Emeryville City Council
January 18, 2022

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE (ROUTE 13)
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT –
(Ashby Avenue [SR-13]-Shellmound Street)

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Interstate 80 and State Route 13
04-ALA-80 PM 3.9/5.0
04-ALA-13 PM 13.7/13.9
EA 04-25620 / Project ID 04-1800-0225
Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by:

State of California, Department of Transportation
and the
Alameda County Transportation Commission
The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016, and executed by FHWA and Caltrans.

December 2021
This page intentionally left blank.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
WHAT’S IN THIS DOCUMENT:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and in partnership with the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), has prepared this Initial Study with proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Environmental Assessment (IS/EA). This IS/EA examines the potential environmental impacts of alternatives being considered for the project, which is in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley in Alameda County. Caltrans is the lead agency for preparing the environmental document in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This document tells you why the project is being proposed; the alternatives considered; the potential environmental impacts of each of the alternatives, and proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to lessen the environmental impacts of the Build Alternative WHAT YOU SHOULD DO:
▪ Please read this document.
▪ The Public is encouraged to attend the public open forum hearing or view the document online:
▪ View the document online at: https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4- popular-links/d4-environmental-docs or
https://www.alamedactc.org/programs-projects/highway-improvement/i-80- ashby-avenue-sr-13-interchange-improvements/
▪ Email the project team with comments at: [email protected] ▪ For more information, visit the project website at:
https://www.alamedactc.org/programs-projects/
▪ Send comments via postal mail to:

Caltrans, District 4
Office of Environmental Analysis
ATTN: Wahida Rashid
P.O. Box 23660, MS: 8B
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
▪ Send comments via email to [email protected]
▪ Leave comments via voice message at: 510-800-8924
▪ Be sure to send comments by the deadline: January 31, 2022 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, Caltrans may:
(1) give environmental approval to the proposed project, (2) do additional environmental studies, or (3) abandon the project. If the project is given environmental approval and funding is obtained, Caltrans and Alameda CTC could design and construct all or part of the project.

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please write to Caltrans, ATTN: Wahida Rashid, P.O. Box 23660, MS:
8B, Oakland, CA 94612; or call the California Relay Service TTY number 711. 04-ALA-80 PM 3.9/5.0
04-ALA-13 PM 13.7/13.9
EA 04-25620; Project ID# 0418000225
Interchange and Local Road Improvements along Interstate (I)-80, at the Ashby Avenue Interchange in Emeryville and Berkeley, in Alameda County Initial Study with Proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, California Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 USC 4332(2)(C)

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
and Alameda County Transportation Commission
Responsible Agencies:

City of Emeryville
City of Berkeley
Date of Approval Dina A. El-Tawansy
District 4 Director
California Department of Transportation
NEPA/CEQA Lead Agency
The following persons may be contacted for more information about this document:

California Department of Transportation
Attn: Wahida Rashid
P.O. Box 23660, MS: 8B
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Attn: Kanda Raj
1111 Broadway #800
Oakland, CA 94607
12/14/2021

________________________________ _______________________ Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code
Project Description
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4, in partnership with the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), proposes to provide interchange and local road improvements along Interstate 80 (I-80) at the Ashby Avenue Interchange (interchange). The interchange is located between post miles (PM) 3.9 and

5.0 on I-80 and between 13.7 and 13.9 on State Route (SR) 13 in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley in Alameda County. The proposed project would replace the existing elevated interchange connector ramps with a new bridge over I-80, realign access to West Frontage Road, and introduce a new bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and connection from 65th Street/Shellmound Street to the San Francisco Bay Trail.

Determination
This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is Caltrans’ intent to adopt an MND for this project. This does not mean that Caltrans’ decision regarding the project is final. This MND is subject to change based on comments received by interested agencies and the public.

Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and pending public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
• The proposed project would have no impact on farmlands/timberlands, growth, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. • In addition, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on land use, communities, noise, and utilities and system services. • With avoidance and minimization measures incorporated, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on visual resources and aesthetics, cultural and tribal cultural resources, air quality, hydrology and floodplains, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and traffic and transportation.
• With mitigation measures incorporated, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to aquatic resources.

Dina A. El-Tawansy
District 4 Director
California Department of Transportation
Date
Table of Contents
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................S-1

1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT .....................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Background.....................................................................................................1-3

1.3 Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................1-3

1.3.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................1-3

1.3.2 Need.........................................................................................................1-4

1.3.3 Funding...................................................................................................1-10

1.3.4 Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages ......................................1-10

1.3.5 Air Quality Improvements .......................................................................1-11

1.3.6 Independent Utility and Logical Termini..................................................1-12

1.4 Project Description ........................................................................................1-13

1.5 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................1-15

1.5.1 Proposed Build Alternative .....................................................................1-15

1.5.2 No Build (No Action) Alternative .............................................................1-41

1.5.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Discussion...........1-41

1.6 Permits and Approvals Needed.....................................................................1-58

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENIVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES...........................2-1

2.1 Human Environment ....................................................................................2.1-1

2.1.1 Existing and Future Land Use ...............................................................2.1-1

2.1.2 Consistency with Regional and Local Plans and Programs...................2.1-6

2.1.3 Coastal Zone .......................................................................................2.1-13

2.1.4 Parks and Recreational Facilities ........................................................2.1-17

2.1.5 Community Character and Cohesion...................................................2.1-23

2.1.6 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition..........................................2.1-28

2.1.7 Environmental Justice..........................................................................2.1-29

2.1.8 Utilities and Emergency Services ........................................................2.1-37

2.1.9 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...............2.1-40

2.1.10 Visual/Aesthetics ..............................................................................2.1-54

2.1.11 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources...........................2.1-88

2.2 Physical Environment...................................................................................2.2-1

2.2.1 Hydrology and Floodplain......................................................................2.2-1

2.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff ...............................................2.2-11

2.2.3 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography.....................................................2.2-23

2.2.4 Paleontology........................................................................................2.2-29

2.2.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials.................................................................2.2-35

2.2.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................2.2-46

2.2.7 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................2.2-62

2.2.8 Energy .................................................................................................2.2-83

2.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................2.3-1

2.3.1 Natural Communities .............................................................................2.3-1

2.3.2 Wetlands and Other Waters ..................................................................2.3-8

2.3.3 Plant Species.......................................................................................2.3-17

2.3.4 Animal Species....................................................................................2.3-18

2.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................2.3-23

2.3.6 Invasive Species..................................................................................2.3-29

3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION......3.1-1

3.1 Determining Significance under CEQA ........................................................3.1-1

3.2 CEQA Environmental Checklist....................................................................3.2-2

3.2.1 Aesthetics ..............................................................................................3.2-2

3.2.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources .........................................................3.2-6

3.2.3 Air Quality ..............................................................................................3.2-9

3.2.4 Biological Resources ...........................................................................3.2-11

3.2.5 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................3.2-16

3.2.6 Energy .................................................................................................3.2-18

3.2.7 Geology and soils ................................................................................3.2-19

3.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................3.2-23

3.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................3.2-24

3.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................3.2-28

3.2.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................3.2-34

3.2.12 Mineral Resources ...........................................................................3.2-35

3.2.13 Noise ................................................................................................3.2-36

3.2.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................3.2-39

3.2.15 Public Services.................................................................................3.2-40

3.2.16 Recreation........................................................................................3.2-42

3.2.17 Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................3.2-43

3.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................3.2-45

3.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...........................................................3.2-47

3.2.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................3.2-50

3.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................3.2-52

3.3 Climate Change .........................................................................................3.3-54

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ...............................................................................3.3-54

3.3.2 Affected Environment ..........................................................................3.3-60

3.3.3 Project Analysis ...................................................................................3.3-62

3.3.4 Operational Emissions.........................................................................3.3-63

3.3.5 Construction Emissions .......................................................................3.3-63

3.3.6 CEQA Conclusion................................................................................3.3-64

3.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies ...............................................3.3-64

3.3.8 Adaptation ...........................................................................................3.3-70

4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................................................4-1

4.1 Early Coordination and Consultation...............................................................4-1

4.1.1 Public Participation ...................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Native American Consultation ..................................................................4-6

4.1.3 Consultation and Coordination with Public Agencies................................4-7

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................................................................5-1

6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST..........................................................................................6-1 Appendices
Appendix A Section 4(f) Resource Evaluation
Appendix B Title VI Policy Statement
Appendix C Environmental Commitment Record (ECR)
Appendix D Species List
List of Figures
Figure 1.1-1 Regional Location and Project Location ................................................1-2 Figure 1.3-1 Project Connection to Existing and Planned Networks..........................1-9 Figure 1.4-1 Environmental Study Limit...................................................................1-14 Figure 1.5-1 Build Alternative ..................................................................................1-17 Figure 1.5-2 BPOC Variations .................................................................................1-22 Figure 1.5-3 Ashby Staging Concept Plans (1 of 6).................................................1-24 Figure 1.5-4 Ashby Staging Concept Plans (2 of 6).................................................1-25 Figure 1.5-5 Ashby Staging Concept Plans (3 of 6).................................................1-26 Figure 1.5-6 Ashby Staging Concept Plans (4 of 6).................................................1-27 Figure 1.5-7 Ashby Staging Concept Plans (5 of 6).................................................1-28 Figure 1.5-8 Ashby Staging Concept Plans (6 of 6).................................................1-29 Figure 1.5-9 Preliminary Detour Concept (1 of 3)....................................................1-32 Figure 1.5-10 Preliminary Detour Concept (2 of 3).................................................1-33 Figure 1.5-11 Preliminary Detour Concept (3 of 3).................................................1-34 Figure 1.5-12 Diverging Diamond Alternative.........................................................1-44 Figure 1.5-13 Single Point Diamond Alternative.....................................................1-44 Figure 1.5-14 1999 PSR Alternative 2....................................................................1-45 Figure 1.5-15 1995 PSR Alternative 3....................................................................1-46 Figure 1.5-16 2006 Roundabout Alternative/Signal Only Roundabout Alternative .1-47 Figure 1.5-17 Signal as Roundabout Alternative....................................................1-48 Figure 1.5-18 Roundabout Option A.......................................................................1-50 Figure 1.5-19 Roundabout Option B.......................................................................1-50 Figure 1.5-20 S-Curve Ramp Option......................................................................1-51 Figure 1.5-21 Loop Ramp Option...........................................................................1-52 Figure 1.5-22 Extended Loop Ramp ......................................................................1-52 Figure 1.5-23 Zero Conflict Option A......................................................................1-53 Figure 1.5-24 Zero Conflict Option B......................................................................1-54 Figure 1.5-25 Truss Design Option ........................................................................1-55 Figure 1.5-26 BPOC Alternative 2E........................................................................1-56 Figure 1.5-27 BPOC Alternative 1D .......................................................................1-57 Figure 1.5-28 BPOC Alternative 1E........................................................................1-57 Figure 2.1-1 Berkeley Land Use Map........................................................................2.1-3 Figure 2.1-2 Emeryville Land Use Map .....................................................................2.1-4 Figure 2.1-4 Low-Income Population.......................................................................2.1-34 Figure 2.1-5 Preliminary Detour Concept................................................................2.1-53 Figure 2.1-6 Visual Study Area ...............................................................................2.1-55 Figure 2.1-7 Visual Assessment Unit Map ..............................................................2.1-60 Figure 2.1-8: KVP 1.1(Existing Conditions).............................................................2.1-63 Figure 2.1-9: KVP 1.1 (Simulation)..........................................................................2.1-64 Figure 2.1-10: KVP 1.2 (Existing Conditions)..........................................................2.1-66 Figure 2.1-11: KVP 1.2 (Simulation)........................................................................2.1-66 Figure 2.1-12: KVP 2.1 (Existing Conditions)..........................................................2.1-68 Figure 2.1-13: KVP 2.1 (Simulation)........................................................................2.1-69 Figure 2.1-14: KVP 2.2(Existing Conditions)...........................................................2.1-71 Figure 2.1-15: KVP 2.2 (Simulation)........................................................................2.1-71 Figure 2.1-16: KVP 2.3 (Existing Conditions)..........................................................2.1-73 Figure 2.1-17: KVP 2.3 (Simulation)........................................................................2.1-74 Figure 2.1-18: KVP 2.4(Existing Conditions)...........................................................2.1-76 Figure 2.1-19: KVP 2.4(Simulation).........................................................................2.1-76 Figure 2.1-20: KVP 3.1 (Existing Conditions)..........................................................2.1-78 Figure 2.1-21: KVP 3.1 (Simulation)........................................................................2.1-79 Figure 2.1-22: KVP 3.2 (Existing Conditions)..........................................................2.1-81 Figure 2.1-23: KVP 3.2 (Simulation)........................................................................2.1-81 Figure 2.1-24: KVP 3.3 (Existing Conditions) ..........................................................2.1-83 Figure 2.1-25: KVP 3.3 (Simulation)........................................................................2.1-83 Figure 2.2-1 Watershed Map..................................................................................2.2-5 Figure 2.2-2 Flood Insurance Rate Map .................................................................2.2-6 Figure 2.2-3 Geologic Map ................................................................................... 2.2-32 Figure 2.2-4 Hazardous Material Sites of Concern...............................................2.2-38 Figure 2.2-2 NOx Emissions Based on Vehicle Speed .........................................2.2-56 Figure 2.2-3 Noise Levels of Common Activities ..................................................2.2-64 Figure 2.2-4 Noise Analysis Sub-Areas................................................................2.2-68 Figure 2.2-5 Sound Walls Under Consideration ...................................................2.2-75 Figure 2.3-1 Biological Study Area (BSA)...............................................................2.3-3 Figure 2.3-2 Wetlands and Other Waters Within the BSA (1 of 2)........................ 2.3-12 Figure 2.3-3 Wetland and Other Waters Within the BSA (2 of 2)..........................2.3-13 Figure 3.3-1 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition....3.3-62

......

Figure 3.3-2 The Governor’s Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals..................................................................................................3.3-65 List of Tables
Table S-1 Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project........................S-3 Table 1.3-1 Summary of Collision Data and Rates for I-80 Mainline (1/1/2017 – 12/31/2019).............................................................................................1-6 Table 1.3-2 Summary of Collision Data and Rates for I-80 at Ashby Avenue (1/1/2017 – 12/31/2019) 1-7
............
.............................................................................................

Table 1.5-2 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Design Options Comparison..............1-21 Table 1.5-3 Project Features.....................................................................................1-35 Table 1.5-3 Summary of Eliminated Alternatives ......................................................1-42 Table 1.6-1 Permits and Approvals Needed ..............................................................1-58 Topics Considered But Determined Not to be Relevant............................2-1 Table 2.1-1 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs ........2.1-8 Table 2.1-2 Parks and Recreational Facilities .........................................................2.1-18 Table 2.1-3 Ethnic and Race Composition of the Study Area .................................2.1-32 Table 2.1-4 Household Income and Poverty ...........................................................2.1-33 Table 2.1-5 Public Utility Providers Serving Emeryville and Berkeley .....................2.1-37 Table 2.1-6 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations .....................2.1-44 Table 2.1-7 2025 AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations.......................................2.1-46 Table 2.1-8 2025 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations.......................................2.1-47 Table 2.1-9 2045 AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations.......................................2.1-48 Table 2.1-10 2045 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations.....................................2.1-49 Table 2.1-11 Visual Impact Summary .....................................................................2.1-84 Table 2.2-1 Existing and Proposed Impervious Surface Area ................................. .........................................................................................................

2.2-18
..................................................................................................

Table 2.2-2 Paleontological Sensitivities for Geological Units within Project Area

2.2-31
Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Attainment Status in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 2.2-53
Table 2.2-4 Operational Ozone Precursors Emissions (Pounds per Day)...............2.2-57 Table 2.2-5 Operational MSAT Emissions (grams per day) .................................... .........................................................................................................

2.2-58
Table 2.2-6 Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Average Pounds per Day)

2.2-60
Table 2.2-7 Noise Abatement Criteria 2.2-63
Table 2.2-8 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels 2.2-66
Table 2.2-9 Short-term and Long-term Noise Measurements 2.2-72 ...................................................................................................

Table 2.2-10 Modeled Results for 2045 Design Year – Comparison of Existing to Year 2045 2.2-74
Table 2.2-11 Summary of Barriers Considered and Recommendations 2.2-76 ..................................................................... ......................................................... .................................
..................

Table 2.2-12 Construction Equipment Noise ...........................................................2.2-77 Table 2.2-13 Estimated Daytime Construction Noise Levels at Closest Receptors........... ......................................................................................................2.2-78 Table 2.2-14 Typical Construction Noise at 100 Feet Distance by Phase ...............2.2-81 Table 2.3-1 Temporary and Permanent Impacts for Non-Critical Habitat Types within the BSA......................................................................................................2.3-6 Table 2.3-2 Summary of Aquatic Resources Impacts..............................................2.3-15 Table 2.3-3 Federally Listed Species ......................................................................2.3-25 Table 2.3-4 State Listed Species.............................................................................2.3-27 Table 2.3-5 Invasive Species Observed in the BSA ................................................2.3-30 Table 3.2-1 Operational CO2 Emissions..................................................................3.2-24 Table 3.2-2 2025 and 2045 VMT.............................................................................3.2-44 This page intentionally left blank.

SUMMARY
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley, proposes to provide interchange and local road improvements along Interstate 80 (I-80) between post mile (PM) 3.9 and 5.0 and on Ashby Avenue (Route 13) between PMs 13.7 and 13.9 (see Figure 1.4-1 in Section 1.0). The I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvement Project (proposed project) would replace the existing elevated interchange connector ramps with a new bridge over I-80, realign access to West Frontage Road, and introduce a new bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and connection from 65th Street/Shellmound Street to the San Francisco Bay Trail. The proposed project would improve traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle operations in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley.

Alameda CTC is the project sponsor, and Caltrans is the lead agency for the proposed project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) participated in the “Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program” (Pilot Program) pursuant to 23 USC 327, for more than five years, beginning July 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2012. MAP21 (P.L. 112-141), signed by President Obama on July 6, 2012, amended 23 USC 327 to establish a permanent Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program. As a result, Caltrans entered a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to (MOU) 23 USC 327 (NEPA Assignment MOU) with FHWA. The NEPA Assignment MOU became effective October 1, 2012, and was renewed on December 23, 2016, for a term of five years. In summary, Caltrans continues to assume FHWA responsibilities under NEPA and other federal environmental laws in the same manner as was assigned under the Pilot Program, with minor changes. With NEPA Assignment, FHWA assigned, and Caltrans assumed all the United States Department of Transportation Secretary's responsibilities under NEPA. This assignment includes projects on the State Highway System (SHS) and Local Assistance Projects off of the SHS within the State of California, except for certain categorical exclusions that FHWA assigned to the Department under the 23 USC 326 CE Assignment MOU, projects excluded by definition, and specific project exclusions.

The purpose of the proposed project is to:
▪ Improve interchange access and circulation
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-1

SUMMARY
▪ Provide a westbound I-80 connection to Shellmound Street ▪ Provide safe bicycle and pedestrian connectivity across I-80 ▪ Improve circulation at I-80/Powell Street and 7th Street ▪ Alleviate local surface street congestion
The interchange, constructed in the 1950s, does not provide access to or from westbound I-80 or Shellmound Street in the City of Emeryville. Additionally, the area including the interchange lacks connectivity for different modes of transportation (e.g., vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian users). For these reasons, the interchange suffers from the following key operational issues:
▪ The existing interchange provides no access to Shellmound Street to/from westbound I 80 and no access from Shellmound Street to Frontage Road ▪ Access from westbound traffic to Emeryville is forced to use the Powell Street interchange
▪ There is no direct pedestrian and bicyclist access to the San Francisco Bay Trail from 65th Street/Shellmound Street area
The proposed project would alleviate congestion, improve multi-modal access, and support implementation of local and regional land use and transportation plans.

Two alternatives are currently under consideration. The alternatives are the “Build Alternative” and the “No Build Alternative.” The Build Alternative would replace the existing elevated interchange connector ramps with a new bridge over I-80, realign West Frontage Road, and introduce a new bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing connection from 65th Street/Shellmound Street to the San Francisco Bay Trail.

Under the No Build Alternative, none of the improvements included under the proposed project would occur. The No Build Alternative is considered the environmental baseline against which potential environmental effects of the Build Alternative are evaluated.

Table S-1 summarizes the adverse effects of the Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative. The proposed avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the effects of the Build Alternative are also presented. For a complete description of potential adverse effects and recommended measures, refer to the specific sections within Chapter 2.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-2

SUMMARY
Table S-1 Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project Affected Resource Potential Effect
No Build Alternative Build Alternative
Avoidance, Minimization and
or Mitigation Measures
Land Use (2.1.1) None Temporary intersection
closures and construction
staging areas may cause
traffic inconveniences to
surrounding businesses.

None
Consistency with Regional
and Local Plans and
Programs (2.1.2)
The No Build Alternative
would not support the
implementation of local and
regional plans related to
transportation and
bicycle/pedestrian
connectivity improvements.

The Build Alternative would
support implementation of
the Regional Transportation
Plan, Plan Bay Area, and
local general plans that call
for transportation and
bicycle/pedestrian
connectivity improvements.

None
Coastal Zone (2.1.3) None There would be no
permanent effect on
resources, views, or access
to the San Francisco Bay. A
temporary detour around the
construction area would be
constructed to ensure
continuous public access and
function of the San Francisco
Bay Trail.

AMM TRA-1: (Public Access to
the San Francisco Bay Trail)
During construction of the new
outfall area, a temporary detour
around the construction area will
be installed to ensure continuous
access to the San Francisco Bay
Trail is maintained.

Parks and Recreation
Facilities (2.1.4)
None The proposed project would
not require permanent
acquisition of parks or
recreational facilities.

Temporary construction
effects would be minimized
through the incorporation of
AMMs TRA-1 through TRA-5:

Impacts to traffic would be
minimized by planning
construction activities that require
road closure and detours during
nighttime hours, installing
temporary access ramps, and
informing the public well in
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-3

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative standard Caltrans BMPs into
the proposed project.
advance of any anticipated road
closures and detours.

Community Impacts, including
Community Character and
Cohesion Relocations and
(2.1.5)
None The proposed project would
not negatively affect the
cohesion of existing
communities surrounding the
project area. The proposed
project would not change the
character of the area, as it is
located in a mostly urbanized
area that supports a I-80 and
associated facilities.

AMMs TRA-1 through TRA-5:

Impacts on access to nearby
homes and businesses would be
minimized by planning
construction activities that require
road closure and detours during
nighttime hours, installing
temporary access ramps, and
informing the public well in
advance of any anticipated road
closures and detours.

Real Property Acquisitions
(2.1.6)
None Relocation of homes and/or
businesses would not be
required. Partial acquisitions
(“sliver takes”) would be
required near the KRE Radio
Station building. Operations
and use of the KRE Radio
Station would not be
affected.

None
Environmental Justice (2.1.7) None No disproportionately high adverse effects on any
minority or low-income
populations in accordance
with the provisions of EO
12898.

None
Utilities/Emergency Services
(2.1.8)
None Early coordination with utility
providers, removal or
relocation of existing electric
transmission lines and lights
would minimize utility
AMM UTL-1: Detailed utility
coordination and verification will be
required during the final design
phase of the proposed project to
facilitate relocation of utilities.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-4

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative disruptions during
construction. Short-term
effects to police, fire, and
emergency services during
construction would occur but
effects would be reduced
with incorporation of AMMs.

AMM UTL-2: Emergency service
providers will be notified prior to
construction of any temporary road
closures and/or detours as part of
the TMP.

Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities (2.1.9)
None Temporary road closures and
detours would be required.

AMMs TRA-1 through TRA-5
would be implemented for
any anticipated road closures
and traffic detours.

AMMs TRA-1 through TRA-5:

Impacts to traffic would be
minimized by planning
construction activities that require
road closure and detours during
nighttime hours, installing
temporary access ramps, and
informing the public well in
advance of any anticipated road
closures and detours.

Visual/
Aesthetics (2.1.10)
None Changes to the visual
environment would be
noticeable, but would not
substantially alter scenic
vistas, scenic resources, or
degrade the existing
character and quality of the
project area. The backdrop of
the existing visual setting
would continue to be the
existing I-80 corridor.

The overall visual impact
under the Build Alternative
would be moderate.

AMM VIS-1: To avoid the
inadvertent creation of areas that
appeal to human usage (e.g., open
areas under bridge structures and
isolated vacant lots), the final
design will include measures to
discourage the creation of
encampments.

AMM VIS-2: To reduce the visual
impact of new retaining walls and
bridge structures, aesthetic
treatments consisting of color,
texture and/or patterning will be
applied to reduce visual impacts.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-5

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative AMM VIS-3: Caltrans will use
additional standard construction
equipment and protocol for the
Build Alternative, such as
replacement of damaged or
removed vegetation and irrigation
systems and providing highway
planting.

Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources (2.1.11)
None No known cultural or tribal
cultural resources are
present within the project
area of potential effects
(APE). Standard project
features would ensure that
any unrecorded resources
are protected.

None
Hydrology and Floodplain
(2.2.1)
None Drainage improvements and
construction of a new outfall,
in conjunction with
stormwater best
management practices
(BMPs) application, would
help minimize impacts due to
surface runoff and/or sea
level rise. The proposed
project would not cause a
significant or longitudinal
encroachment on any
floodplain.

None
Water Quality and Storm
Water Run-Off (2.2.2)
None Temporary effects related to
stormwater runoff during
construction would be minor
and would be minimized
AMM WQ-1: Pursuant to the
Construction General Permit, a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program would be developed..

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-6

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative through the implementation
of best management
practices (BMPs).

Operational effects would be
minimized. Project features
would serve to reduce
pollutants, in particular the
release of gross solids. The
proposed project would not
significantly affect water
quality.

AMM WQ-2: Design pollution
prevention BMPs would be
employed to minimize
hydromodification impacts.

AMM WQ-3: Treatment BMPs.

Post-construction treatment BMPs
shall be required to ensure the
proposed project does not
increase stormwater volumes in
existing stormwater conveyance
channels.

AMM WQ-4: Work within the San
Francisco Bay will be limited to the
smallest area possible. A
cofferdam spanning planned inwater work areas will be
implemented to avoid water quality
impacts and potential impacts to
aquatic wildlife habitat.

AMM WQ-5: Implementation of
standard operations and
maintenance BMPs to prevent
pollutants from being discharged
to surface waters.

Geology/ Soils/ Seismic/
Topography (2.2.3)
None Temporary effects associated
with soil erosion and
construction worker risk from
seismicity minimized through
the application of PF-GEO-1,
GEO-2, GEO-3, and AMMWQ-1 and WQ-2 measures.

Operational risks from
None
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-7

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative expansive soils, corrosive
soils, erosion, and seismicity
would similarly be avoided or
minimized through
implementation of project
features.

Paleontology (2.2.4) None Construction activities may
encounter paleontologically
sensitive Pleistocene
deposits. No adverse effects
are anticipated with
implementation of a
Paleontological Mitigation
Plan (PMP).

AMM PAL-1: Prior to construction,
a PMP shall be drafted and would
include provisions for periodic spot
checks to check for the presence
of unanticipated paleontological
resources during deeper
excavations.

Hazardous Waste/ Materials
(2.2.5)
None There are several potential
hazardous materials sites
near the project area. There
is risk of encountering
contaminated groundwater
associated with these sites
during project construction.

Soil in and around the project
area may contain naturally
occurring asbestos, aerially
deposited lead (ADL),
pesticides from previous
agricultural land uses and
other heavy metals. Standard
measures will be applied to
minimize these risks.

AMM HAZ-1: During the design
phase, a Preliminary Site
Investigation (PSI) of the project
area shall be performed to
investigate hazardous materials
concerns related to soil,
groundwater, and construction
materials identified in the Phase I
ISA. professional.

AMM HAZ-2: At a minimum,
groundwater from dewatering of
excavations, if any, would be
stored in Baker tank(s) during
construction activities and the
water would be characterized prior
to disposal or recycling.

AMM HAZ-3: In accordance with
Caltrans’ standards, a site safety
plan shall be prepared and
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-8

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative implemented prior to initiation of
any construction/development
activities to reduce health and
safety hazards to workers and the
public.

AMM HAZ-4: Hazardous building
materials surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified
professional.

AMM HAZ-5: Yellow thermoplastic
and yellow paint striping and
markings on existing roadways
shall be analyzed for lead
chromate prior to disturbance or
removal in accordance with
Chapter 7 of Caltrans’
Construction Manual.

AMM HAZ-6: Asphalt-concrete
and Portland-cement concrete
grindings shall be reused in
accordance with San Francisco
Bay RWQCB guidelines for
Caltrans’ projects or transported
offsite for recycling or disposal.

Air Quality (2.2.6) None Criteria air pollutant
emissions during
construction would be below
applicable thresholds and
would be in conformity with
state and federal air quality
standards. Operation of the
proposed project would be in
conformity on a regional and
None
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-9

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative project level. Operational
criteria air pollutants would
be below applicable
thresholds.

Noise (2.2.7) None Construction activities
associated with the proposed
project would be relatively
short in duration and intensity
and would potentially result in
temporary increases in noise
levels. Construction noise
levels would be reduced
through the application of
Project Features PF NOI-1
through PF NOI-6. There
would be no substantial
increase in permanent noise
levels over the future No
Build Alternative conditions.

None
Energy (2.2.8) None The proposed project would
improve traffic flow during
peak travel times, thereby
reducing overall energy
consumption in the form of
gasoline.

None
Natural Communities (2.3.1) None No impacts to sensitive natural communities would
occur within the project
footprint. The proposed
project would require removal
of 149 trees.

AMM BIO-1: Removed or
damaged trees will be replaced
within the existing interchange.

Trees will be replaced at a 1:1
ratio with native trees and will be
irrigated for up to five years.

Wetlands and other Waters
(2.3.2)
None The proposed project would
require fill within 0.012 acre
AMM BIO-3: Limits in-water work
area to smallest area possible.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-10

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative of wetlands within USACE’s
jurisdiction and 0.007 acre of
permanent impact to USACE
jurisdictional non-wetland
waters in the San Francisco
Bay.

Compensatory Mitigation
Measure BIO-1: Caltrans will
provide compensatory mitigation to
offset the unavoidable loss of
aquatic resources at the new
outfall within the biological study
area (BSA). Compensatory
mitigation would occur at a
minimum 1:1 in accordance with
regulatory permit requirements.

Plant Species (2.3.3) None No special-status plant
species were observed within
the biological study area and
no suitable habitat exists.

None
Animal Species (2.3.4) None Active nests of Cooper’s
Hawk (Accipiter cooperii),
great egret (Ardea alba), and
great blue heron (Ardea
herdias) and nesting birds
protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act could be
indirectly affected by project
construction noise.

AMM BIO-3: Caltrans would avoid
initiating vegetation clearing,
ground-disturbance and other
construction activities during the
nesting bird season (February 1 to
September 30) to the extent
feasible.

AMM BIO-5: A cofferdam would
be used for all in-water work to
create a dry work area to avoid
adverse water quality impacts and
potential impacts to aquatic wildlife
habitat.

Threatened and Endangered
Species (2.3.5)
None Construction of the new
outfall would permanently
impact 0.007 acre of critical
habitat for Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
AMM BIO-2 would limit in-water
work area to the smallest area
possible.

AMM BIO-5 would require the use
of cofferdams to create a dry work
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-11

SUMMARY
Affected Resource Potential Effect Avoidance, Minimization and or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative tshawytscha),
(Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus), and longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys).

Impacts would occur in
shallow water along the
coastline where these fish
are not expected to occur.

The proposed project would
have no effect on threatened
and endangered animal
species or habitat.
area and avoid potential impacts to
aquatic habitat for wildlife.

AMM BIO-6 would prohibit inwater work during fish migration periods (November through June).

Invasive Species (2.3.6) None Project activities would
disturb invasive plants and
soil within the BSA and could
lead to the spread or
introduction of invasive plants
elsewhere. BMPs would be
incorporated as part of the
proposed project to minimize
this impact.

None
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S-12

1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4, in partnership with the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), proposes to provide interchange and local road improvements along Interstate 80 (I-80) at the Ashby Avenue Interchange. The project limits for the I-80/Ashby Avenue (State Route 13 [SR13]) Interchange Improvement Project (proposed project) are depicted in Figure 1.1-1, and the project components are described in Section 1.4, Project Description. The project area overlaps with the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Emeryville (Emeryville) and the City of Berkeley (Berkeley).

Caltrans, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional transportation planning agency in the San Francisco Bay Area and is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the nine county Bay Area. MTC is responsible for updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, freight, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) program San Francisco Bay Area projects in the RTP Plan Bay Area 2050. The proposed project is included in the RTP under reference number ID 17-01-0037.

The proposed project is also included in the MTC 2019 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) under reference number ID ALA170002. MTC adopted the TIP on May 17, 2021. FHWA approved and incorporated the TIP into the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) on July 16, 2021.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-1
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Berkeley Berkeley
Emeryville Emeryville
San Francisco Bay San Francisco Bay
Point Emery Point Emery
Ashby Avenue Ashby Avenue
Bay Trail Bay Trail
Legend
Project Location
*Not to scale
N
Napa
County
San
Francisco
San Jose

PROJECT
Oakland
1 mile*
Project Location Figure 1.1-1
Source: Google Earth, 2019; Circlepoint, 2020.

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

1.2 BACKGROUND
The existing interchange, which was constructed in the 1950s, was first proposed for modifications as early as 1980 by Caltrans. In early planning studies and by the year 2000, Caltrans concluded there was a need to upgrade the interchange. Conceptual plans were prepared for the upgrades and presented to Emeryville and Berkeley.

Conceptual plans were developed with the local cities, but due to funding constraints, the proposal did not move forward.

In 1999, a preliminary alternatives analysis recommended two alternatives, and a subsequent value analysis study identified roundabouts as possible ramp terminal intersections. In 2006 a Supplemental Project Study Report (SPSR) evaluated roundabout intersections for one of the 1999 PSR alternatives.

In 2009, Emeryville initiated a PSR for a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing (BPOC) across I-80. In partnership with Caltrans and the Alameda CTC, Emeryville proposed a BPOC over I-80 between Powell Street and Ashby Avenue. The slated purpose of the BPOC would be to provide connectivity between the San Francisco Bay Trail and the existing Class II bike path on the east side of I-80 at 65th Street. The BPOC would provide an additional safe crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling over I-80. There is an existing pedestrian overcrossing at Powell Street, and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge adjacent to University Avenue in the City of Berkeley.

These past efforts have been combined and inform the currently proposed I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvement Project. The proposed project has been developed through a partnership effort among Caltrans, Alameda CTC, Emeryville, and Berkeley, and input from stakeholders, working groups, and local community members.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
▪ Improve interchange access and circulation
▪ Provide a westbound I-80 connection to Shellmound Street INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-3
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
▪ Enhance safe bicycle and pedestrian connectivity across I-80 ▪ Improve circulation at I-80/Powell Street and 7th Street ▪ Alleviate local surface street congestion.

1.3.2 NEED
A Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) was completed for the proposed project on March 12, 2021. As documented in the TOAR, the interchange, constructed in the 1950s, does not provide access to or from westbound I-80 or Shellmound Street in Emeryville. Additionally, the area including the interchange lacks connectivity for different modes of transportation (e.g., vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian users). For these reasons, the interchange suffers from the following key operational issues:
▪ The existing interchange provides no access to Shellmound Street to/from westbound I-80 and no access from Shellmound Street to Frontage Road. ▪ Access from westbound traffic to Emeryville is forced to use the Powell Street interchange.
▪ There is no direct pedestrian and bicyclist access to the San Francisco Bay Trail from 65th Street/Shellmound Street.

Related findings from the TOAR are summarized below.

CAPACITY, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND, AND SAFETY
Capacity
Level of Service (LOS) is a congestion rating that varies from LOS A to F. LOS A represents stable flow and very slight delays. LOS E represents unstable flow, poor progression, and long cycle lengths or delays. LOS F represents forced flow or jammed conditions and is considered over capacity. LOS was used to evaluate the existing operating capacity of I-80 and intersections within the project study area.

I-80 Mainline
I-80 is a divided freeway consisting of four mixed-flow lanes in each direction and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) center lane that operates on weekdays from 5 to 10 AM and 3 to 7 PM. The westbound freeway segments operate worse than LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours, and the eastbound freeway segments operate at LOS F during the PM peak hours.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-4
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Intersections
Eight intersections were analyzed in proximity to the project area to understand the volumes and patterns of traffic. None of the intersections operate at LOS E or LOS F.

The proposed project would improve travel times and operational conditions of I-80.

With respect to mobility on local streets, the proposed project would maintain operating conditions at LOS D or better.

Transportation Demand
Based on data projections from ABAG, Emeryville and Berkeley within Alameda County will continue to see population, housing, and employment growth over the next 20 years. Alameda County is projected to grow by 23 percent from 2020 to 2040. Likewise, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the project area is expected to grow from 2,239,684 in 2025 to 2,585,791 by 2045 (Traffic Operations Analysis Report [TOAR] March 2021).

Safety
State Highways
Collision data were collected over a 36-month period for the I-80 mainline and the I-80 at Ashby Avenue ramp and ramp terminal intersections. As summarized in Table 1.3-1, the I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange ramps generally have more “fatal + injury” and “total” collision rates compared to the statewide average.

Local Streets
As part of the TOAR, a collision history analysis was performed for state highways and local streets for a 36-month period. The collision history includes the total number of vehicular collisions, collisions with injuries, and collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians. The intersections with the highest total collision rates and the highest pedestrian-involved collision rates on local streets are shown in Table 1.3-2. As summarized in the table below, I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange ramps generally have higher “fatal + injury” and “total” collision rates compared to the statewide average.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-5
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 1.3-1 Summary of Collision Data and Rates for I-80 Mainline (1/1/2017 – 12/31/2019) Facility
Number of Collisions
Fatal
Fatal +
Injury Total
Collision Rate (collisions/million vehicle miles)
Actual
Fatal Fatal +
Injury
Total
State Average
Fatal Fatal
+
Injury
Total
I-80 Mainline
Eastbound between Ashby Avenue
and University Avenue
2 46 193 0.012 0.28 1.16 0.003 0.29 0.92
Eastbound between Powell Street
and Ashby Avenue
- 26 134 - 0.34 1.77 0.003 0.29 0.92
Westbound between Ashby
Avenue and Powell Street
0 93 384 0 1.23 5.07 0.003 0.29 0.92
Westbound between University
Avenue and Ashby Avenue
0 82 341 0 0.49 2.05 0.003 0.29 0.92
Note: Cells highlighted in grey represent collision rates that are greater than the state-wide average for similar facility types.

Source: Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS Data January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019) INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-6
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 1.3-2 Summary of Collision Data and Rates for I-80 at Ashby Avenue (1/1/2017 – 12/31/2019) Facility
Number of
Collisions
Fatal
Fatal
+
Injury
Total
Collision Rate (collisions/million vehicle
miles)
Actual
Fatal Fatal
+
Injury
Total
State Average
Fatal Fatal +
Injury
Total
I-80 at Ashby Avenue Ramp and Ramp Terminal Intersection Eastbound 80 off to Southbound Route 13-
Shellmound Street
- - - - - - - - -
Eastbound 80 on from W Frontage RoadNorthbound Route 13 0 2 20 0 0.17 1.72 0.004 0.13 0.40 Eastbound 80 off to Southbound Route 13 0 1 2 0 0.09 0.19 0.001 0.07 0.25 Eastbound 80 off to Shellmound Street 0 1 2 0 0.29 0.59 0.008 0.39 1.03 Westbound 80 off to Southbound Route 13 0 0 3 0 0 0.10 0.004 0.17 0.51 Westbound 80 on from Northbound Route 13 0 2 7 0 0.20 0.69 0.005 0.15 0.48 Westbound 80 off to W Frontage Road-Southbound
Route 13
0 1 4 0 0.07 0.28 0.004 0.10 0.51
Westbound 80 on from Northbound Route 13-
Frontage Road
0 0 7 0 0 1.65 0.005 0.15 0.48
Note: Cells highlighted in grey represent collision rates that are greater than the state-wide average for similar facility types.

Source: Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS Data January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019) INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-7
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES
Existing Roadway Conditions
Based on a field evaluation and a desktop review of the roadways in the project vicinity, most existing roadway conditions, including ramps and surface streets, appear to be in good condition with limited signs of deterioration (cracking, patching, and/or potholing).

Currently, cracking and potholing can be seen in the north and southbound directions before the overcrossing at Ashby Avenue, and at the overcrossing on I-80 heading eastbound. Ashby Avenue is constrained to 4 lanes with no shoulder as it proceeds under the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way at a grade separation.

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Conditions
As noted in the project’s Purpose and Need statement, there is a notable gap in both pedestrian and bicycle access from Ashby Avenue to the San Francisco Bay Trail.

Existing bicycle and multi-use paths are shown in Figure 1.3-1. Current design and connectivity issues that impede bicycle and pedestrian travel in the project study area include:
▪ No sidewalk facilities that to connect Ashby Avenue with the San Francisco Bay Trail west of where the sidewalk ends east of the UPRR grade separation. ▪ No immediate pedestrian connection between the sidewalk facilities on the Shellmound Street overpass and Ashby Avenue.
▪ No immediate connection over I-80 from Ashby Avenue to the San Francisco Bay Trail, except in traffic lanes from the westbound I-80 on-ramp. Off-street connections to the San Francisco Bay Trail are available at University Avenue (via the San Francisco Bay Trail Pedestrian Overcrossing on I-80) and at the Powell Street I-80 undercrossing.

The Build Alternative would include a new BPOC and new connections with the San Francisco Bay Trail through the Ashby Avenue area. The creation of these safety improvements would further prioritize bicycle and pedestrian movements and improve safety by reducing or eliminating potential conflicts with vehicular traffic.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-8
INTERSTATE 80/ ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Not to Scale
______________________ _________ _________
Project Connection to Existing and Planned Networks Figure 1.3-1 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc, 2020
Project Site
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

1.3.3 FUNDING
The proposed project is eligible for federal-aid funding. However, early project development activities are funded by state and local fund sources. In July 2021, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) programmed $0.05 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds for design expenditures. The proposed project is a named project in the Alameda County voter approved 2014 Measure BB Transportation Expenditure Plan for a total local sales tax revenue of $52 million. Currently $12.6 million of the $52 million in Measure BB funds have been authorized for scoping, environmental, and final design phase expenditures. Alameda CTC is expected to allocate the remaining Measure BB funds for the right of way phase and construction. The total project cost is currently estimated at $157 million, and $105 million is needed to complete the project. Alameda CTC is working closely with funding partners to secure federal, state, regional and other local funds for project construction.

1.3.4 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS AND SYSTEM LINKAGES

INTERSTATE
The Build Alternative would be connected to the broader I-80 corridor, which extends in a northwest/southwest direction on the east side of the San Francisco Bay, connecting Richmond and Oakland. It is the principal east-west route through northern California and the sole freeway crossing the Sierra Nevada range. I-80 terminates at US 101 in San Francisco.

ARTERIAL ROADS
Ashby Avenue (SR-13)
The project area is connected to Berkeley and Emeryville via SR 13 (known locally as Ashby Avenue), a state highway that connects to I-80 at the east shoreline of San Francisco Bay and runs eastward into Berkeley. Ashby Avenue is a two-lane roadway in each direction and provides a vital connection to I-80. It is generally a 4-lane facility with occasional landscaped medians and on-street parking. Ashby Avenue does not have any striped or dedicated bike lanes.

West Frontage Road
West Frontage Road runs parallel to I-80 between Gilman Street and Powell Street. The roadway enhances access to the San Francisco Bay Trail, which is a multi-use pathway used by pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail also provides access points to various shoreline amenities and attractions.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-10
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

MASS TRANSIT
There are various transit service providers that operate within the 0.5-mile study area, including Bay Area Regional Transit (BART), Amtrak, and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). The closest BART station to the study area is the Ashby Station located 1.4 miles east of the project area. AC Transit is the third largest public bus system in California, serving 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Amtrak currently runs trains on the UPRR rail line north and south adjacent to the project area. The Amtrak stations nearest to the proposed project include the Emeryville Station 0.5 mile south of the project area, and Berkeley Station under the University Avenue overpass approximately 1 mile north of the project area.

MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails
The San Francisco Bay Trail is a planned 500-mile walking and cycling path around the entire San Francisco Bay running through all nine Bay Area counties, 47 cities, and across the San Francisco Bay region’s seven toll bridges. The San Francisco Bay Trail is an active transportation corridor that connects communities to parks, open spaces, schools, and transit. In the project area, the trail is an important connection with several amenities along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and other multimodal facilities around the project area, such as Berkeley Aquatic Park, Point Emery, and marinas in Emeryville. The proposed BPOC would improve access to the San Francisco Bay Trail from the east side of the I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange. The creation of these trails would enhance existing modal interrelationships and system linkages.

1.3.5 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
Plan Bay Area
Senate Bill (SB) 375 requires that regional planning agencies in California include “sustainable community strategies” in their RTP updates to describe how greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would be met through land use and transportation planning. The Build Alternative, included in the 2021 TIP, is part of the Plan Bay Area 2050 transportation network, and it would provide a more direct vehicular route from Oakland to Alameda and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Air quality improvements would be expected from more efficient vehicular travel and increased non-motorized travel.

California has enacted aggressive GHG reduction targets. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 set the goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It required CARB to develop a scoping plan detailing the approach California will take to achieve that goal and update the plan every five years. SB 743 requires vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-11
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
be used to assess the impacts of capacity-increasing projects with the potential to increase VMT, effective July 1, 2020.

Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is a multi-pollutant plan prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) that addresses GHG emissions along with other air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. This basin includes the nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, including Alameda County. The Build Alternative would be consistent with the CAP.

