Agenda packet — Dublin City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

Section 8.36.060(C)(3) states that for lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time.

Summary of Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Noise Impacts The DCEIR concludes that buildout of the 189-acre Specific Plan area would have the potential to increase noise levels by 3 dBA or more, would exceed the City’ s noise standard, and that short-term construction noise would impact nearby sensitive receptors.

Mitigation measures set forth in the DCEIR to address significant potential noise impacts are summarized below:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.10-1a: Prepare Construction Noise Management Plan.

The project applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following:

All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices ( e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust.

The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.

Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors.

All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors.

The project applicant( s) shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City of Dublin Planning Department, a qualified “ Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department. If any notices are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site by the City and all signs posted 141
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 82 ends

at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.

Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible ( e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers).

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.10-1b: Construction Routes Less Disruptive to Sensitive Receptors. Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways ( I-580, I-680, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and Arnold Road). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise
Noise generated by project construction activities would have a temporary duration approximately 60 days). Construction- related noise will be generated by vehicular traffic related to onsite workers and delivery of construction materials (including the bridge structure itself), excavation for footings, construction of bridge piers and the trail, and placement of the bridge structure over Dublin Boulevard. The noise levels that would be generated by the Overcrossing Project would be similar to the noise levels addressed in the DCEIR for site construction and operation of heavy- duty trucks, backhoes, and other heavy- duty construction equipment. Because of the variability in daily construction operations ( types and amount of equipment and their location at any given time), noise levels from project construction cannot be accurately estimated. Typical noise levels from construction activities are illustrated in Table 3, and typical noise levels from specific types of construction equipment are illustrated in Table 4.

Construction of the Overcrossing Project would have a shorter duration and use fewer pieces of noise-generating equipment than would the large- scale construction of the 189-acre Specific Plan area analyzed in the DEIR. The Overcrossing Project would also not require use of large earthmoving equipment for site grading as would be required for the Specific Plan area.

Construction activities for the Overcrossing Project would be conducted during weekday. daytime hours with the exception of installation of the bridge structure over Dublin Boulevard.

Because installation of the bridge structure, which would be constructed offsite before being delivered to the project site, would require closure of Dublin Boulevard, the bridge structure would be installed in a single overnight operation. In addition, construction of the Overcrossing 142
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 83 ends

Table 3. Typical Construction Activity Noise Levels
Phase
Noise Level (Leq)
at 50 Feeta
Noise Level (Leq)
at 200 Feet
Noise Level (Leq)
at 400 Feet
Noise Level ( Leq)
at 1,600 Feet
Ground Clearing 84 75 66 54
Excavation 89 80 71 59
Foundations 78 69 60 48
Erection 85 76 67 56
Exterior Finishing 89 80 71 59
NOTES: Leq = equivalent sound level.
a
50-foot estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase and 200 feet from the other equipment associated with that phase.

SOURCE: Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, 1971.

Table 4. Typical Noise Levels From Construction Equipment Construction Equipment
Noise Level
dBA, Leq at 50 Feet)
Dump truck 88
Portable air compressor 81
Concrete mixer (truck) 85
Scraper 88
Jackhammer 88
Dozer 87
Paver 89
Generator 76
Backhoe 85
NOTES: dBA = A-weighted decibels. Leq = equivalent sound level.

SOURCE: FTA, 2006.

Project would not overlap the noisiest portion of Specific Plan construction activities such as major grading operations. The Overcrossing Project would comply with all construction noiserelated mitigation measures set forth in the DCEIR.

Operational Noise
Because the trail would be used by pedestrians and bicyclists, the Overcrossing Project would not result in long-term stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors.

Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe impacts would result from the Overcrossing Project.
143
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 84 ends

b) Result in a generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground- borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction activities often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building( s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground- borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations ( i.e., 0.2 inch/ second) appears to be conservative.

The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage.

Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment.

Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in the DCEIR, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The DCEIR estimated the closest structures to the project construction activities would be approximately 50 feet away. At 50 feet from the source of activity, the DCEIR concluded that construction- related vibration velocities would range from 0.001 to 0.031 inch-per-second PPV, well below the 0.2 inch-persecond PPV significance threshold. The DCEIR thus concluded that vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Construction of the Overcrossing Project would not involve the use of large bulldozers 2for site grading analyzed in the DCEIR for grading of the Specific Plan area. In addition, construction activities for the Overcrossing Project would be separated by a minimum of approximately 70 feet from the closest structures, which are located along the south side of Dublin Boulevard east of the existing Iron Horse trail.
2 Over the various types of construction equipment analyzed in he DCEIR, large bulldozers would generate the greatest viubration impacts.
144
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 85 ends

Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe impacts would result from the Overcrossing Project.
c) Would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels from a private airstrip, public airport, or public use airport?
The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located approximately 3.5 miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, the City of Dublin is not located within the approach zones and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour as defined in the City’s plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose residents or workers in the project area to excess airport-related noise.

Conclusion. No impacts would result from the Overcrossing Project. 145
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 86 ends

Population and Housing

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in the area, either
directly or indirectly?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Existing Setting
The DCEIR concludes that, although the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would increase the population in the City, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly ( for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly ( for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Overcrossing Project does not include any residential uses that would directly generate population growth. The Overcrossing Project would enhance the desirability of the Iron Horse Trail by eliminating an awkward at-grade crossing. However, it would be highly unlikely that such an improvement to the trail would be sufficient to indirectly induce population growth in the area beyond that anticipated in the DCEIR.
146
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 87 ends

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Overcrossing Project includes the construction and operation of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge and would not displace any existing housing or people. 147
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 88 ends

Public Services

15. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered facilities
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any
of the following:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Existing Setting
Fire Protection Services
The project area is served by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), which provides fire protection and suppression services under contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF has 28 fire stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 17, located at 6200 Madigan Avenue, provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin and would provide initial response to the project area. This station, which is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the project site, houses one engine and one truck company and could respond to a request for service within five minutes.
148
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 89 ends

Police Protection Services
Police services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract by Alameda County Sheriff personnel located at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Plaza.

Libraries
The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza and is a partnership between the City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library.

Parks/ Recreation Facilities
The City of Dublin’ s current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas. The City’ s Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and development, and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance.

In addition to the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the City's existing trail network consists of bikeways located along Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Alamo Creek, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and Dougherty Road, a public local trail along Martin Canyon Creek, and a regional trail link along the Iron Horse Trail.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public services? The Overcrossing Project would be constructed to current California Building Code standards and would not involve the provision of any new or physically altered governmental facilities other than the bridge crossing itself. By improving the trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard, there may be an increase in trail use, which could in turn, result in increased police and fire service requests. The number of such calls for service would be minimal compared to the number of calls for service analyzed in the DCEIR for the development of 1,995 residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, the 30-acre Don Biddle Park and a 5-acre neighborhood park, and a 12-acre elementary school for which the DCEIR determined impacts to be less than significant. In addition, the added safety for trail users of replacing an awkward at-grade crossing of Dublin Boulevard with a grade-separated overcrossing might reduce any potential increase in calls for service resulting from the proposed project. The proposed Overcrossing Project does not involve development of residential uses and would not, therefore, generate any demand for school or library facilities. Because the proposed project involves enhancement of an existing recreational trail, no impacts in relation to recreational facilities would result. 149
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 90 ends

Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts in relation to public services.
150
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 91 ends

Recreation

16. RECREATION — Would the project:
a) Increase the demand for existing
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of such a facility could
occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Existing Setting
Parks/ Recreation Facilities
The City of Dublin’ s current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas. The City’ s Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and development, and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance.

Page 92 ends

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project increase the demand for existing parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of such a facility could occur or be accelerated? Connections between the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Don Biddle Park were anticipated as part of the design of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. While some pedestrians and bicyclists using the Iron Horse Trail might also utilize Don Biddle Park, the construction and operation of the Overcrossing Project would not be likely to increase such use or to cause substantial deterioration of the park once its construction is complete because:

The proposed project does not involve development of new housing that generate demand for park facilities;
Use of Don Biddle Park by trail users was contemplated in the original design of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and the park; and
The primary use of the trail at Dublin Boulevard would be for pedestrian and bicycle movement, and in particular, for access to and from the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station.
b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Overcrossing Project is itself a recreational facility, the physical environmental effects of which are addressed throughout this document.

Conclusion
No new or substantially more severe Impacts to recreational facilities would result from the Overcrossing Project.
152
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 93 ends

Transportation and Traffic

17. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Existing Setting
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard is primarily a six-lane east/ west arterial south of the project area and provides access to residential and commercial/ retail areas. According to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance ( TVTP), Dublin Boulevard is a route of regional significance. Dublin Boulevard extends from the City limit in the west to Fallon Road in the east.

Scarlett Drive
Scarlett Drive is a two-lane north/ south collector along the northwest border of the project site.

Scarlett Drive begins at Dougherty Road and continues southeast to Houston Place where it 153
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 94 ends

terminates near commercial uses approximately 1,100 feet north of Dublin Boulevard. Scarlett Drive continues south of Dublin Boulevard to Scarlett Court. At the time construction of Overcrossing Project is initiated, Scarlett Drive would have been extended from Dublin Boulevard to Houston Place.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Iron Horse Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that consists of a 12-footwide asphalt surface and extends from Pleasanton to Concord. Within the City of Dublin, the trail extends from the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station to the San Ramon Border. The Iron Horse Trail intersects with the Alamo Creek Trail, Alamo Canal Trail, and the Dougherty Road bike path.

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Commuter rail service to Dublin is provided by BART. The closest access to the BART system is located about 0.25 miles south of the project area at the Dublin/ Pleasanton Station. BART provides service to San Francisco and many locations in the East Bay. BART is accessible by foot via sidewalks on Dublin Boulevard, Demarcus Boulevard, and Iron Horse Parkway. BART trains operate on 15-minute headways during the commute periods.

Summary of Dublin Crossing EIR Traffic Impacts
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard Intersection
The DCEIR concluded that build out of the Specific Plan area would create unacceptable operational conditions at certain intersections including the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection adjacent to the project area. This potential significant impact would occur due to the higher rate of pedestrian/ bicyclist crossings at Dublin Boulevard once the Specific Plan area is built out. The DCEIR document concluded that a grade separated crossing could be utilized at this intersection to allow more green time to be allotted to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard.

With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at level of service ( LOS) C during the PM peak hour.

Therefore, this mitigation measure (below) would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: Construction of a Grade Separated Crossing at the Intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to higher rate of pedestrians/ bicyclists crossings at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing should be utilized.

The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard.
154
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 95 ends

Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Construction Impacts
Heavy Vehicle Trips
The DCEIR addresses construction related traffic impacts associated with build out of the Specific Plan area over an estimated time period of eight to twelve years. The construction phase would increase the number of daily truck trips in the project vicinity while the site is graded and materials are delivered. All truck movements to and from the site during construction would likely occur on the arterials and collector streets around the project site.

While heavy vehicle traffic is common on arterial streets near industrial, commercial, and high density residential land uses, truck traffic on streets directly adjacent to low density residential development should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Low density residential development occurs along Scarlett Drive, west of the Specific Plan area, north of Dublin Boulevard. Large numbers of heavy vehicle trips on Scarlett Drive during the construction phase may result in a potentially significant impact. The DCEIR concludes that implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-11: Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan( s). Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities on the Specific Plan site or construction of off-site improvements relating to the Specific Plan, the project applicants shall provide Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan( s) for City Staff review and approval as part of the permit application. The Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic entering the roadway system during periods of peak traffic volumes (i.e., AM and PM Peak Hour). The Mitigation Plan(s) shall also include measures to minimize the number of truck trips on Scarlett Drive and should route heavy vehicle traffic to driveways on Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road to access the site during the construction phase of the project. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan should include the following implementation measures:

Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site.

Should a temporary road and/ or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone.

The project applicant shall be required to keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter streets accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes.
155
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 96 ends

Lane Closures
During build out of the DCSP, closure of travel lanes on Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive, and Arnold Road may be needed while constructing frontage improvements, intersection improvements for new proposed roadways (G Street, B Street, Central Parkway East, E Street, D Street, and A Street), and traffic signal modifications where new intersection legs are proposed. Closure of travel lanes during peak commute hours could result in restricted traffic flow on the public streets surrounding the project area and the DCEIR concluded that lane closures would be a potentially significant impact and required implementation of the following mitigation measure:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-12: Restrict Land Closures Along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road to Off-Peak Hours. During project construction, the lane closures along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road shall be restricted to off-peak hours to the greatest extent feasible. In addition, traffic handling plans shall be prepared for construction work in the public right-of-way in accordance with current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MUTCD) standards and guidelines.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle facilities?
The Overcrossing Project implements DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3, requiring a gradeseparated crossing for the Iron Horse trail over Dublin Boulevard. As noted in the DCEIR, the proposed bridge crossing of Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard is needed for the Scarlett Drive - Dublin Boulevard intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) C during the PM peak hour.

The Overcrossing Project would enhance the existing Iron Horse Trail for use by pedestrians and bicyclists and would thus improve non-vehicular access to the Dublin/ Pleasanton Station BART Station. The Overcrossing Project does not include any new employment or residential uses that would generate traffic. The project would generate a small amount of temporary traffic during construction from workers and delivery of construction materials, including delivery of the bridge span itself. The only temporary lane closure that would be needed for the proposed project would be for installation of the bridge structure. This structure would be manufactured at an offsite location and delivered to the site. Dublin Boulevard would be closed in both directions overnight for one night while the bridge structure is lifted by crane and installed over Dublin Boulevard. This one-night closure would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the area’ s roadway system.
156
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 97 ends

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 3, subdivision ( b)? The Overcrossing Project is a grade- separated crossing for the multi-use Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b)(2), transportation projects that “reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Because the proposed overcrossing would enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel, including access to the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station, by replacing an awkward at-grade crossing of Dublin Boulevard with a grade- separated overcrossing the existing, the proposed project would reduce vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 3, subdivision ( b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
The Overcrossing Project would be constructed according to California Building Code and the user access ramps will be subject to ADA requirements. The project would eliminate an awkward at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Dublin Boulevard with potentially higher exposure of vulnerable users (bicycle and pedestrians) to vehicular traffic. There would be no increase in hazards due to the construction and operation of Overcrossing Project. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
By improving traffic flow along Dublin Boulevard, the Overcrossing Project would improve emergency access in the area. Dublin Boulevard would be closed in both directions overnight for one night while the bridge structure is lifted by crane and installed over Dublin Boulevard.

This one-night closure would constitute the only closure of vehicular travel lanes required for construction of the proposed project. Emergency access along Dublin Boulevard at the Iron Horse Trail would be constrained during installation of the bridge structure. Because the ACFD maintains fire stations both to the west and east within 1.6 miles and 1.3 miles of the project site, respectively, access for emergency fire response would not be adversely affected during bridge installation.

Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact to transportation or traffic.
157
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 98 ends

Utilities and Service Systems

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure that was
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment,
stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’ s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes or regulations related to solid
waste?
Existing Setting
The project site is located within a fully urbanized area with the full range of utilities available in the immediate area. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the purveyor of potable 158
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 99 ends

water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Existing water infrastructure currently serves developed lands adjacent to the project site.

DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the project vicinity. DSRSD maintains a variety of collection mains within the existing public streets, including Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard serving developed lands adjacent to the project site.

The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City’ s stormwater drainage facilities located within public street rights-of-way. The Alameda County Water Conservation District Zone 7 owns and operates regional drainage facilities that collect runoff from the City.

Engineered swales direct stormwater from the Iron Horse trail into Zone 7 drainage facilities.

Solid waste services are currently provided by Amador Valley Industries and include the collection of waste, recycling, and organics. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill, which has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards and an estimated closure date of January 2029.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company ( PG& E) provides electricity and natural gas service to the City of Dublin. PG& E maintains electrical and natural gas facilities within the Dublin Boulevard rightof-way that currently serve developed lands adjacent to the project site.

Comcast currently provides cable television and internet service; AT&T and numerous longdistance telecommunication companies provide telephone and cellular phone service to developed lands adjacent to the project site.

Regulatory Setting
Title 22 California Code of Regulations
Senate Bill 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, in order to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 Water Supply Assessments and SB 221 Written Verifications of Water Supply are companion measures, which seek to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision- makers prior to approval of specified large development projects and that the information is included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects.
159
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 100 ends

Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (CWA (33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.)) have as their goal restoration of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’ s waters. The primary regulatory mechanism to achieve this goal in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Clean Water Act requires that parties seeking to discharge pollutants into waters of the Unites States obtain a permit under the NPDES.

Responsibility for implementing the NPDES program in California has been delegated to the State.

Integrated Waste Management Act
The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) mandates that communities reduce their solid waste. The Act requires local jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also establishes an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Overcrossing Project consists of approach ramps and a bridge structure and does not include any landscaped areas that would require irrigation. Thus, the proposed project would not consume water following construction, nor would the project generate any wastewater.

Thus, construction of new or expanded water or wastewater facilities would not be required.

Electrical infrastructure is available along Dublin. Boulevard. As discussed in relation to Energy Resources, above, a minimal amount of energy will be required for lighting of the bridge and approach structures. This would require connection to the existing electrical utility facilities within the Dublin Boulevard right-of-way. The physical impacts of such a connection are minor and would not require any physical changes to the environment beyond those described and analyzed throughout this document. The proposed project would require any modification to existing natural gas or telecommunications facilities. Thus, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The Overcrossing Project would not use any potable water other than during site construction and would not require additional water supplies or new or expanded entitlements. As demonstrated in the Water Supply Assessment for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, sufficient water supplies available to serve that project and reasonably foreseeable future development 160
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 101 ends

during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Thus, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’ s projected demand in addition to the provider’ s existing commitments?
The Overcrossing Project would not generate any wastewater and no wastewater capacity would be required.
d,e) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? The Overcrossing Project would generate solid waste in the form of asphalt from removal of portions of the existing trail, wood debris, concrete, and trash generated by construction workers. Pursuant to the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 7.30, a minimum of 50 percent of waste generated during construction will be recycled. Following construction, the proposed project would not generate solid waste. Construction waste generated by the project would be disposed of in accordance with state and local regulations and would not exceed the permitted capacity of existing landfills.

Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in any demands for utility or service systems that would require the construction of new infrastructure or facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Thus, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur. 161
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 102 ends

Mandatory Findings of Significance

19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Impacts Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The preceding analysis of Biological Resources, as well as analyses of Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources demonstrate that proposed Overcrossing Project would not result in a new 162
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Page 103 ends

significant impact or cause any significant impact disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR to become substantially more severe in relation to degradation of the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? The preceding analyses for each environmental issue demonstrate that the addition of impacts of the proposed Overcrossing Project to those of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not result in a new significant impact or cause any significant impact disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR to become substantially more severe. Thus, addition of the impacts of the Overcrossing Project to those of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not cause the contribution of the Specific Plan to any significant cumulative impact disclosed in the DCEIR to become cumulatively considerable, nor would any cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact disclosed in the DCEIR become substantially more severe. In addition, given how minor the impacts of the proposed Overcrossing Project are compared to those of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and to those of the cumulative impacts addressed in the DCEIR, the addition of the proposed project to the summary of projections in the adopted City of Dublin General Plan (updated May 2013), the City’ s Capital Improvement Program, and implementation of the Camp Parks Master Plan, which together formed the basis for the cumulative impacts analysis set forth in the DCEIR, would not cause any less than significant cumulative impact to become significant, nor would any significant cumulative impact become substantially more severe.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The preceding analyses for each environmental issue demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed Overcrossing Project would not cause any substantial adverse effect on human beings, nor would any of the substantial adverse effects disclosed in the DCEIR become substantially more severe as the result of the proposed project.

Conclusion
The preceding analyses for each environmental issue demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed Overcrossing Project would not result in a new significant impact or cause any significant impact disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR to become substantially more severe. 163
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iro n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iron
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
l
i
Scarlett DrScarlett DrDublin
at Dublin BoulevardIron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard BlvdDublin Blvd Figure 1: Existing Conditions for Crossing Overcrossing Project SOURCE: Google
Earth Pro
0 100
Feet

OAKLAND

BERKELEY

ALAMEDA

PLEASANTON
DUBLIN
SAN
RAMON

DANVILLE
WALNUT
CREEK

CONCORD

VALLEJO
MARTINEZ ProjectLocation
Iron
Horse
Trail
680
580
164
Iro n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iron
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Scarlett DrScarlett DrDublin
BlvdDublin Blvd
Proposed
Project
0’
0’
2’
2’
4’
4’
6’
6’
8’
8’
10’
10’
12’
12’
14’
14’
16’
16’
18’
18’ 20’
Don Biddle
Community Park
Don Biddle Community
Park

SANFRANCISCO

OAKLAND

BERKELEY

RICHMOND

ALAMEDA

SANLEANDRO HAYWARD
UNION
CITY

PLEASANTON
DUBLIN

LIVERMORE

SANRAMON

ANTIOCH

WALNUTCREEK

CONCORD

MARTINEZ
ProjectLocation DANVILLE
Iron
2’ 2’ 4’ 6’ 8’ 10’ 12’ 14’ 16’ 18’ Trail Horse 20’ 18’ 16’ 14’ 12’ 10’ 8’ 6’ 4’0’ Ground Level 2-
Story House( 30’ Tall)
Dublin Blvd Profile of
Proposed
2Proposed ProjectIron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard Project 0’ Figure Overcrossing Project SOURCE: Mark Thomas; Google
Earth Pro
0 165
Iron
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Scarlett DrDublin
Blvd Don
Biddle Community
Project AreaIron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Park Figure 3:

Project SOURCE: Google Earth Pro; Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project
Area Proposed
Project Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan
Area 0
200
166
20’
Iron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Plan View of Proposed Project with Simulation Viewpoint Simulated View of Proposed Project
SOURCE: City of Dublin
Figure 4: Simulated View of Proposed Project
167
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a lScarletti
DrDublin Blvd
BoulevardIron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Figure 5: Project Area South of Dublin SOURCE: Google Earth Pro
Area0100 Project
Feet
168
Iron
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a lScarletti
DrDublin Blvd
WDD- 1
WDD-2
DP-1
DP-6
DP- 4
DP-5
DP-3
DP-2
SW- 1
SW-2
Detention Basin 1
Detention Basin 2
WDD- 3
Map ID Acres Sq Ft Linear Ft
CORPS WETLANDS**
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD- 1 0.01 559.75 75.90
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD- 2 0.01 562. 83 67.15
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD- 3 0.15 6632. 97 558. 86
TOTAL 0.17 7755. 55 701.91
ISOLATED WETLANDS**
Seasonal Wetland SW- 1 0.01 291.41 40.00
Seasonal Wetland SW- 2 0.10 4178. 91 308. 98
TOTAL 0.11 4470. 32 348. 98
Data Points DP- 1 to 6 — — —
DeterminationIron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Figure 6: Preliminary Jurisdictional SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Study Area
Project Area
Proposed Project
Detention Basin
Seasonal Wetlands
Data Point
0 100
Feet
169
Iron
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Scarlett DrDublin
Blvd Don
BiddleCommunity
Park PleasantonBart Dublin/
StationChabot CanalChabot
Canal
580
F
D
CCAAE
D338. 1
2 33
6 6
633
833
7 E
334’ 332.
21’
332’
332’ZONE

AE ZONE
AE
TRS0
TRS0 ZONE
XZONE
XZONE
XZONE
XZONE
X
328’ 327.55’ 328.03’Figure 7: 332’330’ 329’328’
Flood Hazard MapIron Horse Trail –
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
SOURCE: Google
Earth
Pro; FEMA

SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS 0 400 Feet
Zone AE Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile -
Zone
XArea
of Minimal
Flood Hazard - Zone X 332’Project
Area Proposed Project
Cross Sections with 1% Annual
Chance Water
Surface
170
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND
Appendices
Appendices
A Special Status Species Table
B Wetland Delineation Report
C Cultural Resources Technical Study
D DCEIR Mitigation Measures
3214684. 1
171

APPENDIX A
Special Status Species Table
172
173
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-1 December 2018 Species Name Common Name
Federal, State,
CNPS
Listing1
Habitat Preferences &
Distribution Information
Flowering
Phenology/
Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution
Potential For
Occurrence
Plants
Centromadia parryi
spp. congdonii
Congdon’ s
tarplant
1B.1 Valley and foothill grasslands
on alkaline soils sometimes
described as heavy white clay.

