24.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2014.

California Energy Commission. 2006 (December). Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Staff Final Report. Publication CEC-600-2006-013-SF. Sacramento, CA.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007 (February). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.” Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland.


IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

San Joaquin County. 2009 (July 2). San Joaquin County General Plan Public Review Draft Background Report. Chapter 5, “Climate Change.” Stockton, CA.

Seinfeld, J. H., and S. N. Pandis. 1998. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008 (December 5). Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Board Letter. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 13, 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Climate Change: Basic Information. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics. Last updated March 18, 2014. Accessed November 13, 2014.

WCI. See Western Climate Initiative.

Western Climate Initiative. 2009 (January 6). Background Document and Progress Report for Essential Requirements of Mandatory Reporting for the Western Climate Initiative, Third Draft. Available: http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/dmdocuments/mandatory_reporting_3rd_draft_010609.74.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.

7.4.7 SECTION 3.7, “HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS”

ABAG. See Association of Bay Area Governments.

Alameda County. 2014 (February). Safety Element of the Alameda County General Plan. Adopted January 8, 2013; amended February 4, 2014. Alameda County Community Development Agency.

Association of Bay Area Governments. 2010. Taming Natural Disasters: Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. 2010 Update of 2005 Plan. ABAG Publication Number P09001EQK. Oakland, CA.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007a. Alameda County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA) Map. Scale = 1:100,000. Adopted November 7, 2007. Available: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_alameda.php. Accessed April 3, 2013.


———. 2007b. San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA) Map. Scale: 1:100,000. Adopted November 7, 2007. Available: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sanjoaquin.php. Accessed April 3, 2013.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2007 (June). Final Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment. Prepared by the Twin Cities District, Rancho Cordova, CA, in partnership with Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA, and Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2013. EnviroStor Database. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed March 21, 2013.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

DOE. See U.S. Department of Energy.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Ecology and Environmental, Inc. 1990 (April). Environmental Priorities Initiative Preliminary Assessment. SRI International, Corral Hollow Site. San Francisco, CA.


Resource Design Technology. 2002 (June). Tesla Mine Site Characterization Report. Carnegie State Vehicle Recreation Area, California Department of Parks and Recreation. Folsom, CA.

San Joaquin County. 1992 (July). San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. Adopted by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors July 29, 1992. Stockton, CA. Volume III—Section III, “Public Health and Safety.”

———. 1994 (August). San Joaquin County Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. Stockton, CA.

SRI International. 2013. Poulter Laboratory. Available: http://www.sri.com/about/organization/physical-sciences/poulter-laboratory. Accessed March 26, 2013.

———. 2014. Remote Test Site. Available: http://www.sri.com/engage/specialized-facilities/remote-test-site. Accessed August 4, 2014.


State Water Resources Control Board. 2013. GeoTracker search showing sites within 1,000 feet of Tesla Road, Livermore, CA. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/default.asp?global_id=&x=-121.57326402109373&y=37.634216695076134&zl=13&mt=roadmap&showdist=&searchdist=1000&searchaddr=Tesla+Road%2C+Livermore%2C+CA&geotracker_luft=true&geotracker_slic=true&geotracker_landfill=true&geotracker_dod=true&wdr=true&mw_


wells=true&dtsc_cleanup=true&ms=800%2C600&SITELIST=on&loading=9+Sites. Accessed April 3, 2013.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999 (November). Final Site-Wide Feasibility Study for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300. UCRL-AR-132609. Environmental Protection Department, Environmental Restoration Division, Oakland Operations Office, Oakland, CA. Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.

———. 2001 (February). Interim Site-Wide Record of Decision for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300. UCRL-AR-138470. Environmental Protection Department, Environmental Restoration Division, Oakland Operations Office, Oakland, CA. Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.