1.3.6 INDEPENDENT UTILITY AND LOGICAL TERMINI
Logical termini for a project area is defined as rational end points for transportation improvements within the proposed project area. A project with independent utility is defined as improvements that are usable and provide a reasonable expenditure of funds even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area.

Several operational improvements were evaluated to determine the project configuration that most effectively addressed the project’s need. In addition to identifying beginning and end points for the interchange improvements, the evaluation also considered the identification of an initial construction phase that would provide benefit to the study area at a lower cost than the full project given limited project funding. Based on the findings of the evaluation, the start and end points for the project were defined.

The proposed project is considered a single and complete project because it is not dependent on other capacity-increasing or operational improvements to realize mobility benefits. Further, individual project components also demonstrate independent utility for the same reason and may move forward as phased improvements. The proposed changes to the I-80/Ashby interchange would provide the intended mobility benefits without any additional improvements.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-12
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The interchange is located at post miles (PM) 3.95/4.93 on I-80 and 13.67/13.96 on SR13 in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley, Alameda County. Two Alternatives are under consideration: the Build Alternative and the No-Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would replace the existing elevated interchange connector ramps with a new bridge over I-80, realign access to West Frontage Road, and introduce a new BPOC connection over I-80 from 65th Street/Shellmound Street to the San Francisco Bay Trail.

Figure 1.4-1 shows the specific project area and Environmental Study Limits (ESL) for the proposed project. The ESL is defined as the area in which direct and indirect environmental effects may occur. It is the boundary in which the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project were evaluated. The ESL is larger than the anticipated disturbance area.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-13
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Bay Trail Ashby Ave
To San Pablo To San Francisco
UPRR Tracks
Christie Ave
64th St
65th St
66th St
67th St
Folger Ave
Powell St
Shellmound St
W Frontage Rd
Potter St Bay St
Legend
Environmental
Study Limit (ESL)
1,000 Feet
N
San Francisco Bay
Emeryville
Berkeley
Aquatic
Park Napa
County
San
Francisco
San Jose

PROJECT
Oakland
Environmental Study Limit Figure 1.4-1
Source: Google Earth; Circlepoint, 2020.

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

1.5 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Two Alternatives are under consideration: the Build Alternative and the No-Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would comprise the following three improvements: (1) redesign of the elevated interchange, (2) realignment of West Frontage Road to intersect with Ashby Avenue, and (3) introduction of a new bicycle and pedestrian connection from the east side of I-80 to the Point Emery area and the San Francisco Bay Trail on the west side of the interchange. Caltrans and the project development team considered various alternatives and screened them for their ability to meet the proposed project’s purpose, need, and operational standards. Early designs using simple signals or roundabouts and diamond interchange configurations were evaluated using six criteria:

1. Traffic operations

2. Pedestrian and bicycle treatment

3. Safety performance

4. Footprint

5. Design/service life

6. Level of interference with future projects
A detailed discussion of the alternatives that were evaluated is included under Section

1.5.3, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion.

1.5.1 PROPOSED BUILD ALTERNATIVE

TIGHT DIAMOND CONFIGURATION WITH T-INTERSECTION
Interchange Design
The Build Alternative (Figure 1.5-1) would demolish the existing I-80/Ashby Avenue connector ramps and replace them with a tight diamond interchange. The tight diamond form is a compressed diamond interchange used in urban and suburban areas where there is limited right of way. This configuration has two closely-spaced signalized intersections at the crossing of the ramp terminals and side street.

The bridge structure associated with the Build Alternative would be approximately 118 feet wide by 160 feet long and would have a closed face on both abutments. The bridge would provide access to and from I-80, Ashby Avenue, Shellmound Street, Bay Street, and West Frontage Road. The overcrossing, which would accommodate 7 traffic lanes, would remove existing interference with truck traffic by raising vertical clearance of the structure above its current heigh of 15 feet, 4 inches. Traffic within the interchange would be controlled by two traffic signals, one at the westbound on- and off-ramps and one at the eastbound on and off-ramps. East of the eastbound on and off-ramp INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-15
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
locations there would be a traffic signal for the Bay Street connector ramp and Ashby Avenue. A traffic signal would be located at the intersection of the Ashby Avenue and West Frontage Road. Both eastbound and westbound on-ramps would be metered.

As shown in Figure 1.5-1, Ashby Avenue would connect to the realigned West Frontage Road using a simple T-Intersection. West Frontage Road would be required to meet geometric and safety specifications for the three-way intersection along its new alignment. This realignment to the east would create greater separation between the realigned West Frontage Road and the San Francisco Bay Trail.

East of I-80, the Build Alternative would realign the existing eastbound off-ramp parallel to the existing East Bay Municipal Utility District 66-inch sanitary sewer main. The offramp would intersect Ashby Avenue. The existing connection from the eastbound offramp to Shellmound Street would also be modified. A new connection from Bay Street to Ashby Avenue would provide a connection to both the interchange and across the bridge to West Frontage Road on the west side of the interchange.

This connection would require installation of retaining walls between 8 and 32 feet in height (Figure 1.5-1). The current eastbound ramp at Potter Street would be replaced with a diagonal onramp and it would provide two general purpose lanes, maintenance vehicle pullouts (MVP), and California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforcement areas. These proposed improvements would also allow direct a ramp-to-ramp connection.

Proposed improvements along Bay Street would require relocation of one of the three guy wires (i.e., tensioned cables that add stability to a free-standing structure) for the transmitting tower. The project team will work with the property owner in making the appropriate modifications.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-16
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Build Alternative Figure 1.5-1
Source: TYLIN 2021
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE (ROUTE 13)
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-18 IS/EA
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Landscaping and Irrigation
Mature existing highway planting would be removed as a result of the Build Alternative.

All trees removed for the project would be replaced onsite and in-kind as much as practicable. Limitations may include setback requirements, such as needing to leave space for the “clear recovery zone” which limits Caltrans’ legal ability to plant fixed objects near the edge of roadway. All replanted trees and shrubs would be monitored during a three-year plant establishment period which would be funded by the proposed project.

Replacement highway planting will be context sensitive, responsive to microclimate conditions, and easily and safely maintained. Any irrigation system required for the project would use “smart” irrigation controllers to minimize watering. In addition, the system will have a master control valve that will alert the controller to shut down the system if a loss of pressure is detected in a line. Such controllers can be operated remotely, including from a cellphone. Safety of maintenance workers and considerations will be a key component in the irrigation design. For instance, all equipment will be placed in areas away from traffic where it can be safely accessed by maintenance personnel, or where the maintenance vehicles can act as a protective barrier between highway traffic and maintenance personnel.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections
Access on the East Side of I-80
At-grade sidewalks and signalized crossings on the east side of I-80 at the ramps and adjacent to the Ashby Avenue would be included as part of the bridge structure.

Bicyclists and pedestrians would access this connection via Ashby Avenue, Shellmound Street/Bay Street, and 65th Street on the east side of the proposed project.

Access to the San Francisco Bay Trail and Point Emery on the West Side of I-80 The San Francisco Bay Trail and Point Emery would be accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists from either the BPOC or the sidewalks on the Ashby Avenue bridge. Crossing West Frontage Road to these facilities would be accomplished at the at-grade crosswalk aligning with the Point Emery parking lot, or at a below-grade crossing under West Frontage Road just east of the T-intersection.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing
A separate BPOC would be constructed south of the new interchange. The length of the BPOC, including its approaches, would be 836 feet long and 16 feet wide. This structure would include Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant switchbacks on the east and west sides of I-80 approaching the separate BPOC structure. Like the proposed bicycle/pedestrian improvements, the structure would be publicly accessible from 65th Street to the east and West Frontage Road to the west.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-19
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The new BPOC has multiple design options that would be considered during final design, once additional detail and information is available regarding cost and maintenance of the structures. The final design of the BPOC will be selected by Caltrans, Alameda CTC, and the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley. The following three designs are under consideration:
- Butterfly arch
- Basket-handle arch
- Box girder
These designs are depicted in Figure 1.5-2. In previous discussions with Caltrans and stakeholders, a preference for the butterfly arch was expressed. In addition, the cabled arch theme (butterfly and basket handle) is also consistent with the design theme of the I-80 corridor along this section of east San Francisco Bay.

Table 1.5-2 shows a comparison of the three BPOC design options under consideration and the pros and cons associated with each option. See Figure 1.5-2 for simulations of the design options. A truss design was considered as a fourth design option. However, it was eliminated from further consideration due to its inconsistency with the cabled arch theme throughout the I-80 corridor segment. The industrial appearance of the truss design is not used along this section of the I-80 corridor nor is it consistent with the fence design on the Ashby bridge structure which also reflects the arch design. For additional discussion about the truss design option and why it was eliminated, please see Section 1.5.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-20
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 1.5-2 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Design Options Comparison BPOC Design Option Pros Cons
Butterfly Arch • Consistent with cable
arch theme throughout
I-80 corridor
• Aesthetically preferred
option
• No freeway structural
support required
• Maintenance costs
(cleaning, graffiti
removal, painting,
repair, etc.,) believed
to be moderate
Basket Handle Arch • Also consistent with
cable arch theme
throughout I-80
corridor
• No freeway structural
support required
• Maintenance of
structure needs to be
negotiated
• Maintenance costs
believed to be
moderate
Box Girder • Believed to have lower
maintenance costs
• Maintenance of
structure needs to be
negotiated
• Not consistent with
I-80 corridor cable
arch theme
• Structural support
required on freeway
• Least preferred
aesthetic design
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-21

BOX GIRDER DESIGN
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

BASKET HANDLE DESIGN

BUTTERFLY ARCH DESIGN
BPOC Variations Figure 1.5-2
Source: TYLIN 2021

BOX GIRDER DESIGN

BASKET HANDLE DESIGN

BUTTERFLY ARCH DESIGN

BASKET HANDLE DESIGN
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would take an estimated 30 months to complete.

Construction work for the Build Alternative would be done primarily during daylight hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. However, night-time work and temporary closures would be necessary to avoid major disruption for tasks that could interfere with traffic or create safety hazards such as demolition of the existing connectors.

Construction activities would include excavation, drilling, dewatering, pavement demolition, bridge demolition, mass grading, concrete form work, pavement installation, storm system installation, landscaping and irrigation, sign installation, striping operations, and traffic control. Such activities would require the use of the following types of equipment: drill rig, forklift, scissor lift, backhoe, track excavator, compactor, concrete pump, crane, bulldozer, grader, front-end loader, dump trucks, jackhammer, and vibratory roller. These activities would require lane and ramp closures with detours.

Construction staging areas (i.e., the storage of materials and equipment) are anticipated to be accommodated within the existing Caltrans right of way. The largest potential construction staging area would be on the west side of the interchange. Caltrans would finalize construction staging area locations during the design phase of the proposed project, in conjunction with potential contractors. These areas would be carefully reviewed to ensure that the staging areas are sufficient and within the ESL evaluated in this environmental document.

Locations with anticipated night work and use of right lane closures are likely to be at the westbound and eastbound ramp connections to I-80. These operations may involve excavation, base compaction, and asphalt concrete paving.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-23
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Ashby Staging Concept Plans (Stage 1) Figure 1.5-3
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Ashby Staging Concept Plans (Stage 2) Figure 1.5-4
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Ashby Staging Concept Plans (Stage 3) Figure 1.5-5
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Source: Circlepoint, 2021
Ashby Staging Concept Plans (Stage 4) Figure 1.5-6
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Ashby Staging Concept Plans (Stage 5) Figure 1.5-7
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Ashby Staging Concept Plans (Stage 6) Figure 1.5-8
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Construction Methods
Grading
The existing slopes at the connector ramp abutments would be re-graded using smooth, flowing contours to help integrate highway improvements with the surrounding environment. Grading would reduce erosion and maintain water quality by breaking the slope into smaller tributary areas that disperse runoff. Grading would be limited to slopes of 1V:4H (1 foot of vertical gain for every 4 feet distance). However, steeper slopes (1V: 2H) may be used at the proposed bridge abutments.

Demolition
Demolition would occur in stages over the course of approximately 20 months, allowing for construction of proposed project improvements prior to demolition of existing structures to minimize detours and delays to the extent feasible. Demolition work would include removal of existing connector ramp structures, abutments, columns, overhead sign foundations, retaining wall/barrier removal, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, pavement removal, and drainage systems removal.

Drainage and Water Quality
Existing drainage systems would be abandoned due to their poor integrity. New drainage pipe and inlet systems would be introduced to accommodate tributary areas within the ESL. Multiple pipes would be installed under I-80 through bore and jack installation. A new outfall would also be constructed, just south of Point Emery to replace the existing outfall north of Point Emery that is buried by the sediment accumulated in the area. The proposed outfall is shown on Figure 1.5-2. No work would be conducted at the UPRR/Ashby Avenue underpass just east of the area at the portal undercrossing, near the existing Caltrans pump station.

Right-of-Way Requirements
The Build Alternative would require acquisition of a single parcel in the northeast quadrant of the interchange near the KRE radio station building. The acquisition would be necessary for construction of the Bay Street connector to Ashby Avenue. Proposed improvements along Bay Street would require relocation of one of the three guy wires for the transmitting tower. Relocation of an existing driveway adjacent to Bay Road that provides access to the KRE property, may be required. The project team will work with the property owner in making the appropriate modifications. The right of way acquisition process would take place after completion of the project design. A permanent construction easement would also be required for maintenance of the retaining walls shown in Figure 1.5-2.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-30
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Vehicular Detours and Closures
Temporary mainline and ramp closures would be required during demolition and construction. In addition, West Frontage Road will also be temporarily closed between University Avenue and Powell Street while the new alignment is under construction. The I-80 mainline closures would occur at night for the placement of the pre-cast girders for the proposed Ashby overcrossing, demolition of the remaining original ramp structures over I-80 and false work erection and removal for the BPOC. All closures and detours will be advertised well in advance as part of the public information campaign and emergency/law enforcement will also be notified. The planned duration and staging of roadway closures and implementation of detours are discussed in Section 2.1.8, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. The preliminary detour plans are shown in Figure 1.5-9, Figure 1.5-10, and Figure 1.5-11. These plans are subject to change during final design.

San Francisco Bay Trail Detour
During the construction of the new outfall area, a temporary detour around the construction area will be implemented to ensure the continuous access and function of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The West Frontage Road closure would not interfere with the use of the San Francisco Bay Trail. However, it would limit access to Point Emery via automobile and any waterborne vehicle launching at Point Emery during the temporary closure.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-31
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Preliminary Detour Concept (1 of 3) Figure 1.5-9
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Preliminary Detour Concept (2 of 3) Figure 1.5-10
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Preliminary Detour Concept (3 of 3) Figure 1.5-11
Source: Circlepoint, 2021
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

PROJECT FEATURES
This proposed project would include implementation of several standardized project measures that are employed on most, if not all, Caltrans projects and were not developed in response to any specific environmental impact resulting from the proposed project. The project features in Table 1.5-3 would be included in this proposed project.

The descriptions provided in Table 1.5-3 are summaries. For the full text of these project features, refer to Appendix C.

Table 1.5-3 Project Features
Project Feature
Number
Description
Standard Construction Specifications (CON)
CON-1 Adherence to Caltrans’ standard specifications for noise control, dust abatement, demolition, hazardous materials, and other good housekeeping measures and best management practices (BMPs) for the construction site.

CON-2 The contractor will be responsible for securing all work zones in and around the construction sites until completion of
construction.

Communities and Community Facilities (COM)
COM-1 Access to all properties for property owners and users will be maintained by the contractor during construction.

COM-2
Caltrans will coordinate relocation work with the affected utility companies to minimize disruption of services to customers in the area during construction.

COM-3 Caltrans will coordinate with emergency service providers and the public information office to avoid emergency service delays by ensuring that all providers are aware well in advance of lane closures.

COM-4 During the design phase of the project, prepare a TMP in accordance with Caltrans requirements and guidelines and in coordination with local agencies, service providers, local communities, business associations, and affected drivers.

COM-5 A public outreach program will be implemented throughout construction to keep the public informed of the construction schedule and scheduled parking and roadway closures,
including detour routes and, if available, alternative parking.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-35
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Feature
Number
Description
Aesthetics and Visual Resources (VIS)
VIS-1
Existing vegetation will be preserved in place as much as possible by protecting existing vegetation outside the clearing and grubbing limits, placing high visibility temporary fencing around vegetation to be protected, and providing truck watering of vegetation when automated irrigation is interrupted by construction.

VIS-2 Fund required replacement planting through the parent roadway contract to be completed as a separate contract, (within 2 years of roadway completion,) with a three-year plant establishment period (PEP), unless the estimated cost is below $300,000 (then only one-year PEP).

VIS-3 Revegetation Planting Measures. All disturbed areas shall receive hydroseeded treatment of erosion control grasses, and if appropriate, locally native grasses.

VIS-4 Landscape Plantings. Use drought-tolerant plants, including California native species, as part of the planting palette where regionally appropriate.

VIS-5 Landscape Plantings. Plantings within the state right of way will follow the 1997 Caltrans Plant Setback and Spacing Guide.

VIS-6 Light and Glare. As directed by Caltrans, appropriate light and glare screening measures will be used at the construction staging areas including the use of downward cast lighting.

Shielding will be used to the extent feasible for new lighting apparatuses within the project area. Lighting of the
transportation facilities would be shielded and directed to only areas that required for operations and safety, to the maximum extent feasible.

VIS-7 Construction Impact Measure. Caltrans will use standard construction equipment and protocols for the Build Alternative, such as placing unsightly materials and equipment so that they are not visible within the forefront of highway corridor and local streets where feasible.

Cultural Resources (CUL)
CUL-1 If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a Caltrans qualified archaeologist is contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find.

CUL-2 If Caltrans Professionally Qualified Staff determines that cultural materials contain human remains, State Health and Safety Code INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-36

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Feature
Number
Description
Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains. Caltrans’ Cultural Resources Studies Office will contact the Alameda County Coroner.

Geology and Soil (GEO)
GEO-1 With respect to worker safety during construction, OSHA requires employers to comply with hazard-specific safety and health standards.

Pursuant to Section 5(a) (1) of OSHA, employers must provide their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Potential seismic-related hazards to workers during construction are expected to be less than substantial with compliance with the OSHA and Caltrans standard design and construction guidelines.

GEO-2 As part of final design, expansive soils shall be addressed through treatment or removal as designated on construction plans, to reduce the potential for structural damage.

GEO-3 Preparation of structure foundation reports and geotechnical design reports that incorporate the results of subsurface field work and laboratory testing to inform the final design of project structures.

Water Quality (WQ)
WQ-1 Temporary construction site BMPs will be implemented during construction to prevent any construction materials or debris from entering storm drains or drainage ditches within the project vicinity.

WQ-2 Compliance with Caltrans MS4 permit, municipal regional permit (MRP), construction general permit (CGP), and other regulatory agency requirements.

WQ-3 The CGP, Caltrans, and local standards require the project’s contractor to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to comply with the conditions of the CGP.

WQ-4 Prior to any soil disturbance, a Notice of Intent will be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System.

WQ-5 Temporary impacts to water quality during construction will be avoided or minimized by implementing temporary construction site BMPs.

WQ-6 Dewatering activities and the clean water diversion will comply with Caltrans Standard Specifications and Field Guide to Construction Site Dewatering.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-37
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Feature
Number
Description
WQ-7 Compliance with California Office of Emergency Services Hazardous Materials Incident Contingency Plan.

WQ-8
Drainage features, such as energy dissipation devices (e.g., flared end sections and tee dissipaters), will be considered at drainage outfalls to reduce the velocity and dissipate flows as they discharge from the culvert.

WQ-9
Rock slope protection will be placed at culvert outfalls and within drainage ditches and swales where velocities may result in drilling or scouring.

WQ-10
Permanent erosion control measures will be applied to all exposed areas once grading or soil disturbance work is
completed as a permanent measure to achieve final slope stabilization.

WQ-11
Implementation of low-impact development measures for
stormwater treatment controls. These measures include
harvesting and use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment. Other conventional treatment measures (e.g., basins and vaults) are allowable under special conditions outlined in the permit.

WQ-12
Inclusion of nonstandard treatment measures such as the use of low flow pumps to convey runoff to a treatment facility where necessary. The final drainage design, selection of treatment BMP types and locations, and determination of impervious area treated will be refined during the design phase when detailed design information is developed.

Hazardous Wastes and Materials (HW)
HW-1
Caltrans specification SSP 14-11.12 (2015B) will be included in the contract specifications and implemented during construction to contain any debris produced during removal of yellow thermoplastic and yellow paint.

Air Quality (AQ)
AQ-1 Water or dust palliative shall be applied to the site and equipment as often as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.

AQ-2 Measures to reduce PM10, PM2.5, and diesel particulate matter from construction including watering exposed surfaces, covering haul trucks, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads.

Noise and Vibration (NOI)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-38
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Feature
Number
Description
NOI-1 Standard Caltrans construction noise BMPs including use of mufflers, prohibiting unnecessary idling, and avoiding staging of construction equipment within 100 feet of residences.

NOI-2 Inspection of equipment by the contractor to ensure that all equipment onsite is working properly, in good condition, and effectively muffled.

NOI-3 Construction activities shall be minimized in the study area during evening, nighttime, weekend, and holiday periods.

NOI-4 Restrict the hours of vibration-intensive equipment or activities such as vibratory rollers so that impacts to study area users are minimal.

NOI-5 The Resident Engineer will be responsible to collect and respond to any complaints related to construction noise.

NOI-6 Truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations will be minimized so that noise and vibration are kept to a minimum through the study area to the greatest possible extent.

Biological Resources (BIO)
BIO-1 The project limits near all environmentally sensitive areas (riparian area of Radio Tower Pond and the San Francisco Bay) will be delineated with high visibility fencing to prevent contractors from entering sensitive areas.

BIO-2 Standard water quality protection BMPs to prevent any off-site movement of construction materials, sediment, or debris.

BIO-3 Development of and adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP).

BIO-4 Wetlands Protection: A water quality inspector will inspect the site after a rain event to ensure that stormwater BMPs are adequate.

BIO-5 Before commencing construction, a qualified Caltrans-approved biologist will conduct a nesting birds education program for all project personnel.

BIO-6 Trees, shrubs, and native vegetation will be preserved in place to the extent practicable.

BIO-7 The work in San Francisco Bay will be limited to the smallest area possible.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-39
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Feature
Number
Description
BIO-8 The names and qualifications of biological monitors will be submitted for agency approval prior to initiating construction.

BIO-9 Before construction of the new outfall, a qualified Caltransapproved biologist will conduct an educational program for all relevant project personnel. Species to be covered will include green sturgeon and special-status salmonids.

BIO-10 Invasive Species: If species ranked by the California Invasive Plant Council as moderate- or high-priority invasive weeds are disturbed or removed during construction-related activities, the contractor will contain the plant material and dispose of it in a manner that will not promote the spread of the species.

BIO-11 Invasive Species: The landscaping included in the project will not use species listed on the California list of invasive species.

Traffic and Transportation (TRA)
TRA-1 A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) would be developed as part of the project construction planning phase.

COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED PROJECTS
The proposed project has been developed in close coordination with other programmed projects within the I-80 corridor. The proposed project would not preclude other planned improvements within the project area, such as the conceptually planned Vista Park. The proposed project does not preclude future planned improvements within the corridor and is compatible with other improvements within the corridor.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-40
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

1.5.2 NO BUILD (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing I-80/Ashby Avenue connector ramps would not be demolished and none of the proposed project features described under the Build Alternative would be constructed. The existing transportation facilities within the project area would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements and the existing deficiencies described under Section 1.3.2, Need, would persist.

The No Build Alternative is the baseline for comparing environmental impacts under NEPA.

1.5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM

FURTHER DISCUSSION
As previously discussed, the proposed project has been contemplated since the 1980s in some form. As a result of its lengthy history, many alternatives have been considered.

This section discusses the previously considered alternatives for both the interchange design and BPOC design. Table 1.5-3 summarizes all alternatives that have been considered but eliminated from further discussion.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-41
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 1.5-3 Summary of Eliminated Alternatives
Alternative Reason for Elimination
Interchange Design Concepts
Single Point Diamond (Alt. 1) • More costly than project without any added benefit or advantage of proposed project
Diverging Diamond (Alt. 2)
• Traffic operations
• Traffic safety
• Large development footprint
Signal Only (Alt. 3)
• Large footprint of the loop onramp connecting to
westbound I-80
• Limited flexibility and tight fit of the roundabout
connection at West Frontage Road
2006 SPSR Single
Roundabout (Alt. 4)
• Did not meet design year projected traffic
operations
• Provided no safety performance benefits
1999 PSR Modified Partial
Cloverleaf plus La Coste St.

On-ramp (Alt. 5)
• Eliminated due to infeasibility of La Coste on-ramp
1999 PSR Ramps Only (Alt.
6)
• Did not meet purpose and need regarding
Shellmound St.
• Did not address connectivity for bicyclists and
pedestrians
1999 PSR Modified Partial
Cloverleaf (Alt.7)
• Value Analysis determined that the 1999 PSR
alternatives should be further evaluated and that a
roundabout design should be considered
West Frontage Road Connection
Frontage Road Roundabout
Options A and B
• Less functional than proposed project
• Larger footprint
Frontage Road Roundabout
Options C, D, and E
• Tight turning radii
• Substantial walls
I-80 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Designs
Zero Conflict Undercrossing
Options A and B (Alt. 1) • Very limited design area and tight fit BPOC Truss Design Option
(Alt. 2)
• Industrial appearance does not match with design
theme of crossings along this section of I-80
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-42
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative Reason for Elimination
Interchange Design Concepts
2009 BPOC Alternatives 2E,
1D and 1E (Alt. 3) • New interchange design was not considered The I-80/Ashby Interchange has been evaluated for improvements on two occasions before the proposed project, in 1999, and again in 2006. The purpose and need for the proposed project has not changed much over the years and has always included a direct connection to Shellmound Street in order to balance the traffic at both Ashby Avenue and Powell Street interchanges. An additional purpose of improving bicycle and pedestrian access across I-80 in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley had also been previously included.

SINGLE POINT DIAMOND ALTERNATIVE
While the intersection control evaluation showed a single point diamond interchange would function very similarly to the proposed project (Tight Diamond, as shown in Figure 1.5-13), the drawbacks of the alternative were that it took up more space, limited the design of the connection with West Frontage Road and was considerably more costly without any added benefit or advantage of the Tight Diamond. As a result, it was dropped from further consideration with concurrence from the project development team.

DIVERGING DIAMOND ALTERNATIVE
While the Intersection Control Evaluation analysis showed that the Diverging Diamond Alternative met the desired intersection controls, it was dropped from further consideration based on traffic operational, safety and footprint considerations (shown in Figure 1.5-12).

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-43
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-12 Diverging Diamond Alternative
Source: Value Analysis, 2020
Figure 1.5-13 Single Point Diamond Alternative
Source: Value Analysis, 2020
Signal Only Alternative
The Signal Only Alternative is a variant of the original 1999 Alternative 2 with a roundabout at West Frontage Road. The Signal Only Alternative was dropped due to the large footprint of the loop onramp connecting to westbound I-80 and the limited flexibility and tight fit of the roundabout connection at West Frontage Road.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-44
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

OLDER ALTERNATIVES
In 1999, three build alternatives were included in the SPSR. Alternative 1 entailed only adding ramps and was dropped because it did not meet the purpose and need or address the connectivity gaps between I-80 and Shellmound Street. It also did not address the bicycle/pedestrian access from the east side of I-80 to the San Francisco Bay Trail and Point Emery on the west side of I-80. Therefore, it was eliminated from further evaluation.

Alternative 2 entailed the reconstruction of the interchange to a modified partial cloverleaf and diamond interchange and is shown in Figure 1.5-14.

Figure 1.5-14 1999 PSR Alternative 2
Source: 1999 I-80 Ashby PSR
Alternative 3 was the same as Alternative 2 but with the added separate northbound onramp from 65th Street. Given the similarities between Alternative 2 and 3, the Value Analysis recommended that Alternative 3 be replaced by an alternative featuring roundabouts, as shown in Figure 1.5-15.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-45
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-15 1995 PSR Alternative 3
Source: 1999 I-80 Ashby PSR
Alternative 2 and a new roundabout alternative were included in the 2006 Supplemental PSR. The 2006 roundabout alternative included three roundabouts, as shown in Figure

1.5-16.

The Roundabout Alternative included the following major modifications to the existing 1-80/Ashby Interchange:
▪ A new connection at Shellmound Street and the eastern roundabout. This connection would provide the access to both EB and WB I-80 on-ramps from Shellmound Street.
▪ A new bridge over 1-80 with barrier separated pedestrian-bike path ▪ An eastbound 1-80 diagonal on- and off-ramp modifications with a CHP enforcement area and ramp metering at the on-ramp. No HOV bypass lane would be provided.
▪ A two-lane roundabout on the east side of I-80 (northbound) ▪ A single lane roundabout on the west side of 1-80 (southbound) INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-46
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
▪ A loop on-ramp with a CHP enforcement area and ramp metering serving NB Ashby to WB 1-80. No HOV bypass lane would be provided. ▪ A WB I-80 diagonal off-ramp
▪ A single lane roundabout serving West Frontage Road access to/from 1-80 and Ashby.
▪ The demolition and removal of existing I-80/Ashby ramps and structures Figure 1.5-16 2006 Roundabout Alternative/Signal Only Roundabout Alternative
Source: Value Analysis, 2020
The proposed project was delayed due to funding availability. When the proposed project was re-initiated additional designs for the interchange were considered and screened for functionality and efficiency.
2006 Roundabout Alternative
The 2006 Roundabout Alternative (shown in Figure 1.5-16) was dropped from further consideration because the 2045 forecast traffic volumes require at least 4 circulating roundabout lanes, it did not meet design year projected traffic operations, and it provided no safety performance benefits.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-47
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-17 Signal as Roundabout Alternative
Source: Value Analysis, 2020
The Signal as Roundabout Alternative (Figure 1.5-17) was dropped from further consideration for the same reasons as the 2006 Roundabout Alternative: the 2045 forecast traffic volumes require at least 4 circulating roundabout lanes, it did not meet design year projected traffic operations, and it would not have provided safety performance benefits.

The intersection control analysis (Kittelson 2020) concluded that three alternatives should be considered: 1) the tight diamond, 2) single point diamond, and 3) the diverging diamond configurations. These were further evaluated and are discussed below.

Intersection Control Evaluation Screening
An intersection control evaluation was conducted in support of this project (Kittelson 2020) . The purpose of the analysis was to test the validity of interchange concepts presented in the 2006 SPSR and to consider other potential interchange designs. In addition, the original barrier separated design for the BPOC would not meet modern Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance standards, so the design approach for the BPOC was also revisited by Emeryville in 2009 as a separate BPOC project, and by Alameda CTC and Caltrans as part of the current project. The additional designs for the interchange configuration and BPOC are discussed separately below. The green line represents the approximate BPOC alignment.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-48
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

CONNECTIONS WITH WEST FRONTAGE ROAD DESIGN OPTIONS
Frontage Road Design Variations (for Alternatives 1 and 2) For the project design, variations of the Ashby Avenue connection with the Frontage Road to the west of the interchange have been developed. The variations are shown below as Options A through E. Options A and B both connect to a roundabout and connect with the existing Frontage Road. Option C connects with the existing Frontage Road through an S-curve ramp. Options D and E propose realignment of the Frontage Road parallel and adjacent to the southbound I-80 on and off-ramps.

The realignment allows for more usable open space on the west side of the interchange but requires additional walls to support the Frontage Road and ramp. The Frontage Road Variation Options A through E are described and shown below. All design variations are identical on the east side of the of the interchange with the connections to Shellmound Street, Bay Street, and the connection of Ashby Avenue at the UPRR undercrossing. Design Options A and B were eliminated because the T-intersection option functioned just as well and required far less space. Design Options C through E were dropped due to turning design requirements and turning radii and the substantial walls needed for Option D and E.

Roundabout Options
Roundabout Option A
The Option A Frontage Road design variation includes a western extension of Ashby Avenue to a roundabout that has two intersections with the existing Frontage Road on the north and south sides of the roundabout. Option A is shown below in Figure 1.5-18. .

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-49
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-18 Roundabout Option A
Source: TY Lin, 2021
Roundabout Option B
The Option B Frontage Road design variation is similar to Option A and also includes a roundabout. However, this variation has only one access point to the existing Frontage Road on the south side of the roundabout. Option B is shown below in Figure 1.5-19.

Figure 1.5-19 Roundabout Option B
Source: TY Lin, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-50
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
S-Curve Ramp Option
The Option C Frontage Road design variation includes an S-curve ramp which connects to the existing Frontage Road on the north side of the Ashby Avenue extension. Option C is shown below in Figure 1.5-20.

Figure 1.5-20 S-Curve Ramp Option
Source: TY Lin, 2021
Frontage Road Realignment Options
Loop Ramp
The Option D Frontage Road design variation includes the complete realignment of the Frontage Road to the east to be adjacent to the southbound on and off-ramps. The realignment includes a loop ramp to connect with the realignment of the Frontage Road and an undercrossing of the extension of Ashby Avenue. Option D is shown below in Figure 1.5-21.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-51
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-21 Loop Ramp Option
Source: TY Lin, 2021
Extended Loop Ramp
The Option E Frontage Road design variation is similar to Option D, but instead of a tight loop connection with Frontage Road, it is an elongate connection meeting the realigned Frontage Road much further north. Option E is shown below in Figure 1.5-22.

Figure 1.5-22 Extended Loop Ramp
Source: TY Lin, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-52
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING

ZERO CONFLICT SWITCHBACK/RAMP UNDERCROSSINGS
This variation includes switchbacks (to meet ADA grade requirements) on the east and west sides of I-80 approaching the south side of the Ashby Avenue bridge structure, as shown in Figure 1.5-23 and Figure 1.5-24. The access points are from 65th Street and the Frontage Road. The alignment of the zero conflict concept for the interchange alternatives is shown below in purple. The undercrossing variations were dropped from further consideration because the BPOC structure provided a more efficient route while still providing zero conflicts between motorists and bicyclists/pedestrians.

Figure 1.5-23 Zero Conflict Option A
Source: TY Lin, 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-53
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-24 Zero Conflict Option B
Source: TY Lin, 2021
Current Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Design - Truss Design Option As part of the current design process, a truss design option was considered for the BPOC. As previously discussed, it was eliminated due to its inconsistency with the more graceful cabled-arch theme that is characteristic of the bridges and overcrossings of the Emeryville and Berkeley area. The industrial appearance of the truss did not match the more context sensitive design options of the butterfly and basket-handles arches, nor did it accomplish the neutral and unassuming appearance of the box girder. Therefore, it was dropped from further consideration due to its inconsistent aesthetics. The truss design option is shown below in Figure 1.5-25.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-54
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-25 Truss Design Option
2009 Emeryville BPOC Design Effort
In 2009, Emeryville independently commenced a project to examine BPOC design. A PSR was developed showing three build alternatives with three different alignments, as shown in Figure 1.5-26, Figure 1.5-27, and Figure 1.5-28. All the BPOC alignments were located south of the I-80 Interchange and the alignment of the interchange assumed a bridge and roundabout design at the interchange, and the southbound I-80 onramp and West Frontage Road were assumed to remain in their existing locations.

These assumptions were used so the BPOC design could move forward independently of the interchange design. The three designs were evaluated and were used to inform the currently proposed design of the BPOC. Alternative 2E was most like the current design. However, the current design is being proposed along with the interchange design. The realignment of the ramps and frontage road have been considered in the current BPOC design. Therefore, the BPOC is much closer to the proposed bridge connection to Ashby Avenue and I-80.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-55
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-26 BPOC Alternative 2E
Source: 2009 Emeryville BPOC PSR
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-56
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 1.5-27 BPOC Alternative 1D
Source: 2009 Emeryville BPOC PSR
Figure 1.5-28 BPOC Alternative 1E
Source: 2009 Emeryville BPOC PSR
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-57
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT

1.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED
Table 1.6-1 identifies the permits and approvals that would be required for project construction.

Table 1.6-1 Permits and Approvals Needed
Agency Permit/Approval Status
Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Section 401 water quality
certification
Issued during the final design
phase
United States Army
Corps of Engineers
Section 404, Clean Water
Act, Permit – Nationwide
Section 10, Rivers and
Harbors Act, Authorization
Issued during the final design
phase
National Marine
Fisheries Service
(NMFS)
Letter of concurrence Issued before completion of
final environmental document
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
1602 Lake and Streambed
Alteration Agreement
Issued during the final design
phase
State Historic
Preservation Officer
(SHPO)
Concurrence on Eligibility
Determinations
SHPO Letter of Concurrence
received on November 3,
2020. No Register-eligible
resources present.

Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission Air
Quality Conformity
Task Force
Regional air quality
conformity
MTC Task Force reviewed
the proposed project on July
23, 2020, and found that the
proposed project is not a
Project of Air Quality
Concern.

Federal Highway
Administration
Concurrence on air quality
conformity determination
FHWA will provide air quality
conformity concurrence prior
to issuance of the final
environmental document and
Finding of No Significant
Impact.

San Francisco Bay
Conservation and
Development
Commission
Permit Permit application to be filed
during final design
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-58
CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Agency Permit/Approval Status
United States Coast
Guard Notification During the design phase
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1-59
This page intentionally left blank.

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENIVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION,

AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
As part of the scoping and environmental analysis carried out for the proposed project, the following environmental issues were considered but either found not to be present in the study area or the Build Alternative would have no adverse impact. As a result, there is no further discussion about these issues in this document (see Table 2.0-1).

Topics Considered But Determined Not to be Relevant

Environmental Issue Description
Farmlands/Timberlands The study area is not located near any prime farmland, unique farmland, or land of statewide or
local importance according to the California
Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program. The study area is not
located near any land protected under the
Williamson Act.

Growth Project improvements proposed under the Build
Alternative are freeway operational improvements
that would not increase capacity of Interstate 80,
create new access to local communities, or directly
or indirectly induce growth. Improvements would
indirectly support improved access to Emeryville
and Berkeley where population growth is expected.

State Scenic Highways There are no officially designated state scenic highways or eligible highways within the visual
study area (VSA).

Wild and Scenic Rivers The project area is not located near any wild and scenic rivers according to the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2-1

CHAPTER 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
This page intentionally left blank.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2-2
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

2.1.1 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE
This section evaluates impacts associated with land use and planning that could occur as a result of the proposed project. Sources of information used to prepare the analysis include:
▪ City of Emeryville General Plan (2019)
▪ City of Berkeley General Plan (2001)
▪ City of Emeryville Zoning Ordinance
▪ City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance
▪ Plan Bay Area (2050)
▪ Alameda County General Plan (2019)
▪ Community Impact Assessment (October 2021) prepared for the proposed project

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Existing Land Uses and Zoning
Aside from transportation uses associated with the interchange itself, there are two primary land use classifications within the land use study area: parks/open space and commercial (Figure 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-2). Park lands are located on the west side of the interchange (San Francisco Bay Trail and Point Emery) and to the northeast (Aquatic Park in Berkeley). Commercial uses are located to the southeast of the interchange in Emeryville. This portion of the project area is zoned as “Mixed Use with Residential” and “Mixed Use with Non-Residential.” Other land uses within the land use study area include a private college and an apartment complex. The apartment complex is located at 6400 Christie Avenue, less than 100 feet southeast of the interchange in Emeryville. There are no farmlands present in the area.

Planned Developments
A majority of Berkeley’s planning area is currently built out; however, the areas of Berkeley near the interchange are primarily parkland and open space. Berkeley Aquatic Park borders the northeast side of the project area. Similarly, the area west of the interchange including the San Francisco Bay Trail and Point Emery is characterized by INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-1
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
park and trail uses, as well as sensitive bay lands. None of these areas are available for development.

According to the Emeryville General Plan, land use goals include redevelopment of existing underutilized sites due to the scarcity of vacant land. The majority of planned infill development projects in Emeryville are residential (single-family, multifamily, mixed-use and live/work). This includes the planned development of approximately 186 residential units at 6701 Shellmound Street (the “Nady Site”), located 250 feet east of the project area in Emeryville. Other planned projects near the project area include the redesign and expansion of Christie Park, located approximately 0.3 mile to the south on Christie Avenue.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-2
INTESTATE 80/ASHBY AVNUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Berkeley Land Use Map Figure 2.1-1
Source: Circlepoint 2020, City of Berkely 2019
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
High Density Residen�al
Medium-High Density Residen�al
Medium Density Residen�al
Mixed Use with Residen�al
Mixed Use with Non-Residen�al
Office/Technology
Office/Technology
Doyle Hollis North Area
Industrial
Public
Marina
Park/Open Space
Public/Park
Other Park Opportunity
Regional Retail Overlay
Neighborhood Retail Overlay
Neighborhood Center
Major Transit Hub
Emeryville Land Use Map Figure 2.1-2
Source: Circle point 2020; City of Emeryville 2019.

Legend
Emeryville General Plan Land Uses
Project Loca�on

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no changes would be made to the interchange within the project area. The No Build Alternative would not conflict with existing or proposed land uses. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would have no effect on land use.

Build Alternative
Permanent Operational Impact
The Build Alternative would alleviate congestion, improve multi-modal access, and support implementation of local and regional land use and transportation plans. The Emeryville and Berkeley general plans identify the interchange as an area that could benefit from improved circulation and enhanced mobility. Additionally, the Emeryville General Plan identifies the need for a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing (BPOC) on the south side of the interchange. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has also included the proposed project in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

The project would promote the implementation of local general plans and regional plans. The proposed project would not require or result in changes in existing land use patterns in the surrounding area. The proposed project would require acquisition of portions of a disused parking lot associated with the KRE radio station building for the construction of the Bay Street connector to Ashby Avenue and relocation of the driveway. The operation of the KRE radio station would not be affected by the property acquisitions. Based on the above, the Build Alternative would not result in an adverse effect related to existing or future land use.

Temporary Construction Impact
Construction activities and construction staging areas may result in traffic inconveniences for local roadway users and surrounding businesses. Temporary intersection closures would be required during construction, and detour routes would be provided within each jurisdiction (refer to AMM TRA-1 through AMM TRA-5 in Appendix C for a full description of these detours). Given that closures would be temporary and detour routes would be provided, construction of the Build Alternative would not result in an adverse effect related to land use.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts arise due to the combination of impacts from past, present, and foreseeable future projects in the region. Past and future development within Emeryville and Berkeley consists of mostly commercial and residential projects. As previously INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-5
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
discussed, none of the areas directly west or northeast of the project area in Berkeley are proposed for development. Projects proposed within Emeryville to the southeast of the interchange would be redevelopment or infill development consistent with local land use patterns. The proposed project is accounted for in applicable plans and regulatory documents locally and within the region. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable land use goals, policies, and objectives of each jurisdiction’s General Plan, as demonstrated in 0. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to land use.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
No project features would be required to help minimize impacts.

Avoidance and Minimization
No avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.1.2 CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS AND

PROGRAMS

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section identifies existing regional, local, and area plans and policies that apply to the study area. Future growth and development in the study area are guided by land use policies and programs set forth in the following planning documents. The proposed project’s consistency with these planning documents and the policies therein is addressed in Table 2.1-1.

Local Regulations
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2050 is an updated long-range RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. This document discusses how the Bay Area will grow over the next two decades and identifies transportation and land use strategies to enable a more sustainable, equitable and economically vibrant future.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-6
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Alameda County General Plan
The Alameda County General Plan is a long-range policy document approved by the Board of Supervisors to guide physical, economic, and environmental growth. State law requires the County to have a General Plan which contains seven elements: Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Open Space; Conservation; Safety and Noise. The plan expresses the County's vision for the future and is the roadmap for achieving the community's desired quality of life.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley General Plan
The portion of the project area north of Ashby Avenue, is within the City of Berkeley.

Land uses in this area are governed by the City of Berkeley’s General Plan. The Berkeley General Plan is the comprehensive planning document which governs development within the City. The plan sets forth goals, policies, and programs for the growth and development of Berkeley.

City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance
The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance is an evolving set of regulations that define how property in specific zones within Berkeley can be used. The purpose is to divide a municipality into residential, commercial, and industrial districts or zones.

Emeryville
Emeryville General Plan
Most of the project is in Emeryville. In these areas, the surrounding land uses are governed by the City’s General Plan. The Emeryville General Plan is the comprehensive planning document that governs development within Emeryville Emeryville Zoning Ordinance
The City of Emeryville Zoning Ordinance is an evolving set of regulations that define how property in specific zones within Emeryville can be used. The purpose is to divide a municipality into residential, commercial, and industrial districts or zones.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The Build Alternative’s consistency with relevant local plans and policies is discussed in Table 2.1-1. The No Build Alternative’s consistency is also discussed for comparison.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-7

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.1-1 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs General Plan Policy Build Alternative No Build Alternative Regional Transportation
Plan
Consistent. The proposed
project is listed in the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP).

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, the planned
project in the RTP would not
be implemented.

Plan Bay Area Consistent. The proposed
project is listed in Plan Bay
Area’s assumptions for planned
roadway improvements.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, this
anticipated road
improvement project would
not be implemented.

Caltrans Complete Streets
To ensure that travelers of
all ages and abilities can
move safely and efficiently
along and across a
network of complete
streets.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes enhancements that
would provide safe mobility for
all users, including bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit vehicles,
truckers, and motorists.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, planned
improvements to the existing
interchanges would not
occur.

Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan
Goal 1: Plan, Build, and
Maintain Pedestrian
Supportive Infrastructure.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes a bicycle/pedestrian
overcrossing (BPOC), which
would provide a safer way for
pedestrians to travel through the
interchange. Sidewalk
improvements, shared-use path,
and pedestrian-friendly signal
improvements would be included
throughout the project area.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, no
additional pedestrian facilities
would be implemented.