May- November Found within Camp Parks and could
potentially occur in seasonal wetlands
late in the season when they are
completely dry.

Low
Chloropyron
palmatum
Palmate- bracted
salty bird’ s-beak
FE, SE, 1B.1 Found in Alkali wetland and
alkali sinks.

May- October
Annual herb
hemiparasitic)
No suitable wetland or alkali vegetation
associations present.

None
Juglans hindsii Northern
California black
walnut
1B.1 Found in riparian forests and
woodlands.

April- May
Perennial
deciduous tree
Suitable riparian habitat is present
adjacent to the proposed project
alignment.

Not present
STATUS CODES:

FEDERAL STATE
FE = Listed as Endangered by the USFWS CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California FT = Listed as Threatened by the USFWS CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California FC = Candidate for Federal listing

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY ( CNPS STATUS)
1A – Plants presumed extinct in California 2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 3 – Plants about which we need more information – a review list 4 – Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
174
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-2 December 2018 Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential for
Occurrence
Invertebrates
Branchinecta
lynchi
Vernal Pool Fairy
Shrimp
FT, CH Inhabit clear to tea-colored freshwater vernal
pools in grass or mud bottomed swales, or
basalt flow depression pools in unplowed
grasslands. Often occur in low densities and
rarely co-occur with other brachiopod species.
32 known populations in the Central Valley
from Shasta to Tulare counties, and along the
Central and South Coast Ranges from Solano
to San Benito counties. No known
occurrences within 5 miles of the proposed
project area.

None
Branchinecta
longiantenna
Longhorn fairy
shrimp
FE Endemic to the eastern margin of the coastal
mountains in seasonally astatic grassland
vernal pools.

Drainage ditches adjacent to the repurposed
train tracks (Iron Horse Trail levee) is not
suitable to support this species.

None
Hygrotus curvipes Curved- foot
hygrotus diving
beetle
Lives in mineralized pools, stock ponds, ponds,
or in intermittent streams. Distribution is
Outer Coast Ranges and San Joaquin delta and
in eastern Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.

This species was surveyed for within the
Dublin Crossing EIR study area and not
detected during 2002- 2003 and 2012- 2013
surveys.

Low
Ischnura gemina San Francisco
fortail dameselfly
Occurs inquiet, dense marsh habitat and slow
moving streams and canals in the San
Francisco Bay Region.

This species was surveyed for within the
Dublin Crossing EIR study area and not
detected during 2002- 2003 and 2012- 2013
surveys and conditions are similar in the
Project Area.

Low
Linderiella
occidentalis
California
linderiella
An aquatic crustacean that inhabits clear large
vernal pools and lakes. Most common fairy
shrimp in the Central Valley.

Occurrences have been reported north ofI580. Species was not observed during Dublin Crossing EIR surveys in 2002- 2003, 2012- 2013
and conditions are similar within the Iron
Horse Trail Project Area.

Low
Amphibians
Ambystoma
californiense
California tiger
salamander
FT, CH, ST, CSC Range includes the Central Valley and Central Coast ranges from Colusa County south to San
Luis Obispo and Kern counties from sea level
to 1,054 meters ( 3,460 feet) in elevation. Need
underground refuges, especially ground
squirrel burrows and vernal pools or other
seasonal water sources for breeding.

No suitable aquatic or upland habitat.

Nearest CNDDB ( CDFW 2016) record is
approximately 2 miles from the proposed
project alignment.

None
175
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-3 December 2018 Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential for
Occurrence
Rana boylii foothill yellowlegged frog
CSC Streams and rivers with rocky substrate and
open, sunny banks, in forests, chaparral, and
woodlands; Sometimes found in isolated pools,
vegetated backwaters, and deep, shaded,
spring fed pools; Generally associated with
foothill and mountain streams but occurs from
sea level to 6,700 feet. (2,040 meters).

No suitable habitat present. Species not
known from eastern Alameda County.

None
Rana draytonii California redlegged frog
FT, CH, CSC Lowlands or foothills inor near sources of
water with shrubby or emergent riparian
vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval development;
Must have access to estivation habitat;
Restricted to freshwater and slightly brackish
waters.

Critical habitat for this species is located
approximately 2 miles from the project
alignment. Alamo Canal is an artificial channel
devoid of emergent vegetation. This feature
lacks adjacent upland vegetated habitat to
support estivating red-legged frogs. Nearest
CNDDB ( CDFW 2016) record is 2 miles from
the proposed project alignment.

None
Reptiles
Emys marmorata western pond
turtle
CSC Aquatic; Found inponds, marshes, rivers,
streams, brackish estuarine water and
irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation; Requires basking sites and suitable
upland habitat ( sandy banks or grassy open
fields) up to 0.5 km from water for egg- laying.

There is no permanent water within the study
area to support this species.

None
Masticophis
lateralis
euryxanthus
Alameda
Whipsnake
striped Racer)
FT, CH This is a subspecies of the California
whipsnake, ( Masticophis lateralis). Inhabits
valleys, foothills and low mountains associated
with northern coastal scrub or chaparral
habitat; requires rock outcrops for cover and
foraging.

No suitable coastal scrub or chaparral habitat
present in project area.

None
176
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-4 December 2018 Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential for
Occurrence
Birds
Accipeter striatus Sharp- shinned
hawk
WL Inhabits north-facing slopes in conifers,
including ponderosa pine, black oak, & Jeffrey
pines, preferably in riparian areas. Forages
primarily for small birds along woodland edges
openings, hedgerows, brushy pastures, &
shorelines. Breeding begins in April; singlebrooded.

No suitable nesting habitat is present within
proposed project area; however, this species
could occur in winter, possible foraging at
bird feeders.

None
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’ s hawk WL Typically found in forests and woodlands. Nest in pines, oaks, Douglas-firs, beeches, spruces
and other densely populated woodland tree
species.

Breeds across southern Canada and
southward to the southern extent ofthe
United States and Central Mexico. Winters
throughout the US and Mexico. Similar to
sharp- shinned, this species could occur during
the non-nesting season as a winter visitor.

None
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored
blackbird
SCT, CSC Open water, protected nesting substrate
blackberry/ cattails), and foraging areas with
insect prey. Breeding colonies require a nearby
source of water, suitable nesting substrate and
natural grassland, woodland, or agricultural
cropland biomes in which to forage.

Historically, breeding colonies had been
strongly associated with emergent marshes,
but more recently there has been a shift to
non-natively vegetated and active agricultural
areas ( USFWS 2015).

No suitable nesting habitat is present near
the proposed project alignment.

None
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle FP Favor partially or completely open space near mountains, hills and cliffs. Utilize habitats
ranging from arctic to desert, including tundra,
shrublands, grasslands, coniferous forests,
farmland and riparian corridors.

No suitable nesting habitat is present within
theproject site. Agricultural fields provide
suitable foraging habitat for this species.

None
Ardea herodias Great blue heron A large wading bird that inhabits a variety of aquatic habitats including shores, tideflats,
marshes, swamps, ponds, lakes, rivers, and
streams. Nests colonially in large trees near
water bodies.

No suitable habitat to support nesting
colonies is present.

None
177
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-5 December 2018 Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential for
Occurrence
Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl CSC Valley bottoms and foothills with low vegetation and fossorial mammal activity such
as ground squirrel burrows the species can use
for refuge or breeding purposes. Breeding
begins in March; single- brooded.

Grassland habitat exists in the Project Area
which could potentially be used by burrowing
owls. Total foraging area is limited in size and
localized foot traffic and trail use likely
inhibits colonization. No ground squirrel
burrows observed.

Low
Buteo regalis Ferruginous
hawk
WL Breeds in the northern states and Canada;
winters south from California and Texas to
Mexico. Wintering habitat consists of open
grasslands, deserts, and cultivated fields.

Breeding begins in April; single- brooded.

No suitable foraging or wintering habitat
present within theproject study area.

None
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier CSC Inhabits both freshwater and saltwater marshes and adjacent upland grasslands. Nests
on the ground in tall grasses in grasslands and
meadows. Breeding begins in March; singlebrooded.

No suitable nesting habitat within the
proposed project alignment.

None
Elanus leucurus White- tailed kite FP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open
grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging
close to isolated, dense- topped trees for
nesting and perching.

No suitable nesting habitat present within the
project site.

None
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California horned
lark
WL Common, abundant resident in a variety of
open habitats, usually where large trees and
shrubs are absent, ranging from low-elevation
grasslands and deserts to dwarf shrub habitats
above tree line.

No nesting habitat present in the Project
Area.

None
Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon WL Nests on cliffs and at times in old raven or eagle stick nests on cliff, bluff, or rock outcrop.

Inhabits perennial grasslands, savannahs,
rangeland, some agricultural fields, & desert
scrub communities. Breeding begins in April;
single- brooded.

No suitable nesting habitat present within the
project study area.

None
178
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-6 December 2018 Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential for
Occurrence
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American
peregrine falcon
DL, DL, FP Habitat includes many terrestrial landscapes in North America; mainly cliffs and nesting near
water. Utilize open habitat for foraging. Will
also utilize artificial habitats like towers,
bridges and buildings.

Most widely found in Northern California;
migrates long distances along the western
coast of the US. No suitable nesting habitat
present within the project site.

None
Lanius
ludovicianus
Loggerhead
shrike
MBTA, SSC Breeds in grassland or shrublands with open
ground. Requires mature shrubs or small trees
for nesting. Fence lines are used for perching
and maintaining territory. Open areas used for
hunting.

Potential foraging habitat in grassland habitat
in Project Area. Nesting habitat not present.

None
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat CSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts
must protect from high temperatures.

Sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

CNDDB reports observations of this bat aprx.
2 miles to the southwest. No roosting habitat
within Project area.

None
Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis -/- Forests and woodlands with sources of water over which to feed. Roosts in buildings, mines,
caves, crevices, occasionally under bridges.

CNDDB reports observations of this bat aprx.
2 miles to the southwest. No roosting habitat
and no open water foraging habitat within
Project area.

None
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin Kit
Fox
FE, ST Inhabits annual grasslands or grassy open
stages with scattered shrubby vegetation;
needs loose- textured sandy soils for
burrowing, as well as suitable prey base.

Grassland habitat not suitable within the
project area due to total isolation from
known occupied habitat.

None
STATE AND FEDERAL LISTING CODES:

FEDERAL
FE = Federally listed as Endangered
FT = Federally listed as Threatened
FPE = Candidate for Federal listing
DL = Delisted
FPD = Federally proposed for delisting
FC = Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) SC = Species of Concern ( NMFS regulated species only)
CH = Critical Habitat ( Proposed or Final) is designated STATE
SE = State listed as Endangered
ST = State listed as Threatened
SR = State listed as Rare
SCE = State candidate for listing as Endangered
SCT = State candidate for listing as Threatened
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
FP = Fully Protected
WL = Watch List
179

APPENDIX B
Wetland Delineation Report
180
181

IRON HORSE TRAIL

DUBLIN BOULEVARD OVERCROSSING PROJECT
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the United States
Alameda County, California
Prepared for:

City of Dublin
Prepared by:

Metis Environmental Group
182
183
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing i METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.,
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing,
Alameda County, California
Page
1 Introduction 1

1.1 Objective 1

1.2 Summary of Results 1

1.3 Responsible Parties 4

1.4 Project Description 4
2 Setting 6

2.1 Delineation Study Area 6

2.2 Climate and Topography 6

2.3 Soils 8

2.4 Hydrology 8

2.5 Vegetation 8
3 Methods 11

3.1 Definitions 11

3.2 Regulatory Setting 13

3.3 Office Preparation 15

3.4 Field Survey Methods 15
4 Results 17

4.1 Organization 17

4.2 Results 17

4.3 Clean Water Act Analysis 19
5 Report Preparation 23

5.1 Report Preparation 23

5.2 References and Sources Consulted 23
184
Table of Contents
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL ii Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.

Appendices
A. Delineation Map A-1
B. Wetland Datasheets B-1
C. Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form C-1
D. USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map, Dublin D-1
E. Soils Map E-1
F. WETS Tables for Livermore, Alameda County F-1
G. Representative Photographs G-1
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map 3
Figure 2 Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetlands 7
List of Tables
Table 4-1 Waters of the US and State Within the Delineation Study Area 17 185
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing iii METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

USED IN THIS DOCUMENT
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FAC Facultative plant species
FACU Facultative upland plant species
FACW Facultative wetland plant species
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
OBL Obligate wetland plant species
OHWM Ordinary highwater mark
NI No wetland indicator assigned ( for plants)
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRPW Non-relatively permanent waters
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RPW Relatively permanent waters
SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
TNW Traditionally navigable waters
UPL Upland plant species
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
186
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Document
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL iv Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 187

1. Introduction
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 CHAPTER 1
Introduction

1.1 Objective
This report documents the extent of potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands and other waters, which occur within the study area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project, located within the City of Dublin in Alameda County, California Figure 1).

The purpose of this document is to identify features within the study area that meet criteria and conditions suitable to be considered the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( Corps) pursuant to the Clean Water Act, Section 404 and 401, and to provide the background information necessary to support future permit applications ( if necessary) under Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the proposed project.

1.2 Summary of Results
Metis Environmental conducted a formal wetland delineation of the study area on March 6, 2018.

The field delineation identified and documented all potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. within the delineation study area ( Figure 2).

A total of 0.16 acres of Waters of the US and 0.26 acres of Waters of the State were identified in the delineation study area. As indicated in Table 4-1 and included in the summary table below, delineated features in the delineation study area are estimated for each feature type shown in Figure 2.

WATERS OF THE US AND STATE WITHIN THE

DELINEATION STUDY AREA
Feature Type
Data Points
DP)
Potential
State
Jurisdiction
Potential
Federal
Jurisdiction
Seasonal Wetlands
SW -1 1,2 0.01
SW -2 3,4 0.09
Wetland Drainage Ditch
WDD- 1 0.01 0.01
188

1. Introduction
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 2 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.

Feature Type
Data Points
DP)
Potential
State
Jurisdiction
Potential
Federal
Jurisdiction
WDD- 2

0.01 0.01
WDD- 3 5,6 0.14 0.14
Total 0.26 0.16
SOURCE: Metis Environmental, 2018.

A detailed summary of all waters of the U.S. and State documented within the delineation study area is presented in Table 4-1 (see Chapter 4). Delineation maps are presented in Appendix A; wetland datasheets are provided in Appendix B; approved jurisdictional delineation form Rapanos Form) in Appendix C; a 7.5-minute USGS topographic map is located in Appendix D; soil maps are provided in Appendix E; the climate summary ( WETS Table) information table is provided in Appendix F; and representative photographs are provided in Appendix G. 189
Alternative 1
45° to Dublin Blvd
Bridge Length: 230’
Alternative 3
90° to Dublin Blvd
Bridge Length: 140’
Alternative 2
65° to Dublin Blvd
Bridge Length: 160’
Iro n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iron
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Sterling StSterling StScarlett
DrScarlett
DrDublin
BlvdDublin
Blvd

SANFRANCISCO

OAKLAND

BERKELEY

RICHMOND ALAMEDA

SANLEANDRO

HAYWARD
UNION
CITY

PLEASANTON
DUBLIN

LIVERMORE

SANRAMON

ANTIOCH
ProjectLocation Figure 1: Project LocationIron Horse Trail – WALNUTCREEK CONCORD MARTINEZ Mark Thomas; Google Earth ProPreliminary Delineation of Waters Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project SOURCE:
of the
U.
190

1. Introduction
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 4 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.

1.3 Responsible Parties
The Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing project is proposed by the City of Dublin.

The contact person for the project is:

Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
100 Civic Plaza
City of Dublin, CA 94568
Obaid.Khan@dublin. ca.gov
Contact:

Obaid. Khan@dublin. ca.gov
925-833-6630

1.4 Project Description

1.4.1 Overview
The City of Dublin proposes to construct a grade- separated overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard, just north of the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station along the multi-use Iron Horse Trail (Figure 1).

The overcrossing will span north to south over Dublin Boulevard and will provide an alternative to the existing at-grade trail user- vehicular interface that currently occurs along the Iron Horse Trail where it meets Dublin Boulevard.

North of Dublin Boulevard the overcrossing structure would be integrated into the Dublin Crossing Central Park, within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area, along an alignment that would gradually transition to at-grade conditions before re-connecting with the Iron Horse Trail north of Dublin Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the three proposed alternatives being considered for the North side touch down configuration. South of Dublin Boulevard the overcrossing would touch down within the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way and would include a graduated ramp for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the overcrossing. The southern touchdown area is the subject of this report.
191

2. Setting
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 5 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 192 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 6 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 CHAPTER 2
Setting

2.1 Delineation Study Area
The delineation study area consists of the existing Iron Horse Trail right-of-way where it occurs south of Dublin Boulevard near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive in Dublin, Alameda County, California ( Figure 2). The delineation study area extends approximately 880 linear feet to the south of Dublin Boulevard and spans approximately 100 feet east to west across the Iron Horse Trail ROW accounting for approximately 2 acres of total area.

Non-native annual grassland, ruderal vegetation, seasonal wetland, and landscape trees occur within the study area. North of Dublin Boulevard the overcrossing would touch down within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area for which a Jurisdictional Determination has already been approved by the Corps.

Land use in the surrounding area consists of urban subdivision to the east and light commercial development to the west. Additional urban development including the extension of Scarlett Drive and construction of the Dublin Crossing Central Park facility adjacent to the Iron Horse trail on the north side of Dublin Boulevard, ( across Dublin Boulevard from the delineation study area), are currently underway and are expected to be in place prior to construction of the proposed overcrossing project.

The study area is defined by a concrete retaining wall along the eastern boundary, adjacent to high density housing and associated parking. The western boundary occurs adjacent to commercial and light industrial development and consists of chain link privacy fencing. The study area is accessible from the paved surface of the Iron Horse Trail where it intersects Dublin Boulevard and exetends south adjacent to the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station.

2.2 Climate and Topography
The overall Northern California climate is Mediterranean in nature, which is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters, with the bulk of precipitation occurring as rain in the winter months. The average annual temperature in Dublin is 60.3º F, while mean annual rainfall is 14.23 inches ( USDA, NRCS, 2018).
193
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
WDD- 1
WDD- 2
SW- 1
SW- 2
Detention Basin 1
Detention Basin 2
Study Area
Boundary
WDD- 3
DP-1
DP-6
DP- 4
DP-5
DP-3
DP-2
AreasIron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Figure 2: Potential Jurisdictional Wetland ProPreliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. SOURCE: Google Earth 0 100
Feet
Map ID Acres Sq Ft Linear Ft

CORPS WETLANDS
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD- 1 0.01 559.75 75.90
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD- 2 0.01 562.83 67.15
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD- 3 0.15 6632. 97 558. 86
TOTAL 0.17 7755. 55 701.91

ISOLATED WETLANDS
Seasonal Wetland SW-1 0.01 291.41 40.00
Seasonal Wetland SW- 2 0.10 4178. 91 308. 98
TOTAL 0.11 4470. 32 348. 98
Data Points DP-1 to 6 — — —
194

2. Setting
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 8 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.

The study area follows the path of the Iron Horse Trail which occurs on a repurposed rail road levee, located at approximately 400 feet above sea level.

2.3 Soils
The United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) Naturals Resource Conservation Service NRCS) Web Soil Survey ( USDA NRCS, 2018) was consulted to determine the soil type occurring within the delineation study area and it is:

Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes.

A map depicting the soil within the wetland delineation study area is presented in Appendix E.

Clear Lake clay is included on the National Hydric Soil list. A brief description of the soil series within the delineation study area follows.

The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that are formed in fine textured alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. Clear Lake soils are in flood basins, flood plains and in swales of drainageways ( USDA NRCS, 2018).

This series exhibits negligible to high runoff ( if assumed concave runoff is always negligible); slow to very slow permeability. A water table is at depths of 4 to 10 feet in the late summer and in some areas is very near the surface during wet months of winter. Clear Lake clay soils are classified as Xeric Endoaquerts.

2.4 Hydrology
Annual rainfall is the only source of water within the study area. Precipitation soaks into the soils and drains off the paved or earthen sloped surface of the Iron Horse Trail where it contributes to water ponding above the soil surface at the toe of the former railroad levee, i.e. within seasonal wetlands. With average rainfall at 14.23 inches for the Dublin area, the rainfall for the winter 2017- 2018 is approximately 60-70% of normal to date. Rainfall during the previous winter of 2016- 2017 was 45 percent higher than the average. Years preceding 2017 consisted of a five-year drought with substantially lower rainfall totals. For the current water year the total accumulated rainfall is below average for the region.

2.5 Vegetation
Plant communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area which are defined by species composition and relative abundance. The study area contains non-native annual grassland, ruderal vegetation, seasonal wetland, and a row of native valley oak trees planted by the Urban Forestry Program under Proposition 40 and 84. The upland community is described below, while the wetland community is described in Section 4.2. 195

2. Setting
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 9 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 Non-native grassland and ruderal vegetation occur over the majority of the study area and it is dominated by common invasive weed species such as rip-gut brome ( Bromus diandrus), wild oat Avena fatua), Italian rye grass ( Festuca perennis), winter vetch ( Vicia sativa), and prickly oxtongue ( Helminthotheca echioides). Landscape bark is spread adjacent to the edge of the paved Iron Horse Trail and some areas appear to have been sprayed with herbicide such that vegetation is lacking.

A row of 10 to 15-foot tall valley oak ( Quercus lobata) trees are planted on the southwest side of the Iron Horse Trail, extending south from Dublin Boulevard. A single ornamental palm tree occurs on the northeastern side of the Iron Horse Trail levee near the concrete retaining walls associated with the residential development to the east.

Directly adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail, constructed water detention basins capture residential runoff from the eastern high density residential development as shown in Figure 2. The detention basins are vegetated with landscape species and are managed for water capture and settling. By definition, the basins are not within the jurisdiction of the state or federal regulatory agencies. 196
197
Iron Horse Trail Bridge 11 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018 CHAPTER 3
Methods

3.1 Definitions
Many of the terms used throughout this report have specific meanings with respect to the delineation of Waters of the U.S. These terms are defined below:

Waters of the United States: The Code of Federal Regulations ( 33 CFR § 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[s]) defines ‘ waters of the United States’ as:
1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; ( 2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; ( 3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams ( including intermittent streams), mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; ( 4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; ( 5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1) through ( 4); ( 6) Territorial seas; and (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters ( other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs ( 1) through ( 6).

Wetlands: The Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) define wetlands as, Those areas that are saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for the life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” Corps wetlands must typically exhibit three parameters: 1) wetland hydrology, 2) hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) hydric soils in order to meet the federal definition.

Wetland Hydrology: This term encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. These include both riverine and non-riverine hydrology indicators, such as sediment deposits, drift lines, and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots in the upper 12 inches of the soil. In the Arid West, hydrologic indicators may be absent in any given year due to annual variability in precipitation and in times of drought. The Arid West Supplement ( Corps, 2008) cites a technical standard that can be used for disturbed or problematic sites that support wetland vegetation and soils but where wetland hydrology is not apparent. ‘ This standard calls for 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or 198

3. Methods
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 12 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. a water table 12 inches or less below the soil surface during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10’.

