No Impact Environmental Assessment Modernizing … · draft finding of no significant impact...

Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment Modernizing and Operating Training Ranges at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda County, Dublin, California

Prepared for

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District

June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

DRAFT Finding of No Significant Impact

Modernizing and Operating Training Ranges at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,

Alameda County, Dublin, California

Introduction Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500 to 1508, 42 United States Code 4321 et seq., and “Environmental Analysis of Army Actions,” 32 CFR Part 651, the Department of the Army prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences of modernizing and operating five training ranges (range B-2 through range B-6]) at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA), Dublin, California. The EA is attached to this finding of no significant impact (FNSI).

PRFTA is a 2,478-acre Army Reserve training site located in northern California, approximately 40 miles southeast of San Francisco in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties near the cities of Dublin and San Ramon. In November 2012, the Army prepared the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Modernizing and Operating Training Ranges on Previous or Existing Range Sites on Army Training Areas (2012 PEA). The EA tiers in part from the 2012 PEA, which is available at https://aec.army.mil/Portals/3/nepa/RangePEA.pdf (if a certificate warning appears, choose to proceed to website) and www.ch2m.com/EA1 (during the public comment period).

Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide Soldiers and other service members in northern California with modern, operational small arms training range facilities to meet individual familiarization and weapon qualification requirements for pistol, rifle, shotgun, and inert grenades as established in Army doctrine. In 2009, the Army officially closed ranges B-2 through B-6 at PRFTA.

FHL contains the nearest Department of Defense-approved live-fire training facility to PRFTA. Military personnel assigned to PRFTA, or in proximity to PRFTA, are required to travel approximately 160 miles to FHL (typically on buses) to meet their individual qualification requirements on live-fire ranges. The need for the Proposed Action is to provide safe, effective small arms training ranges at PRFTA to support Soldiers and other service members in northern California while minimizing the use of limited readiness for traveling.

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action: The Proposed Action is to modernize and operate five training ranges on PRFTA. Alternatives 2 through 6 are to modernize and operate ranges B-2 through B-6 individually.

Alternatives Considered and Evaluated: Section 2 of the EA presents a discussion of the alternatives evaluated. Under any alternative, the Army based the analysis on the screening criteria presented in Section 1.4 of the EA, a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and Alternatives 2 through 6:

https://aec.army.mil/Portals/3/nepa/RangePEA.pdf

DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MODERNIZING AND OPERATING TRAINING RANGES AT PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA, ALAMEDA COUNTY, DUBLIN, CA

2 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Alternative 1—No Action: Under the No Action alternative, the five military training ranges (ranges B-2 through B-6) would remain closed, as they have been since 2009. Army Reserve Soldiers and other service member units in northern California would continue to travel to other Department of the Army-approved ranges for individual training. The nearest range is at FHL, 160 miles away. Ranges B-2 through B-6 would continue to degrade and not be brought up to current Army doctrinal standards.

Alternative 2—Modernize and Operate Range B-2 as a Hand Grenade Qualification Course (Non-firing) (FCC 17882): Range B-2 is proposed to be used as a Hand Grenade Qualification Course, using inert training grenades at up to seven stations. This range would be used to train individual Soldiers on the basic skills necessary to employ hand grenades against stationary target emplacements. This range would be a non-firing range; no live grenades would be used.

Alternative 3—Modernize and Operate Range B-3 as a Multipurpose Small Arms Range: Range B-3 is proposed to be developed as a fully contained small arms training range with a safety baffle system to support up to 50-meter target distance for pistol, M249-light machine gun, and M4/M16 rifle day- and night-fire for weapon qualification. The range would be designed and constructed to fully contain direct-fire projectiles and ricochets (i.e., a fully contained range), prevent the potential for dry season grass fires from tracer ammunition, and allow soldiers to train during periods when wildfire potential is high. This range would be used to train individual Soldiers on the skills necessary to align the sights and practice basic marksmanship techniques against stationary targets.

Alternative 4—Modernize and Operate the Basic 10-Meter/25-Meter Firing Range (Zero) (FCC 17801) at Range B-4: Alternative 4 proposes to modernize, renovate, and operate the former 25-meter Zero Range at range B-4, a partially contained range. As described in the 2012 PEA, a Zero Range is used to train individual Soldiers on the skills necessary to align the sights and practice basic marksmanship techniques against stationary targets. The range would be designed for training shot-grouping and zeroing exercises with the M16 and M4 series rifles and the M249 SAW.

Alternative 5—Modernize and Operate the Modified Record Fire (MRF) Range (FCC 17806) at Range B-5: Alternative 5 proposes to modernize, renovate, and operate the former MRF range at range B-5, a partially contained range. As described in the 2012 PEA, a MRF range is designed for training and day/night qualification requirements with M16/M4 rifles. This range would be used to train and test Soldiers on the skills necessary to identify, engage, and hit stationary infantry targets.

Alternative 6—Modernize and Operate Range B-6 as an Automated Combat Pistol/Military Police Firearms Qualification Course (CPQC/MPFQC) (FCC 17822) and Grenade Launcher Range (FCC 17884): Alternative 6 proposes to modernize, renovate and operate the former multipurpose CPQC/Grenade Launcher Range at range B-6, a partially contained range. As described in the 2012 PEA, a CPQC/MPFQC range is designed to meet training and qualification requirements with shotguns, combat pistols, and revolvers. A grenade launcher range utilizes target practice (i.e., inert) grenades and is designed to train and test soldiers on the skills necessary to engage and defeat stationary target emplacements.

Environmental Analysis Section 3 of the EA discusses the affected environment and potential consequences of the No Action and Proposed Action.

Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives: Section 3 of the EA discusses the affected environment and potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternatives 2 through 6.



Cumulative effects, also discussed in Section 3 of the EA, are the combination of impacts of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes those actions (CEQ Regulation 1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from actions occurring over a period of time that are minor when each is considered individually, but that are significant when viewed collectively. Table 1 summarizes the findings of Section 3. The level of cumulative impact displayed in the table represents the implementation of the Proposed Action to modernize and operate all five ranges.

Table 1. Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area

Alternative Impact of Proposed Action Cumulative Impact Impact Reduction Measure

Airspace

No Action Negligible Negligible None

Alternative 2 Negligible Negligible None

Alternatives 3 – 6 Negligible Negligible Establish a SARSA per DA PAM 385-63

Air Quality


Alternative 2 Minor Minor Implement dust control measures; mitigate NOx emissions during construction

Alternatives 3 – 6 Minor Minor Implement dust control measures; mitigate NOx emissions during construction

Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste


Alternative 2 Minor Minor None

Alternatives 3 – 6 Minor Minor None

Land Use



Alternatives 3 – 6 Negligible Negligible None

Operating Noise

No Action None None None

Alternative 2 Minor Minor None


Public Health and Safety



Alternative 3 – 6 Negligible Negligible Design elements and engineering controls


4 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Table 1. Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area


Special Status Species


Alternative 2 Moderate Moderate Pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures, passive relocation of species

Alternatives 3 – 6 Moderate Moderate Pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures, passive relocation of species

DA = Department of the Army NOx = nitrogen oxides PAM = pamphlet SARSA = small arms range safety area

The following environmental resources do not require additional project specific analysis because of their lack of relevance to the alternatives or because the 2012 PEA adequately analyzed the impacts of the Proposed Action, to include cumulative impacts on these resource areas: energy, socioeconomics, cultural resources, facilities and infrastructure, natural resources, soils and topography, solid waste, traffic and transportation, water resources, and wetlands.

Public Review and Comment The Draft EA and Draft FNSI were made available for public comment for a period of 30 days from February 17, 2017 through March 19, 2017. The Final EA and Draft FNSI will be made available for public review and comment from June 23, 2017, to July 22, 2017. Documents will be made available at the Dublin Public Library (200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA); Contra Costa County Library (Dougherty Station) (17017 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA); and Pleasanton Public Library (400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA). All documents are posted on the Internet at www.ch2m.com/EA1. Comments can be

submitted to Mr. Dan Gannod, U.S. Army Garrison, 620 6th Street, Dublin, CA 94568, or by email at [email protected]. Written comments submitted by July 22, 2017, will be considered and made part of the Administrative Record. The Army will make revisions, as appropriate, to the FNSI based on the comments resulting from the 30-day comment period.

Finding of No Significant Impact I have considered the results of the analysis in the EA and comments received within the public comment periods. Based on these factors, I have decided to implement Alternatives 2 through 6 for modernization and operation of five military training ranges at PRFTA. Implementation of the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment.

We recognize our continuing obligation to consult under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and that additional interagency coordination and permitting would be required during any phase of the project if unanticipated events occur, such as the discovery of archeological relicts or an endangered species.

This analysis fulfills the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), as well as the requirements of the “Environmental Analysis of Army Actions” (32 CFR Part 651). Therefore, issuance of a FNSI is warranted and an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary.

http://www.ch2m.com/EA1

mailto:[email protected]



______________________________

Gerald J. Hall Date Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Garrison Commander Parks Reserve Forces Training Area

F I N A L

Environmental Assessment Modernizing and Operating Training Ranges at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda County, Dublin, California

Prepared for

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District

June 2017

I

Contents Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. iii

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Installation Background ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Scope of the Analysis ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.5 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 1-4

2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................... 2-1 2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Alternative 2 – Modernize and Operate Range B-2 as a Hand Grenade Qualification Course (Non-firing) (FCC 17882) ................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Alternative 3 – Modernize and Operate Range B-3 as a Multipurpose Small Arms Range ............................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.3 Alternative 4 – Modernize and Operate the Basic 10-Meter/25-Meter Firing Range (Zero) (FCC 17801) at Range B-4 .................................................... 2-5

2.2.4 Alternative 5 – Modernize and Operate the Modified Record Fire Range (FCC 17806) at Range B-5 ................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.5 Alternative 6 – Modernize and Operate Range B-6 as an Automated Combat Pistol/Military Police Firearms Qualification Course (CPQC/MPFQC) (FCC 17822) and Grenade Launcher Range (FCC 17884) .................................... 2-8

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ........................................ 2-11

3 Existing Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation ................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration ......................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Energy ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.3 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.4 Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.5 Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.6 Soils and Topography .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.7 Solid Waste ......................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.8 Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.9 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.10 Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Resources Considered in Detail ....................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Airspace .............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.3 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste ........................................................... 3-10 3.3.4 Land Use (including Encroachment) ................................................................. 3-12 3.3.5 Operating Noise ................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.6 Public Health and Safety ................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.7 Special-Status Species ....................................................................................... 3-16

3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... 3-21

CONTENTS

II

3.4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3-21 3.4.2 Environmental Resource Areas Excluded from Further Consideration ............ 3-21 3.4.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ............................. 3-21 3.4.4 Cumulative Impacts by Resource Category ...................................................... 3-23

4 List of Preparers, Agencies Contacted, and Distribution........................................................ 4-1 4.1 Preparers .......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Distribution List ................................................................................................................ 4-2

5 Summary of Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 5-1

6 References .......................................................................................................................... 6-1

Appendixes A Notice of 30-Day Period for Public Comment B Record of Non-Applicability C Installation Compatibility Use Zone Study (Sections Applicable to PRFTA)

Tables

3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 3-6 3-2 Summary of Proposed Action Emissions – Alternatives 2 – 6 ...................................................... 3-9 3-3 Proposed Action and Alternatives Ranges and Munitions ......................................................... 3-13 3-4 Special-status Species Potentially Occurring at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ................. 3-17 3-5 Planned Projects ......................................................................................................................... 3-21 4-1 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 5-1 Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area ........................................................................ 5-1

Figures

1-1 Site Location Map ......................................................................................................................... 1-7 1-2 Range Location .............................................................................................................................. 1-9 3-1 Natural Resource Features ......................................................................................................... 3-25

Exhibits

2-1 Typical Configuration for a Hand Grenade Qualification Course (not to scale) ........................... 2-4 2-2 Typical Configuration for a Basic 10-Meter/25-Meter Firing Range (Zero) (not to scale) ............ 2-6 2-3 Typical Configuration for a Modified Record Fire Range (not to scale) ........................................ 2-8 2-4 Typical Configuration for an Automated Combat Pistol/Military Police Firearms Qualification

Course (not to scale) ..................................................................................................................... 2-9 2-5 Typical Configuration for a M203 Grenade Launcher Range (not to scale)................................ 2-10

III

Acronyms and Abbreviations g/m3 microgram(s) per cubic meter

AR Army Regulation

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BCC Bird of Conservation Concern

BMP best management practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CFP State Fully Protected

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

CPQC Combat Pistol Qualification Course

CWA Clean Water Act

DA Department of the Army

dB decibel(s)

DNL day-night average sound level

DoD Department of Defense

DPW Directorate of Public Works

EA environmental assessment

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPR enhanced performance round

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FE Federal Endangered

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

IV

FHL Fort Hunter Liggett

FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FT Federal Threatened

GHG greenhouse gas

LTC Lieutenant Colonel

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MCOC munitions constituent of concern

mm millimeter(s)

MPFQC Military Police Firearms Qualification Course

MRF Modified Record Firing

N/A not applicable

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOX nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NSR New Source Review

O3 ozone

PAM pamphlet

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter

ppm part(s) per million

PRFTA Parks Reserve Forces Training Area

SARSA small arms range safety area

SAW squad automatic weapon

SDZ Surface Danger Zone

SE State Endangered

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SSC State Species of Special Concern

ST State Threatened

TC Training Circular

TM Technical Manual

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

V

USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Command

USAR U.S. Army Reserve

USARC U.S. Army Reserve Command

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC volatile organic compound

SECTION 1

1‐1

Introduction The Department of the Army (DA) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of modernizing and operating five training ranges (range B‐2 through range B‐6) at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA), Dublin, California. These training ranges support the individual Soldier skills, marksmanship, and qualification for small arms and inert grenades. This EA tiers in part from the November 2012 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Modernizing and Operating Training Ranges on Previous or Existing Range Sites on Army Training Areas (PEA) (USAEC, 2012), which is incorporated by reference and is available at https://aec.army.mil/Portals/3/nepa/RangePEA.pdf (if a certificate warning appears, choose to proceed to website) and www.ch2m.com/EA1 (during the public comment period). This document was developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (NEPA; 42 United States Code §4321 et seq.) and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1501 et seq.) and by the Army (32 CFR Part 651 et seq.).

1.1 Installation Background PRFTA, previously known as Camp Parks, is a 2,478‐acre Army Reserve training site located in northern California, approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties near the cities of Dublin and San Ramon (see Figure 1‐1).

PRFTA was initially established as a military installation for the Navy Seabees in 1942 on 3,900 acres of land including the former Dougherty Ranch. After World War II, Camp Parks was transferred within the Department of Defense (DoD) several times. Many facilities on the installation were built in the early 1950s. In 1951 the U.S. Navy transferred the property to the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Air Force modified PRFTA for use as an Air Force training base. From 1959 to 1980, the Army managed PRFTA and used it for various activities. In 1980, the Army activated the facility as a mobilization and training center for Army Reserve components. With the reorganization of the Reserve component, command and control passed from U.S. Army Forces Command in 1993, to the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC). In 2005, a Base Realignment and Closure decision resulted in relocating the 91st Training Support Division from PRFTA to Fort Hunter Liggett (FHL); the relocation was completed in 2009. In 2009, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) designated FHL as a Combat Support Training Center to support collective field training exercises for USAR Combat Support and Combat Services Support brigades (USARC, 2009). PRFTA is part of the FHL Combat Support Training Center and is located approximately 160 miles north of FHL.

PRFTA is divided into the training area in the northern portion of the installation and the cantonment area in the southern portion of the installation. The 1,991‐acre training area is used for military field training exercises. The 487‐acre cantonment area accommodates facilities for the PRFTA Garrison and all tenants supported by the installation. PRFTA is undergoing redevelopment, which involves transferring 171 acres of the cantonment area out of federal ownership. When finalized, this will reduce the cantonment area to approximately 316 acres. In return, PRFTA is receiving new installation facilities in the cantonment area at a comparable value (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

PRFTA presently supports 13 major tenants and 36 individual tenants that require primarily administrative facilities. PRFTA is the home station for 38 DoD units. Most of the office space at the installation is in direct and indirect support of training and unit stationing activities. PRFTA is the most accessible and economical training area for an estimated 250 Reserve component units and 20,000 reservists in northern California, supporting the USAR; Army National Guard; and Reserve units of the

SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION

1‐2

Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Other federal, state, and local agencies and groups also use the installation (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Since the early 1940s, the U.S. Military historically operated five small arms training ranges on the site now occupied by PRFTA. These training ranges are the site of the Proposed Action. The training ranges were constructed and operated within the boundaries of PRFTA in accordance with DoD standards. Range upgrades occurred and associated support facilities were constructed at various times. Surface Danger Zones (SDZs) met DoD standards of the time. Per Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 385‐63 , an SDZ delineates that portion of the earth and the air above in which personnel and/or equipment may be endangered by ground weapons firing or demolition activities (DA, 2014a). An SDZ includes the impact area or target zone, as well as a ricochet zone and a buffer zone.