Policy 2.1: Disabled
Access: Improve
pedestrian access for the
entire disabled
community.

Consistent. The BPOC,
intersections, and sidewalks
would be designed to be
American with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliant, which would
improve access for people with
disabilities.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, no
pedestrian facilities would be
implemented, which would
not improve access for the
disabled community.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-8

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
General Plan Policy Build Alternative No Build Alternative Policy 2.2: Pedestrian
Safety and Accessibility:

Provide safe and
convenient pedestrian
crossings throughout the
city.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes a BPOC, which would
provide a safer way for
pedestrians to travel through the
interchange. Sidewalk
improvements, a shared-use
path, shortened intersection
crossings, and pedestrianfriendly signal improvements
would be included throughout
the project area.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, no
additional pedestrian facilities
would be implemented.

Currently, the project area
lacks ADA curb ramps and
other pedestrian safety
features.

Policy 2.3: Intersection
with Severe or High
Collision Rates:

Reduce pedestrian and
bicycle collisions, injuries,
and fatalities.

Consistent. Under the Build
Alternative, a BPOC would be
implemented and provide a safer
way for pedestrians to travel
through the interchange.

Sidewalk improvements, a
shared-use path, shortened
intersection crossings, and
pedestrian-friendly signal
improvements would be included
throughout the project area. This
would help reduce the
occurrence of accidents.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, no
additional pedestrian facilities
would be implemented,
which would not improve
safety in the study area.

Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Policy D-1: Design a Low
Stress Bikeway Network:

Design a Low Stress
Bikeway Network suitable
for the “Interested but
Concerned” cyclists,
which would include
people of all ages and
ability levels riding
bicycles in Berkeley.

Policy D-1 Action:

Design a network of
continuous Low Stress
Bikeways as identified in
the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes implementation of a
BPOC, which would provide a
safer way for bicyclists to travel
through the interchange.

Not Consistent. The No Build
Alternative does not include
any improvements to bicycle
facilities in the study area.

Under the No Build
Alternative, the bikeway
network would not connect to
existing bike paths.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-9

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
General Plan Policy Build Alternative No Build Alternative Policy PD-1: Construct
projects within the Bicycle
Plan:

Utilizing all available
internal and external
resources.

Consistent. The bicycle
improvements included under
the Build Alternative are fully
funded from available resources.

Not Consistent. The No Build
Alternative does not include
any improvements to bicycle
facilities in the study area.

Berkeley General Plan Consistency
Policy LU-9: NonResidential Traffic:

Minimize or eliminate
traffic impacts on
residential areas from
institutional and
commercial uses through
careful land use
decisions.

Consistent. The proposed
project would minimize traffic
impacts on residential areas
surrounding the interchange by
providing a new off-ramp
towards Emeryville.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, existing
conditions would remain.

Policy LU-11: Pedestrianand Bicycle-Friendly
Neighborhoods:

Ensure that
neighborhoods are
pedestrian- and bicyclefriendly with wellmaintained streets, street trees, sidewalks, and
pathways.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes the implementation of a
BPOC, which would provide a
safer way for pedestrians and
bicyclists to travel through the
interchange.

Not Consistent. The No Build
Alternative would not ensure
neighborhoods are
pedestrian- and bicyclefriendly because there would
remain no pedestrian/bicycle
access from Ashby Avenue
to the west side of I-80.

Transportation Objective
6:

Create a model bicycleand pedestrian-friendly
city where bicycling and
walking are safe,
attractive, easy, and
convenient forms of
transportation and
recreation for people of all
ages and abilities.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes the implementation of a
BPOC, which would provide a
safer way for pedestrians and
bicyclists to travel through the
interchange.

Not Consistent. The No Build
Alternative does not include
any improvements to
pedestrian or bicycle facilities
in the study area.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-10

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
General Plan Policy Build Alternative No Build Alternative Policy T-22: Traffic Circles
and Roundabouts:

Encourage the use of
landscaped traffic circles
to calm traffic in
residential areas.

Action: A.

Consider roundabouts as
a viable traffic-calming
device, especially at the
Shattuck and Adeline
intersection, the Gilman
Street Freeway on- and
off-ramps, and at other
appropriate intersections
in the city.

Slightly Inconsistent. The Build
Alternative considered a
roundabout alternative but did
not believe it was feasible
because it did not satisfy the
purpose, need and operational
requirements of the proposed
project.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative,
roundabouts would not be
implemented at the
interchange.

Policy T-29 Infrastructure
Improvements:

Facilitate mobility and the
flow of traffic on major and
collector streets (shown
on the Vehicular
Circulation Network map
at the end of the
Element), reduce the air
quality impacts of
congestion, improve
pedestrian and bicycle
access, and speed public
transportation throughout
the city by making
improvements to the
existing physical
infrastructure.

F:

Improve freeway
approaches and
interchanges at Ashby
Avenue (including
removal of Potter Street
ramp) and Gilman Street
(to improve pedestrian
and bicycle circulation to
the waterfront and
facilitate truck access to
West Berkeley).

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes a westbound off-ramp
at I-80/Ashby Avenue to improve
mobility and the flow of traffic,
which also helps reduce air
quality impacts from idling
vehicles.

The Build Alternative also
includes a BPOC, which would
provide a safer way for
pedestrians and bicyclists to
travel through the interchange
which creates a direct path to
the San Francisco Bay Trail.

These pedestrian and bicycle
improvements improve
pedestrian and bicycle access in
the area.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, new onand off- ramps would not be
implemented at the
interchange, and congestion,
delay, and air quality would
continue to worsen. In
addition, no pedestrian or
bicycle facilities would be
implemented, which would
hinder access in the area.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-11

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
General Plan Policy Build Alternative No Build Alternative Policy OS-10 Access
Improvements:

Improve transit, bicycle,
disabled, and pedestrian
access to and between
open space and
recreation facilities,
including regional facilities
such as the Berkeley
Marina, UCB open space,
EBRPD lands, the
McLaughlin Eastshore
State Park, and
recreational facilities in
other cities.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes a BPOC, which would
provide a safer way for
pedestrians and bicyclists to
travel through the interchange.

This pedestrian and bicycle
improvement will improve
access to the San Francisco Bay
Trail.

Not Consistent. Under the No
Build Alternative, no
pedestrian or bicycle facilities
would be implemented,
which would not improve
access to recreational
facilities in the area.

Emeryville General Plan
T-G-1: A Comprehensive
Transportation System:

A transportation system
that is efficient, safe,
removes barriers,
(e.g., accessibility near
freeways and rail lines),
and optimizes travel by all
modes.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes a BPOC, which would
provide a safer way for
pedestrians to travel through the
interchange. Sidewalk
improvements, a shared-use
path, and pedestrian-friendly
signal improvements would be
included throughout the project
area.

Not Consistent. The No
Build-Alternative does not
include any improvements
that would optimize travel by
all modes.

T-G-2: Universally
accessible—A
transportation system that
meets the needs of all
segments of the
population,
including youth, seniors,
persons with disabilities,
and low-income
households.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes the implementation of
an ADA-compliant BPOC, which
would provide a safer way for
pedestrians and bicyclists to
travel through the interchange.

Not Consistent. The No
Build-Alternative does not
include any improvements
that would benefit all
segments of the population.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-12

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
General Plan Policy Build Alternative No Build Alternative T-G-4 A walkable city—A
universally accessible,
safe, pleasant,
convenient, and
integrated pedestrian
system
that provides links within
the city and to
surrounding communities
and reduces vehicular
conflicts.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes the implementation of a
BPOC, which would create a
more pleasant and convenient
route to the San Francisco Bay
rather than crossing I-80 on- and
off-ramps.

Not Consistent. The No
Build-Alternative does not
include any improvements
that would create a more
walkable city.

T-G-5 A safe,
comprehensive, and
integrated bicycle
system—A system and
support facilities
throughout the city that
encourage accessible
bicycling for all community
members.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
would provide a safer way for
bicyclists to travel through the
interchange.

Not Consistent. The No
Build-Alternative does not
include any improvements
that would support bicycles
facilities around the
interchange.

T-P-5 The City
encourages development
that minimizes Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT).

Consistent. The Build Alternative
would contribute to regional
reductions in VMT by improving
access to the San Francisco Bay
shoreline and enhancing active
transportation opportunities. It
would also decrease VMT by
allowing vehicles to exit the
freeway closer to their
destination.

Not Consistent. The No
Build-Alternative does not
include any improvements
that would minimize VMTs.

T-P-20 Safe and direct
pedestrian access to
Aquatic Park and the
peninsula will be provided
and maintained.

Consistent. The Build Alternative
includes implementation of a
BPOC that would provide
improved access to the Aquatic
Park via the Ashby Avenue
overcrossing.

Not Consistent. The No Build
Alternative does not include
any improvements including
access to the Aquatic Park.

Source: City of Emeryville 2019, City of Berkeley 2001

2.1.3 COASTAL ZONE
This section evaluates effects associated with costal zones that occur within the Project area. The Sea Level Rise Memorandum (November 2021) prepared for the proposed project was used to prepare the analysis in this section.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-13
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed project has the potential to affect resources protected by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. The CZMA is the primary federal law enacted to preserve and protect coastal resources. The CZMA sets up a program under which coastal states are encouraged to develop coastal management programs. States with an approved coastal management plan have authority to review federal permits and activities to determine if they are consistent with the state’s management plan.

California has developed a coastal zone management plan and has enacted its own law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, to protect the coastline. The policies established by the California Coastal Act are similar to those for the CZMA. They include the protection and expansion of public access and recreation, the protection, enhancement, and restoration of environmentally sensitive areas, the protection of agricultural lands, the protection of scenic beauty, and the protection of property and life from coastal hazards. The California Coastal Commission is responsible for implementation and oversight under the California Coastal Act.

Just as the federal CZMA delegates power to coastal states to develop their own coastal management plans, the California Coastal Act delegates power to local governments to enact their own local coastal programs. This proposed project is subject to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) local coastal program.

Local Coastal Programs contain the ground rules for development and protection of coastal resources in their jurisdiction consistent with the California Coastal Act goals.

BCDC also oversees implementation of the San Francisco Bay Plan. A Federal Consistency Certification will be needed as well. The Federal Consistency Certification process will be initiated prior to final environmental document and will be completed during the NEPA process.

BCDC, created prior to the California Coastal Act, retains oversight and planning responsibilities for developed and conservation of coastal resources in the Bay Area.

The regulatory authority for BCDC is the McAteer-Petris Act and the Suisun Marsh Protection Act.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed project is situated within the coastal zone. The entire western portion of the proposed project is located within BCDC jurisdiction. However, most construction would be located within Caltrans’ right of way (ROW) along I-80.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-14
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would not affect San Francisco Bay resources because none of the improvements of the proposed project would be implemented. Only scheduled routine maintenance of the area would occur along with other planned and programmed projects and would not result in any impacts to the San Francisco Bay.

Build Alternative
Permanent Operational Impacts
The proposed project would not adversely affect resources, views, or access to the San Francisco Bay (along the San Francisco Bay Trail). Meanwhile, public access to the San Francisco Bay Trail and other bay resources would improve as a result of the proposed project.

Temporary Construction Impacts
The proposed project comprises the following three improvements: (1) redesign of the elevated interchange, (2) realignment of West Frontage Road to intersect with Ashby Avenue, and (3) introduction of a new bicycle and pedestrian connection from the east side of I-80 to the Point Emery area and the San Francisco Bay Trail on the west side of the interchange. Portions of the project area that fall within BCDC’s jurisdiction include the San Francisco Bay, West Frontage Road, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the Radio Tower Pond. The following activities would be required within BCDC jurisdiction:
clearing of vegetation and conflicting structures utility relocation; demolishing the existing I-80/Ashby Avenue connector ramps and replacing them with a tight diamond interchange, and road improvements. Construction activities include clearing, demolition, grading, excavation, grubbing of vegetation, and increasing impervious surfaces adjacent to the San Francisco Bay shoreline. As a result, sedimentation and pollutants could enter neighboring bodies of water, tidal flats, and marsh areas including Berkeley Aquatic Park and San Francisco Bay.

There would be temporary impacts to shoreline access next to the San Francisco Bay Trail. Vehicular detours and closures are anticipated during construction activities along West Frontage Road as described in Section 1.5.1, Proposed Project. During this time, West Frontage Road will be temporarily closed to traffic between University Avenue and Powell Street while the new alignment is under construction. The West Frontage Road closure would not interfere with the use of the San Francisco Bay Trail. However, it would limit vehicular and water vessel launching access to Emery Point during the temporary closure.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-15
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Under the McAteer-Petris Act, BCDC has regulatory responsibility over development in the San Francisco Bay and shoreline margins within its jurisdiction. In more recent years, BCDC has adopted policies to require projects to be resilient to rising sea level based on a project’s expected life. BCDC issues permits for project activities in the San Francisco Bay or within 100 feet of the shoreline, including filling, dredging, dredged sediment disposal, shoreline development and other work. In addition to its permit authority under state law, BCDC exercises authority under Section 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)(16 U.S.C. section 1456) over federal activities and development projects and non-federal projects that require a federal permit or license or are supported by federal funding.

Caltrans has begun early consultation with BCDC regarding the required permit for temporary work within BCDC jurisdiction. As part of the permitting process, BCDC requires a Sea Level Rise Assessment and a comprehensive construction closure, detour, and signage plan. A Sea Level Rise Memorandum was prepared for the project, and approved November 1, 2021. As discussed in the Sea Level Rise Memorandum, the proposed project is currently evaluating the addition of a tidal flap gate or a duck bill valve at the proposed new outfall structure as a near-term mitigation measure to prevent backwater flow conditions. This may be the first step to add resiliency to the project and to aid in incorporating other management strategies to be considered in the future as part of other regional projects.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
There are no applicable project features associated with coastal zone resources.

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM TRA-1: (Public Access to the San Francisco Bay Trail) During construction of the new outfall area, a temporary detour around the construction area will be installed to ensure continuous access to the San Francisco Bay Trail is maintained.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM TRA-1.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-16
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.1.4 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 United States Code (USC) 303, declares that “it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.”
Section 4(f) specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project “…requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if:
“There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.” Section 4(f) further requires coordination with the Department of the Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in developing transportation projects and programs that use lands protected by Section 4(f). If historic sites are involved, then coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer is also needed.

Responsibility for compliance with Section 4(f) has been assigned to the Department pursuant to 23 USC 326 and 327, including determinations and approval of Section 4(f) evaluations, as well as coordination with those agencies that have jurisdiction over a Section 4(f) resource that may be affected by a project action.

State
Park Preservation Act
The Park Preservation Act (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 5400- 5409) prohibits local and state agencies from acquiring any property which is in use as a public park at the time of acquisition unless the acquiring agency pays sufficient compensation or land, or both, to enable the operator of the park to replace the park land and any park facilities on that land.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-17
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Section 4(f)
There are no historic or archaeological resources subject to the provisions of Section 4(f) in the project area. There are four recreational facilities present within the project area that are subject to Section 4(f) provisions: Berkeley Aquatic Park, the San Francisco Bay Trail, Point Emery Park, and Christie Park.

Public Parks
Emeryville and Berkeley have extensive park systems offering a diverse range of outdoor facilities to meet the needs of both communities. Table 2.1-2 lists the three public parks and recreational facilities located within 0.5-mile of the project area:

Christie Park, Point Emery, and Aquatic Park. These parks are public parks and subject to the provisions of the Park Preservation Act.

Table 2.1-2 Parks and Recreational Facilities
Name Size Status
Distance from
Project area
(within 0.5
mile)
Jurisdiction Featured
Activities
Christie
Park N/A Under renovation 0.5 mile south Emeryville
Children’s
playground, dog
park.

Point Emery 1.37 acres Built 0.1 mile west Emeryville
Walking, hiking,
watercraft
activities
Aquatic
Park

32.76 land
acres,

67.7 water
acres
Built
Adjacent to the
northside of the
proposed
project
Berkeley
Boating, hiking,
playground, bird
watching.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-18
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Trails and Bikeways
The existing bike and trail system in Emeryville and Berkeley consists of on- and offstreet facilities. Off-street bike paths include the Neighborhood Convergence Trail, San Francisco Bay Trail, Shellmound Trail, and the Amtrak Bike Path. These trails are protected under the provisions of Section 4(f), because they are publicly owned and designated or functioning primarily for recreational purposes. The San Francisco Bay Trail and the Neighborhood Convergence Trail are located within 0.5 mile of the proposed project, to the west and south, respectively.

On-street bike paths provide vital connections throughout Emeryville and Berkeley, including connections to regional parks and schools. However, the existing bikeways in both cities are often incomplete, leaving cyclists with sections of road that are difficult and dangerous to ride. Bicycle facilities include the following general types:
▪ Class I: Shared Use Path – These facilities provide a separate ROW and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle crossflow minimized. ▪ Class II: Bicycle Lane – Bicycle lanes provide a restricted ROW and are designated for the use of bicycles for one-way travel with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are generally a minimum of 5 feet wide.

Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. ▪ Class III: Bicycle route with “sharrows” – These bikeways provide ROW designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with motor vehicles.

These include “sharrows” or shared lane markings to highlight the presence of bicyclists.

I-80 Ashby Avenue Interchange
The Berkeley Bicycle Master Plan of 2017 shows an existing Class III bike lane that runs along Bay Street, including Shellmound Street. However, this bike lane has signage only, and shares a lane with vehicular traffic. This bike lane is not protected under Section 4(f).

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, none of the project features described under the Build Alternative would be constructed. The existing transportation facilities within the project area would remain unchanged except for the planned and programmed improvements.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-19
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
No other projects are planned within the project area. The No Build Alternative would not result in an adverse effect to parks or recreation resources.

Build Alternative
Section 4(f)
The following analysis is a summary of the findings detailed in Appendix A: Section 4(f).

Potential increases in construction emissions and noise attributable to the proposed project would be temporary and would not substantially impair features or attributes of Berkeley Aquatic Park, the San Francisco Bay Trail, Point Emery, or Christie Park.

Detours during construction periods would be temporary and would be managed as part of PF TRA-1, and AMM TRA-1 through AMM TRA-5 (see Appendix C for the full text of these features and measures). PF TRA-1 requires a TMP to be prepared to ensure efficient movement of local and regional traffic during construction. The TMP will provide outreach to inform community agencies, such as the fire department, and the public of the times and locations of upcoming construction, signage in and approaching the project area, and incident management for traffic control in the vicinity of the construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any direct use or temporary occupancy of recreational resources. The proposed project would not result in a constructive use of the described Section 4(f) resources. The proposed project would not result in a use of any other Section 4(f) resources.

Parks and Recreational Resources
Permanent Operational Impacts
The Build Alternative would not require permanent acquisition of parks or recreational facilities. Once operational, the Build Alternative would not reduce access to parks or recreational facilities or increases in ambient noise levels. The Build Alternative would include a Class I shared pedestrian and bicycle path along Shellmound Street and Bay Street, which would extend over I-80 via the proposed BPOC. This would improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity across the interchange. Proposed improvements to the local and regional bicycle and pedestrian network are consistent with local and regional plans. Additionally, as a roadway project, the Build Alternative would not have growth-inducing effects that would increase demands for parks or recreational facilities such that expansion of existing facilities or creation of new parks and recreation facilities would be required. Therefore, operation of the Build Alternative would not result in adverse effects to parks or recreation resources.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-20

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Temporary Construction Impacts
Construction work has the potential to affect Aquatic Park and Point Emery. Potential increases in ambient noise levels during construction could result in noise impacts in the areas where parks and recreational facilities are located, due to the relative distance between the project area and both parks (less than 1,000 feet, respectively). However, the noise levels during construction would be temporary, and limited to daytime construction hours. Incorporation of project features PF NOI-1 through PF NOI-6 would ensure that adverse effects would not occur (refer to Appendix C for the full text of these project features). Additionally, construction of the Build Alternative would require a temporary detour for the San Francisco Bay Trail during the construction of the new outfall (AMM TRA-5). Disruptions related to this detour would be minimized through the incorporation of a TMP during construction (PF TRA-1).

Construction work would not occur within Christie Park identified in Table 2.1-2.

Potential increases in ambient noise levels during construction would not result in noise impacts in the areas where parks and recreational facilities are located, because of the relative distance between the project area and nearby parks (0.3 mile) and the presence of intervening multistory commercial and residential buildings. Therefore, construction of the Build Alternative would not result in an adverse effect related to this resource.

Cumulative Impacts
The Build Alternative would not affect parks, recreational resources, or Section 4(f) resources. Construction of the Build Alternative would require a temporary detour for the San Francisco Bay Trail during the construction of the new outfall. Additionally, West Frontage Road would be closed to traffic from University Avenue to Powell Street during construction, which would limit access to Point Emery for automobiles and waterborne vehicle launching (AMM TRA-2). However, disruptions related to these closures would be temporary and would be minimized through incorporation of the TMP (PF TRA-1).

Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative effects on these resources.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF-TRA-1: A TMP will be prepared to ensure efficient movement of local and regional traffic during construction.

PF NOI-1: Caltrans Standard Noise Control BMPs such as limiting paving and demolition activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-21
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
PF NOI-2: Inspection of equipment by the contractor will ensure that all equipment onsite is working properly, in good condition, and effectively muffled. All equipment will have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment.

PF NOI-3: Construction activities shall be minimized in the study area during evening, nighttime, weekend, and holiday periods.

PF NOI-4: Restrict the hours of vibration-intensive equipment or activities such as vibratory rollers so that impacts to study area users are minimal (e.g., restrict the hours to weekdays during daytime hours).

PF NOI-5: The Resident Engineer will be responsible to collect and respond to any complaints related to construction noise.

PF NOI-6: Truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations will be minimized so that noise and vibration are kept to a minimum through the study area to the greatest possible extent.
(Refer to Appendix C for the full text of these project features).

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM TRA-1: The I-80 mainline closures would occur at night for the placement of the pre-cast girders for the proposed Ashby overcrossing, demolition of the remaining original ramp structures over I-80 and false work erection and removal for the bike and pedestrian overcrossing.

AMM TRA-2: During the construction of West Frontage Road, vehicular detours and closure would be anticipated. West Frontage Road would be closed to traffic from University Avenue to Powell Street. Once the construction of West Frontage Road is completed in Stage 3, temporary access ramps would be put in place and vehicular access would be restored.

AMM TRA-3: Mainline traffic would be transitioned temporarily onto the right shoulder to accommodate the median falsework support structure for BPOC. This temporary lane shift would be striped and signed accordingly. Nighttime work is anticipated for the following construction activities; k-rail installation and removal, installation of precast girders, existing ramp and abutment demolition, falsework erection and removal, temporary striping for the lane shifts during BPOC construction and permanent striping activities. Lane closure plans would be developed for nighttime closures at each construction stage.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-22
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
AMM TRA-4: The Potter Street eastbound I-80 On-Ramp would remain open until the construction of the new on-ramp and then it would be permanently closed and replaced by the new on-ramp. In the interval between the closure of the Potter Street on-ramp and the opening of the new eastbound on-ramp, detours would be established to direct traffic to use either University Avenue or Powell Street to access eastbound I-80.

AMM TRA-5: During construction of the new outfall area, a temporary detour around the construction area will be implemented. The West Frontage Road closure would not interfere with the use of the San Francisco Bay Trail. However, it would limit access to Point Emery and Barkley Beach via automobile and any waterborne vehicle launching at Point Emery and Barkley Beach during the temporary closure.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM TRA-1 through AMM TRA-5.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.1.5 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COHESION

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, established that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code [USC] 4331[b][2]). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]) directs those final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest. This requires taking into account adverse environmental impacts, such as destruction or disruption of human-made resources, community cohesion, and the availability of public facilities and services.

State
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an economic or social change by itself is not to be considered a significant effect on the environment. However, if a social or economic change is related to a physical change, then social or economic change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

Since this proposed project would result in physical change to the environment, it is appropriate to consider changes to community character and cohesion in assessing the significance of the project’s effects.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-23
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information in this section is based on the CIA prepared for the project (October 2021).

The CIA considered and analyzed impacts to the communities within Emeryville and Berkeley. As described in the CIA, a 0.5-mile buffer was established for the study area for addressing indirect effects such as community character and population and housing. For indirect effects that could encompass larger areas, such as economic conditions, the jurisdictions are evaluated as a whole (Emeryville, Berkeley, and Alameda County).

Land Use
The area southeast of the interchange primarily consists of commercial businesses with some high-density residential housing. The west and northeast sides are bordered by the San Francisco Bay Trail and Berkeley Aquatic Park, respectively. For more detail on existing and planned land uses in the project area, refer to Section 2.1.1, Existing and Future Land Use.

Neighborhoods/Communities/Community Character
The values and issues that are important to a community set the character and baseline context for how the proposed project would fit into the community’s ideologies. The community character of each city is described below, including key community and activity centers.

Emeryville
There are several parks and recreational facilities within 2 miles of the project area that contribute to the community, such as Christie Park and the Emeryville Center of Community Life. Point Emery is located 100 feet west of the existing interchange and provides scenic views of the San Francisco Bay as well as recreational fishing opportunities.

Berkeley
Berkeley provides a variety of community recreational activities and facilities.

Recreational resources located within 2 miles of the project area include Frances Albrier Community Center, Malcolm X School Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Center, South Berkeley Senior Center and more. Berkeley Aquatic Park is located 800 feet north of the existing interchange.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-24
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Population and Housing
The following population data was compiled from the 2017 American Communities Survey (ACS), which is the most recent U.S. Census data available after the U.S.

Census in 2010.

Alameda County is part of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay Area.

It is the second most populous county in the region and the seventh most populous county in the state. Alameda County has a population of approximately 1.6 million people. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the County saw an increase of 3.6 percent in employed residents between 2000 and 2011, increasing to 718,035 employed residents ages 16 and over.

The population in Emeryville is projected to experience significant growth, from 10,105 people in 2010 to 34,310 people by 2040 (209 percent) (ABAG and MTC, 2018).

Growth in Emeryville is anticipated to outpace growth in nearby cities and in Alameda County as a whole. The population in Berkeley is projected to increase from 112,660 people in 2010 to 140,935 people in 2040 (ABAG and MTC, 2018). Most of this population growth would occur in commercial corridors (San Pablo Avenue, University Avenue) due to the availability of housing and additional housing development.

According to ABAG and MTC, Alameda County had 545,105 households in 2010, while Berkeley had 46,030 households and Emeryville had 5,695 households. Based on ABAG and MTC’s 2018 projections, Alameda County would have 734,710 households by 2040, an increase of 35 percent, while Berkeley would have 55,370 households, an increase of 20 percent, and Emeryville would have 11,616 households, an increase of 204 percent.

MTC and ABAG (2018) provide population, housing, and employment projections for Bay Area counties and cities in the Plan Bay Area reports. Using ABAG data, Emeryville is expected to increase in population by 209 percent and Berkeley by 25 percent.

Income
As reported by the 2018 ACS, Emeryville and Berkeley’s employment rate is 70.5 percent and 58.1 percent respectively. Unemployment in Emeryville is roughly 3.8 percent, and 4.2 percent in Berkeley.

Housing
As described in Section 2.1.1, Existing and Future Land Use, land uses surrounding the interchange are primarily parkland/open space and commercial development. The closes housing to the project area is an apartment complex located at 6400 Christie Avenue, less than 100 feet southeast of the interchange in Emeryville.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-25
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements would occur, and the programmed and planned interchange improvements would not be met. The existing transportation facilities within the project area would remain unchanged. The No Build Alternative would have no effect on the exiting community character or cohesion, regional population characteristics, housing, or other community impacts.

Build Alternative
Neighborhoods/Community/Community Character and Population Permanent Operational Impacts
The Build Alternative would not change the character of the area because it is already a heavily urbanized area that supports a major interstate (I-80) and associated facilities.

Rather, the proposed improvements would enhance access and connectivity of the communities on the east side of the interchange with park and trail resources on the west side of the interchange, thereby increasing community cohesion in the area.

Temporary Construction Impacts
During construction, temporary roadway closures might inconvenience community members for a short period but would not affect general travel routines with incorporation of AMM TRA-1 through AMM TRA-5. Additionally, during the construction period, standard project features PF COM-1 through PF COM-5 would avoid effects on the community during the construction period by maintaining access to local residences and business and ensuring the continued provision of utilities and services.

The Build Alternative would not displace residences or otherwise divide an existing neighborhood. Construction activities would not occur in proximity to any community facilities where people congregate for festivals, farmer’s markets, or other community events. For these reasons, construction of the Build Alternative would not negatively affect community cohesion.

Housing
The Build Alternative would not displace residences or residents, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Build Alternative would not introduce any population growth requiring the construction of additional housing.

There are some people experiencing homelessness within and surrounding the project area, specifically under the I-80 overcrossing and around Aquatic Park. It should be INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-26
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
noted that persons experiencing homelessness are not, by definition, an environmental justice population. Caltrans District Maintenance Procedures will be followed if needed before construction.

Cumulative Impacts
The Build Alternative would improve traffic circulation and mobility in a built-out urban area. Improvements to the interchange would improve or replace existing infrastructure and would not encroach on existing communities. The Build Alternative would support identified growth projections and would not negatively affect the cohesion of existing communities surrounding the project area. The Build Alternative would not change the character of the area because it is already a mostly urbanized area that supports a major interstate (I-80) and associated facilities. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to community character and cohesion.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF-COM-1: Access to all properties for property owners and users will be maintained by the contractor during construction.

PF-COM-2: Caltrans will coordinate relocation work with the affected utility companies to minimize disruption of services to customers in the area during construction.

PF-COM-3: Caltrans will coordinate with emergency service providers and the public information office to avoid emergency service delays by ensuring that all providers are aware well in advance of lane closures.

PF-COM-4: During the design phase of the project, prepare a TMP in accordance with Caltrans requirements and guidelines and in coordination with local agencies, service providers, local communities, business association, and affected drivers.

PF-COM-5: A public outreach program will be implemented throughout the construction period to keep the public informed of the construction schedule and scheduled parking and roadway closures, including detour routes and, if available, alternative parking.

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM TRA-1: The I-80 mainline closures would occur at night for the placement of the pre-cast girders for the proposed Ashby overcrossing, demolition of the remaining original ramp structures over I-80 and false work erection and removal for the bike and pedestrian overcrossing.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-27
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
AMM TRA-2: During the construction of West Frontage Road, vehicular detours and closure would be anticipated. West Frontage Road would be closed to traffic from University Avenue to Powell Street. Once the construction of West Frontage Road is completed in Stage 3, temporary access ramps would be put in place and vehicular access would be restored.

AMM TRA-3: Mainline traffic would be transitioned temporarily onto the right shoulder to accommodate the median falsework support structure for BPOC. This temporary lane shift would be striped and signed accordingly. Nighttime work is anticipated for the following construction activities; k-rail installation and removal, installation of precast girders, existing ramp and abutment demolition, falsework erection and removal, temporary striping for the lane shifts during BPOC construction and permanent striping activities. Lane closure plans would be developed for nighttime closures at each construction stage.

AMM TRA-4: The Potter Street eastbound I-80 On-Ramp would remain open until the construction of the new on-ramp and then it would be permanently closed and replaced by the new on-ramp. In the interval between the closure of the Potter Street on-ramp and the opening of the new eastbound on-ramp, detours would be established to direct traffic to use either University Avenue or Powell Street to access eastbound I-80.

AMM TRA-5:During construction of the new outfall area, a temporary detour around the construction area will be implemented. The West Frontage Road closure would not interfere with the use of the San Francisco Bay Trail. However, it would limit access to Point Emery and Barkley Beach via automobile and any waterborne vehicle launching at Point Emery and Barkley Beach during the temporary closure.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM TRA-1 through AMM TRA-5.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.1.6 RELOCATIONS AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
The Department’s Relocation Assistance Program (RAP) is based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act), and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24. The purpose of the RAP is to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-28
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. Please see Appendix C for a summary of the RAP.

All relocation services and benefits are administered without regard to race, color, national origin, persons with disabilities, religion, age, or sex. Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the Department’s Title VI Policy Statement

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Land uses surrounding the existing interchange are generally either parks and open space, or commercial uses. The San Francisco Bay Trail and Berkeley Aquatic Park border the project area to the west and northeast, respectively. Commercial uses border the project area to the southeast. The closest residential building is located at 6400 Christie Avenue, less than 100 feet southeast of the interchange in Emeryville. No housing is located within the area of disturbance for the Build Alternative. However, the Build Alternative would require the relocation of the KRE radio tower located next to the pond at Ashby Avenue and Bay Street at the Aquatic Park just northwest of its current location.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The Build Alternative would not require relocation of any households or businesses, nor does it require the acquisition of entire properties. The Build Alternative would also not affect any residential properties within the project area.

KRE Property
Proposed improvements along Bay Street would require relocation of one of the three guy wires for the KRE radio transmitting tower. In addition, some partial takes along the edge of the KRE property adjacent to the proposed Bay Street would be required. This area was once part of a parking lot for the KRE building that is no longer in use. The implementing agency will work with the property owner in making these modifications to avoid effects on operation of the KRE Radio Station.

The KRE Radio Station building is a historic property eligible for listing on the NRHP.

For a discussion of cultural resources impacts related to the KRE Radio Station, refer to Section 2.1.11, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources.

2.1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

REGULATORY SETTING
All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-29
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by President William J.

Clinton on February 11, 1994. This EO directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Low income is defined based on the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. For 2021, this was $26,500 for a family of four.

All considerations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes have also been included in this proposed project. The Department’s commitment to upholding the mandates of Title VI is demonstrated by its Title VI Policy Statement, signed by the Director, which can be found in Appendix B of this document.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information in this section is based on the CIA (October 2021) prepared for the proposed project. This section determines the presence of environmental justice communities to analyze whether indirect impacts borne from the proposed project would be disproportionately felt by low income and/or minority communities. Per EO 12898, a population, as evaluated by U.S. census block groups, is subject to environmental justice analysis if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
• A low-income population that is greater than 25 percent of the total population of the community, or a minority population that is greater than 50 percent of the total population of the community
• A low-income and/or minority population that is more than 10 percentage points higher than the City or County average
Race
Alameda County is home to a diverse population, representing many races and ethnicities. Minority groups comprise 67.8 percent of the County, 56.5 percent of Emeryville, 45.4 percent of Berkeley, and 56.4 percent of the study area population.

Figure 2.1-3 illustrates the minority populations for Alameda County, Emeryville, Berkeley, and the 0.5-mile study area. Table 2.1-3 describes the population distribution in Alameda County, Emeryville, Berkeley, and the overall study area. As shown in Figure 2.1-3, block groups within the southern and eastern portions of the study area would be environmental justice communities based on minority status.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-30
0 0. 0.25 51 1.5 2
Miles
Community
Minority Popula�on Figure 2.1-3
Source: American Community Survey 2018
Legend
Project Location

0.5-Mile Study Area
Berkeley
Emeryville
Oakland
Less than 40%
40-50%
50-60%
Greater than 60%
N
Minority Population
2017 Census
City Boundary
Tracts Not to Scale
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMRPOVEMENT PROJECT 422001
4251011
4251012
4251023
4233002 4233003
4240021
4008001
4240022
4008002
4008003
4251033
4251032
4251031
4251021
4251022
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.1-3 Ethnic and Race Composition of the Study Area Category
Study Area
Number of
Residents %
Emeryville
Number of
Residents %
Berkeley
Number
of
Residents
%
Alameda County
Number
of
Residents
%
White 7,820 43.6 5,018 43.5 65,656 54.6 524,881 32.2
Black or African
American 3,822 21.3 1,698 14.7 10,019 8.3 175,063 10.7
American Indian and
Alaska Native 58 0.32 13 0.11 295 0.25 5,008 0.31
Asian 3,565 19.9 3,179 27.6 23,528 19.6 468,356 28.7
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific
Islander
68 0.38 49 0.43 567 .47 13,000 0.80
Other Race 34 0.19 22 0.19 323 .27 4,489 .028
Two or More Races 848 4.7 501 4.3 6,611 5.5 71,777 4.4
Hispanic 1,713 9.6 1,044 9.1 13,180 11.1 367,041 22.5
Total Minority 10,108 56.4 6,506 56.5 54,523 45.4 1,104,734 67.8 Source: ACS 2018 (2013-2017 American Community Survey Five-year Estimates); U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 1 Minority refers to every person who is not of White Race and Non-Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity categories. The percentages were calculated by finding the numerical difference between the total population of all races and total, White, Non-Hispanic population. That number was then divided by the total population of all races.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-32
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Income
Table 2.1-4 summarizes 2018 ACS per capita and median household income levels for the County, Emeryville, Berkeley, and the 0.5-mile study area. Emeryville has the highest median household and per capita income out of the two cities. Both cities have a median income higher than the County overall. The study area’s median household income level is slightly higher than the County overall.

None of the census block groups in the study area have a low-income population of 25 percent or higher. Within the study area, 13 percent of households are considered lowincome, compared to 11 percent county-wide. Therefore, the study area does not have a concentration of low-income households greater than 10 percentage points higher than the county average. None of the census block groups in the study area qualify as environmental justice communities based on income. Figure 2.1-4 shows the distribution of households below the poverty level in the study area.

Table 2.1-4 Household Income and Poverty
Geographic Area Median Household
Income
Percent Individuals
below Poverty Threshold
Study Area $86,010 13.4
Emeryville $88,661 11.7
Berkeley $75,709 19.8
Alameda County $85,743 11.3
Source: ACS 2018 (2013-2017 American Community Survey Five-year Estimates).

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-33
0 0. 0.25 51 1.5 2
Miles
Community
Project Site
XX
Low-Income Popula�on
Figure 2.1-4
Source: American Community Survey 2018
Legend
Project Location

0.5-Mile Study Area
Less than 10%
10-15%
15-20%
Greater than 20%
N
Poverty Population
2017 Census Block Groups Not to Scale
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMRPOVEMENT PROJECT 422001
4251011
4251012
4251023
4233002 4233003
4240021
4008001
4240022
4008002
4008003
4251033
4251032
4251031
4251021
4251022
Napa
County
San
Francisco
San Jose

PROJECT
Oakland
Berkeley
Emeryville
Oakland
City Boundary
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would be constructed partially within Census Block Groups that meet the environmental justice community criteria based on minority status. However, these environmental Block Groups extend beyond the project area (up to 1 mile) and encompass the residents of the larger housing developments in Emeryville and Berkeley. In looking at the regional context for community impacts, the proposed project’s purpose as an improvement to east-west local roadway connectivity and congestion relief would benefit both environmental justice and non-environmental justice communities by providing improved access to jobs and better safety for multimodal transportation.

Noise
Construction noise for all receptors would be short-term and intermittent. Temporary construction impacts would be lessened through incorporation of Caltrans’ standard noise control measures (PF NOI-1), discussed in Section 2.2.7, Noise.

Operation of the Build Alternative would result in increased noise levels for the 2045 design year in a range of 0 to 10 dBA over the existing condition. However, this increase would be similar to anticipated increases under the No Build Alternative.

Furthermore, permanent increases in noise levels would affect both environmental justice and non-environmental justice communities given the demographics of the project area depicted in Figure 2.1-3 and Figure 2.1-4. As such, noise associated with the proposed project would not result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on environmental justice communities.

Air Quality
The proposed project would improve local traffic circulation and reduce regional VMT by providing more pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Daily emissions of criteria air pollutants would generally decrease for the Build Alternative compared to the No Build Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality and the Air Quality Technical Report (October 2021), modeling results show that the Build Alternative would not result in an increase in criteria air pollutant emissions compared to the existing year conditions or the future No Build Alternative. Because emissions of criteria pollutants from project related traffic are not anticipated to cause or contribute to, or worsen air quality, or result in violations, air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect to either environmental justice or non-environmental justice communities.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-35
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Aesthetic Character
Implementation of the Build Alternative would moderately change the visual character and alter the visual quality of the project area. Viewers would experience an increased level of roadway dominance where new on- and off- ramps, replacement bridge structures, and local roadway improvements are proposed. At night, new street lighting would introduce a minor new source of glare. Together, these visual changes would be moderate. The avoidance and minimization measures listed in Section 2.1.9 would minimize these visual changes. While implementation of the Build Alternative would result in the addition of new manmade features, the I-80 corridor would continue to be the dominant visual feature in the study area. As a result, the Build Alternative would not result in an adverse effect on environmental justice or non-environmental justice communities.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project is located within an environmental justice community which extends well beyond the project area. The proposed project would reduce congestion, improve traffic operation, and safety at the interchange, which would benefit the surrounding environmental justice communities. The proposed project would not result in adverse effects to either environmental justice or non-environmental justice communities but would instead provide a net benefit to both communities.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF NOI-1: Caltrans Standard Noise Control BMPs such as limiting paving and demolition activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

Avoidance and Minimization
No avoidance or minimization measures specific to environmental justice would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-36
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.1.8 UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
This section evaluates impacts to public utilities that may occur from implementation of the proposed project. The study area includes the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley, as well as utility service districts that would serve the proposed project. Information in this section draws upon multiple sources, including:
▪ City of Emeryville General Plan (Amended 2019)
▪ City of Berkeley General Plan (2003)

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Emeryville and Berkeley are served by a variety of local and regional utilities. Table

2.1-5 summarizes utilities that are present within the study area.

Table 2.1-5 Public Utility Providers Serving Emeryville and Berkeley Utility Type Provider Description
Water East Bay
Municipal
Utility District
(EBMUD)
Both Emeryville and Berkeley purchase its water
from EBMUD. EBMUD captures the water from
public and private watersheds in the Mokelumne
River and collects it at Pardee Reservoir. About
325 million gallons daily come from the
Mokelumne River watershed.

Wastewater East Bay
Municipal
Utility District
(EBMUD)
EBMUD operates the wastewater treatment plant
that services both Emeryville and Berkeley and
cleans the wastewater before discharging it into
the San Francisco Bay. The wastewater solids are
removed, treated, and beneficially reused.

Gas and
Electricity
Pacific Gas
and Electric
(PG&E)
Provides electricity service and natural gas
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-37
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Utility Type Provider Description
Waste
Management
Waste
Management
of Alameda
County
(WMAC)
Community-based provider of waste, recycling and
composting services.

Communication
Services
Comcast and
AT&T
Cable, high-speed internet, voice
Source: City of Emeryville 2020. City of Berkeley 2020. Available:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Public_Works/Sidewalks-Streets-Utility/Utility_Service_Information.aspx. City of Emeryville, 2020. Available: https://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/Environmental Consequences

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Build Alternative
Permanent Operational Impacts
Operation of the Build Alternative would not require expanded utility services. As a roadway and highway improvement project, the Build Alternative would not add demand to local utility providers. The existing I-80 corridor and local roadway network utilizes electrical utilities for nighttime lighting and signage. Once the Build Alternative is operational, it would require similar electrical power for nighttime lighting and support for electrical signage such as changeable message boards. Operation of the Build Alternative would not result in adverse effects to utilities, as the improved transportation facility would not generate a substantial demand for increased utility services.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Under the Build Alternative, construction activities have the potential to temporarily affect existing utilities in the project area. Demolition and excavation activities along the I-80 corridor, at interchange on- and off-ramps, bridge structures, and local roadway realignments would require the removal and replacement or relocation of existing utilities. Along I-80 and on the interchange ramps, utilities are typically limited to electrical conduit that provides power to lights and roadway signage. Improvements to I80 and new ramp configurations would include appropriate utilities within the ROW to provide nighttime lighting and power for signage. Additionally, stormwater conveyance facilities such as drainage lines and inlets would be removed and replaced in-kind.

The Build Alternative would include relocation of existing utilities along local roadways in coordination with affected utility owners. Local roadways are anticipated to contain a INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-38
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
broader array of utilities within the ROW, including telecommunication lines, water, sewer, stormwater, and gas and electric lines. Construction of the Build Alternative would require temporary shutoffs of existing utilities to allow for local roadway improvements.

As a part of AMM UTL-1, utilities would be relocated to acceptable locations within the existing or new ROW and affected utility customers would be notified prior to any service interruption. Effects related to utilities would be temporary and would cease at the end of the construction period.

The closest fire station to the project area is Alameda County Fire Station No. 35, approximately 1 mile to the southeast. No property owned or used by emergency service providers would be acquired or otherwise used as part of the Build Alternative.

However, construction activities would have the potential to temporarily disrupt roadway access within the project area, potentially affecting emergency access during construction. AMM UTL-2 would ensure that emergency service providers are notified in advance of any roadway closure or change in local access, as a part of the TMP. This would allow emergency service providers to be aware of detours in advance and plan alternate routes where needed.

Emeryville Police Department office is located 1.1 miles north of the interchange.

Construction of the Build Alternative may temporarily disrupt roadway access within the project area. AMM UTL-2 would ensure that emergency service providers are notified in advance of any roadway closure or change in local access, as a part of the TMP. This would allow emergency service providers to be aware of detours in advance and plan alternate routes where needed.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, present, and foreseeable future projects in the region. As discussed, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects to utilities or emergency services. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to any potential cumulative effects to these resources.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
There are no project features associated with utilities or emergency services.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-39
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Avoidance and Minimization
AMM-UTL-1: Relocation of Utilities. Detailed utility coordination and verification will be required during the final design phase of the proposed project to facilitate relocation of utilities.

AMM-UTL-2: Emergency Service Coordination. Emergency service providers will be notified prior to construction of any temporary road closures and/or detours as part of the TMP.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMMs UTL-1 through UTL-2.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.1.9 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION/PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

FACILITIES
This section summarizes impacts to traffic and transportation facilities that may occur from implementation of the proposed project based on the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (Kittelson 2021). The traffic study area includes the I-80 interchange at Ashby Avenue in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley and the intersection of 7th Street and Ashby Avenue. The freeway mainline was not included in the analysis because the proposed project does not propose any changes to the freeway mainline capacity.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal Highway Administration
The Department, as assigned by the FHWA, directs that full consideration should be given to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists during the development of Federal-aid highway projects (see 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the disabled must be considered in all Federal-aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. When current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle traffic, every effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the facility.