Hydrophytic Vegetation: Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. Emphasis is placed on the assemblage of plant species that exert a controlling influence on the character of the plant community, rather than on a single indicator species, i.e., there must be a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation present in order to satisfy this wetland parameter.

Wetland Indicator Status: Refers to the probability that a plant will occur in a wetland or not. Indicator status categories are as follows:

Obligate ( OBL): almost always occurs in wetlands
Facultative wetland ( FACW): usually occurs in wetlands, sometimes may occur in uplands
Facultative ( FAC): equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands Facultative upland (FACU): usually occurs in uplands but may occasionally occur in wetlands
Obligate upland ( UPL): almost never occurs in wetlands No indicator ( NI): no indicator assigned due to lack of information Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydric soils are often characterized by redoximorphic features ( such as redox concentrations, formerly known as mottles), which form by the reduction, translocation, and/or oxidation of iron and manganese oxides. Hydric soils may lack hydric indicators for a number of reasons. In such cases the same standard used to determine wetland hydrology when indicators are lacking can be used.

Ordinary High Water Mark: Ordinary high water mark ( OHWM) is defined in 33 CFR 328.3[e] as ‘… that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter or debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area’.

Other Waters: The term “ other waters of the United States” includes water bodies, such as rivers and streams, that may not meet the full criteria for wetlands designation but that do exhibit evidence of an OHWM and are navigable or hydrologically connected to a navigable water body.

Under the latest regulatory guidance, some types of other waters must have a significant nexus to a navigable water body to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps.

Traditionally Navigable Waters: Traditionally navigable waters ( TNW) are all waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. 199

3. Methods
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 13 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 Relatively Permanent Waters: Relatively permanent waters ( RPW) are non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, meaning they typically flow year- round or have continuous flow at least seasonally ( e.g., typically three months).

Non-Relatively Permanent Waters: Non-relatively permanent waters ( NRPW) include nonnavigable tributaries with ephemeral or seasonal flows lasting less than three months.

Significant Nexus: This term refers to the hydrologic and ecologic connection between a TNW and its tributaries. Under recent guidance from the Corps and EPA certain wetlands and waters must have a significant nexus with a TNW in order to be considered jurisdictional.

Growing Season: The growing season is that part of the year when soil temperatures at

19.7 inches below the soil surface are higher than biologic zero ( 5°C/41° F). Growing season dates should be determined through onsite observations whenever possible. Since onsite data gathering is often not possible growing season dates can be approximated by using WETS tables from the nearest appropriate WETS station. The WETS table 70% probability average beginning and ending dates for 28° F temperatures can be used to represent the " normal" growing season for wetland determinations ( NRCS, 1995). According to the Livermore WETS Station data ( see Appendix E) the normal growing season for the study area would be 365 days ( USDA, NRCS, 2002).

3.2 Regulatory Setting
Wetlands and other waters ( e.g., rivers, streams, and natural ponds) are a subset of waters of the U.S. and receive protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters of the U.S. and requires a permit if a project proposes placement of structures within navigable waters and/ or alteration of waters of the U.S. The EPA has the ultimate authority under the CWA and can veto the Corps’ issuance of a permit to fill jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

In recent years several Supreme Court cases have challenged the scope and extent of the Corps’ jurisdiction over waters of the United States and have led to several reinterpretations of that authority. The most recent of these decisions are the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County ( SWANCC) v. the Army Corps of Engineers ( January 9, 2001) and Rapanos v.

United States ( June, 2006). The SWANCC decision found that jurisdiction over non- navigable, isolated, intrastate waters could not be based solely on the use of such waters by migratory birds.

The reasoning behind the SWANCC decision could be extended to suggest that waters need a demonstrable connection with a ‘ navigable water’ to be protected under the CWA. The introduction of the term isolated has led to the consideration of the relative connectivity between waters and wetlands as a jurisdictionally relevant factor. The more recent Rapanos case further questioned the definition of “ waters of the United States” and the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction over such waters but resulted in a split decision which did not provide definitive answers but expanded on the concept that a ‘ significant nexus’ with traditional navigable waters was needed for certain waters to be considered within the jurisdiction of the Corps. 200

3. Methods
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 14 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.

On June 5, 2007 the EPA and the Corps released guidance on CWA jurisdiction in response to the Rapanos Supreme Court decisions, which can be used to support a finding of CWA coverage for a particular water body when either a) there is a significant nexus between the stream or wetland in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense; or b) a relatively permanent water body is hydrologically connected to traditional navigable waters and/ or a wetland has a surface connection with that water. According to this guidance the Corps and the EPA will take jurisdiction over the following waters: 1) Traditional navigable waters; 2) Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, including adjacent wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters; 3) Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally ( e.g., typically three months); 4) Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries, as defined above, that have a continuous surface connection to such tributaries ( e.g. they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature).

The EPA and the Corps will claim jurisdiction over the following waters, based on a fact-specific determination of significant nexus, as defined below, to a traditional navigable water:
non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

The EPA and the Corps generally do not assert jurisdiction over the following features: swales or erosional features ( e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); ditches ( including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.

The EPA and the Corps have defined the significant nexus standard as follows:

A significant nexus analysis assesses the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters.

Significant nexus analysis includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors including:
volume, duration, and frequency of flow; proximity to a traditional navigable water; size of the watershed; average annual rainfall; average annual winter snow pack; potential of tributaries to carry pollutants and flood waters to traditional navigable waters; provision of aquatic habitat that supports a traditional navigable water; potential of wetlands to trap and filter pollutants or store flood waters; and maintenance of water quality in traditional navigable waters. 201

3. Methods
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 15 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018

3.3 Office Preparation
Literature Review
Metis Environmental reviewed the following information relevant to this delineation:

Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project, 2018) and The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California ( Hickman, 1993);
Google Earth Historic Aerials ( 1993- 2018)
USDA NRCS, Web Soil Survey online application 2018
National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar and Kartesz, 2012)

3.4 Field Survey Methods
Dates
Metis Environmental Biologists J. King and P. Berryhill conducted a routine delineation of waters of the U.S. within the wetland delineation study area on March 6, 2018.

Field Delineation Methods
Data Collection
Wetland signatures on the project site were investigated within the delineation study area and the delineation study area was walked such that visual coverage was 100 percent. All potential wetlands identified on the ground within the study area were delineated by comparing aerial imagery to existing site conditions.

Data were collected at 6 points within the study area. In accordance with the Corp’ s guidance, sample points were taken at sites representative of the vegetation, hydrology, and physical characteristics across the wetland types and at adjacent upland areas. Results were extrapolated to nearby wetlands exhibiting similar vegetation and hydrologic conditions. Paired upland data points were established for three wetland data points. Arid West data sheets were used to record information at each data point after field data were gathered.

Determination of Hydrophytic Vegetation
At each data point vegetation was analyzed within a 9-foot radius for herbaceous species. All species noted within the study plots were recorded on the data sheets. The indicator status of each species was confirmed in the field, to the extent feasible, with Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, Banks, Kirchner, and Melvin 2016). Dominance and/ or prevalence calculations were performed in the field as well. When the vegetation passed either the dominance or prevalence test the point was considered to have hydrophytic vegetation. 202

3. Methods
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 16 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.

Determination of Hydric Soils
Soils were analyzed in accordance with the Corps’ Arid West Manual ( 2008). Soil pits were excavated to the maximum depth possible and soil color was matched against a standard color chart ( Munsell, 2000). Soils were inspected for redoximorphic features and soil texture was determined. It was then possible to determine if the soils met any of the hydric soils criteria listed on the Arid West data sheets. Where soils did not exhibit hydric soil criteria consideration was given as to whether the data point in question had the potential to be saturated, ponded or have a water table within 12 inches of the surface for 14 or more consecutive days during the growing season. With the presence of wetland vegetation and hydrology, this technical standard can be used to characterize a soil as hydric (Corps, 2008).

Determination of Wetland Hydrology
Hydrology was assessed using the Corps’ 2008 Arid West Manual’ s revised hydrology indicators e.g., water inundation, water marks, inundation visible on aerial imagery, or biotic crusts). Soils in the wetland areas were inundated or saturated at the time of the delineation field work. Where hydrology indicators were weak, consideration was given as to whether the technical standard quoted above for hydrology and soils might reasonably be applied to a given site.

Mapping and Acreage Calculations
Wetland boundaries were recorded in the field by the use of measuring tape and through investigation of aerial signature correspondence on maps. Features were mapped by hand on aerial images and field notes were taken on the specific characteristics of each feature ( vegetation type and quality, disturbance levels, etc.). Final mapping included correction of original data as well as digitizing data using field maps, notes, and aerial photographs ( air photos over several years). Area calculations for potential wetlands were computed using ArcGIS 10.1 (preliminary acreage calculated with google earth polygon tool).
203
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 17 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 CHAPTER 4
Results

4.1 Organization
Field delineation results for the study area are presented below. Delineation maps and datasheets for the project, and other supporting information, such as a jurisdictional determination analysis map, a soils map, and representative photographs for the delineation study area are presented in Appendices A through G.

4.2 Results
A total of 0.16 acres of waters of the US and 0.26 acres of waters of the State occur within the delineation study area. Table 4-1 below presents all delineated features within the delineation study area and summarizes estimated State jurisdictional areas for each feature type.

Five seasonal wetlands ( waters of the State) have been identified in the study area:

TABLE 4-1

WATERS OF THE US AND STATE WITHIN THE

0.01 0.01
WDD- 3 5,6 0.14 0.14
Total 0.26 0.16
SOURCE: Metis Environmental, 2018.

4.2.1 Wetlands
Within the study area seasonal wetlands occur and are represented by sample points1, 3, and 5 see Appendix B for datasheets). The corresponding upland positions are represented by sample 204

4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 18 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 points 2, 4, and 6. Seasonal Wetland- 1 (SW-1), Seasonal Wetland- 2 (SW-2), Wetland Drainage Ditch-1 (WDD-1) and Wetland Drainage Ditch- 2 (WDD- 2), and Wetland Drainage Ditch-3 WDD- 3) are mapped in Appendix A.

Seasonal Wetlands/Wetland Drainage Ditch
The seasonal wetland features within the study area are vegetated with annual herbaceous species typically found within ephemeral depressions in California. With a slightly alkaline soil underlying the study area, the vegetation skews toward alkali tolerant plants species. Saltgrass Distichlis spicata- FAC), a dominant perennial species within the study area and alkali heath Frankenia salina-FACW), a less common subshrub, were observed at the wetland data points.

Other species observed at the wetland locations included spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachyaOBL), umbrella sedge ( Cyperus eragrostis- FACW), creeping wild rye (Lemus tritichoides- FAC), cocklebur ( Xanthium strumarium- FAC), rabbit’ s foot grass ( Polypogon monospelinensis- FACW), and prickly ox-tongue ( Helminthotheca echioides- FAC).

The plant species observed in the wetland areas were dominated by hydrophytes and were sufficient in dominance and prevalence to determine vegetative conditions are consistent with wetland criteria. Wetland vegetation criteria were met at sample points 1, 3, and 5. Vegetation at sample points 2, 4 and 6 was not indicative of wetland conditions as it was dominated by upland species associated with non-native annual grasslands habitat.

4.2.2 Soils
Soil at wetland sample point 1, located at the topographic low point within SW-1, exhibited a matrix of very dark gray (2.5 Y 3/1) clay loam from zero to nine inches. Between ten and 15 inches the soil darkens to a black (2.5 Y 2.5/1) clay with depletions colored a light olive brown

2.5 Y 5/6) representing 5 percent of the soil. This soil sample met hydric soil indicator F6:

Redox Dark Surface.

Soil sampled at sample point 3 and 5 had a matrix of very dark gray (2.5 Y 3/1) clay loam from zero to five inches. Between six and 14 inches in the soil profile was represented by a black (2.5 Y 2.5/1) clay with depletions colored a light olive brown ( 2.5 Y 5/6) representing 10 percent of the soil. This soil sample met hydric soil indicator F6: Redox Dark Surface.

Upland sample points 2, 4, and 6 exhibited a matrix of dark olive brown ( 2.5 Y 3/3) rocky loam.

Redox features were lacking in the uplands and this distinction was used to verify the edge of the wetland polygons. The top five inches of the soils were populated with 20 percent base rock that likely spilled over into the low-lying areas adjacent to the recently constructed residential development. When the concrete retaining walls were built to the east this rock material likely was deposited during construction. On the west side of the Iron Horse Trail rock is found on the slope were ballast for the abandoned rail road line was incorporated in the soils during construction and over the years of operation.
205

4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 19 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018

4.2.3 Hydrology
Numerous primary wetland hydrology indicators within the seasonal wetlands were recorded at sample point 1 (which represents SW-1) where surface water ( A1), high water table (A2), and inundation on aerial imagery ( B7) were observed. At sample points 3 and 5 (which represent SW-2, WDD- 1 and WDD- 2, surface water ( A1), saturation ( A3), water marks ( B1), sediment deposits ( B2), inundation visible on aerial imagery ( B7) and biotic crust ( B12) were observed.

Approximately 2 inches of rainfall was recorded on February 28, 2018 prior to the field visit on March 6, 2018. The study area was observed to have standing water at all the wetland locations.

No visible signs of flow were detected in the seasonal wetlands ( SW-1 and SW-2) located on the northeast side of the Iron Horse Trail. These appear to be confined to the limits of the topographic low points between the levee toe to the west and the concrete retaining walls to the east. The Iron Horse Trail levee is an impediment to water reaching the Chabot Channel to the west. In the southern most reach of the study area, a culvert pipe occurs south of the SW-2. This pipe lies a few feet above the elevation at which ponding occurs in SW-2. In the past, prior to subdivision development and retaining wall and detention basin construction, it is likely that water from the east contributed to ponding and water movement along the rail road levee toe. Current land configuration has diverted water into retention basins from the high- density housing to the east. It appears that water that once contributed to SW-1 and SW-2 is now diverted to urban detention basins. It is possible that in the past water flows moved south from the existing location at SW-1 and SW-2. That does not appear to be possible with current barriers to water movement and higher elevation of culvert pipe in relationship to elevation of levee toe.

On the southwestern toe of the Iron Horse Trail culverts exist to the north and south of WDD-1, WDD-2 and WDD- 3. Some evidence of water movement to the north was observed. It is likely that under heavy rain fall water moves from the south to the north along the southwestern levee toe and enters the storm drain located at Dublin Boulevard. A culvert pipe is present at the end of the toe swale where it meets Dublin Boulevard to the north. WDD- 1 lies adjacent to the culvert pipe at Dublin Boulevard, while WDD-2 and WDD- 3 likely contribute water flow under heavy rainfall conditions, appearing to flow from south to north. There were limited signs of vegetation being pressed to the ground along an approximately 240-linear foot section between WDD-2 and WDD-3, but this area lacks a defined bed and bank and supports no wetland vegetation. A swale is formed at the toe of the Iron Horse Trail levee, but the entirety of the toe does not support wetland conditions between the three wetland drainage ditch features.

4.3 Clean Water Act Analysis
A Jurisdictional Determination Analysis Map, which summarizes the information presented here, can be found in Appendix A. This section provides a brief summary of the Section III Clean Water Act Analysis ( CWA Analysis), Parts A and B for all delineated features, which is supplemental information requested by the Corp’ s San Francisco District. Information used to support the CWA Analysis presented herein includes the following: Review of U.S. Geological 206

4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 20 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 Survey ( USGS) topographic quadrangles and high-resolution aerials covering the study area and field studies conducted in April 2018.

4.3.1 Corps Jurisdictional Wetlands
Three wetland drainage ditches ( WDD- 1, WDD- 2 and WDD-3) delineated within the study area appear to be tributary to waters of the U.S. and therefore, would potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps based on the presence of a chemical, physical or biological connection to waters of the U.S., as described in further detail below.

WDD-1, WDD- 2, and WDD- 3 are connected to each other along the toe of the Iron Horse Trail levee and are wetlands located adjacent to a RPW via connection through the storm drain system along Dublin Boulevard. The Chabot Channel is a relatively permanent water as established by its seasonal flow that is present continuously for more than three months of the year, coinciding with the rainy season. The water that collects within WDD- 1, WDD- 2, and WDD- 3 can move to the north under heavy rainfall events, entering the storm drain to Chabot Channel and thus directly tributary to a water of the U.S. Some of the biological functions these wetlands perform include the transport of water and nutrients to downstream waters, processing of organic wastes, attenuation of downstream flooding through interception of surface runoff and water storage onsite, reduction of suspended sediment delivered to downstream waters, groundwater replenishment, and supporting biodiversity at the site and watershed levels through provision of wetland habitat.

4.3.2 Non-Corps Jurisdictional Wetlands/ Isolated Wetlands State Jurisdiction)
Seasonal wetlands ( SW-1 and SW-2) delineated within the study area are not tributary to waters of the U.S. and therefore, do not appear to be under the jurisdiction of the Corps based on the absence of a chemical, physical or biological connection to waters of the U.S., as described in further detail below. Therefore, these seasonal wetlands fall within Sections F on the Approved Jurisdictional Delineation Form ( Rapanos Form) as issued by the Corps.

It appears that the SW-1 and SW-2 qualify under Section F as non-jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, since these wetlands would likely have been regulated under the “ Migratory Bird Rule” prior to the “ SWANCC” ruling by the Supreme Court on January 1st 2001. The site provides limited winter foraging for migratory birds within the seasonal wetlands. The seasonal wetlands are inundated for longer than two weeks and function in a low capacity in shore bird or water fowl foraging ( SW-2 supports water for a longer period of time). As such, these wetlands would likely be considered waters of the State and regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as isolated wetlands.

Substantiation of the lack of a chemical, physical or biological connection to waters of the U.S. is provided below.
207

4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 21 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 The hydrologic regime on the north side of the Iron Horse Trail consists of a contained system where water does not flow off the 1-acre watershed to enter a water of the U.S. The isolated wetlands within the study area were observed to consist of shallow topographic depressions at the toe of a repurposed rail road levee. Seasonal rainfall sheet flows off the paved surfaces and northeastern levee slope and collects in toe formed at the base of the levee where no outlet for drainage is present, and thus no physical connection to waters of the U.S can be substantiated.

The study area is surrounded by paved road surfaces which prevent the potential movement of water off site. Water which fills the topographic depressions on the site would not exceed a quantity or volume that would flow off the study area based on the small size of the watershed ( 1 acre). Since water flows are not documented to move off of the study area there is no transport of chemicals or other biological mater from the study area to a waters of the U.S. The nearest potentially Corps jurisdictional feature in the vicinity is Chabot Channel which is separated from connection through the Iron Horse Trail levee.

On site hydrology is limited to direct precipitation and there is no larger contributing watershed located at higher elevations to add water volume to the hydrology of the study area. Rain water that flows off the adjacent development to the east is funneled into onsite detention basins and does not reach SW-1 and SW-2.

Based on the presence of ponded water above the soil surface within the study area, some form of a restrictive layer is present below the top 12 inches of the soil matrix which does not allow for water to permeate the soil in the locations where the seasonal wetlands have formed. Soils are described by the NRCS as having very slow permeability which matches the conditions observed on site. The lack of permeability contributes to the formation of seasonal wetlands on the site and minimizes the potential for subsurface water flows to nearby waters of the U.S.

The seasonal wetlands within the study area meet the three Corps parameters for wetlands but are not located adjacent to and/or abutting a waters of the U.S. and therefore are likely regulated as isolated wetlands by the RWQCB as waters of the State.
208

4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 22 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 209 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 23 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 CHAPTER 5
Report Preparation and References

5.1 Report Preparation
Metis Environmental
437 Alcatraz Avenue
Oakland, CA 94609
Project Manager: P. Berryhill
Wetland Delineation: J. King
Report Preparation: J. King
Graphics: J. King

5.2 References and Sources Consulted
Cardno, March 13, 2018. Wetland Delineation Map, Scarlett Drive/ Iron Horse Trail Extension Project, Dublin CA.

Corps, 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region ( Version 2.0), December 2008, Final Report, [ ERDC/ EL TR-08-28], U.S.

Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, January 1987, Final Report, Department of the Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Hickman, J.C., (Ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

FEMA Flood Map, August 3, 2009. Map 06001CO309G.

Jepson Flora Project ( eds.) 2012. Jepson eFlora, http:// ucjeps. berkeley. edu/ IJM.html [ Accessed on November 20, 2012]
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Pytoneeuron 2016- 30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016 ISSN 2153 733X.

Munsell Soil Color Charts, 2000 revised edition. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New Windsor, NY.

RFB Consulting, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report 2013.

Appendix C, Biological Resources.
210

5.Report Preparation and References
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 24 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 USDA, NRCS, 20, Livermore, Alameda County WETS Table Documentation. https:// www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ climate/ navigate_ wets.html [ March 20, 2018.] USDA, NRCS, Soil Survey Staff, Web Soil Survey. Available online at http:// websoilsurvey. nrcs.usda. gov/app/WebSoilSurvey. aspx [ Accessed on March 28, 2018].
211
Iron Horse Trail Bridge A-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018

APPENDIX A
Delineation Maps
212
Appendix A
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL A-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 213 214
215
Iron Horse Trail Bridge B-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018

APPENDIX B
Wetland Datasheets
216
Appendix B
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL B-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
Iron Horse Trail Bridge C-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018

APPENDIX C
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (
Rapanos Form)
230
Appendix C
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL C-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 231

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.

SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ( JD): May 30, 2018 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:

San Francisco District
Iron Horse Bridge Trail Project
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

State: California County/ parish/ borough: Alameda City: Dublin Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 37 42' 20.40"° N, Long. 121 54'13.09"° W.

Universal Transverse Mercator:

Name of nearest waterbody: Chabot Canal
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water ( TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: San Francisco Bay Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code ( HUC): 18050004 ( San Francisco Bay) Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.

Check if other sites ( e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form.

D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION ( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

Office ( Desk) Determination. Date:

Field Determination. Date( s):

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.

There Are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction ( as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [ Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.

Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.

Explain: .

B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.

There are and are not “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction ( as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [ Required]

1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 ( RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated ( interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify ( estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:

Non- wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.

Wetlands: 0.15 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.

Elevation of established OHWM ( if known): .

2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands ( check if applicable): 3 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.

Explain: Approximately 0.1 acre isolated wetland with no outlet to downstream receiving bodies. ( Metis, 2018). 1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year- round or has continuous flow at least “ seasonally” e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 232 SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.

1. TNW
Identify TNW: .

Summarize rationale supporting determination: .

2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: .

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY ( THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS ( IF ANY):

This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “ relatively permanent waters” ( RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally ( e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4.

A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial ( and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.

If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.

1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW i) General Area Conditions:

Watershed size: 2 acres
Drainage area: 2 acres
Average annual rainfall: 14.23 inches
Average annual snowfall: 0 inches
ii) Physical Characteristics:
a) Relationship with TNW:

Tributary flows directly into TNW.

Tributary flows through 4 tributaries before entering TNW.

Project waters are 30 (or more) river miles from TNW.

Project waters are 1-2 river miles from RPW.

Project waters are 20-25 aerial ( straight) miles from TNW.

Project waters are 1-2 aerial ( straight) miles from RPW.

Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West.
233
Identify flow route to TNW5: Wetland SW-3 and SW-4 are tributary to Chabot Channel which drains south to Arroyo Mocho. Arroyo Mocho is a tributary to Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows to Alameda Creek and eventually into San Francisco Bay.