Range B‐2 was inactivated in 2001 and weapon‐firing activities on ranges B‐3, B‐4, B‐5, and B‐6 were suspended on August 11, 2007, because of concerns that a rifle round that damaged a private residence could have originated at one of the PRFTA ranges. On March 23, 2009, at the request of the Garrison, the Army officially closed ranges B‐2 through B‐6.

Description of ranges B‐2 through B‐6 are provided below and their location is shown on Figure 1‐2:

Range B‐2 was originally established in c. 1942 as a Basic 10‐Meter Firing Range (Zero) with 14 firing points. The range was used as an M60 (7.62‐millimeter [mm] ammunition) machine gun practice range and a pistol (9 mm, .38 caliber, and .45 caliber) range. In 2001, this range was designated inactive. There are no permanent facilities at this site. The 2‐acre site is bordered on three sides by earthen berms.

Range B‐3 was originally established in c. 1942. In 1973, an overhead firing shed was built on the range. In 1985, the range was established as a Combat Pistol Course (FCC 17821) with 17 firing points for shotgun, and 9‐mm, .38‐caliber, and .45‐caliber pistols. There is a dilapidated overhead firing shed at the former firing line. The 2.6‐acre site is bordered on three sides by earthen berms.

Range B‐4 was originally established in c. 1942, and was rebuilt in 1975 and in 2002. In 1985, the range was established as a Basic 10‐Meter/25‐Meter Zero Range (FCC 17801) with 30 firing lanes. This range was used to practice and site M4 and M16 rifles using 5.56‐mm ammunition. Ranges B‐4 and B‐5 were used in conjunction with each other, with gunners sighting their weapons on range B‐4 and then moving to range B‐5 for annual qualification. There is a safety baffle between the firing points and target line, a 25‐meter target line, an overhead canopy at the backstop berm, and a control tower. The 2.9‐acre site is bordered on three sides by earthen berms.

Range B‐5 was originally established in c. 1942, and was rebuilt in 1975 and in 2002. In 1985, the training range was established as a Modified Record Firing (MRF) Range (FCC 17804) with 10 firing points. This range was used for gunner qualification with M4 and M16 rifles using 5.56‐mm ammunition. There are two rows of safety baffles between the firing points and multiple target lines between 50 and 300 meters, a dilapidated overhead canopy at the backstop, a covered ammunition handling area, and a control tower. The 20.5‐acre site is bordered on three sides by earthen berms.

Range B‐6 was originally established in 1942, and was rebuilt in 1975 as an M203 inert grenade launcher range. In 2002, an Automated Combat Pistol/Military Police Firearms Qualification Course (CPQC/MPFQC) (FCC 17822) was constructed. This training range was used to practice pistol (9‐mm, .38‐caliber, and .45‐caliber ammunition), shotgun, and M203 (40‐mm inert) grenade launcher firing. There are multiple targets between 7 and 31 meters and a range control tower. The 18.3‐acre site is bordered on three sides by earthen berms.


1-3

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide Soldiers and other service members in northern California with modern, operational training ranges and facilities to meet individual familiarization and weapon qualification requirements for pistol, rifle, shotgun, and inert grenades as established in Army doctrine. The Army’s force modernization program has increased the demand for individual training. As a result, greater reliance must be placed on using local training areas, such as PRFTA, for individual Soldier training. As described in the 2012 PEA, the Army needs to provide modern ranges that allow Soldiers and units to train with existing weapons using current war-fighting doctrine, tactics and procedures to ensure their success on the battlefield (USAEC, 2012).

FHL contains the nearest DoD-approved live-fire training facility to PRFTA. Military personnel assigned to PRFTA, or in proximity to PRFTA, are required to travel approximately 160 miles to FHL (typically on buses) to meet their individual qualification requirements on live-fire ranges. Reservists have a limited number of training days per year; therefore, time in transit to FHL or other installations reduces their ability to meet individual training requirements and impacts unit readiness.

The need for the Proposed Action is to provide safe, effective training ranges to support Soldiers and other service members in northern California. Units lose an average of 2 training days travelling back and forth to FHL in order to complete live fire, annually (DA, 2014b). Soldiers assigned to, or in proximity to PRFTA, would benefit from having the capability of meeting their individual training requirements without excessive time lost in transit. Approximately 7,000 Soldiers per year would be able to use the training ranges for their annual individual training qualification requirements based upon Reserve units stationed in northern California.

In 2015, USARC requested reopening ranges B-4 and B-6, and will request reopening the remaining ranges, as appropriate, once NEPA analysis is complete. Headquarters, DA approved preliminary analysis for reopening range B-4, and approved reopening range B-6. In addition to USARC and Headquarters, DA approval, NEPA and safety analysis per the Army Range Safety program (per DA PAM 385-63) are also required prior to live-fire on any training range.

1.3 Scope of the Analysis This EA addresses environmental and socioeconomic consequences associated with the implementation of proposed modernizing and operating five training ranges at PRFTA. This EA is in accordance with NEPA regulations issued by the CEQ (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the Army’s implementing procedures published in 32 CFR Part 651. This EA tiers from the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012).

The potential impacts from the No Action alternative and Proposed Action are analyzed under the following resource categories, which are consistent with the categories listed in the 2012 PEA, with the addition of Public Health and Safety:

Airspace

Air Quality

Hazardous Materials/Waste

Land Use (including Encroachment)

Operating Noise


Special-status Species

Resource areas that lack relevance to the Proposed Action or for which the 2012 PEA adequately analyzed the impacts of the Proposed Action do not warrant further consideration. These resource areas are listed below and a brief description of each resource is located in Section 3.2:


1-4

Energy

Socioeconomics

Cultural Resources

Facilities and Infrastructure

Natural Resources

Soils and Topography

Solid Waste

Traffic and Transportation

Water Resources

Wetlands

As part of the modernization and operation of the five training ranges at PRFTA, one or a combination of the Proposed Action Alternatives may be chosen. The final decision of which alternatives to be implemented would be included within a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), if applicable. If it is determined that implementation of the selected Proposed Action Alternative(s) would result in unavoidable or non-mitigatable significant environmental impacts, the Army would publish a Notice of Intent and initiate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

1.4 Screening Criteria Screening criteria are used to assess whether a proposed action and any alternatives are “reasonable.” A proposed action and alternatives carried forward for full analysis in the NEPA document must meet the following criteria:

Maximize training days by reducing travel time to DoD-approved ranges.

Provide a live fire training range that supports individual training requirements of service members within a reasonable proximity. Provide for training and qualification in the use of Army-issued pistols, shotguns, and M4/M16 rifles.

Make use of existing training ranges in order to minimize the potential for additional range and project impacts at new sites.

Support unit and individual readiness that is consistent with senior leader guidance.

Conform to PRFTA management plans, including the Real Property Management Plan, Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, and Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan.

Consider land constraint factors, to include topography, contaminated sites under the management of or proposed for inclusion under PRFTA’s Installation Restoration Program, cultural sites, presence of species protected under federal laws and regulations (such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]), and the presence of munitions of concern, wetlands, and flood zones.

Be cost effective as weighted against unit mission and Soldier readiness.

Meet the safety standards and requirements of the DA, FHL, and PRFTA.

Comply with existing federal, state, and local law, and Army Regulations (ARs) for environmental protection.

1.5 Public Involvement The Army invites public participation in the NEPA process. NEPA ensures that environmental information is made available to the public during the decision-making process and prior to actions being taken. The premise of NEPA is that the quality of federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents provide information on their actions to state and local governments and the public and involve them in the


1-5

planning process. The Intergovernmental Coordination Act and Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, require federal agencies to cooperate with and consider state and local views in implementing a federal proposal.

The command leadership team representing the 63rd Regional Support Command, USARC, FHL, PRFTA, and U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC) participated in a public scoping meeting on May 24, 2016, in San Ramon, California. The outcome of this public scoping meeting indicated that an EA is the appropriate NEPA level of analysis. On October 5, 2016, PRFTA Garrison Commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Gerald Hall, attended the Dougherty Valley San Ramon Rotary meeting to conduct a general garrison command brief. During the presentation, LTC Hall briefly covered the proposed plans modernizing and operating the training ranges at PRFTA.

In November 2016, approximately 2,500 general scoping letters were mailed to nearby residents and local interested parties in proximity to PRFTA. Two responses were received and considered during the preparation of the EA.

The draft EA and draft FNSI were made available to the public for comment for a period of 30 days at the Dublin Public Library (200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA), Contra Costa County Library (Dougherty Station) (17017 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA), and Pleasanton Public Library (400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA). The draft EA and draft FNSI also were made available to the public on the Army’s EA support contractor’s public website, www.ch2m.com/EA1. The public notice was published in the Tri-Valley Herald, the Valley Times, the Independent, and the Pleasanton Weekly newspapers. Copies of these public notices are provided in Appendix A. Written comments were received up to 30 days from publication of the notice on February 17, 2017; comments were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and in a combined comment letter from the Ohlone Audubon Society and the Alameda Creek Alliance. The Dublin San Ramon Services District responded that it has no comments on the project. The Army provided a copy of the 2012 PEA to the Ohlone Audubon Society and the Alameda Creek Alliance and gave them an additional 10 days to review and comment.

The following revisions were made to this final EA:

Minor revisions were made to Sections 1 and 2 of this EA.

Section 3.2.3, Cultural Resources, was updated to include a discussion of correspondence with Native American tribes, tribal groups, interested parties, and the State Historic Preservation Officer.

Section 3.3.3, Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste, was updated to include information from the Final Operational Range Assessment Program Phase 1 Qualitative Assessment Report (U.S. Army, 2008) regarding releases or source-receptor interactions that could present an unacceptable risk to off-range human health or the environment from the operational ranges and to present a summary of source-pathway-receptor interactions and conclusions.

Section 3.3.3, Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste, was updated to discuss the periodic re-evaluation of installations that were considered “Unlikely” during the Phase 1 assessment and the periodic review of PRFTA that was completed between May 2013 and February 2014 and to discuss the potential effects of metals from spent ammunition and the measures to reduce the potential effects.

Section 3.3.7, Special-Status Species, was updated to include information on western pond turtle observations in the vicinity of the Proposed Action and a discussion regarding compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Construction Permit (GCP) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to avoid releasing sediment and contamination into surface water.


1-6

Section 3.3.7, Special-Status Species, was updated to include information regarding the anticipated impact to wildlife resulting from operational noise at the ranges and a discussion regarding anticipated acclimatization of wildlife to military noise.

Section 3.3.7, Special-Status Species, was updated to include correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the current Biological Opinion and how it addresses potential impacts to California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander at the training ranges.

Section 3.3.7, Special-Status Species, was updated to include information on western burrowing owl surveys and expected populations within the Proposed Action area and an additional discussion regarding the passive relocation of birds near the Proposed Action area.

Section 3.3.7, Special-Status Species, was updated regarding Congdon’s tarplant to include information regarding locating soil stockpiles during construction, indications that Condgon’s tarplant can withstand disturbance, and observance of the plant in disturbed areas on PRFTA (Albion Environmental, 2010, 2012).

The final EA and draft FNSI were made available to the public for comment for a period of 30 days at the Dublin Public Library (200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA), Contra Costa County Library (Dougherty Station) (17017 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA), and Pleasanton Public Library (400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA). The final EA and draft FNSI also were made available to the public on the Army's EA support contractor’s public website, www.ch2m.com/EA1. The public notice was published in the Tri-Valley Herald, the Valley Times, the Independent, and the Pleasanton Weekly newspapers. An electronic copy of the final EA and draft FNSI were provided to the EPA, the Ohlone Audubon Society, and the Alameda Creek Alliance.

Parks Reserve ForcesTraining Area

San Ramon

Dublin

Pleasanton

Livermore

Real PropertyExchange Area

Range

Alameda CountyContra Costa County

580

680

Arthur H Breed Fwy

Tassa

jara

Rd

Isab

el A

ve

Stanley Blvd

Dou

gh

ert

y R

d

Dublin Blvd

84

680

FIGURE 1-1Site LocationParks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, CA

0 1.50.75

Miles

Legend

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area

Real Property Exchange Area

County Boundary

Range

San Jose

San Diego

Los Angeles

San Francisco

California

AlamedaCounty

Note:

1. Imagery Source: Esri ArcGIS Online World Imagery Service, 2014

Contra CostaCounty

Range Rd

Tower Rd

Cro

mw

ell A

ve

Fro

g B

end R

d

Parking Area

B-2B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

FIGURE 1-2Range LocationParks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, CA

0 400200

Feet

Notes:

1. Imagery Source: USGS EarthExplorer, February 20152. Range features provided by the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area

Legend

Range

Area of Potential Effects / Extent of Disturbance

Existing Earthen Berms

SECTION 2

2-1

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives The following section describes the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action to accomplish the purpose and need as stated in Section 1.2. Under the No Action Alternative (Section 2.1), the Proposed Action would not be implemented. Section 2.2 describes the Proposed Action, which includes each of the five training ranges as an alternative. One or a combination of the alternatives may be chosen to implement the modernizing and operating of the training ranges at PRFTA.

2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA regulations to encompass baseline conditions and serves as a benchmark against which the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action can be compared.

Ranges B-2 through B-6 would remain closed, as they have been since 2009. Army Reserve Soldiers and other service member units in northern California would continue to travel to other DA-approved ranges for individual training, as they have since 2007. The nearest ranges are at FHL, 160 miles away. Ranges B-2 through B-6 would not be brought up to current Army doctrinal standards. Range cleanup under the Military Munitions Response Program would be expected to resume.

Units stationed in northern California would continue to lose valuable and limited training days in order to travel to and from FHL or other training locations to meet individual grenade and small arms weapons qualification requirements. A training qualification event typically requires 4 days; 2 days are used for travel and 2 days for training. The cost to readiness is substantial because Army Reserve Soldiers are allotted a limited number of training days per year, and the required travel days reduces the number of days available per year for completing training tasks. In addition to the units assigned to PRFTA, thousands of Soldiers in the 63rd Regional Support Command footprint and the California National Guard would continue to be unable to use PRFTA training ranges to meet individual training requirements.

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented. Selection of the No Action Alternative would continue to harm the readiness of Reserve Soldiers and result in safety risks for the Soldiers and other service-members subjected to additional travel. Future modernization or operation of any of the training ranges would require NEPA analysis.

2.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives The Proposed Action is to modernize and operate five training ranges on PRFTA. Alternatives 2 through 6 are to modernize and operate ranges B-2 through B-6 individually. One or a combination of the Proposed Action Alternatives may be chosen to implement range modernization and operation at PRFTA. The total area encompassed by ranges B-2 through B-6 is approximately 57 acres, to include a construction buffer around each range, a parking area and a staging area (see Figure 1-1).

This EA analyzes five alternatives that each correspond to one of the five training ranges. Implementation of the Proposed Action would improve the efficiency, quality, and availability of individual Soldier training at PRFTA.

SECTION 2 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2-2

Associated range operation and control facilities, and common features for the training ranges described in Alternatives 2 through 6, are listed below. Individual range projects are listed under each alternative.

Ranges would be designed in accordance with DA PAM 385-63, Range Safety (DA, 2014a) and Training Circular (TC) 25-8, Training Ranges (DA, 2004).

Setup, modernization, construction, and maintenance activities would be conducted in accordance with current safety and doctrinal standards.

Administrative controls at each training range would be consistent with the applicable PRFTA range standard operating procedure to ensure adherence to all safety and range procedures during operations.

Each training range may include standard support facilities, such as a vault latrine, control tower, and storage facility, as well as covered areas for mess (feeding), ammunition breakdown and bleachers, as needed.

Existing or formerly used firebreaks would be maintained as needed to contain accidental fire that may be ignited from use of tracer ammunition at the training ranges. A substantial network of firebreaks has been established over many years.

The existing gravel parking area located adjacent to the ranges is in disrepair and would be repaired or upgraded as needed and resourced (see Figure 1-2).

Approximately 3 to 4 power poles and new power lines would be constructed at the training ranges. The power lines would extend from existing power lines on Range Road.

Construction staging would occur adjacent to the parking area.

To analyze the worst-case scenario of impacts to environmental resources, it is assumed that modernization of all five training ranges would occur simultaneously and would take approximately 1 year to complete. However, the Army would likely phase construction over a period of years, with the preference for completion within 3 years. Duration of construction at each range would vary depending on the level of modernization required.

Modernization may include upgrading or replacing existing facilities, targets, and software; demolition of inadequate facilities; and construction of new facilities. Construction equipment that is anticipated to be used during modernization and of the training ranges and parking area includes but is not limited to dump trucks, backhoes, and bulldozers.