Americans with Disabilities Act
In July 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an Accessibility Policy Statement pledging a fully accessible multimodal transportation system. Accessibility in INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-40
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
federally assisted programs is governed by the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 27) implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 United States Code [USC] 794). The FHWA has enacted regulations for the implementation of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including a commitment to build transportation facilities that provide equal access for all persons. These regulations require application of the ADA requirements to federal-aid projects, including Transportation Enhancement Activities.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the existing and planned transportation system within the project area, including the roadway network, transit services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as discussed in the TOAR (March 2021).

Access, and Circulation
Interstate Route
The I-80 freeway extends in a northwest/southwest direction on the east side of the San Francisco Bay, connecting Richmond and Oakland. It is the principal east-west route through northern California and the sole freeway crossing of the Sierra Nevada range. I80 terminates at its intersection with U.S. 101 in San Francisco.

Arterial Roads
Ashby Avenue connects to I-80 to the west and runs eastward into Berkeley. Ashby Avenue is a two-lane roadway in each direction and provides a vital connection to I-80.

It is generally a 4-lane facility with occasional landscape medians and on-street parking.

Ashby Avenue currently does not have striped or dedicated bike lanes.

West Frontage Road runs parallel to I-80 on the west side between San Francisco Bay and I-80. The street is part of the route that links pedestrians and bicyclist to create multimodal connectivity in the area. The road starts at Gilman Street and terminates at Powell Street.

Shellmound Street and Bay Street run parallel to I-80 on east side of the proposed project. Shellmound Street is called Bay Street north of Ashby Avenue. Bay Street is the primary access to the south end of the Aquatic Park and Bolivar Drive. Shellmound Street is currently not directly accessible from Ashby Avenue. Ashby Avenue runs under Shellmound Street, which must be accessed by backtracking through side streets at using 7th Street. Shellmound Street extends south from Ashby Avenue and terminates at 40th Street adjacent to the confluence of I-80, I-580, and I-880.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-41
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Study Area
The traffic study area includes the interchange in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley.

Existing Traffic Operations
Level of service (LOS) describes the operating conditions experienced by users of a facility. LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of various factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort and convenience.

Levels of service are designated A through F from best to worst, which cover the range of potential traffic operations. LOS A through E generally represents traffic volumes at less than roadway capacity, while LOS F represents over capacity and/or forced flow conditions. Detailed methodologies for determining LOS for freeway and intersection operations is provided in the TOAR.

Freeway Operations
Operation of freeway segments were not analyzed because the proposed project does not include any changes to the freeway mainline that would affect freeway capacity. As such, freeway operations are not discussed further.

Intersection Operations
Traffic analysis models incorporated signal timing plans provided by the City of Berkeley for the 7th Street and Ashby Avenue intersection. The other three intersections are unsignalized. Results of the intersection LOS analysis for the existing condition AM and PM peak hours are shown in Table 2.1-6. As shown, none of the intersections analyzed operate below LOS D under existing conditions.

Transit
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
AC Transit is the third-largest public bus system in California, serving 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. AC Transit ridership includes approximately 14,500 transbay commuters. Bus lines that run on or near the project area include the following transbay service line:
▪ Transbay Line J: Sacramento – Christie Transbay
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle lanes around the study area are depicted in Figure 1.3-1 in Section 1.3, Purpose and Need. Existing facilities include the San Francisco Bay Trail, and a Class I multi-use path on the west side of the project area. Shellmound Street, on the east side of the INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-42
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
project area, is also connected to the San Francisco Bay Trail, providing Class II bicycle lanes. The study area including the interchange lacks connectivity for different modes of transportation (i.e., vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian users). Additionally, there is no direct pedestrian and bicyclist access to the San Francisco Bay Trail from 65th Street/Shellmound Street area. .

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-43
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.1-6 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Study Intersection Control Type Worst
Movement
V/C Delay (sec) LOS
Weekday AM Peak Hour (7:50-8:50 AM)
Frontage Road and I-80 SB off-ramp All-way stop SB Left 0.74 24.4 C Frontage Road and I-80 SB on-ramp All-way stop SEB Thru 0.86 22.8 C Shellmound Street and I-80 NB off-ramp Two-way stop EB Left 0.01 12.6 B 7th Street and Ashby Avenue Signalized SB Right 0.83 49.4 D Weekday PM Peak Hour (5:15-6:15)
Frontage Road and I-80 SB off-ramp All-way stop NB Thru 0.82 18.7 C Frontage Road and I-80 SB on-ramp All-way stop NWB Thru 0.89 24 C Shellmound Street and I-80 NB off-ramp Two-way stop EB Left 0.01 11.9 B 7th Street and Ashby Avenue Signalized SB Right 0.79 48.8 D Source: Kittleson 2020
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-44
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
As discussed in the TOAR, future traffic forecasts were developed for the following scenarios:
▪ Opening Year (2025) No Project
▪ Opening Year (2025) Plus Project
▪ Future Year (2045) No Project
▪ Future Year (2045) Plus Project
Permanent Operational Impacts
Intersection Analysis
To determine the project’s impact on intersection operations, opening year (2025) projections of intersection performance and future year (2045) projections of performance were both compared to No Build Alternative conditions in these years.

Opening year projections are shown in Table 2.1-7 (AM peak hour) and Table 2.1-8 (PM peak hour) while future year projections are shown in Table 2.1-9 (AM peak hour) and Table 2.1-10 (PM peak hour). All tables include both No Build Alternative and Build Alternative projections
In both scenarios, three of four existing intersections (numbers 7-10) would operate below the LOS D threshold under the No Build Alternative. Intersections built as part of the Build Alternative (numbers 1-6) would all operate at LOS D or better. The intersection of 7th Street and Ashby Avenue is anticipated to have an increase in the average vehicle delay under 2045 AM Build Alternative conditions compared to the No Build. However, the overall volume to capacity ratio in the AM peak hour will decrease with the Build Alternative. The PM peak hour shows the intersection of 7th Street and Ashby Avenue reducing the delay and volume to capacity ratio.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-45
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.1-7 2025 AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations
ID Segment
2025 No Build Alternative
V/C Delay LOS
2025 Build Alternative
V/C Density LOS
1 Frontage Road and Ashby Avenue - 0.51 42.2 D
2 I-80 WB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 0.67 29.0 C
3 I-80 EB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 0.31 17.1 B
4 Shellmound Connectors and Ashby Avenue - 0.35 12.4 B
5 Shellmound Connector WB and Shellmound Street - 0.19 7.8 A 6 Shellmound Connector EB and Shellmound Street - 0.51 12.0 B 7 7th Street and Ashby Avenue 0.93 61 E 0.92 58.4 E
8 Frontage Road and I-80 WB Off-ramp 0.95 36.8 E -
9 Frontage Road and I-80 WB On-ramp 1.01 37.5 E -
10 Shellmound Street and I-80 EB Off-ramp 0.01 12.9 B - Source: Kittleson 2020
Note: Grey highlighted cells indicate intersections operating at below LOS D.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-46
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.1-8 2025 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations
ID Segment
2025 No Build Alternative 2025 Build Alternative
V/C Delay LOS V/C Density LOS
1 Frontage Road and Ashby Avenue (Tight Diamond) - 0.55 33.1 C 2 I-80 WB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 0.72 26.6 C
3 I-80 EB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 0.69 13.9 B
4 Shellmound Connectors and Ashby Avenue - 0.49 17.7 B
5 Shellmound Connector WB and Shellmound Street - 0.38 8.7 A 6 Shellmound Connector EB and Shellmound Street - 0.01 13.8 B 7 7th Street and Ashby Avenue 1.14 124.9 F 0.99 73.9 E
8 Frontage Road and I-80 WB Off-ramp 1.44 118.9 F -
9 Frontage Road and I-80 WB On-ramp 1.65 168.3 F -
10 Shellmound Street and I-80 EB Off-ramp 0.02 18.7 C - Source: Kittleson 2020
Note: Grey highlighted cells indicate intersections operating at below LOS D.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-47
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.1-9 2045 AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations
ID Segment
2045 No Build Alternative 2045 Build Alternative
V/C Delay LOS V/C Density LOS
1 Frontage Road and Ashby Avenue - 0.71 41.3 D
2 I-80 WB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 0.93 42.7 D
3 I-80 EB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 0.23 28.4 C
4 Shellmound Connectors and Ashby Avenue - 0.52 21.0 C
5 Shellmound Connector WB and Shellmound Street - 0.38 8.7 A 6 Shellmound Connector EB and Shellmound Street - 0.71 16.7 C 7 7th Street and Ashby Avenue 1.20 146.2 F 1.15 149.5 F 8 Frontage Road and I-80 WB Off-ramp 1.28 128.7 F -
9 Frontage Road and I-80 WB On-ramp 1.57 180.5 F -
1 0
Shellmound Street and I-80 EB Off-ramp 0.01 13.6 B -
Source: Kittleson 2020
Note: Grey highlighted cells indicate intersections operating at below LOS D.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-48
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.1-10 2045 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations
ID Segment
2045 No Build Alternative 2045 Build Alternative
V/C Delay LOS V/C Density LOS
1 Frontage Road and Ashby Avenue (Tight Diamond) - 0.75 35.9 D 2 I-80 WB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 1.04 44.2 D
3 I-80 EB Ramps and Ashby Avenue - 0.91 21.8 C
4 Shellmound Connectors and Ashby Avenue - 0.53 19.3 B
5 Shellmound North and Shellmound Street - 0.43 9.3 A
6 Shellmound South and Shellmound Street - 0.71 17.7 C
7 7th Street and Ashby Avenue 1.41 236.7 F 1.26 174.6 F 8 Frontage Road and I-80 WB Off-ramp 1.88 201.6 F -
9 Frontage Road and I-80 WB On-ramp 1.82 282.7 F -
1 0
Shellmound Street and I-80 EB Off-ramp 0.03 24.1 C -
Source: Kittleson 2020
Note: Grey highlighted cells indicate intersections operating at below LOS D.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-49
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Queue Analysis
Queueing at intersections in the study area would cause traffic backups that extend onto other nearby roadways if adequate storage is not provided. The TOAR evaluated the maximum (95th percentile probability) queues on individual intersection approaches.

As discussed in detail in that report, the intersection within the Build Alternative would be timed to manage queues and prevent queue spillback between the two ramp terminal intersections. Therefore, queueing would be contained within the new vehicle storage areas included in the redesigned interchange, and queues on the off-ramps would not affect the freeway mainline or other surface streets in the project area.

Transit
Long term impacts of the proposed project on bus travel would generally be positive because of the reduction of delay and congestion at the study intersections. The proposed project is not anticipated to require the modification of existing bus stops or routes.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
The proposed project would provide a new connection between the east and west sides of I-80 via a separated BPOC structure stretching from 65th Street to the east to West Frontage Road to the west. This new structure would improve access to Point Emery and the San Francisco Bay Trail. This improvement would be a net benefit of the proposed project.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no construction impacts to circulation and access, private parking, traffic operations, transit system, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, public parking (approximately 14 on-street spaces) would temporarily not be available during the closure of West Frontage Road during construction. Bicycle and pedestrian access via the San Francisco Bay Trail would be maintained during the closure of West Frontage Road and throughout the construction period. In addition, a temporary detour around the outfall construction area would be implemented to ensure the continual availability of the San Francisco Bay Trail Figure

2.1-5 (AMM TRA-5).

During construction of the proposed project, vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation would be maintained using detours and temporary signs, as required (AMM TRA-1 through AMM TRA-4). Temporary lane and ramp closures would be required when low traffic volumes occur to construct specific items of work. Work would be conducted along the roadways, sidewalk, and pedestrian crossings. Incorporation of PF TRA-1, INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-50
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
requiring the preparation of a TMP, would reduce temporary impacts on traffic, transit users, bicycles, and pedestrians.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF-TRA-1: A TMP will be prepared to ensure efficient movement of local and regional traffic during construction.

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM TRA-1: The I-80 mainline closures would occur at night for the placement of the pre-cast girders for the proposed Ashby overcrossing, demolition of the remaining original ramp structures over I-80 and false work erection and removal for the bike and pedestrian overcrossing.

AMM TRA-2: During the construction of West Frontage Road, vehicular detours and closure would be anticipated. West Frontage Road would be closed to traffic from University Avenue to Powell Street. Once the construction of West Frontage Road is completed in Stage 3, temporary access ramps would be put in place and vehicular access would be restored.

AMM TRA-3: Mainline traffic would be transitioned temporarily onto the right shoulder to accommodate the median falsework support structure for BPOC. This temporary lane shift would be striped and signed accordingly. Nighttime work is anticipated for the following construction activities; k-rail installation and removal, installation of precast girders, existing ramp and abutment demolition, falsework erection and removal, temporary striping for the lane shifts during BPOC construction and permanent striping activities. Lane closure plans would be developed for nighttime closures at each construction stage.

AMM TRA-4: The Potter Street eastbound I-80 On-Ramp would remain open until the construction of the new on-ramp and then it would be permanently closed and replaced by the new on-ramp. In the interval between the closure of the Potter Street on-ramp and the opening of the new eastbound on-ramp, detours would be established to direct traffic to use either University Avenue or Powell Street to access eastbound I-80.

AMM TRA-5:During construction of the new outfall area, a temporary detour around the construction area will be implemented. The West Frontage Road closure would not interfere with the use of the San Francisco Bay Trail. However, it would limit access to Point Emery and Barkley Beach via automobile and any waterborne vehicle launching at Point Emery and Barkley Beach during the temporary closure.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-51
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
See Appendix C for the full text of AMMs TRA-1 through TRA-5.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-52
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Detour Plan – I 80 Closed for Ramp Demo Figure 2.1-5
Source: Circlepoint 2020; City of Emeryville, 2019
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.1.10 VISUAL/AESTHETICS
This section evaluates the proposed project’s effect on the visual environment.

Information in this section is primarily drawn from the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) prepared for the proposed project. The visual study area (VSA) is shown on Figure

2.1-6.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code [USC] 4331[b][2]). To further emphasize this point, the FHWA, in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]), directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values.

State
CEQA establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with…enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities” (CA Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21001[b]).

California Streets and Highways Code Section 92.3 directs Caltrans to use drought resistant landscaping and recycled water when feasible and incorporate native wildflowers and native and climate-appropriate vegetation into the planting design when appropriate.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-54
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Bay Trail
Ashby Ave
To San Pablo To San Francisco
UPRR Tracks
Christie Ave
64th St
65th St
66th St
67th St
Folger Ave
Powell St
Shellmound St
W Frontage Rd
Potter St
Bay St
Legend
Visual Study
Area
1,000 Feet
N
San Francisco Bay
Emeryville
Berkeley
Aquatic
Park Napa
County
San
Francisco
San Jose

PROJECT
Oakland
Visual Study Area Figure 2.1-6
Source: Google Earth, Circlepoint 2020.

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Classified Landscaped Freeways
Within the proposed project limits, I-80 is a Classified Landscaped Freeway. The classification assists in the regulation and control of the placement of outdoor advertising displays. The criteria states that plantings within the state right-of-way must be continuous (no gaps greater than 200 feet), ornamental (not functional), at least 1,000 feet long, on at least one side of the freeway, and require reasonable maintenance.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section presents information regarding identification of scenic resources, character, and quality of existing views within the visual study area (VSA) and selection of key viewpoints (KVPs). Scenic resources were evaluated at local, municipal, county, and state levels through review of general plans, policies, designations by the State, and onsite reviews. I-80 and SR 13 are not listed as Eligible or Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. However, the Alameda County General Plan, Scenic Route Element, states the importance of conserving, enhancing, and protecting scenic views observable from scenic routes and I-80 within the project area is an Alameda County Scenic Route.

The BCDC identifies the views of the San Francisco Bay as one of its most highly valued aspects and has designated I-80 through the project area as a scenic drive.

Scenic resources visible within the project area have been identified in public documents. Emeryville’s Visual Resources Element in the city’s general plan (2019) identifies the San Francisco Bay to the west and the East Bay Hills to the east as two major natural elements. Berkeley’s Urban Design and Visual Quality Element (2001) of its draft general plan identifies, "Views from Berkeley toward the San Francisco Bay, the skyline of San Francisco, the Bay Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the East Bay Hills have long been identified as being among Berkeley's greatest assets." Visual Assessment Units
The VSA was divided into three visual assessment units to best characterize the area’s unique characteristics.

Each visual assessment unit has unique land uses, users, and perspectives of existing visual resources and how the project features would affect them. The general character and quality of the visual environment was analyzed within each visual assessment unit.

The three visual assessment units and the locations of KVPs within those units are shown in Figure 2.1-7 and described below.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-56
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Visual Assessment Unit 1 – West Side of Interchange
This Visual Assessment Unit includes the areas between the western edge of I-80 to the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The border to the east is the western edge of I-80, to the south it aligns with 64th Street, to the west is the shoreline, and to the north it aligns with Grayson Street. The unit was selected because of its cohesive character as open space, and a place where people come to enjoy views of San Francisco Bay, marine wildlife, and marine-related activities such as boating and sailboarding. Two KVPs were selected within this Visual Assessment Unit:
▪ KVP 1.1: (Figure 2.1-8) Vantage point on West Frontage Road at the entrance to the parking lot at Point Emery. View looking east from a public road, serving access to the San Francisco Bay shoreline and local communities, will illustrate the proposed Ashby Avenue Interchange with the addition of a BPOC. ▪ KVP 1.2: (Figure 2.1-10) Vantage point on San Francisco Bay Trail approximately 560 feet north of Point Emery. View looks east of the portal/tunnel under West Frontage Road. This alternative would provide pedestrian access from the BPOC to the shoreline without having to cross West Frontage Road.

Visual Assessment Unit 2 – I-80 Corridor
This Visual Assessment Unit includes the I-80 highway corridor with the eastern border at the eastern edge of highway shoulder, the south border aligning with 64th street, the west border at the west edge of highway shoulder, and the north border aligning approximately with Grayson Street. The common use of this land is vehicular transportation of motorists, goods, and services in transit from points of origin to destination. Motorists may be passing through the project limits, and they may be accessing the other visual assessment units by entering and exiting the I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange and adjacent interchanges at Powell Street in Emeryville and University Avenue in Berkeley. Four KVPs were selected within this Visual Assessment Unit.
▪ KVP 2.1: (Figure 2.1-12) Vantage point on eastbound I-80, east of Powell Street. View looks east of San Francisco Bay and the proposed BPOC. ▪ KVP 2.2: (Figure 2.1-14) Vantage point on eastbound I-80, approximately 419- feet west of 65th Street. View looks east at the proposed BPOC. ▪ KVP 2.3: (Figure 2.1-16) Vantage point on westbound I-80, east of the westbound I-80 elevated off-ramp to Ashby Avenue. View looking west of medium-rise commercial buildings and high-rise multi-family residential INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-57
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
complex on the east side of the highway. View would illustrate the east side of the proposed BPOC at I-80.
▪ KVP 2.4: (Figure 2.1-18) Vantage point on westbound I-80 to the west of W.

Bolivar Drive. View looking west would illustrate the proposed Ashby Avenue vehicular bridge over I-80.

Visual Assessment Unit 3 – East Side of Interchange
This Visual Assessment Unit includes the areas within the environmental study limits that are to the east of I-80. It is bordered to the east by the Ashby Avenue ROW to Seventh Street, and the east edge of the (Union Pacific Railroad) UPRR ROW. To the south it is bordered by 65th Street. To the west, the border is the east edge of I-80. To the north it is bordered by Potter Street and West Bolivar Drive. This Visual Assessment Unit includes mixed-use land uses including recreation at Aquatic Park, the east half of the Ashby Avenue interchange, which is transportation, a school, multi-family housing, health care facilities, and commercial businesses. In contrast to Visual Assessment Units 1 and 2 that are singular in focus and land use, Visual Assessment Unit 3 is diverse and mixed-use. One common feature is that many views from the medium- to high-rise buildings in this Visual Assessment Unit are toward San Francisco Bay.

Three KVPs were selected within this Visual Assessment Unit:
▪ KVP 3.1: (Figure 2.1-20) Vantage point at the intersection of 65th Street and Christie Avenue. View looking west of a local street, the horizon, tall evergreen screening trees at the end of the street, small ornamental trees within private property, vehicles on the highway, and a screened view of the San Francisco Bay to the west. View looks at the southwest quadrant of the I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange, and would illustrate the BPOC.
▪ KVP 3.2: (Figure 2.1-22) Vantage point on the Bay Street bridge over Ashby Avenue. View looks west of Ashby Avenue, the east side of the interchange, Aquatic Park to the north, the KRE Radio building and tower, mature trees and shrubs adjacent to Ashby Avenue, the San Francisco Bay, and the horizon.

View looking west would illustrate the proposed Ashby Avenue with retaining walls, barriers, and proposed trees and grass.
▪ KVP 3.3: (Figure 2.1-24) Vantage point at the boathouse at Aquatic Park. View looks west of the inland waters of the park, groves of trees adjacent to West Bolivar Drive, the high-rise multi-family housing complex in the distance, and views of I-80 including the concrete barrier, lights, and vehicles. View looking west would illustrate the proposed features of the Ashby Avenue interchange project.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-58
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Viewer Exposure and Sensitivity
Viewer exposure is a measure of the viewer’s ability to see a particular object. Viewer exposure has three attributes: location, quantity, and duration. Location relates to the position of the viewer in relationship to the object being viewed. The closer the viewer is to the object, the more exposure. Quantity refers to how many people see the object.

The more people who can see an object or the greater frequency an object is seen, the more exposure the object has to viewers. Duration refers to how long a viewer can keep an object in view. The longer an object can be kept in view, the more exposure. High viewer exposure helps predict that viewers will have a response to a visual change.

Viewer exposure and sensitivity for the primary viewer groups in the VSA are summarized below. Viewer sensitivity is a measure of the viewer’s recognition of a particular object. It has three attributes: activity, awareness, and local values. Activity relates to the preoccupation of viewers—are they preoccupied, thinking of something else, or are they truly engaged in observing their surroundings. The more they are observing their surroundings, the more sensitivity viewers will have of changes to visual resources. Awareness relates to the focus of view—the focus is wide and the view general or the focus is narrow and the view specific. The more specific the awareness, the more sensitive a viewer is to change. Local values and attitudes also affect viewer sensitivity. If the viewer group values aesthetics in general or if a specific visual resource has been protected by local, state, or national designation, it is likely that viewers will be more sensitive to visible changes. High viewer sensitivity helps predict that viewers will have a high concern for any visual change.

Community Residents
While most of the land surrounding the interchange consists of either park or commercial uses, there are multi-family residences on local streets such as 65th Street and Christie Avenue to the southeast of the project area in Emeryville, where residents would have long-duration exposure to views of project features. Residents are the viewer group considered to be the most sensitive to changes within their viewshed because they are exposed to views the longest from their residential and neighborhood vantage points.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-59
Visual Assessment Units and Key Views Figure 2.1
-7
Source: Circlepoint, 2020
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Recreation Areas
Bicyclists, pedestrians, and other users of Aquatic Park to the northeast of the project area and the San Francisco Bay Trail to the west of the project area would have moderate durations of exposure to views toward the project features. Their exposure levels would range from moderate-low to moderate-high depending on their distance from project features, intervening elements such as fences and vegetation and their levels of interest. Park users would have moderate to high levels of sensitivity to project features placed within their viewshed. Their sensitivity would depend upon their distance from the feature, intervening vegetation, topography, and structures, and how focused they are on their recreation activity.

Commercial Areas
Commercial business in both Berkeley and Emeryville are located on the east side of the existing interchange. An estimated total of several hundred viewers a day visit these sites and have short- to moderate-duration views of the project features. Commercial employees and patrons would likely have moderate to low levels of exposure to the project features. Employees and patrons would have moderate to low levels of sensitivity to project features depending on the location and type of business and the individual's purpose for being there. Business owners with properties facing I-80 and the San Francisco Bay would have moderate-high levels of sensitivity to project changes near their establishments. Employees and patrons are focused on their business and purpose for being in the commercial area.

Local Streets
In the cities of Berkeley and Emeryville, several hundred motorists, a few bicyclists and many persons using motorized scooters using the four local cross streets and three parallel streets at I-80 each day have short to moderate durations of exposure to views of the highway and project features at local streets (refer to the TOAR for data regarding travel in and near the project area). There is one Ashby Avenue overpass at Bay Street with pedestrian sidewalks west of Aquatic Park. Pedestrians would have moderate durations of exposure to views of Ashby Avenue and project features. Pedestrians and bicyclists on local streets would have moderate durations of exposure to any project feature placed within their viewshed depending upon traffic speeds and day of travel.

Motorists, bicyclists, and persons using motorized scooters using local streets at West Frontage Road would have moderate to high levels of sensitivity to project features added to West Frontage Road, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and to the west side of the interchange. Motorists, bicyclists, and persons on motorized scooters using SR 13 (Ashby Avenue) would have moderate-high levels of sensitivity to project features added to Ashby Avenue and the interchange. Pedestrians on local streets would have INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-61
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
moderate to moderate-high levels of sensitivity to project features depending on the changes made to the character and quality of the viewshed.

Motorist on I-80 and SR 13
Daily commuters may have an increased exposure to views from the road due to the amount of time spent on the highway each day. Those who experience congested traffic conditions would tend to focus views toward the highway itself. Drivers travelling at normal highway speeds usually focus attention on long-range, non-peripheral views.

Durations of exposure to views from the highway would vary from moderate to moderate-high. Passengers are anticipated to have a high duration of exposure to views. Daily commuters have moderate-high awareness and sensitivity to views from the road due to the amount of time spent on the highway each day. Those who experience congested traffic conditions would tend to focus views toward the highway itself. Drivers traveling at normal highway speeds usually focus attention on long range non-peripheral views. Passengers are anticipated to have a higher level of awareness and sensitivity to a wide range of views.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, none of the proposed project features described above would be constructed. If the proposed project were not constructed, no immediate changes would be made to I-80, Ashby Avenue, West Frontage Road, or the surrounding roads within the overall VSA. No construction activities would occur, and there would be no change to the operation of I-80 or local roadways. The No Build Alternative would have no effect related to aesthetics or the visual environment.

Build Alternative
Nine KVPs have been identified for the Build Alternative. The overall locations within the study area for the KVPs are shown in Figure 2.1-8. KVPs and their specific locations, along with descriptions for these, follow below. Note that all existing photos used as part of this assessment were taken in 2020.

Visual Assessment Unit 1: West Side of Interchange
Two viewpoints (KVP 1.1 and KVP 1.2) were selected within Visual Assessment Unit 1 to best represent views from the San Francisco Bay Trail and West Frontage Road, both located west of I-80.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-62
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
KVP 1.1 – Near Point Emery Looking Northeast
Existing Visual Character/Quality: This viewpoint is located near Point Emery looking east towards the project area. Viewer groups experiencing the proposed project from this KVP would include bicyclists and pedestrians traveling on the San Francisco Bay Trail, or motorists travelling on West Frontage Road. As shown in Figure 2.1-8, West Frontage Road is in the immediate foreground from this vantage point, with westbound on- and off-ramps associated with I-80 visible to the right and left, respectively. Views of I-80 are partially obscured by existing embankments on the west side of I-80. Screened views are afforded of the ridge lines of the East Bay Hills beyond the embankments, vegetation, signage, and existing buildings to the southeast.

Figure 2.1-8: KVP 1.1(Existing Conditions)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-63
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-9: KVP 1.1 (Simulation)
Proposed Project: Within this view, the new BPOC and associated ramp would be visible to the viewer, as shown in Figure 2.1-9.

Changes to Visual Character and Quality: The addition of the BPOC structure and its associated ramp would change the overall visual character and quality of the view. West Frontage Road would be shifted to the east approximately 25 feet in this location, and approximately 4 feet higher than the existing elevation of the road. A curved BPOC on columns would be added to the view. A pedestrian path to the right of the grass area would provide access from the BPOC to Point Emery. A vehicle connection shown to the right of the path would provide access from West Frontage Road to the Point Emery parking lot adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Trail. The lights and trees shown at the highest point of the interchange to the left is the location of the proposed signalized intersection at Ashby Avenue and the I-80 on- and off-ramps.

Vividness or memorability of the view would be increased to moderate-high with the addition of the sculptural forms of the BPOC in the view. Intactness would be increased to moderate. That both of these values would be increased is directly related to the removal of disjointed and textured man-built features that intrude on the view of the natural environment and are replaced by one large permeable sculptural feature in the INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-64
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
BPOC that organizes and simplifies the view. Scenic views of the East Bay Hills would be diminished but not totally blocked from view because of the permeability of the forms in the BPOC that would provide some views to the east of the hills Resource Change: The overall resource change would be moderate.

Anticipated Viewer Response: Viewers including bicyclists and pedestrians travelling along the San Francisco Bay Trail or motorists on West Frontage Road are anticipated to have a moderate response level to the addition of the proposed project.

Resulting Visual Impact: The new BPOC would result in moderate levels of visual impact with the addition of the proposed project.

KVP 1.2 – From San Francisco Bay Trail North of Point Emery Looking East Existing Visual Character/Quality: This viewpoint is located along the San Francisco Bay Trail north of Point Emery looking east towards the project area. Viewer groups at this KVP would include bicyclists and pedestrians traveling on the San Francisco Bay Trail. As shown in Figure 2.1-10, West Frontage Road and the embankment west of the I-80 westbound on-ramp are in the immediate foreground of this KVP. In the foreground is West Frontage Road. The intersection of West Frontage Road and the I-80 westbound on-ramp (with the line of vehicles) is to the right in the view. I-80 is beyond the ramp. The I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange mound with ice plant vegetation and mature trees is in the mid-range view. A row of mature trees is visible to the east of I-80, and the ridgelines of the East Bay Hills are visible in the distance. Commercial buildings are visible to the east of I-80.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-65
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-10: KVP 1.2 (Existing Conditions)
Figure 2.1-11: KVP 1.2 (Simulation)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-66
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Proposed Project: Within this view, the realigned West Frontage Road, the bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing and additional pedestrian and bicycle paths and undercrossing would change the overall visual character and quality of the view, as shown in Figure 2.1-11.

Changes to Visual Character: West Frontage Road would be shifted to the east approximately 65 feet and elevated 10.5 feet in this location. Two options for crossing West Frontage Road are proposed. One would be an at-grade crossing, and the other would be the portal option illustrated in the simulated view above. A new BPOC would be added with the Build Alternative as shown to the right in the photo with the arched steel shapes. Terraced seating would be added to the slope facing the San Francisco Bay. The East Bay Hills would not be visible. Existing mature trees within the interchange would be removed.

Vividness or memorability of the proposed project would be moderate-high. Intactness would remain moderate. There would be more man-built structures encroaching on views of the natural features in the view. The level of unity would increase from moderate to high. The composition of the proposed features would create a harmonious balance between the natural and man-built elements in the view.

Resource Change: The overall resource change with the addition of the proposed project would be moderate-high.

Anticipated Viewer Response: Viewers along the San Francisco Bay Trail are anticipated to have a moderate response level.

Resulting Visual Impact: The new BPOC would result in moderate-high levels of visual impact.

Visual Assessment Unit 2 – I-80 Corridor
Four viewpoints (KVP 2.1 through KVP 2.4) were selected within Visual Assessment Unit 2 to capture views from east- and westbound I-80.

KVP 2.1: Eastbound I-80 South of Ashby Avenue Exit
Existing Visual Character/Quality: As shown in Figure 2.1-12, KVP 2.1 is at a vantage point on the shoulder of the eastbound lanes of I-80. The Ashby westbound off-ramp bridge over I-80 is visible in the distance beyond the truss sign bridge. Vehicles are on the 150-foot wide twelve-lane highway with shoulders. Highway structures are visible including signs, truss sign bridge, lights, posts, and barriers. Mature trees are visible to the east and west of the highway. The multi-family high-rise residential complex is to the right in the photo. The East Bay Hills are visible in the distance through the corridor.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-67
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The memorability (vividness) of the view is low. The level of intactness is low. Highway structures and views of vehicles encroach on views of the natural environment. There is not a harmonious balance between the natural and man-built environment. The level of unity is low. The overall level of quality in the existing condition is low.

Figure 2.1-12: KVP 2.1 (Existing Conditions)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-68
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-13: KVP 2.1 (Simulation)
Proposed Project: As shown in Figure 2.1-13, the BPOC and interchange would change the overall visual character and quality of the view.

Changes to Visual Character and Quality: The BPOC structure would be added to the view. It would be similar in character and quality to the existing University Avenue BPOC, and to a similar structure that will be added to the I-80/Gilman Street interchange. A vehicular bridge at Ashby Avenue would be added to the east of the BPOC that would not have an arched superstructure but would include rounded forms that would be complementary with the BPOC. Existing mature trees in the Ashby Avenue interchange would be removed.

Vividness or memorability of the proposed project would be moderate-high. Intactness would remain low. There would be additional man-built structures encroaching on views of the natural environment in the view. The level of unity would increase from low to moderate. The form and line of the proposed BPOC features would draw focus toward those features and away from the highly textured and disjointed features within the highway environment. A more harmonious condition would be created with the BPOC in the view.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-69
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Anticipated Viewer Response: Eastbound motorists on I-80 would generally experience this KVP while traveling at high speeds, especially during off-peak hours.

Because motorists are likely to keep their focus directed in front of them, views of the project area would be visible but would be experienced for a relatively short duration of time depending on speed of travel. Therefore, viewers are anticipated to have a moderate response to the addition of the proposed project.

Resource Change: The overall resource change would be moderate.

Resulting Visual Impact: Visual impacts would be moderate.

KVP 2.2 – Eastbound I-80 at Ashby Avenue Exist
Existing Visual Character/Quality: As shown in Figure 2.1-14, KVP 2.2 is a vantage point at the intersection of the eastbound I-80 shoulder and the eastbound I-80 to Ashby Avenue off-ramp. The Ashby westbound off-ramp bridge over I-80 is visible in the distance. Vehicles are on the approximately 80-foot-wide eastbound lanes with shoulders. Westbound vehicles are visible beyond a concrete median barrier with a glare shield attached to the top surface. Highway structures are visible including signs, and lights. Mature trees are visible to the east and west of the highway. Mount Tamalpais and the coastal mountains are visible to the west.

The memorability (vividness) of the view is moderate. The level of intactness is low.

Highway structures and views of vehicles encroach on views of the natural environment.

There is a moderate level of unity in the view. Distant views of the coastal mountains, the horizon, and the natural environment within the interchange are moderately in balance with views of the highway environment in the center of the view. The level of unity is moderate. The overall level of quality in the existing condition is moderate.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-70
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-14: KVP 2.2(Existing Conditions)
Figure 2.1-15: KVP 2.2 (Simulation)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-71
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Proposed Project: Within this view, the BPOC and associated ramp would be visible, as shown in Figure 2.1-15. In the background the new Ashby Avenue vehicular bridge is shown.

Changes to Visual Character and Quality: The BPOC would be added to the view. It would be similar in character and quality to the existing University Avenue BPOC, and to a similar structure that will be added to the I-80/Gilman Street interchange. Existing mature trees in the Ashby Avenue interchange would be removed. There would be a new Ashby Avenue bridge added at the center of the interchange, illustrated to the east of the BPOC. On- and off-ramps would be added parallel to I-80 as illustrated to the right in the simulated view. Signalized intersections with signs and lights would be at the intersection of the ramps and Ashby Avenue. Views of Mount Tamalpais and the coastal mountains would be blocked or screened by the BPOC and ramp to the west. From westbound lanes of travel, views of the East Bay Hills would be similarly blocked by the BPOC and vehicular bridge structures. The duration of blockage of views of these two scenic mountain ranges would depend on the speed of traffic on I-80. At 65 miles per hour the duration of blockage would be approximately 39 seconds. The proposed project would add a new vehicular bridge at the Ashby Avenue overcrossing of I-80. For an analysis of the bridge, refer to the Build Alternative condition for KVP 2.4.

Vividness or memorability of the proposed project would be high. Intactness would remain low. There would be more man-built structures encroaching on views of the natural environment in the view with the arches, deck and ramps encroaching on views of the horizon. Ramps would encroach on views of the scenic coastal mountains and the East Bay Hills for brief periods of travel time. The level of unity would remain moderate.

Resource Change: Resource change would be moderate-high.

Anticipated Viewer Response: Viewer response to the proposed project would be moderate.

Resulting Visual Impact: The visual impacts would be moderate-high.

KVP 2.3 – Westbound I-80 at Ashby Avenue On-Ramp
Existing Visual Character/Quality: As shown in Figure 2.1-16, this KVP is located on westbound I-80 north of the Ashby Avenue on-ramp. Viewer groups at this KVP include westbound motorists between the existing overcrossings structures, with the southernmost overcrossing visible in the foreground.

KVP 2.3 is a vantage point on the shoulder of the westbound lanes of I-80. The I-80 westbound to Ashby Avenue off-ramp bridge is visible in the foreground. Vehicles are INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-72
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
on the approximately 70-foot wide five-lane westbound lanes with shoulder. Vehicles on I-80 eastbound lanes are visible beyond a concrete median barrier with glare shield attached to the top surface. Highway structures in the view include a concrete bridge, columns and permeable rail, concrete barrier, glare shield, signs, crash barriers and pavement. Medium-rise commercial buildings, and medium- and high-rise multi-family residential buildings are visible to the to the east of the highway beyond the bridge.

Features visible in the natural environment include mature trees at the abutment to the east, a row of mature trees adjacent to the east edge of the highway beyond the bridge, and views of the horizon.

The memorability (vividness) of the view is low. The level of intactness is low. Highway structures and views of vehicles encroach on views of the natural environment. There is not a harmonious balance between the natural and man-built environments. The level of unity is low. The overall level of quality in the existing condition is low.

Figure 2.1-16: KVP 2.3 (Existing Conditions)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-73
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-17: KVP 2.3 (Simulation)
Proposed Project: Within this view, the new BPOC and associated ramp would be visible, as shown in Figure 2.1-17.

Changes to Visual Character and Quality: The BPOC would be added to the view. It would be similar in character and quality to the existing University Avenue BPOC, and to a similar structure that will be added to the I-80/Gilman Street interchange. Existing mature trees in the Ashby Avenue interchange would be removed. On- and off-ramps would be added parallel to I-80. The BPOC would be permeable between the arches and the deck of the bridge affording views of the horizon and buildings of highway neighbors to the east.

Vividness or memorability of the proposed project would be high. Intactness would be increased from low in the existing condition to moderate in the proposed project in the view. The thin profile of the structure would encroach on the natural environment to a lesser degree. The level of unity would be high. The balance between the natural environment and man-built structures would be harmonious.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-74
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Resource Change: The overall resource change would be moderate-high.

Anticipated Viewer Response: The overall viewer response to the proposed project would be moderate.

Resulting Visual Impact: Visual impacts would be moderate-high.

KVP 2.4 – Westbound I-80 near Ashby Avenue Off-Ramp
Existing Visual Character/Quality: As shown in Figure 2.1-18, KVP 2.4 is at a vantage point in I-80 westbound travel lanes, located to the east of the Ashby Avenue to westbound I-80 on-ramp bridge visible in the distance. Vehicles are visible on I-80 westbound lanes, and on the eastbound lanes beyond a concrete median barrier with glare shield attached to the top surface. Highway structures in the view include a concrete bridge and columns, a truss sign bridge to the south of the on-ramp bridge, variable message and static highway signs, metal utility boxes, and pavement. The high-rise multi-family residential building is visible in the distance to the east. Features visible in the natural environment include groves of mature trees to the east and west within the interchange, and views of the horizon.

The memorability (vividness) of the view is moderate-low. The level of intactness is low.

Highway structures and views of vehicles encroach on views of the natural environment.

There is a moderate level of unity or balance between the natural and man-built environments. The level of unity is moderate. The overall level of quality in the existing condition is moderate-low.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-75
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-18: KVP 2.4(Existing Conditions)
Figure 2.1-19: KVP 2.4(Simulation)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-76
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Proposed Project: Within this view, the proposed Ashby Avenue vehicular bridge is visible in the foreground and the upper part of the new BPOC structure would be in view, as shown in Figure 2.1-19.

Changes to Visual Character and Quality: The proposed Ashby Avenue vehicular bridge would be in the foreground from this KVP, and the BPOC beyond the vehicular bridge would be added to the view. The two structures would be complementary in design, each having curved forms and permeable railings. The vehicular bridge would not have arched superstructure elements like the BPOC but would have arched forms in the shaping of the horizontal bridge structure and railings. Retaining walls at the vehicular bridge would be added. One end of each wall would be in contact with the bridge abutment and would extend to the east and west to retain the earth slopes at the highest points of the ramps near the bridge and at the ramps. The BPOC would be similar in character and quality to the existing University Avenue BPOC, and to a similar structure that will be added to the I-80/Gilman Street interchange. On- and off-ramps for the Ashby Avenue vehicular bridge would be parallel to I-80. Other highway features that would be included with the proposed project would be signs, lights, and highway median barrier with glare shield. Existing mature trees in the Ashby Avenue interchange would be removed by the proposed project. Replacement planting would be replaced within the project area as part of a follow-on contract, as specified in PF VIS-2.

Vividness or memorability of the proposed project would be high. Intactness would remain low. There would be more man-built structures encroaching on views of the natural environment. The level of unity would increase from moderate to high. The proposed bridge design elements and the proposed BPOC features would draw focus toward those features and away from the disjointed and diverse man-built features within the highway environment. A high-level harmonious balance would be created between the natural environment and man-built structures with the bridge and BPOC in the view.

Resource Change: The resource change would be moderate-high.

Anticipated Viewer Response: Viewer response to the proposed project would be moderate.

Resulting Visual Impact: The visual impacts would be moderate-high.

Visual Assessment Unit 3: East Side of Interchange
Three viewpoints (KVP 3.1 through 3.3) were selected within Visual Assessment Unit 3 to assess views within an area comprising a mix of commercial, school, health care, multi-family residential, and park land uses.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-77
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
KVP 3.1 – 65th Street and Christie Avenue
Existing Visual Character/Quality: As shown in Figure 2.1-20, KVP 3.1 is at a vantage point on 65th Street just east of Christie Avenue. Land uses in the area are mixed use commercial, health care, and multi-family residential. A public storage facility is to the right in the photo. Medium- and high-rise office buildings are to the left. Multi-family residential is to the east of the vantage point in a medium-rise building. The healthcare clinic and commercial buildings to the left have west-facing offices with views of the San Francisco Bay. The medium-rise residential building has few units with views to the west. Those views face the I-80 westbound Ashby Avenue off-ramp and the upper views of the coastal mountains and Mount Tamalpais. The medical clinic building blocks most of the residential views to the west. Manmade features in the view include road pavement, low-, medium-, and high-rise buildings, fences, streetlights, and vehicles.

The natural environment includes views of mature evergreen trees within Caltrans’ ROW that partially screen views of the San Francisco Bay and the horizon.

Views are memorable and with high levels of vividness in the view. Intactness is low.

Man-built structures intrude on the natural environment. The man-built structures and natural environment are in a harmonious balance. The level of unity is high.

Figure 2.1-20: KVP 3.1 (Existing Conditions)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-78
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-21: KVP 3.1 (Simulation)
Proposed Project: As shown in Figure 2.1-21, the existing manmade structures would remain in view. The proposed BPOC would be added to the view. The screening trees within the interchange would be removed.

Changes to Visual Character and Quality: Vividness or memorability of the proposed project would be high. Intactness would be moderate. The existing mature trees partially screen views to the San Francisco Bay and the horizon. The BPOC with its solid steel arches, bridge deck, approach ramps, and permeable panels of cables between the arches and the bridge duck would block or partially screen views to the west depending on the vantage point of the viewer. Some commercial and health care office views of the San Francisco Bay that are screened in the existing condition would be opened up to views of the interchange due to the removal of existing mature trees. The level of unity would be moderate. The proposed BPOC is large in scale compared to the smaller scale streetscape elements within the 65th street corridor. Existing mature trees would partially screen the BPOC. If there were no intervening trees and buildings blocking views of the full sculptural form, then the BPOC would be in a setting where the forms could be appreciated more fully by neighbors in vantage points in this area. There would be a more harmonious balance between the natural and man-built environments. As INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-79
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
proposed, there would be a moderately harmonious balance with the character of the street from this vantage point.

Resource Change: Resource change would be moderate-high.

Anticipated Viewer Response: Viewer response to the proposed project would be moderate.

Resulting Visual Impact: Visual impacts would be moderate-high.

KVP 3.2 – Ashby Avenue On-Ramp
Existing Visual Character/Quality: As shown in Figure 2.1-22, KVP 3.2 is at a vantage point on the Bay Street overcrossing looking west on Ashby Avenue. The approximately 48-foot wide, four-lane road with shoulders includes highway features such as pavement, a metal-beam guardrail in the median, and retaining walls with steel railings at the side of the road. Also visible are highway lights, signs, and vehicles. The KRE building and radio tower and utility lines are to the east (right) in the photo. Natural environment features include views of Mount Tamalpais and the horizon to the west, and mature trees and shrubs at the edges of the highway.

Views are memorable and with high levels of vividness in the view. Intactness is moderate. Manmade structures intrude on the natural environment. However, the many mature trees and shrubs in the view draw attention to the natural environment and offset the awareness of man-built features in the view. There is a harmonious balance between the man-built structures and the natural environment. The level of unity is high.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-80
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-22: KVP 3.2 (Existing Conditions)
Figure 2.1-23: KVP 3.2 (Simulation)
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-81
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Proposed Project: As shown in Figure 2.1-23, the proposed project would add a new Ashby Avenue extension with four travel lanes, extending to the middle of the interchange at intersections connecting with east- and westbound on- and off-ramps to I-80. Ashby Avenue would extend beyond the interchange and connect with West Frontage Road.