Tributary stream order, if known: 5th order: Chabot Canal. b) General Tributary Characteristics ( check all that apply):

Tributary is: Natural
Artificial ( man- made). Explain: The toe ditch at the base of the Iron Horse Trail levee is coincedental to construction.

Manipulated ( man- altered). Explain: The maintenance of the former rail road levee consisted of periodic land alteration on either side of the levee base.

Tributary properties with respect to top of bank ( estimate):

Average width: depending on tributary range is between 8 to 10 feet Average depth: depending on tributary range is between 6 inches and 2 feet Average side slopes: 3:1 .

Primary tributary substrate composition ( check all that apply):

Silts Sands Concrete
Cobbles Gravel Muck
Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Seasonal wetland and freshwater emergent vegetation is between 50% and 90% cover within the Iron Horse Trail levee toe ditch Other. Explain: .

Tributary condition/ stability [ e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable levee slopes with paved walking trail on levee top.

Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: None.

Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient ( approximate average slope): 1 %
c) Flow:

Tributary provides for: Ephemeral flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/ year: 2-5 Describe flow regime: Winter storm events provide flow from rain fall runoff along the Iron Horse Trail during heavy rainfall. Average storm precipitation fills the levee toe ditches and water remains ponded for a long duration. At the time of heavy rainfall over a short time period the water levels can rise allowing flow to the north where water enters the culvert at Dublin Boulevard to the Chabot Channel.

Other information on duration and volume: .

Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics: .

Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: .

Dye (or other) test performed: .

Tributary has ( check all that apply):

Bed and banks
OHWM6 ( check all indicators that apply):
clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour
sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community
other (list):

Discontinuous OHWM. 7 Explain: Between WDD- 1 and WDD-2, there occurs a higher topographic area ( a slight rise in elevation) along the length of the toe ditch which shows only signs of plants being pressed down by water flow, but does not support or exhibit hydrophytic vegetation or standing water. WDD- 1 and WDD- 2 exhibit standing water and/ or distinct hydrophytic vegetation.

If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction ( check all that apply):
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. 6A natural or man- made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction ( e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody’ s flow regime ( e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 7Ibid.
234
High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
oil or scum line along shore objects survey to available datum; fine shell or debris deposits ( foreshore) physical markings; physical markings/ characteristics vegetation lines/ changes in vegetation types. tidal gauges
other (list):
iii) Chemical Characteristics:

Characterize tributary ( e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).

Explain: .

Identify specific pollutants, if known: Various degrees of pollutants are possible. The toe drain lies at the base of a repurposed rail road levee. Could have pollutants in the soil from rail road maintenance and/ or construction. 235
iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports ( check all that apply):

Riparian corridor. Characteristics ( type, average width): .

Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Some emergent vegetation occurs along edges of water in toe ditch.

Habitat for:

Federally Listed species. Explain findings: .

Fish/ spawn areas. Explain findings: .

Other environmentally- sensitive species. Explain findings: .

Aquatic/ wildlife diversity. Explain findings: .

2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW i) Physical Characteristics:
a) General Wetland Characteristics:

Properties:

Wetland size: 0.15 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Seasonal wetland.

Wetland quality. Explain: Low quality seasonal wetland and emergent wetland associated with levee toe. Low diversity of wetland plants and presence of non-native species.

Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:

Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: .

Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics: .

Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: .

Dye (or other) test performed: .
c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:

Directly abutting
Not directly abutting
Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Culvert pipe located at north end of WDD-1 conveys water into the Chabot Channel upon heavy rainfall events.

Ecological connection. Explain: .

Separated by berm/ barrier. Explain: .
d) Proximity ( Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 30 (or more) river miles from TNW.

Project waters are 30 (or more) aerial ( straight) miles from TNW.

Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.

Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 - 100-year floodplain. ii) Chemical Characteristics:

Characterize wetland system ( e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Unknown.

Identify specific pollutants, if known: .
iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports ( check all that apply):

Riparian buffer. Characteristics ( type, average width): .

Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Seasonal wetland 50-75%.

Habitat for:

Federally Listed species. Explain findings: .

Fish/ spawn areas. Explain findings: .

Other environmentally- sensitive species. Explain findings: .

Aquatic/ wildlife diversity. Explain findings: .

3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary ( if any) All wetland( s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 2 Approximately ( 0.15 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. 236
For each wetland, specify the following:

Directly abuts? ( Y/N) Size ( in acres) Directly abuts? ( Y/N) Size ( in acres) WDD-1 Y 0.01
WDD-2 Y 0.14
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Overall some of the biological functions these wetlands perform include the transport of water and nutrients to downstream waters, processing of organic wastes, attenuation of downstream flooding through interception of surface runoff and water storage onsite, reduction of suspended sediment delivered to downstream waters, groundwater replenishment, and supporting biodiversity at the site and watershed levels through provision of wetland habitat.

C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.

Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance ( e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.

Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:

Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands ( if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands ( if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands ( if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands ( if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below:

1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: .

2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: .

3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: Linear wetlands located at the toe of the repurposed Iron Horse Trail levee support seasonal wetland vegetation and standing water for more than 14 days during the growing season. During heavy rainfall water can rise to the level of connecting culvert infrastructure and flow into a relatively permanent water within Chabot Channel.

D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:

TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.

Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.

2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.

Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: .
237
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “ seasonally” ( e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area ( check all that apply):

Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).

Other non- wetland waters: acres.

Identify type( s) of waters: .

3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.

Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area ( check all that apply):

Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).

Other non- wetland waters: acres.

Identify type( s) of waters: .

4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.

Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.

Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: .

Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow “ seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: WDD- 1 and WDD- 2 occur within the toe of the Iron Horse Trail levee which appears only to support water flow during the rainy season. Water roughly flows southeast to northwest entering a culvert at Dublin Boulevard before entering RPW ( Chabot Channel) and has a direct connection to the downstream tributary.

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.15 acres.

5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.

Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.

Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters. 9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.

Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “ waters of the U.S.,” or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above ( 1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce ( see E below).

E. ISOLATED [ INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,

DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS ( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 10
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. 238
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.

Interstate isolated waters. Explain: SW-1 and SW-2 occur on the northeast side of the Iron Horse Trail levee and are physically isolated from the southern toe ditch which feeds to Chabot Channel.

Other factors. Explain: .

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area ( check all that apply):

Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).

Other non- wetland waters: acres.

Identify type( s) of waters: .

Wetlands: Isolated wetlands SW-1 0.01, SW-2 0.09 acres.

F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS ( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/ or appropriate Regional Supplements.

Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate ( or foreign) commerce.

Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the Migratory Bird Rule” ( MBR).

Waters do not meet the “ Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Wetland meets the three parameter - vegetation, soils, and hydrology criteria for Corps determination of a wetland condition.

Other: ( explain, if not covered above): .

Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors ( i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment ( check all that apply):

Non-wetland waters ( i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).

Lakes/ ponds: acres.

Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .

Wetlands: acres.

Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “ Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction ( check all that apply):

Non-wetland waters ( i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).

Lakes/ ponds: acres.

Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .

Wetlands: 0.01acres.

SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.

A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):

Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/ consultant: .

Data sheets prepared/ submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/ consultant.

Office concurs with data sheets/ delineation report.

Office does not concur with data sheets/ delineation report.

Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .

Corps navigable waters’ study: .

U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .

USGS NHD data.

USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.

U.S. Geological Survey map( s). Cite scale & quad name: Livermore 1:24,000.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey: Alameda County 2018.

National wetlands inventory map( s). Cite name: NWI Online Wetland Mapper.

State/ Local wetland inventory map( s): .

FEMA/ FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ( National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial ( Name & Date): Google Earth Aerial photos between 1993 and 2018. 239
or Other ( Name & Date): .

Previous determination( s). File no. and date of response letter: .

Applicable/ supporting case law: .

Applicable/ supporting scientific literature: .

Other information ( please specify): .

B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: .
240
241
Iron Horse Trail Bridge D-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018

APPENDIX D
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Dublin
242
Appendix D
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL D-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 243 244
f
245
Iron Horse Trail Bridge E-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018

APPENDIX E
Soils Map
246
Appendix E
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL E-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 247
Soil Map— Alameda Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/13/2018 34173520417359041736604173730417380041738704173940417359041736604173730417380041738704173940596320596390596460596530596600596670596740596810596880596950 Page 1 of 596320 596390 596460 596530 596600 596670 596740 596810 596880 596950 37° 42' 27'' N W37° 121° 54' 27''
42' 27'' N121° 54' 0'' W37° 42' 13''
N
121° 54' 27'' W37° 42' 13'' N 121° 54' 0'' WN Map projection:

Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84
Edge
tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Meters Map Scale: 1: 3, 020 if printed on A landscape (11" x8.
248

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest ( AOI)
Area of Interest ( AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator ( EPSG: 3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA- NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Alameda Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 13, 2017
Soil map units are labeled ( as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 11, 2015—Jun 17, 2015
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map— Alameda Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/13/2018

Page 2 of 3 ends

Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CdA Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2
percent slopes, MLRA 14

46.4 98.3%
Pd Pescadero clay 0.0 0.0%
Sm Sunnyvale clay loam over clay 0.8 1.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 47.2 100.0%
Soil Map—Alameda Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/13/2018

Page 3 of 3 ends

250
251
Iron Horse Trail Bridge F-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018

APPENDIX F
WETS Tables for Livermore, Alameda County
252
Appendix F
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL F-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 253 WETS Table
WETS Station: LIVERMORE,
CA
Requested years: 1971 -
2018
Month Avg Max
Temp
Avg Min
Temp
Avg
Mean
Temp
Avg
Precip
30%
chance
precip less
than
30%
chance
precip
more than
Avg number
days precip

0.10 or more
Avg
Snowfall
Jan 57.2 38.0 47.6 2.71 1.23 3.27 6 0.0
Feb 61.9 40.6 51.2 2.54 1.26 3.11 6 0.0
Mar 66.3 42.9 54.6 2.20 0.91 2.68 6 0.0
Apr 71.2 44.8 58.0 1.05 0.48 1.28 3 0.0
May 77.5 49.2 63.3 0.39 0.11 0.38 1 0.0
Jun 84.5 53.2 68.8 0.10 0.00 0.09 0 0.0
Jul 89.5 55.8 72.7 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 0.0
Aug 88.9 55.6 72.2 0.06 0.00 0.00 0 0.0
Sep 86.3 54.0 70.1 0.19 0.00 0.16 0 0.0
Oct 77.9 49.0 63.5 0.82 0.24 0.88 2 0.0
Nov 65.2 42.5 53.8 1.69 0.68 2.05 4 0.0
Dec 57. 3 37. 9 47. 6 2.46 1.05 2.99 6 0.0
Annual: 11.31 16.78
Average 73.6 47.0 60.3 -----
Total --- 14.23 35 0.0

GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data: 24 deg = 5 28 deg =
8 32 deg =
8 Years with no occurrence: 24 deg = 39 28 deg =
8 32 deg =
0 Data years used: 24 deg = 43 28 deg =
40 32 deg =
40 Probability 24 F or
higher
28 F or
higher
32 F or
higher
50 percent * No
occurrence
1/ 12 to
12/ 23:
345 days
2/ 20 to
12/ 4: 287
days
70 percent * No
occurrence
12/ 28 to
1/ 7: 375
days
2/ 10 to
12/ 14:
307 days
Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.

STATS TABLE - total
precipitation ( inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl 1903 3.19 0.94 5.65 0.81 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00 T 2.16 0.59 13.
46 1904 0.89 4.18 3.71 1.56 0.24 T T 0.32 1.
62 1.
00 0.70 1.42 15.
64 1905 2.43 2.30 4.17 0.93 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.
00 1.61 1.18 14.
51 1906 5.56 2.67 5.18 0.95 1.61 0.56 T 0.00 0.
20 0.
03 1.34 6.45 24.
55 1907 4.13 1.86 6.85 0.47 0.16 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.
81 0.04 3.90 18.
78 1908 2.27 1.35 0.73 0.28 0.53 T T 0.00 0.
03 0.
27 0.60 1.55 7.61
1909 10. 18 3.96 1.94 T 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.
62 0.
75 1.68 5.77 24.
95 1910 2.50 1.14 1.90 0.10 T 0.04 T 0.00 0.
10 0.
29 0.10 1.32 7.49
254
1911 12. 60 1.42 4.45 0.69 0.24 0.07
T 0.00T 0.
43 0.29 1.71 21.
90 1912 2.66 0.20 1.99 0.73 0.94 0.65T 0.00 0.
48 0.
71 0.44 0.81 9.61
1913 2.63 0.38 1.65 0.54 0.58 0.01 0.27 0.02T 0.
00 2.17 3.17 11.
42 1914 7.10 2.11 0.66 0.76 0.45 0.19 0.00 0.
00 0.
42 0.33 4.96 16.
98 1915 4.16 4.79 1.50 0.66 2.66 0.00 M0. 00 0.00T 0.
00 0.76 4.41 18.
94 1916 11.35 2.17 1.47 0.21 0.05T 0.00T 0.
44 0.
50 0.68 3.28 20.
15 1917 1.06 3.37 1.08 0.15 0.02 0.00T 0.00 0.
04 0.
00 0.43 0.66 6.81
1918 0.59 3.08 3.32 0.61 M0.00T 0.00T 5.
72 0.
39 2.38 1.51 17.
60 1919 1.03 4.58 2.33 0.05T 0.00TT 0.
48 0.
15 0.33 2.21 11.
16 1920 0.22 0.71 3.52 1.07 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00T 2.
03 1.43 3.81 12.
92 1921 3.38 0.59 0.83 0.16 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
05 0.
15 1.17 3.38 10.
76 1922 1.51 5.46 1.83 0.23 0.27TTT 0.
00 0.
54 2.86 5.43 18.
13 1923 1.80 0.65 0.15 2.15T 0.02 0.00T 0.
82 0.
25 0.76 0.87 7.47
1924 1.40 0.93 0.65 0.28 0.07 0.00 0.00TT 1.
30 1.53 2.63 8.79
1925 1.02 3.74 1.14 1.75 1.41 0.04 0.00 0.00TT 0.97 1.14 11. 21 1926 2.35 3.58 0.16 3.11 0.11T 0.00T 0.
00 0.
93 2.83 0.78 13.
85 1927 1.74 3.49 1.54 1.73 0.10 0.18 0.00T 0.
03 1.
71 1.43 2.00 13.
95 1928 1.46 0.29 3.42 1.43 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00 T 1.50 2.76 11.
31 1929 1.26 0.87 1.07 0.59 0.03 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
01 0.00 1.81 6.47
1930 3.64 1.91 1.88 0.63 0.43 0.00 0.00T 0.
20 0.
00 1.14 0.26 10.
09 1931 3.45 1.67 0.57 0.36 0.93 0.11T 0.00T 0.
27 1.89 5.63 14.
88 1932 1.29 3.15 0.19 0.41 0.37T 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
00 0.51 2.03 7.95
1933 4.51 0.44 2.09 0.13 0.70 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.
01 0.
75 0.00 3.69 12.
35 1934 1.29 2.86 0.00 0.13 0.60 0.53 0.00T 0.
27 0.
62 2.71 2.32 11.
33 1935 3.53 0.52 3.16 3.28 0.00 0.00T 0.04 0.
00 0.
79 0.21 1.53 13.
06 1936 3.28 6.76 0.71 0.63 0.46 0.10TT 0.
00 0.
40 0.02 3.26 15.
62 1937 3.38 4.13 5.07 0.68 0.17 0.20T 0.00 0.
00 0.
55 2.46 4.57 21.
21 1938 2.40 6.14 4.09 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00T 1.
00 1.08 0.52 16.
15 1939 2.40 1.57 2.18 0.53 0.18TT 0.00 0.
16 1.
23 0.15 0.78 9.18
1940 8.13 5.14 2.60 0.35 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
25 0.
50 0.43 4.63 22.
17 1941 3.24 4.19 2.07 2.76 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.
00 0.
72 0.89 5.34 19.
47 1942 3.89 1.68 1.42 3.10 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
09 1.
08 3.05 1.73 17.
04 1943 4.48 1.68 2.39 1.14T 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
30 0.53 1.23 11.
81 1944 2.36 4.89 1.01 0.94 0.73T 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
77 3.41 2.03 16.
14 255
1945 0.87 3.68 3.19 0.20 0.17 T 0.00 0.02 0.
00 1.
07 2.07 M2.
50 13.
77 1946 0.76 1.23 1.69 0.02 0.61 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.
02 0.
02 2.93 2.07 9.59
1947 0.69 1.45 2.34 0.53 0.17 0.36 0.00 0.00 T 1.
84 0.85 0.51 8.74
1948 0.20 1.11 2.79 2.50 1.03 M0. 16 0.03 0.00 T 0.
46 0.34 2.71 11.
33 1949 1.39 2.47 3.38 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.
05 0.
08 1.20 M0.
90 10.
02 1950 4.65 1.54 1.44 M0.85 M0.59 0.01 M0.00 0.00 0.
08 M1.
84 M5.
95 4.95 21.
90 1951 2.23 M1.81 M1.82 0.55 M0.35 M0. 06 M0. 00 M0.00 T 1. 04 M3.
01 6.07 16.
94 1952 7.60 1.40 M2.36 2.20 M0.16 0.04 M0. 00 0.00 M0. 10 0.
01 2.11 6.33 22.
31 1953 2.07 0.05 M1.12 M1.42 0.61 0.59 M0. 00 M0.15 0. 00 M0.
21 M1.
33 M0.
64 8.19
1954 2.19 2.27 M3.00 0.73 0.16 M0. 27 0.00 0.00 M0.
04 MT 1.68 M3.
33 13.
67 1955 M2.45 1.69 M0.38 M1.28 0.65 0.00 T M0.01 0.
01 M0.
01 M1.
31 10.
15 17.
94 1956 5.49 M1.15 0.14 1.92 M0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 M0.
63 0.
79 0.03 0.48 11.
26 1957 2.65 M2.23 1.30 1.14 M2.65 M0. 04 0.00 0.00 M0. 05 1.
06 0.37 M1.
62 13.
11 1958 3.16 5.37 4.44 3.74 0.66 0.41 T T 0.
02 0.
09 0.14 0.86 18.
89 1959 2.45 3.59 0.29 0.35 T 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.
89 0.
00 T 0.75 9.39
1960 2.98 4.12 0.60 0.48 0.42 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.
01 0.
05 2.92 1.25 12.
85 1961 2.08 1.04 1.92 1.03 0.69 0.19 T 0.13 0.
16 0.
15 2.24 0.82 10.
45 1962 0.73 5.61 1.82 0.22 T 0.00 0.00 T 0.
00 3.
64 0.28 1.55 13.
85 1963 1.40 4.50 2.60 3.47 M0.70 T 0.00 T 0.
33 0.
93 3.18 0.19 17.
30 1964 2.37 0.08 1.57 0.21 0.48 0.32 T 0.12 0.
04 0.
85 2.44 4.91 13.
39 1965 2.11 0.59 1.73 1.53 0.00 0.00 T 0.21 T 0.
03 4.22 3.23 13.
65 1966 1.05 1.17 0.17 0.33 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.00 0.
11 0.
00 3.43 2.35 9.00
1967 6.14 0.29 4.15 4.65 0.19 0.48 0.00 T 0.
02 0.
24 0.88 1.62 18.
66 1968 3.93 0.90 2.40 0.43 0.15 0.00 0.00 T T 0.
43 2.48 3.04 13.
76 1969 6.28 4.76 0.55 1.24 0.08 T 0.00 0.00 0.
00 1.
10 0.49 2.34 16.
84 1970 5.38 1.18 1.42 0.40 0.07 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
41 5.24 5.27 19.
69 1971 1.19 0.33 1.75 1.37 0.54 T 0.00 T 0.
13 0.
04 0.46 3.27 9.08
1972 0.90 0.79 0.14 0.64 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.
58 2.
98 2.22 8.29
1973 5.50 0.29 0.03 T 0.00 0.00 0.
08 2.
08 3.71 3.80 15.
49 1974 1.50 0.71 2.69 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
50 0.66 7.68
1975 0.84 3.65 5.24 1.42 T 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.
00 1.
27 0.08 0.21 13.
22 1976 0.30 1.46 0.48 0.39 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.91 0.
95 0.
50 0.50 0.73 6.40
1977 1.15 0.83 0.82 0.16 1.01 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.
22 0.
13 3.07 7.49
1978 5.44 2.95 2.49 0.01 T 0.00 0.00 0.
04 0.
00 2.16 0.58 13.
67 256
1979 4.52 3.19 1.86 0.88 0.34 0.00 0.06
T 0.
00 1.
51 1.13 2.66 16.
15 1980 4.16 4.24 1.36 1.32 0.48 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.
00 0.
04 0.28 1.18 13.
76 1981 3.97 1.11 2.94 0.61 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
06 2.
07 3.44 2.57 16.
88 1982 5.29 2.16 5.58 1.50 0.00 0.28 0.00 M0.01 1.
48 2.
24 3.72 2.80 25.
06 1983 6.28 5.56 6.14 3.51 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.
02 0.
27 5.44 3.44 32.
37 1984 0.33 1.87 1.00 0.53 0.01 0.03T 0.00 0.
04 1.
25 4.71 1.51 11.
28 1985 0.48 1.25 2.62 0.32 0.07 0.22T 0.03 0.
13 0.
89 2.69 1.97 10.
67 1986 2.04 7.11 4.09 0.40 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.
45 0.
04 0.08 0.92 15.
28 1987 2.73 3.47 2.30 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
87 1.40 2.30 13.
32 1988 1.78 0.38 0.26 1.15 0.45 0.10 0.00T 0.
00 0.
11 1.92 2.03 8.18
1989 0.81 0.95 2.94 0.88 0.08 0.10 0.00T 1.
33 1.
13 1.02 0.10 9.34
1990 1.54 2.46 0.87 0.37 1.78T 0.02T 0.
06 0.
08 0.39 1.45 9.02
1991 0.31 2.20 5.87 0.34 0.35 0.08 0.00 0.21 0.
04 1.
65 0.31 1.19 12.
55 1992 1.39 4.61 1.97 0.43 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
90 0.15 4.79 14.
33 1993 6.41 4.53 2.91 0.63 0.51 0.30 0.00 0.00T 0.
57 2.00 1.81 19.
67 1994 0.94 3.33 0.15 1.20 1.78 0.04T 0.00T 0.
58 1.36 9.38
1995 6.64 0.33 6.66 1.02 0.92 0.70T 0.00 0.
00 0.
00 0.01 5.37 21.
65 1996 5.17 4.10 2.34 1.91 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00 1.
08 2.55 4.43 22.
63 1997 5.81 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.00 0.42 0.
00 0.
28 4.23 1.95 13.
51 1998 5.47 7.30 2.37 1.37 2.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.
18 0.
54 2.48 0.73 22.
57 1999 3.23 3.33 1.67 0.99 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.
04 0.
15 1.26 0.25 11.
04 2000 4.61 4.87 1.25 0.59 0.69 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.
24 0.49 0.45 13.
38 2001 1.92 2.89 1.22 1.80 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.
09 0.
37 1.92 5.09 15.
42 2002 0.72 0.62 1.65 0.16 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
00 2.65 7.01 13.
49 2003 0.66 1.31 1.07 3.09 0.95 0.00T 0.29T 0.
02 2.02 3.57 12.
98 2004 2.19 4.01 0.39 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
58 2.
77 0.89 3.01 14.
13 2005 2.81 3.55 3.41 1.53 1.03 0.05T 0.00 0.
25 0.
17 0.65 5.40 18.
85 2006 2.22 1.32 4.79 2.60 0.34TT 0.00 0.
00 0.
20 1.68 2.25 15.
40 2007 0.52 3.92 0.33 0.44 0.11 0.00T 0.00 0.
21 1.
12 0.71 2.05 9.41
2008 4.79 1.89 0.10 0.02T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00 0.
33 1.40 1.56 10.
09 2009 1.34 3.31 2.29 0.23 0.41 0.11T 0.00 0.
31 2.
79 0.21 2.02 13.
02 2010 3.53 2.36 1.57 2.10 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00T 1.
00 2.02 3.87 16.
69 2011 0.78 2.69 4.10 0.22 0.46 1.07 0.00 0.00T 1.
06 0.93 0.04 11.
35 2012 1.52 0.52 2.57 2.01 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.
01 0.
27 3.40 4.22 14.
66 257
2013 1.07 0.47 0.33 0.44 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.
33 0.
00 1.30 0.38 4.50
2014 0.08 2.58 1.25 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.
22 0.
17 1.19 8.23 14.
71 2015 0.00 1.62 0.25 0.78 0.50 0.33 T 0.01 0.
05 0.
02 2.49 2.55 8.60
2016 3.95 0.69 3.30 2.14 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00 3.
34 1.37 2.62 17.
62 2017 8.10 6.07 2.09 1.93 0.03 0.02 0.00 T T 0.
18 2.20 0.06 20.
68 2018 3.30 0.57 3.87
Notes: Data missing in any
month have an "M" flag. A
T" indicates a trace of
precipitation.