Once active, the ranges would be scheduled and controlled from the Range Operations building on the cantonment area and through the range towers on-site for the automated ranges. The training ranges would support up to 200 individuals (a company size unit) at any given time. Based upon Reserve units stationed in northern California, It is estimated that approximately 7,000 Soldiers could use the PRFTA ranges annually. Soldiers would be transported to the ranges in tactical vehicles. Individuals would train on one or more of the ranges, based on their qualification requirements. The training ranges could be operated 7 days a week and support daytime and nighttime firing. Firing at the training ranges would be dependent on Soldier training requirements, safety parameters, weather, and site conditions. To analyze the worst-case scenario of impacts to environmental resources, it is assumed that ranges would be used full-time, which equates to 173 days and nights per year for Reserve component training ranges.

Ammunition for use by the Soldiers would be transported from a permanent ammunition supply distribution point for each specific training event. Units scheduling training would coordinate for ammunition to be delivered to PRFTA before the training event. Ammunition would be temporarily stored at PRFTA and any unused ammunition would be returned following the training event.


2-3

The features specific to each training range are discussed in detail below.

2.2.1 Alternative 2 – Modernize and Operate Range B-2 as a Hand Grenade Qualification Course (Non-firing) (FCC 17882)

Range B-2 is proposed to be used as a Hand Grenade Qualification Course, using inert training grenades at up to seven stations. This range would be used to train individual Soldiers on the basic skills necessary to employ hand grenades against stationary target emplacements. This would be a non-firing range; no live grenades would be used. No automation is required for this training range. All targets and facades would be set up at required distances. No change to the existing acreage is proposed.

The Hand Grenade Qualification Course would follow a similar configuration as depicted in TC 25-8 (DA, 2010), and shown on Exhibit 2-1. The final layout of features at range B-2 would make use of the existing range area, which is bordered by existing earthen berms and the range access road. Since this is a non-firing range, there would be no associated SDZ.

Activities or features specific to Alternative 2:

Remove the existing structures at the range, including signage, a shed, and a storage structure. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2017.

Construct up to seven individual stations using sand bags, foxholes, and targets (see Exhibit 2-1). No automation is required for this facility. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2017.

Construct a latrine, bleacher enclosure, and covered mess. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.


2-4

Exhibit 2-1. Typical Configuration for a Hand Grenade Qualification Course (not to scale)

2.2.2 Alternative 3 – Modernize and Operate Range B-3 as a Multipurpose Small Arms Range

Range B-3 is proposed to be developed as a fully contained small arms training range with a safety baffle system to support up to 50-meter target distance for pistol, M249-light machine gun, and M4/M16 rifle day- and night-fire for weapon qualification. The training range would be designed and constructed to fully contain direct-fire projectiles and ricochets (i.e., a fully contained range), to prevent the potential for dry season grass fires from tracer ammunition, and to allow Soldiers to train during periods when wildfire potential is high. This range would be used to train individual Soldiers on the skills necessary to align the sights and practice basic marksmanship techniques against stationary targets. The range would be designed for training shot-grouping and zeroing exercises with the M16 and M4 series rifles. No change to the existing acreage is proposed.

A standard multipurpose small arms range configuration is not available at this time; this training range would be designed specific to this site location and requirements. The range would feature a modernized overhead ballistic safety baffle system, concrete sidewall containment, and a concrete backstop with sacrificial wood cladding. A canopy baffle system would be erected over the firing line, with the overhead ballistic safety baffle system erected so that the shooter, from the shooting position allowed (or permitted), cannot see any sky downrange, either over the top of the backstop or to the sides of the range. The ballistic material used to construct the baffles would be engineered to fully


2-5

contain the direct-fire projectiles and constructed with a minimum of 150 mm (6 inches) of horizontal overlap between the trailing edge of any baffle and the leading edge of the next baffle downrange. The constructed concrete backstop and side wall containment would be engineered to prevent ricochet escapement. The final layout of features at range B-3 would be determined with further review and approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Huntsville District and the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

Because this training range would be designed to fully contain projectiles and ricochets, the SDZ would be fully contained within the footprint of the existing range area. The number of firing points and targets is not yet determined.

Weapons proposed for use on range B-3 are pistols, the M16 rifle, the M4 rifle, and the M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW). Ammunition proposed for day- and/or night-time use are 9 mm, .38 caliber, .45 caliber, and 5.56-mm, enhanced performance round (EPR), and tracer.

The following activities or features are specific to Alternative 3:

Demolish the existing structures, to include the overhead structure at the firing line and target system. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2017.

Design and construct a fully contained small arms training range with an overhead canopy at the firing line, overhead ballistic safety baffle system, concrete sidewall containment, concrete backstop, and modernized target system. Construction of the range would include up to 2.6 acres of hardened surfaces within the existing range area. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2019.

Construct support facilities as needed. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2019.

2.2.3 Alternative 4 – Modernize and Operate the Basic 10-Meter/25-Meter Firing Range (Zero) (FCC 17801) at Range B-4

Alternative 4 proposes to modernize, renovate, and operate the former 25-meter Zero Range at range B-4. As described in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012), a Zero Range is used to train individual Soldiers on the skills necessary to align the sights and practice basic marksmanship techniques against stationary targets. The range is designed for training shot-grouping and zeroing exercises with the M16 and M4 series rifles and the M249 SAW. Ammunition type includes 5.56-mm, EPR, and tracer. This range requires no automation; a typical range has 32 firing points. All targets are fixed at 25 meters from the firing line for M16/M4 and fixed at 10 meters for the M249 SAW (USAEC, 2012). No change to the existing acreage is proposed.

A standard Zero Range configuration is depicted in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012), and shown on Exhibit 2-2. The Zero Range layout at training range B-4 would retain 30 existing firing points rather than the standard 32, as well as modernizing the existing overhead ballistic safety baffle system to provide for a partially contained range. A partially contained range is one in which the SDZ is not fully contained within the range footprint but extends some distance downrange. Construction would result in minor ground disturbance and minor additional hardened surfaces and facilities within the existing range area, which is bordered by the earthen berms and range access road. Overhead baffles would be constructed with a minimum of 150 mm (6 inches) of horizontal overlap between the trailing edge of any baffle and the leading edge of the next baffle downrange. The structure elements and materials will vary depending upon the type and configuration of interior overhead containment and the configuration and geometry of side and backstop containment structures. The ballistic material used to construct the overhead baffles would be engineered to fully contain the direct-fire projectiles. Ricochets would not be fully contained but would be reduced by the overhead ballistic safety baffles and earthen side and back stop containment. A partially contained range requires an SDZ length equal to 50 percent of the maximum range of the most powerful round being used on the range, which approximates, but does not exceed, the PRFTA boundary downrange from training range B-4.


2-6

The limits of the range SDZ would be within the installation boundary. The final range design would be determined with further review and approval from USACE Huntsville District and TRADOC.


Modernize the existing overhead ballistic safety baffle system, upgrade the earthen side wall and back stop berms and construct an overhead canopy baffle at the firing line, to meet current safety and doctrinal standards. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Renovate the existing range control tower to meet current safety and doctrinal standards. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Construct a covered mess, latrine, and ammunition breakdown area. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Exhibit 2-2. Typical Configuration for a Basic 10-Meter/25-Meter Firing Range (Zero) (not to scale)

2.2.4 Alternative 5 – Modernize and Operate the Modified Record Fire Range (FCC 17806) at Range B-5

Alternative 5 proposes to modernize, renovate, and operate the former MRF range at range B-5 for M16/M4 rifle applications. As described in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012), a MRF range is designed for training day/night qualification requirements with rifles. This range would be developed as a partially contained range and used to train and test Soldiers on the skills necessary to identify, engage, and hit stationary infantry targets. The targets are fully automated, and the event-specific target scenario is computer driven and scored from the range operations center. Typical support facilities include a range tower, storage, classroom, latrine, bleachers, covered mess, and ammunition breakdown area. Ammunition type includes 5.56-mm, EPR, and tracer projectiles. A standard range has 32 firing points and 96 targets, and the range depth is a maximum of 300 meters (USAEC, 2012). No change to the existing acreage is proposed.

A standard MRF range configuration is depicted in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012) and shown on Exhibit 2-3. The MRF Range layout at range B-5 would retain 10 existing firing points rather than the


2-7

standard 32, as well as modernizing the existing overhead ballistic safety baffle system. Construction would result in ground disturbance and additional hardened surfaces within the existing range area, which is bordered by existing earthen berms and the range access road. Overhead baffles would be constructed with a minimum of 150 mm (6 inches) of horizontal overlap between the trailing edge of any baffle and the leading edge of the next baffle downrange. The structure elements and materials will vary depending upon the type and configuration of interior overhead containment and the configuration and geometry of side and backstop containment structures. The ballistic material used to construct the overhead baffles would be engineered to fully contain the direct-fire projectiles. Ricochets would not be fully contained, but would be reduced by the overhead ballistic safety baffles and earthen side and back stop containment. A partially contained range requires an SDZ length equal to 50 percent of the maximum range of the most powerful round being used on the range, which approximates, but does not exceed, the PRFTA boundary downrange from training range B-5.

The limits of the range SDZ would be within the installation boundaries. The final range design would be determined with further review and approval from USACE Huntsville District and TRADOC.


Demolish the existing structures, to include target systems, dilapidated overhead canopy at the backstop, and potentially the safety baffles. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2017.

Design and construct a modern training range, to include a canopy baffle at the firing line, overhead ballistic safety baffle system, upgraded earthen side wall and back stop berms, and computerized target system that meet current safety and doctrinal standards. The target system is expected to require trenching to replace existing electrical or pneumatic lines. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Construct a latrine, covered mess area, and bleachers. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Renovate the existing range control tower and ammunition breakdown area to meet current safety and doctrinal standards. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.


2-8

Exhibit 2-3. Typical Configuration for a Modified Record Fire Range (not to scale)

2.2.5 Alternative 6 – Modernize and Operate Range B-6 as an Automated Combat Pistol/Military Police Firearms Qualification Course (CPQC/MPFQC) (FCC 17822) and Grenade Launcher Range (FCC 17884)

Alternative 6 proposes to modernize, renovate, and operate the former multipurpose range for the CPQC/MPFQC Course, and Grenade Launcher Range, as described in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012),

A CPQC/MPFQC range is designed to meet training and qualification requirements with shotguns, combat pistols and revolvers. This range is used to train and test Soldiers on the skills necessary to identify, engage, and hit stationary infantry targets. The targets are fully automated, and the event-specific target scenario is computer driven and scored from the range operations center. There are 15 firing lanes. Ammunition types include 9-mm, .38 caliber, .45 caliber, and shotgun.

The grenade launcher range is designed to meet training and qualification requirements with 40-mm grenade launchers using target practice (i.e., inert) grenades. No automation is required for this range. There are four firing stations with a maximum range depth of 350 meters. Ammunition types includes M918 and M781 (or similar) 40-mm target practice (i.e., inert) grenades (USAEC, 2012).

A standard CPQC/MPFQC Course configuration is depicted in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012) and shown on Exhibit 2-4. A standard Grenade Launcher Course configuration is depicted in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012) and shown on Exhibit 2-5. The CPQC and Grenade Launcher Range layouts at range B-6 would retain the existing firing points and targets. Construction would result in minor ground disturbance


2-9

within the pistol range to modernize the target system. The range SDZ would be confined within the installation boundaries.


Range B-6 is fully functional and could be operational when the safety review and NEPA process are completed. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2017.

Modernize the computerized target and scoring hardware and software of the CPQC range to current Army range systems. This is expected to require trenching to replace existing electrical or pneumatic lines. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Renovate the existing range control tower to meet current safety and doctrinal standards. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Construct a latrine, covered mess area, and bleachers. Estimated timeframe for completion: 2018.

Exhibit 2-4. Typical Configuration for an Automated Combat Pistol/Military Police Firearms Qualification Course (not to scale)


2-10

Exhibit 2-5. Typical Configuration for a M203 Grenade Launcher Range (not to scale)


2-11

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study

Several alternatives based on the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012) and potential alternatives specific to PRFTA’s location were considered but subsequently eliminated. Travel to another installation’s ranges is the No Action Alternative in this EA. Alternatives eliminated from further study in the 2012 PEA (USAEC, 2012) are not repeated (construct a subcaliber range, use of simulation, and construct and operate ranges on previously undisturbed ground). Alternatives specific to PRFTA are listed below:

Use of Other Federally Owned Ranges in Northern California, in Proximity to PRFTA. There are no DoD-certified small arms training ranges in proximity to PRFTA. Military personnel assigned to PRFTA, or in proximity to PRFTA, are required to travel approximately 160 miles to FHL. This alternative does not meet the Proposed Action’s basic purpose and need and will not be carried forward for further analysis.

Use of the Alameda County Sheriff Range. This range, located adjacent to the PRFTA training area, is fully booked and used to the maximum extent, which would not meet Soldier’s qualification requirements, and it would incur additional costs to PRFTA (PRFTA, 2016b). This alternative does not meet the Proposed Action’s basic purpose and need and will not be carried forward for further analysis.

Use of Privately Owned Ranges. AR 385-63, Range Safety, and USARC Memorandum; Subject: Use of Non-Department of Defense (DoD) Ranges, 4 November 2015, directed all USARC commanders to immediately discontinue use of Non-DoD range facilities. All requests to use Non-DoD ranges must go through USARC to the U.S. Army Forces Command for approval. Of three known private ranges regionally, one is located at a distance comparable to FHL, and two were found to be in the process of closing. This alternative does not meet the Proposed Action’s basic purpose and need and will not be carried forward for further analysis.

SECTION 3

3-1

Existing Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation

3.1 Introduction Information gathered from site visits, interviews, existing documentation, and correspondence with federal agencies was used to characterize the existing environment. This section identifies the potential environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action on air space, air quality, hazardous waste/hazardous materials, land use (including encroachment), operating noise, public health and safety (including protection of children and environmental justice), and special-status species.

Three categories of potential environmental consequences (impacts or effects) were evaluated: direct, indirect, and cumulative. A direct impact is caused by the action and occurs at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are foreseeable, but occur at a later time or different place. Cumulative impacts result from the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

In the following sections, the duration of each impact is described either as short term, such as transitory effects that are of limited duration (generally caused by construction activities or operation start-up), or long term, such as impacts that occur or continue to occur over an extended period of time, whether they start during the construction phase, at operation start-up, or during the operations and maintenance phase. Types of impacts can be beneficial or adverse. Beneficial impacts improve the resource or issue analyzed. Adverse impacts negatively affect the resource or issue analyzed. The intensity of a potential impact refers to its severity. The thresholds of change for the intensity of impacts are defined as follows:

Negligible: An environmental impact could occur but impact might not be perceptible.

Minor: A perceptible adverse environmental impact that would clearly not be significant.

Moderate (less than significant): An environmental impact could occur and is readily detectable but is clearly less than significant.

Significant but Mitigatable: A significant impact is anticipated, but the Army can implement management actions or mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts to less than significant.

Significant: An adverse environmental impact which, given the context and intensity, would substantially alter the function or character of the resource, or otherwise meet the identified threshold.

In addition, the Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual (Fabian and Watts, 2005) provides guidance for maintaining the long-term sustainability of operational small arms ranges and range areas.

SECTION 3 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION

3-2

3.2 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration The following resources were examined and determined to not warrant further consideration because of their lack of relevance to the alternatives or because the 2012 PEA adequately analyzed the impacts of the Proposed Action. This section describes the resources that were not considered further and provides the rationale for these determinations.

3.2.1 Energy A minor power line extension would be constructed at the ranges and would be powered from a 21-kilovolt electrical distribution network operated by PRFTA. Energy consumption during construction, heating and cooling of buildings used intermittently, and targetry operations is considered negligible.

3.2.2 Socioeconomics Construction, or major renovation, of a training range within a land area dedicated to live-fire of weapons and to Soldier training would have little or no effect on elements of socioeconomics. There could be a minor, short-term beneficial effect from the salaries for the workforce working on the range and some additional input to the local economy from purchase of building materials and supplies. This Proposed Action would have no effect on minority or low-income populations or children. The impacts of the Proposed Action on public health and safety are evaluated in Section 3.3.6.

3.2.3 Cultural Resources There are no archaeological, historical, traditional, or architectural resources within the proposed project area (USARC, 2000). Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no impacts to cultural resources and these resources are not considered further in this EA. Through Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, interested parties, including the State Historic Preservation Officer, federally listed and non-federally listed Native American tribes, and local preservation groups were coordinated with regarding the Proposed Action to modernize and operate ranges B-2 through B-6.