———. 2008 (July). Site-Wide Record of Decision for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300. UCRL-AR-236665. Environmental Restoration Department, Livermore Site Office, Livermore, CA. Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Envirofacts search. Available: http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.html?minx=-121.614189&miny=37.596552&maxx=-121.494026&maxy=37.661809&pText=alameda county, ca. Accessed April 3, 2013.

7.4.8 SECTION 3.8, “HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY”

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2007a (June). Final Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment. Prepared by the Twin Cities District, Rancho Cordova, CA, in partnership with Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA, and Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA.

———. 2007b (November). OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA, and Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA.

———. 2008. 2008 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines. 2008 Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program Regulations. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA.



California Department of Water Resources. 2014 (July). Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map. Available: http://gis.water.ca.gov/app/groundwater/. Accessed August 25, 2014.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011 (October). The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region: The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. Fourth Edition, revised October 2011 (with Approved Amendments). Sacramento, CA.

Central Valley RWQCB. See Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Joaquin County, California and Unincorporated Areas, Panel 725 of 950—Panel 0725F. Map Number 06077C0725F. Effective date October 16, 2009. National Flood Insurance Program.

FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency.


U.S. Forest Service. 2006 (October). Appendix D: Low-Water Crossing Effects on Water Quality. In Low-Water Crossings: Geomorphic, Biological, and Engineering Design Considerations. Forest Service Technology and Development Program. San Dimas, CA.

USFS. See U.S. Forest Service.

7.4.9 SECTION 3.9, “LAND USE AND PLANNING”

Alameda County. 2002. East County Area Plan. Revised by Initiative November 2000. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors May 2002.

———. 2013. Zoning Code. Community Development Agency, Hayward, CA. Available: http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/ordinance-links.htm. Accessed March 29, 2013.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2012 (September 15). OHMVR Commission Meeting Staff Report: Planning at Carnegie SVRA Related to the Alameda/Tesla Parcels and Recent Contacts with East Bay Regional Park District. Sacramento, CA: Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.

East Bay Regional Park District. 2007. Map: East Bay Regional Park District Existing and Potential Parklands and Trails. Amendment of the 1997 Master Plan Map as approved by the Board of Directors on 11/06/2007. Oakland, CA. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/about/planning/mp. Accessed September 2 and November 19, 2014.


———. 2012 (September) Master Plan 2012. Public Draft. Oakland, CA.

———. 2013. Map: East Bay Regional Park District Existing and Potential Parklands and Trails. Master Plan Map. Oakland, CA. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/about/planning/mp. Accessed November 19, 2014.

EBRPD. See East Bay Regional Park District.

San Joaquin County. 1992 (July). San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. Adopted by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors July 29, 1992. Stockton, CA. Volume I—Section III, “The County General Plan Concept.”

———. 2012. Title 9: Development Title of San Joaquin County. Up to date through Ordinance 4420, passed December 13, 2011. Tallahassee, FL: Municipal Code Corporation.

———. 2013. San Joaquin County General Plan Update. Available: http://www.sjcgpu.com/docs.html. Accessed October 30, 2014.


7.4.10 SECTION 3.10, “NOISE”

BBN. See Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1981. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants. Cambridge, MA, Arlington, VA, and Los Angeles, CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2009 (November). Technical Noise Supplement. Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA.


Federal Highway Administration. 1978 (December). Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. FHWA-RD-77-108. Washington, DC: Office of Research, Office of Environmental Policy.

———. 2011. Physical Techniques to Reduce Noise Impacts. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_compatible_planning/federal_approach/audible_landscape/al04.cfm. Accessed March 27, 2015.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. 1992 (August). Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues.

Federal Transit Administration. 2006 (May). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Washington, DC: Office of Planning and Environment.


FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

FICON. See Federal Interagency Committee on Noise.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. 2012 (December 19). Existing Traffic Conditions Report for the Carnegie SVRA GP and EIR. Loomis, CA. Prepared for AECOM, Sacramento, CA.