Data missing for all days in a
month or year is blank.

Creation date: 2016- 07-22
258
259
Iron Horse Trail Bridge G-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018

APPENDIX G
Representative Photographs
260
Appendix G
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL G-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 261 1 Appendix G. Representative photographs of the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Project Area and Wetlands Photo 1. View south from Dublin Boulevard along the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Project area extends to fencing on east and west.

Photo 2. Seasonal wetland 1 (SW- 1) located on the north side of the Iron Horse Trail, exhibiting water filled soil test pit. Vegetation consists of salt grass and annual hydrophytes consistent with seasonal wetland conditions. View is to the north toward Dublin Blvd. 262
2 Photo 3. Seasonal Wetland 2 (SW- 2) located between Iron Horse Regional Trail levee and a concrete retaining wall associated with adjacent residential development. Water filled soil test pit and dense spike rush are observed at this location.

Photo 4. Seasonal wetland 3 (SW- 3) located on the west side of the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Toe ditch exhibits standing water, algal matting, and emergent annual vegetation. Photo shows view to the south. 263
3 Photo 5. The northern end of ponding within SW- 3 is shown in this photograph.

Photo 6. The northern extent (not inundated but saturated soils) within SW-3. Water flow through upland swale occurs to the north of this location to meet with Seasonal Wetland 4 (SW-4). 264
4 Photo 7. Seasonal Wetland 4 (SW- 4) occurs in narrow ditch on left side of photograph. Culvert located at Dublin Boulevard intercepts water flows along this area.

Photo 8. Iron Horse Regional Trail to the north of Dublin Boulevard. Northern portion of project area covered in Scarlett Drive Wetland Delineation.
265

APPENDIX C
Cultural Resources Technical Study
266
267
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Iron Horse Trail Project
City of Dublin, Alameda County, California
PREPARED BY:

Roberta Thomas, M.A., RPA, Christina Alonso, M.A., RPA
Project Number 18-188
Report Number 18-520
October 2018
PREPARED FOR:

Metis Environmental Group
437 Alcatraz Ave.

Oakland, CA 94609
61d Avenida de Orinda
Orinda, CA 94563
925) 253-9070
268
i
This page left blank intentionally
269
ii
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Description................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................. 1

3.0 Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Prehistoric Context................................................................................................................ 6

3.3 Local Amador Valley Chronology........................................................................................ 8

3.4 Ethnographic Context ........................................................................................................... 9

3.5 Historic Background ........................................................................................................... 10

4.0 Results of the Records Search................................................................................................. 12

4.1 Native American Coordination ............................................................................................ 15

5.0 Dublin Crossing EIR Findings ................................................................................................ 16

6.0 Methodology and Results of Field Survey of the Iron Horse Trail Project ............................ 17

6.1 Survey Methods .................................................................................................................. 17

6.2 Results of the Archaeological Field Survey........................................................................ 17

7.0 Project Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................................... 18

8.0 References Cited ..................................................................................................................... 20 Figures
Figure 1. Project vicinity ........................................................................................……………..... 2 Figure 2: Project area...........................................................................………………….…...…..... 3 Figure 3: Project location.........................................................................................……………… 4 Appendices
Appendix A: Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Studies within a Half-Mile of the Project Area
Appendix B: Native American Correspondence / Assembly Bill 52 Notification Letters Appendix C: Survey Photographs
270
iii
Management Summary
The City of Dublin’ s Iron Horse Trail Project ( Project) involves the construction of a new overcrossing and pedestrian ramp spanning Dublin Boulevard in Dublin, California. PaleoWest Archaeology ( PaleoWest) conducted a cultural resources assessment of the proposed Project area on behalf of Metis Environmental Group in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Dublin is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA.

A records search conducted on June 14, 2018 at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University ( NWIC). The records search indicated that no prehistoric or historical archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the Project area. A total of 29 resources, all historic- period buildings, are located outside of, but within a half-mile radius of the Project area.

A total of 150 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a half-mile of the Project area; 10 of those studies intersect the Project area.

PaleoWest contacted the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) on June 15, 2018 with a request for information on sacred sites or tribal cultural resources within the Project area, and for a list of Native American tribal representatives with heritage ties to the area. The NAHC responded on June 25, 2018, stating that a Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed with negative results but that “ the absence of specific site information does not preclude the presence of cultural resources in any project area.” PaleoWest contacted the recommended Native American representatives on July 12, 2018, requesting any pertinent cultural resource information they may have regarding the Project area. One round of follow-up phone calls was made on July 26, 2018 and, as a result of these outreach efforts cultural resources monitoring for the Project was recommended by a tribal representative. All communication with Native American representatives is tabulated in Appendix B.

PaleoWest conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project area on July 11, 2018. The survey failed to identify any cultural materials. Based on the results of the records search, communication with local Native American representatives, and the negative results of the pedestrian survey, the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area is considered to be low. Given the negative results of the current cultural resources assessment as well as the negative results for the overlapping Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR project area ( located immediately adjacent to the current Project), PaleoWest recommends that no significant impacts to cultural resources will occur as a result of the current Project ( no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources with regard to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR). In addition, PaleoWest recommends that mitigation measure ( MM) 3.4-2 and MM 3.4-4 from the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR be applied for any unanticipated cultural resource discoveries or human remains associated with Project construction activities. These mitigation measures are outlined herein. 271
Cultural Resources Technical Report 1 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Description
The City of Dublin’ s Iron Horse Trail Project ( Project) involves the construction of a gradeseparated overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard, north of the Dublin/ Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) Station, along a section of the existing multi- use Iron Horse Trail. The overcrossing will span north to south over Dublin Boulevard and will provide an alternative to the existing at-grade crossing of the Iron Horse Trail where it meets Dublin Boulevard.

North of Dublin Boulevard, the overcrossing structure will be integrated into a community park constructed as a part of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project ( RBF 2013). The new overcrossing structure would gradually transition to at-grade conditions before reconnecting with the Iron Horse Trail north of Dublin Boulevard. South of Dublin Boulevard, the overcrossing would touch down within the existing Iron Horse Trail right- of-way and would include a graduated ramp for both pedestrians and bicyclists to access the overcrossing. The northern portion of the Project area lies within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan study area and, as such, was previously assessed for cultural resources as part of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report ( EIR ) (RBF 2013).

This Cultural Resources Technical Report was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15064. 5 and 15126. 4, as a means of evaluating the potential impacts cultural resources.

1.2 Project Location
The Project area is located in the city of Dublin within the Amador Valley, east of the Pleasanton Ridge, in Alameda County, California ( Figure 1). The Project area follows the existing Iron Horse Trail where is crosses Dublin Boulevard ( Figure 2). Specifically, the Project area is located to the east of Highway 680, and directly north of Highway 580 in Section 6 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East as depicted on the 1980 Dublin, California 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map ( Figure 3). The elevation of the Project area is approximately 336 feet above mean sea level.

2.0 Regulatory Framework
The California Register of Historic Resources ( CRHR) is the official state- level list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level.

CRHR- eligible properties are considered to be historical resources under CEQA and must have significance under at least one of the four criteria presented below. A property may be considered a historic resource if it:
1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California' s history and cultural heritage;
2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 272
Project Vicinity
Figure 1Metis Environmental GroupIron Horse Trail ProjectAlameda County, CA Project Vicinity Map
0 105Miles
273
Project Area
Figure 2Metis Environmental GroupIron Horse Trail ProjectAlameda County, CA Project Area Map
0 21
Miles
274
Location Project
Figure Group Environmental3Metis
Project TrailHorse Iron
CAlameda County,
MapLocation Project
0 510.

Miles
Quadrangle CAUSGS 5’ Dublin, 7.

Location Project
275
Cultural Resources Technical Report 5 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
3) 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
4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In order to meet one or more of these criteria, a cultural resource must possess integrity to qualify for listing in the CRHR. Integrity is generally evaluated with reference to qualities including location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. A potentially eligible site must retain the integrity of the values that would make it significant.

Typically, integrity is indicated by evidence of the preservation of the contextual association of artifacts, ecofacts, and features within the archaeological matrix (Criterion 4) or the retention of the features that maintain contextual association with historical developments or personages that render them significant ( Criteria 1, 2, or 3). Evidence of the preservation of this context is typically determined by stratigraphic analysis and analysis of diagnostic artifacts and other temporal data ( e.g., obsidian hydration, radiocarbon assay) to ascertain depositional integrity or by the level of preservation of historic and architectural features that associate a property with significant events, personages, or styles.

Integrity refers both to the authenticity of a property’ s historic identity, as shown by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during its historic period and to the ability of the property to convey its significance. This is often not an all-or-nothing scenario determinations can be subjective); however, the final judgment must be based on the relationship between a property’ s features and its significance.

Section 15064. 5 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates a project may have a significant environmental effect if it causes " substantial adverse change" in the significance of an historical resource" or a " unique archaeological resource" as defined or referenced in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 5[b, c] ( revised October 26, 1998). Such changes include " physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" ( CEQA Guidelines 1998 Section 15064. 5 [b]).

3.0 Setting

3.1 Environmental Setting
Pleasanton Ridge is a component of the Central Coast Ranges geomorphic province. Within the Central Coast Ranges, non-marine sedimentary rocks, which were deposited during the post-Miocene ( within the last five million years), compose the lower lying foothills. Older deposits of marine sedimentary, metamorphic, and volcanic rock with igneous rock intrusions underlie the higher ridges. The Project is located on an alluvial plain that has been subject to episodic flooding, erosion from the surrounding hillsides, and tectonic activity ( Wiberg et al. 1996). Alamo Creek is located approximately 1,200 meters to the northwest. The hills to the 276
Cultural Resources Technical Report 6 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
north of the Project area consist predominantly of Clear Lake clay ( 90%), ranging in slope from 0-2 percent ( USDA 2017). Additional sediments in the area consist of unnamed alluvial flats, Campbell and Sunnyvale soil series.

The flora and fauna of the area in recent times has been disrupted by many modern activities but continues to thrive in the undeveloped periphery. A combination of woodland and open grassland species can be found. Flora include valley oak ( Quercus lobata), coast live oak Quercus agrifolia), and a variety of introduced annual grasses. Fauna include Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus), coyote ( Canis latrans), skunk ( Mephitis mephitis), cottontail rabbit ( Sylvilagus sp.), squirrel ( Sciurus sp.), quail ( Lophortyx californicus), hawk Accipitriidae) and various rodents ( Wiberg et al. 1996).

3.2 Prehistoric Context
Research into local prehistoric cultures began in the early 20th century with the work of N. C.

Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley, who conducted the first intensive archaeological surveys of the San Francisco Bay region ( Nelson 1909). The 425 shellmounds he documented along the bayshore showed that intensive use of shellfish -- a subsistence strategy reflected in both coastal and bayshore middens -- indicated a general economic unity in the region during prehistoric times ( Moratto 1984).

In 1911, Nelson supervised excavations at CA-SFR- 7 ( the Crocker mound) near Hunter' s Point. The site was subsequently dated from 1050 B.C. to A.D. 450. L. L. Loud identified archaeological components from this same period in Santa Clara County in 1911 while excavating at CA-SCL-1 (the Ponce, Mayfield, or Castro Mound site). R. J. Drake recognized the same components in San Mateo County in 1941and1942 at CA-SMA-23 (Mills Estate) in San Bruno ( Moratto 1984: 233).

This work provided the impetus for investigation into the prehistory of central California in the 1920s. J. A. Barr and E. J. Dawson excavated a number of sites and amassed substantial collections in the area from 1893 to the 1930s. Based on artifact comparisons, three distinct cultural traditions were identified, Early, Middle, and Late ( Ragir 1972; Schenck and Dawson 1929). In the 1930s J. Lillard and W. Purves of Sacramento Junior College were conducting excavations throughout the Sacramento Delta area. By seriating artifacts and mortuary traditions they identified a three- phase sequence similar to Barr’ s and Dawson’ s, including Early, Intermediate, and Recent cultures ( Lillard and Purves 1936). This scheme went through several permutations including Early, Transitional, and Late periods ( Lillard et al. 1939), and Early, Middle, and Late Horizons ( Heizer and Fenenga 1939). In 1948 and again in 1954, Richard Beardsley refined this system and extended it to include the region of San Francisco Bay. The result is referred to as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) ( Beardsley 277
Cultural Resources Technical Report 7 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
1948, 1954; Moratto 1984). Subsequently the CCTS system of Early, Middle, and Late Horizons was applied widely to site dating and taxonomy throughout central California.

As more data were acquired through continued fieldwork, local exceptions to the CCTS were discovered. Coupled with the accumulation of these exceptions, the development of radiocarbon dating, introduced in the 1950s, and of obsidian hydration in the 1970s, opened up the possibility of dating deposits more accurately. Given the expanse of central California and the complex nature of cultural change over space and time, this single system is limited to providing a general framework for assigning newly found materials to existing cultural chronologies ( Hughes 1994). Even though much of the subsequent archaeological investigation in the Central Valley has focused on local variations of the CCTS, the tripartite system of cultural history of the CCTS has been generally associated with adaptive patterns known as the Windmiller, Berkeley, and Augustine.

Windmiller Pattern sites are most often found in the Early period ( ca. 6000 to 500 B.C.) but are known to extend into the Middle period, possibly as late as A.D. 500 in the Stockton Area Moratto 1984). Some scholars have suggested that Windmiller Pattern sites are associated with an influx of people from outside of California who introduced subsistence strategies adapted for a riverine- wetlands environment ( Moratto 1984), and that the subsequent Berkeley Pattern developed in the San Francisco Bay region and expanded outward to the Central Valley, eventually replacing the Windmiller Pattern. Windmiller assemblages have been found to overlap in time with those of the Berkeley Pattern ( Moratto 1984).

Windmiller Pattern sites are often situated in riverine, marshland, or valley floor settings, as well as atop small knolls above prehistoric seasonal floodplains, locations that provide a wide variety of plant and animal resources. Most Windmiller Pattern sites have contained burials with remains that are extended ventrally, oriented to the west, and that contain copious amounts of mortuary artifacts. These artifacts often include large projectile points and a variety of fishing gear including net weights, bone hooks, and spear points. The faunal remains indicate that the inhabitants hunted a range of large and small mammals. Stone mortars and grinding stones for seed and nut processing are common finds. Other artifacts -- such as charmstones, ochre, quartz crystals, Olivella shell beads and Haliotis shell ornaments -- suggest the practice of ceremonialism and trade.

The Berkeley Pattern appears at around 1550 B.C. in the San Francisco Bay region and expanded outward to the Central Valley after about 500 B.C. This pattern shares some attributes with the Windmiller Pattern at the beginning of the sequence and with the Augustine Pattern ( Late period) at the end. Berkeley Pattern sites are much more common and well documented, and therefore better understood than Windmiller Pattern sites. These sites are scattered in more diverse environmental settings, but riverine settings are prevalent.

Deeply stratified midden deposits, which developed over generations of occupation, are common to Berkeley Pattern sites. These middens contain numerous milling and grinding stones for food preparation. The typical body position for burials is tightly flexed with no 278
Cultural Resources Technical Report 8 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
particular preference for orientation. Associated grave goods are much less frequent than with either the Windmiller or the Augustine Pattern. Projectile points in this pattern become progressively smaller and lighter over time, culminating in the introduction of bow-and- arrow technology at the beginning of the Late period. Wiberg ( 1997) claims that large obsidian lanceolate projectile points or blades are unique to the Berkeley Pattern. Olivella shell bead types include Saddle ( F) and Saucer ( G) types. In addition, Haliotis pendants and ornaments are present. Slate pendants, steatite beads, stone tubes, ear ornaments, and a general reduction of mortuary goods are associated with Berkeley Pattern sites ( Fredrickson 1973; Moratto 1984).

The Augustine Pattern characterizes the Late period, which has been dated from about A.D. 900 to about 1750. It is typified by intensive fishing, hunting, and gathering ( especially acorns), a large population increase, expanded trade and exchange networks, increased ceremonialism, and the practice of cremation in addition to flexed burials. Certain artifacts are also distinctive in this pattern: bone awls used in basketry, small notched and serrated projectile points that are indicative of bow-and- arrow usage, occasional pottery, clay effigies, bone whistles, and stone pipes. Beginning in the latter half of the 18th century, the Augustine Pattern was disrupted by the Spanish explorers and the mission system (Moratto 1984).

3.3 Local Amador Valley Chronology
Research into the cultural history of the Amador- Livermore Valley indicates that prehistoric occupation of the area began approximately 5,000 years ago during the Early period.

The Meganos Aspect is a cultural pattern that existed sometime between A.D. 450 and 800 and has been documented at various sites in the Amador Valley, overlapping with, and differing from, the Berkeley Pattern occupations that range from 210 B.C. through A.D. 1000 ( Wiberg 1997). Heizer first identified the Meganos Aspect in 1938 when he noted an “ atypical horizon” at CA-CCO- 141 (the Orowood Site) characterized by mortuary practices that were dominated by ventrally extended burials ( Bennyhoff 1994b). In 1968, based on the findings at 17 similar sites, Bennyhoff defined the Meganos Aspect as a mixing of Windmiller and Berkeley Pattern traits that was centered in the San Joaquin Valley but spread into parts of the Bay Area during the Late and Terminal phases of the Middle period ( Bennyhoff 1994a, 1994b). The classic expression of the Meganos Aspect as defined by Bennyhoff ( 1994a, 1994b) included nonmidden burials that lacked specific orientation of corpse placement, though he noted a westerly trend that he felt was reminiscent of Windmiller burials. In addition, the rarity of grave goods in Meganos burials resembles the Berkeley Pattern. Bennyhoff' s characteristic Meganos assemblage is marked by mortar and pestle use ( acorn economy). Leaf- shaped obsidian dart points, spear points and knives occur, but chipped stone is relatively rare. Meganos burials are associated with Olivella Saddle ( F) and Saucer ( G) beads, Haliotis ornaments, quartz crystals, and a few charmstones ( Wiberg 1997). The bone industry was less developed than the contemporaneous Berkeley Pattern and mainly included awls, fish spears, and hairpins. With 279
Cultural Resources Technical Report 9 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
the discovery of the Meganos Aspect at sites investigated after 1968, Bennyhoff came to recognize that there was more variability within the Meganos culture than he had originally identified. This included interment within habitation areas, more substantial quantities of grave goods, pre-interment fires, and a number of unique artifact forms. Meganos cemeteries in the Stockton area are quite impoverished, while those to the west and south tend to have more associated offerings.

Mission records and ethnographies identify the Native Americans living in the Pleasanton area at the time of European contact in the latter half of the 18th century as members of various groups that are now referred to collectively as Ohlone. On the basis of linguistic evidence, it has been suggested that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the San Francisco Bay area about A.D. 500, having moved south and west from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta region.

Linguistic evidence has been interpreted to indicate that prior to about A.D. 500, speakers of the Hokan language occupied territories that included the Project area until the ancestral Ohlone displaced them ( Levy 1978). This cultural replacement may correspond to the transition in archaeological material culture from the Berkeley to the Augustine Pattern sometime between A.D. 500 and 1000.

3.4 Ethnographic Context
At the time of initial contact with European explorers ( 1772), the Project area was occupied by the Ohlone, and more specifically an Ohlone triblet, known as Pelnen, of 300 to 500 who inhabited semi- permanent villages and seasonal campsites ( Kroeber 1932; Levy 1978).

Although ethnographic information about the Pelnen is sparse, they may have shared the resources of the former Willow Marsh, located in the low-lying area between Dublin and Pleasanton, with the nearby Seunen and Souyen Ohlone tribal groups. This marsh was an important source for seasonal foods such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, which provided protein- rich supplements to the typical aboriginal diet of greens, roots and bulbs, seeds, and acorns ( Levy 1978).

The group known as the Ohlone subdivided into smaller village complexes or tribal groups.

These groups were independent political entities, each occupying specific territories defined by physiographic features. Each group controlled access to the natural resources of its territory.

Although each tribal group had one or more permanent villages, their territory contained numerous smaller campsites used as needed during a seasonal round of resource exploitation.

Extended families lived in domed structures thatched with tule, grass, wild alfalfa, ferns or carrizo ( Levy 1978). Semi- subterranean sweathouses were built in pits excavated in stream banks and covered with a structure against the bank. The tule raft, propelled by double- bladed paddles similar to those used in the Santa Barbara Island region, were used to navigate across San Francisco Bay (Kroeber 1970).

Warfare was quite common in Ohlone culture and usually centered around territorial disputes Levy 1978). Music, ritual and myth were extensive in Costanoan life. Song was employed in 280
Cultural Resources Technical Report 10 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
the telling of myths, in hunting and courtship rituals, and in other ceremonial activities. Musical instruments were typically whistles made of bird bone, and flutes and rattles made of wood from the alder.

Mussels were an important staple in the Ohlone diet as were acorns of the coast live oak, valley oak, tanbark oak and California black oak. Seeds and berries, roots, grasses, and the meat of deer, elk, grizzly, sea lion, rabbit, and squirrel also contributed to the Ohlone diet. Careful management of the land through controlled burning served to insure a plentiful and reliable source of all these foods ( Kroeber 1970; Levy 1978).

The arrival of the Spanish led to the rapid demise of native California populations. Diseases, declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to eradicate the aboriginal life ways ( which are currently experiencing resurgence among Ohlone descendants). Brought into the missions, the surviving Ohlone along with former neighboring groups of Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers Cambra et al. 1996; Levy 1978; Shoup and Milliken 1999). With abandonment of the mission system and Mexican takeover in the 1840s, numerous ranchos were established. Generally, the few Ohlone who remained were then forced, by necessity, to work on the ranchos.

3.5 Historic Background
Spanish and Mexican Periods
Shortly after the Fages expedition, missions were founded at San Francisco and Santa Clara.

Their presence led to additional exploration of the area and Native American recruiting forays into the Amador- Livermore Valley. It was not until the founding of Mission San Jose in 1797, however, that people other than native Californians began to use the Project area extensively, as the region provided primary grazing land for Mission San Jose. The mission itself had a lasting effect on the surrounding Ohlone people, and between 1797 and 1810 the mission priests baptized 1,494 people, many of whom came from the areas immediately surrounding the mission settlement. By the end of that period 1,185 people had died at Mission San Jose Milliken 1995).