On January 10, 2017, the Army sent a request for comments to three federally recognized tribes or tribal groups, five non-federally recognized tribes or tribal groups, and five interested parties with regard to the proposed project. Of the Native American tribes contacted, the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California responded that it had no concerns about the proposed undertaking. No responses were received from other tribal nations. The Dublin Historic Preservation Association responded that it had no concerns about the proposed project (Office of Historic Preservation, 2017).

The State Historic Preservation Officer responded on February 28, 2017, that there is no objection to a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the project (Office of Historic Preservation, 2017).

3.2.4 Facilities and Infrastructure The Proposed Action requires little in the form of facilities and infrastructure support from the installation, and as such would have no impact on facilities. In the location of the PRFTA ranges, an underground water line is present but is in disrepair and nonfunctional. The water line, when repaired, would supply water to the range control building at the training range (the water line would not be used to supply water for fire suppression). There is no sewer service available at the ranges at PRFTA. Ranges would contract for dry vault latrines. A minor power line extension would be powered from a 21-kilovolt electrical distribution network operated by PRFTA. Maintenance and repair of the water line and power line would result in negligible adverse impacts.


3-3

3.2.5 Natural Resources The Proposed Action would result in minor, direct and indirect short-term and long-term adverse effects on wildlife from constructing and operating a training range on previously disturbed ground in the training area, including non-native grasslands. This loss of previously disturbed habitat and effects to wildlife species associated with grassland habitat would not be significant given the non-native vegetation and disturbed nature at the ranges. Special-status species are addressed in Section 3.3.7.

3.2.6 Soils and Topography The Proposed Action requires minor ground disturbance associated with range construction and modernization. Earthmoving and topographic changes were included in initial site development in the 1940s and 1950s. The Proposed Action would have negligible adverse impacts to soil resources and topography.

3.2.7 Solid Waste Modernization of ranges would result in minor construction debris consistent with the resource analysis in the 2012 PEA. The Proposed Action would have negligible impacts to solid waste. Solid waste management during construction and operation of the ranges would be conducted in accordance with the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and Qualified Recycling Program and would be coordinated with the Directorate of Public Works (DPW), Logistics Readiness Center, Solid Waste Manager, and Qualified Recycling Program Manager at Camp Parks. It is estimated that approximately 850 cubic yards of solid waste would be generated from demolition under the Proposed Action.

3.2.8 Traffic and Transportation The Proposed Action would result in an increase in local traffic during construction as a result of transportation of construction materials and daily commuting by the construction workforce. The roadways on and outside PRFTA would be adequate to support the temporary increase in construction-related traffic; therefore, these effects are anticipated to result in a short-term, direct, minor, adverse impact on local roadways. There would be a decrease in bus traffic on public roads between PRFTA and FHL because Soldiers would remain on PRFTA to complete their training requirements that can be met through implementation of the Proposed Action. No change to existing vehicular travel to PRFTA by individual Soldiers would be expected during operation of the ranges.

3.2.9 Water Resources There are no surface waters located within the areas where the Proposed Action would be implemented. According to the 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report) – Statewide (SWRCB, 2016), there are no impaired water bodies located on PRFTA. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the northern portion of PRFTA, to include the ranges, is located in Other Areas, Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain) (FEMA, 2009).

Surface waters on the installation flow in a general southwest direction, toward the cantonment area. The western portion of the training area, to include the Proposed Action area, is within the Alamo Creek Drainage, and drains toward Alamo Creek located to the west of Dougherty Road. The central portion of the training area, east of the Proposed Action area, is within the Chabot Canal Drainage, and is drained by an unnamed intermittent stream and a stormwater drainage system that eventually flow under Dublin Boulevard and into the Chabot Canal. (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2004) During construction, activities such as grading and demolition of structures would have the potential to increase erosion and result in temporary water quality impacts. To the maximum extent possible,


3-4

surface waters would be protected during construction and demolition through the implementation of BMPs to preclude erosion into surface waters, impaired streams, and ground-waters. The Proposed Action would be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit for projects 1 acre or larger. Compliance with the NPDES would require PRFTA or its contractor to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan and maintain BMPs to avoid releasing sediment and contaminants into surface waters as a result of construction activities, including earthwork.

The Proposed Action would add an estimated 26,200 square feet (0.6 acre) of net new impervious surface from range facilities and up to 2.6 acres from construction of range B-3 as a fully contained range. This increase in impervious surface would increase stormwater runoff dispersing over unpaved surfaces and increase the runoff rate. Increase in stormwater runoff could impact water quality by altering drainage patterns that could increase sedimentation and erosion in downstream surface waters.

Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; 42 United States Code §17094) establishes into law new stormwater design requirements for federal development and redevelopment projects. Federal facility projects over 5,000 square feet must “maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume and duration of flow” (USAEC, 2012). The Proposed Action would comply with the requirements of EISA.

3.2.10 Wetlands A wetland delineation, verified by the USACE, was conducted for PRFTA in 2003, including the training area and the Proposed Action area (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2004; USACE File Number 28475S; letter dated April 2, 2004). Mapped wetlands in the vicinity of the project are shown on Figure 3-1. PRFTA conducted a site walk of the ranges on November 17, 2016, and confirmed that there were no apparent changes to wetlands compared with those identified in the 2004 delineation report.

A spring-fed seasonal pond occurs north of range B-5, separated from the range by an earthen berm. The spring-fed seasonal pond is isolated and was determined to be non-jurisdictional in the 2004 survey. This seasonal pond is located adjacent to, but outside the area of disturbance for this EA (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2004).

A seasonal stream wetland occurs to the south of Tower Road, adjacent to, but outside the area of disturbance for this EA. This seasonal stream wetland was determined by USACE to be jurisdictional (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2004).

There are no delineated wetlands located within the proposed construction areas. The Proposed Action would avoid impacts to wetlands near the project area. Measures to protect wetlands include implementation of stormwater BMPs, including installation of silt fencing and straw wattles to minimize runoff into wetland features.

3.3 Resources Considered in Detail

3.3.1 Airspace

3.3.1.1 Definition of Resource

The nation’s airspace is designed and managed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and is arranged to meet both the individual and collective needs of all military, commercial, and general aviation interests. Navigable airspace is categorized as either regulatory or non-regulatory. Four types of airspace are within those two categories: controlled, uncontrolled, special-use, and other. All airspace is organized according to the operating and flight rules that apply to the use of each area. Classification of each airspace area is contingent on the complexity or density of aircraft operations, the types of


3-5

operations, the required level of safety, and national and public interest. Airspace is a finite resource that can be defined vertically, horizontally, and temporally when describing its use for aviation purposes.

3.3.1.2 Affected Environment

There is no military special-use airspace at PRFTA. Airspace is controlled, and flight clearance is managed by the FAA, with the nearest FAA tower being located in Livermore, California. PRFTA supports two helipads with occasional helicopter activity and has approximately 12 landings and departures per year.

3.3.1.3 Environmental Consequences

Per the 2012 PEA, activities that are inconsistent with the airspace classification over the proposed range site would exceed the threshold level of significance for airspace.

Use of live-fire ammunition during operations would require compliance with procedures outlined in DA PAM 385-63 (DA, 2014a) for establishing small arms range safety areas (SARSAs). SARSAs are areas the Garrison Commander establishes to contain small arms range activities that could be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The SARSAs would be established by the Garrison commander in coordination with appropriate personnel to develop SARSA proposals and letters of agreement with local air traffic control facility personnel. The SARSA must include precautionary measures to account for cloud height, ricochet height, visibility or radar capability to detect aircraft, and procedures for surveillance and communication. All firing activities within the SARSA must cease upon notification of impending or actual incursion of the SARSA by nonparticipating aircraft.

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in a change in current conditions; therefore, no impacts to airspace would occur.

Alternative 2: Modernize and Operate Range B-2 as a Hand Grenade Qualification Course (Non-firing)

Under Alternative 2, range B-2 would not require establishing a SARSA because no live-fire ammunition would be used. Therefore, under Alternative 2 there would be no impact to airspace.

Alternatives 3 – 6: Modernize and Operate Range B-3 through B-6

PRFTA would establish a SARSA per DA PAM 385-63 (DA, 2014a), and therefore, negligible, long-term, direct, adverse impacts to airspace would occur.

3.3.2 Air Quality


Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. NAAQS represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations for six criteria pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and particulate matter (PM) (less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter [PM10] and less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter [PM2.5]) (Table 3-1).


3-6

Table 3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards

Criteria Pollutant

NAAQS (Averaging Period)a

Federal Attainment

Status State Standard

(Averaging Period)b

State Attainment

Status

CO 35 ppm (1 hour) Attainment 20 ppm (1 hour) Attainment

9 ppm (8 hours) Attainment 9 ppm (8 hours) Attainment

NO2 0.100 ppm (1 hour) 0.053 ppm (annual arithmetic mean)

Attainment 0.18 ppm (1 hour) 0.030 ppm (annual arithmetic mean)

Attainment

O3 0.070 ppm (8 hours) Attainment 0.070 ppm (8 hours) Nonattainment

0.09 ppm (1 hour) Nonattainment

PM2.5

12 g/m3 (annual arithmetic mean)

Unclassified/ Attainment

12 g/m3 (annual arithmetic mean) Nonattainment

35 g/m3 (24 hours)d Unclassified/ Attainment

No separate standard (24 hours)

PM10 -- NA 20 g/m3 (annual arithmetic mean) Nonattainment

150 g/m3 (24 hours) Attainment 50 g/m3 (24 hours) Nonattainment

SO2

-- -- 0.04 ppm (24 hours) Attainment

0.5 ppm (3 hours, secondary standard) 0.075 ppm (1 hour) c

Unclassified/ Attainment Unclassified

-- 0.25 ppm (1 hour)

--

Attainment

Lead e 0.15 g/m3 (rolling 3-month average)

Attainment 1.5 g/m3 (30-day average)

Attainment

Sulfates

No federal standards

25 g/m3 (24 hours) Attainment

Hydrogen sulfide 0.03 ppm (1 hour) Unclassified

Vinyl chloride d 0.01 ppm (24 hours) Attainment

Visibility-reducing particles

Insufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70%

Unclassified

Source: EPA, 2016

a National standards other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. b California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, and suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles) are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. c To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum one-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 parts per billion.

d The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. This determination was made following the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Air contaminants from lead would be managed in accordance with Army policy.

g/m3 = microgram(s) per cubic meter O3 = ozone CO = carbon monoxide PM = particulate matter N/A = not applicable ppm = part(s) per million, by volume NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards SO2 = sulfur dioxide NO2 = nitrogen dioxide


3-7

Under the CAA, the country is classified into attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance areas. Any area not meeting the NAAQS is designated as nonattainment for the specific pollutant or pollutants, whereas areas meeting the NAAQS are designated as attainment areas. Maintenance areas are those areas previously designated as nonattainment and subsequently redesignated to attainment, subject to development of a maintenance plan.

Under the EPA New Source Review (NSR) program, stationary sources of air pollution are required to obtain permits before construction of the source begins. NSR prevention of significant deterioration approval would be required either if the proposed project was a new source having the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of an attainment pollutant, or if it was an existing major source of emissions, making a major modification in an attainment area, which would result in a net emissions increase above specified levels. Nonattainment NSR approval would be required if the proposed project was a new stationary source or major source, making a major modification in a nonattainment area, with the potential to emit nonattainment pollutants in excess of the NSR thresholds.

The CAA General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93) requires federal agencies to make written conformity determinations for federal actions in or affecting nonattainment or maintenance areas. If the emissions of a criteria pollutant (or its precursors) do not exceed the de minimis level, the federal action has a minimal air quality impact and, therefore, the action is determined to conform for the pollutant under study, and no further analysis is necessary. Under the EPA Mandatory Reporting Rule, facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) must submit annual reports to the EPA. The CEQ draft guidance establishes an annual total of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 as a screening level for conducting a quantitative and qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in NEPA analyis (CEQ, 2010). GHGs are compounds that may contribute to accelerated climate change by altering the thermodynamic properties of the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs consist of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons (EPA, 2010).


The Proposed Action is located in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. BAAQMD has jurisdiction over stationary sources in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and is responsible for conducting ambient monitoring in the Bay Area. BAAQMD is classified as a nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone (of which the precursors are nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]) and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.


Impacts to air quality and GHGs would be considered significant if the Proposed Action were to result in an impact in an attainment area greater than a NAAQS, causing an increase in the number of violations in a nonattainment area, delaying the conversion of an area from nonattainment to attainment, or if the Proposed Action were to generate substantial GHG emissions nationwide (greater than 75,000 tons COs equivalents per year).

In addition, a separate threshold level of significance for air quality is defined as a violation of an ambient air quality standard or regulatory threshold.

Air Quality

Potential air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Action were evaluated based on whether potential emissions would be localized or whether a reasonable potential exists for a violation of an ambient air quality standard or regulatory threshold.

At the ranges, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in minor, direct, and short-term, adverse impacts on overall air quality from construction. The operation of heavy construction equipment would increase exhaust emissions and generate dust and other construction-related particles in the air during the construction phase. Emissions from construction vehicles would be minimized by


3-8

requirements in the construction specifications that the contractor keep equipment properly maintained and operating. During construction, dust control measures would be implemented in areas with exposed soil. These control measures may include one or more of the following:

Water exposed surfaces two times per day.

Cover haul trucks that transport soil, sand, or other loose material offsite.

Remove visible mud or dirt using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day before it is tracked out onto adjacent public roads.

Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

Complete paving of roadways, driveway, and sidewalks as soon as possible. Lay pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

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

Maintain and properly tune construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer specifications. A certified visible emissions evaluator will check all equipment.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints.

Construction activities are not expected to result in emissions that would violate applicable air quality control regulations. For Alternatives 2 through 6, operational emissions were estimated using emission factors from EPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA, 1995), and construction-related emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in a change in current conditions; therefore, impacts to air quality would be negligible.

The No Action Alternative would continue the current procedure of bussing Soldiers to FHL to complete individual weapons qualification training. This activity creates emissions of approximately 300 million tons of CO2e per year. Calculations used to develop this estimate are based on approximately 7,000 Soldiers traveling to FHL each year.

Alternatives 2 – 6: Modernize and Operate Ranges B-2 through B-6

Air Quality

To present the worst case scenario and address direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the air analysis for Alternatives 2 – 6 are addressed together.

Implementation of Alternatives 2 – 6 would result in minor, direct, long-term, adverse impacts on overall air quality from the proposed modernization and operation of ranges B-2 through B-6. Operation of the proposed facilities would generate emissions associated with small arms training and inert grenades. No new stationary sources of emissions are anticipated from Alternatives 2 – 6. Mobile sources would not contribute any emissions as the commuting patterns to PRFTA would not change.

Table 3-2 summarizes the projected total air emissions from operational sources, construction equipment, and vehicles for Alternatives 2–6. A copy of the calculations used to develop these estimates is available on request and maintained in the administrative record. The record of non-applicability is provided in Appendix B.


3-9

Based on the estimated emissions listed in Table 3-2, the emissions would be well below regulatory thresholds. Therefore, Alternatives 2 – 6 would not be subject to prevention of significant deterioration or NSR requirements.

The Proposed Action site is below the de minimis level for the maintenance area pollutant PM2.5 and for the nonattainment area pollutant ozone (the precursors of which are NOx and VOCs); therefore, the General Conformity Rule does not apply.

During 2017, total NOX emissions from construction activities have the potential to exceed the California Environmental Quality Act significance threshold of 10 tons per year. NOX emissions would be mitigated by one or more of the following: staggering projects, requiring newer and well maintained construction equipment, and/or reducing onsite and offsite idling of equipment and vehicles. As ranges become operational, NOX emissions from transporting Soldiers will be less because fewer Soldiers would need to travel to FHL for training.

Table 3-2. Summary of Proposed Action Emissions – Alternatives 2 – 6

Project Activities

Projected Annual Emissions (tons per year)

SO2 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 VOCs CO2e

2018 and Beyond Operational Sources (Range B-2) 1.23E-05 4.46E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-04 1.05E-04 3.57E-07 1.9E-04

2019 and Beyond Operational Sources (Range B-3) 5.53E-06 1.19E-02 2.25E-01 6.60E-03 4.92E-03 0.00E+00 1.25E-01


2019 and Beyond Operational Sources (Range B-5) 0.00E+00 2.41E-02 4.54E-01 1.11E-02 7.95E-03 0.00E+00 2.47E-01


2018 and Beyond - Operational Sources Total 2.89E-05 0.0803 1.03 0.251 0.144 3.57E-07 1.34

2017 Construction Sources (Range B-2) 0.00196 2.07 1.18 0.134 0.118 0.243 192





2017 Construction Sources (Parking Area) 0.00031 0.385 0.154 0.262 0.0208 0.0344 32.0

2017 Construction Sources Total 0.0114 12.2 6.90 0.986 0.638 1.22 1,158


2018 Construction Sources (Range B-4) 0.000410 0.328 0.2904 0.0266 0.0233 0.0484 39.5



2018 Construction Sources Total 0.00529 4.68 3.21 0.322 0.278 0.569 514

General Conformity de minimis Thresholds N/A 100 N/A N/A 100 100 N/A

California Environmental Quality Act Significance Thresholds N/A 10 N/A 15 10 10 N/A

Note: Projected emissions were estimated using typical equipment used for similar construction. Actual specifications of fuel usages, construction equipment, and vehicle mileage were estimated based on similar projects.