———. 2014 (September 9). Traffic Analysis for the Carnegie SVRA General Plan Update. Loomis, CA. Prepared for AECOM, Sacramento, CA.

Weather Underground. 2013. History for Livermore, CA. Available: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KLVK/2013/2/7/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar. Accessed March 7, 2013.

7.4.11 SECTION 3.11, “POPULATION AND HOUSING”

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2007 (June). Final Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment. Prepared by the Twin Cities District, Rancho Cordova, CA, in partnership with Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA, and Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA.


7.4.12 SECTION 3.12, “PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES”

California Building Standards Commission. 2013. California Green Building Standards Code 2013 (CALGreen). California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11. Available: http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013California/13Green/13Green_main.html. Accessed May 28, 2014.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2014. Foothill Sanitary Landfill (39-AA-0004). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/39-AA-0004/Detail/. Accessed August 25, 2014.

CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

San Joaquin County. 2003 (October). San Joaquin County On-site Wastewater Disposal Standards. San Joaquin County Ordinance Code Section 9-1105. Amended by San Joaquin Local Health District May 23, 1989; amended by Board of Supervisors December 11, 2001, R-01-828. Environmental Health Department, Stockton, CA.


7.4.13 SECTION 3.13, “RECREATION”

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. 2009. California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division Strategic Plan 2009. Sacramento, CA.

———. 2011 (January). Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission Program Report 2011. Sacramento, CA.

———. 2013. Online Survey Results: Summary and Key Findings. Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area General Plan Revision. Rancho Cordova, CA. Prepared by AECOM. Sacramento, CA.

———. 2014 (January). Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission Program Report. Sacramento, CA.

Raosoft. 2004. Sample Size Calculator. Available: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html. Accessed March 1, 2013.

State Parks. See California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.

7.4.14 SECTION 3.14, “TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC”

Alameda County Transportation Commission. 2012 (June). Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. Final. Oakland, CA. Submitted by the Nelson\Nygaard Team.

California Department of Transportation. 2014 (June). Transportation Concept Report, Interstate 580. Final. District 10, Stockton, CA.


City of Livermore. 2013. City of Livermore General Plan 2003–2025, Circulation Element. Adopted February 9, 2004; amended February 2005, June 2009, September 2013, and December 2013. Livermore, CA.

———. 2014. City of Livermore 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan, Fiscal Years 2014–2015 through 2016–2017. Livermore, CA.

City of Tracy. 2009 (April 22). City of Tracy General Plan Draft Supplemental EIR. State Clearinghouse Number 2008092006. Tracy, CA.

———. 2011 (February 1). City of Tracy General Plan. Circulation Element. Tracy, CA. Prepared by Design, Community & Environment, Berkeley and Ventura, CA.


KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. 2014 (October 1). Traffic Analysis for the Carnegie SVRA General Plan Update. Loomis, CA. Prepared for AECOM, Sacramento, CA.

San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2014. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Appendix F, “Project List.” Stockton, CA.

SJCOG. See San Joaquin Council of Governments.

Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC.

7.5 CHAPTER 4, “CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS”

Alameda County. 1994 (May). Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan. Adopted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors November 23, 1976; amended May 5, 1994, Board of Supervisors Resolution 94-272.

———. 2011a (September). Concannon Vineyard Warehouse/Administration Building Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Hayward, CA. Prepared by Ascent Environmental, Sacramento, CA.

———. 2011b (September). Greenville Road Subdivision Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Hayward, CA. Prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oakland, CA.

———. 2013 (March). Draft Environmental Impact Report for Modifications to Existing (Year 2005) Conditional Use Permits—Altamont Winds Inc. (AWI). State Clearinghouse No. 2012062060. Hayward, CA. Prepared by ICF International, Sacramento, CA.

———. 2014. Current Development Projects. Community Development Agency. Available: http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/awipermit-pln2011-102.htm. Accessed: November 11, 2014.