As the mission herds grew, Native American vaqueros tended to the cattle, sheep, and horses that grazed the abundant grasses of the valleys to the north of the mission. The trail through Mission Pass, along the Sunol Valley, and east through Pleasanton to the San Joaquin Valley became well-worn. Increasingly, soldiers and mission neophytes were sent along this route to obtain new converts and punish those that had left the mission to return to their traditional homes.

Early American Period
The transition to American control that began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 was accelerated with the discovery of gold in that same year. The influx of miners drawn west in search of wealth quickly changed the population dynamics of the area 281
Cultural Resources Technical Report 11 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
and ensured that California would remain a part of the United States. Initially, the increased demand for products that ranchers were able to provide generated great profits for Mexican landholders. Along with increased demand, came increased settlement, and American interests soon began to threaten the land grants and livelihoods of established Mexican- heritage residents. A letter written in 1860 by Samuel B. Martin to John Kottinger, a son-in-law of Juan Pablo Bernal who lived in Pleasanton, confirms that the number of sheep brought into the area by settlers, most of them squatters, had grazed the pasture land so close that cattle throughout the area were suffering from lack of food. The drought of 1864 further challenged many families’ ability to pay the recently imposed property tax, while profits from cattle were rapidly falling ( Hagemann 1965).

In addition, under the American government it became necessary to produce documentary proof of Mexican titles in order for the Mexican grantees to claim their ranchos under a United States patent. Kottinger acted as an attorney and prepared the necessary documents for the United States Land Commissioner and the United States District Court at San Francisco on behalf of the Bernal family. In 1863 the United States government patented their grant to three of the original four grantees ( Hagemann 1965).

In 1853, lands including the modern- day towns of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, as well as part of the Ohlone Regional Wilderness to the south were incorporated into the Murray Township ( Hagemann 1965). This township, comprising the eastern half of Alameda County, was named after Michael Murray, who settled in Dublin around 1850.

As more land came under cultivation and the population continued to grow in the second half of the 1800s, Native Americans in the region found it increasingly difficult to find work and provide for themselves and their families. Recent immigrants were performing the labor the Native Americans had once performed for local farmers and ranchers, and the grasslands that had provided much of their traditional sustenance were now under the plow. At least 1,000 former mission Native Americans had lived in the vicinity of Mission San Jose in the early 1840s. By the early 1860s many of the remaining Native Americans from Mission San Jose and Mission Santa Clara gathered at a refuge called Alisal. This refuge was located on the ranch of Agostin Bernal, within modern- day Pleasanton, near the northwestern quadrant of the intersection of Highway 680 and Sunol Boulevard. As stated by Field et al. (1992), “ The Alisal rancheria was unquestionably the most prominent and important community of Costañoan descendants from the 1860s onward and well into the 20th century and constitutes the first post- conquest Indian revitalization in the Bay Area.” Small groups of other missionized Native Americans also settled at smaller rancherias in Niles and Sunol.

Alisal was a place where surviving Native Americans from all over the Bay Area and central California came together. A new cultural vitality emerged as Costañoan, Miwok, and Yokuts peoples shared aspects of their traditional cultures. Cultural practices such as the Ghost Dance were embraced by the Native Americans at Alisal and showed a distinct blend of the old and new. Those who taught the Ghost Dance believed it would help drive white men from their 282
Cultural Resources Technical Report 12 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
land. The men and women of Alisal combined the Ghost Dance with the Kuksu Dance, the World Renewal Ceremonies, and other important traditions. The combination proved to be very powerful for the Native Americans and became an important part of the revitalization of indigenous culture ( Field et al. 1992).

Site Specific History
During World War II, Camp Parks, located 0.3 miles north of the Project area, was commissioned by the Navy to house 10,000 servicemen ( City of Dublin 2017). Camp Parks was leased and use as the Santa Rite Jail, an Air Force training center, in addition to an Army training center. In 1980, Camp Parks was officially designated as a mobilization and training center by the Army and has been a semi- active installation since.

Few tract homes were present in the Amador Livermore area until 1960 when the Volk-McLain Company began to work on San Ramon Village which would provide several thousand moderately- priced homes in the area. The effort the incorporate Dublin in 1967 was denied by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission. The County policy was to have only one city in the east valley. In response, a subsequent referendum on annexation of Dublin to Pleasanton also failed. Incorporation of Dublin was finally achieved in November of 1981.

At this point, the City of Dublin was 3.54 square miles, with 4,428 housing units and an estimated population of 13,700.

By 1986, Camp Parks was annexed into Dublin and the City grew by 4.24 square miles.

Between 1995 and 2010, the City expanded to 14.62 square miles, with 15,782 housing units and an estimated population of 40,262.

The Project area is currently a paved trail atop the historic Southern Pacific Railroad alignment.

While there are no remnants of the railroad still present, portions of the tracks still exist to the northwest of the Project area

4.0 Results of the Records Search
A literature review and records search was conducted by Patrick Allen, Staff Archaeologist, on June 14, 2018 at the Northwest Information Center ( NWIC) housed at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park ( IC File Number 17-3021). The records search area included the Project area as well as an additional half-mile radius. The purpose of the records search was to identify any known cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The records search also included a review of the Office of Historic Preservation ( OHP) Archaeological Determination of Eligibility and the OHP Directory of Historic Properties Data File.

The records search indicated that no prehistoric or historical archaeological resources have been previously recorded within or within a half-mile radius of the Project area. A total of 29 historical built-environment resources have been previously recorded within a half-mile radius 283
Cultural Resources Technical Report 13 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
of the Project area; however, none of these resources are located within the Project area ( Table 1). These resources include a section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and buildings and structures associated with the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, commonly known as Camp Parks. The section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, P-01-001783, is located less than one tenth of a mile northwest of the Project area, it no longer extends through the Project area. The records search also indicated that a total of 150 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half-mile radius of the Project area ( see full list in Appendix A). Of these 150 studies, 10 intersect or include portions of the Project area ( Table 2).

Table 1
Previously Recorded Historic Resources within a Half-Mile of the Project Area Primary No.

Trinomial Age Type Description EligibilityRecommendation P-01-001783/
CA-ALA000623H
Historic Structure Portion of the Southern Pacific
Railroad ( recorded in segments)
Not recommended
eligible for either
CRHR or NRHP
2017)
P-01-010333 Historic Building Camp Parks Sign 3S
P-01-010422 Historic Building Building 636 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-010468 Historic Building Building 610 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-010469 Historic Building Building 611(Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-010470 Historic Building Building 620 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-010471 Historic Building Building 796 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-010472 Historic Building Building 792 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-010475 Historic Building/ Structure Drainage System and Building 740 Camp Parks)
6Y
P-01-010479 Historic Building Buildings 284, 860, 860A, 861, 880, 881Health Clinic and Regional
Medical Training site ( Camp Parks)
6Y
P-01-010480 Historic Building Buildings 132, 133, 309, 334, 341, 495, 511, 793, 797, 798, and 862
Miscellaneous Storage Facilities
Camp Parks)
6Y
P-01-011868 Historic Building Buildings 131 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011869 Historic Building Building 141 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011870 Historic Building Buildings 162 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011871 Historic Building Building 171 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011872 Historic Building Building 180 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011873 Historic Building Building 210 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011874 Historic Building Building 212 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011906 Historic Building Building 637 ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011908 Historic Building Building 730 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011909 Historic Building Building 730A (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011910 Historic Building Building 730B ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011911 Historic Building Building 730C ( Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011912 Historic Building Building 731 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011913 Historic Building Building 732 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011914 Historic Building Building 790 (Camp Parks) 6Y 284
Cultural Resources Technical Report 14 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Primary No.

Trinomial Age Type Description EligibilityRecommendation P-01-011915 Historic Building Building 791 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011916 Historic Building Building 800 (Camp Parks) 6Y P-01-011917 Historic Building Building 801 ( Camp Parks) 6Y Table 2
Previous Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area Report
No. Year Author( s) Title
S-000727 1977 Miley Holman and
David Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two New Proposed
Waste Water Pipeline Routes, Livermore- Amador Valley
Water Management Agency, Alameda County, California
S-016307 1994 Alison MacDougall Cultural Resource Investigation of PG& E's Proposed Willow Pass Substation Addition, Willow Pass Tap, East Dublin
BART Dedicated Substation, and Castro Valley Substation Addition, Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties, California
S-017993 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb
Voss, Sharon
Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed
Mojave Northward Expansion Project
S-025313 2002 Rand Herbert, Bryan
Larson, Jessica
Herrick, Amanda
Blosser, Andrew
Walters, and Eric
Johnson
Final Report: National Register of Historic Places, Inventory and Evaluation of Previously Unevaluated World War II and Cold War Era Buildings, Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
S-026071 1998 Shahira Ashkar and
Dana McGowan
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Built Environment
Inventory and Evaluation
S-026096 1981 Earth Metrics
Incorporated
Historic Property Survey Report for the
Reactivation and Development Plans, Camp
Parks, Pleasanton, CA
S-028826 2001 Damon Mark Haydu A Cultural Resources Study of Portions of the Training Area and Cantonment Area Within Camp Parks ( PRFTA),
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
S-028835 2004 Jack Meyer and
Graham Dalldorf
Geoarchaeological Investigation in the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
California.

S-029314 2004 Christopher Caputo Archaeological Survey Report for Portions of the Training Area, Parks RFTA, Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties, California.

S-023385 2000 Colin I. Busby and
Stuart A. Guedon
Cultural Resources Assessment for an Extension of the Iron Horse Trail Between Dougherty Road and Dublin BART
Station, City of Dublin, Alameda County ( letter report) PaleoWest staff also reviewed the OHP directory for the Project area. There are no resources listed on the OHP directory within the Project area. Numerous industrial buildings and structures associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA) and the 285
Cultural Resources Technical Report 15 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, located less than one tenth of a mile from the Project area, are listed in the OHP directory.

Historic Topographic Map and Aerial Review
In addition to the records search, PaleoWest completed a review of the historical topographic maps and historic aerials that depict the Project area. The Fairchild Aerial Surveys 1938 aerials Flight C-5750) depict the Project area in an undeveloped region with the Southern Pacific Railroad running northwest to southeast. The 1906 United States Geologic Survey ( USGS) Pleasanton 15-minute quadrangle map also depicts the Project area as undeveloped with only a few roads in the general vicinity. The 1953 USGS Dublin 7.5-minute map shows the Project area atop the existing Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing the convergence of two unnamed seasonal drainages. The 1953 Dublin map also depicts numerous rectangular industrial style buildings to the north/ northwest of the Project area. These buildings are likely portions of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area which was commissioned in January of 1943 ( http:// www.usar.army. mil/Commands / US-Army-Reserve- Command- USARC/ CampParks- Main/Camp- Parks/). A review of the 1950 United States Department of Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service survey for Flight BUT-1950 shows the Project area south of Camp Parks with small buildings located in between the northern edge of Highway 580 and the diagonal tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The 1961 Dublin 7.5-minute map shows the Project area intersecting the Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing an unnamed seasonal drainage. In addition, the 1961 Dublin quadrangle illustrates numerous buildings associated with NASA located to the northwest of the Project area. The Cartwright Aerial Survey from 1965 (Flight CAS- 65-130) depicts the Project area to the southeast of Camp Parks with the parcels directly surrounding the Project area still mostly undeveloped. The 1980 photo revised Dublin topographic quadrangle map indicates that while the majority of the Dublin area has been developed by 1980, the Project area remained undeveloped.

4.1 Native American Coordination
PaleoWest contacted the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) for a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on June 15, 2018. The objective of the SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural resources ( e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The NAHC responded on June 25, 2018, stating that the SLF was completed with negative results ( Appendix B). However, the NAHC did state that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources. As such, the NAHC recommended that six Native American individuals and/or tribal groups be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the Project. Initial scoping letters were sent by email on July 12, 2018 to all six recommended individuals. As no written response had been received, follow up phone calls were placed to each individual on July 26, 2018. Ms. Perez, Northern Valley Yokut, indicated that typically railroad tracks follow traditional Native trails and as such she recommends a Native American 286
Cultural Resources Technical Report 16 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
monitor be present during ground disturbing activities. She also requested a copy of the final report. Ms. Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, indicated she has no knowledge of the area or its potential sensitivity. No other responses were received as a result of the outreach efforts. Subsequently, messages and follow up emails describing the Project were sent to the contacts who were unable to be reached.

5.0 Dublin Crossing EIR Findings
A portion of the current Iron Horse Trail Project area overlaps with land previously assessed in the Dublin Crossings Specific Plan EIR (2013). The Dublin Crossings Specific Plan EIR identified 12 cultural resources within the EIR’ s project area. These resources were all components of Camp Parks and as such were evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places ( NRHP) criteria. Only one of the resources, the Camp Parks entrance sign ( P-01- 010333), was determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP by the State Historical Preservation Office ( SHPO) ( October 26, 1999). As the resource was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, it is now also recommended as eligible for listing on the CRHR. None of these resources are located within the portion of the Iron Horse Trail Project area that overlaps with the project area for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR .

The SLF search conducted for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR also failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the Project area. An amendment to the City of Dublin’ s General Plan was necessary for land use purposes associated with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. As such, Senate Bill (SB)18 consultation was conducted and likewise failed to provide any additional information regarding cultural resources within the Project area.

Subsequently, the records search and the pedestrian field survey conducted for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR failed to identify any new archaeological or historic deposits within the study area. As a result of the cultural resource assessment, two cultural resource mitigation measures ( MM) were proposed for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR to mitigate significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources during construction activities. These MM are outlined below. While the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR indicated that Impact

3.4-1 could potentially affect the NRHP eligible Camp Park Sign, this resource was located outside of the Project area and therefore no mitigation measure was needed.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/ Site-Specific Mitigation, for unanticipated cultural resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, Halt Work/ Coroner’ s Evaluation/ Native American Heritage Consultant/ Compliance with Most Likely Descended, for unanticipated discoveries and human remains.
287
Cultural Resources Technical Report 17 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018

6.0 Methodology and Results of Field Survey of the Iron Horse Trail Project

6.1 Survey Methods
A combination of intensive and reconnaissance pedestrian survey was conducted on July 11, 2018 by Staff Archaeologist Patrick Zingerella ( Appendix B, Photos 1-10). The entirety of the Project area was not intensively surveyed due to the developed nature of the entire Project area as well as the fact that the northern half of the Project area was previously investigated for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR in April 2012.

Exposed ground surface within the Project area was examined for the presence of historic or prehistoric site indicators. Historic site indicators include, but are not limited to foundations, fence lines, ditches, standing buildings, objects or structures such as sheds, or concentrations of materials at least 50 years in age, such as domestic refuse ( glass bottles, ceramics, toys, buttons or leather shoes), or refuse from other pursuits such as agriculture ( e.g., metal tanks, farm machinery parts, horse shoes) or structural materials ( e.g., nails, glass window panes, corrugated metal, wood posts or planks, metal pipes and fittings, etc.). Prehistoric site indicators include but are not limited to areas of darker soil with concentrations of ash, charcoal, animal bone ( burned or unburned), shell, flaked stone, ground stone, or even human bone.

6.2 Results of the Archaeological Field Survey
The survey was accessed from the north by trail access parking on Houston Place. The survey commenced north of Dublin Boulevard, and continued southeast along the Project area. Much of the Project area north of Dublin Boulevard is located to the north and east of the existing trail in an area that has been graded for development ( Appendix B, Photos 1-9). As a result, surface visibility in this area was excellent ( 100%). An intensive pedestrian survey ( 15-meter intervals) was conducted in this area. The Project area located north and west of Chabot Canal contained non-native fill throughout, depth unknown. Sediments were brown, dry and crumbly silty clay with local sub-angular and rounded gravels ( Appendix B, Photo 5). This area contained a diffuse, heavily disturbed refuse scatter containing over 20 pieces of plain ironstone tableware fragments, more than 50 glass bottle fragments, and the only temporally diagnostic artifact seen with the Project area: the bottom half of a Homer Loughlin mug with a backstamp indicating its manufacture date as March 1944. This material appears to have been graded into the ground by mechanical means and may have originated from other portions of the property. Because the refuse scatter is not intact and is heavily disturbed, it does not retain any information potential and, as such, was not documented as a cultural resource.

The Project area then crosses Chabot Canal, a channelized north- northeast trending ditch Appendix B, Photo 6). Surface visibility was very poor (< 5%) in this area and included dried bromes, foxtail and thistle. This area was disturbed by construction of three large culverts Appendix B, Photo 2). The Project area met with the existing Iron Horse Trail approximately 288
Cultural Resources Technical Report 18 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
50 feet southeast of the footbridge over Chabot Canal. This area is located on a mechanically disturbed 4-foot high berm, with asphalt and mulch significantly limiting surface visibility (< 10%). As such, this portion of the Project area does not contain culturally intact soils. The survey proceeded southeast to Dublin Boulevard, at which point surface visibility reduces to nil due to landscaping and paving ( Appendix B, Photo 7).

The survey continued to the south of Dublin Boulevard toward the southeast, approximately 500 feet along the existing Iron Horse Trail to the end of the Project area ( Appendix B, Photo 8). A single transect was surveyed on both sides of the existing trail. The trail is located on a broad berm approximately 50 feet wide and varying from 3 to 6 feet above the surrounding drainage ditches ( Appendix B, Photo 9). Surface visibility was poor ( 0-10%) throughout.

Vegetation consisted of dried bromes, prickly lettuce, foxtail and landscaping with immature oak trees. Mulch was also spread approximately 10 feet on either side of the paved trail.

Sediments were brown with a silty clay texture. No prehistoric or historic artifacts were identified in the Project area south of Dublin Boulevard.

No intact historic or prehistoric- era deposits or features were identified on the ground surface within the Project area; however, visibility of the ground surface was limited throughout.

7.0 Project Impacts and Mitigation
PaleoWest conducted a pedestrian cultural resources survey of the Project area on July 11, 2018. No intact cultural resources were observed during the survey. In addition, the records search results indicated that there are no previously recorded cultural resources present within the Project area.

Given the negative results of the current cultural resources assessment as well as the negative results for the overlapping Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project area, PaleoWest recommends that no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources will occur as a result of the current Project. PaleoWest recommends that the two cultural resource mitigations measures from the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR be applied to the current Project for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and human remains. These mitigation measures are outlined explicitly below ( RBF 2013:ES-32).

MM 3.4–2 Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/ Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource( s) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064. 5(f). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City staff of the encountered archeological deposit. If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an archaeological resource, then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit shall be addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126. 4(b). Measures may include, but 289
Cultural Resources Technical Report 19 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
are not limited to archaeological data recovery, etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the archaeologist, a professional- quality report shall be submitted to the City, the project applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park.

MM 3.4-4 Halt Work/ Coroner’ s Evaluation/ Native American Heritage Consultant/ Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation activities, all grounddisturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroner’ s Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a “ Most Likely Descendent. ( MLD).” The MLD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for burial.

No additional mitigation measures are recommended for this Project; however, should additional actions be proposed outside of the currently defined Project area that have the potential for additional subsurface disturbance, further cultural resource management may be required.
290
Cultural Resources Technical Report 20 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018

8.0 References Cited
Beardsley, Richard K.
1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology, American Antiquity 14(1):1-28.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology.

University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24-25.

Bennyhoff, James
1994a A Delta Intrusion to the Bay in the Late Middle Period in Central California.

In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:

Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E.

Hughes, pp.7-14. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.
1994b Central California Augustine: Implications for Northern California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp.65-74. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

Bennyhoff, James A. and Richard E. Hughes
1987 Shell Bead Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64 (2):79-175.

Cambra, Rosemary, Alan Leventhal, Laura Jones, Les Field, and Naveran Sanchez 1996 Archaeological Investigations at Kaphan Umux ( Three Wolves) Site, CA SCL 732: A Middle Period Prehistoric Cemetery on Coyote Creek in Southern San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report on file at Caltrans District 4 Offices, Oakland, CA.

Cartwright Aerial Surveys
1965 Flight CAS-65-130. Frame ALA 11-42, aerial photographs of Alameda County. Electronic document available from UC Santa Barbara Library.

City of Dublin
2017 City of Dublin General Plan. Prepared for the Community Development Department, Dublin, California, Amended as of November 21, 2017.

Fairchild Aerial Surveys
1938 Flight C-5750. Frame BUU-BUT 281-40, aerial photographs of Alameda County. Electronic document available from UC Santa Barbara Library.

Field, Les, Alan Leventhal, Dolores Sanchez, and Rosemary Cambra 1992 A Contemporary Ohlone Tribal Revitalization Movement: A Perspective From the Muwekma Costonoan/ Ohlone Indians of the San Francisco Bay Area. California History.
291
Cultural Resources Technical Report 21 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA.

Groza, Randy Gannon
2002 An AMS Chronology for Central California Olivella Shell Beads.

Unpublished Master’ s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, San Francisco.

Hagemann Jr., Herbert L.
1965 Abstract of Title: Rancho el Valle de San Jose. The Pacific Historian.

Heizer, Robert F. and Franklin Fenega
1939 Archaeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist 41): 378-399.

Hughes, Richard E.
1994 Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:

Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

Kroeber, A.L.
1970 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley, CA.

Levy, R.
1978 Eastern Miwok. In R. F. Heizer, vol. ed. Handbook of North American Indians Vol.8: California, pp. 398-413. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves
1936 The Archaeology of the Deer Creek- Cosumnes area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin.

Sacramento, CA.

Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer, and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento, CA.

Milliken, Randall T.
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769- 1810. Ballena Press Publishers Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, California.
292
Cultural Resources Technical Report 22 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Milliken, Randall T., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillete, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-124. Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.

Moratto, M.J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Nelson, Nels C.
1909 The Ellis Landing Shellmound. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(5).

Ragir, Sonia
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15. Berkeley.

RBF Consulting
2013 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Dublin.

Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer J. Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289-413.

Berkeley.

Shoup, Laurence, and Randall T. Milliken
1999 Inigo of Rancho Polsomi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian and his Land. Malki-Ballena Press, Banning, CA.

United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA)
n.d. SSURGO Soil Surveys, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https:// websoilsurvey. nrcs.usda. gov/. Accessed 6/29/18.

United States Department of Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service 1950 Flight BUT-1950. Frame BUT 4G-56, aerial photographs of Alameda County.

Electronic document available from UC Santa Barbara Library.

United States Army Reserve
n.d. Camp Parks California. Accessed from
http:// www.usar.army.mil/Commands/ US-Army-Reserve- CommandUSARC/ Camp- Parks- Main/Camp- Parks/ on June 28, 2018.

United States Geological Survey ( USGS)
1906 Pleasanton quadrangle, California [ map]. 1:62,500. 15-Minute Series. Reston, Va: United States Department of the Interior.
http://www.usar.army.mil/Commands/US-ArmyReserve-Command-USARC/Camp-Parks-Main/ Camp-Parks/
http://www.usar.army.mil/Commands/US-Army-Reserve-Command-US ARC/Camp-Parks-Main/Camp-Parks/
293
Cultural Resources Technical Report 23 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
1953 Dublin quadrangle, California [ map]. 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. Reston, Va:

United States Department of the Interior.
1961 Dublin quadrangle, California [ map]. 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. Reston, Va:

United States Department of the Interior.
1980 Dublin quadrangle, California [ map]. Photorevised 1980. 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. Reston, Va: United States Department of the Interior.

Vellanoweth, Rene L.
2001 AMS Radiocarbon Dating and Shell Bead Chronologies: Middle Holocene Trade and Interaction in Western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 941–950.

Wiberg, Randy S.
1997 Archaeological Investigations at Site CA-ALA-42, Alameda County, California: Final Report. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.

Wiberg, Randy S., David G. Bieling, Jennifer A. Ferneau, Randall T. Milliken, James P. Quinn, Dwight Simons, and Eric Wohlgemuth
1996 Archaeological Excavations and Burial Removal at Sites CA-ALA 483, CAALA-483 Extension, CA-ALA-555, Pleasanton, Alameda County, California.