3-10

Greenhouse Gases

Implementation of Alternatives 2 – 6 would generate GHG emissions from construction-related activities. Construction would result in a short-term insignificant increase in GHG emissions. During the operational phase, GHG emissions would be less than Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) because fewer Soldiers would need to travel to FHL for training.

3.3.3 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste


This section describes the affected environment associated with hazardous materials used or stored at the considered locations. “Hazardous material” refers to any item or agent (biological, chemical, or physical) that has the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment, either by itself or through interaction with other factors.


As described in the 2012 PEA, operations on small arms ranges produce soil containing metals from the spent rounds. These metal constituents have the potential to create environmental problems during range operation and maintenance. Bullets are often fragmented and pulverized upon impact with the ground, backstops, berms, other bullets fired earlier, or bullet traps located on operational small arms ranges. Lead, copper, antimony and zinc contribute to small arms munitions constituent soil loading.

The Final Operational Range Assessment Program Phase 1 Qualitative Assessment Report (U.S. Army, 2008), which is incorporated by reference, identified the firing points and impact areas of the five live-fire ranges as potential sources of munitions constituents of concern (MCOCs). The 2008 report (Section 3.2, Physical Profile) thoroughly describes the local meteorology, topography, geology, hydrogeology, soils, and surface water on and around PRFTA and concluded that there are no known releases or source-receptor interactions that could present an unacceptable risk to off-range human health or the environment from the operational ranges. The 2008 report (Section 3.6, Relationship of Potential MCOC Sources to Off-Range Human and Ecological Receptors,) summarizes source-pathway-receptor interactions and concludes the following: “There are no perennial surface water features located on-installation and it is unlikely that potential MCOC from the small arms range complex or the former light demolition area would reach the single ephemeral channel that drains the center of the installation” and “It is unlikely that potential MCOC will reach groundwater.”

Department of Defense Instruction No. 4715.14 (DoD, 2005) mandates the periodic re-evaluation of installations that were considered “Unlikely” during the Phase 1 assessment (U.S. Army, 2008). A periodic review of PRFTA was completed between May 2013 and February 2014 and the findings concluded that “…the Unlikely conclusions reflected in the Phase I remain valid. MCOC associated with Installation source areas are not expected to migrate off-range at levels that pose and unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors.” These findings are presented in the Final Operational Range Assessment Program Phase 1 Qualitative Assessment Report Addendum (U.S. Army, 2014).

According to the FY2015 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Army Defense Environmental Restoration Program Installation Action Plan, Military Munitions Response Program (PRFTA, 2015), ranges B-2 through B-6 are part of Army Environmental Database-Restoration Site No. PRFTA-007-R-01, a 165-acre former training range complex referred to as the Area B munitions response site. Previous work, including an archival search report/investigation (2003), historical records review (2007), a 2011 remedial investigation, and feasibility study in 2013, identified munitions and explosives of concern and munitions constituents as contaminants of concern for these ranges. A land use control plan was prepared in 2013 and access to the B-series ranges area is limited by fencing and gates.


3-11


As described in the 2012 PEA, metals, such as lead, copper, antimony, and zinc, generally tend to adhere to soil grains and organic material and remain fixed in shallow soils. These metals, through soil erosion, can migrate off the range and into surface water (e.g., steams, creeks, rivers, ponds, lakes) and/or wetlands. The potential effects of metals from spent ammunition will be reduced by revegetating areas disturbed during construction to promote vegetated surfaces post-construction and implementing and sustaining BMPs to control the accumulation of spent ammunition, storm water runoff, and soil erosion in accordance with the Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual (Fabian and Watts, 2005).

BMPs and operational methods applicable to PRFTA ranges include the following:

Evenly distribute/stagger firing lane use on a range.

No firing into water sources would occur due to existing range layout.

Sustain the vegetative cover on and around the range. Maintain vegetated channels, swales, filter strips, and riparian buffer zones.

Improve impact berm maintenance and repair practices.

Implement an inspection and maintenance program for existing BMPs.

Use erosion control mats and mulches as needed.

Utilize land shaping, diversion channels, channel stabilization, and sediment barriers as needed to manage stormwater.

Implement dust control strategies.

Amend soils as needed.

Use “green ammunition” as available.

Conduct lead removal as needed and determined by the Army.


No new construction or range operation activities are proposed under the No Action Alternative. The ranges would remain in closed status. It is expected the Military Munitions Response Program would continue. Therefore, negligible impacts to human health or the environment from hazardous materials are anticipated. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on the use or storage of hazardous materials or substances, or disposal of regulated wastes.


Per the 2012 PEA, prior to implementation of Alternatives 2 – 6, PRFTA would document the engineering measures and BMPs to be implemented at PRFTA to reduce, to the maximum extent possible, migration of lead and other metals from the range. Due to environmental factors and range layout, migration of metals off the range is not expected during range usage. Ground disturbance during range modernization will require dust control and construction stormwater BMPs. With these standard controls, adverse effects of metal migration off the range are expected to be negligible, short-term, and indirect.


3-12

3.3.4 Land Use (including Encroachment)


In the Army, land use planning is the mapping and planned allocation of the use of all installation lands based on 12 general land use categories, including Training/Ranges Land Use. Encroachment is the cumulative result of any and all outside influences that inhibit normal military training and testing (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002). Encroachment includes, but is not limited to, the unplanned or incompatible commercial or residential development on land adjoining or near Army training lands.


PRFTA lies to the southeast of San Ramon and to the north and east of Dublin (see Figure 1-1). The 1,991-acre training area is used for military field training exercises, and ranges B-2 through B-6 lie in the central portion of the installation.

Land uses surrounding PRFTA include commercial, industrial, transportation (Bay Area Rapid Transit [BART] station) and residential areas in the cities of Dublin and San Ramon. The Alameda County Sheriff’s firing range is located directly adjacent to PRFTA, southeast of the training area. The East Bay Regional Park District owns and manages the 27.4-acre Tassajara Creek Regional Park, which is adjacent to northeast corner of the training area (USAEC, 2013). The Windermere housing development borders PRFTA along the northern boundary of the installation. Construction of the Windermere housing development began in approximately 2004, with buildout of the development being completed in approximately 2010 (Google Earth, 2016). To the west, PRFTA is bordered by single-family residences, multi-family residences, and commercial developments along Dougherty Boulevard.


Land use impacts would be considered significant if they were to cause severe incompatibility with adjacent land uses. Types of impacts that can occur to land use resources are direct or indirect in nature. Conflicts with existing land uses, plans, or policies constitute direct impacts, while changes to development patterns off-post are considered indirect impacts (U.S. Army Public Health Command, 2016).

Since 2009, the ranges have remained closed and no other land uses have been established at the former range sites. Noise is addressed separately in Section 3.3.5 (Operating Noise).


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in a change in current land use conditions. Therefore, impacts to land use would be negligible.


Under the Proposed Action to modernize and operate the ranges, land use would remain under the Army classification of Training/Ranges Land Use. Small arms live-fire, which is consistent with this land use, would resume after a nearly 7-year lapse, which would provide a long-term benefit to Soldiers in northern California. Training activities at range B-2 through B-6 would not extend to areas off PRFTA; therefore, no effect from civilian encroachment on range B-2 operations would occur and long-term, direct, adverse impacts to operation of range B-2 are expected to be negligible.

Land use in areas surrounding PRFTA would not be affected by the Proposed Action because land has been developed to local land use plans.


3-13

3.3.5 Operating Noise


Noise, often defined as unwanted sound, is one of the most common environmental issues associated with human activities. Public annoyance is the most common impact associated with exposure to elevated noise levels. The actual impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone; the frequency, content, time of day, and the duration of the noise also are important factors in assessing impacts. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories:

Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, or dissatisfaction

Interference with activities, such as speech, sleep, or learning

Physiological effects, such as startling and hearing loss

The State of California and the Army do not label noise contour maps in the same way. California requires the identification of a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 60 decibels (dB) contour with 5 dB steps inside of the CNEL 60. The Army labels noise contour maps by Zones I, II, or III, which are based on the day-night average sound levels (DNLs) (Appendix C). In practice, there is little difference between DNL and CNEL. Onsite measurement studies conducted by the Operational Noise team at the U.S. Army Public Health Command generally show the CNEL to be no more than 1 dB above the DNL (U.S. Army Public Health Command, 2016) (Appendix C).


Off installation noise sources result from land uses surrounding the PRFTA to include commercial, industrial, transportation (BART station), recreation and residential. On-installation noise sources are similarly related to land uses which, on PRFTA, include training areas in the northern portion, the cantonment area in the southern portion with administration facilities, and residences in the southwest corner of the installation. Ambient sources of noise around the proposed ranges on the PRFTA include traffic noise generated at the intersection of I-580 and I-680, about 2.4 miles southwest of PRFTA, and the BART station and rail line located adjacent to I-580. Ambient noise is also contributed to by local parks and recreational areas, residential construction activities, and gunfire from the Alameda County Sheriff’s firing range that is located directly adjacent to PRFTA (southeast of the training area) and has day and night live firing. Commercial helicopters also frequently monitor traffic along Dougherty and Tassajara Roads to and from I-580.

One of the most widely distributed and perceived impacts of operations at a training facility, such as PRFTA, is noise from activities occurring on the installation. The Army has quantified the existence and extent of noise from training activities conducted at PRFTA, as is documented in an Environmental Noise Management Plan (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009). This document notes that the majority of perceived noise near PRFTA is the result of military and non-military small arms training and helicopter noise.


Noise impacts would be considered significant if activities that cause construction noise result in an hourly equivalent sound level of 75 A-weighted decibels (based on EPA data for construction noise) at a sensitive receptor (on- or off-post residences, schools, hospitals, etc.) or activities that place a noise Zone III contour over a sensitive receptor. Table 3-3 provides data on the proposed ammunition to be used at the training ranges.

Table 3-3. Proposed Action and Alternatives Ranges and Munitions

Alt. Range 9 mm .38

Caliber .45

Caliber 5.56 mm, and tracer

Inert Training Hand Grenade

12 Gage 40 mm


3-14

2 B-2 – Hand Grenade Qualification Course (Non-firing)

X

3 B-3 – Multipurpose Small Arms Range

X X X X

4 B-4 – Basic 10-Meter/ 25-Meter Firing Range

X

5 B-5 – Modified Record Fire X

6

B6 – Automated Combat Pistol/ Military Police Firearms Qualification Course, M203 Grenade Launcher Range

X X X X X

In the Fort Hunter Liggett and PRFTA Reserve Forces Training Area Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (U.S. Army Public Health Command, 2016), the noise environment from military training sources at PRFTA were quantified. Noise modeling assessed the noise impacts that reopening these small arms ranges with the specific munitions listed in Table 3-3 would have on the surrounding noise environment. The noise zones, shown on Figure 5-5 in Appendix C), represent a maximum small caliber-training scenario (all ranges actively firing) and represent live-fire operations. Computer modeling indicated that Zones II and III, shown in Appendix C, would not extend off-post and Zone III would remain localized near the ranges. In addition, the zones would not extend into any noise sensitive areas on post (U.S. Army Public Health Command, 2016).


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in a change in current conditions. Therefore, impacts to noise would be negligible.


The Proposed Action would likely have an indirect, long-term, minor, adverse effect on noise with a low risk of creating excessive noise in sensitive land use areas, such as family housing, health care facilities, or schools. Noise generated by these ranges would be compatible with surrounding installation land use, including nearby residential land uses, and the installation’s existing range lands would contain all areas of Zones II and III. Noise from small arms firing at the proposed ranges may be audible at low levels in adjoining communities, but is minimized because of the site’s distance from housing or noise-sensitive land use areas, and separated by heavily trafficked roads that generate noise. Although noise from weapons firing may be audible at low levels in adjoining communities during both daylight and nighttime hours, the installation’s existing range lands would contain all areas of Zones II and III, and the potential impact is considered minor. Based on this analysis, the Proposed Action would not result in exceedance of the threshold level of significance described previously.

Minor, short-term noise impacts from modernizing the ranges is expected from construction vehicles and earth-moving machinery, which may cause intermittent noise limited to the construction phases of the Proposed Action at each range. The noise would be localized and occur only during daylight hours for the duration of construction.

Residents of the adjacent communities would be the individuals most likely to be impacted by noise from construction of the ranges. Construction noise would be temporary in duration and would not be anticipated to exceed levels that are common to the area. Noise impacts during the construction of the Proposed Action would result in short-term, direct, negligible, adverse impacts from construction.


3-15

3.3.6 Public Health and Safety


For the purposes of this EA, public health and safety relates to the protection and injury prevention of families and the community from adverse effects related to military training using live ammunition on ranges B-3 through B-6. The primary threat to public health and safety is that live ammunition may travel great distances and present potential ricochet hazards unless mitigated through engineering controls or natural terrain barriers. Public health and safety issues include potential hazards inherent in training range operations. Range Safety programs are established for all training ranges in accordance with AR 350-19 and must enhance safe and realistic live-fire training, enabling the Army to train as they fight. Additionally, these Range Safety programs:

Protect personnel and property while improving combat readiness training and helping prevent fratricide in combat.

Protect civilian and military populations who live and work near live-fire operational ranges.

Minimize, to the extent practical through the design and management of ranges, both potential explosive hazards and harmful environmental impacts.

Prevent injuries and property damage by introducing risk management into the range operations process to enhance combat readiness.

Enhance the sustainability of operational ranges through the implementation of effective range clearance programs, per DoD Instruction 3200.16.

Establish range safety training and certification programs for range safety professionals and other personnel, as appropriate.

Establish Standard Operating Procedures for the safe use of weapons.

These programs also set restrictions on the use of various types of ordnance and certain types of operations and provide specific safety guidelines for each individual range and training facility in accordance with AR 385-63.


The ranges are non-operational and the installation boundary is controlled with perimeter fencing and signage. The perimeter of PRFTA is routinely patrolled by military personnel to ensure protections are maintained and access to the training areas is restricted for authorized personnel only.


Impacts to health and safety would be considered significant if the Proposed Action were to result in substantial additional risk to human health or safety from direct-fire or ricochets, to include direct human exposure.


The No Action Alternative would not result in a change in current conditions; therefore, no impacts to public health and safety would occur.

Alternative 2: Modernize and Operate Range B-2

The Proposed Action would result in no impact to health or safety standards as range B-2 would be a non-firing training range using inert grenades only.


3-16


Modernization of training range B-3 would include the design elements and engineering controls that are discussed in Section 2.2.2, which are expected to fully contain the SDZ within the range footprint; therefore, long-term, direct, adverse impacts to public health and safety from operation of training range B-3 would be negligible.

Alternatives 4 – 5: Modernize and Operate Ranges B-4 and B-5

Modernization of training ranges B-4 and B-5 would include the design elements and engineering controls that are discussed in Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4, respectively, which are expected to contain the SDZs within the PRFTA installation boundary; therefore, long-term, direct, adverse impacts to public health and safety from operation of training ranges B-4 and B-5 would be negligible.


Modernization of training range B-6 would include the computerized target and scoring hardware and software, and renovations discussed in Section 2.2.5 and the SDZ is expected to remain within the PRFTA installation boundary; therefore, long-term, direct, adverse impacts to public health and safety from operation of training range B-6 would be negligible.

3.3.7 Special-Status Species


The ESA requires the government to protect threatened and endangered plants and animals (listed species) and the habitats upon which they depend.

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the USFWS to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973”. Birds of Conservation Concern is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) generally prohibits the unauthorized take of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful, unless permitted by regulation. EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, protects migratory birds and habitats by requiring federal agencies to take certain actions to further implement the MBTA. The 2003 National Defense Authorization Act provides interim authority to members of the Armed Forces to incidentally take migratory birds during approved military readiness activities without violating the MBTA. Construction of ranges is not considered a readiness activity. Bird conservation strategies are incorporated into the installation’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Act of 1940 provides for the protection of bald eagles and golden eagles by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds.

The Sikes Act of 1960, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop cooperative plans for conservation and rehabilitation programs on military reservations. To facilitate this, each installation with significant resources prepares and implement an integrated natural resources management plan, in cooperation with the State fish and wildlife agency and USFWS. Management and protection of special-status species is included in the installation’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (HDR, 2012).