Changes to Visual Character: With the proposed project there would be the same four lanes of travel. A concrete barrier would be in the median instead of a permeable metalbeam guardrail. Retaining walls would be at the sides of the road varying in height from approximately one foot to eight feet. A second retaining wall would be visible to the east at the edge of a new Bay Street connector to Ashby Avenue. The 453-foot-long wall would vary in height from 9 feet to 14 feet. To the west (left) beyond the grove of trees, there would be a connector between Ashby Avenue and Shellmound Street.

Views would be memorable with the proposed project. Although the vegetation and trees would be different in appearance, they would be visible and provide an abundance of natural diversity in the environment. Vividness would be high. Intactness would be moderate-low. The retaining wall at the west side of the Bay Street to Ashby Avenue connector would contrast with the diversity visible in the natural environment. The level of unity would be moderate. The Bay Street connector retaining wall would diminish the sense of balance in the view between the natural and man-built environments. The level of unity would be moderate. Replacement planting would be replaced within the project area as part of a follow-on contract, as specified in PF VIS-2.

Resource Change: Resource change would be moderate.

Anticipated Viewer Response: Viewer response to the proposed project would be moderate-high.

Resulting Visual Impact: Visual impacts would be moderate-high.

KVP 3.3 – Aquatic Park (West)
Existing Visual Character/Quality: As shown in Figure 2.1-24, KVP 3.3 is at a vantage point within Aquatic Park adjacent to the Kenneth A. Hayes Boat House. The park is located to the east of I-80. Man-built features in the view include vehicles on eastbound lanes of I-80, highway lights and the high-rise multi-family building to the east in the distance. Natural environment features in the view include a lagoon, grassy slopes, groves of mature trees and the horizon. Views are memorable and have a high level of vividness. Man-built features encroach on views of the natural environment but to a minimal degree. The level of intactness is moderate-high. The balance between the man-built features and natural environment is harmonious. The level of unity is high in the view.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-82
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.1-24: KVP 3.3 (Existing Conditions)
Figure 2.1-25: KVP 3.3 (Simulation)
Proposed Project: The proposed project would remove some trees from the project area but would otherwise not cause any discernable visual resource changes from KVP

3.3, as illustrated in Figure 2.1-25.

Changes to Visual Character and Quality: With the proposed project, there would be no noticeable change in the from this KVP. The levels of vividness, intactness, and unity would remain the same.

Resource Change: Resource change would be low.

Anticipated Viewer Response: Viewer response to the proposed project would be low.

Resulting Visual Impact: Visual impacts would be low.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-83
Summary of Visual Impacts
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would result in moderate to moderate-high levels of visual impacts from the perspective of motorists on I-80. Highway motorists on I-80 would be moderately exposed to the proposed project and the duration of exposure would be brief, limited to only the brief time it would take to drive past these features depending on traffic speeds. Motorists on Ashby Avenue would be traveling as slower speeds and would have slightly longer durations of exposure to project features. Viewer response to the proposed project would be moderate-high adjacent to Ashby Avenue and would result in moderate-high levels of visual impacts.

Motorists, bicyclists, and persons on motorized scooters on local streets would have somewhat longer durations of exposure to project features than motorists on the highways. Their exposure would be limited to the duration of time it would take to drive past these features. The proposed project would result in moderate levels of visual impacts. Users of the San Francisco Bay Trail would have moderate levels of exposure to the proposed project while walking and bicycling along the shoreline. Project features would result in moderate to moderate-high visual impacts. Multi-family residential neighbors numbering in the hundreds would have views of the project. The multi-family residences on 65th Street with views of San Francisco Bay, the coastal mountains and Mount Tamalpais would experience moderate-high levels of visual impact with the proposed project. Commercial and health clinic neighbors and patrons of these establishments numbering in the thousands would have moderate to moderate-high levels of exposure to the proposed project. Moderate-high levels of visual impacts would occur.

The overall resource change, viewer response and visual impacts with the Build Alternative project features would range from moderate to moderate-high. 0Table 2.1-11 summarizes the visual impacts for the Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative and compares the narrative ratings for visual resource change and viewer response for each Visual Assessment Unit.

Table 2.1-11 Visual Impact Summary
Visual
Assessment
Unit
Key Viewpoint Resource
Change
Viewer
Response Visual Impact
Visual Assessment
Unit 1:

1.1: West Frontage Road
facing east toward Ashby
Avenue Interchange
Moderate Moderate Moderate
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-84
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Visual
Assessment
Unit
Key Viewpoint Resource
Change
Viewer
Response Visual Impact
Shoreline 1.2: San Francisco Bay
Trail facing east toward
Ashby Avenue
Interchange
Moderate-High Moderate Moderate-High
Visual Assessment
Unit 2:

I-80 Corridor

2.1: Eastbound I-80
facing east toward Ashby
Avenue Interchange
Moderate Moderate Moderate

2.2: Eastbound I-80
facing east toward Ashby
Avenue Interchange
Moderate-High Moderate Moderate-High

2.3: Westbound I-80
facing westbound I-80
Moderate-High Moderate Moderate-High

2.4: Westbound I-80
facing Ashby Avenue
Interchange
Moderate-High Moderate Moderate-High
Visual Assessment
Unit 3:

Neighbors East
of I-80

3.1: 65th Street facing
northeast quadrant of
Ashby Avenue
interchange
Moderate-High Moderate Moderate-High

3.2: Bay Street
Overcrossing facing eastand westbound Ashby
Avenue
Moderate ModerateHigh Moderate-High

2.3 Aquatic Park facing
Northeast quadrant of
Ashby Avenue
interchange
Low Low Low
Temporary Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would occur over an 18- to 24-month period.

Viewers would see materials, equipment, workers, construction operations, including trenching, excavations, dust, placement of temporary roadside barriers, construction signage, night lighting, contractor yards, new pavement, and new structures being constructed. Impacts of construction are unavoidable but are temporary. Motorists and pedestrians would be exposed to construction activities while passing through the construction zone. Residents of adjacent multi-family residences would be exposed to construction activities on a more continuous basis. Short-term impacts would include removal of some highway screening vegetation that would be replaced according to INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-85
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Caltrans policy. Long-term impacts would occur where insufficient right-of-way and/or sight distance requirements would not allow for planting trees that were removed during construction.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are those resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential visual impacts of this proposed project. Other projects currently planned or under construction within two miles of the project area include the I-80/Gilman Street Interchange Improvements Project, installation of median safety lighting, replacement of median concrete barriers, and new landscaping at the I80/University Avenue interchange. These projects are anticipated to introduce additional pavement, lighting, signage, traffic signals, ramp metering systems, and retaining walls as well as remove mature trees and vegetation along I-80. However, standard Caltrans project features including replanting vegetation as well as aesthetic treatments for new project elements such as retaining walls would ensure that negative cumulative impacts within the corridor would not occur.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF VIS-1: Vegetation Removal Measures. The removal of groundcover, shrubs, and matures will be minimized to the maximum extent possible by utilizing open areas for contractor staging/storage areas.

PF VIS-2: Tree Surveys. Survey exact locations for trees and include in plan set.

PF VIS-3: Replacement Planting. Replacement plantings would occur near the areas of impact where feasible per Caltrans policy and in consultation with the Office of Landscape Architecture and the Resident Engineer.

PF VIS-4: Use of Drought-Tolerant Plants. Use drought-tolerant plants, including California native species, as part of the planting palette where regionally appropriate.

PF VIS-5: Caltrans Plant Setback and Spacing Requirements. Plantings within the state right of way will follow the 1997 Caltrans Plant Setback and Spacing Guide.

PF VIS-6: Light and Glare Minimization. As directed by Caltrans, appropriate light and glare screening measures will be used at the construction staging areas including the use of downward cast lighting.

PF VIS-7: Use of standard construction equipment and protocol. Caltrans will use standard construction equipment and protocols for the Build Alternative, such as placing unsightly materials and equipment so that they are not visible within the forefront of highway corridor and local streets where feasible.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-86
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
For the full text of these project features, refer to Appendix C.

Avoidance and Minimization
Caltrans and FHWA mandate that a qualitative/aesthetic approach be taken to address visual quality loss in the study area. This approach fulfills the letter and the spirit of FHWA requirements because it addresses the actual cumulative loss of visual quality due to a project. This approach also results in avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures that can lessen or compensate for a loss in visual quality. The inclusion of aesthetic features in the project design can help generate public acceptance of a project. This section describes additional avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address specific visual impacts. These will be designed and implemented as part of the Build Alternative with the concurrence of the Caltrans District Landscape Architect.

The following measures to avoid or minimize visual impacts will be incorporated into the Build Alternative. See Appendix C for the full text of AMMs VIS-1 through VIS-3.

AMM VIS 1: In order to avoid the inadvertent creation of areas that appeal to illegal encampments (e.g., open areas under bridge structures and isolated vacant lots), the final design will include measures to discourage illegal encampments.

AMM VIS-2: To reduce the visual impact of new retaining walls and bridge structures, aesthetic treatments consisting of color, texture and/or patterning will be applied to such structures.

AMM VIS-3: Additional Construction Impact Measures.
▪ Any roadside vegetation and irrigation systems that are damaged or removed during project construction shall be replaced according to Caltrans policy and the requirements of the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley. ▪ When trenching for utilities, avoid trenching within drip lines of trees and screening shrubs. Directional drilling that would avoid damaging root systems of established plant material shall be used, when reasonable, as opposed to open trenching to install new conduit in places where work within the drip line would be required. Trees and screening shrubs shall be protected from damage during construction.
▪ Provide highway plantings where feasible. Caltrans safety setback requirements would apply for all plantings within Caltrans’ ROW. Provide street trees, shrubs, and groundcover on local streets where feasible.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-87
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the proposed project’s effects on cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. Information used to prepare this includes the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (August 2020) and Supplemental HPSR (May 2021).

REGULATORY SETTING
The term “cultural resources” as used in this document, refers to the “built environment” (e.g., structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems, etc.), places of traditional or cultural importance, and archaeological sites (both prehistoric and historic), regardless of significance. Under federal and state laws, cultural resources that meet certain criteria of significance are referred to by various terms including “historic properties,” “historic sites,” “historical resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources include:

Federal
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, sets forth national policy and procedures for historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the opportunity to comment on those undertakings, following regulations issued by the ACHP (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800). On January 1, 2014, the First Amended Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the FHWA, the ACHP, the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Department went into effect for Department projects, both state and local, with FHWA involvement. The PA implements the ACHP’s regulations, 36 CFR 800, streamlining the Section 106 process and delegating certain responsibilities to the Department. The FHWA’s responsibilities under the PA have been assigned to the Department as part of the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (23 United States Code [USC] 327).

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) applies when a project may involve archaeological resources located on federal or tribal land. The ARPA requires that a permit be obtained before excavation of an archaeological resource on such land can take place.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-88
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Historic properties may also be covered under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, which regulates the “use” of land from historic properties (in Section 4(f) terminology—historic sites).

State
CEQA requires the consideration of cultural resources that are historical resources and tribal cultural resources, as well as “unique” archaeological resources. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and outlined the necessary criteria for a cultural resource to be considered eligible for listing in the CRHR and, therefore, a historical resource.

Historical resources are defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j).

In 2014, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) added the term “tribal cultural resources” to CEQA, and AB 52 is commonly referenced instead of CEQA when discussing the process to identify tribal cultural resources (as well as identifying measures to avoid, preserve, or mitigate effects to them). Defined in PRC Section 21074(a), a tribal cultural resource is a CRHR or local register eligible site, feature, place, cultural landscape, or object which has a cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Tribal cultural resources must also meet the definition of a historical resource. Unique archaeological resources are referenced in PRC Section 21083.2.

PRC Section 5024 requires state agencies to identify and protect state-owned historical resources that meet the NRHP listing criteria. It further requires Caltrans to inventory state-owned structures in its rights-of-way. Sections 5024(f) and 5024.5 require state agencies to provide notice to and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before altering, transferring, relocating, or demolishing state-owned historical resources that are listed on or are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or are registered or eligible for registration as California Historical Landmarks. Procedures for compliance with PRC Section 5024 are outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department and SHPO, effective January 1, 2015. For most federal-aid projects on the State Highway System, compliance with the Section 106 PA will satisfy the requirements of PRC Section 5024.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established in consultation with Caltrans staff and approved on July 6, 2021. The APE includes all areas where potential direct and indirect impacts to historic resources could occur as a result of project construction, operation, and maintenance for the Build Alternative. Consistent with Caltrans policies and general cultural resource practices, the APE for potential direct impacts was established as the horizontal and vertical project footprint. The vertical APE extends to a INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-89
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
maximum of 150 feet below existing ground surface to accommodate CIDH pile foundations.

Archaeological Resources
A Northwest Information Center (NWIC) record search was completed for the proposed project on March 8, 2018, and included a 0.5-mile radius surrounding the project area.

The entire APE has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources and no previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the APE or record search buffer.

Although no archaeological sites have been identified in the APE, unrecorded archaeological sites may be deeply buried with no surface manifestation. The APE contains both artificial fill and marine deposits along the San Francisco Bay that may have culturally sensitive landforms or archaeological deposits. Thus, soils that underlie the historic era fill at the project area also have the potential to contain buried archaeological remains. Given the maximum depths of construction proposed for the project, at 150 feet below the existing ground surface, it is possible that buried archaeological deposits could be present in the APE.

Tribal Cultural Resources
On August 22, 2019, Horizon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by email to request a search of the Sacred Lands File. The Sacred Lands File contains information on known Native American traditional or cultural properties. The NAHC responded stating that no significant resources have previously been identified in the APE. A list of interested Native America Tribal representatives with traditional lands or cultural places within Alameda County was included in the NAHC response. In November 2019, certified letters were sent to all Native American contacts provided by the NAHC under Section 106 consultation, pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, and as required under CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), describing the proposed project, providing a location map, and requesting any information and concerns the Tribes may have regarding the proposed project or study area. A list of Tribal representatives contacted in November 2019 is provided below. ▪ Amah Mutsun Tribal Band – Valentin Lopez, Representative ▪ Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Tony Cerda, Chairperson ▪ Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Coastanoan, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson ▪ Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-90
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
▪ North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson ▪ The Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Corrina Gould, Chairperson ▪ Ohlone Indian Tribe, Andrew Galvin, Chairperson
One response was received via email from Chairperson Katherine Perez of the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe. A field review of the project area was conducted on February 13, 2020, by Chairperson Perez and two other tribal representatives, along with Caltrans District 4 archaeology personnel, Kathryn Rose and Katie Jorgensen and members of the project design team. Chairperson Perez expressed concern for the potential of deeply buried cultural resources beneath the fill on which I-80 and the interchange have been constructed. Native American consultation is ongoing throughout the life of the project.

Architectural Resources
Based on the results of the NWIC records search, a review of historic and current maps, research in archival records, and field surveys, it has been determined that there are two historic resources within the historic APE, the KRE Radio Station and state-owned bridge #33-0060 which are both located in the APE. The KRE Radio Station has been recorded and evaluated numerous times, has been re-evaluated under the current study, and is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion 1/A. The second resource in the APE, state-owned Bridge #33-0060, was also recorded and evaluated and is not eligible.

Built environment resources 45 years or older were evaluated to accommodate the long duration of the planning and design process for transportation projects. The other properties investigated during the HRER study were determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR and the HPSR study includes a proposed finding of No Historic Properties Affected. The State Office of Historic Preservation concurred with that finding in a letter dated November 3, 2020 (FHWA_2020_0914_001/CATRA_2020 0914_001).

Therefore, the APE does not contain any buildings or structures that qualify as historical resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would not change existing conditions; therefore, it would not affect any cultural resources.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-91
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Build Alternative
As discussed in Affected Environment, there are no known archaeological sites within the archaeological APE. Therefore, no known archaeological sites would be affected by the Build Alternative. Given the level of previous disturbance within the I-80 corridor, existing interchange ramps, and local roadways, and the lack of previously identified resources during the construction of the existing infrastructure, no additional archaeological resources identification efforts are considered necessary.

While no archaeological or Native American cultural resources have been recorded in the APE, there is the possibility that an unrecorded resource, such as cultural materials or human remains, could be unearthed during construction. This could result in damage to the resource and would be considered an adverse effect. Therefore, mitigation measures are proposed to protect resources in the event of unexpected discovery during construction. Effects would be minimized in part by halting work until the resource can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist (PF CUL-1) and notifying the Most Likely Descendent of human remains (PF CUL-2). These project features would minimize potential effects to archaeological resources.

Two properties were evaluated for NRHP and CRHR eligibility. Bridge #33-0060 was evaluated and was determined to be not eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR as the result of this study. KRE Radio Station is eligible for NRHP and CRHR. However, Caltrans pursuant to Section 106 PA Stipulation IX.A and as applicable PRC 5024 MOU Stipulation IX.A.2, a finding of No Historic Properties Affect is appropriate. The boundaries of the historic property are limited to the KRE Radio Station building and does not include the transmitting tower which will have a guy wire relocated, or any other portions of the subject parcel.

Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes the areas within and surrounding the project area which have documented cultural resource sites and/or high sensitivities for unrecorded artifacts. Cumulative effects to cultural resources would occur if planned and foreseeable development results in the removal of a substantial number of historic structures or archaeological sites that, when taken in combination with the proposed project, and could degrade the physical historical record of the larger project region. The proposed project would not result in adverse effects to known cultural resources, and project features are in place if potentially unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to any potential cumulative effects to these resources.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-92
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF CUL-1: If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a Caltrans qualified archaeologist is contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find.

PF CUL-2: If Caltrans Professionally Qualified Staff determines that cultural materials contain human remains, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains.

Refer to Appendix C for the full text of project features PF CUL-1 and PF CUL-2.

Avoidance and Minimization
Because PF-CUL-1 and CUL-2 would minimize potential effects, additional avoidance and minimization measures are not required (refer to Appendix C for the full text of all project features, and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures).

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-93
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
This page left intentionally blank.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1-94

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

2.2.1 HYDROLOGY AND FLOODPLAIN
This section evaluates effects associated with hydrology and floodplains that could occur from implementation of the proposed project. Sources of information used to prepare the analysis include:
 Location Hydraulic Study (October 2021)
 Preliminary Drainage Impact Study (October 2021)
 Water Quality Assessment Report (October 2021)
 Sea Level Rise Memorandum (October 2021)

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Executive Order 11988
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650 Subpart A.

To comply, the following must be analyzed:
 The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments  Risks of the action
 Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values
 Support of incompatible floodplain development
 Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values affected by the proposed project
The base floodplain is defined as “the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year.” This is often referred to as the “100-year floodplain.” An encroachment is defined as “an action within the limits of the base floodplain.”
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-1

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Water Quality Assessment Report (October 2021) incorporates information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Alameda County. The Location Hydraulic Study (October 2021) provides information on existing floodplains in the study area, existing watershed and floodplain management programs, and how the proposed project would affect floodplains and floodplain management. The hydrological study area encompasses both the project area and the regional watershed. The project area includes Interstate 80 ([I-80], an interstate highway), bridged crossings, on- and off-ramps, and state-owned right-of-way (ROW).

Watershed and Hydrology
The San Francisco Bay is the principal receiving water for streams and sediment from the East Bay hills. The existing I-80/Ashby interchange drains to the San Francisco Bay.

The main waterways in and around the project area are the San Francisco Bay, and waters associated with Aquatic Park in Berkeley. Aquatic Park comprises three manmade lagoons: Main Lagoon, Model Yacht Basin, and Radio Tower Pond.

The project is within a watershed encompassing 3.8 square miles in the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and Emeryville (see Figure 2.2-1). The watershed includes the 102- acre Aquatic Park located along the east shore of the San Francisco Bay between I-80 and west Berkeley. Eight culverts under I-80 connect the Aquatic Park lagoons with the Bay. These connections allow inflows from the San Francisco Bay to enter the Main Lagoon through the Potter storm drain system. In general, Aquatic Park receives inflows from the Strawberry Creek network in the north and Potter/Derby Creeks in the south, tidal inflows from the Bay, as well as surface water runoff and overland flows from adjacent roads. Tidal flows in Aquatic Park are partially controlled by tide gates.

The hydrology of the study area is dominated by the I-80 corridor, freeway interchanges, and infrastructure for conveying stormwater runoff under the freeway. The major focus of hydrology management in this area is to direct and convey stormwater in the most efficient way possible, to minimize the risk of flooding.

The project area storm drain network outfalls to the San Francisco Bay through a storm drain located between the Radio Tower Pond and Model Yacht Basin lagoons of the Aquatic Park near Potter Street, and a storm drain at the south end of the interchange near 65th Street (WRECO, 2020a). Storm drains are further discussed in the Preliminary Drainage Impact Study (October 2021).

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-2

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Floodplains
FEMA FIRM maps were reviewed to determine whether the project site is within a 100- year flood zone. A majority of the project improvements would occur within an area identified on the FIRM as lying in Zone X. Zone X is defined as areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. Adjacent areas include Radio Tower Pond, Aquatic Park, and the Model Yacht Basin. The area is primarily designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone AE and has a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 10 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 88, with the exception of a western segment of Potter Street, which is designated as shaded Zone X. Areas designated as Zone AE are subject to inundation by a 100-year base flood, typically by stillwater flooding with minimal wave hazard effects. A portion of Point Emery located west of Point Emery Lane, is also designated as shaded Zone X. The area directly adjacent to the existing westbound lane of Ashby Avenue, between Bay Street and I-80 northbound on-ramp, encroaches upon Zone AE, with a BFE of 10 feet NAVD 88, and the new drainage outfall south of Point Emery would encroach upon Zone AE, with BFE 12 feet NAVD 88 associated with San Francisco Bay.

The northern portion of the project area is characterized as Zone VE, a coastal area subject to inundation by a 100-year base flood and hazards due to velocity wave action.

The southern portion is characterized as Zone AE, an area that is subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. Flood zones are shown on Figure 2.2-2.

As discussed in the Sea Level Rise Memorandum (October 2021), the water levels of San Francisco Bay have the potential to increase in elevation (sea level rise). Sea level rise by the year 2070 has the potential to impact a significant portion of the project area.

High tides and storm surges, in conjunction with sea level rise, is anticipated to cause backflows into the reinforced concrete pipe storm drain inlet near Point Emery and into the storm drainage system within the project area.

There are local low points within the project area that are particularly susceptible to sea level rise. The existing drainage inlets within the project limits, especially those along the Aquatic Park Lagoons, Point Emery, Potter Street, West Bolivar Drive, and Ashby Avenue at the Sag (north of railroad tracks). Caltrans is coordinating with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to develop feasible adaptive measures to reduce the risk of exposure to sea level rise. These measures are discussed below under Environmental Consequences.

No coordination with other local, state, or federal water resources and floodplain management agencies is anticipated because the proposed project is expected to have a minimal impact on existing floodplains, and there are no existing flood control channels within the project area.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-3

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Floodplain Natural and Beneficial Values
Natural and beneficial floodplain values include, but are not limited to fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural beauty, outdoor recreation, scientific study, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and ground water recharge. Within the project area, portions of Aquatic Park Lagoons and Point Emery are within the environmental study limit (ESL). The Aquatic Park Lagoons and Point Emery provide open space uses and outdoor recreation activities. Existing beneficial floodplain values and potential project impacts to those values are documented in the Natural Environment Study (NES) (May 2021).

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-4
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Watershed Map Figure 2.2-1
Source: Circlepoint 2021
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure 2.2-2
Source: FEMA, 2021

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would preserve existing conditions in the project area. No changes to hydrology, impervious surfaces, or alterations within the floodplain would occur. Planned improvements for managing flood levels would still be carried out by the Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD) as planned, separate from the proposed project. The No Build Alternative would have no effect on hydrology or floodplains.

Build Alternative
Floodplain Encroachment
Most changes in impervious surface area would occur in unshaded Zone X, which is designed as an area with minimal flood hazard that is outside of the 500-year floodplain (in contrast, shaded Zone X represents areas of moderate flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as the area between the limits of the 100 and the 500-year floodplains). Construction of the proposed Bay Street connector to Ashby Avenue would add approximately 0.28 acres of additional impervious surfaces within the Zone AE just north of Ashby Avenue, near the KRE Radio Station building (see Figure 2.2-2). This encroachment area is relatively small compared to that of the Aquatic Park, which includes approximately 33 land acres and 68 water acres. Additionally, because Radio Tower Pond is primarily tidally influenced and not connected to the Potter Street Storm Drain system or adjacent Model Yacht Basin, the increase in impervious area is expected to have minimal impacts to flooding in the area.

Construction of the new drainage outfall in the San Francisco Bay would slightly encroach upon Zone AE associated with San Francisco Bay. A total of 223 square feet (0.007 acres) of new impervious surface would be created as a part of the footprint of the new outfall. There are no anticipated changes in impervious surface within Zone VE associated with the San Francisco Bay. Radio Tower Pond is tidally influenced and is connected to the San Francisco Bay by a culvert, while flooding in the Zone VE coastal floodplain is caused by tidal influence and storm surges. Therefore, the proposed project would have a minimal or negligible effect on the Zone VE and AE coastal floodplains associated with San Francisco Bay.

Longitudinal Encroachment
As defined by FHWA, a longitudinal encroachment is an action within the limits of the base floodplain that is parallel to the direction of flow. The proposed project would only encroach into the embankments of Radio Tower Pond and would result in 0.012 acre of INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-7

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
permanent impacts to SFHA Zone AE in this area. In this location, flows are tidally influenced and connected to the San Francisco Bay by a partially collapsed culvert.

However, because the encroachment is not parallel to the direction of flow, this action does not constitute a longitudinal encroachment into the floodplain.

Risk of Action
The potential risks associated with construction of the proposed project involve: 1) introduction of new impervious surfaces; 2) filling within FEMA delineated floodplains; and 3) changes in the 100-year flood water surface elevations.

Overall, the increase in impervious area would be relatively minor. The proposed project would add and/or replace more than one acre of impervious area; however, the encroachment on a FEMA designated floodplain would be minimal (0.012 acre). As such, the proposed project would not include any changes that would significantly affect the 100-year flood water surface elevations. Radio Tower Pond is tidally influenced and is connected to the San Francisco Bay by a culvert, while flooding in the FEMA designated coastal floodplain is caused by tidal influence and storm surges. Therefore, the proposed project will have a minimal or negligible effect on the floodplain.

Repair and routine maintenance of the partially collapsed culvert connection between Radio Tower Pond and the Bay would help regulate flows and minimize impacts on the FEMA designated floodplain. Construction of the proposed project would include existing culvert abandonment or removal coupled with installation of drainage improvements. Drainage improvements would include new drainage pipes and inlet systems and design of a new outfall south of Point Emery Lane. This would help minimize flooding risks associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the risk associated with the proposed project would be low.

Floodplain Development
Incompatible floodplain development is defined as development that would negatively affect the floodplain and/or put people or structures at risk. Examples of incompatible development can include commercial development or urban growth. The proposed project would improve an existing interchange and add a new BPOC. These improvements would be similar to existing infrastructure and would not introduce incompatible floodplain development.

Floodplain Natural and Beneficial Values
Natural and beneficial floodplain values include, but are not limited to, fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor recreation, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-8

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
groundwater recharge. Coastal floodplains within the project area, particularly those to the west of the rock slope protection that lines the eastern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, provides wildlife habitat for fish, waterfowl, and shorebirds. In addition, Aquatic Park is an estuarine habitat for various wildlife and plant species, including in the Model Yacht Basin and the Radio Tower Pond. Biological resources in Aquatic Park are generally limited by the steep side slopes, rocky shorelines, and rock terraces lining a portion of the banks near Model Yacht Basin.

The proposed project would permanently impact approximately 0.007 acre of open water within the San Francisco Bay for construction of the new outfall and 0.012 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands near Radio Tower Pond. The incorporation of standard Caltrans BMPs, such as Project Feature (PF) BIO-5 (construction worker education) and PF BIO-7 (limiting in-water work) would help to avoid impacts to beneficial uses of these resources. Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures such as avoidance and minimization measure (AMM) BIO-2 (minimization of ground disturbance near the San Francisco Bay and Radio Tower Pond); and AMM BIO-5 (no in-water work during the wet season) would further minimize any potential for impacts to beneficial uses. The proposed project would also promote outdoor recreation benefits of the San Francisco Bay by allowing more bicyclists and pedestrians to access the San Francisco Bay Trail via the proposed BPOC.

Sea Level Rise
As discussed in the Sea Level Rise Memorandum (October 2021), the existing sea level is projected to rise by approximately 3.5 feet by 2070, assuming a moderately-high risk scenario. Under this scenario, the majority of the project area would be susceptible to inundation, including the I-80 corridor, Point Emery, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and West Frontage Road. Inundation would be caused by backflow through the drainage system or from overland tidal inundation. The proposed project would not exacerbate the likelihood of sea level rise because it would not lower the existing elevation of the project area or otherwise make the area more susceptible to further inundation.

Therefore, the potential for sea level rise to impact the project area would be the same for the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative.

Regional approaches to addressing sea level rise are occurring concurrently with the proposed project. Such adaptive measures include constructing a sea wall/flood wall, and installing a tidal flap gates at all out-fall structures along the I-80 corridor to reduce the risk of the exposure. Caltrans is evaluating the addition of a tidal flap gate or a duck bill valve at the proposed new outfall structure as a near-term measure to prevent backwater flow conditions for the proposed project. A decision on this measure will be made during final design.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-9

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Caltrans, in partnership with local and regional stakeholders, including BCDC and others, is developing local and regional responses to sea-level rise impacts. This effort is separate from but concurrent with the proposed project. Multi-agency collaboration will help Caltrans and partner agencies achieve a multi-benefit approach to protecting bayfront development, infrastructure, and assets, and distribute potential mitigation costs, as well as balancing environmental justice concerns to achieve equitable adaptative solutions. Caltrans cannot act alone in developing individual adaptation responses on a project-by-project basis, as sea level rise presents a regional problem demanding coordinated, consistent regional solutions. As such, Caltrans is working to do that through its participation in efforts such as BCDC’s Bay Adapt Initiative and similar efforts with counties and local jurisdictions throughout the region. Any potential long-term adaptation strategies identified through these multi-agency partnerships would be implemented under future, separate projects.

Cumulative Effects
Under the Build Alternative, impacts to FEMA-delineated floodplains, natural and beneficial floodplains, and increases in impervious surface area would be negligible.

Given this, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to hydrology and floodplains.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
There are no project features associated with hydrology and floodplain resources.

Avoidance and Minimization
Construction of the proposed project would result in a low potential for flood risk. As such, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are proposed related to flooding hazards.

The proposed project is required to prevent flooding from surface runoff from the design storm as defined by the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020). To meet this requirement, the proposed drainage system would be designed to capture and convey stormwater runoff from the design storm in the project area. The drainage improvements, construction of a new outfall, in conjunction with stormwater BMPs application, would help minimize stormwater impacts due to surface runoff and/or sea level rise. The proposed project would not cause a significant or longitudinal encroachment. Therefore, alternatives to significant and longitudinal encroachments were not analyzed.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-10

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.2.2 WATER QUALITY AND STORM WATER RUNOFF
This section evaluates the project’s potential effects on water quality and storm water runoff. Information in this section draws upon multiple sources, including:
 Water Quality Assessment Report (October 2021)
 Stormwater Data Report (October 2021)
 Stormwater Drainage Report (October 2021)

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any point source unlawful unless the discharge complies with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A point source is any discrete conveyance such as a pipe or a man-made ditch. This act and its amendments are known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Congress has amended the act several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. The following are important CWA sections:
 Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
 Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. This is most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request (see below).
 Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into Waters of the U.S.

Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer this permitting program in California. Section 402(p) requires permits for discharges of storm INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-11

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
water from industrial/construction and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
 Section 404 establishes a permitting program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

The goal of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: general and individual. There are two types of general permits: regional and nationwide. Regional permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects.

Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a regional or nationwide permit may be permitted under one of the USACE’s individual permits. There are two types of Individual permits: standard permits and letters of permission. For individual permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230), and whether the permit approval is in the public interest.

The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (Waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on Waters of the U.S. and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. According to the Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause “significant degradation” to Waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. A discussion of the LEDPA determination, if any, for the document is included in the Wetlands and Other Waters section.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-12

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation within California. This act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for surface and/or groundwater of the state. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the state. Waters of the state include more than just Waters of the U.S., like groundwater and surface waters not considered Waters of the U.S. Additionally, it prohibits discharges of “waste” as defined, and this definition is broader than the CWA definition of “pollutant.” Discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the CWA and regulating discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards.

Details about water quality standards within project area are included in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In California, RWQCBs designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions and then set criteria necessary to protect those uses. As a result, the water quality standards developed for particular water segments are based on the designated use and vary depending on that use. In addition, the SWRCB identifies waters failing to meet standards for specific pollutants. These waters are then state-listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a state determines that waters are impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source or non-point source controls (NPDES permits or WDRs), the CWA requires the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non-point, and natural) for a given watershed.

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB administers water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits.

RWCQBs are responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-13

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm water discharges, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s).

An MS4 is defined as “any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water.” The SWRCB has identified Caltrans as an owner/operator of an MS4 under federal regulations. Caltrans’s MS4 permit covers all Caltrans ROW, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted.

The Department’s MS4 Permit, Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ (adopted on September 19, 2012, and effective on July 1, 2013), as amended by Order No. 2014-0006-EXEC (effective January 17, 2014), Order No. 2014-0077-DWQ (effective May 20, 2014) and Order No. 2015-0036-EXEC (conformed and effective April 7, 2015) has three basic requirements:

1. The Department must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see below);

2. The Department must implement a year-round program in all parts of the state to effectively control storm water and non-storm water discharges; and

3. The Department storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) Best Management Practices (BMPs), to the maximum extent practicable, and other measures as the SWRCB determines to be necessary to meet the water quality standards.

To comply with the permit, The Department developed the Statewide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The SWMP assigns responsibilities within The Department for implementing storm water management procedures and practices as well as training, public education and participation, monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. The SWMP describes the minimum procedures and practices The Department uses to reduce pollutants in storm water and non-storm water discharges. It outlines procedures and responsibilities for protecting water quality, including the selection and INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-14

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
implementation of BMPs. The proposed project will be programmed to follow the guidelines and procedures outlined in the latest SWMP to address storm water runoff.

Construction General Permit
Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (adopted on September 2, 2009, and effective on July 1, 2010), as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (effective February 14, 2011) and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ (effective on July 17, 2012). The permit regulates storm water discharges from construction sites that result in a disturbed soil area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By law, all storm water discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit. Construction activities that results in soil disturbances of less than one acre is subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB.

Operators of regulated construction sites are required to develop Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs); to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures; and to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit.

The Construction General Permit separates projects into risk levels 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels are determined during the planning and design phases and are based on potential erosion and transport to receiving waters. Requirements apply according to the risk level determined. For example, a risk level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory storm water runoff pH and turbidity monitoring, and before construction and after construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows.

For all projects subject to the permit, applicants are required to develop and implement an effective SWPPP. In accordance with Caltrans’s SWMP and Standard Specifications, a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) is necessary for projects with DSA less than 1 acre.

Section 401 Permitting
Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge to a water of the U.S. must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the project will comply with state water quality standards. The most common federal permits triggering 401 Certification are CWA Section 404 permits issued by the USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project area, and are required before the USACE issues a 404 permit.

In some cases, the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a project. As a result, the RWQCB may issue a set of requirements known as INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-15

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
WDRs under the State Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act) that define activities, such as the inclusion of specific features, effluent limitations, monitoring, and plan submittals that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and temporary discharges of a project.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information in this section is based on the Water Quality Assessment Report (October 2021). The analysis below provides data on surface water and groundwater resources within the study area, describes water quality impairments and beneficial uses, and identifies potential water quality impacts or benefits associated with the project. The study area for this topic is the Cerrito Creek-Frontal San Francisco Estuaries, Angel Island-San Francisco Estuaries, and Richardson Bay-San Francisco Bay watersheds, shown on Figure 2.2-2.

Regional Hydrology
The project area is entirely within an undefined hydrologic sub-area of the Berkeley Hydrologic Area and Bay Bridges Hydrologic unit (Figure 2.2-1). The project is associated with the Potter/Derby Creeks Watershed, which spans 3.8 square miles primarily within the City of Berkeley, as well as along the borders of Oakland on the east and southeast, and Emeryville on the southwest.

Groundwater Resources
The project area is within the East Bay Plain (EBP) Groundwater Basin. The EBP basin supplies approximately 4,700 existing wells. Backyard and commercial irrigation account for 91 percent of groundwater use, industrial processes 8.6 percent, and municipal drinking water 0.4 percent. Beneficial uses of the EBP are defined in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan and include Municipal and Domestic Water Supply, Industrial/Process Water Supply, and Agricultural Water Supply. Agricultural use of groundwater in the EBP includes irrigation at two golf courses, three cemeteries, several high schools, colleges, parks, and plant nurseries. Groundwater use in the EBP subbasin is limited by several factors: the availability of high-quality imported surface water, high salinities in shallow groundwater approaching the San Francisco Bay margin, the potential for saltwater intrusion, and contamination of shallow aquifers.

Surface Water Resources
As stated in Section 2.2.1, Hydrology and Floodplains, the main waterways in and around the project area are the San Francisco Bay, and waters associated with Aquatic Park (Main Lagoon, Model Yacht Basin, and Radio Tower Pond). All surface channels within the project area are covered.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-16

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The existing I-80/Ashby interchange drains to the San Francisco Bay. Encompassing the western edge of the project area is the San Francisco Bay, which is listed as an impaired water body under Section 303(d) of the CWA. Pollutants that have been identified in the San Francisco Bay include trash, diazinon, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and chlordane. Diazinon is commonly found in chemicals used for landscaping and is released into water bodies as runoff from the irrigation of lawns and landscaped areas in developed neighborhoods. Caltrans does not use diazinon or DDT. Region 2 of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has adopted TMDLs for diazinon and pesticide-related toxicity for all urban creeks that drain into San Francisco Bay. TMDLs have also been enacted for mercury and PCBs.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would preserve the existing mix of impervious surface and pervious areas and would not include grading or modifications to existing drainage systems. Thus, the No Build Alternative would have no effect on water quality.

Build Alternative
Permanent Operational Impacts
The project would include permanent stormwater treatment facilities onsite, as well as one offsite stormwater treatment facility at the I-80/Powell Street Interchange. The stormwater treatment facilities would include permanent stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) consistent with the recommendations in the stormwater drainage report (SWDR) (October 2021). However, with the increase in impervious surfaces in the project area, the proposed project may result in a permanent increase in pollutant loading. This could potentially impact water quality in the San Francisco Bay.

Further, impervious areas prevent runoff from naturally dispersing and infiltrating into the ground. This results in an increased concentration of water flow into stormwater conveyance channels. The increased velocity and volume of runoff in these channels could increase erosion and affect water quality.

Impervious area values for the Build Alternative are shown in Table 2.2-1. Impervious area grouped under the “added” category represents the net new impervious area for the Build Alternative. The “reworked” impervious area figures refer to existing roadway and highway surfaces that would be removed and replaced, such as ramp reconfigurations. The total for the Build Alternative represents the net total additional acreage of impervious surface after project completion.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-17

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-1 Existing and Proposed Impervious Surface Area Build Alternative
Total New Impervious Surface (acres) 13.37
Replaced Impervious surface (acres) 7.39
Net New Impervious Area of the
Proposed Project (acres)

5.98 Source: WRECO 2020
Under the Build Alternative, net new impervious surface would be 5.98 acres. Because the Build Alternative would create more than 1 acre of new impervious surface, design pollution prevention measures and post-construction treatment BMPs would be required. These measures would be applied through AMM WQ-2 and AMM WQ-3, detailed in Appendix C, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures.

The SWDR identified treatment BMPs that have been studied and verified to remove general pollutants. BMPs such as biofiltration devices designed for bioretention has been identified as the most feasible treatment option for the project. The SWDR identified five conceptual locations for treatment BMPs at the project site. As described in the SWDR, the total area of suitable onsite locations for treatment BMPs is insufficient to meet the treatment requirements for the project. One offsite treatment BMP is proposed at the I-80/Powell Street interchange in Emeryville. The offsite stormwater facility would be constructed within an existing unutilized area between the I-80 mainline and a ramp at the Powell Street interchange.

With the incorporation of AMM WQ-3, Treatment BMPs, secondary effects due to erosion and downstream impacts to water quality would be minimized. AMM WQ-5, Maintenance BMPs, would ensure that minimal pollutants are discharged to surface waters via Caltrans’ storm water drainage systems. See Appendix C for specific details about AMMs.

Oil, Grease, and Chemical Pollutants
The increased impervious surface area for the Build Alternative would generate minor increases in stormwater peak flow rates and runoff volumes. The amount of dissolved contaminants, automotive oil, and grease contained in stormwater runoff would also increase. However, increases in loading rates are proportional to the percent increase in impervious area within the watershed. Therefore, increases in stormwater runoff volumes and contaminants would slightly increase. PF WQ-12 and PF WQ-13 would minimize adverse effects to water quality from oil, grease, and other chemical pollutants.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-18

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Trash and Litter
In addition to the proposed biofiltration/bioretention devices, trash capture devices are included in the project. Travelers on I-80 and local roadways produce trash and litter, which is often swept up in stormwater flows and conveyed into surface waters. The presence of trash and litter can result in oxygen depletion in surface waters. Certain forms of trash, particularly plastic, are harmful to aquatic life and accumulate in the food chain, ultimately affecting human health. The 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies lists central San Francisco Bay as impaired for trash. Ongoing trash removal in these water bodies and throughout Alameda County is a substantial aspect of Caltrans’ operations and maintenance activities.

As part of the proposed project, a separation device (i.e., a filter that separates sediment, debris, and trash from stormwater runoff) would be installed underground along the southwest quadrant of the interchange to separate trash, mercury, and PCBs within the project limits; and five full trash capture trash nets (that are affixed to pipe outlets) are proposed. As described in the SWDR, during the design phase, gross solid removal devices (GSRDs) would also be considered for centralized trash capture.

Separation devices and trash inserts would be used within local ROWs.

Both avoidance and minimization measures and project features have been identified to reduce pollutants in receiving waters. Caltrans would employ trash and litter control activities through implementation of operations and maintenance BMPs, described under AMM WQ-5 (see Appendix C for full text). These BMPs are included as a standard preventative measure to ensure that increases in trash and litter would not negatively affect receiving waters. Additionally, the project would include the implementation of a SWPPP to address construction period impacts and implementation of stormwater treatment measures and trash capture devised (PF WQ3; refer to Section 1.5.1 for further information regarding project features). With the incorporation of these project features and avoidance and minimization measures, the project would not violate water quality standards or affect the beneficial uses of a water body.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Effects to Receiving Waters
Construction of the Build Alternative would involve ground disturbing activities such as excavation, trenching, grading, demolition, and vegetation removal. The estimated area of disturbed soil for the Build Alternative is 34.15 acres. Construction activities could result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants. Sources of sediment include uncovered or improperly covered stockpiles, unstable slopes, bare soil, construction staging areas, and construction equipment not properly maintained or cleaned. Polluted INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-19

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
runoff could degrade water quality if not properly controlled. Therefore, PF WQ-1 through PF WQ-6, would be incorporated into the proposed project to protect receiving waters from sediments or other pollutants entering waters. Additionally, AMM WQ-1, AMM WQ-3, and AMM WQ-4 would be implemented to prevent pollution during construction of the proposed project.

Effects to Groundwater
Based on the geotechnical study conducted for the proposed project, groundwater is expected to be encountered at elevation ranges between 4 feet below sea level and 9 feet below ground surface. This means new subgrade construction would likely require dewatering. Construction activities that contact the groundwater table or require dewatering could create loose soils and introduce pollutants to the groundwater. PF WQ-1, Temporary Construction BMPs, and PF WQ-6, and compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications and Field Guide to Construction Site Dewatering, would be required to protect any groundwater from sediments or other pollutants.

Cumulative Effects
The Build Alternative would result in 5.98 acres of net new impervious surfaces within the 3.8-square-mile (approximately 2432 acres) watershed. With implementation of the measures outlined in this section, the Build Alternative would not have an adverse effect on water quality. Several BMPs would be implemented to mitigate peak flow rates, minimize site erosion, and minimize downstream sedimentation. Post-construction treatment BMPs would be implemented to maximize stormwater infiltration rates (pervious surfaces), increase the time that stormwater is detained on-site, and filter and remove sediment. With fulfillment of AMM WQ-2 and AMM WQ-3, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies, alter drainage patterns, or create runoff that exceeds the capacity of existing stormwater infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative water quality impact.

The proposed project has the potential to degrade water quality in the Cerrito CreekFrontal San Francisco Bay estuaries, Angel Island-San Francisco Bay estuaries, and Richardson Bay-San Francisco Bay watersheds, which could lead to cumulative impacts over time if appropriate AMMs are not applied. However, the proposed project would address permanent impacts by incorporating stormwater treatment facilities. The proposed project’s temporary impacts would be addressed with construction BMPs.

These factors indicate that the incremental contribution of the proposed project to the cumulative stormwater and water quality impact would not be considerable.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-20

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF WQ-1: Temporary construction site BMPs will be implemented during construction to prevent any construction materials or debris from entering storm drains or drainage ditches within the project vicinity.

PF WQ-2: Compliance with Caltrans MS4 permit, municipal regional permit (MRP), construction general permit (CGP), and other regulatory agency requirements.

PF WQ-3: The CGP, Caltrans, and local standards require the project’s contractor to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to comply with the conditions of the CGP.

PF WQ-4: Prior to any soil disturbance, a Notice of Intent will be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System.