Report Submitted to Davidon Homes, Walnut Creek, California ( C-2109).

Holman and Associates, San Francisco, CA.
294
Appendix A
Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Studies within a Half-Mile of the Project Area 295
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
S-000898 1976 Edward M. Love, Miley Paul
Holman, and David Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Pipeline Routes and Reservoir Locations, LivermoreAmador Valley Water Management Agency, Alameda County, California
S-000914 1976 Miley P. Holman and David
Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Pipeline Routing Changes Along the Dublin Canyon to
the San Lorenzo Portion of the Livermore- Amador
Valley Waste Treatment Project, Alameda County,
California
S-001098 1978 Peter M. Banks A Preliminary Investigation of the Heritage Park Site, Dublin, Alameda County, California.

S-002019 1979 Miley Paul Holman An archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed 5 acre building site in Dublin, California ( letter report)
S-002020 1979 Miley P. Holman An archaeological reconnaissance of the development area located on the laborer' s training center property near the City of Dublin, Calif. (letter report)
S-002021 1979 Miley P. Holman Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Proposed Kemco Development Area in the City of Dublin,
California ( letter report)
S-002023 1979 Miley Paul Holman A field archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed development area known as the " Calmet Project" in the
City of Dublin, California ( letter report)
S-002024 1979 Miley P. Holman An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the proposed development area known as the Neilsen
Property, in Dublin, Alameda County, Calif. (letter
report)
S-002400 1980 Michael J. Sawyer and
George R. Miller
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the San Ramon
Road / Amador Valley Road Interchange Project,
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-002631 1980 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological field reconnaissance of the proposed Silvergate development in the City of Dublin, Contra
Costa County ( letter report)
S-002780 1981 Robert A. Stillinger An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Hacienda Business Park, Tract 4857, Pleasanton, California
S-002806 1981 Matthew R. Clark and Miley
Paul Holman
Report of Archaeological Survey of Portions of the
Proposed Hacienda Business Park Development,
Pleasanton, Alameda County, California ( letter report) S-002806a 1982 Miley Paul Holman and
Sarah Slater
A report of archaeological site location at the Hacienda Business Park, Pleasanton, California
S-002806b 1982 Miley Paul Holman and
Randy Wiberg
Further testing for buried archaeological site material at the Hacienda Business Park, Pleasanton, California
S-002996 1975 Miley Paul Holman An archaeological reconnaissance of the " Willow West" property, Pleasanton, Alameda County ( letter report)
S-006422 1984 Margaret L. Buss Archaeological Survey Report, improvements to the Hopland Road/ Route 580 Interchange, 04-ALA-580
P.M. 19.8/20.0 210- 113520
S-006516 1984 Miley Paul Holman Field Testing of the Abijah Baker House, Hacienda Business Park, and Further Testing for Buried
Archaeological Resources, Pleasanton, Alameda County,
California
S-007529 1985 Peter M. Banks An Archaeological Reconnaissance for the San Ramon Road Improvements Project: Phases 2, 3 and 4, Dublin,
Alameda County, California.

S-008738 1986 Jo Rainie Rodgers, George P.

Rodgers, and Mark Hylkema
A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed
Veterans Administration Northern California National
Cemetery Sites at Santa Nella and Camp Parks
296
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
S-008785 1986 R. Paul Hampson Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Assessor’ s Parcel Number 941- 1600- 5-6,
Near Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-008785a 1987 R. Paul Hampson Archaeological Testing of That Portion of CA- ALA-43 Within Assessor’ s Parcel Number 941-1600- 5-6, Near
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-010762 1990 Mara Melandry Historic Property Survey Report, proposed reconstruction of the I-580/I-680 interchange in the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton in Alameda County, 04-ALA580/680, Post Miles 18.2/R21.6, 18.8/21.9, 182-233040 S-010762a 1989 Marcia K. Kelly Archaeological Survey Report, proposed reconstruction of the I-580/I-680 Interchange in the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton in Alameda County, 4-ALA-580/680, Post
Miles 18.2/R21.6, 18.8/21.9, EA 4182-233040
S-010762b 1990 E.W. Blackmer Historical Architectural Survey Report, 4-Ala- 580/680,

18.2/R21.6, 18.8/21.9, 182-233040
letter report)
S-011161 1989 Suzanne Baker, Laurence H.

Shoup, and Anne Bloomfield
Technical Report - Cultural Resources, BART
Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project
S-011601 1988 Roger H. Werner Cultural Resources Survey for Proposed Improvements to Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California
S-012132 1990 Patricia Ryan Farrell and
Roger H. Werner
Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Dougherty
Road Widening in Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-013798 1991 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological Field Inspection of the Proposed Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange and Hook Ramp
Option, Dublin, Alameda County, California ( letter
report)
S-017993a 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix A - Native American Consultation
S-017993b 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix B - Looping Segments - Class 1
S-017993c 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix C -Monitoring and Emergency Discovery Plan
S-017993d 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix D - General Construction Information
S-017993e 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix E - Archaeological Site Records
S-017993f 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix F - Historic Features Evaluation Forms
S-017993g 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix G - Railroad Crossing Evaluation Forms
S-017993h 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix H - Crossing Diagrams and Plan View Maps
S-017993I 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix I - Railroad Depot NRHP Nomination Forms
and Related Records
S-017993j 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix J - Looping Segment and Compressor Station
Site Records
297
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
S-017993k 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix K - Historic Site Records / Isolate Forms
S-017993l 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix L - Photodocumentation
S-017993m 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:

Appendix M - Curricula Citae of Key Preparers
S-019293 1997 Matthew R. Clark An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lands of Lester on Dublin Canyon Road, Pleasanton, Alameda
County, California
S-020088 1997 Robert Gerry Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed National Guard Armory and Organizational Maintenance Shop at
Camp Parks, Alameda County, California
S-021806 1999 Randy S. Wilberg Assessment of a Possible Archaeological Resource Within Dublin Ranch Areas " F-H" (APN 985-5-1),
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-021807 1999 Randy S. Wilberg Surface and Subsurface Mechanical Testing for Archaeological Resources at Dublin Ranch Area " E"
APN 985- 3-3-2), Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-021808 1999 Randy S. Wilberg Surface and Subsurface Mechanical Testing for Archaeological Resources at Dublin Ranch Area " A"
APN 985- 7-2-8, 985-6-7 and
985-6-8), Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-022071 1999 William Self Associates and
Ward M. Hill
Koller Ranch: Architectural Assessment and
Subsurface Testing of Site CA-ALA-570, Dublin,
Alameda County, CA
S-022501 1999 Historic Property Survey Report and Findings of No Historic Properties Affected for I-680 " Sunol Grade"
Southbound Improvement
Project in the Cities of Pleasanton and Fremont &
Unincorporated Alameda County, and in the City of
Milpitas, Santa Clara County, 04-ALA-680 KP

0.0/R35. 2 (PM 0.0/R21.9) and 04-SCL- 680 KP

12.2/16.0 (PM 7.6/9.9), EA 04-259-253700
S-022501a 1999 Glenn Gmoser, Jeff
Rosenthal, William
Hildebrandt, and Pat
Mikkelsen
Archaeological Survey Report,
Archaeological Survey of the I-680 Corridor between
Dublin and Milpitas in Alameda and Santa Clara
Counties for the " Sunol Grade" Southbound
Improvement Project, 04-ALA- 680 PM 0.0/21.9 and 04-
SCL-680 PM 7.6/9.9; EA 04-259-253
S-022501b 1999 Elizabeth Krase, Marianne
Hurley, and William Kostura
Historic Architecture Survey Report for the I- 680
Sunol Grade" Southbound Improvement Project in the
Cities of Pleasanton and Fremont and unincorporated
Alameda County, and in the City of Milpitas, Santa
Clara County, 04-ALA-680 KP 0.0/R35. 2 (PM

0.0/R21.

S-022501c 1999 Daniel Abeyta FHWA991122A: I-680 Sunol Grade Southbound Improvement Project, Alameda
County
S-023216 2000 William Self Associates Archaeological Survey Report, Dublin Boulevard Widening Project, Alameda
County, California
S-023230 1998 Shahira A. Ashkar Cultural Resources Inspection at the Proposed Location of a New Front Gate at
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ( letter
report)
298
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
S-023257 2000 Holly D. Knudson Review of the Proposed Nextel Communications Wireless Facility CA-2076A, West
Livermore, 6005 Scarlett Court, Dublin, Alameda
County, California ( letter report)
S-023352 1995 Allen G. Pastron Archival Literature Search and On-Site Archaeological Surface Reconnaissance of an Approximately 5 Acre
Parcel, Located off San Pablo Avenue, near Dublin and
Murphy Drives, near the City Limits of Pinole in an
Unincorporated Portion of Contra Costa County,
California
S-023378 2000 Colin I. Busby and Stuart
A. Guedon
Constraints Analysis- Proposed Improvements of the
Fallon Road/ El Charro Road Interchange, City of
Dublin/ Unincorporated Alameda County ( letter report)
S-023474 1995 Allen G. Pastron Archival Literature Review and On-Site Archaeological Surface Reconnaissance of an Approximately 30 Acre
Parcel, Located on the North Side of Dublin Boulevard,
to the West of Tassajara Road, Within the City of
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-023881 2001 Carolyn Losee Record Search for Sprint Spectrum' s Personal Communication Services ( PCS) Wireless " South Central
Dublin" Site ( Ref # SF36XC021D): No Further
Recommendations ( letter report)
S-023918 2001 Leigh Martin, Marin Pilloud,
and Kimberley Popetz
Historic Evaluation Report, Dublin Ranch West,
Alameda County, California
S-024417 2001 Colin I. Busby Historic Properties Survey Report 1-580/ Tassajara Road Interchange Modifications Project, Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, KP 27.2/29.2
PM 16.9/ 18.2) EA 25770k
S-024417a 2001 Colin I. Busby Archaeological Survey Report ( Negative), I580/Tassajara Road Interchange Modifications Project, Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County,
California
S-024417b 2000 Colin I. Busby Constraints Analysis - Proposed Improvements of the Tassajara Road
Interchange, Pleasanton/ Livermore Area, Alameda
County
S-024417c 2001 Colin I. Busby Historic Property Survey Report - Negative Findings S-024417d 2001 Colin I. Busby Archaeological Survey Report ( Negative), I580/Tassajara Road Interchange Modifications Project, Cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
S-025126 2001 Leigh Martin and William
Self
Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Proposed Sewer
Rehabilitation, Camp Parks, Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-025266 2000 Miley Holman Archival Research and Field Inspection of the Proposed Dublin Transit Center EIR Project Area, Dublin,
Alameda County, California
letter report)
S-025277 2000 Miley Holman Phase I Archaeological Study of the Bart/ Dublin/ Pleasanton Extension Mitigation Project at Camp Parks,
Alameda County Proposed Construction of Ponds B-9
and B10 (letter report)
S-025277a 2000 Knox Mellon and John
W. Randolph
USA010122K; Proposed Construction of Mitigation
Wetlands, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin,
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
S-025313a 2002 DawnLee DeYoung and
Knox Mellon
USA020415A: Re: Inventory and Evaluation of World
War II and Cold War Era Buildings, Parks Reserve
299
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, California
S-026071a 1999 Daniel Abeyta COE990927D: Re: Identification of Historic Properties at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, CA
S-026075 2002 Damon Haydu and Melinda
Button
A Cultural Resources Study of Seven
Locations Within the Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area, Dublin, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties,
California
S-026096a 1981 William Roop and Katherine
Flynn
Cultural Resources Literature Search and Field
Reconnaissance of Camps Parks, Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, California
S-026096b 1986 Structures Evaluation for National Register of Historic Places for the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California
S-026096c 1996 George C. Widdel and
Kathryn Gualtieri
COE860227A through I; Re: SPKED- D, Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area, Determinations of Eligibility
S-027387 2001 Sara E. P. Gillies A Cultural Resources Study For the Santa Rita / Dublin Site, Alameda County, California
S-027909 2004 Page and Turnbull, Inc Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project, Final Report
S-027989 2001 Basin Research Associates Archaeological Resources Assessment Report, Alameda County Juvenile Hall, City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-028003 2002 Colin I. Busby Archaeological Resources Literature Review, Juvenile Justice Facility Alternative Sites, East County
Government Center Alternative Parcel 15A Site, City of
Dublin, Alameda County, California ( letter report)
S-028645 2003 Miley Paul Holman Result of a Phase I Archaeological Study of the Tassajara Creek Fence Area West of Tassajara Road,
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-028675 2004 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological Field Inspection of the Mission Peak Property, East Dublin, Alameda County, California
letter report)
S-029041 2003 Kyle Brown, Aimee Arrigoni,
and William Self
Archaeological Assessment Report, Donlon Way Area
Specific Plan, City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-029304 2004 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological Field Survey for the 7 Acre Alternate DSRSD Location, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Dublin, Alameda
County, California ( letter report)
S-030166 1990 Frances Welling and Charles
Welling
Rasmussen Farm, Addendum to Historical
Evaluation Previously Conducted in 1985 by
California Archaeological Consultants.

S-030166a 1985 Gary F. Wirth Historic Architecture Report, Residence - 7436 San Ramon Road, Dublin
S-030248 2005 Beth A. Gordon Historic Resource Report, SNFCCA0065 / Amador Valley Road, 7557 Amador Valley
Boulevard, Dublin, Alameda County,
California.

S-030253 2005 Beth A. Gordon Historic Resource Report,
SNFCCA1891A/ Komandorski Village, AFRC FMC,
CDF
Dublin Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California.

S-030533 2000 George McHale Historical and Archaeological Review for Site Pl-383- 01, 6830 Village Parkway, Dublin, Alameda County, CA
50001- 25/00)
S-030588 2004 Basin Research Associates Cultural Resources Report in Support of Eastern Dublin Properties Resource Management Plan (RMP), City of
Dublin, Alameda County, California.
300
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
S-030607 2004 Colin I Busby Cultural Resources Assessment Report - Archaeology and Built Environment Fallon Villages ( Bankhead and
Mandeville Properties), City of Dublin, Alameda County
S-030607a 2004 Ward Hill Historic Evaluation Report Fallon Ranch S-030611 2004 Colin I Busby 1881 Collier Canyon Road, Livermore ( Collier Ranch), Eastern Dublin Properties Resource Management Plan,
Supplemental Cultural Resources Review - Built
Environment, City of Dublin, Alameda County ( APN
905-0001- 004-04) (letter report)
S-030628 2005 Robert Herrmann Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed SNFCCA0065/ Amador Valley Road Cellular Site, 7557
Amador Valley Road, Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-031643 2006 Eric Strother, James Allan,
and William Self
Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Alamo
Creek Trunk Sewer Relocation Project, Dublin, Alameda
County, California
S-032162 2005 Lorna Billat New Tower (" NT") Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, Dublin Ranch, SF-16030A
S-033429 2005 Christian Fish Draft Cultural Resource Assessment for the Camp Parks RFTA Metering Project, Contra Costa County and
Alameda Counties, California
S-033429a 2001 John W. Randolph and Knox
Mellon
USA010228B, USA010228C: Re: Proposed Demolition
of Building 1160, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Dublin, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; Re:

Demolition of
Building 341, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
S-034221 2006 Colin I. Busby Cultural Resources Assessment Vargas/ Fredrich Properties, Dublin, Alameda County
letter report)
S-034997 2008 Miley Paul Holman Cultural Resources Investigation and Native American Consultation for the Grafton Plaza Project, Dublin,
Alameda County, California
letter report)
S-034998 2008 Miley Paul Holman Cultural Resources Inspection and Native American Consultation for the Nielsen Property, Dublin, Alameda
County, California
letter report)
S-035826 2008 Brian F. Byrd Historic Property Survey Report for the I-580 Westbound High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project,
Greenville Road to San Ramon/ Foothill Roads, Alameda
County, California: 4-Ala-580, P.M. 8.29/21.43, EA
29082K
S-035854 2008 Suzanne Baker and Nina Ilic Cultural Resources Monitoring Report, Dublin Historic Park, City of Dublin, California
S-035854a 2009 Suzanne Baker Cultural Resources Monitoring Report # 2, Dublin Historic Park, City of Dublin, California
S-036316 2009 Mitch Marken Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project, Fremont, Alameda County,
California: Historic Context and Archaeological Survey
Report
S-036316a 1999 Glenn Gmoser, Jeff
Rosenthal, William
Hildebrandt, and Pat
Mikkelsen
Archaeological Survey of the I-680 Corridor between
Dublin and Milpitas in Alameda and Santa Clara
Counties for the " Sunol Grade" Southbound
Improvement Project
S-036316b 2009 Milford Wayne Donaldson
and Mitch Marken
COE090417A; San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission ( SFPUC) Water System Improvement
Program, BDPL Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault
301
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
Seismic Upgrade Project, Fremont, Alameda County,
California
S-036776 2009 Wayne Bonner and Sarah
Williams
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for T-Mobile West Corporation a Delaware
Corporation Candidae BA42651 ( Nielson Ranch), 7478
San Ramon Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-036958 2010 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for Clearwire # CASFO0487A " Schaefer Ranch Water Tank", 10001 Dublin Canyon Road, Castro Valley, Alameda County,
California 94552
S-037468 2010 Carrie D. Wills and Erin
McMurry
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for
Sprint Nextel Candidate SF74XC432A ( Tassajara
South), 6089
Madigan Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California.

Letter Report)
S-037500 2010 Carrie D. Wills Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for TMobile West Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Candidate BA22803- A (DSA Dublin High School), 8151
Village Parkway, Dublin, Alameda County, California.

Letter Report)
S-037985 2011 Paul Farnsworth Archaeological Testing Report for the Arroyo Vista Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California.

S-038860 2012 James M. Allan CEQA Cultural Resources Technical Study, Dougherty Road Improvements Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California ( letter report)
S-039062 2009 Colin I. Busby Results, Field Inventory and Mechanically Assisted Presence/ Absence Archeological Testing within CAAla-508/H, Dublin, Alameda County S-039148 2012 Neal Kaptain Historic Property Survey Report, Iron Horse Trail, City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
S-039148a 2012 Neal Kaptain Archaeological Survey Report for the Iron Horse Trail Project, Caltrans District 04, City of Pleasanton,
Alameda County, California, Federal ID No.: TGR2DGL
6075 ( 018)
S-040270 2012 Amy E. Foutch PG& E External Corrosion Direct Assessment ( ECDA) on DFM 2408- 11, Station 41+53,
Dublin California ( Letter Report)
S-040758 2012 Virginia Hagensieker and
Janine M. Loyd
A Cultural Resources Study for a Proposed Recycled
Water Expansion Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-040758a 2013 Virginia Hagensiker and
Janine M. Loyd
A Cultural Resources Study for a Proposed Recycled
Water Expansion Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California ( revised)
S-040758b 2015 Julianne Polanco BUR_2015_0615_001; National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation for the Western
Dublin Recycled Water Expansion Project, Alameda
County,
California ( 15-MPRO- 110)
S-042292 2011 Aniela Travers Cultural Resources Analysis; San Ramon Rd d& Shannon Ave/ CC120; 6501 Golden Gate Drive, Dublin,
Alameda county, CA 94568; EBI Project # 61112580
S-042632 2013 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for AT& T Mobility CCU1075 " Fallon Rd & Positano Pkwy" 4605 Lockhart
Street, Dublin, Alameda County, CA 94568 ( letter
report)
S-042775 2013 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for AT& T Mobility CNU0766 " Shannon Park" 8208 Rhoda Avenue, Dublin,
Alameda County, CA 94568( letter report)
302
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
S-042775a 2014 Carolyn Losee and Carol
Roland- Nawi
FCC_2014_0421_001, CCU0766
Pleasanton- Shannon Park 8208 Rhoda Avenue, Dublin,
Collocation
S-045735 2014 Carrie D. Wills Cultural Resources Records Search and site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate Dublin Ranch, 4605
Lockharte Street, Dublin, Alameda County, California,
EBI Project No. 61145616 ( letter report)
S-045994 2015 Justin Castells Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, for proposed New Tower Project, 5220 Fallon Road, Dublin, Alameda
County, California, CCU2048 / Tassajara ReloTEMP/PERM, EBI Project Number: 61149468 ( letter report)
S-045994a 2015 Virginia Clifton and
MacKensie Cornelius
Cultural Resources Survey, Tassajara Relo -
TEMP/ PERM / CCU2048, 5220 Fallon Road, Dublin,
Alameda County, California 94568, NE 1/4 of the SW
1/4 S27 T02S R01E, EBI
Project No. 61149468
S-046736 2014 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for AT& T CNU4975 Dougherty Road & North Avenue," 6955 Serra Court,
Dublin, Alameda County, California 94568 ( letter
report)
S-046860 2009 Miley Paul Holman Cultural Resources Study of the Dublin Ranch North Property, Alameda County, California - ( letter report) S-047534 2014 Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report, City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Project
CWSRF) No. C-06-8024-110
S-047534a 2015 Update to the Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report, Recycled Water Project
S-047534b 2015 Steve Brown, Daniel Shoup,
and Steve Kirkpatrick
Section 106 Cultural Resource Issues with City of
Pleasanton' s Recycled Water Project ( letter report)
S-047534c 2015 Carol Roland- Nawi and
Cedric Irving
EPA_2014_1212_001; Section 106 Consultation for the
Pleasanton Recycled Water Project, City of Pleasanton,
Alameda County, California
S-047983 2011 Carrie D. Wills Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment DSRSD Central Dublin Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-047983a 2012 Milford Wayne Donaldson BUR111208A; Section 106 Compliance for the Dublin San Ramon Services District ( DSRSD) Central Dublin
Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit Project in
Alameda County, California ( Project #09-CCAO- 165)
S-048110 2012 Vicki Beard Archival Search Results for the Property at 6707 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, Alameda County
S-048433 2016 Janine M. Origer Cultural Resources Study for the Dublin San Ramon Services District Regional Wastewater Facility Project, Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
S-048499 1993 Mark R. Hale Negative Archaeological Survey Report, BART Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project, East
Dublin/ Pleasanton Station, Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
S-048940 2016 Jennifer Roland Phase I Investigation for the Crown Castle Pleasanton Tower Installation Project, Pleasanton, Alameda County, California.

S-048940a 2016 Dana Whitaker Collocation (" CO") Submission Packet, FCC FORM 612, Crown Castle- Pleasanton / BU
845523- Trileaf Project #625086, 3986 Santos Ranch
Road, Pleasanton CA 94588, Alameda County, Dublin
Quadrangle ( DeLorme), Latitude: 37 39' 56.77" N.

Longitude: 121 55' 21.89" W
303
Report No. Year Author( s) Title
S-049423 2017 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigations for Trileaf 634236/ Crown Castle 830171 " NEW DUBLIN" 10001
Dublin Canyon Road, Castro Valley, Alameda County,
California 94546
letter report)
304
Appendix B
Native American Correspondence / Assembly Bill 52 Notification Letters 305
SLF& Contactsform: rev: 05/07/14
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95501
916) 373-3710
916) 373-5471 – Fax
nahc@nahc. ca.gov
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project:

County:

USGS Quadrangle
Name:

Township: Range: Section( s):

Company/ Firm/Agency:

Contact Person:

Street Address:

City: Zip:

Phone: Extension:

Fax:

Email:

Project Description:

Project Location Map is attached
mailto:nahc@n
ahc.ca.gov
306
307
308
August 2, 2018
Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
P.O. Box 360791
Milpital, CA 95036
Transmitted via [email protected]
Re: Cultural Resource Investigation for the Iron Horse Trail Phase I Project, Dublin, Alameda County, California
Dear Ms. Cambra,
On behalf of Metis Environmental, PaleoWest Archaeology (PaleoWest) is conducting a cultural resource investigation, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the proposed Iron Horse Trail Phase I Project (Project) within the city of Dublin, in Alameda County, California. The proposed Project involves development of an overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard connecting two components of the Iron Horse Trail. The Project area is located on the Dublin, Calif. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle map, within Section 3 in T3D/R1E (see attached map).