3-17


Natural resource surveys have been conducted throughout the PRFTA to characterize habitats and document occurrences of special-status wildlife and plants. For the purposes of this EA, special-status species are defined as follows:

Any species officially listed as federal endangered or threatened or any species that are candidates for federal listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA

California-listed threatened, endangered, or rare species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)

USFWS list of Birds of Conservation Concern

MBTA protected bird species

Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles

A list of species that potentially occur in the area of the Proposed Action has been compiled from the results of previous studies conducted on PRFTA, the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (HDR, 2012), as well as from information from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW, 2016) and the California Native Plant Society (2016). Preliminary database searches included the following nine U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangles: Dublin, Tassajara, Diablo, Livermore, La Costa Valley, Niles, Newark, Hayward, and Las Trampas Ridge. Information on federally listed species for the PRFTA area was also obtained from the USFWS Sacramento Field Office through their Information for Planning and Conservation website (USFWS, 2016).

Seventeen special-status species, including 2 plants and 15 animals, were identified as having potential to occur within PRFTA (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4. Special-status Species Potentially Occurring at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area

Species Scientific Name Species Common Name Protection Status

Plants

Centromadia parryi congdonii Congdon’s tarplant CRPR 1B

Juglans californica var. hindsii Northern California Black Walnut CRPR 1B

Animals

Rana draytonii California red-legged frog FT/SSC

Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake FT/ST

Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander FT/ST

Actinemys marmorata Western pond turtle Rev/SSC

Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird Rev/SSC/MBTA

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle BCC/CFP/MBTA

Athene cunicularia Western burrowing owl BCC/SSC/MBTA

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BCC/SSC/MBTA

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier SSC/MBTA

Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite CFP/MBTA

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon BCC/MBTA

Lanius ludovidicianus Loggerhead shrike BCC/SSC/MBTA


3-18

Table 3-4. Special-status Species Potentially Occurring at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area

Species Scientific Name Species Common Name Protection Status

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat SSC

Taxidea taxus American badger SSC

Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE/ST

Sources: HDR, 2012; USFWS, 2008; CDFW, 2016; California Native Plant Society, 2016

BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern CFP = State Fully Protected CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank FE = Federal Endangered FT = Federal Threatened MBTA = Species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Rev = Under Review for Federal Listing (90-day or 12-month Finding) SE = State Endangered SSC = State Species of Special Concern ST = State Threatened

Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat

Federally Listed Species

Two federally listed species have been recorded on PRFTA: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (Figure 3-1). California red-legged frogs have been found in the seasonal drainage and pond about 600 feet east of range B-6. California tiger salamanders have been found in two ephemeral wetlands located 0.85 mile and 0.7 mile northeast of range B-6, respectively, and could be found in burrows in the non-native annual grassland habitat throughout the training area and Proposed Action area. Vernal pool branchiopods were absent from PRFTA wetlands during protocol surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003 and are not expected to occur. Although suitable habitat exists at the ranges for San Joaquin kit fox, this species is not likely to occur. Surveys for kit fox in 2003 were conducted within the cantonment and the southern portion of the training area and included daytime transects and nighttime spotlighting (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2004); no San Joaquin kit foxes were detected (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2004). In August 2005, a survey that included scent and camera stations and nighttime spotlighting following USFWS protocol guidelines was conducted in the training area and no San Joaquin kit foxes were detected (CH2M, 2005). In addition, surveys for San Joaquin kit foxes were conducted in 2015, and this species is not likely to occur within the Proposed Action area (Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2015). PRFTA lacks suitable chaparral and rock outcrop habitat for Alameda whipsnake.

Other Special-Status Species

Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a State Species of Special Concern and MBTA-listed species, is found throughout the open grassland habitat in the training area. Numerous surveys have documented year-round presence of this species on PRFTA. This species has not been detected in the Proposed Action area during multiple surveys conducted since 2003.

Two plant species, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi congdonii) and California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii) are listed as California Rare Plant Rank 1B species, which are those plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Congdon’s tarplant is found in the disturbed habitat along the edges of the ranges (Figure 3-1). California black walnut is not found within the Proposed Action area.

Western pond turtles have been observed within the PRFTA Training area in low densities (one to three per sighting) in 1994, 1999, 2002 and 2010 (HDR, 2012). The nearest occurrence of western pond turtles


3-19

to the Proposed Action area is approximately 650 feet east of range B-6. Western pond turtles have also been observed near the north-western border of the installation (Figure 3-1).


A significant impact to biological resources would occur if the Proposed Action resulted in unauthorized “take” of a protected species (for example, under ESA, MBTA, or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act); local extirpation (wiping out) of rare or sensitive species not listed under the ESA; a long-term loss or degradation of diversity within unique or high-quality plant communities; unacceptable loss of suitable habitat for protected species as determined by the USFWS; and high probability of increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires, especially in sensitive ecological areas.

For the purposes of this EA, permanent impacts are defined as impacts that result in the loss of habitat for 1 year or more, while temporary impacts result in the loss of habitat for less than 1 year.


The No Action Alternative would not result in a change in current conditions. Therefore, no impacts to threatened or endangered species would occur.


Wildlife are known to acclimatize to military noise, either large munitions or small arms fire. Decreased responsiveness after repeated noises can usually be attributed to habituation (Larkin, 1994; Larkin et al., 1996). It is anticipated that noise from the operation of the ranges would result in a short-term minor to moderate impact to wildlife, followed by wildlife acclimatization to operational noise at the ranges. Once wildlife are acclimatized, no further impacts would be anticipated.

Implementing the Proposed Action could result in minor, short-term, direct, adverse impacts during construction of the ranges. Burrows that support California tiger salamander or burrowing owl may be crushed during construction, either through construction vehicles accessing the area or ground disturbing activities (excavation, earthmoving, disking). California red-legged frogs dispersing from the seasonal wetland east of range B-6 may be crushed by construction traffic and ground disturbing activities.

The large expanse of annual grassland habitat adjacent throughout the training area provide sufficient upland habitat for California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. Burrowing owls have not been detected at the ranges. Therefore, the loss of habitat as a result of construction would be a short-term, direct, minor, adverse impact and no mitigation is proposed.

The Army conducted informal consultation with the USFWS to determine if their current Biological Opinion (1-1-06-F-1752; USFWS, 2006) adequately addresses potential impacts to California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander at the training ranges or whether an amendment would be necessary (Department of the Army, 2017). The USFWS responded by e-mail on March 22, 2017, that the actions that would occur would be covered under the previous Biological Opinion and that concurrence or re-initiation of consultation would not be needed (Herbst, 2017). PRFTA would implement all relevant conservation measures of the Biological Opinion during construction and operation of the Proposed Action.

Measures to avoid adverse impacts to California red-legged frog include conducting pre-activity surveys of wetland habitat within 200 feet of the construction site in accordance with the field survey methodology outlined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (USFWS, 2005). If red-legged frogs are observed within the project area and have the potential to be harmed, they would be relocated from the site to a suitable area within PRFTA.


3-20

Measures to avoid adverse impacts to California tiger salamander include conducting pre-activity surveys consisting of two nights of burrow inspections within 5 days before the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities. If tiger salamanders were observed within the project area, they would be relocated from the site to a burrow near a known or potential breeding pond (U.S. Army Combat Support Training Center and Camp Parks, 2006).

Silt fence or another similar barrier would be installed around any adjacent wetlands that are within 200 feet of construction to separate red-legged frogs and tiger salamanders from the site and a biological monitor for these species would be present as needed during construction.

Surveys would be conducted within 5 days of the start of construction or demolition to ensure marking for avoidance is in place, and that no additional biological surveys are required due to a change in site conditions. A pre-construction briefing would be conducted for construction crews to review listed species concerns and avoidance measures, and provide contact information for a biologist that would be available and on call at the installation during construction.

Other Special-Status Species

No western burrowing owls have been detected in the Proposed Action area in the multiple surveys conducted since 2003. If burrowing owls have moved into the area and are present within the Proposed Action area, the population that could be affected is expected to be small. Measures to avoid adverse impacts to western burrowing owls would include passive relocation of birds near the Proposed Action area. Preconstruction surveys would be conducted, by a qualified biologist, to identify active burrow locations. The burrows will be either filled (inactive burrows) or equipped with one-way doors during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31) to prevent occupation of burrows. The one-way doors would be left in place for 48 hours to ensure burrowing owls have left the burrow, and the doors would be visited twice daily by a qualified biologist and monitored for evidence of burrowing owls. The one-way doors prevent owls from re-entering burrows, thus encouraging them to find other burrows. Once inactive, the burrows would be filled to prevent occupation. Artificial burrows would be constructed, as needed, within 200 meters (656 feet) in suitable contiguous habitat. Potential impacts to western burrowing owls would be moderate (less than significant) with the implementation of this mitigation measure (CDFW, 2012).

Short-term, direct, minor adverse impacts to Condgon’s tarplant may occur from ground-disturbing activities as a result of construction. Preconstruction surveys would be conducted during the blooming period to identify populations of tarplant; these areas would be flagged and fenced for protection during construction activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the top 6 inches of soil would be stockpiled to preserve the seed bank and replaced as part of site restoration activities as close to the original location as possible, within suitable habitat. Surveys conducted in 2010 and 2012 indicate that Congdon’s tarplant can withstand and even thrive under some disturbance regimes, such as trampling, grazing, mowing, and light disking. Tarplant has been observed in the growing season after disturbance in the cantonment area (Albion Environmental, 2010, 2012). Western pond turtles have not been detected within the Proposed Action area, or within 250 feet of the Proposed Action area, during the multiple surveys conducted at the training area. There is no habitat for western pond turtles located within the Proposed Action area or within 250 feet of the Proposed Action area. As discussed in Section 3.2.9, surface waters within the Proposed Action area drain toward Alamo Creek. The nearest occurrence of western pond turtles to the Proposed Action area is approximately 650 feet east of range B-6, in an area that drains toward the Chabot Canal. Neither construction or operation of the Proposed Action would result in water quality impacts within the Chabot Canal Drainage area, therefore; no impacts to the western pond turtle are expected from either construction or operation of the Proposed Action.


3-21

3.4 Cumulative Impacts

3.4.1 Introduction This section presents the recent, present, and foreseeable future projects that were considered during the assessment of cumulative effects of each alternative. Cumulative impacts can result from individually insignificant, but potentially collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Among the principles of cumulative impacts analysis discussed in the CEQ guide Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997), is the statement: “…for cumulative effects analysis to help the decision maker and inform interested parties, it must be limited through scoping to effects that can be evaluated meaningfully.”

3.4.2 Environmental Resource Areas Excluded from Further Consideration As discussed in Section 3.2, 10 environmental resources did not warrant further consideration because of their lack of relevance to the alternatives or because the 2012 PEA adequately analyzed the impacts of the Proposed Action, including cumulative impacts on these resource areas. No significant changes in relation to the Proposed Action have occurred since the 2012 PEA regarding cumulative impacts for the excluded environmental resources. When considering other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the 2012 PEA determined that cumulative effects of modernizing and operating a range on the land previously used for an Army range would not be significant.

3.4.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The potential for cumulative impacts to the environment from the Proposed Action was evaluated by reviewing ongoing and planned projects on PRFTA and within the vicinity of the installation in the cities of Dublin and San Ramon that could affect the same environmental resources as the Proposed Action, to modernize and operate the five ranges. These included recently completed (within the past 5 years) construction projects and construction projects that are underway or are programmed to occur in the near future (next 5 years). Table 3-5 includes projects considered in the cumulative analysis.

Table 3-5. Planned Projects

Project Name Description/Location Status

PRFTA

Solar Array Northern cantonment Completed 2015

Medium TEMF – New construction Cantonment In progress

DEPMEDS Covered Storage Cantonment Start construction 2017

Overhead and Underground Utilities Cantonment Completed 2016

Barracks Cantonment Start construction 2017

BLDG 332 Renovation Cantonment Completed 2016

BLDG 350 Renovation Cantonment In progress

BLDG 275 Renovation Cantonment Start construction 2016

Access Control Point Cantonment Completed 2016

RTS Medical Cantonment Start construction 2017

DPW/Logistics Readiness Center Warehouse

Cantonment Start construction 2017


3-22



ARC Army Reserve Center Cantonment Start construction 2017

Road and Utility Improvements Cantonment Under construction

City of Dublin

Dublin Crossing A 30-acre community park that will be centrally located in Dublin on a portion of the former Camp Parks property. Land uses and proposed construction at Dublin Crossing include medium and high-density residences, commercial and mixed use areas, schools, parks and open space areas.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 1 (Bridgecroft)

A 15.4-acre planned residential development consisting of 92 single family homes.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 2 (Barnwell)

A 17.9-acre planned residential development consisting of 101 single family homes.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 3 (Ivy Oak) A 7.4-acre planned residential development consisting of 74 single family homes.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 4 (Citron) A 12.3-acre planned residential development consisting of 147 single family homes.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 5 (Trestle) A 3.3-acre planned residential development consisting of a 3-plex neighborhood of 60 homes.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 6 (Riverton)

A 9.8-acre planned residential development consisting of a townhouse neighborhood of 125 homes.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 7 (Driftsong)

A 7.2-acre planned residential development consisting of 68 single family detached alley loaded homes.

In progress

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood 8 (Fielding) A 12.3-acre planned residential development consisting of 139 single family homes.

In progress

Dougherty Road Improvement Project Two new vehicular travel lanes with median island, new and improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, new bus stops and bus pull-outs, roadway widening.

Under construction 2016-2017

Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Construction of a 950,000-square-foot medical campus and associated structures on approximately 58 acres located off Dublin Boulevard.

Planning phase

Wanmei Properties, Inc. Planned Development

Construction of 19 single-family homes and site improvements on approximately 3 acres in the city of Dublin.

Planning phase


3-23



B&S Hacienda Construction of a 3,944-square-foot addition to an existing 9,540-square-foot building.

Planning phase

IKEA Retail Center Proposed construction of a store on a 27.5-acre site.

Planning phase

Dublin Infiniti Construction of a 2,750-square-foot addition and façade modification to an existing building.

Start construction 2016

Moller Ranch/Tassajara Hills Proposed construction of 370 single-family detached residential dwellings and a private clubhouse.

Road construction 2016, and ongoing planning

Grafton Plaza Aloft Hotel Construction of approximately 337,110 square feet of building area.

Planning phase

City of San Ramon

Walgreens Proposed construction of a 12,600-square-foot pharmacy.

Planning phase

Source: PRFTA, 2016a; City of Dublin, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c; City of San Ramon, 2016.

3.4.4 Cumulative Impacts by Resource Category

3.4.4.1 Airspace

Planned projects in the area primarily consist of building construction and renovation projects that are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative impacts on airspace.

3.4.4.2 Air Quality

Implementation of the Proposed Action could result in minor cumulative impacts on air quality. These impacts would not be significant because the scope of the Proposed Action would not increase air pollutants to levels that exceed regulatory thresholds. Implemenation of the Proposed Action would lead to a decrease in emissions, including GHGs, because operation of the training ranges would minimize the number of Soldiers that need to travel to FHL for additional required training activities. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on air quality.

3.4.4.3 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Impacts from hazardous material and hazardous substance management and disposal of regulated wastes from the Proposed Action could have minor cumulative impacts when added to other projects planned in the area. Hazardous materials and substances would be used, stored, and managed in strict accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Disposal of regulated wastes would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and local regulations, thereby reducing the likelihood of impacts. A spill-response program would be established where significant quantities of hazardous materials and petroleum products are stored or used in accordance with applicable federal and local regulations as well. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts from hazardous materials and wastes.

3.4.4.4 Land Use

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in negligible cumulative impacts on land use. The Proposed Action is located within the PRFTA training area within historically operated small arms ranges.


3-24

No other land uses have been established at the former training ranges. The Proposed Action would not affect land uses of planned projects in the vicinity. SDZs for range-specific small caliber weapons firing points and ammunition would be included in the request for waiver/deviation (see Section 3.3.8). The SDZ of any of the ranges within the installation’s training area would not affect land use and a cumulative impact is not anticipated to occur. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on land use.

3.4.4.5 Operating Noise

The Proposed Action could result in minor cumulative noise impacts, but would not be cumulatively significant. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts from noise at facilities or the adjoining community.

3.4.4.6 Public Health and Safety

Because there are no proposed developments downrange of training ranges B-2 through B-6 within the projected SDZs, Alternatives 2 through 6 do not contribute to cumulative impacts for safety. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to public health and safety.

3.4.4.7 Special-Status Species

Implementation of the Proposed Action could result in moderate cumulative impacts on special-status species if a species or its habitat were harmed during modernization or operation of the ranges. Protective measures to minimize harm to threatened and endangered species include conducting pre-activity surveys, species relocation, silt fence, or another similar barrier installation around any adjacent wetlands, general site visits, pre-construction briefing for construction crews, and soil stockpiling and replacement if needed. With implementation of above measures the Proposed Action is not expected to have a significant cumulative impact on threatened and endangered species when combined with other planned projects. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered species.