PF WQ-5: Temporary impacts to water quality during construction will be avoided or minimized by implementing temporary construction site BMPs.

PF WQ-6: Dewatering activities and the clean water diversion will comply with Caltrans Standard Specifications and Field Guide to Construction Site Dewatering.

PF WQ-7: Compliance with California Office of Emergency Services Hazardous Materials Incident Contingency Plan.

PF WQ-8: Drainage features, such as energy dissipation devices (e.g., flared end sections and tee dissipaters), will be considered at drainage outfalls to reduce the velocity and dissipate flows as they discharge from the culvert.

PF WQ-9: Rock slope protection will be placed at culvert outfalls and within drainage ditches and swales where velocities may result in drilling or scouring.

PF WQ-10: Permanent erosion control measures will be applied to all exposed areas once grading or soil disturbance work is completed as a permanent measure to achieve final slope stabilization.

PF WQ-11: Treatment of sediment laden flows.

PF WQ-12: Nonstandard treatment measures.

See Appendix C for the full text of these project features.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-21

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Avoidance and Minimization
Short term effects to water quality would be avoided or minimized using construction site BMPs, while long term effects due to operation and maintenance of the proposed project would be avoided or minimized through the use of design pollution prevention BMPs, treatment BMPs and maintenance BMPs. See Appendix C for the full text of AMMs WQ-1 through WQ-4.

AMM WQ-1: Temporary Construction BMPs. a SWPPP would be developed, which includes guidance for design staff to incorporate special provisions into construction contracts to include measures to protect sensitive areas and to prevent and minimize storm water and non-storm water discharges.

AMM WQ-2: Design Pollution Prevention BMPs. Design Pollution Prevention BMPs would be employed to minimize hydromodification impacts.

AMM WQ-3: Treatment BMPs. Post-construction treatment BMPs would ensure the proposed project does not increase stormwater volumes in the existing stormwater conveyance channels.

AMM WQ-4: Minimize Impacts to Aquatic Resources. Work within the San Francisco Bay will be limited to the smallest area possible to complete the proposed construction activities. Prior to conducting work within San Francisco Bay, Caltrans will implement a cofferdam spanning planned in-water work areas to avoid water quality impacts and potential impacts to aquatic habitat for wildlife.

AMM WQ-5: Operations and Maintenance BMPs. Maintenance BMPs are preventative measures to ensure that minimal pollutants are discharged to surface waters via Caltrans’ storm water drainage systems. Maintenance BMPs are preventative measures to ensure that minimal pollutants are discharged to surface waters via Caltrans’ storm water drainage systems. Maintenance activities involve the use of a variety of products.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM WQ-1 through AMM WQ-5 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Mitigation will be required for the unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources (i.e., new outfall). Mitigation would occur at a minimum one-to-one ratio for permanent impacts (impact area to compensation area) to assure a no net loss of waters of the U.S., and the final mitigation ratio will ultimately be determined through Caltrans’ coordination with the USACE during the Section 404 permitting process.

See Appendix C for the full text of this mitigation measure.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-22

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.2.3 GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMIC/TOPOGRAPHY
This section describes effects on geology and soils that would result from completion of the proposed project, along with seismic risks. Sources of information used to prepare the analysis include:
 Preliminary Geotechnical Report (March 2021)

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Historic Sites Act of 1935
For geologic and topographic features, the key federal law is the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which establishes a national registry of natural landmarks and protects “outstanding examples of major geological features.” Topographic and geologic features are also protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This section also discusses geology, soils, and seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and project design. Earthquakes are prime considerations in the design and retrofit of structures. Structures are designed using the Department’s Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). The SDC provides the minimum seismic requirements for highway bridges designed in California. A bridge’s category and classification would determine its seismic performance level and which methods are used for estimating the seismic demands and structural capabilities. For more information, please see the Department’s Division of Engineering Services, Office of Earthquake Engineering, SDC.

Local Regulations
Both the City of Emeryville and the City of Berkeley respective general plans provide comprehensive planning guidelines for development within the respective cities. The City of Emeryville requires a geotechnical investigation for areas of proposed development to demonstrate that all proposed projects conform to the City’s guidelines.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information in this section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Report approved in March 2021. The geologic study area encompasses all areas that fall within the physical footprint of the project area and areas that may either be directly or indirectly affected by project-related construction activities. The geologic study area includes various geologic features such as topography, hydrogeology, subsurface soils, geologic hazards, and seismic hazards.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-23

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Topography and Hydrogeology
The project area is situated on the east San Francisco Bay plain within the complex and seismically active California Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The regional topography of the project area encompasses the San Francisco Bay side of the Diablo Range – which forms the eastern watershed boundary – intervening alluvial fan and lowland zones, and the San Francisco Bay. The project area topography is varied due to the presence of I-80 and associated interchange components. The study area has an elevation of approximately 15 feet above mean sea level.

The average total annual precipitation is around 22.9-26.7 inches in the study area.

Most of the rainfall is recorded in February with the average total monthly precipitation of 6 inches. Groundwater elevation ranges between 4 and 9 feet below ground surface.

Groundwater levels vary with the passage of time due to seasonal groundwater fluctuation, surface and subsurface flows into nearby water courses, runoff, and other environmental factors.

Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The geologic study area is predominately underlain by marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks, which are alluvial gravel, sand, and clay soils of the PleistoceneHolocene era. No natural landmarks or other examples of major geologic features such as scenic rock outcroppings occur in the study area. Because no effects to natural landmarks or landforms would occur, as these resources are not located within the geologic study area, these are not discussed further.

Geologic Hazards
The project area is situated within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountain ridges and valleys, running generally parallel to the San Andreas Fault. The mountain ranges and valleys have been formed by tectonic forces that compressed ancient sedimentary deposits over the course of millions of years. Geologic hazards include soil erosion, subsidence, expansive soils, and corrosive soils. These hazards and their relationship to the proposed project are explained below.

Embankment Stability
Project improvements would occur mostly in areas previously disturbed and that consist of impervious asphalt. Embankments are primarily composed of fill. Subsoils consist of loose to medium dense granular fill, medium to very stiff lean clay, dense sand, and stiff to very stiff lean clay (old Bay clay). Steep slopes constructed on these soils could potentially result in destabilized slopes.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-24

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Subsidence
Subsidence is the settlement of low-density organic and saturated mineral soils after water drains out of those soils. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the study area is not susceptible to subsidence. Therefore, subsidence is not discussed further.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are fine-grained soils that can undergo a significant increase in volume when their water content increases, as well as a significant decrease in volume when the soils dry out. Changes in the water content of highly expansive soils can result in severe stress on structures constructed in these soils. Based on the as-built boring data, expansive clays were not encountered near the surface.

Mineral Resources
According to the Mineral Land Classification Map provided by the Department of Conservation, the project area is within an MRZ-1 zone. This indicates there are no significant mineral deposits present or that there is little likelihood for the presence of mineral deposits. Therefore, mineral resources are not discussed further.

Seismic Hazards
Surface Fault Rupture
During an earthquake, surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken because of fault movement. Surface rupture mostly occurs along active faults. The project area is not within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and no known or mapped active faults pass through the project area. Therefore, the potential for ground surface rupture due to faulting is extremely low to non-existent and is not discussed further.

Seismic Ground Shaking
Regional context is an important consideration for seismicity because the potential seismic forces affecting the study area are regional in nature. Seismic events off-site within the San Francisco Bay Area may be felt at the project area. Measured by the Caltrans Acceleration Response System (ARS), peak ground accelerations (PGA) of

0.71 acceleration of gravity (g) were estimated for the project area. There is a high possibility for the project area to experience strong seismic ground shaking.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-25

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated soils are subject to a loss of shear strength and stiffness as a response to seismic shaking. Shear strength can be defined as an earth material’s resistance to deformation. Clay soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. Low-density soils that are generally sandy and/or silty are commonly susceptible to liquefaction.

The project area is in a relatively high seismicity area and adopted a PGA of 0.71 g for the liquefaction analyses. Based on the boring data and the analysis results, liquefaction potential exists and should be expected for design.

When liquefaction occurs, the engineering consequences could be the temporary loss of strength in structures (due to the development of excess pore pressure) and postliquefaction settlements of structures (after the dissipation of the excess pore pressure), which would affect the foundation capacity. Permanent ground deformation of the approach embankments, and lateral spreading of the new embankment may be anticipated. Liquefaction is a critical design consideration for the proposed improvement.

Landslides
Landslides occur when the shear stress placed on a soil or rock slope exceeds its shear strength. Generally, steep slopes are prone to landslides and relatively gentle slopes are not. Loading or saturation can increase the weight of soil or rock, adding to the shear stress. The shear strength of a slope can be reduced by erosion or by grading at the toe of a slide mass. The project area is relatively flat and there are no significant slopes in the vicinity. Therefore, the risk of landslide is low to very low.

Coastal Zone
The proposed project is situated within the coastal zone. The entire western portion of the proposed project as well as Radio Tower Pond are located within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)’s jurisdiction. BCDC was created prior to the California Coastal Act and retains oversight and planning responsibilities for development and conservation of coastal resources in the San Francisco Bay Area. The regulatory authority for BCDC is the McAteer-Petris Act and the Suisun Marsh Protection Act.

Volcanic Hazards
The closest volcano to the study area is Clear Lake Volcanic Field, located nearly 110 miles away from the project area. As such, this feature is too distant to create a hazard at the proposed project.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-26

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Tsunamis
Tsunamis are large sea waves caused by earthquakes in the ocean, landslides, or volcanic eruptions. There is a potential for tsunamis to occur within the study area because the proposed project is adjacent to the San Francisco Bay.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, none of the project features described under the Build Alternative would be constructed. No change to the existing interchange structures would occur. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in adverse effects related to geologic, seismic, topographic, or soils-related risks.

Build Alternative
Permanent Operational Impacts
The project area is in a seismically active region. Without proper engineering, the Build Alternative could pose safety risks to roadway users because of soil erosion, expansive soils, liquefaction, and seismic shaking. If corrosive soils are identified at locations where new subsurface facilities are proposed (e.g., bridge foundations, culverts, etc.) specially coated rebar, or alternative pipe culverts would be specified in the contract documents.

As previously discussed, there is a low probability of expansive soils within the project area. Implementation of PF-GEO-2 would minimize adverse effects related to expansive soils, if found during the PS&E phase, by requiring the treatment of expansive soils with lime or other additives to reduce the soil’s expansion potential.

Liquefaction has the potential to exist from loose granular fill, which could contribute to lateral spreading in the project area. Based on the information provided by the designer, the proposed retaining walls are “fill walls” with a maximum design wall height up to 24 to 26 feet. The liquefaction potential and the slope stability of the proposed embankment will be analyzed during the PS&E phase when additional site-specific data become available.

Seismic shaking could result in damage to or collapse of bridges; rupturing of underground pipelines; and cracking and distortion of pavement, walls, and foundations.

Proposed bridge structures and new and modified on- and off-ramps could increase the risk of structural damage if not properly designed. The Build Alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable Caltrans SDC to minimize seismic risks.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-27

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Temporary Construction Impacts
Construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could potentially affect the stability of existing soils and increase the overall potential for soil erosion. Highway and roadway projects that increase natural slopes can increase the rate of soil erosion.

During construction, erosion could cause sedimentation problems in storm drains, remove topsoil, create deeply incised gullies on slopes, and undermine engineered fills beneath foundations or roadways.

As described above, the soil types present in the project area generally have a low susceptibility to erosion. Therefore, erosion control BMPs such as temporary silt fences, temporary environmentally sensitive area fencing, fiber rolls, temporary soil stabilizer, stockpile covers, and drainage inlet protection would be sufficient to reduce the risk associated with construction-period erosion (PF WQ-10). Further, natural areas would be revegetated after construction to minimize soil erosion, and ongoing maintenance of new or modified slopes should be completed to ensure slopes remain stable (AMM WQ2).

The proposed project is in a seismically active region. Given this, construction workers could be exposed to seismic hazards. PF-GEO-1 would ensure worker safety by requiring employers to adhere to Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and Caltrans’ hazard-specific standards (Code of Safe Practices), as well as standard design and construction guidelines.

Cumulative Effects
Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, present, and foreseeable future projects in the region. Other projects in the study area include residential, commercial, and infrastructure development projects in Emeryville, Berkeley, and within Alameda County. Because geologic impacts are site-specific and highly dependent upon the structural characteristics of individual projects, cumulative geologic hazard and soils impacts are generally confined to the project area and immediate vicinity. With implementation of project features and AMMs, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect related to geology, soils, seismicity, or topography. There is no additive effect of the geological/seismic hazards associated with other approved or foreseeable development and the project, and there would be no cumulative impacts.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-28

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF-GEO-1: Pursuant to Section 5(a) (1) of OSHA, employers must provide their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm.

PF-GEO-2: As part of design phase, expansive soils shall be addressed through treatment or removal as designated on construction plans, to reduce the potential for structural damage.

PF-GEO-3: As part of the final design phase, Caltrans requires preparation of structure foundation reports and geotechnical design reports that incorporate the results of subsurface field work and laboratory testing.

Avoidance and Minimization
All new or modified structures would be constructed in compliance with Caltrans seismic design standards and construction guidelines, and no additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.2.4 PALEONTOLOGY
This section evaluates the proposed project’s effects of paleontological resources.

Sources of information used to prepare the analysis in this section include:
 Paleontological Evaluation Report (October 2021)
 City of Emeryville General Plan
 City of Berkeley General Plan

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Paleontology is a natural science focused on the study of ancient animal and plant life preserved in the geologic record as fossils. Several federal statutes address paleontological resources, their treatment, and funding for mitigation as a part of federally authorized projects.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-29

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, [NEPA] as amended (Public Law [Pub.

L.] 91-190, 42 United States Code [USC] 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258 § 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982) recognizes the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage." (Sec. 101 [42 USC § 4321]) (#382). With the passage of the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) (2009), paleontological resources are considered to be a significant resource and it is therefore now standard practice to include paleontological resources in NEPA studies in all instances where there is a possible impact.

Other Applicable Federal Codes
23 USC Section 1.9(a) requires that the use of Federal-aid funds must be in conformity with all federal and state laws.
23 USC Section 305 authorizes the appropriation and use of federal highway funds for paleontological salvage as necessary by the highway department of any state, in compliance with 16 USC Sections 431-433 above and state law.

State
State of California Public Resource Code
The PRC Chapter 1.7, Sections 5097 and 30244, include state level requirements for the assessment and management of paleontological resources. These statutes require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources resulting from development on state lands. The statutes also define the excavation, destruction, or removal of paleontological “sites” or “features” from public lands without the express permission of the jurisdictional agency as a misdemeanor. As used in Section 5097, “state lands” refers to lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any state agency. “Public lands” is defined as lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information in this section is based on the Paleontological Evaluation Report approved in August 2020. The paleontological study area encompasses all areas of the project area that would be affected by ground disturbing activities of the Build Alternative. This section discusses the study area’s sensitivity for paleontological resources (i.e., vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils). The types, distribution, and age of sediments in the study area determine the probability of encountering significant fossils during project construction. General excavation would be up to 10 feet. However, cast-inINTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-30

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations are proposed in several locations and would require drilled excavations depths of approximately 80 feet.

The paleontological study area is primarily comprised of low paleontological sensitivity Historic-age fill (af). A lesser amount of low paleontological sensitivity Holocene-age alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qhaf) and Holocene-age basin deposits (Qhb) and natural levee deposits (Qhl) are present within a half mile of the project area (see Figure

2.2-3). Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposits have not been mapped in the project area; however, it is possible that unrecorded Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposits could be discovered during deep excavation activities.

Table 2.2-2 presents a summary of the geological units within the study area, and their respective paleontological sensitivities.

Table 2.2-2 Paleontological Sensitivities for Geological Units within Project Area Map
Symbol
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-31
Age Formation Physical
Characteristics
Typical
Occurrence of
Paleontological
Resources
af Historic Historic
Age
Artificial Fill
Previously disturbed
sediment that has been
transported by
humans.

Lay is 10.5 feet thick
where mapped at
the surface of the
existing interchange
Qhaf,
Qhb and
Qhl
Holocene Holocene
Alluvial
deposits
Alluvial gravel, sand,
and clay of valley areas
and sand of major
stream channels.

Mapped within halfmile radius of
project area
Source: Paleontological Evaluation Report
Symbol
INTERSTATE-80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Geology Map Figure 2.2-3
Source: Paleo Solutions, 2020

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the new interchange or BPOC would not be constructed.

No change to the existing interchange structures would occur, and there would be no excavation or other ground-disturbing activity. The No Build Alternative would not result in adverse effects to paleontological resources.

Build Alternative
Under the Build Alternative, earthmoving and ground disturbing activities could adversely affect buried paleontological resources. Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposits have not been mapped in the project area, however during deep excavation activities, unrecorded Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposits could be discovered. Since the depth of Pleistocene soils is not known, it is conservatively assumed that construction activities could encounter this soil type. If present, subsurface paleontological resources could be unintentionally destroyed through breakage and/or crushing as the result of excavation and foundation/pile work.

AMM PAL-1 would be implemented to avoid damage to or destruction of paleontological resources. This measure requires preparation of a detailed Paleontological Mitigation Plan prior to construction, along with construction monitoring.

Excavations for roadway widening are anticipated to be shallow (approximately 3 feet deep) and would occur entirely within Holocene-aged alluvial sediments that are unlikely to contain paleontological resources.

Ground disturbing activities would only occur during the construction period, and there would be no impact to paleontological resources during operation of the project.

Cumulative Effects
The cumulative setting for paleontological resources includes the areas within and surrounding the project area which have documented paleontological resource sites or a high sensitivity for unrecorded fossils. Cumulative effects on paleontological resources would occur if planned and foreseeable projects, when taken in combination with the proposed project, would result in the removal of a substantial number of paleontological resources resulting in overall damage to the physical historical record of the larger region.

As described above, with Measure PAL-1, the Build Alternative would not result in an adverse effect to paleontological resources. Paleontological resources – both known and unknown – are protected by several federal, state, and local regulations. If INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-33

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
paleontological resources are encountered, a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the fossils and take steps necessary to photo-document or recover the fossils. This level of preventative measure is also included in Caltrans’ standard specifications. Application of existing regulations and NEPA and/or CEQA evaluation on a project-by-project basis would avoid cumulative effects to paleontological resources in the region. Therefore, no cumulative effect would occur.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
There are no project features associated with paleontological resources.

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM PAL-1: Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP). A PMP shall be drafted and would include provisions for periodic spot checks to check for the presence of unanticipated paleontological resources during deeper excavations.

See Appendix C for full text of AMM PAL-1.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-34

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.2.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS
This section evaluates effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials that could occur with fulfillment of the proposed project. Sources of information used to prepare the analysis in this section include:
 Phase I Initial Site Assessment (October 2021)

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Hazardous materials, including hazardous substances and wastes, are regulated by many state and federal laws. Statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous materials, substances, and waste, and also the investigation and mitigation of waste releases, air and water quality, human health, and land use.

The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as “Superfund,” is to identify and cleanup abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include:
 Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992  Clean Water Act
 Clean Air Act
 Safe Drinking Water Act
 Occupational Safety and Health Act
 Atomic Energy Act
 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-35

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
State
California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and substances under the authority of the CA Health and Safety Code and is also authorized by the federal government to implement RCRA in the state. California law also addressed specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act also restricts the disposal of wastes and requires cleanup of wastes that are below hazardous waste concentrations but could impact ground and surface water quality. California regulations that address waste management and prevention and cleanup of containment include Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, Title 23 Waters, and Title 27 Environmental Protection.

Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that may affect human health and environment. Proper management and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project construction.

In California, the U.S. EPA has granted the California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL/EPA) most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations in the state. The mission of CAL/EPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. Under the authority of CAL/EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for overseeing the cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater sites in the state, including the San Francisco Bay Area. RWQCB regulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Additional state regulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in CCR Title 22. CCR Title 26 is a compilation of those sections or titles of the CCR that are applicable to hazardous materials.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information for this section is based on the Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) prepared for the proposed project (October 2021). The hazardous materials study area includes the project area and the area within one mile of the project area. The ISA includes a review of the physical setting, site history, and environmental records. Site reconnaissance was completed as a part of the ISA in September and October 2019.

Hazardous materials storage areas were identified in advance of the site reconnaissance based on the review of environmental records. Evidence of potentially undocumented hazardous materials releases or future threats of hazardous materials releases was not observed within or adjacent to the study limits. However, it should be INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-36

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
noted that conditions that may represent a hazard within the study limits may not be visible from public roadways.

Environmental records reviewed in the ISA were derived from the U.S. EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online database, GeoTracker database, and the DTSC EnviroStor database.

Summary of Hazardous Release Sites
The review of environmental records identified 141 hazardous materials release sites within one mile of the project area. There were no documented hazardous material releases within the project area. Hazardous materials released near the project area could potentially migrate to the project area either over the ground surface, through groundwater, or in soils.

Common types of hazardous releases are diesel fuel, gasoline, and oil spills, as well as pesticide use and aerially deposited lead (ADL) from historic gasoline use. Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) are one of the most common types.

Based on these screening criteria, 27 of the 141 release sites were identified as having potential to contaminate the project area. The other 114 release sites are not expected to affect environmental conditions at the project area due to their distance, the type of contamination, the status of the site as closed (remediated), or a combination of these factors. The 27 sites of potential concern are described in detail in the Phase I ISA and shown in Figure 2.2-4.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-37
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Hazardous Materials Release Sites Figure 2.2-4
Source: Baseline 2021
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-39

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Historic Land Uses in the Study Area
The project area has previously been used for activities with the potential to contaminate soils and groundwater, including slaughterhouses, lumber yards, tanning, and industrial uses including plastic and steel manufacturing, as well as machine shops.

Potentially contaminating uses began in 1911 and began to wane in 1982 with the conversion of some industrial areas to residential uses.

Common contaminants of concern in soil and/or groundwater associated with fill materials and past industrial land uses include heavy metals (e.g., lead and arsenic), petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos.

Aerially Deposited Lead
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the I-80 corridor within the study limits was constructed in the late 1930s, which was before leaded gasoline was phased out. Project construction activities that disturb exposed shallow soils along the highway corridor could encounter ADL contamination.

In addition, between 1994 and 1996, soils contaminated with ADL from other Caltrans projects were used as fill materials to create an embankment between the I-80 westbound off-ramp and the highway. In accordance with guidance from DTSC, up to about 15 vertical feet of ADL-contaminated soil was placed as fill over an area of approximately 2 acres and covered with about 2 feet of clean fill materials. Project construction activities that disturb the soil embankment between the I-80 westbound offramp and the highway could encounter ADL contamination.

Contamination from Railroad Corridors
A railroad corridor that has historically supported adjacent industrial land uses crosses the study limits east of and parallel to Shellmound Street and Bay Street. The most reported soil contamination along railroad corridors are metals and petroleum products from railroad operations. Other sources of contaminants associated with historical railroad operations may include coal ash from engines and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from diesel exhaust. The risk of soil contamination is generally greater along railroad corridors that are adjacent to industrial land use areas, because historical loading practices, leaks during material transfers or storage, and repair activities may have contaminated the soil. Project improvements that encroach on the railroad corridor (if any) could potentially encounter undocumented soil contamination from past railroad operations.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-40

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Petroleum Contamination from Utility Pipelines
Underground petroleum pipelines owned and operated by Kinder Morgan cross the study limits east of and parallel to Shellmound Street and Bay Street (PHMSA, 2019).

Petroleum pipelines have been subject to pipeline safety and maintenance regulations since 1979, including the Federal Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (Title 49, C FR, Part 195.412) and state regulations (California Government Code Section 51010- 51019.1). These regulations require that petroleum pipelines be designed with equipment, such as low-pressure alarms and safety shut-down devices, to minimize spill volume in the event of a leak.

Project improvements near the petroleum pipelines could potentially encounter undocumented soil contamination from the pipelines. Furthermore, groundwater within the project study limits could potentially be contaminated by undocumented releases of petroleum from the pipelines.

Naturally-Occurring Asbestos in Bedrock
Geologic mapping from the USGS does not show any areas of rock likely to contain naturally-occurring asbestos (ultramafic rock) within the study limits. Therefore, project construction is not expected to encounter asbestos in bedrock.

Contaminated Bay Sediments
The proposed project includes construction of a drainage outfall in the southwest portion of the interchange that would require excavation into the San Francisco Bay sediments.

Elevated concentrations of PCBs, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), PAHs, and mercury are common in Bay sediments due to discharges from historical mining and industrial activities, runoff from the Central Valley, and dredging and erosion of previously contaminated sediments. Project construction activities for the proposed drainage outfall could encounter contaminated Bay sediments.

Hazardous Building Materials
The disturbance of hazardous building materials, such as asbestos and lead paint, during construction of the proposed project could pose a health risk to construction workers and the public if not handled and disposed of properly. As described below, existing bridge, wall, and roadway structures located within the study limits may contain hazardous building materials. Hazardous Building Materials are further discussed in the Environmental Consequences section below.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-41

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, existing I-80/Ashby Avenue connector ramps would not be demolished and the Build Alternative would not be constructed. The existing transportation facilities within the project area would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements. The existing transportation facilities within the project area would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in increased risks associated with hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The No Build Alternative would have no effect related to this topic.

Build Alternative
As a transportation infrastructure project, hazardous wastes or materials would not be needed or used during operation of the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would not place roadway users near hazardous facilities or hazardous material sites, or otherwise change the existing overall location of transportation facilities within the study area. Therefore, only construction-related effects are discussed below.

Hazardous Material Release Sites
As previously discussed, in Affected Environment, 27 of the 141 release sites were closely evaluated to determine whether migrated contaminants could be encountered at the project area. Based on the characteristics of each release, all are considered a potential risk for on-site contamination. Based on the type of hazardous materials release, all 27 sites could contain residual contaminated groundwater. If contaminated groundwater is encountered during construction, it could pose a risk to construction workers. Further, the exposure of contaminated groundwater to the surface creates the potential for further contamination.

Risks associated with encountering contaminated groundwater during construction would be avoided or minimized through implementation of AMM HAZ-1 and AMM HAZ2. These measures would ensure that additional on-site groundwater testing is completed prior to construction, would provide project-specific worker safety measures, and would require detention of contaminated groundwater on-site during construction to avoid further spread of contaminants.

Aerially Deposited Lead
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs of the study area, I-80 was constructed in the late 1930s before the phase-out of leaded gasoline. Therefore, ADL may be present in roadside soils at the project area. Ground disturbing construction INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-42

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
activities could expose construction workers to ADL. This represents a potential health risk. AMM HAZ-1 and AMM HAZ-3 would avoid this potentially adverse effect. AMM HAZ-1 would require testing and evaluation of ADL and a determination on whether ADL-contaminated soils could be reused on site. AMM HAZ-3 requires the preparation of a site safety plan. The plan would address site-specific risks including ADL and ensure risks to construction workers and the public are minimized.

Contaminated Soil in Fill Materials
Fill materials used for embankments within the study limits come from a variety of sources and contain contaminants. Common contaminants in fill materials include asbestos, heavy metals, pesticides, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Therefore, construction of the Build Alternative could potentially encounter contaminated soils in fill embankments. This represents a potential health risk to construction workers. AMM HAZ-3 would avoid this potentially adverse effect by requiring the preparation of a Site Safety Plan. The plan would address site-specific risks and ensure risks to construction workers and the public are minimized.

Hazardous Building Materials
Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos-Containing Materials
Building materials such as thermal system insulation, surfacing materials, and asphalt and vinyl flooring materials installed prior to 1981 may contain asbestos. Lead compounds may also be present in interior or exterior paints regardless of construction date. Lead and asbestos are state-recognized carcinogens, and lead is a reproductive toxicant. Bridges and wall structures could contain asbestos materials and may have surfaces coated with lead-based paint. Demolition or modification of these structures could release lead particles and asbestos fibers (if present) into the environment. This presents a potential health risk to construction workers. AMM HAZ-4 would avoid this potentially adverse effect by requiring preconstruction survey of all structures that would be removed or modified under the Build Alternative. Any hazardous building materials identified would be removed prior to construction.

Yellow Traffic Striping and Pavement Markers
Caltrans has historically used paints containing high levels of lead chromate for yellow traffic striping and pavement markings along roadways. Yellow traffic paints and yellow thermoplastic materials applied to roadways prior to 1997 and 2007, respectively, may contain lead concentrations above hazardous waste thresholds. Modification of the roadways with yellow traffic striping and pavement markings during construction could release lead chromate particles (if present) into the environment. This would pose a potential health risk to construction workers. AMM HAZ-5 would avoid this potentially INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-43

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
adverse effect by requiring testing of yellow thermoplastics and paint prior to construction. Yellow markings would be treated as hazardous and removed in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provision 14 001 to ensure workers are not exposed to toxic substances.

Asphalt and Portland-Cement Concrete
Grindings of asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete have a relatively high pH and may contain metals and petroleum hydrocarbons that can impact stormwater runoff and threaten surface water bodies. Generation of asphalt concrete and Portland-cement concrete grindings during construction of the Build Alternative pose a risk of releasing metals and petroleum hydrocarbons into the environment. AMM HAZ-6 would avoid this potentially adverse effect by ensuring grindings are reused and transported in accordance with RWQCCB guidelines to avoid contamination of stormwater or other surface waters.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, present, and foreseeable future projects in the region. Effects from hazardous waste and materials related to future development in areas surrounding the project area are site specific and relate to the type and location of construction proposed, as well as the environmental concerns associated with known hazardous material release sites within the project area. With incorporation of PF HW-1 and AMM HAZ-1 through AMM HAZ-6, there would be no additive effect of the hazardous or waste materials associated with other approved or foreseeable development and the proposed project, and therefore no cumulative effect.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF HW-1: Caltrans specification SSP 14-11.12 (2015B) will be included in the contract specifications and implemented during construction to contain any debris produced during removal of yellow thermoplastic and yellow paint.

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM-HAZ-1: During the final design phase, a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) of the project area shall be performed to investigate hazardous materials concerns related to soil, groundwater, and construction materials identified in the Phase I ISA.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-44

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
AMM-HAZ-2: At a minimum, groundwater from dewatering of excavations, if any, would be stored in Baker tank(s) during construction activities and the water would be characterized prior to disposal or recycling.

AMM-HAZ-3: In accordance with Caltrans’ standards, a site safety plan shall be prepared and implemented prior to initiation of any construction/development activities to reduce health and safety hazards to workers and the public.

AMM-HAZ-4: Hazardous building materials surveys shall be conducted by a qualified professional.

AMM-HAZ-5: Yellow stripe and pavement markings shall be treated as a hazardous waste; a lead compliance plan shall be implemented, and residues shall be tested for hazardous-waste classification prior to off-site disposal.

AMM-HAZ-6: Asphalt-concrete and Portland-cement concrete grindings shall be reused in accordance with San Francisco Bay RWQCB guidelines for Caltrans’ projects or transported offsite for recycling or disposal.

See Appendix C for full text of AMM HAZ-1 through AMM HAZ-6.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-45

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.2.6 AIR QUALITY
This section discusses temporary and long-term effects to air quality that could result from the project. Information in this section is primarily drawn from the Air Quality Report (AQR) (August 2020) prepared for the proposed project.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal and State
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, is the primary federal law that governs air quality while the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) is its companion state law. These laws, and related regulations by the U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board (ARB), set standards for the concentration of pollutants in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS and state ambient air quality standards have been established for six transportationrelated criteria pollutants that have been linked to potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter —which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of 10 micrometers or smaller (PM10) and particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5)—and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, national and state standards exist for lead (PB), and state standards exist for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and state standards are set at levels that protect public health with a margin of safety and are subject to periodic review and revision. Both state and federal regulatory schemes also cover toxic air contaminants (air toxics); some criteria pollutants are also air toxics or may include certain air toxics in their general definition.

Federal air quality standards and regulations provide the basic scheme for project-level air quality analysis under NEPA. In addition to this environmental analysis, a parallel “Conformity” requirement under the FCAA also applies.

Conformity
The conformity requirement is based on FCAA Section 176(c), which prohibits the U.S.

Department of Transportation and other federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the NAAQS. “Transportation Conformity” applies to highway and transit projects and takes place on two levels: the regional (or planning and programming) level and the project level. The proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved.

Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and “maintenance” (former nonattainment) areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-46

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
violated. U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 93 govern the conformity process. Conformity requirements do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment areas for NAAQS and do not apply at all for state standards regardless of the status of the area.

Regional conformity is concerned with how well the regional transportation system supports plans for attaining the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10, NOx and PM2.5), and in some areas (although not in California), sulfur dioxide (SO2). California has nonattainment or maintenance areas for all of these transportation-related “criteria pollutants” except SO2, and also has a nonattainment area for lead (Pb); however, lead is not currently required by the FCAA to be covered in transportation conformity analysis.

Regional conformity is based on emission analysis of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs) that include all transportation projects planned for a region over a period of at least 20 years (for the RTP) and 4 years (for the FTIP). RTP and FTIP conformity uses travel demand and emission models to determine whether the implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests at various analysis years showing that requirements of the FCAA and the SIP are met.

If a conformity analysis is successful, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) make the determinations that the RTP and FTIP are in conformity with the SIP for achieving the goals of the FCAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP and/or FTIP must be modified until conformity is attained. If the design concept and scope and the “open-to-traffic” schedule of a proposed transportation project are the same as described in the RTP and FTIP, then the proposed project meets regional conformity requirements for purposes of project-level analysis.

Project-level conformity is achieved by demonstrating that the project comes from a conforming RTP and TIP; the project has a design concept and scope that has not changed significantly from those in the RTP and TIP; project analyses have used the latest planning assumptions and EPA-approved emissions models; and in PM areas, the project complies with any control measures in the SIP. Furthermore, additional analyses (known as hot-spot analyses) may be required for projects located in carbon monoxide (CO) and PM nonattainment or maintenance areas to examine localized air quality impacts.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-47

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Local Regulations
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) encompasses approximately 5,600 square miles and includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties, and portions of Solano and Sonoma counties.

The San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the CARB have joint responsibility for developing and enforcing regulations needed to achieve and maintain NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) in the SFBAAB.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD has a range of responsibilities for monitoring, maintaining, and improving air quality. BAAQMD prepares and administers attainment and maintenance plans for ambient air quality, creates and enforces rules and regulations, issues permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspects stationary sources, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awards grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducts public education campaigns.

BAAQMD developed the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). MTC and ABAG estimate future population and transportation trends which are used to develop and evaluate CAP strategies. The overall goal of these strategies is to bring the SFBAAB into compliance with NAAQS and CAAQS. The 2017 CAP addresses four categories of pollutants: ground-level ozone and its key precursors, reactive organic gasses (ROG) and NOx; particulate matter, primarily PM2.5; key air toxics such as diesel particulate matter and benzene; and key greenhouse gasses (GHGs).

Senate Bill 656
In 2003, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 656 (SB 656) to reduce public exposure to PM10 and PM2.5. To comply with SB 656, BAAQMD reviewed the list of 103 potential particulate matter control measures prepared by CARB and developed a Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule. This schedule which was adopted by BAAQMD on November 16, 2005. To fulfill federal air quality planning requirements, BAAQMD adopted a PM2.5 emissions inventory for the year 2010 on November 7, 2012.

BAAQMD transmitted the inventory to the CARB for inclusion in the SIP. In addition, to complement this SIP submittal, BAAQMD prepared a detailed informational report entitled Understanding Particulate Matter: Protecting Public Health in the San Francisco Bay Area as well as a concise summary of the particulate matter report. The particulate INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-48

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
matter report will help to guide the BAAQMD’s on-going efforts to analyze and reduce particulate matter in the SFBAAB in order to better protect public health.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information in this section is based on the AQR (August 2020). The project area is in the southwestern Alameda County climatological subregion of the SFBAAB, which is overseen by BAAQMD. The air quality study area for long-term effects includes the entirety of the Southwestern Alameda County subregion. The regional air quality study area includes the freeway mainline segments for the I-80 interchange.

Climate and Topography
Air basins have physical characteristics that determine the ability of natural processes to dilute or transport air pollutants. Climatic and topographic factors such as wind, atmospheric stability, terrain that influences air movement, and sunshine all play a role in concentration of air pollutants within an air basin.

The climate within the air quality study area is affected by proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay, which has a moderating influence. The San Francisco Bay Area has a Mediterranean climate characterized by wet winters and dry summers.

During the summer, a high-pressure cell over the northeastern Pacific Ocean results in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow that keep storms from affecting the California coast. Southwestern Alameda County is indirectly affected by marine air flow. Marine air entering through the Golden Gate is blocked by the East Bay hills, forcing the air to diverge into northerly and southerly paths. The southern flow is directed down the San Francisco Bay, parallel to the hills, where it eventually passes over southwestern Alameda County. During the summer months, average temperatures range from the mid-50s to mid-70s (Fahrenheit). During the winter months, average temperatures range from the low 40s to low 60s (Fahrenheit).

Pollution potential is relatively high in southwestern Alameda County during the summer and fall. When high pressure dominates, low mixing depths and Bay and ocean wind patterns can concentrate and carry pollutants from other cities to this area, adding to the locally-generated pollutant mix. The polluted air is then pushed up against the East Bay hills. In the wintertime, the air pollution potential in southwestern Alameda County is moderate. Air pollution sources include light and heavy industry and motor vehicles.

Air Pollutants
The primary air pollutants of concern from motor vehicles are ground-level ozone formed through reactions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), particulate matter (PM)10, and PM2.5. In addition to criteria air pollutants, local Mobile INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-49

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions are a concern for nearby receptors, and GHG emissions are a regional concern for climate change. These primary air pollutants of concern are discussed further below.

Ozone
Motor vehicles do not emit ozone directly into the environment, but tailpipe emissions undergo complex chemical reactions in the presence of sunlight, which result in the formation of ozone. The primary chemicals involved in these reactions are NOx and ROG, often referred to as ozone precursors. Ozone precursors may come from sources other than motor vehicles, but the largest manmade source in the SFBAAB is motor vehicle exhaust. Ozone exposure causes eye irritation and damage to lung tissue in humans. Ozone also harms vegetation, reduces crop yields, and accelerates deterioration of paints, finishes, rubber products, plastics, and fabrics.

Carbon Monoxide
CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles. CO disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthy levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue; impair central nervous system function; and induce chest pain in persons with serious heart disease. Very high levels of CO can be fatal.

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also contributes to other pollution problems including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection.

Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to SO2 levels in the region.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-50

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight.

Particulate Matter
PM10 and PM2.5 consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets that are 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen, forest fires, and windblown dust, are naturally occurring.

In populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. Secondary particulate matter can also be formed in the atmosphere through condensation and chemical reactions of inorganic gases and ROG.

Particulate matter exposure can affect breathing, aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alter the body's defense systems against foreign materials, and damage lung tissue, contributing to cancer and premature death. Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, asthmatics, the elderly, and children are most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter.

Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the natural environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The U.S.

EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in 1995. As a result of the EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically. Metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions, with the highest levels of lead in the air generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufactures.

Mobile Source Air Toxics
MSATs include a diverse group of air pollutants that can adversely affect human health.

Unlike criteria air pollutants, which generally affect regional air quality, MSAT emissions are evaluated based on estimations of localized concentrations and risk assessments.

The adverse health effects a person may experience following exposure to any chemical depend on several factors, including the amount, duration, chemical form, and any simultaneous exposure to other chemicals.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-51

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) includes 93 hazardous air pollutants emitted from mobile sources. Based on the EPA’s 2011 national-scale Air Toxics Assessment, nine of these compounds are considered significant national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers or contributors and/or non-cancer hazard contributors.

These are acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While the FHWA considers these nine compounds the priority MSATs, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules.

The I-80 corridor, Ashby Avenue, 65th Street, San Pablo Avenue, and Stanford Avenue are the primary sources of MSATs within the project area with traffic volumes that currently exceed 10,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT). The existing and forecasted traffic conditions in the project area are summarized in the AQR.

Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. These groups are known as sensitive receptors. The state has identified the following groups of people who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, people conducting athletic activities, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, outdoor athletic fields, and elementary schools.

No schools, hospitals, or convalescent homes are located within 500 feet of the project area. The surrounding area to the north is mostly occupied by Berkeley Aquatic Park.

High-density residential buildings are adjacent to the southern edge of the project area in Emeryville.

The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program identifies areas with high concentrations of air pollution and populations most vulnerable to air pollution’s health impacts. According to the BAAQMD’s CARE program, the proposed project is within a 24-hour PM2.5 exceedance area and a 2013 cumulative impact area. In response to AB 617, CARB established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP) to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. According to the CARB’s CAPP, the proposed project is not in a community that is disproportionately impacted by emissions from existing transportation and stationary sources, and is not subject to community action plan to reduce local air pollution.

Regional Air Quality Attainment Status
The proposed project is included in the regional air quality conformity analysis for the current RTP, Plan Bay Area 2050 (MTC and ABAG 2017, RTP ID 17-01-0037). MTC INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-52

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
found that regionally significant projects in the San Francisco Bay Area will conform to the purpose of the SIP and not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS as provided in Section 176(c) of the FCAA. The proposed project is also included in the MTC’s financially constrained 2019 TIP (MTC 2016, TIP ID ALA170002). MTC adopted the 2019 TIP on September 26, 2018. The TIP gives priority to eligible Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA and FTA approved MTC’s conformity determination for Plan Bay Area 2040 and the 2019 TIP on December 17, 2018.

Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Attainment Status in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Pollutant State Attainment
Status
Federal Attainment
Status
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment (Marginal)
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10) Nonattainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment (Moderate)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment
(Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Lead (Pb) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Visibility-Reducing Particles Unclassified NA
Sulfates Attainment NA
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified NA
Vinyl Chloride No Information
Available NA
Source: Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2020
Notes: NA = not applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative is discussed holistically for operational air quality analysis.

Conversely, construction-period emissions would vary based on the differences in ramps and other structures. Therefore, where appropriate, construction-period emissions have been calculated for the Build Alternative.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-53

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project is listed in the Plan Bay Area 2050 financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (ID 17-01-0037) which was found to conform by MTC, and FHWA and FTA made a regional conformity determination finding on December 17, 2018. The proposed project is also included in MTC’s financially constrained 2019 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (ID ALA170002). The MTC 2019 Regional Transportation Improvement Program was determined to conform by FHWA and FTA on December 17, 2018. The design concept and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in the 2019 RTP and RTIP, and the “open to traffic assumptions of the MTC’s regional emissions analysis.

Permanent Operational Impacts
Project Level-Conformity
The proposed project is in a federal nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and, therefore, a project-level conformity analysis of operational emissions is required to address these pollutants under 40 CFR 93. As of June 1, 2018, the transportation conformity requirements under FCAA Section 176(c) for CO maintenance areas in SFBAAB no longer apply for CO NAAQS.

Ozone Emissions Analysis
The SFBAAB is currently designated as a federal nonattainment area for ozone.

Because ozone impacts are regional in nature, projects that are included in an RTP and TIP have already undergone regional conformity analysis and do not require further analysis for a project-level conformity determination. As described above, this proposed project is included in a conforming RTP and TIP, and therefore emissions of ozone precursors from project-related traffic are not anticipated to cause or contribute to, or worsen, any violations of the federal air quality standards for ozone.

In addition, BAAQMD adopted the 2017 CAP to achieve compliance with federal and state ozone standards. The Build Alternative would not interfere with the control measures described in the 2017 CAP. Furthermore, the Build Alternative would provide transportation benefits that reduce pollutant emissions, including ozone precursors, by improving traffic operations and efficiency and by providing bicycle and pedestrian amenities to promote active transportation.

PM2.5 Emissions Analysis
A quantitative particulate matter hot-spot analysis is required for transportation projects in a federal nonattainment or maintenance area for PM2.5 if the proposed project is determined to be a Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) as defined in Title 40 CFR Part 93. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a federal nonattainment area for PM2.5; INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-54

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
therefore, a PM2.5 hot-spot analysis is required if the project is determined to be a POAQC.

On July 30, 2020, The San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Conformity Task Force determined that the proposed project is not a POAQC, and a detailed PM2.5 hot-spot analysis is not required for a project-level conformity determination. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to cause or contribute to, or worsen, any violations of the federal air quality standards for PM2.5. The Project Assessment Form for PM2.5 Interagency Consultation and the Air Quality Conformity Task Force determination are included in the AQR.

Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Operation of the Build Alternative would generate criteria air pollutant emissions and precursors that could potentially affect regional air quality. Operational emission calculations provided in this section consider long-term changes in emissions that would result from the Build Alternative. According to BAAQMD, the primary criteria air pollutant emissions of concern during project operation would be ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the exhaust of on-road vehicles. Criteria air pollutant emissions from operation of the Build Alternative were estimated for the existing conditions (2018), and the No-Build and Build Alternative during the opening year (2025), horizon year (2040), and design year (2045).

The proposed project includes improvement of traffic operations in a populated area with nearby sensitive receptors. Traffic volumes along the I-80 mainline of the project exceed about 236,000 under existing conditions (2018). According to FHWA guidance, the proposed project has a high potential for MSAT effects because it is in proximity to populated areas and exceeds the FHWA’s AADT threshold. Therefore, FHWA guidance recommends a quantitative analysis to forecast and compare local-specific emission trends of the priority MSAT for each alternative.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-55
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.2-2 NOx Emissions Based on Vehicle Speed

0.10 0.12

0.14 0.16

0.18 0.20

0.22 0.24

0.26 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
NOx (g/mi)
Average Speed (mph)

Notes: g/mi = grams per mile; mph = mile per hour
Emission factors based on gasoline light-duty trucks for 2018.

Source: EMFAC 2017.