California Department of Finance. 2013. Total Population Projections for California and Counties: July 1, 2015 to 2060 in 5-year Increments. Demographic Research Unit. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/. Accessed: September 23, 2014.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2007a (November). OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA, and Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA.

———. 2007b (June). Final Corral Hollow Watershed Assessment. Prepared by the Twin Cities District, Rancho Cordova, CA, in partnership with Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA, and Salix Applied Earthcare, Redding, CA.


———. 2008. 2008 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines. 2008 Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program Regulations. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA.


———. 2013. Online Survey Results: Summary and Key Findings. Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area General Plan Revision. Rancho Cordova, CA. Prepared by AECOM, Sacramento, CA.

Jensen, L. S., and M. A. Silva. 1989. Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Stockton-Lodi Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 160, Plate 14. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology.

San Joaquin County. 1992. San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. Stockton, CA. Volume I—Section V, “Public Health and Safety,” and Section VI, “Resources.”

7.6 CHAPTER 5, “OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS”

California Department of Conservation. 2011 (April). Alameda County Important Farmland 2010 map. Scale = 1:100,000. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/, select file “ala10.pdf.” Accessed April 1, 2013.

———. 2012a (June). San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2010 map. Rural Land Mapping Edition. Scale = 1:100,000. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/, select file “sjq10.pdf.” Accessed April 1, 2013.

———. 2012b. Alameda County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013 map. Scale = 1:100,000. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/, select file “Alameda_12_13_WA.pdf.” Accessed April 1, 2013.

———. 2013. San Joaquin County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013 map. Scale = 1:100,000. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/, select file “San Joaquin_12_13_WA.pdf.” Accessed April 1, 2013.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.


7.7 CHAPTER 6, “ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT”



CHAPTER 8 – REPORT CONTRIBUTORS

8.1 STATE PARKS STAFF, OFF-HIGHWAY MOTOR VEHICLE RECREATION DIVISION

Randy Caldera, Acting Sector Superintendent, Carnegie SVRA Dan Canfield, Planning Manager, OHMVR Division Tara de Silva, Environmental Scientist, Carnegie SVRA Clint Elsholz, Environmental Scientist, Carnegie SVRA (former) Michael Fehling, Twin Cities District Superintendent Max Heitner, Environmental Scientist, Twin Cities–Prairie City Steve Hilton, Associate State Archaeologist Alicia Perez, Associate State Archaeologist (former) Shane Keefauver, Environmental Scientist, Carnegie SVRA Rick LeFlore, Retired Annuitant, OHMVR Division Elise McFarland, Interpreter I, Carnegie SVRA Katie Metraux, Associate Park and Recreation Specialist, OHMVR Division Sarah Wallace, Associate State Archaeologist, OHMVR Division Bob Williamson, State Parks Superintendent, OHMVR Division Justin Mynk, Park Maintenance Supervisor, Carnegie SVRA (former)

8.2 AECOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Petra Unger, Project Director Jennifer Aranda, Project Manager Drew Sutton, Urban and Environmental Planner David Bise, Senior Biologist Tammie Beyerl, Senior Botanist Richard Deis, Senior Archaeologist Jenifer King, Environmental Analyst Wendy Copeland, Environmental Analyst Danielle Hughes, Hydrologist/Geologist Issa Mahmodi, Noise Specialist Jason Paukovits, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyst George Lu, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyst Lisa Clement, GIS Brian Perry, Graphic Production Julie Nichols, Editor Beth Duffey, Editor Charisse Case, Document Specialist Kristine Olsen, Document Specialist

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR Report Contributors 8-1

8.3 A. D. HINSHAW ASSOCIATES – ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, POPULATION AND HOUSING, AND RECREATION ANALYSIS

Philip Hinshaw, Environmental Analyst

8.4 KD ANDERSON – TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Mike Becker, Transportation Engineer

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area DEIR 8-2 Report Contributors

Date post:	13-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamtuong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Draft Environmental Impact Report - Amazon Web...

Documents