Dou

gh

ert

y R

oad

Camp Parks

Boulevard

FIGURE 3-1Natural Resource FeaturesParks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, CA

0 0.50.25

Miles

Legend

American badger

California Red-legged Frog

California Tiger Salamander

Tarplant

Ferruginous Hawk

Prairie Falcon

Burrowing Owl

Golden Eagle

Pallid Bat

Tricolored Blackbird

Western Pond Turtle

250 ft Buffer

PRFTA Wetland Data

Range

Area of Potential Effects / Extent of Disturbance

Installation Area

Notes:

1. Imagery Source: Esri ArcGIS Online World Imagery Service, 2014

2. Range features provided by the Parks Reserve Forces

Training Area

3. 2004 wetland data provided by Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Parks.

4. Point data digitized from Figure 2-3 in the 2012 Final

INRMP/EA.

0 1,000500

Feet

SECTION 4

4-1

List of Preparers, Agencies Contacted, and Distribution

4.1 Preparers Table 4-1 lists the preparers of this EA.

Table 4-1. List of Preparers

Name Education and Experience Primary Responsibilities

Andrea Naccarato/CH2M B.S., Biology (minors in Chemistry and Geography-Environmental Studies), Radford University, 1993

16 years of experience in NEPA project management

Project Manager, senior technical review, and quality assurance of the EA

Rich Reaves/CH2M Ph.D., Wildlife and Wetland Ecology, Purdue University, 1995

20+ years of experience in Military NEPA analyses

Senior technical review

Steve Petron/CH2M Ph.D., Zoology, Washington State University, 1987; M.S. Natural and Environmental Resources, University of New Hampshire, 1981; B.S. Wildlife Management, University of Minnesota, 1978

25+ years of experience

Independent technical review and quality assurance

Julie Petersen/CH2M B.S., Biology (minors in Chemistry and Physics), Austin Peay State University, 1996

12 years of experience

Task Manager; primary author of certain EA sections

Ken Greene/CH2M B.S., Natural Resources Management, Northern Arizona University

20+ years of experience in RCRA and NEPA compliance

Primary author of Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Wastes and Public Health and Safety

Kyra Donnell/CH2M B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Tennessee

29 years of experience in regulatory compliance, site investigation/remediation and NEPA with emphasis on munitions and ranges

Senior technical review and range/munitions specialist

Marjorie Eisert/CH2M B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology


Primary author of biological resource sections

Larry Sly/CH2M B.S., Finance and Economics, Florida State University

23+ years of experience in Noise, NEPA analysis, environmental permitting, and NEPA project management

Primary author of Operating Noise section

Caitlin Santinelli/CH2M B.S. Earth and Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008


Primary author of Air Quality sections

Ronald Vaughn/CH2M M.S., Civil Engineering; University of Texas at Austin; B.S., Chemical Engineering; University of Michigan

Professional Engineer (State of Texas); 20+ years of experience in NEPA Air Quality analyses

Supported development of the Air Quality Section

SECTION 4 – LIST OF PREPARERS, AGENCIES CONTACTED, AND DISTRIBUTION

4-2

4.2 Distribution List The following entities were contacted regarding the project during the scoping and public comment periods in February and June 2017.

Interested parties list for PRFTA, which included approximately 35 entities

The following entities received a hard copy of the draft and final EA/FNSI:

Dublin Public Library (200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568)

Contra Costa County Library (Dougherty Station) (17017 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94582)

Pleasanton Public Library (400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA 94566)

The following entities received an electronic copy of the final EA/FNSI:

EPA

Ohlone Audubon Society and the Alameda Creek Alliance

SECTION 5

5-1

Summary of Environmental Consequences This section summarizes the anticipated levels of impact to the environmental resources under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 2 through 6, as discussed in Section 3. Table 5-1 also outlines impact reduction measures identified in Section 3. The level of cumulative impact displayed in the table represents the implementation of the Proposed Action to modernize and operate all five training ranges.

Table 5-1. Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area


Airspace



Alternatives 3 – 6 Negligible Negligible Establish a SARSA per DA PAM 385-63

Air Quality


Alternatives 2 – 6 Minor Minor Implement dust control measures; mitigate NOx emissions during construction

Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste



Land Use


Alternatives 2 – 6 Negligible Negligible None

Operating Noise

No Action None None None





Alternative 3 Negligible Negligible Design elements and engineering controls

Alternative 4 and 5 Negligible Negligible Design elements and engineering controls

Alternative 6 Negligible Negligible Design elements and engineering controls

SECTION 5 – SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-2

Table 5-1. Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area


Special-Status Species


Alternatives 2 – 6 Moderate Moderate Pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures, passive relocation of species

SECTION 6

6-1

References Albion Environmental. 2010. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area 2011 Congdon’s Tarplant Survey Report. November.

Albion Environmental. 2012. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area 2011 Congdon’s Tarplant Survey Report. February.

Booz Allen Hamilton. 2004. Parks Reserve Forces Training area Wetland Delineation Report. April.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Natural Resources Agency. file:///C:/Users/jpeterse/Downloads/BUOW_MIT_StaffReport2012.pdf. March 7, 2012.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Accessed November 2016.

California Native Plant Society. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition). Sacramento, CA. http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

CH2M HILL, Inc. (CH2M). 2005. San Joaquin Kit Fox Early Evaluation and Proposed Survey Methodology for the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. Technical Memorandum. May 2.

City of Dublin. 2016a. Development Activity. http://www.dublin.ca.gov/174/Development-Activity. Accessed November 2016.

City of Dublin. 2016b. Dublin Crossing. http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/1553/Dublin-Crossing. Accessed November 2016.

City of Dublin. 2016c. Dougherty Road Improvement Project. http://www.dublin.ca.gov/1809/Dougherty-Road-Improvement-Project. Accessed November 2016.

City of San Ramon. 2016. Current Project List September 2016. http://www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us/plan/documents/CPLSeptember2016.pdf. Accessed November 2016.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 18.

Department of the Army, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. 2017. Correspondence with USFWS regarding concurrence with BO 1-1-06-F-1752 for Proposed Action. March 6.

Fabian and Watts. 2005. Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0582F. Effective June 16, 2009.

Google Earth. 2016. “Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and Vicinity.” Image 2016 DigitalGlobe (4/2005 and 6/2010). Accessed November 29, 2016.

HDR. 2012. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan/Environmental Assessment Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California. March.

Herbst, Chris, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. 2017. E-mail correspondence with Leif Goude, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 22, 2017.

http://www.cnps.org/inventory

http://www.dublin.ca.gov/174/Development-Activity

http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/1553/Dublin-Crossing

http://www.dublin.ca.gov/1809/Dougherty-Road-Improvement-Project

http://www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us/plan/documents/CPLSeptember2016.pdf

http://www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us/plan/documents/CPLSeptember2016.pdf

SECTION 6 – REFERENCES

6-2

Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA). 2004. Training Circular TC 25-8. Training Ranges. April 5.

Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA). 2010. Technical Manual TM 3-23.25. Shoulder-Launched Munitions. September 15.

Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA). 2014a. Pamphlet DA PAM 385-63. Range Safety. April 16.

Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA). 2014b. Concurrence of the Reactivation of the Training Ranges (Training Areas B-E) on Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California. September 29.

Larkin, Ronald P. 1994. Effects of military noise on wildlife: a literature review. Center for Wildlife ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey.

Larkin, Ronald P., Larry L. Pater, and David J. Tazik. 1996. Effects of military noise on wildlife: A literature review. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. January.

Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2015. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Results, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. September 21.

Office of Historic Preservation. 2017. Correspondence from the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Renovation of Firing Ranges at Parks Reserve Training Area. (USA_2017_0113_001). February 28.

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). 2015. FY2015 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Army Defense Environmental Restoration Program Installation Action Plan, Military Munitions Response Program. July 21.

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). 2016a. U.S. Army Reserve Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Website, Residential Communities Initiative. http://www.parks.army.mil/newcomers/rci.asp. Accessed November 2016.

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). 2016b. Alameda County Firing Range, Alternative Course of Action, Memorandum. November 2.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2016. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report) – Statewide. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Accessed November 2016.

U.S. Army. 2008. Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase 1 Qualitative Assessment Report, U.S. Army Combat Support Training Center and Camp Parks, California. Final. June.

U.S. Army. 2014. Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase 1 Qualitative Assessment Report Addendum, Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California. Final. April 29.

U.S. Army Combat Support Training Center and Camp Parks. 2006. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Master Plan Redevelopment, Installation Management Agency, Army Reserve Division, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Biological Assessment. February.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004. File Number 28475S; letter dated April 2.

U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC). 2012. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Modernizing and Operating Training Ranges on Previous or Existing Range Sites on Army Training Areas. November.

U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC). 2013. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment for Implementation of Net Zero Energy Goals at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. August.

http://www.parks.army.mil/newcomers/rci.asp

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml

SECTION 6 – REFERENCES

6-3

U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks. Volume 1 and 2. July.

U.S. Army Public Health Command. 2016. Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Installation Compatible Use Zone Study. August.

U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC). 2000. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan Parks Reserve Forces Training Area.

U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC). 2009. Environmental Assessment Addressing the Establishment of Three Combat Support Training Centers. June.

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2005. Instruction No. 4715.14. Operational Range Assessments. November 30.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Fifth Edition. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors. January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. http://epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Accessed November 7, 2016.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. NAAQS Table Criteria Air Pollutants. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm, http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. Accessed November 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs. August.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Formal Endangered Species Consultation for the Redevelopment of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA), Alameda and Contra Costa County, California. December 18.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. December.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Environmental Conservation Online System: Information, Planning, and Conservation System. Accessed November 2016.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002. Military Training, DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges. Page 1. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02614.pdf. June.

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors

http://epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02614.pdf

Appendix A Notice of 30-Day Period for

Public Comment

NOTICE OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT The Department of the Army has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the impacts that could result from modernizing and operating five training ranges at the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda County, Dublin, California. The EA and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) are available at the Dublin Public Library (200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA); Contra Costa County Library (Dougherty Station) (17017 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA), and Pleasanton Public Library (400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA), and on the Internet at www.ch2m.com/EA1. Written comments submitted by March 19, 2017, will be considered prior to the Army concluding this National Environmental Policy Act process. Written comments should be directed to: Mr. Dan Gannod, U.S. Army Garrison, 620 6th Street, Dublin, CA 94568, or by email at [email protected].

• February 17, 2017 • Pleasanton Weekly

fogster.com THE TRI-VALLEY’S FREE CLASSIFIEDS WEB SITEFogster.com offers FREE • postings online and the opportunity for your ad to appear in print to more than 80,000 readers. You can log on to fogster.com 24/7, and your online ad starts immediately. Some ads require payment.

BulletinBoard

115 AnnouncementsPREGNANT? Considering adoption? Call us first. Living expenses, housing, medical, and continued support afterwards. Choose adoptive family of your choice. Call 24/7. 1-877-879-4709 (Cal-SCAN)

PREGNANT? Considering adoption? Call us first. Living expenses, housing, medical, and continued support afterwards. Choose adoptive family of your choice. Call 24/7. 877-362-2401

WANTED: Lathe/milling tooling Old lathe or milling tooling. Contact (925) 989-1751.

130 Classes & InstructionAIRLINE CAREERS begin here - Get started by training as FAA certified Aviation Technician. Financial aid for qualified students. Job placement assistance. Call Aviation Institute of Maintenance 800-725-1563 (AAN CAN)

145 Non-Profits NeedsDID YOU KNOW 7 IN 10 Americans or 158 million U.S. Adults read content from newspaper media each week? Discover the Power of Newspaper Advertising. For a free brochure call 916-288-6011 or email [email protected] (Cal-SCAN)

For Sale202 Vehicles WantedDONATE YOUR CAR, TRUCK OR BOAT to Heritage for the Blind. FREE 3 Day Vacation, Tax Deductible, Free Towing, All Paperwork Taken Care of. Call 800-731-5042 (Cal-SCAN)

GET CASH FOR CARS/TRUCKS!!! All Makes/Models 2000-2016! Top $$$ Paid! Any Condition! Used or wrecked. Running or Not. Free Towing! Call For Offer: 1-888-417-9150. (Cal-SCAN)

Got an older car, boat or RV? Do the humane thing. Donate it to the Humane Society. Call 1-800-743-1482 (Cal-SCAN)

Old Porsche 356/911/912 Wanted for restoration by hobbyist 1948-1973 Only. Any condition, top $ paid! PLEASE LEAVE MESSAGE 707- 965-9546 (Cal-SCAN)

245 MiscellaneousDISH TV - BEST DEAL EVER! Only $39.99/mo. Plus $14.99/mo. Internet (where avail.) FREE Streaming. FREE Install (up to 6 rooms.) FREE HD-DVR. Call 1-800-357-0810 (Cal-SCAN)

HOME BREAK-INS take less than 60 SECONDS. Don’t wait! Protect your family, your home, your assets NOW for as little as 70¢ a day! Call 855-404-7601 (Cal-SCAN)

KILL ROACHES-GUARANTEED! Buy Harris Roach Tablets or Spray. Odorless, Long Lasting. Available: Hardware Stores, The Home Depot, homedepot.com. Try Harris Bed Bug Killers Too! (Cal-SCAN)

SAWMILLS from only $4397.00- MAKE & SAVE MONEY with your own bandmill- Cut lumber any dimension. In stock ready to ship! FREE Info/ DVD: www.NorwoodSawmills.com 1-800-578-1363 Ext.300N (Cal-SCAN)

Switch to DIRECTV Lock in 2-Year Price Guarantee ($50/month) w/AT&T Wireless. Over 145 Channels PLUS Popular Movie Networks for Three Months, No Cost! Call 1-800-385-9017 (Cal-SCAN)

Kid’sStuff

345 Tutoring/LessonsEVERY BUSINESS has a story to tell! Get your message out with California’s PRMedia Release - the only Press Release Service operated by the press to get press! For more info contact Cecelia @ 916-288-6011 or http://prmediarelease.com/california (Cal-SCAN)

Mathematics Tutoring & Test Preparation For immediate improvement, please contact us at 925-425-7099 or www.mtpca.net.

355 Items for SaleDID YOU KNOW 144 million U.S. Adults read a Newspaper print copy each week? Discover the Power of Newspaper Advertising. For a free brochure call 916-288-6011 or email [email protected] (Cal-SCAN)

Mind& Body

425 Health ServicesELIMINATE CELLULITE and Inches in weeks! All natural. Odor free. Works for men or women. Free month supply on select packages. Order now! 844-703-9774. (Cal-SCAN)

Got Knee Pain? Back Pain? Shoulder Pain? Get a pain-relieving brace -little or NO cost to you. Medicare Patients Call Health Hotline Now! 1-800-796-5091 (Cal-SCAN)

MAKE THE CALL to starting getting clean today. Free 24/7 Helpline for alcohol and drug addiction treatment. Get help! It is time to take your life back! Call Now: 855-732-4139 (AAN CAN)

OXYGEN - Anytime. Anywhere. No tanks to refill. No deliveries. The All-New Inogen One G4 is only 2.8 pounds! FAA approved! FREE info kit: 844-359-3976. (Cal-SCAN)

Safe Step Walk-In Tub! Alert for Seniors. Bathroom falls can be fatal. Approved by Arthritis Foundation. Therapeutic Jets. Less Than 4 Inch Step-In. Wide Door. Anti-Slip Floors. American Made. Installation Included. Call 800-799-4811 for $750 Off. (Cal-SCAN)

Struggling with DRUGS or ALCOHOL? Addicted to PILLS? Talk to someone who cares. Call The Addiction Hope & Help Line for a free assessment. 800-978-6674 (AAN CAN)

Jobs500 Help Wanted

BUSINESS Cisco Systems, Inc. is accepting resumes for the following position in Pleasanton, CA: Partner Account Manager (Ref.# PL5): Responsible for building executive relationships, identifying and driving strategic investments, developing sales engagement and partner enable-ment, opportunity development, marketing and demand generation, pipeline development, and coordina-tion of cross functional activities. Telecommuting permitted and Travel may be required to various unan-ticipated locations throughout the United States. Please mail resumes with reference number to Cisco Systems, Inc., Attn: M51H, 170 W. Tasman Drive, Mail Stop: SJC 5/1/4, San Jose, CA 95134. No phone calls please. Must be legally authorized to work in the U.S. without sponsorship. EOE. www.cisco.com

ENGINEERING Workday, Inc. has a Security Engineer position (Job Code: SETL-CA) available in Pleasanton, CA. Secure the Workday enterprise IT environment. Submit resume by mail to: Workday, Inc., Attn: Human Rources, 6230 Stoneridge Mall Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588. Must reference job title and job code (SETL-CA).