As discussed in Section 2.1.9, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, the Build Alternative would improve local traffic circulation and reduce regional VMT. Therefore, daily emissions of criteria air pollutants would generally decrease for the Build Alternative compared to the No Build Alternative. As shown in Table 2.2-4, the estimated daily ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 emissions for the Build Alternative during the opening year (2025), horizon year (2040), and design year (2045) scenarios would be equal to or lower than the emissions for the No Build Alternative, which is primarily attributed to the reduction in regional VMT under the Build Alternative. Emissions for both the Build and No Build Alternatives would also be lower in the opening year (2025), horizon year (2040), and design year (2045) compared to the existing year (2018), because federal and state vehicle emissions standards are expected to reduce pollutant emissions over time. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not result in an increase in criteria air pollutant emissions compared to the existing year conditions or the future No Build Alternative. Therefore, emissions of criteria pollutants from project-related traffic are not anticipated to cause, contribute to, or worsen, any air quality violations.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-56

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-4 Operational Ozone Precursors Emissions (Pounds per Day) Pollutant
2018
Existing
2025
No
Build
2025
Build
Alternative
2040
No
Build
2040
Build
Alternative
2045
No
Build
2045
Build
Alternative
ROG 539 434 434 378 377 365 365
NOx 1,335 866 865 1,051 1,049 1,089 1,087
PM10
Exhaust
21 11 11 8 8 7 7
PM2.5
Exhaust
20 10 10 7 7 7 7
Source: Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2020
Notes: Emissions would be the same for each build scenario. Traffic data for the design year (2045) was used to conservatively estimate emissions during the horizon year (2040).

Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis
The AQR evaluated potential in accordance with FHWA’s (2016) Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (40 CFR 1502.22).

The proposed project would include improvements to traffic operations in a populated area with nearby sensitive receptors. Traffic volumes along the I-80 mainline of the project exceed 236,000 vehicles per day under existing 2018 conditions. According to FHWA guidance, the proposed project has a high potential for MSAT effects because it is near populated areas and exceeds the FHWA’s AADT threshold.

As shown in Table 2.2-5, the estimated daily MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative during the opening year (2025), horizon year (2040), and design year (2045) scenarios would be approximately equal to or lower than the emissions for the No Build Alternative, which is primarily attributed to the reduction in regional VMT under the Build Alternative. Emissions for both the Build and No Build Alternatives would also be lower in the opening year (2025), horizon year (2040), and design year (2045) compared to the existing year (2018), because federal and state vehicle emissions standards are expected to reduce pollutant emissions over time. The modeling results show that the Build Alternative would not result in an increase in MSAT emissions compared to the existing year conditions or the future No Build Alternative.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-57

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-5 Operational MSAT Emissions (grams per day)
Pollutant 2018
Existing
2025
No Build
2025
Build
Alternative
2040
No Build
2040
Build Alternative
2045
No Build
2045
Build Alternative
1,3-Butadiene 699 482 482 507 497 515 514
Acetaldehyde 1,946 648 647 804 789 827 825
Acrolein 151 109 109 113 113 115 114
Benzene 4,690 3,451 3,444 3,296 3,289 3,270 3,263
Diesel
Particulate
Matter
5,872 826 824 723 723 730 729
Ethylbenzene 3,612 6,068 3,062 2,696 2,691 2,612 2,607
Formaldehyde 4,996 2,061 2,057 2,375 2,370 2,428 2,423
Naphthalene 289 247 247 223 223 216 216
Polycyclic
Organic
Matter
142 77 77 72 72 72 72
Source: Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2020
Notes: Emissions would be the same for each build scenario. Traffic data for the design year (2045) was used to conservatively estimate emissions during the horizon year (2040).

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-58

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Temporary Construction Impacts
Emissions for Project-Level Conformity
For conformity purposes, 40 CFR 93.123(c)(5) states:
“CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses are not required to consider construction-related activities which cause temporary increases in emissions.

Each site which is affected by construction-related activities shall be considered separately, using established ‘Guideline’ methods. Temporary increases are defined as those which occur only during the construction phase and last five years or less at any individual site.”
Because construction of the Build Alternative is expected to last less than five years, temporary emissions of CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are not expected to cause or contribute to, or worsen, any federal air quality violations and an evaluation of these emissions is not required for a project-level conformity determination.

Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Project construction activities would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors that could potentially affect regional air quality. According to BAAQMD, the primary pollutant emissions of concern during project construction would be ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the exhaust of off-road construction equipment and on-road construction vehicles (worker vehicles, vendor trucks, and haul trucks). Construction emissions for the Build Alternative was quantified using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM Version 9.0). The Build Alternative would involve standard construction techniques and require large-scale construction equipment and labor-intensive activities. Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 2023 and would take approximately 30 months.

The estimated average daily emissions from construction of the Build Alternative are summarized in Table 2.2-6 and detailed model outputs are included in the AQR.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-59

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-6 Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Average Pounds per Day)
Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Fugitive
Dust
PM10
Fugitive
Dust
PM2.5
Build Alternative 4.8 47 2.0 1.8 82 17
BAAQMD
Recommended
Thresholds1
54 54 82 54 BMP BMP
Source: Baseline Environmental Consulting 2020
1BAAQMD’s thresholds have not been adopted by Caltrans and are only shown for informational purposes.

BMP = best management practices; NA= not available
Fugitive dust emissions include a 50 percent reduction from the use of watering trucks. However, additional reductions from implementation of dust-control measures listed under Section 5 cannot be readily quantified.

Refer to the AQR for details regarding specific methodology used to generate construction period criteria pollutants. Air pollutants of primary concern, including ozone and particulate matter, are discussed further below.

Ozone
As shown in in Table 2.2-6, average daily emissions for each Build Alternative would be below BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds for ROG and NOx. Since the average daily emissions of ozone precursors from equipment and vehicle exhaust would be below the recommended thresholds, construction would not be expected to cause or contribute to, or worsen, any state air quality violations.

Particulate Matter
As shown in Table 2.2-6, average daily emissions for the Build Alternative would be below BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds for Exhaust PM10 and PM2.5. Since the average daily emissions of criteria pollutants from equipment and vehicle exhaust would be below the recommended thresholds, construction would not be expected to cause or contribute to, or worsen, any state air quality violations.

Neither Caltrans nor BAAQMD have a quantitative threshold for fugitive dust emissions; however, BAAQMD considers implementation of BMPs to control fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 during construction sufficient to avoid an adverse effect. Caltrans’ Special Provisions and Standard Specifications would include the requirement to minimize or eliminate dust through the application of water or dust palliatives, as described in below under Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-60

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Climate Change
Climate change is discussed in Section 3, California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation. Neither the U.S. EPA nor the FHWA has issued explicit guidance or methods to conduct project-level greenhouse gas analysis. FHWA emphasizes concepts of resilience and sustainability in highway planning, project development, design, operations, and maintenance. Because there have been requirements set forth in California legislation and executive orders on climate change, the issue is addressed in the CEQA chapter of this document. The CEQA analysis may be used to inform the NEPA determination for the proposed project.

The four strategies set forth by FHWA to lessen climate change do correlate with efforts that the state has undertaken and is undertaking to deal with transportation and climate change. These strategies include improved transportation system efficiency, cleaner fuels, cleaner vehicles, and reduction in the growth of vehicle hours travelled.

Cumulative Effects
The cumulative setting for air quality includes the SFBAAB and the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. Improved freeway operations and projected future development in the region would result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled within the SFBAAB and related increases in vehicle emissions. Therefore, air quality effects associated with transportation and other development projects in the SFBAAB would result in cumulative effects to air quality for permanent operational pollutant emissions.

As previously discussed, transportation plans that have been found to conform with the SIP are not considered to cause or contribute to violations of ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, a project included in a conforming plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project area is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Conforming transportation plans are subject to a threshold of no net increase in emissions. Because the proposed project is included in Plan Bay Area and 2015 TIP, which conform to the SIP, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF AQ-1: Water or dust palliative shall be applied to the site and equipment as often as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-61

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
PF AQ-2: Measures to reduce PM10, PM2.5, and diesel particulate matter from construction shall be incorporated to the extent feasible to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided.

See Appendix C for the full text of these project features.

Avoidance and Minimization
With application of the aforementioned project features, no avoidance or minimization measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

2.2.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section evaluates noise and vibration associated with the proposed project.

Information is this section is primarily drawn from the Noise Study Report (NSR) (December 2020) prepared for the proposed project.

REGULATORY SETTING
NEPA and CEQA provide a broad basis for analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The intent of these laws is to promote the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment. The requirements for noise analysis and consideration of noise abatement and/or mitigation, however, differ between NEPA and CEQA.

Federal
National Environmental Policy Act and 23 CFR 772
For highway transportation projects with FHWA involvement (and the Department, as assigned), the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and its implementing regulations (23 CFR 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts. The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project. The regulations include noise abatement criteria (NAC) that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The NAC differ depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the NAC for residences (67 dBA) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). The following table, Table 2.2-7, lists the NAC for use in the NEPA/23 CFR 772 analysis.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-62

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-7 Noise Abatement Criteria
Activity
Category
NAC, Hourly AWeighted Noise Level,
dBA Leq(h)
Description of Activities
A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important
public need and where the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B1 67 Exterior Residential.

C1 67 (Exterior) Active sporting areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers,
hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public
meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional
structures, radio studios, recording studios,
recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools,
television studios, trails, and trail crossings.

D 52 (Interior) Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures,
radio studios, recording studios, schools, and
television studios
E 72 (Exterior) Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A–D or F.

F No NAC—reporting only Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities,
manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities,
shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical, etc.), and warehousing.

G No NAC—reporting only Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.

Source: Caltrans 2011. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TNAP) - For New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects.
1 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-63

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Figure 2.2-6 lists the noise levels of common activities to enable readers to compare the actual and predicted highway noise levels discussed in this section with common activities.

Source: Caltrans 2020
Figure 2.2-3 Noise Levels of Common Activities
According to the Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, May 2011, a noise impact occurs when the predicted future noise level with the project substantially exceeds the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or more) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the NAC. A noise level is considered to approach the NAC if it is within 1 dBA of the NAC.

If it is determined that the proposed project would have noise impacts, then potential abatement measures must be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be reasonable and feasible at the time of final design are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. This document discusses noise abatement measures that would likely be incorporated in the proposed project.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-64

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when an abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. Feasibility of noise abatement is basically an engineering concern. Noise abatement must be predicted to reduce noise by at least 5 dB at an impacted receptor to be considered feasible from an acoustical perspective. It must also be possible to design and construct the noise abatement measure for it to be considered feasible. Factors that affect the design and constructability of noise abatement include, but are not limited to, safety, barrier height, topography, drainage, access requirements for driveways, presence of local cross streets, underground utilities, other noise sources in the area, and maintenance of the abatement measure. The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is determined by the following three factors: 1) the noise reduction design goal of 7 dB at one or more impacted receptors; 2) the cost of noise abatement; and 3) the viewpoints of benefited receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors).

State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a strictly baseline versus build analysis to assess whether a proposed project would have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a significant noise impact under CEQA, then CEQA dictates that mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project unless those measures are not feasible. The rest of this section will focus on the NEPA/23 C FR Part 772 (23 CFR 772) noise analysis; please see Chapter 3 of this document for further information on noise analysis under CEQA.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information in this section is based on the NSR (December 2020) prepared for the proposed project. The noise study area includes residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within 1,000 feet of the project area. Please refer to the NSR for a detailed description of the principals of acoustics, including sound measurement, the mathematics of sound, and human response.

A logarithmic scale is used to describe sound in terms of decibels (dB). However, the decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.

Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives sound. In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000– INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-65

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
8,000 Hz and perceive sounds within that range better than sounds of the same amplitude in higher or lower frequencies. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an “A-weighted” sound level (expressed in units of dBA) can be computed based on this information. Table 2.2-8 describes typical Aweighted noise levels for various noise sources.

Table 2.2-8 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise
Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
— 110 — Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1000 feet
— 100 —
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
— 90 —
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50
mph
Food blender at 3 feet
— 80 — Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 —
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime — 50 — Dishwasher next room
Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban nighttime
— 30 — Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
— 20 —
Broadcast/recording studio
— 10 —
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-66

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise
Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Lowest threshold of human
hearing
— 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing
Source: TeNS 2013.

Existing Land Uses
A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise effects from the proposed project. The following land uses were identified in the study area:
 Activity Category B: Multi-family residences
 Active Category C: Recreational areas, parks, and trails  Active Category D: Radio studios and schools
 Activity Category F: Industrial uses
 Activity Category G: Undeveloped lands that are not permitted for development Within the noise study area, most of the receptors fall into Category B (residential), and Category C (recreational). The location of individual sensitive receptors is mapped in the NSR. A maximum peak-hour noise level criteria of 67 dBA Leq applies at the exterior use area of residences. Primary consideration for noise abatement is given to exterior areas where frequent human use occurs that would benefit from a lowered noise level.

In general, an area of frequent human use is an area where people are exposed to traffic noise for an extended time on a regular basis.

Although all developed land uses are evaluated in this section, noise abatement is only considered for areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. Accordingly, this section focuses on locations with defined outdoor activity areas, such as residential backyards and common use areas at multi-family residences.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-67
Legend
Planned Development
Receptor Locations
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Source: Wilson Ihrig, 2020
Receptors and Noise Analysis Area
Figur Figure
Figure 2.2-7

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Existing Noise Environment
The existing noise environment varies by location, depending on site characteristics such as proximity to other roadways or noise sources, the relative elevation of roadways and receptors, and intervening structures or topography.

The study areas are shown in Figure 2.2-7. The existing noise environment at the area was evaluated by collecting based on short- and long-term noise measurements. Noise measurement locations are mapped in the NSR, which also includes site photographs of noise measurement locations. Land uses adjacent to the interchange include light industrial and commercial. Currently, there are no existing noise barriers (sound walls) in the study area.

The noise sensitive areas around the project area are shown in Figure 2.2-7. South of the interchange, land uses are industrial and commercial, with some high-density housing present. North of the interchange, noise-sensitive land uses consist of KRE Radio Transmitter, Aquatic Park, and Point Emery alongside of commercial properties.

Short-term measurements were conducted at seven locations (ST-1 through ST-7), as shown in Figure 2.2-7. Short-term digital recordings were made simultaneously with traffic counts on Wednesday September 18, 2019. The results of the short-term noise surveys are summarized in Table 2.2-9, which shows the typical peak hour (Leq) noise level at each of the seven short-term locations. Weekday noise level patterns tend to increase during morning commute hours, remain somewhat elevated throughout the day, taper off at night, and are lowest in the early morning hours. Long-term measurements were conducted at one location from Wednesday, September 18, 2019 to Tuesday, September 24, 2019 (LT-1, LT-2, LT-3).

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section discusses the predicted traffic noise levels under existing and design-year conditions (with and without the proposed project), identifies traffic noise impacts, and considers noise abatement. The CFR (23 CFR 772) “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise” provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement options. Under 23 CFR 772, projects are categorized as Type I or Type II projects.

FHWA defines a Type I project as a proposed federal or federal-aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location, the physical alteration of an existing highway where there is either a substantial horizontal or substantial vertical alteration, or other specifically listed activities in 23 CFR 772.7. Type I projects include the addition of an interchange, ramp, auxiliary lane, or truck-climbing lane to an existing highway, or the widening of an existing ramp by a full lane for its entire length. As the project would INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-69

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
modify the existing I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange configuration it is considered a Type I project. FHWA noise regulations require noise analysis for all Type I projects.

Predicted design-year traffic noise levels with the project (Build Alternative) are compared to modeled existing conditions and to design-year no-project conditions (No Build Alternative). In this and the following sections “existing conditions” refers to modeled results. The comparison to existing conditions is included in the analysis to identify traffic noise impacts as defined under 23 CFR 772. The comparison to noproject conditions indicates the direct effect of the proposed project.

Noise projections have been made for the outdoor areas of homes closest to the proposed project. The results of the projections are provided below in Table 2.2-12. A “receiver” is a modeled location that can represent one or more dwelling units; a “receptor” corresponds to one specific dwelling unit. The number of receptors that correspond to each modeled receiver is also provided.

Permanent Operational Impact
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative (2045 with no project) assumes the current road geometry would remain unchanged. In 2045, increases in traffic are expected to increase overall noise levels for the No Build Alternative by 0 to 5 dBA over existing conditions. The predicted noise levels for the No Build Alternative are show in Table 2.2-10.

Build Alternative
Modeling of the future condition with the Build Alternative (2045 with proposed project) predicts increases in noise levels in a range of 0 to 9 dBA over the existing condition.

Table 2.2-10 provides a detailed overview of projected noise increases under each Build Alternative. As shown in Table 2.2-12, each Build Alternative would have the same or similar effect on operational noise levels. A noise impact would occur at these receiver locations shown in Figure 2.2-7. Noise abatement is considered under Preliminary Noise Abatement Measures below.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-70
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Preliminary Noise Abatement Measures
As documented in the Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) (February 2021), an analysis was conducted to determine if sound walls would be both feasible and reasonable. For a full discussion of the methodology behind this analysis, refer to the NADR. Table 2.2-11 summarizes the barriers considered and conclusions for each barrier. Barriers that were considered are also shown in Figure 2.2-7. However, as documented in the NADR, the cost of these sounds walls was determined not to be reasonable. Therefore, none of the sound walls are recommended for the proposed project. These measures may change based on input received from the public. The final decision on noise abatement will be made upon completion of the project design.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-71
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-9 Short-term and Long-term Noise Measurements Location Site Descriptionb Land
Use
Meas. Datesc and Start
Time Duration (minutes) Meas. d Leq
Observed Vehicle Mixe
Road /Direction Autos Medium and
Heavy Trucks Bus Motorcycles
ST-1 KRE D
9/19
15 61.4
I-80 North 5574 1167 8 6
10:45 AM I-80 South 1422 240 0 13
ST-2 Aquatic Park C
9/19
15 66.4
I-80 North 5574 1167 8 6
10:45 AM I-80 South 1422 240 0 13
ST-3 San Francisco Bay Trail C
9/19
15 68.1
I-80 North 5574 1167 8 6
10:45 AM I-80 South 1422 240 0 13
ST-4 Point Emery C
9/19
15 54.0
I-80 North 7630 182 7 5
10:00 AM I-80 South 1901 254 2 1
ST-5 SAE/Expressions
College D
9/19
15 59.5
I-80 North 7630 182 7 5
10:00 AM I-80 South 1901 254 2 1
ST-6 Bridgewater Apartments B
9/19
15 59.3
I-80 North 7630 182 7 5
10:00 AM I-80 South 1901 254 2 1
ST-7 Avenue 64 Apartments B
9/19
15 72.6
I-80 North 7630 182 7 5
10:00 AM I-80 South 1901 254 2 1
LT-1 Avenue 64 Apartments B 9/18-9/24 6 days Peak Hour Levels 75 – 77 (7 AM – 11 AM) LT-2 Bridgewater Apartments B 9/18-9/24 6 days Peak Hour Levels 66 – 72 (8 AM – 10 AM) LT-3 Youth Musical Theater C 9/18-9/24 6 days Peak Hour Levels 68 – 71 (7 AM – 9 AM) Source: Noise Study Report, Wison Ihrig, December 2020. a Sub-area segments are shown in Figure 2.2-7.
b Short-term sound level meter on tripod set to 5 feet. Long-term monitor attached to pole at 10 feet in height. Photos provided in Appendix L. c In some cases, two measurements were conducted on different days with different sound level results and different traffic mixes; the results providing the best fit to the traffic model are listed here, and, where applicable, the other measurement date and sound level result are listed in the Noise Study Report.
d Fifteen-minute measured Leq sound level
e The specific directional volumes extrapolated to a full hour are listed in the Noise Study Report.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-72
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
This Page Intentionally Blank
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-73

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-10 Modeled Results for 2045 Design Year – Comparison of Existing to Year 2045 Study Area
Noise
Abatement
Criteria
Worst Hourly Noise Level
(Leq dBA)
Receiver ID
(Number of
Represented
Receptors)
Location 2018
(Existing) 2045 No Build 2045 Build
R-1 (4) Avenue 64 Apartments 67, exterior 73 78 78
R-2 (100) Bridgewater Apartments 67, exterior 58 63 63
ST-5 (1) SAE/Expression College 52, interior 36 39 39
ST-1 (1) KRE Radio Transmitter 52, interior 41 43 42
R-3 (1) Youth Musical Theater Company 67, exterior 63 66 67 ST-2 (1) Kenneth A. Boathouse 67, exterior 68 72 77
R-4 (2) Aquatic Park Path/Playground 67, exterior 63 67 68 ST-4 (1) Point Emery 67, exterior 59 62 64
R-5 (1) San Francisco Bay Trail 67, exterior 72 75 70
R-6 (1) NADY Residential Project - Proposed N/A N/A N/A 62 R-7 (1) Vista Park Project – Proposed N/A N/A N/A 67
Source: Wilson Ihrig 2020
Table Notes: The results are shown in whole integers, which sometimes results in discrepancies due to rounding.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-74
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Sound Walls Under Consideration Figure 2.2-8
Source: Wilson Ihrig, 2020

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-11 Summary of Barriers Considered and Recommendations Barrier Length Corresponding
Noise
Receptors
Existing/New Estimated
Cost
Recommendation
Barrier 1 700
feet
R-1 New $707,520 The design is
feasible, but the
cost is not
reasonable.

Therefore, this
sound wall is not
recommended.

Barrier 2 1700
feet
ST-2, R-3, R-4 New $1,828,800 The design is
feasible, but the
cost is not
reasonable.

Therefore, this
sound wall is not
recommended.

Barrier 3 1800
feet
R-5 New $2,382,624 The design is
feasible, but the
cost is not
reasonable.

Therefore, this
sound wall is not
recommended.

Source: Wilson Ihrig 2020
Temporary Construction Impacts
Construction Phases
Construction phases would include concrete pavement construction, excavation, and grading; construction of bridge structures, miscellaneous concrete work; relocation of utilities; paving; and installation of overhead signs and lighting.

Construction noise would primarily result from the operation of heavy construction equipment and arrival and departure of heavy-duty trucks. The highest maximum instantaneous noise levels would result from paving and demolition equipment.

Overhead signs would be supported on cast-in-drilled-hole piles in the median of I-80.

Some areas of the project area would require only re-striping, and some areas would include new concrete median barriers. Construction noise for all receptors would be short-term and intermittent.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-76

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Equipment Noise
Table 2.2-12 summarizes typical noise levels produced by construction equipment commonly used on roadway construction projects. Construction equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dBA at 50 feet, and noise produced by construction equipment would be reduced over distance at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance, as outlined in FHWA’s 2006 Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide and Caltrans’ 2013 Technical Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

Table 2.2-12 Construction Equipment Noise
Equipment Maximum Noise Level (dBA at 50 feet)
Scrapers, bulldozer, graders, cranes 85
Excavators 85
Heavy Trucks, tractors 84
Compactors, wheeled loader 80
Scarifier 85
Pneumatic Tools 85
Concrete Pumps 82
Pavers 85
Hoe Ram 90
Street Sweeper 80
Auger Drill Rig (CIPH) 85
Source: Wilson Ihrig 2020
Daytime Construction
Predicted roadway construction noise levels are listed in Table 2.2-14 and are based on typical equipment and activity levels for roadway construction projects. See the NSR for the list of equipment used for each activity and reference noise levels and activity usage factors from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006) and Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS 2013). To obtain the values shown in Table 2.2-14, the reference noise levels were adjusted to a 100-foot distance assuming basic geometric spreading for a point source (e.g., 6 dBA per doubling distance). The hourly average noise level was estimated by summing together the three loudest pieces of equipment. Table 2.2-13 discusses the estimated daytime construction noise levels.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-77

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-13 Estimated Daytime Construction Noise Levels at Closest Receptors Receptor Location
Existing
Typical
Hourly L a eq
Construction Noise
Source
Distance to
construction
(highway)
Construction
Sound Level
(9 AM-6 PM) Leq(h)
Construction
Sound Level
Lmax at Receptor
R-2 Bridgewater
Apartments 63 (ST-6)
Grading/Excavation 475 feet (NO offramp) 66 65
Paving 475 feet (NB offramp) 65 70
Demolition 750 feet (existing
ramp) 63 66
Bridge Work 1000 feet (bridge) 61 64
ST-5
SAE/
Expression
College
60 (ST-5)
Grading/Excavation 200 feet (NB offramp) 74 73
Paving 200 feet (NB offramp) 72 78
Demolition 350 feet (existing
ramp) 70 73
Bridge Work 400 feet (bridge) 68 72
Retaining Walls 200 feet (NB offramp) 68 73
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-78

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Receptor Location
Existing
Typical
Hourly L a eq
Construction Noise
Source
Distance to
construction
(highway)
Construction
Sound Level
(9 AM-6 PM) Leq(h)
Construction
Sound Level
Lmax at Receptor
ST-1 KRE Radio
Transmitter 61 (ST-1)
Grading/Excavation 15 feet (NB onramp) 96 95
Paving 15 feet (NB onramp) 95 100
Demolition 500 feet (existing
ramp) 67 70
Bridge Work 500 feet (bridge) 67 70
Retaining Walls 15 feet (NB onramp) 90 95
ST-2 Kenneth A.

Boathouse 66 (ST – 2_
Grading/Excavation 300 feet (I-80) 70 69
Paving 300 feet (I-80) 69 74
Demolition 1075 feet (existing
ramp) 60 63
Bridge Work 1300 feet (bridge) 58 62
Restriping 75 feet (I-80) 74 81
ST - 4 Point Emery 54 (ST - 4) Grading/Excavation 100 feet (Frontage Road) 80 79
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-79

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Receptor Location
Existing
Typical
Hourly L a eq
Construction Noise
Source
Distance to
construction
(highway)
Construction
Sound Level
(9 AM-6 PM) Leq(h)
Construction
Sound Level
Lmax at Receptor
Paving 100 feet (Frontage
Road) 78 84
Demolition 450 feet (existing
ramp) 68 71
Bridge Work 550 feet (bridge) 66 69
Retaining Walls 150 feet (Frontage
Road) 70 75
R-5
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
68 (ST – 3)
Grading/Excavation 30 feet (Frontage
Road) 90 89
Paving 30 feet (Frontage
Road) 89 94
Demolition 200 feet (existing
ramp) 75 78
Bridge Work 550 feet (structure) 66 69
Retaining Walls 30 feet (Frontage
Road) 84 89
Source: Wilson Ihrig 2020 a Measured peak hour values during traffic counts reported previously in Table 2.2-9; b R-15 located behind 16-foot highway barrier Modeled Results for 2045 Design Year – Comparison of Existing to Year 2045
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-80

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.2-14 provides the estimated daytime construction sound levels at the nearest receptors. Many of the activities associated with daytime construction would exceed existing noise levels at the existing project area. Therefore, Caltrans BMPs would be applied during construction, and are detailed under Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.

Table 2.2-14 Typical Construction Noise at 100 Feet Distance by Phase Construction Phase
Maximum Noise
Level
(Lmax, dBA)
Hourly Average Noise
Level
(Leq[h], dBA)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 79 78
Grading/Excavation 79 80
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 84 81
Paving 84 78
Demolition 84 81
Bridge Work 84 81
Retaining Walls 79 74
Restriping 79 72
Source: Wilson Ihrig 2020
Nighttime Construction
Demolition, placement of the precast girder, and construction of new foundations are anticipated to require nighttime work. Concrete saws can generate maximum noise levels of 90 dB and an hourly Leq of 83 dB at 50 feet. The nighttime activity would be close to noise-sensitive land uses which include multi-family homes with exterior areas, recreational areas such as Aquatic Park, and the San Francisco Bay Trail. This is in violation of Caltrans Standard Specification, Section 14-08.02. The proposed project would require an exception from this requirement for this activity. Noise levels produced by saws would be reduced to ambient 63 dB at 475 feet. Auger drilling for installation of cast-in-drilled-hole piles can generate maximum noise levels of 85 dBA and an hourly Leq of 78 dBA at 50 feet. Noise levels produced by CIDH pile installation would be reduced with distance to ambient 63 dBA at 275 feet. Therefore, Caltrans BMPs would INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-81

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
be applied during construction, and are detailed under Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.

Cumulative Effects
The cumulative setting for noise is equivalent to the noise study area evaluated above.

For cumulative impacts, operational (permanent) impacts are considered. Noisesensitive land uses in the study area include multi-family residences, and the SAE Expression College. Most of the areas adjacent to the study area are built-out, and there are no projects planned or programmed in the immediate vicinity of the project area except for the NADY Residential Project. The NADY Residential Project site is included in the noise evaluation as receptor R-6 and no noise impacts from the proposed project are shown to occur on the NADY Residential Project. Therefore, the proposed project would not make a substantial contribution to a cumulative noise impact.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
The following standard project features would also be implemented to minimize or reduce the potential for noise impacts from project construction:

PF NOI-1: Caltrans Standard Noise Control BMPs such as limiting paving and demolition activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

PF NOI-2: Inspection of equipment by the contractor will ensure that all equipment onsite is working properly, in good condition, and effectively muffled. All equipment will have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment.

PF NOI-3: Construction activities shall be minimized in the study area during evening, nighttime, weekend, and holiday periods.

PF NOI-4: Restrict the hours of vibration-intensive equipment or activities such as vibratory rollers so that impacts to study area users are minimal (e.g., restrict the hours to weekdays during daytime hours).

PF NOI-5: The Resident Engineer will be responsible to collect and respond to any complaints related to construction noise.

PF NOI-6: Truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations will be minimized so that noise and vibration are kept to a minimum through the study area to the greatest possible extent.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-82

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Avoidance and Minimization
With application of the aforementioned project features, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required for noise abatement.

Mitigation
There are no mitigation measures associated with noise.

2.2.8 ENERGY
This section evaluates energy usage associated with the proposed project. Sources of information used to prepare the analysis in this section include:
 2020 Traffic Operations Analysis Report (December 2020)  Energy Conservation Report (October 2021)
 City of Emeryville General Plan
 City of Berkeley General Plan

REGULATORY SETTING
NEPA 42 USC Part 4332 requires the identification of all potentially significant impacts to the environment, including energy impacts.

CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(b) and the Energy Conservation Report require an analysis of a project’s energy use to determine if the proposed project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Traffic Conditions
Existing traffic conditions along I-80 were evaluated using vehicles miles traveled (VMT) calculations. VMT was estimated in the Traffic Operational Analysis Report (Caltrans 2020) for I-80 for the opening year condition (2025), and the horizon year condition (2045). Traffic operations were evaluated using the procedures outlined in the Traffic Operation Methodology Memorandum (Caltrans 2018). The Build Alternative and design variations were evaluated for the opening and horizon years in the AM and PM peak hours.

As noted in the Traffic Operational Analysis Report, and Section Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, local streets in the project area are INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-83

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
also affected by traffic congestion and travel delays. Currently, local streets are congested during morning and evening peak commute hours. Motorists traveling between I-80, and local streets are subjected to long queue lines, and stop-and-go traffic patterns. Inefficient travel conditions contribute to increased energy consumption as vehicles use extra fuel when moving at slow speeds, or while in stop-and-go traffic conditions.

Transportation Safety Management Elements
In the project area, there are limited transportation safety management (TSM) elements.

The elements include transit, ridesharing programs, and existing bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. These elements help decrease energy consumption.

There are existing gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the project area.

There are no existing or planned bicycle facilities on Ashby Avenue within the immediate vicinity of the I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange. Bicyclists wishing to access the San Francisco Bay Trail would either need to divert to the University Avenue or Powell Street interchanges or travel through the Ashby connectors which are not designated for bicycle travel, causing deficiencies. Both Shellmound Street and Frontage Road have Class 2 and Class 1 Bicycle lanes, respectively. However, during peak travel times, the bike lanes have high levels of traffic stress, and the possibility of the bicycle lane blocked due to long traffic queues.

Pavement Conditions
Poor pavement-vehicle interaction could account for one percent of the overall fuel consumption on California highways (Caltrans and the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub 2016). Based on a field evaluation and a desktop review of the roadways in the project area, most roadways, ramps, and surface streets appear to be in good condition with limited deterioration (cracking, patching, and/or potholing). Currently, cracking and potholing can be seen both north and southbound before the undercrossing at Ashby Avenue, and at the undercrossing on the I-80 heading eastbound.

Lighting and Traffic Signals
Based on a field evaluation, lighting is present throughout the project area. Highway lighting is provided along the I-80 corridor, and the subsequent ramps. Pedestrian-scale streetlighting is present along Bay Street, Shellmound Street, Ashby Avenue, and Frontage Road. Existing pedestrian-scale streetlights are assumed to be low- to highpressure sodium lamps.

Traffic within the interchange would be controlled by two traffic signals, one at the westbound on and off ramps and one at the eastbound on and off ramps. East of the INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-84

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
eastbound on and off ramp locations there would be a traffic signal for the Bay Street connector ramp. A traffic signal would be constructed at the intersection of the Ashby Avenue and West Frontage Road. Both eastbound and westbound on ramps would be metered.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Planning Strategies
The proposed project is included in MTC’s RTP, 2019 TIP, and Plan Bay Area 2050.

Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct or conflict with statewide or regional planning strategies, including the requirements regarding energy usage and efficiency.

CEQA guidelines require an analysis of a project’s potential for significant environmental effects resulting from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy.

A quantitative analysis is required for projects that increase capacity or provide congestion relief, both of which would affect the ability of a transportation facility to accommodate existing and future traffic demands.

The proposed project was not classified as a capacity increasing project and is not expected to change the existing vehicle mix. Examples of capacity increasing projects include new highways, added travel or auxiliary lanes, and new or reconfigured interchanges. However, the proposed project would relieve congestion on local roadways. An assessment of the proposed project’s potential direct and indirect energy consumption was performed. Direct energy includes operational energy use and the one-time energy expenditure from project construction. Indirect energy includes maintenance activities required to operate or maintain the proposed project.

Direct Energy Usage
Permanent Operational Impacts
Roadway Improvements
Traffic congestion and stop-and-go conditions produce a higher demand for fossil fuels and energy. The proposed project would improve traffic flow during peak travel times and thereby improve vehicle fuel economies. Under the Build Alternative, traffic operations would substantially improve traffic conditions thus reducing the overall energy consumption.

Additional Improvements
The Build Alternative would include several TSM elements. Existing bicycle and pedestrian networks would be expanded within the project area. At-grade sidewalks and INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-85

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
signalized crossings on the east and west sides of the I-80 at the ramps and adjacent to the Ashby Avenue would be included as part of the Build Alternative. Bicyclists and pedestrians would access this connection via 65th street on the east side of the proposed project and West Frontage Road. A separated BPOC would also be constructed south of the new interchange. This structure would include ADA compliant switchbacks on the east and west sides of the I-80 approaching the separate BPOC.

Like the proposed at-grade bicycle/pedestrian improvements, the structure would be publicly accessible from 65th Street to the east and West Frontage Road to the west.

Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian networks would help reduce VMT by encouraging walking and bicycling within the project area. These alternative modes of transportation consume no energy; therefore, the proposed project’s overall energy consumption would be reduced.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Under the No Build Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed, and would not have the one-time consumption of direct energy that would under the Build Alternative.

Energy consumed during construction of the proposed project would be temporary and would not result in permanent increases in statewide annual energy consumption.

Compared to California’s annual energy consumption in the transportation sector, the energy expended to construct the proposed project would represent a negligible increase of the annual statewide energy consumption. Additionally, the construction window for the proposed project would span a 36-month window. This would result in even smaller annual energy expenditures, representing a smaller proportion of the statewide annual energy consumption per year.

Direct energy consumption during construction would result from materials processing, operation of on-site construction equipment, and traffic delays or detours. Energy consumption would vary by construction phase but could be reduced through implementation of a Transportation Management Plan. BMPs would also be implemented to reduce energy consumption including limiting equipment idling, maintaining proper tire pressures on equipment, using local sources for materials, and using local sources for disposal.

Indirect Energy Usage
Maintenance
Long-term maintenance of the I-80 corridor, and surrounding roads within the proposed project area would occur under the Build Alternative or the No Build Alternative. Under INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-86

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
the No Build Alternative, traffic congestion and deficiencies in bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure would persist. Under the Build Alternative, both on- and off-ramps would be metered with a high-occupancy vehicle bypass lane in the westbound direction only, consistent with existing conditions. Under the No Build Alternative, the flow of traffic onto I-80 would continue to be metered with a high-occupancy vehicle bypass lane in the westbound direction only. Pavement conditions would continue to deteriorate, and less efficient technology would continue to be used for the pedestrian-scale streetlights for a long period of time.

The Build Alternative would address these deficiencies by alleviating local traffic congestion, controlling the flow of traffic onto I-80, and promoting zero-energy alternative modes of transportation such as walking and biking. Operationally, the Build Alternative would have increased energy saving potential over the No Build Alternative.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
There are no project features associated with energy resources.

Avoidance and Minimization
No avoidance and/or minimization measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-87

CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
This page left intentionally blank.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.2-88

2.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

2.3.1 NATURAL COMMUNITIES
This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern. The focus of this section is on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. This section also includes information on wildlife corridors and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening its biological value.

Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed in Section 2.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. Wetlands and other waters are also discussed in Section 2.3.2, Wetlands and Other Waters.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is based on the Natural Environment Study (NES) prepared for the proposed project (October 2021).

Biological Study Area
The biological study area (BSA) includes all areas that could potentially be impacted, temporarily or permanently, by the proposed project within the maximum footprint of the project area (see Figure 2.3-1).

The BSA is in a highly developed urban area that is fragmented by existing surface streets; Interstate 80 (I-80) and associated interchanges; and isolated by residential, commercial, and industrial development. As shown in Figure 2.3-1, a total of 14 land cover types occur in the BSA, including 12 vegetative communities (landscaped, ruderal, developed, California annual grassland, ice plant mats, eucalyptus groves, arroyo willow thickets, Monterey cypress stands, acacia, cattail marshes, pickleweed mats, gumplant patches, open water, and saltgrass flats) and one aquatic cover category (open water). The developed land cover type includes all of I-80, Ashby Avenue, the UPRR Pacific Railroad tracks, adjacent surface streets, and commercial and industrial buildings in the BSA. The landscaped cover type includes unpaved areas adjacent to I-80, interchanges, and areas along surface streets. All these features are manmade. Natural communities within the BSA have been altered and continue to be subject to disturbance from human activities.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-1
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Habitat Types
Habitat types present within the BSA are depicted in Figure 2.3-1. Of all the habitat types shown, only the open water areas within the San Francisco Bay are federally designated critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed further in Section 2.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. No sensitive natural communities (e.g., natural communities that have limited distribution) exist within the BSA. Each habitat type present within the BSA is briefly described below.

Acacia
Areas dominated by acacia (Acacia spp.) are present in several portions of the BSA.

The most common species in these areas is blackwood acacia (A. melanoxylon).

Arroyo Willow Thickets
Areas dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) are present on the east shore of the Radio Tower Pond. Other tree species present in this habitat include red willow (Salix laevigata) and ash (Fraxinus sp.).

California Annual Grassland
Dominant species include wild oat (Avena fatua) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus).

This community is patchily distributed within undeveloped areas of the Ashby Avenue Interchange (interchange).

Developed
Areas mapped as developed include roads and anthropogenic features such as buildings and parking lots. Vegetation in these areas is usually sparse and dominated by weedy herbaceous species. Developed landcover includes all of I-80, Ashby Avenue, adjacent roads, and commercial and residential buildings adjacent to the freeway.

Wildlife species typically associated with developed areas include striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Wildlife observed in developed areas include domestic cat (Felis catus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock dove (Columba livia), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-2
INTERSTATE-80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Legend
Biological Study Area: BSA Figure 2.3-1
Source: Horizon, 2021
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Eucalyptus Grove
Various stands of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) are located along the I-80 off-ramps within the BSA. This habitat has sparse to intermittent herbaceous layers.

Ice Plant Mats
This habitat consists almost exclusively of ice plant (Carpobrotus sp.), which is an invasive species, and is found within undeveloped areas of the interchange. No wildlife was observed in this habitat type, and this habitat type generally provides little value to native wildlife species.

Landscaped
Landscaped areas of the BSA are characterized by ornamental vegetation and are in close proximity to the more expansive developed areas. Wildlife species typically associated with landscaped areas include striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Wildlife observed in developed areas include domestic cat (Felis catus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock dove (Columba livia), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).

Monterey Cypress Stands
Planted stands of Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) are present within the interchange. The understory in these areas ranges from sparse herbaceous to bare ground. Although naturally-occurring Monterey cypress stands are considered a sensitive natural community, the BSA is not within the native range of this vegetation community, and the Monterey cypress trees were planted within the BSA. Therefore, this vegetation type is not considered a sensitive natural community within the BSA.

Open Water
Open water habitats are present in the San Francisco Bay, Radio Tower Pond, and the Model Yacht Basin. The portion of the San Francisco Bay within the BSA is critical habitat for green sturgeon, Central Valley steelhead, Central California Coast steelhead, and Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species.

For further discussion of this critical habitat, refer to Section 2.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. The San Francisco Bay is also Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmonids (Coho and Chinook salmon). In addition, tidal estuaries, seagrass (SAV), and mudflats contained within the open water habitat classification are considered special aquatic sites (SAS) and designated as habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) within Groundfish EFH.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-4
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The Radio Tower Pond and the Model Yacht Basin (Berkeley Aquatic Park) are estuarine habitats, but neither water body represents critical habitat for federally listed species. Estuaries are highly productive ecosystems and typically support large numbers of fish, birds, and invertebrates. Wildlife observed in open water areas include snowy egret (Egretta thula), American coot (Fulica americana), and American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos).

Salt Grass Flats
Salt grass (Distichlis spicata) is the dominant species in this habitat. This habitat can be found along the pond margins of the Radio Tower Pond and Model Yacht Basin (Berkeley Aquatic Park) and at the edge of the Radio Tower parking lot at elevations above the pickleweed mats and gumplant patches.

Ruderal
Ruderal habitat is the most abundant natural community within the BSA. Ruderal vegetation is characterized by non-native forbs and grasses in disturbed areas typically along the edges of developed areas.

There are 445 trees regulated by local ordinances within the BSA. Regulated trees meet specific size and species requirements and are protected by local ordinances. These trees are primarily located along surface streets and landscaped areas and include native and non-native species. Of the 445 regulated trees, 301 are in Berkeley and 144 are within Emeryville. Trees in the BSA include native and non-native species, predominantly blackwood acacia, Monterey cypress, sheoak (Casuarina sp.), and Ngaio tree (Myoporum laetum).

Wildlife Corridors and Wildlife Fragmentation
Terrestrial habitat within and near the BSA is isolated, and connectivity is substantially restricted within the BSA due to the highly developed nature of the I-80 corridor. The terrestrial portions of the BSA are highly urbanized and primarily developed, with only small, undeveloped (e.g., unpaved) areas occurring in discontinuous, fragmented patches between developed areas. No impacts on wildlife connectivity are anticipated

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Non-Critical Habitat Types
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative assumes that the I-80/Ashby interchange would remain in its existing condition and no further action or improvements would occur. Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-5
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
and programmed improvements outside of the BSA. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect habitat types present within the BSA.

Build Alternative
Table 2.3-1 provides a summary of temporary and permanent impacts in acres to habitat types for the Build Alternative within the BSA. All temporary and permanent impacts of the Build Alternative would be considered direct impacts. Any potential temporary impacts to natural communities would be minimized with the incorporation of project feature PF BIO-2 (standard Caltrans construction BMPs) (refer to Appendix C for further detail regarding project features). None of the habitat types within the BSA (listed in Table 2.3-1) are considered sensitive.

Table 2.3-1 Temporary and Permanent Impacts for Non-Critical Habitat Types within the BSA
Habitat Types Temporary
Impact (Acres)
Permanent
Impact (Acres)
Acacia 0.079 0.001
Arroyo Willow Thickets 0.000 0.001
California Annual Grassland 1.697 2.319
Developed 4.794 8.179
Eucalyptus Groves 0.339 0.340
Ice Plant Mats 2.003 1.472
Landscaped 1.049 1.053
Monterey Cypress Stands 0.727 0.715
Salt Grass Flats 0 0.012
Ruderal 6.571 3.355
Total 17.259 17.447
Source: Horizon Water & Environmental 2021
Trees
Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in the removal of protected trees. Both the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley have local tree ordinances that protect trees. In Emeryville, there are no specific species of trees that are classified as protected trees. The City of Berkeley, places restrictions on the removal of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia); no other restrictions apply. Caltrans and Alameda CTC are exempt from local tree protection ordinances. Landscaping and ornamental trees INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-6
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
provide aesthetic value and can provide habitat and food sources for local wildlife including nesting habitat for common bird species.

No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative assumes that the I-80/Ashby interchange would remain in the existing condition and no further action or improvements would occur. Under the No Build Alternative, its existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements outside of the BSA. The No Build Alternative would not result in removal of regulated trees within the BSA.

Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would remove up to 149 trees within the BSA, up to 127 trees would be removed in Berkeley, and up to 22 trees would be removed in Emeryville.

Trees removed by the proposed project will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio as specified in Avoidance and Minimization Measure (AMM) BIO-1. All replacement plantings would be accommodated within the existing interchange.

Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts setting includes sensitive habitat types within and surrounding the BSA. Cumulative effects to natural communities would occur if planned and foreseeable development, when taken in combination with the proposed project, would result in the removal of sensitive habitat types and could reduce sensitive habitat types on a regional level. The BSA is relatively developed and fragmented and experiences a high level of human disturbance. The BSA does not contain sensitive natural communities. As the project vicinity is either urbanized or reserved for park land, surrounding natural areas are not likely to be developed. Development of the project in combination with other planned development is therefore unlikely to substantially affect valuable natural communities. Therefore, no cumulative effect related to natural communities is anticipated.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF BIO-1: Adjacent to the riparian area along the Radio Tower Pond and San Francisco Bay, project limits will be delineated.