A cultural resource literature review and records search conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) housed at Sonoma State University, indicates that no less than 150 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project area; at least ten of these studies include portions or all of the Project area. The records search also indicated that no prehistoric or historical archaeological resources have been recorded within a half-mile radius of the Project area. A total of 29 historical built resources have been previously recorded within a half-mile radius of the Project area, however none of these resources are located within the Project area.

As part of the cultural resource investigation of the Project area, PaleoWest requested a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’ s (NAHC’ s) Sacred Lands File on June 15, 2018.

The NAHC responded on June 27, 2018 indicating that no Native American cultural resources were identified within the Project area. However, should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, please contact me at ( upphone 925)253-9070 or via e-mail at calonso@paleowest. com. I will contact you with a followcall or email if I do not hear from you.

Your comments are very important to us, and to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.
309
Respectfully yours,
Christina Alonso, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
PaleoWest Archaeology
310
Iron Horse Trail
Table #1. Record of Native American Contacts and Comments Native American Contact
Date of
Notification
Letter
Date of
Phone
Contact
Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
209-887-3415
canutes@verizon. net
7/12/18 7/26/18
She mentioned that the trails her tribe made were
often used as lines for the railroads. She believes
there may be sites located along the railroad. She
recommends that the project be monitored by a
Native American monitor (Northern Valley Yokut).

Please send final report with recommendations
Kathy.

Tony Cerda
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA 91766
909-524-8040 cell
909-629-6081
7/12/18 7/26/18 Mailbox is full, send follow up email.

Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan
Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
650-851-7489 (cell)
650-851-7747 (office)
amahmutsuntribal@gmail. com
7/12/18 7/26/18 No answer, left message, sent follow up email Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
831-637-4238
ams@indiancanyon. org
7/12/18 7/26/18
Spoke with Anne Marie, she is unfamiliar with the
area. As there are no recorded sites in ¼ mile she
has no knowledge of sensitivity of area.

Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay
Area
P.O. Box 360791
Milpitas, CA 95036
408-314-1898
510-581-5194
muwekma@muwekma. org
7/12/18 7/26/18 No answer, mailbox is full, sent follow up email.

Andrew Galvan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 3152
Fremont, CA 94539
510-882-0527 cell
510-687-9393 fax
chochenyo@aol. com
7/12/18 7/26/18 Sent follow up email
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
Appendix C
Survey Photographs
332
Photo 1: Overview of proposed APE where it diverts from existing trail. View toward north-northwest.

Photo 2: Overview of Chabot Canal and multiple culverts, viewing northeast.

Photo 3: Overview of Iron Horse Trail from northwest portion of APE, viewing southeast. 333
Photo 4: Overview of survey area north of Dublin Blvd, viewing northwest.

Photo 5: Detail view of surface visibility (100%) in the survey area north of Dublin Blvd.

Photo 6: View of Iron Horse Trail from across Chabot Canal, view toward southwest. 334
Photo 7: Iron Horse Trail immediately north of Dublin Boulevard, viewing northwest.

Photo 8: Overview of project area south of Dublin Boulevard, viewing southeast. 335
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-1 December 2018

APPENDIX D
DCEIR Mitigation Measures
336
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D2 December 2018 337
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-3 December 2018 Summary of DCEIR Mitigation Measures that would Apply to the Overcrossing Project The IS/ Supplemental MND identifies the specific mitigation measures established in the DCEIR that would apply to the Overcrossing Project. The rationale and conditions that would trigger implementation are described in more detail in the IS/ Supplemental MND text.

MM 3.2-1a: Implement Short- term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction 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 mph.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). 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 mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’ s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM 3.2-1b: Implement Additional Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction 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 mph.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. 338
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-4 December 2018 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes ( as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). 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 mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

Additional Short-Term Construction Best Management. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:

All excavation, grading, and/ or demolition activities shall be suspended when winds ( instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.

Wind breaks ( e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side( s) of actively disturbed areas of construction.

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.

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 one percent.

The applicant shall reduce exhaust emissions during construction and, in particular, emissions of NOx, when using construction equipment and vehicles by implementing the following measures:
o Require the use of diesel haul trucks ( e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/ export) that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions requirements
o The following note shall be included on all grading plans: During project construction, all internal combustion engines/ construction, equipment operating on the project area shall meet EPACertified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher according to the following:

January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: Off-road diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards.

Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.

Post- January 1, 2015: Off-road diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. Alternatively, construction 339
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-5 December 2018 equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o The contractor and applicant, if the applicant’ s equipment is used, shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
o Utilize existing power sources ( i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
o Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.

Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:

Architectural Coatings).

Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.

MM 3.3-2a: Conduct a Floristic Survey and Consult with CDFG and USFWS if State or Federally Listed Plants are Found and Comply with Incidental Take Permits. The project applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’ s tarplant or other species with potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance with agency protocols.

MM 3.3-3a: Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a California burrowing owls surveys and impact assessment following the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation ( CDFW 2012) or as updated at the time of the implementation of the proposed project.

MM 3.4–2: Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource( s) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064. 5(f).

MM 3.4-3: Halt Work/Paleontological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist.

MM 3.4-4: Halt Work/ Coroner’ s Evaluation/ Native American Heritage Consultant/ Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation activities, all ground- disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroner’ s Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a “ Most Likely Descendent. ( MLD).” 340
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-6 December 2018 MM 3.5-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. Future development within the project area shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that incorporates the recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical investigation by Berlogar, Stevens and Associates ( March 2012). The design level geotechnical report shall address site preparation and grading ( including measures to address potential liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with building permits applications and shall be reviewed and approved by the City.

MM 3.10-1b: Construction Routes Less Disruptive to Sensitive Receptors. Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways ( Interstate 580, Interstate 680, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and Arnold Road). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours ( 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).

MM 3.12-12: Restrict Lane Closures Along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road to Off-Peak Hours. During project construction, the lane closures along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road shall be restricted to offpeak hours to the greatest extent feasible. In addition, traffic handling plans shall be prepared for construction work in the public right-of-way in accordance with current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MUTCD) standards and guidelines. 341
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 1 of 16 ends

PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT
between

ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
and the

CITY OF DUBLIN
for the

IRON HORSE TRAIL BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD This Project Funding Agreement (“ AGREEMENT”), dated for reference purposes only as of June 17, 2019, is by and between ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a joint powers agency ALAMEDA CTC”), and the CITY OF DUBLIN, a public agency (“ PROJECT SPONSOR”).

This AGREEMENT obligates funds from one or more ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs as indicated below, and as further specified in Appendix A: Project Control Information and Appendix B:

Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT, for the PROJECT, as such term is defined in Recital K below.
2000 Measure B
2014 Measure BB
Vehicle Registration Fee
Transportation Fund for Clean Air

CMA TIP

RECITALS
A. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act, Public Utilities Code Section 131000, et seq., approved Measure B at the General Election held in November 1986, authorizing the collection of a one- half cent transaction and use tax over a fifteen ( 15)- year period to address major transportation needs and congestion in Alameda County and giving Alameda County Transportation Authority (“ ACTA”) the responsibility for the administration of the proceeds of the tax. The proceeds from the 1986 Measure B tax have been and continue to be used to pay for investments as outlined in the 1986 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“ 1986 TEP”), as it may be amended. Although collection of the 1986 Measure B tax ceased in 2002, capital projects funded wholly or in part by 1986 Measure B funds are still being delivered using these funds.

B. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, Public Utilities Code Section 180000, et seq., approved the reauthorization of Measure B at the General Election held on November 7, 2000, authorizing the collection of a one- half cent transaction and use tax to be collected for twenty ( 20) years beginning April 1, 2002 and giving Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (“ ACTIA”) responsibility for the administration of the proceeds of the tax.. The proceeds from the 2000 Measure B tax have been and continue to be used to pay for investments as outlined in the 2000 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“ 2000 TEP”), as it may be amended.

C. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to Section 65089. 20 of the Government Code, approved Measure F, the Vehicle Registration Fee (“ VRF”), authorizing Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (“ ACCMA”) to administer the proceeds from a $10 per year vehicle registration fee on 342
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 2 of 16 ends

each annual motor- vehicle registration in Alameda County, starting with registrations effective July 2011 with collection beginning in May 2011, six months following approval of Measure F. Vehicles subject to the VRF include all motorized vehicles, including passenger cars, light- duty trucks, medium- duty trucks, heavy- duty trucks, buses of all sizes, motorcycles, and motorized camper homes, unless vehicles are expressly exempted from the payment of the VRF.

D. By resolutions adopted by the ACTA and ACTIA Boards on June 24, 2010, all of ACTA’ s functions and responsibilities were assigned to, and accepted by, ACTIA. On that same date, the ACTIA and ACCMA Boards took the final actions to create ALAMEDA CTC, a joint powers authority with all responsibilities of ACTIA and ACCMA. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the ACTIA and ACCMA Boards and the Commission of ALAMEDA CTC, ACCMA and ACTIA were terminated as of the close of business on February 29, 2012, with ALAMEDA CTC designated as the successor entity. All of its predecessors’ functions and responsibilities have been assigned to, and accepted by, ALAMEDA CTC.

E. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, California Public Utilities Code Section 180000 et seq., approved Measure BB at the General Election held on November 4, 2014, authorizing the extension of an existing one-half of one percent transaction and use tax scheduled to terminate on March 31, 2022, and the augmentation of the tax by one- half of one percent, and giving ALAMEDA CTC responsibility for the administration of the proceeds of the 2014 Measure BB tax. The duration of the 2014 Measure BB tax will be 30 years from the initial year of collection, which began April 1, 2015, with said tax to terminate/ expire on March 31, 2045. The proceeds from the 2014 Measure BB will be used to pay for investments as outlined in the 2014 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“ 2014 TEP”), as it may be amended.

F. As the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (“ TFCA”) Program Manager in Alameda County, ALAMEDA CTC annually programs 40 percent of the TFCA funds collected in Alameda County. ALAMEDA CTC receives these funds from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“ BAAQMD”), and then distributes these funds on a reimbursement basis to eligible project sponsors.

G. ALAMEDA CTC is continuing the implementation of the CMA Exchange Program, originally established by the ACCMA, for the purpose of providing local or otherwise unrestricted funds to ALAMEDA CTC for use in projects and programs adopted into the CMA Transportation Improvement Program (“ CMA TIP”) by ALAMEDA CTC.

H. The funding programs administered by ALAMEDA CTC and available for projects and programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 1986 Measure B, 2000 Measure B, 2014 Measure BB, VRF, TFCA, and CMA TIP, are collectively defined as and shall be referenced herein as the “ ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS”. Requirements related to 2000 Measure B, VRF and 2014 Measure BB Direct Local Distribution (“ DLD”) funding distributed pursuant to 2000 Measure B, VRF and 2014 Measure BB Transportation Expenditure Plans are covered by separate agreements between ALAMEDA CTC and DLD recipients.

I. Measure B, Measure BB, VRF, and TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT shall be programmed, allocated, and expended for the purpose defined and in accordance with the provisions set forth in the applicable transportation expenditure plans, or the BAAQMD- approved TFCA County Program Manager Policies.
343
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 3 of 16 ends

J. ALAMEDA CTC programs and allocates ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS through the ALAMEDA CTC Comprehensive Investment Plan (“ CIP”) that is updated periodically to summarize the programming and allocations of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, and the policies, procedures and requirements related to the expenditure of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.

K. The PROJECT SPONSOR is implementing a project or program (“ PROJECT”) that is eligible for ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS. The PROJECT and the strategy to implement the PROJECT are described in greater detail in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

L. This AGREEMENT obligates funds from one or more of ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs as specified in Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement, for the PROJECT and the phase( s) described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are available to reimburse eligible costs incurred by PROJECT SPONSOR for the PROJECT and the phase( s) described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

M. The issuance of bonds or another financing mechanism are possible funding options as part of ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs to meet cash flow requirements of each individual program based on current schedule and project delivery information.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:

SECTION I
PROJECT SPONSOR AGREES:

1. PROJECT SPONSOR shall implement the PROJECT in accordance with all requirements in this AGREEMENT and the following appendices attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. a. Appendix A: Project Control Information
b. Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement c. Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements d. Appendix D: Local Business Contract Equity Program
e. Appendix E: Deliverables and Due Dates
f. Appendix F: Project Performance Measures
g. Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements

2. PROJECT SPONSOR shall perform the necessary work associated with the PROJECT required to implement PROJECT as described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

3. PROJECT SPONSOR shall inform ALAMEDA CTC in writing of any changes to the information contained in Appendix A: Project Control Information as soon as PROJECT SPONSOR becomes aware of such changes. Per Section III.2, any change that requires an amendment to this AGREEMENT must be approved by ALAMEDA CTC prior to PROJECT SPONSOR implementing the change. 344
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 4 of 16 ends

4. PROJECT SPONSOR shall commit to the timing of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS as described in Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement.

5. PROJECT SPONSOR shall expend ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS received under this AGREEMENT in accordance with all applicable provisions of law and shall return to ALAMEDA CTC all funds that are not expended in accordance with all applicable provisions of law.

6. PROJECT SPONSOR shall be responsible for costs in excess of the total funding obligations shown in Appendix A: Project Control Information. Costs in excess of the total funding obligations will not be reimbursed with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS unless this AGREEMENT is amended in writing or the parties execute a separate agreement for a subsequent phase of the PROJECT.

7. PROJECT SPONSOR shall return to ALAMEDA CTC, on a pro-rated basis, funds realized from the sale of any vehicle( s) purchased with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, if the sale of the vehicle( s) is completed prior to the last day of the last year listed as the PROJECT’ S “ Years of Effectiveness” as identified in either Appendix A: Project Control Information or Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements, as applicable. The amount of sale proceeds required to be returned to ALAMEDA CTC shall be proportional to the percentage of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS originally used to purchase the vehicle( s).

8. PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs for any local agency which receives DLD funding shall not be eligible for reimbursement of staff costs from ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS allocated to the PROJECT unless staff costs are specifically identified as eligible in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs can be included in the total cost and other funding amounts for the purpose of meeting the cost and risk sharing provisions of this AGREEMENT.

9. Fringe benefits rates applied to PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs shall not exceed a maximum rate of 70% of the hourly wage. PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs may include the individual’ s actual hourly wage plus a fringe benefit of no more than 70% of the hourly wage as approved by a cognizant agency or an independent auditor, and staff costs also may include direct costs including contracts for services, such as legal counsel, that are considered an extension of the PROJECT SPONSOR’ S staff.

10. PROJECT SPONSOR overhead, or " indirect," costs are not eligible for reimbursement from ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT, and shall not be included in the total eligible PROJECT cost calculations used to determine the ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS share of such total eligible PROJECT costs.

11. The cost of maintenance, security, or protection performed by PROJECT SPONSOR or thirdparty contractors during any temporary suspension of activities associated with the PROJECT will not be considered an eligible cost for reimbursement by ALAMEDA CTC.

12. PROJECT SPONSOR shall advertise, award and administer all professional services contracts for PROJECT work not performed by PROJECT SPONSOR.

13. PROJECT SPONSOR shall invite ALAMEDA CTC staff to participate as a voting member of PROJECT SPONSOR’ s selection panel for the selection of all professional consultants and furnish drafts of all 345
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 5 of 16 ends

professional services contracts utilizing Measure B, Measure BB, and Vehicle Registration Fee funds to ALAMEDA CTC for ALAMEDA CTC’ s review and approval prior to execution.

14. All locally funded contracts approved by PROJECT SPONSOR, funded wholly or in part with Measure B, Measure BB, and/ or Vehicle Registration Fee funds administered by ALAMEDA CTC, except for contracts that also include state and/ or federal funds or contracts funding non- capital projects ( e.g., transit operations), are required to comply with ALAMEDA CTC’ s Local Business Contract Equity ( LBCE) Program as referenced in Appendix D: Local Business Contract Equity Program. This includes the obligation to report LBE/ SLBE/ VLSBE participation with all invoices submitted for reimbursement for all contracts partially or wholly funded by ALAMEDA CTC, whether or not the contract requires LBE participation.

15. PROJECT SPONSOR shall require insurance coverage that names ALAMEDA CTC, its governing body, officers, employees and consultants as additional insureds of the PROJECT SPONSOR, professional services consultants and subconsultants, construction services contractors and subcontractors, volunteer service individuals, and any other contractors or subcontractors involved with the PROJECT on all insurance required by PROJECT SPONSOR for PROJECT. PROJECT SPONSOR shall keep and maintain insurance certificates and policy endorsements evidencing the policies on file, and furnish the same to ALAMEDA CTC upon request. ALAMEDA CTC will not be responsible for any premiums or assessments on any policy. If this AGREEMENT includes any TFCA funds, PROJECT SPONSOR shall also comply with the insurance requirements specified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements.

16. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide ALAMEDA CTC with periodic ( i.e., monthly, quarterly or semi- annually) progress reports describing the current status of the PROJECT. The required progress reporting frequency schedule and forms are provided in Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements. Progress reports are due by the last day of each calendar month following the established reporting period in which the work was performed. These reports shall include PROJECT status information such as the scope of work completed to date, total costs incurred, future actions, project performance, issues identification, changes to scope or schedule, and any additional relevant information requested by ALAMEDA CTC.

17. PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit to ALAMEDA CTC a Request for Reimbursement in accordance with the minimum required invoicing frequency established for the PROJECT, but not more than one such request per month, for reimbursement of eligible PROJECT costs and expenses incurred by PROJECT SPONSOR. The required minimum invoicing frequency and invoice forms are provided in Appendix C:

Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements. If PROJECT SPONSOR does not incur any reimbursable expenses during the minimum invoicing period, in lieu of submitting an invoice, PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit a letter or a statement as part of the required progress report for the same period confirming that no reimbursable costs were incurred during the given period. If PROJECT SPONSOR requests reimbursement for costs incurred as a result of a contract or agreement with a third party that contains a contract value of $50,000 or greater, e.g. a consultant, contractor or other entity, PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit an electronic copy of the fully executed contract or agreement to ALAMEDA CTC prior to ALAMEDA CTC authorizing reimbursement of such costs. Each Request for Reimbursement shall also include detailed supporting documentation for the total PROJECT costs with the reimbursable portion of the total costs clearly identified. Supporting documentation for the Request for Reimbursement packages 346
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 6 of 16 ends

includes copies of invoices from vendors, consultants, or contractors and summaries of eligible PROJECT SPONSOR staff time charges. PROJECT SPONSOR may suggest an alternative method, subject to approval in advance by ALAMEDA CTC, to document staff costs charged to the PROJECT.

18. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide a Parcel and Utility Agreement Tracking Log in a format approved by ALAMEDA CTC upon ALAMEDA CTC’ s request, if the PROJECT includes the acquisition of right- of-way and/ or the relocation or protection of utility facilities. PROJECT SPONSOR shall also provide a monthly update of the right- of-way acquisition plan to ALAMEDA CTC.

19. PROJECT SPONSOR shall keep all necessary PROJECT records to demonstrate compliance with this AGREEMENT, including documentation of activities, performance, progress reports, final report, expenses and charges to support invoices submitted to ALAMEDA CTC and other PROJECT reporting requirements as described in Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements in one central location for a period of not less than five (5) years after the later of (i) ALAMEDA CTC’ s payment of the final invoice, ( ii) the PROJECT SPONSOR’ S submittal of the Final Report for ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS under this AGREEMENT, and (iii) the end of the PROJECT’ S established “ Years of Effectiveness” period ( as identified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements) if any TFCA funds are provided under this AGREEMENT. a. PROJECT SPONSOR and PROJECT SPONSOR’ s contractors and subcontractors shall each maintain and make available for inspection and audit all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. b. PROJECT SPONSOR shall allow ALAMEDA CTC or its authorized representatives to inspect, audit, or make copies of any PROJECT records for a period of five (5) years after ALAMEDA CTC’ s payment of the final invoice and the PROJECT SPONSOR’ S submittal of the Final Report. The same access also shall be granted to BAAQMD or its authorized representatives for TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT.

20. PROJECT SPONSOR shall comply with all of the following publicity requirements to inform the public on the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS on the PROJECT. a. PROJECT SPONSOR shall credit ALAMEDA CTC as a funding source and display the approved ALAMEDA CTC logo, where practical, on construction informational signs, vehicles or equipment operated or obtained as part of the PROJECT, and on any publically distributed information ( e.g., fact sheets, flyers, brochures, maps, schedules, websites, press releases), created for or associated with the PROJECT. For TFCA funding obligated through this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also credit the BAAQMD as a funding source and display the BAAQMD- approved TFCA logo.
b. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide updated and accurate PROJECT information on the PROJECT SPONSOR’ s website, or create such a website if none exists, and provide a link to ALAMEDA CTC website.
c. PROJECT SPONSOR shall publish an article in a printed or electronically distributed publication such as a newsletter, local newspaper, e-publications, or website highlighting the 347
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 7 of 16 ends

PROJECT and the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS at least once per fiscal year.

For TFCA funding obligated through this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also credit the BAAQMD as a funding source.
d. PROJECT SPONSOR shall document compliance with the publicity requirements and furnish such documentation upon request, and regularly through the progress and final reporting required by this AGREEMENT, through evidence such as photos of construction and vehicle signage, copies of print, electronic and other media published to satisfy this requirement.

For TFCA funding obligated through this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also document that the BAAQMD was credited as a funding source and the BAAQMD- approved TFCA logos were displayed.
e. PROJECT SPONSOR shall notify ALAMEDA CTC and request an exemption as soon as it is reasonably known that the PROJECT SPONSOR is unable to fulfill the requirements under this Section I.20 due to extraordinary circumstances.

21. PROJECT SPONSOR shall, to the extent not otherwise prohibited by law, and to the extent required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code section 6250 et seq.), place in the public domain any software, written document, or other product developed with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS received through this AGREEMENT.

22. PROJECT SPONSOR shall participate, upon the request of ALAMEDA CTC, in a Public Awareness Program in partnership with ALAMEDA CTC and/ or its community advisory committees as a means of informing the public of the benefits derived from the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.

23. PROJECT SPONSOR shall obtain all state, local and federal permits and approvals for work, including environmental approvals in accordance with the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as applicable. PROJECT SPONSOR will comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

24. PROJECT SPONSOR shall render a report or answer any and all inquiries, upon ALAMEDA CTC’ s request, in regards to its receipt of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, compliance audit findings, and usage of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS before the ALAMEDA CTC Commission, Independent Watchdog Committee, and/ or community advisory committees, as applicable.

25. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, a PROJECT SPONSOR who has failed a BAAQMD financial or performance audit for the PROJECT will be excluded from receiving an award of any TFCA funds for five ( 5) years from the date of BAAQMD’ s final audit determination. Existing TFCA funds already awarded to the SPONSOR will not be released until all audit recommendations and remedies have been satisfactorily implemented. A failed BAAQMD financial audit means a final audit report that includes an uncorrected audit finding that confirms an ineligible expenditure of TFCA funds. A failed BAAQMD performance audit means that the PROJECT was not implemented in accordance with the AGREEMENT.

SPONSOR shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to address/ cure adverse audit findings.

26. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall return to ALAMEDA CTC, on a pro-rated basis, TFCA funds received under this Agreement if PROJECT is not 348
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19- 0064
Project No. 1481001

Page 8 of 16 ends

Dublin City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Dublin City Council
March 1, 2022