PF BIO-2: Temporary impacts to water quality during construction will be avoided or minimized by implementing temporary construction site BMPs.

PF BIO-6: Trees, shrubs, and native vegetation will be preserved in place to the extent practicable.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-7
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Avoidance and Minimization
AMM BIO-1 Avoid Regulated Trees and Replace Where Unavoidable – Caltrans will avoid the removal of trees by minimizing the area of disturbance where feasible. An arborist will be retained to identify areas where tree pruning activities can occur without compromising the health of the tree. Tree removal will be minimized as much as possible. Removed or damaged trees will be replaced within the existing interchange.

Trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with native trees and will be irrigated for up to five years.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM BIO-1.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.3.2 WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the federal level, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 United States [U.S.] Code 1344), is the primary law regulating wetlands and surface waters. One purpose of the CWA is to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Waters of the U.S. include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas, and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. The lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal water bodies extend to the ordinary high-water mark, in the absence of adjacent wetlands. When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high-water mark to the limits of the adjacent wetlands. To classify wetlands for the purposes of the CWA, a three-parameter approach is used that includes the presence of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (soils formed during saturation and inundation). All three parameters must be present, under normal circumstances, for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the CWA.

Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that discharge of dredged or fill material cannot be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. The Section 404 permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-8
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: general and individual. There are two types of general permits: regional and nationwide. Regional permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects.

Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a regional or nationwide permit may be permitted under one of USACE’s individual permits. There are two types of individual permits: standard permits and letters of permission. For individual permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 Code of Federal Regulations 230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (Waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that USACE may not issue a permit if there is a “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” to the proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on Waters of the U.S., and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences.

The Executive Order (EO) for the Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) also regulates the activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, EO 11990 states that a federal agency, such as Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and/or Caltrans, as assigned, cannot undertake or provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: (1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction and (2) the project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm. A Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding must be made.

State
At the state level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In certain circumstances, the California Coastal Commission (or Bay Conservation and Development Commission or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) may also be involved. Sections 1600 through 1607 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG) require any agency that proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW before beginning construction. If CDFW determines that the project may substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFW jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands under INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-9
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
jurisdiction of USACE may or may not be included in the area covered by a Streambed Alteration Agreement obtained from the CDFW.

The RWQCBs were established under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee water quality. Discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA. In compliance with Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCBs also issue water quality certifications for activities which may result in a discharge to Waters of the U.S. This is most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request. Please see Section 2.2.2, Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff for more details

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Potentially jurisdictional waters within the BSA are summarized in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR) (February 2021) and the NES (October 2021).

An approved preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) was obtained on April 20, 2021.

The study area for wetlands and other waters includes water bodies within the BSA that could be affected by erosion or fill during project construction. There are 8.14 acres of wetlands and waters within the BSA (see Figure 2.3-2 and Figure 2.3-3 for wetlands adjacent to project area). Potential waters of the U.S. present within the BSA provide essential ecosystem services that include habitat for plants and wildlife, water quality, and ecological functions.

The waters and wetlands of the U.S. within the BSA provide essential ecosystem services, including habitat for plants and wildlife, water quality, and ecological functions.

For example, palustrine wetlands are inland freshwater areas dominated by vegetation that serve as breeding areas, habitats, and water filters for a variety of species.

Estuarine areas, such as Radio Tower Pond and the Model Yacht Basin (Berkeley Aquatic Park), are partially enclosed coastal water bodies that contain a mix of freshwater from rivers and streams with salt water from the ocean. This unique habitat type is critical for many birds, mammals, fish, and other wildlife species. Estuarine areas can also help function as buffers between the land and ocean by absorbing flood waters and dissipating storm surges.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-10
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
As documented in the ARDR and PJD, the BSA contains 7.645 acres of potentially jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.495 acre of potentially jurisdictional waters. A total of 8.14 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. resides within the BSA. Such waters are found in the San Francisco Bay, as well as in Radio Tower Pond and Model Yacht Basin, located to the east of I-80. Wetlands are found in narrow bands around the ponds. No wetlands are present adjacent to the San Francisco Bay within in the BSA. The PJD confirmed that the aquatic features within the BSA are waters of the U.S. subject to USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction due to their proximity and hydrologic connectivity to the San Francisco Bay, which is considered a traditionally navigable water. Radio Tower Pond and Model Yacht Basin and their banks are also anticipated to be subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1600 of CFGC and provide suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife species.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-11
INTERSTATE-80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Aquatic Resources Delineation 1 of 2 Figure 2.3-2
Source: Horizon, 2021
INTERSTATE-80/ASHBY AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Aquatic Resources Delineation 2 of 2 Figure 2.3-3
Source: Horizon, 2021
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative assumes that existing conditions would remain the same and no further action or improvements would occur. Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements outside of the BSA. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands and other waters would occur under the No Build Alternative.

Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would require the construction of a new drainage outfall at an outlet leading into the San Francisco Bay. This activity would result in the placement of permanent and temporary fill material within San Francisco Bay, a water of the U.S. A hydrologic analysis was used in the design of the new drainage outfall to inform the development of avoidance and minimization measures that would reduce adverse impacts due to changes in potential flows or stormwater discharge.

The Build Alternative would result in fill within 0.012 acre of wetlands within the USACE’s jurisdiction near Radio Tower Pond. Additionally, construction of the outfall would result in 0.007 acre of permanent impact to USACE jurisdiction non-wetland water in San Francisco Bay from construction of the new outfall. The Build Alternative would be constructed near potentially jurisdictional waters, and there is no practicable alternative that would avoid impacts to these resources.

Impacts to potential waters of the U.S. are summarized in Table 2.3-2. Construction of the Build Alternative would require the following permits relating to wetlands and other waters:
▪ USACE, Nationwide Permit 7 – Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures), Section 404, Clean Water Act
▪ RWQCB, Section 401 Certification
Construction of the Build Alternative may require an additional permit related to construction activities immediately adjacent to Radio Tower Pond. This will be determined during the design phase in coordination with CDFW. ▪ CDFW, 1602, Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-14
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2.3-2 Summary of Aquatic Resources Impacts
Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts
Feature Type Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet
Potentially Jurisdictional Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Estuarine
Emergent
-- -- -- --
Palustrine
Emergent
0 0 0.012 507
Potentially Jurisdictional Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.

Estuarine 0.019 831 0.007 301
Total Impacts
to Waters of
the U.S.

0.019 831 0.019 808
Source: Horizon Water & Environmental 2020
Temporary Construction Impacts
As shown in Figure 2.3-2, construction of the outfall would result in temporary impacts to 0.019 acre of non-wetland waters in the San Francisco Bay, within jurisdiction of the USACE. Project-related construction activities have the potential to impact water quality from erosion and sedimentation, and from jack and bore-related boring fluid/mud storage pits that could leak into the San Francisco Bay. This could affect the health of wildlife species within the area and cause a loss or degradation of aquatic habitat within the BSA and downstream. However, the implementation of standard Caltrans construction BMPs included in PF BIO-2 would reduce the likelihood of this project resulting in adverse impacts to water quality outside the project footprint. With incorporation of project features PF BIO-1 (avoidance of open water areas in Aquatic Park), PF BIO-3 (implementation of a SWPPP), and PF BIO-4 (construction-period water quality inspector), temporary impacts to other wetlands and water of the U.S. would be avoided and/or minimized. Refer to Appendix C for the full text of these project features.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would permanently impact 0.007 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.012 acre of palustrine emergent wetland. The overall scale of estuarine waters within the San Francisco Bay would not be substantially affected by the proposed project. Additionally, Caltrans would purchase mitigation credits at an approved bank or provide onsite restoration to offset project-related impacts to waters of the U.S. These factors indicate that the contribution of the proposed project in INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-15
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
comparison to the cumulative impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the San Francisco Bay would not be considerable. The proposed project would not substantially contribute to the cumulative loss of wetlands or other waters in the region.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
Incorporation of PF BIO-3 and PF BIO-4 will protect water quality within jurisdictional wetlands through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program and utilization of a water quality inspector during construction activities. Additionally, with adherence to PF BIO-7, work in the San Francisco Bay will be limited to the smallest area possible to complete propose construction activities. See Appendix C for the full text of these project features.

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM BIO-2: Limit In-Water Work Area to Smallest Area Possible – Work within the San Francisco Bay and wetlands will be limited to the smallest area possible to complete the proposed construction activities. Additionally, along the San Francisco Bay and in the vicinity of Radio Tower Pond and Model Yacht Basin, the contractor will delineate the project footprint to keep the contractor out of sensitive areas and reduce the extent of ground disturbance. AMM BIO-3 would minimize but not eliminate impacts to waters within the USACE’s jurisdiction.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM BIO-2.

Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1: Mitigation will be required for the unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources at the new outfall area within the BSA. Compensatory mitigation would occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio for permanent impacts (impact area to compensation area) to assure no-net-loss of waters of the U.S., and the final mitigation ratio will ultimately be determined through Caltrans’ coordination with the USACE during the Section 404 permitting process. Mitigation may occur through one or a combination of on- or off-site mitigation, the purchase of mitigation bank credits, and/or payment of an in-lieu fee. On- and off-site mitigation options include preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the values and functions of wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-16
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

2.3.3 PLANT SPECIES

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal and State
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special-status plant species. “Special-status” species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to population and habitat declines.

Special status is a general term for species that are provided varying levels of regulatory protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and endangered species; these are species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under FESA and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Please see Section 2.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species in this document for detailed information about these species. This section of the document discusses all other special-status plant species, including CDFW species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare and endangered plants.

The regulatory requirements for FESA can be found at 16 U.S. Code Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 402. The regulatory requirements for CESA can be found at CFG, Section 2050, et seq. Department projects are also subject to the Native Plant Protection Act, found at CFG, Section 1900-1913, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), found at California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21177.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is based on the NES prepared for the proposed project (October 2021).

The BSA for plant species includes all areas of ground disturbance and aquatic disturbance that would occur under the proposed project. Searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), CNPS, and USFWS databases were used to determine those plant species that have a potential to occur in the BSA. A total of 88 species where found as having a potential to occur in the region. No special-status plant species were encountered during biological reconnaissance-level surveys, and such plants are unlikely to occur in the BSA due to poor habitat conditions and the urbanized and developed nature of the project area.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-17
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements. The No Build Alternative would have no effect on special-status plant species.

Build Alternative
No special-status plant species were observed within the BSA, and such plants are unlikely to occur in the BSA due to the developed nature of the project area. Therefore, Caltrans does not anticipate this project will affect special-status plant species.

Temporary Construction Impacts
No construction impacts to special-status species would occur as none are present within the BSA.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed, special-status species are unlikely to occur within the BSA; therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on plant species.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
No applicable project features.

Avoidance and Minimization
No applicable AMMs.

Compensatory Mitigation
No compensatory mitigation would be required.

2.3.4 ANIMAL SPECIES

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal and State
Many state and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service), and the CDFW are responsible for implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-18
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
requirements associated with animals not listed or proposed for listing under FESA or CESA. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed in Section 2.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species below. All other special-status animal species are discussed here, including CDFW fully protected species and species of special concern.

Federal laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:
▪ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
▪ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
▪ Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
State laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:
▪ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
▪ Sections 1600 – 1603 of the CFG
▪ Sections 4150 and 4152 of the CFG
▪ Sections 3503 and 3505.5 of the CFG

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is based on the NES prepared for the proposed project (October 2021).

The BSA for animal species includes all areas of ground disturbance and aquatic disturbance that would occur under the proposed project. The identification of specialstatus animal species with the potential to occur in the BSA is based on a search of USFWS, CNDDB, and NMFS databases. These searches identified a total of 5 specialstatus fish and 55 special-status animal species with potential to occur in the region.

Based on biological field surveys, suitable habitat exists within the BSA for eight of these species: northern harrier (Circus hudsonius [formerly cyaneus]), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), western pond turtle (Emys [=Actinemys] marmorata), southern DPS green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). Although these species have the potential to occur within the BSA, none were observed during biological surveys.

Migratory bird species protected by MBTA and/or CFGC may utilize the BSA for foraging and nesting activities, though the potential for this remains low due to the INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-19
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
developed nature of the project area. There are only small, isolated patches of habitat within the BSA. Suitable nesting substrate for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great egret (Ardea alba), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) occurs in limited portions of the BSA and adjacent areas. Several other bird species, such as cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), could nest on structures and vegetation within and adjacent to the BSA.

Animal Species in the BSA
Animal species vary between habitat types within the BSA. Animal species with potential to occur in the BSA are described below.

Northern Harrier
The northern harrier is a State Species of Special Concern (SSC). The northern harrier nests in marshes and moist fields, and forages over open areas. The northern harrier has the potential to occur due to the marginally suitable nesting habitat present outside of and adjacent to the BSA, but habitat is absent from the BSA itself due to frequent human activity, traffic, night lighting, and road noise.

White-Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite is a federally protected species. The species typically resides in ungrazed or minimally grazed grasslands, agricultural areas, and grass dominated wetlands. The white-tailed kite has a potential to occur near the BSA due to the presence of marginally suitable nesting habitat. The species is unlikely to occur in the BSA because of its developed nature.

The Western Pond Turtle
The western pond turtle is an SSC and is a predominantly aquatic turtle. Residing in ponds, marshes, rivers, and streams within the region, the western pond turtle has the potential to occur within open waters and stormwater basins within the BSA. Marginal brackish to marine aquatic habitat is present in the Aquatic Park lagoon, Model Yacht Basin, and Radio Tower Pond, but this would only provide temporary refuge for the species. Suitable permanent aquatic habitat is present in the freshwater wetland east of the lagoon.

Fish Species
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, Natural Communities, the San Francisco Bay provides suitable habitat for a variety of special-status fish species such as southern DPS green sturgeon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, Central Valley steelhead, and longfin smelt. Spawning habitat is absent from the BSA. These fish species are discussed further in Section 2.3.5, Threatened and INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-20
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Endangered Species. Caltrans will conduct consultation with NMFS and prepare a biological assessment to support effects findings regarding fish species.

Other Common Species within the BSA
Wildlife species typically associated with developed areas include striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Wildlife observed in developed cover includes domestic cat (Felis catus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock dove (Columba livia), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), Canada goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).

Wildlife observed in ruderal and California annual grassland includes mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), wild oat (Avena fatua), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus).

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
White-Tailed Kite and Northern Harrier
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements. Thus, the No Build Alternative would have no effect on white-tailed kite or norther harrier.

Build Alternative
Marginally suitable nesting habitat for northern harrier and white-tailed kite is present within grasslands and trees outside of and adjacent to the BSA, but not within the BSA itself. Therefore, direct permanent effects on the white-tailed kite and northern harrier are not anticipated.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Caltrans does not anticipate direct impacts to the white-tailed kite or northern harrier from construction of the proposed project. Project-related noise and vibration generated from construction activities could indirectly impact active nests of both bird species, if present near the BSA. Project features such as PF BIO-2 (standard Caltrans construction BMPs) will help minimize indirect effects on both species during construction.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-21
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Western Pond Turtle
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements. Thus, the No Build Alternative would have no effect on the western pond turtle.

Build Alternative
Western pond turtle could be indirectly impacted by project activities that affect water quality under the Build Alternative. Project features such as PF WQ-2 (compliance with water quality regulations) would ensure proper adherence to the requirements of the Caltrans MS4 permit and other regulatory agency requirements, which would avoid and/or minimize permanent effects on water quality. Furthermore, the project would not affect primary western pond turtle habitat within the BSA, which is present in the Aquatic Park lagoon.

Temporary Construction Impacts
No construction activities would occur within potential aquatic habitat for western pond turtle. Potential indirect impacts include aquatic habitat degradation from erosion and sedimentation during construction. Any water quality impacts would only affect a small fraction of suitable habitat for this species in the region, with better quality habitat present nearby in the Aquatic Park lagoon. Therefore, aspects of the proposed project affecting suitable aquatic habitat could result in temporarily degradation of aquatic habitat.

Nesting Birds
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements. The No Build Alternative would have no effect on nesting birds.

Build Alternative
There is a potential for this project to affect nesting migratory birds nesting on structures and vegetation within and adjacent to the BSA.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Active bird nests could be impacted by construction-related noise, which could disrupt the behavior of birds and cause them to abandon their nest.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-22
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
Temporary construction impacts to animal species would be avoided through implementation of standard BMPs as outlined in the list of project features, including PF BIO-5 (education regarding nesting birds), PF BIO-8 (appointment of biological monitors during construction), and PF BIO-9 (education program regarding common species in the BSA).

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM BIO-3: Nesting Bird Avoidance – Construction activities would be conducted so as to limit vegetation clearing and ground disturbing activities during the typical nesting bird season (February 1 to September 30) to the extent feasible.

AMM BIO-5: Prior to conducting work within Bay waters, a cofferdam will be constructed to create a dry work area. This will limit the potential for the project to result in water quality impacts and potential impacts to aquatic species habitat.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM BIO-3, and AMM BIO-5.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Caltrans and Alameda CTC would compensate for the loss of wetlands and waters of the U.S. by purchasing credits at a mitigation bank, or paying into an in-lieu fee program. See Appendix C for the full text of Mitigation BIO-1. This measure is also discussed in Section 2.3.2, Wetlands and Other Waters.

2.3.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal and State
The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is FESA: 16 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 402. This act and later amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as the FHWA (and Caltrans, as assigned), are required to consult with the USFWS and the NOAA Fisheries Service to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-23
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
under Section 7 may include a Biological Opinion with an Incidental Take statement or a Letter of Concurrence. Section 3 of FESA defines take as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or any attempt at such conduct”.

California has enacted a similar law at the state level, CESA, CFG Code Section 2050, et seq. CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. The CDFW is the agency responsible for implementing CESA. Section 2080 of the CFG prohibits "take" of any species determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the CFG as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions an incidental take permit is issued by CDFW. For species listed under both FESA and CESA requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of FESA, the CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the CFG.

Another federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the U.S., by exercising (A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10, 1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is based on the NES prepared for the proposed project (October 2021).

Federally Listed Species
The study area for animal species includes all areas of ground disturbance and aquatic disturbance that would occur under the proposed project. Lists of USFWS- and NMFSlisted species potentially occurring in the BSA were obtained for the proposed project.

Additionally, CNDDB and CNPS lists of special-status species occurrences in the BSA and surrounding vicinity, including federally listed species, were obtained prior to the biological surveys that were conducted as part of the NES. Recent CNDDB and CNPS lists were queried on July 3, 2021.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-24
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Evaluations of federally listed species resulted in a total of 17 species with “no effect” determination due to the lack of suitable habitat within the BSA. Evaluations resulted in a total of 5 species with “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” determinations due to the construction of the new outfall within Bay waters. AMMs are proposed that would avoid and minimize effects on federally listed wildlife species resulting from construction of the proposed project. Caltrans will conduct Section 7 consultation with NMFS and USFWS. Table 2.3-3 summarizes the proposed project’s impact on federally listed species.

Table 2.3-3 Federally Listed Species
Common
Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Effect Finding
green
sturgeon –
southern DPS
Acipenser medirostris Threatened May affect, but not likely to adversely affect.

Steelhead –
Central
California
Coast DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened May affect, but not likely to adversely affect.

Steelhead –
Central Valley
DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened May affect, but not likely to adversely affect.

Chinook
salmon -
Sacramento
River winterrun ESU
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha Endangered May affect, but not likely to adversely affect. longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys Candidate May affect, but not likely to adversely affect.
tidewater
goby
Eucyclogobius
newberryi Endangered No Effect
Delta smelt Hypomesus
transpacifus Threatened No Effect
chinook
salmon -
Central Valley
spring-run
ESU
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha Threatened No Effect
eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus Threatened No Effect
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-25
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Common
Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Effect Finding
San Bruno
elfin butterfly
Callophrys mossii
bayensis Endangered No Effect
Bay
checkerspot
butterfly
Euphydryas editha
bayensis Threatened No Effect
Mission blue
butterfly
Plebejus icarioides
missionensis Endangered No Effect
Callippe
silverspot
butterfly
Speyeria callippe Endangered No Effect
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense Threatened No Effect
California redlegged frog Rana draytonii Threatened No Effect Alameda
whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus Threatened No Effect
San Francisco
garter snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
tetrataenia Endangered No Effect
western
snowy plover
Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus Threatened No Effect
California
Ridgway’s rail Rallus obsoletus Endangered No Effect
California
least tern
Sternula antillarum
browni Endangered No Effect
southern sea
otter Enhydra lutris nereis Threatened No Effect
salt marsh
harvest
mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris Endangered No Effect
Note: District Population Segment (DPS); evolutionarily significant unit (ESU); Federal Endangered (FE); Federal Threatened (FT); Federal Candidate (FC), State Endangered (SE); State Threatened (ST); Fully Protected (FP); State Species of Special Concern (SSC).

Source: Horizon Water & Environmental 2020
State Listed Species
Based on a review of the CNDDB and CNPS lists of special-status species occurrences in the BSA and results of biological surveys, no state threatened, or endangered INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-26
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
species are expected to occur within the BSA (Table 2.3-4). Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have no effect on state listed species.

Table 2.3-4 State Listed Species
Common
Name Scientific Name State Status Occurrence in the BSA Mammals
Salt marsh
harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris Endangered
Not likely to affect:

Suitable saline wetland
habitat is absent from
the BSA.

Fish
Chinook
salmonSacramento
River winterrun
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha Endangered
Not likely to affect: The
BSA is not within the
known current range of
this species.

Longfin smelt Spirinchus
thaleichthys Threatened
Not likely to affect: The
BSA is upstream of a
tide gate which would
prevent passage of
longfin smelt into the
BSA.

Source: Horizon Water & Environmental 2020
Critical Habitat
USFWS and NMFS designated critical habitat to protect areas that are essential to the survival of federally listed species of plants and wildlife. The BSA contains critical habitat for southern DPS green sturgeon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, central California coast steelhead, and Central Valley steelhead within the San Francisco Bay.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements. Thus, the No Build Alternative would have no effect on state or federally listed species.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-27
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Build Alternative
Federally Listed Species
Evaluations of federally listed species resulted in a total of 17 species with “no effect” determinations due to the lack of suitable habitat within the BSA. Evaluations resulted in a total of 5 species with “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” determinations due to the construction of the new outfall within critical habitat in the San Francisco Bay.

These species are the southern DPS green sturgeon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, Central Valley steelhead, and longfin smelt. While construction would permanently impact 0.007 acre of critical habitat within the San Francisco Bay, the outfall structure would be located in shallow water along the shoreline where none of the fish listed above except southern DPS green sturgeon are expected to occur.

State Listed Species
Based on a review of the CNDDB and CNPS lists of special-status species and results of biological surveys, no state threatened or endangered species or their habitat are expected to occur within the BSA. Therefore, the Build Alternative would have no effect on state listed species.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Project construction activities in San Francisco Bay (namely construction of the drainage outfall) have the potential to affect critical habitat for the southern DPS green sturgeon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, and Central Valley steelhead. The project is unlikely to directly affect listed fish species. In-water work would be limited to the proposed outfall and placement of associated riprap. This work would be conducted in shallow-water areas where fish species are unlikely to be present. Cofferdams will be utilized to create a dry work area and to avoid potential impacts to aquatic habitat (AMM BIO-5). Project-related noise from installation of the temporary cofferdams could directly impact species, if present, through injury and/or behavioral shift. Therefore, a hydroacoustic evaluation would be conducted to determine the thresholds of impact. Furthermore, in-water work would be conducted outside the migratory period for listed fish species (AMM BIO-6). For steelhead, Chinook salmon, and green sturgeon, the migratory period occurs between November and June. Avoiding in-water work between November and June would reduce the likelihood project activities would adversely affect listed fish species. Water quality related BMPs would further minimize the potential for adverse effects from occurring.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-28
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed, the Build Alternative would not adversely effect on threatened and endangered animal species or habitat with incorporation of AMM BIO-2 and AMM BIO-5 through AMM BIO-7. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects on listed species.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF BIO-9: A Caltrans approved biologist will conduct an educational program to provide information on protected species and the habitats that are applicable to the study area.

Avoidance and Minimization
AMM BIO-2: Limit in-water work to the smallest area possible.

AMM BIO-5: Use cofferdams to create a dry work area and avoid potential impacts to aquatic habitat for wildlife.

AMM BIO-6: No in-water work during fish migration periods (November through June).

AMM BIO-7: Conduct a hydroacoustic evaluation of potential effects on protected fish species if pile driving is necessary for installation of cofferdams.

See Appendix C for the full text of AMM BIO-2, and AMM BIO-5 through AMM BIO-7.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

2.3.6 INVASIVE SPECIES

REGULATORY SETTING
On February 3, 1999, President William J. Clinton signed EO 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” FHWA guidance issued August 10, 1999, directs the use of the state’s invasive species list, maintained by the California Invasive Species Council to define the invasive species that must be considered as part of the NEPA analysis for a proposed project.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-29
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is based on the NES prepared for the proposed project (October 2021).

The study area for invasive species includes all areas of ground disturbance and aquatic disturbance that would occur under the proposed project. The invasive plant species listed in Table 2.3-5 were identified in numerous locations within the landscaped and ruderal areas and along surface roads within the BSA. Invasive plants observed include a broad range of species ranging from trees (such as Brazilian pepper trees and Ngaio trees) to grasses and weeds (such as yellow star thistle, veldt grass, and smilograss), and aquatic species (such as sea figs). Invasive birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, or fish were not observed in the BSA.

Table 2.3-5 Invasive Species Observed in the BSA
Scientific Name Common Name
Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia
Avena fatua wild oat
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Carpobrotus chilensis sea fig
Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle
Conium maculatum poison hemlock
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed
Ehrharta erecta veldt grass
Eucalyptus camaldulensis river red gum
Eucalyptus globulus blue gum eucalyptus
Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass
Foeniculum vulgare fennel
Hirschfeldia incana short-podded mustard
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce
Lepidium latifolium broad-leaf pepperwort
Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow
Myoporum laetum Ngaio tree
Piptatherum miliaceum (Stipamiliacea var. miliacea) smilograss INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-30
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Scientific Name Common Name
Plantago lanceolate English plantain
Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass
Raphanus sativus wild radish
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rumex crispus curly dock
Schinus terebinthifolia Brazilian pepper tree
Source: Horizon Water & Environmental 2020

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadways would remain unchanged except for planned and programmed improvements outside of the BSA. Disturbance of invasive plants and soil within the BSA would not occur. The No Build Alternative would have no effect on the spread or introduction of invasive species.

Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would disturb invasive plants and soil within the BSA. The BSA is known to contain several invasive plant species, construction activities could lead to the spread or introduction of invasive plants elsewhere. Since no invasive animal species were observed within the BSA, the Build Alternative would be unlikely to result in the spread of invasive animals.

Temporary Construction Impacts
Construction of the Build Alternative could spread invasive plant species to areas where they are absent outside of the BSA if invasive plants are removed during clearing, grubbing, and construction and are not disposed of or transported correctly.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-31
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative effects from invasive species would occur if planned and foreseeable development in the area, when taken in combination with the proposed project, would result in the spread or distribution of invasive species. Caltrans does not anticipate this project would appreciably contribute to the spread of invasive species in the region above and beyond what is likely to occur due to urbanization. Caltrans will take measures to avoid and reduce the further spread of invasive species within the project area. Given this, there would be no cumulative effect related to invasive species.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Features
PF BIO-10: The project will be managed to reduce and minimize the propagation of invasive weeds through implementation of standard Caltrans BMPs.

PF BIO-11: The landscaping included in the project will not use species listed on the California list of invasive species.

Avoidance and Minimization
No avoidance and/or minimization measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.3-32

3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

EVALUATION

3.1 DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE UNDER CEQA
The proposed project is a joint project between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation, therefore, has been prepared in compliance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FHWA’s responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for the proposed project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 United States Code Section 327 (23 USC 327) and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016, and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. Caltrans is the lead agency under CEQA and NEPA.

One of the primary differences between NEPA and CEQA is the way significance is determined. Under NEPA, significance is used to determine whether an EIS, or a lower level of documentation, will be required. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared when the proposed federal action (project) as a whole has the potential to “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The determination of significance is based on context and intensity. Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not be of sufficient magnitude to be determined significant under NEPA. Under NEPA, once a decision is made regarding the need for an EIS, it is the magnitude of the impact that is evaluated, and no judgment of its individual significance is deemed important for the text. NEPA does not require that a determination of significant impacts be stated in the environmental documents.

CEQA, on the other hand, does require Caltrans to identify each “significant effect on the environment” resulting from the proposed project and ways to mitigate each significant effect. If the proposed project may have a significant effect on any environmental resource, then an EIR must be prepared. Every significant effect on the environment must be disclosed in the EIR and mitigated if feasible. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines list several “mandatory findings of significance," which also require the preparation of an EIR. There are no types of actions under NEPA that parallel the findings of mandatory significance of CEQA. This chapter discusses the effects of the proposed project and CEQA significance.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.1-1
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION

3.2 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This checklist identifies physical, biological, social, and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the proposed project will indicate that there are no impacts to a particular resource. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination.

The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.

Project features, which can include both design elements of the proposed project and standardized measures that are applied to all or most Caltrans projects such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measures included in the Standard Plans and Specifications or as Standard Special Provisions, are considered to be an integral part of the proposed project and have been considered prior to any significance determinations documented below. The annotations to this checklist are summaries of information contained in Sections 2.1, Human Environment through 2.3, Biological Environment.

3.2.1 AESTHETICS
Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade
the existing visual
character or quality of
public views of the site
and its surroundings?
(Public views are those
that are experienced
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-2
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
proposed project is in an
urbanized area, would
the proposed project
conflict with applicable
zoning and other
regulations governing
scenic quality?
d) Create a new source
of substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. From the west side of the interchange, viewers have unrestricted scenic vistas of San Francisco Bay, Angel Island, Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, and Mount Tamalpais. These resources are also visible from within the interchange, but the views are intermittently obstructed by existing transportation infrastructure and signage. Views from the east side of the interchange are also intermittently obstructed by transportation infrastructure as well as nearby commercial and residential buildings in Emeryville.

The proposed project would replace the existing overcrossing structures with new overcrossing structures of a similar mass and scale. Additionally, a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing (BPOC) structure would be constructed across I-80 on the south side of the interchange. Refer to Figure 2.1-3 through Figure 2.1-20 in Section 2.1.10, Visual/Aesthetics for a comparison of existing conditions photographs to simulated views of the proposed project.

These changes would not affect unrestricted views on the west side of the interchange.

While the new BPOC would be taller than existing structures within the interchange, views of distant vistas from the I-80 corridor would still be visible through the BPOC structure. Existing partially obstructed views of scenic vistas would not change substantially and the impact would be less than significant.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-3
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no state scenic highways or highways eligible for such designation located within the visual study area (VSA). No rock outcroppings or other similar features would be altered. The proposed project would require tree removal; however, all removed trees would be replaced or replanted within the project limits on site according to standard Caltrans processes outlined in project features (PF) PF VIS-3 through PF VIS-5 and AMM BIO-1 (see Appendix C for the full text of these project features). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in temporary and permanent changes to the visual environment within the VSA. Temporary visual impacts from short-term construction activities are anticipated. Construction activities required for the proposed project would include excavation, drilling, dewatering, pavement demolition, bridge demolition, mass grading, concrete form work, pavement installation, storm system installation, highway planting and irrigation, sign installation, striping operations, and traffic control.

Construction of the proposed project would comply with all applicable construction regulations, standards, and procedures including BMPs. Project construction would be completed with standard construction equipment and protocols as described in Section

1.0, Proposed Project. These protocols and equipment are required for all Caltrans projects and are not considered mitigation. Visual impacts during construction would be temporary in nature and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the VSA. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.

Once operational, the proposed project would moderately alter existing views within the VSA. The proposed project would replace existing overcrossing and ramp structures on I-80 and add a new BPOC structure. While the BPOC would be taller than existing infrastructure within the interchange, it would be consistent with similar structures along I-80, particularly the existing BPOC at University Avenue.

While changes under the proposed project would result in more manmade features and less vegetation, the I-80 corridor would continue to be the dominant visual feature in the area. Incorporation of PF VIS-1 (preservations of existing vegetation) and PF VIS-4 (landscape plantings) would ensure that any removed highway plantings would be replaced within the existing interchange, and new structures such as retaining walls or bridges, would undergo aesthetic treatments consisting of color, texture, and/or patterning to ensure consistency within the existing transportation corridor (refer to I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-4
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Appendix C for the full text of all project features). Additionally, the replacement of all removed trees at a 1:1 ratio within the existing interchange per avoidance and minimization measure PF VIS-3 through PF VIS-5 and AMM BIO-1 would avoid impacts related to tree removal. With incorporation of PF VIS-1, PF VIS-4, and AMM BIO-1, negative visual changes from the proposed project would be minimized and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character and visual quality of the VSA.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. During construction, new sources of light or glare would be installed within construction staging areas and along new on-and off-ramps throughout the VSA. This incremental increase in nighttime lighting would be temporary in nature. Adherence to appropriate light and glare screening measures as required by Caltrans, such as downward cast lighting would be employed at construction staging areas. With adherence to standard measures as described in PF VIS-6 (light and glare minimization), construction impacts would be less than significant.

Once operational, the proposed project would result in more man-made features and a change in vegetation and would include new lighting fixtures that would introduce a new source of light and glare at night. The incremental increase in nighttime lighting would not be noticeable in the context of existing nighttime lighting in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would continue to be consistent with the existing transportation corridor setting and would not adversely affect the key elements of visual character within the visual impact study area. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-5
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION

3.2.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared
pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of
the California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-6
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code section
4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined
by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of
forest land or conversion
of forest land to nonforest use?
e) Involve other changes
in the existing
environment which, due
to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
And
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, there is no Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland located within proximity to the project area.1 In addition, there is no land protected under a Williamson Act within the vicinity of the project area and the proposed 1 California Department of Conservation, 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.

Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: March 2020.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-7
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
And
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The urbanized project area does not contain any forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland as defined by the Public Resources Code section 4526, or property zoned for Timberland Production as defined by Government Code section 51104(g). There are no forest lands adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. No impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. No farming operations or forest lands exist on or near the project area, therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of farmland or conversion of forest land. No impact would occur.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-8

CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION

3.2.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or
obstruct implementation
of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a
cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including
releasing emissions
which exceed
quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other
emissions (such as
those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-9
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Information in this section is based on the Air Quality Report (October 2021). a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project is included in the Plan Bay Area 2050 financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (ID 17-01-0037) which was found to conform by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and FHWA and Federal Transit Administration made a regional conformity determination finding on December 17, 2018. The proposed project is also included in MTC’s financially constrained 2019 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (ID ALA170002). The MTC determined that the 2019 Regional TIP conformed with FHWA and Federal Transit Administration on December 17, 2018. The design concept and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in the 2019 RTP and Regional TIP, and the “open to traffic” assumptions of the MTC’s regional emissions analysis. The proposed project was found to be in regional conformance with the State Implementation Plan and would not conflict with implementation of applicable local air quality plans. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
And
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The project area is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, under jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

The Basin is designated nonattainment for ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) for state standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards.

Because the proposed project is included in a conforming RTP and TIP, emissions of ozone precursors from project-related traffic are not anticipated to cause or contribute to, or worsen, any violations of the federal air quality standards for ozone. Furthermore, the proposed project would be expected to improve traffic flow and relieve congestion in the I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange (interchange), which would be expected to reduce vehicle idling and associated emissions. The direct access to Shellmound Street from westbound I-80 along with the proposed project’s enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access would result in a reduction in local traffic. The impact would be less than significant.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-10
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The proposed project would replace the existing interchange with a redesigned interchange and a new BPOC structure. The new improvements would be a similar use to existing conditions and would not include any new sources of emissions, including any that would create objectionable odors. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.

3.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species
in local or regional
plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on
federally protected
wetlands as defined by
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-11
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct
removal, filling,
hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially
with the movement of
any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a
tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural
Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-12
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Information in this section is based on the Natural Environment Study (NES) prepared for the proposed project (November 2021).
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? And
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project could affect eight special-status species, which are identified below, along with their listing status:
• Acipenser medirostris (green sturgeon – southern DPS), federally threatened • Oncorhynchus mykiss (steelhead – Central California Coast DPS), federally threatened
• Oncorhynchus mykiss (steelhead – Central Valley DPS), federally threatened • Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Chinook salmon – Sacramento River winter-run ESU), federally endangered/state Endangered
• Spirinchus thaleichthys (longfin smelt), federal candidate/state threatened • Emys (=Actinemys) marmorata (western pond turtle), State Species of Special Concern
• Circus hudsonius (formerly cyaneus) (northern harrier), State Species of Special Concern
• Elanus leucurus (white-tailed kite), state fully protected Construction of the new outfall would permanently impact up to 0.007 acre within the San Francisco Bay, which is federally-designated critical habitat for the southern DPS green sturgeon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, central California coast steelhead, and Central Valley steelhead. However, the outfall structure would be located in shallow water along the shoreline where the fish listed above are not expected to occur. Furthermore, impacts to green sturgeon, Central Valley and Central California Coast steelhead DPS, Chinook salmon, and longfin smelt would be avoided and/or minimized with implementation of standard BMPs as outlined in AMM BIO-2 (minimize impacts to aquatic resources), AMM BIO-5 (avoid in-water work in the San Francisco Bay during fish migration periods), and AMM BIO-6 (use of coffer dams to create a dry work area). With incorporation of these avoidance and minimization measures into the proposed project, the loss of critical habitat for green sturgeon, I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-13
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Central Valley and Central California Coast steelhead DPS, Chinook salmon, and longfin smelt would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required for the purposes of CEQA.

Western pond turtle could be indirectly impacted by project activities that affect water quality. Project features such as PF WQ-2 (compliance with water quality regulations) would ensure proper adherence to the requirements of the Caltrans MS4 permit and other regulatory agency requirements, which would avoid and/or minimize permanent effects on water quality. Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the primary western pond turtle habitat within the BSA, which is present in the Aquatic Park lagoon.

Therefore, impacts to the western pond turtle would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Construction of the proposed project could result in indirect noise and vibration impacts to nesting northern harrier and white-tailed kite. Nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act potentially occurring throughout the project area could also be impacted by construction and noise impacts. In both cases, the proposed project could result in indirect impacts on active nests if present near the project area. Implementation of standard BMPs as outlined in AMM BIO-3, (nesting bird avoidance) would avoid impacts to active nests of northern harrier and white-tailed kite near the project area.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would result in fill within

0.012 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands within the USACE’s jurisdiction near Radio Tower Pond. This wetland area is separated from the Radio Tower Pond by a berm dominated by upland vegetation and is underlain by asphalt associated with the Radio Tower parking lot. Additionally, construction of the outfall would result in 0.007 acre of permanent impacts to USACE jurisdiction non-wetland waters in the San Francisco Bay from construction of the new outfall. Work within the San Francisco Bay will be limited to the smallest area possible to complete proposed construction of the outfall.

Implementation of a cofferdam, as outlined in AMM WQ-4 (minimization of impacts to aquatic resources) and AMM BIO-4 (limitation of in-water work area to smallest area possible), would further avoid water quality impacts on federally protected or potentially affected wetlands. Construction within the San Francisco Bay will last approximately 35 working days.

Mitigation Measure
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-14
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be required pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources within the BSA. This measure would require that impacted aquatic resources be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio for permanent impacts (impact area to compensation area) to assure there is a no net loss of waters of the U.S., and the final mitigation ratio will ultimately be determined through Caltrans’ coordination with USACE during the permitting phase of this project (for the full text of this measure, refer to Appendix C). With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, and adherence to AMM WQ-4 and AMM BIO-2, impacts to wetlands and waters would be less than significant with mitigation. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The Model Yacht Basin and Radio Tower Pond are muted tidal features and have connection to the San Francisco Bay via existing culverts. They are not considered migratory corridors nor expected to be routinely used by migratory or anadromous aquatic species. The ponds do not provide connections to stream habitats, and so would not be considered part of migratory corridors for anadromous fish. Work within the San Francisco Bay would be limited to shallow coastal areas where migratory fish are not expected to occur.

The area within the BSA is highly urbanized and developed leaving only small, disconnected patches of habitat. Given this, construction and operation of the proposed project would not impact wildlife or fish movement through the project area. No impact would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. A total of 445 trees are present within the BSA. Some of these trees are subject to regulation under local tree ordinances in Emeryville and Berkeley. Trees within the BSA provide aesthetic value and other benefits to the community and could provide habitat and food sources for local wildlife. A maximum of 149 trees would be removed by the proposed project and would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio as required in avoidance and minimization measure AMM BIO-1. All replacement planting would be accommodated within the existing interchange. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-15
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The project footprint does not overlap with an adopted conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not conflict with any such plans and no impact would occur.

3.2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Information in this section is based on the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) prepared for the proposed project (August 2020).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No Impact. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) contains the KRE Radio Station that qualifies for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources. However, the boundaries of the historic property are limited to the KRE Radio Station building and do not include the area where proposed improvements along Bay Street would modify guy wires supporting the radio tower. No other listed or I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-16
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION potentially eligible resources are present within the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. While no archaeological or Native American cultural resources have been recorded in the APE, it is possible that an unrecorded resource, such as cultural materials or human remains, could be unearthed during construction.

This could result in damage to the resource and would be considered an adverse effect.

As discussed in Section 4.0, Comments and Coordination, a field review of the project area was conducted on February 13, 2020, by Chairperson Perez and two other tribal representatives, along with Caltrans District 4 archaeology personnel, Kathryn Rose and Katie Jorgensen. Chairperson Perez expressed concern for the potential of deeply buried cultural resources beneath the fill on which I-80 and the interchange has been constructed. Project team members shared the general excavation would only be up to 10 feet, while cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations would require drilled excavations of approximately 80 feet. Thus, while possible, the likelihood of discovering deeply buried cultural resources is low.

Furthermore, potential impacts would be minimized by halting work until the resource can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist (PF CUL-1) and notifying the Most Likely Descendent of human remains (PF CUL-2). With incorporation of these project features, impacts to archaeological resources are expected to be less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact. No previously recorded archaeological or Native American cultural resources are within the APE. Implementation of PF CUL-2 would require the halting of construction should human remains be discovered within the project footprint and would adhere to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 regarding the treatment of discovered remains. With incorporation of PF CUL-2 into the project, there would be no impacts to human remains.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-17
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION

3.2.6 ENERGY
Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or
operation?
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
And
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not a capacity increasing project. The proposed project would result in direct energy use during construction.

However, the energy expenditure would be offset by the long-term operational energy savings associated with reduced local traffic congestion. The proposed project would increase alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing direct energy consumption through bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements. The impact would be less than significant.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-18
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION

3.2.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that
would become unstable
as a result of the
proposed project, and
potentially result in onor off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-19
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Would the proposed
project:

Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable
of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks
or alternative
wastewater disposal
systems where sewers
are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geological feature?
Information in this section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? No Impact. During an earthquake, surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken as a result of fault movement. Surface rupture mostly occurs along active faults.

The project area is not within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and no known or mapped active faults pass through the project area. Therefore, the potential for ground surface rupture due to faulting is extremely low to non-existent. There would be no impact.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-20
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
or
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The project area is in a liquefaction zone. Regional faults could result in strong seismic groundshaking. The project area is susceptible to liquefaction due to the presence of loose, saturated and cohesionless soils present in the project area. During construction, groundshaking could pose a risk to workers through the collapse of structures. Adherence to PF GEO-1 would ensure construction worker safety in the event of groundshaking by requiring employers to adhere to the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Caltrans’s hazard-specific standards, as well as standard design and construction guidelines.

Strong groundshaking could also occur during project operation, threatening the collapse of structures and impacts to motorists travelling through the project area.

Adherence to PF GEO-3 would require incorporation of findings from structure foundation reports and geotechnical design reports, as well as standard Caltrans design features that would ensure the project design would accommodate the risks of groundshaking. All project components including the foundations would be designed to meet current Caltrans design standards for structures. Caltrans seismic design procedures would ensure structural integrity, including addressing risks from liquefaction.

With incorporation of PF GEO-1, PF GEO-3, and all standard Caltrans seismic design procedures, impacts from groundshaking and liquefaction during construction and operation would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project area and its surroundings are flat and highly urbanized. The project area does not have any steep slopes or hillsides that would be susceptible to landslides. Further, the project area is not located in a landslide hazard zone.

Landslides would not pose a risk during project construction or operation. There would be no impact.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. Soil erosion related to the project would be avoided with the incorporation of standard Caltrans BMPs included in PF BIO-2, PF WQ-1, PF WQ-10. Such BMPs would prevent erosion and the loss of topsoil by ensuring appropriate drainage on-site during construction and permanently stabilizing slopes with vegetation, netting, blankets, and/or paving where necessary. No impact would occur.

I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-21
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in settlement, subsidence, collapse, lateral spreading, or landslide on- or off-site. As the project area is characterized by flat topography, landslide and lateral spreading would not pose a risk to the proposed project or the surrounding area. Furthermore, all project components including the foundations would be designed to meet current Caltrans design standards for structures. Caltrans seismic design procedures would ensure structural integrity including potential for subsidence and liquefaction. This impact would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. Based on available as-built boring data, expansive clays were not encountered near the surface. The proposed project would not create substantial risk to life or property due to being located on expansive soil and no impact would occur. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks during project construction or operation. There would be no impact. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
No Impact. There are no documented paleontological resources in or near the project area. However, fossiliferous Pleistocene-age deposits may be present within the study area beneath the Holocene-age sediments starting at depths of 25 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Excavation for CIDH pile foundations would extend approximately 80 feet below the existing ground surface and could therefore encounter unrecorded paleontological resources, potentially resulting in direct damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.