Shipper/Packager Small office in Pleasanton look-ing for shipper, packager. You run the warehouse. 15 to 20 hours per week. Flexible schedule. Ideal job for recently retired. Must be able to move drums of oil with drum dolly. Working with two others in the front office. Looking for long term help. 2, 3, 5, 8 years ... $18.00 per hour to start. Will initially be hired as a 2 week temporary position. Call (925) 251-8204 between 8 and 4.

TECHNICAL Cisco Systems, Inc. is accepting resumes for the following position in Pleasanton, CA: Consulting Systems Engineer (Ref.# PL6): Provide specific end-to-end solutions and architec-ture consulting, technical and sales support for major account opportuni-ties at the theater, area, or operation level. Travel may be required to vari-ous unanticipated locations through-out the United States. Please mail resumes with reference number to Cisco Systems, Inc., Attn: M51H, 170 W. Tasman Drive, Mail Stop: SJC 5/1/4, San Jose, CA 95134. No phone calls please. Must be legally authorized to work in the U.S. without sponsorship. EOE. www.cisco.com

540 Domestic Help Wanted

HOUSEKEEPER PT Private residence. MWF 11-4. Please see craigslist Post ID #5963855317 for details and to submit resume.

560 Employment InformationPAID IN ADVANCE! Make $1000 A Week Mailing Brochures From Home! No Experience Required. Helping home workers since 2001! Genuine Opportunity. Start Immediately! www.IncomeStation.net (AAN CAN)

BusinessServices

601 Accounting/BookkeepingNEED HELP WITH QUICKBOOKS? Over 25 years experience in all aspects of bookkeeping. No job too big or too small. Call Linda at 925-918-2233.

604 Adult Care OfferedA PLACE FOR MOM The nation’s largest senior living refer-ral service. Contact our trusted,local experts today! Our service is FREE/no obligation. CALL 1-800-550-4822. (Cal-SCAN)

624 FinancialDo You Owe Over $10K to the IRS or State in back taxes? Our firm works to reduce the tax bill or zero it out completely FAST. Call now 855-993-5796 (Cal-SCAN)

RETIRED COUPLE $$$$ for business purpose Real Estate loans. Credit unimportant. V.I.P. Trust Deed Company www.viploan.com Call 818 248-0000 Broker-principal BRE 01041073. (Cal-SCAN)

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY benefits. Unable to work? Denied ben-efits? We Can Help! WIN or Pay Nothing! Contact Bill Gordon & Associates at 1-800-966-1904 to start your application today! (Cal-SCAN)

636 InsuranceHealth and Dental Insurance Lowest Prices. We have the best rates from top companies! Call Now! 888-989-4807. (Cal-SCAN)

640 Legal ServicesDID YOU KNOW Information is power and content is King? Do you need timely access to public notices and remain relevant in today’s hostile business climate? Gain the edge with California Newspaper Publishers Association new innovative website capublicnotice.com and check out the FREE One-Month Trial Smart Search Feature. For more information call Cecelia @ (916) 288-6011 or www.capublicnotice.com (Cal-SCAN)

HomeServices

751 General Contracting

A NOTICE TO READERS: It is illegal for an unlicensed person to perform contracting work on any project valued at $500.00 or more in labor and materials. State law also requires that contractors include their license numbers on all advertis-ing. Check your contractor’s status at www.cslb.ca.gov or 800-321-CSLB (2752). Unlicensed persons taking jobs that total less than $500.00 must state in their advertisements that they are not licensed by the Contractors State License Board.

RealEstate

809 Shared Housing/RoomsALL AREAS ROOMMATES.COM Lonely? Bored? Broke? Find the perfect roommate to complement your person-ality and lifestyle at Roommates.com! (AAN CAN)

850 Acreage/Lots/StorageN. Arizona Wilderness Ranch $236 MONTH - Quiet and secluded 37 acre off the grid self-sufficiency ranch bordering 640 wooded acres of State Trust lands at cool clear 6,200’s elevation. Minutes from historic pioneer town and fishing lake. True wilderness with free roaming wildlife, no urban noise and dark sky nights. Blend of evergreen woodlands and grassy meadows with sweeping views across surrounding uninhabited wilder-ness mountains and valleys. Abundant groundwater, rich loam garden soil and maintained road access. Camping and RV use ok. $27,500, $2,750 dn. with no quali-fying seller financing. FREE BROCHURE with additional property descriptions, prices, photos, topo map, weather chart, area info. 1st United Realty 800.966.6690. (Cal-SCAN)

855 Real Estate ServicesDID YOU KNOW Information is power and content is King? Do you need timely access to public notices and remain relevant in today’s highly competitive market? Gain an edge with California Newspaper Publishers Association new innovative website capublicnotice.com and check out the Smart Search Feature. For more informa-tion call Cecelia @ (916) 288-6011 or www.capublicnotice.com (Cal-SCAN)

LegalNotices

995 Fictitious Name StatementSUNSHINE PHOTO BOOTH FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 526792 The following person(s) doing busi-ness as: SUNSHINE PHOTO BOOTH, 161 SIERRAWOOD AVE., HAYWARD, CA 94544, is hereby registered by the following owner(s): Michael Chand, 161 Sierrawood Ave., Hayward, CA 94544. This busi-

ness is conducted by a Limited liability company. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein. Signature of Registrant: Michael Chand, Principal. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/24/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Jan. 27, Feb. 3, 10, 17; 2017)

LARKIN PRO FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 526455 The following person(s) doing business as: LARKIN PRO, 268 RACHAEL PLACE, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, is hereby reg-istered by the following owner(s): Amy Larkin, 268 Rachael Place, Pleasanton, CA 94566. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein. Signature of Registrant: Amy Larkin. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/13/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Jan. 27, Feb. 3, 10, 17; 2017)

DREAM BAY HOMES FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 526786 The following person(s) doing business as: DREAM BAY HOMES, 3203 CURTIS CIRCLE, PLEASANTON, CA 94588, is hereby registered by the following owner(s): Mano Chidambaram, 3203 Curtis Circle, Pleasanton, CA 94588. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant began transacting business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein 01/01/2017. Signature of Registrant: Mano Chidambaram. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/24/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Jan. 27, Feb. 3, 10, 17; 2017)

SUN21 GLOBAL LLC FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 526771 The following person(s) doing business as: SUN21 GLOBAL LLC, 6754 BERNAL AVE., SUITE 740-208, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, is hereby registered by the following owner(s): SUN21 GLOBAL LLC, 6754 Bernal Ave. Suite 740-208, Pleasanton, CA 94566. This business is conducted by a Limited liability company. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein. Signature of Registrant: Yong Sun, Manager Member. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/24/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 3, 10, 17, 24; 2017)

GAINED INSIGHT FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 526123 The following person(s) doing business as: GAINED INSIGHT, 5820 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD SUITE 219, PLEASANTON, CA 94588, is hereby registered by the following owner(s): Katherine Nagy/Nitz, 106 Palmer Street, San Ramon, CA 94583. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant began transact-ing business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein 10/10/2011. Signature of Registrant: Katherine Nitz/Nagy. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/05/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 3, 10, 17, 24; 2017)

COPIA GROWTH ADVISORS FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 527062 The following person(s) doing business as: COPIA GROWTH ADVISORS, 8123 BRITTANY DRIVE, DUBLIN, CA 94568, is hereby regis-tered by the following owner(s): Michael Kaskowitz, 8123 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein. Signature of Registrant: Michael Kaskowitz. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/31/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 10, 17, 24, March 3; 2017)

GIFT OF GAB FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 527087 The following person(s) doing business as: GIFT OF GAB, 2841 WHITNEY DRIVE, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, is hereby regis-tered by the following owner(s): Parrish Verducci, 2841 Whitney Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94566. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious busi-ness name(s) listed herein. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/31/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 10, 17, 24, March 3; 2017)

EDGETEK ENGINEERING FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 527167 The following person(s) doing business as: EDGETEK ENGINEERING, 173 HELIGAN LANE UNIT 7, LIVERMORE, CA 94551, is hereby reg-istered by the following owner(s): Edge Coffee LLC, 173 Heligan Lane Unit 7, Livermore, CA 94551. This business is conducted by a Limited liability company. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein. Signature of Registrant: Jonathan Owen Salsman, Officer. This statement was filed with

the County Clerk of Alameda on 02/02/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 10, 17, 24, March 3; 2017)

STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME File No. 494887 The following person(s) has/have aban-doned the use of the fictitious business name(s). The information given below is as it appeared on the fictitious business statement that was filed at the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME(S): THE SIGNWORKS, 46 TRAYNOR STREET #7, HAYWARD, CA 94544-1953 FILED IN ALAMEDA COUNTY ON: 08/12/2014 UNDER FILE NO. 494887 REGISTRANT’S NAME(S): Barry Quraishi, 3827 Vine Street, Pleasanton, CA 94566 THIS BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED BY an Individual. Signature of Registrant: Barry Quraishi. This statement was filed with the County Clerk Recorder of Alameda County on Feb. 6, 2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 10, 17, 24, March 3; 2017)

AMADOR DENTAL AND ORTHODONTIC FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 526387 The following person(s) doing business as: AMADOR DENTAL AND ORTHODONTIC, 5000 PLEASANTON AVE. SUITE 110, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, is hereby reg-istered by the following owner(s): Jacob DeVinney DDS Inc., 37 Vista Montemar, Laguna Niguel, CA, 92677. This business is conducted by a Corporation. Registrant began transacting business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein 10/31/2016. Signature of Registrant: Jacob DeVinney, President. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/11/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 10, 17, 24; March 3; 2017)

PLEASANTON BARBERSHOP FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 527346 The following person(s) doing business as: PLEASANTON BARBERSHOP, 5424 SUNOL BLVD. SUITE #2, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, is hereby registered by the following owner(s): Truc Tran, 3648 Madrid Drive, San Jose, CA 95132. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant began transact-ing business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein 12/12/2014. Signature of Registrant: Truc Tran. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 02/07/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 17, 24, March 3, 10; 2017)

CHIRP THE LITTLE MAKERS FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 527444 The following person(s) doing business as: CHIRP THE LITTLE MAKERS, 608 MAIN ST., SUITE F, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, is hereby registered by the following owner(s): Sri Ramya, Sundaram, 1155 S. Central Parkway, Mountain House, CA 95391. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein. Signature of Registrant: Sri Ramya Sundaram. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 02/09/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 17, 24, March 3, 10; 2017)

MERN’S JEWELS FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No.: 526853 The following person(s) doing business as: MERN’S JEWELS, 332 MAVIS DRIVE, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, is hereby reg-istered by the following owner(s): Mary Hazle, 332 Mavis Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94566. This business is conducted by an Individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name(s) listed herein. Signature of Registrant: Mary Hazle. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda on 01/25/2017. (Pleasanton Weekly, Feb. 17, 24, March 3, 10; 2017)

997 All Other LegalsNOTICE OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT The Department of the Army has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the impacts that could result from modernizing and operating five training ranges at the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda County, Dublin, California. The EA and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) are available at the Dublin Public Library (200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA); Contra Costa County Library (Dougherty Station) (17017 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA), and Pleasanton Public Library (400 Old Bernal Ave., Pleasanton, CA), and on the Internet at www.ch2m.com/EA1. Written comments submitted by March 19, 2017, will be considered prior to the Army concluding this National Environmental Policy Act process. Written comments should be directed to: Mr. Dan Gannod, U.S. Army Garrison, 620 6th Street, Dublin, CA 94568, or by email at [email protected].

No phone number in the ad? Go to

fogster.com for contact information

4PM, TUESDAY

Classified Deadlines:

NOTICE OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FINAL EA COMMENTS The Department of the Army has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the impacts that could result from modernizing and operating five training ranges at the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda County, Dublin, California. The Final EA and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) are available at the Dublin Public Library (200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA); Contra Costa County Library (Dougherty Station) (17017 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA), and Pleasanton Public Library (400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA), and on the Internet at www.ch2m.com/EA1. Written comments submitted by July 22, 2017, will be considered prior to the Army concluding this National Environmental Policy Act process. Written comments should be directed to: Mr. Dan Gannod, U.S. Army Garrison, 620 6th Street, Dublin, CA 94568, or by email at [email protected].

Appendix B Record of Non-Applicability

Appendix C Installation Compatibility Use Zone

Study (Sections Applicable to PRFTA)

FORTHUNTERLIGGETTANDCAMPPARKSRESERVEFORCESTRAININGAREAINSTALLATIONCOMPATIBLEUSEZONESTUDY

August2016

Prepared by: Operational Noise Division Directorate of Environmental Health Sciences and Engineering U.S. Army Public Health Center (prov) 5158 Blackhawk Road Aberdeen Proving Ground Maryland, 21010-5403 410-436-3829

FORTHUNTERLIGGETTANDCAMPPARKSRESERVEFORCESTRAININGAREAINSTALLATIONCOMPATIBLEUSEZONESTUDY

August2016

FHL and PRFTA Installation Compatible Use Zone Study 2016

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) studies quantify the noise environment from military training sources and recommend the most appropriate uses of noise-impacted areas. This assessment updates the information contained in the February 2003 Fort Hunter Liggett Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan and the February 2000 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Environmental Noise Plan. Army Regulation (AR) 200-1 lists housing, schools, and medical facilities as examples of noise-sensitive land uses. Regulation guidelines state for land use planning purposes, noise-sensitive land uses are acceptable within the Noise Zone I, normally not recommended in Noise Zone II, and not recommended or incompatible in Noise Zone III. Army Regulation 200-1 offers land use recommendations, which if adopted both on and off the installation, would facilitate future development that is unaffected by military noise. The guidelines are applied throughout the ICUZ document as individual training and/or testing operations are analyzed. Additionally, supplemental metrics predict the probability of community noise annoyance and complaints. The principle noise sources at Fort Hunter Liggett (FHL) are small and large arms weapons firing, demolition, and air-to-ground firing. Since the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA) small arms ranges are currently inactive, the principle noise source is small arms blank firing at multiple locations throughout the Training Area. CONCLUSIONS FORT HUNTER LIGGETT Land Use Compatibility The Noise Zones for all range operations remain on post except for a small area to the north-northeast of the installation. With the exception of two residences on a single farm property, the Noise Zones do not encompass noise-sensitive land uses. Complaint Risk The unfavorable weather Moderate Complaint Risk (115-130 dBP) area extends beyond the eastern boundary 1600 meters in one small area and beyond the western boundary 200 meters in one small area. To the east, there is a single farm with two homes contained within the Moderate Complaint Risk area. The High Complaint Risk (>130 dBP) area extends beyond the eastern boundary approximately 230 meters in one small area. Based on the current land uses and the


ES-2

complaint risk guidelines, the risk of complaints from large caliber activity during unfavorable weather conditions is minimal. The neutral weather Moderate Complaint Risk area extends beyond the eastern boundary 300 meters. There are no noise-sensitive land uses within the risk area. The High Complaint Risk area remains within the FHL boundary. Based on the complaint risk guidelines, the risk of complaints from large caliber activity during neutral weather conditions is minimal. PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA Small Arms Firing There are no current Noise Zones for PRFTA since the small arms ranges are inactive. However, since there is a potential that the ranges could be operational in the future, modeling assessed the noise impacts that reopening specific ranges would have. Computer modeling indicated that Noise Zones II and III would not extend off post and would remain localized near the ranges. In addition, the Noise Zones would not extend into any noise sensitive areas on post. According to Army guidelines, if the small caliber ranges were to reopen, there would no Noise Zone acreage off post. Non-live fire training sites include a Military Operations in Urban Terrain site, a Land Navigation site, and Squad Training Exercise lanes. These training areas utilize only blank rounds (up to 5.56 mm). Levels approaching Noise Zone II limits could extend 200 meters from where the weapon fires. If firing occurs in close proximity to the boundary, the activity may be audible in some residential areas of San Ramon and Dublin. Aviation Activity Although the number of operations at FHL and PRFTA is not high enough to generate Noise Zones, there is always a potential that individual overflights could annoy people near the flight tracks. However, measures are in place to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise at FHL and PRFTA including minimum flight altitudes and designated no-fly areas. These measures in conjunction with the limited number of operations result in the complaint risk being low. RECOMMENDATIONS The ICUZ is a proactive planning tool, which will help to guide future development in surrounding communities. At a minimum, local municipal governments are encouraged to support public disclosure of all Noise Zones and supplemental metrics that may convey how military training operations affect the noise environment. The ICUZ study describes the noise characteristics of a specific operational environment. Therefore, if mission, training, or training facilities undergo changes at FHL or PRFTA, the ICUZ should be reviewed to determine if the current noise assessment is sufficient or if a full ICUZ update is necessary. At a minimum, it is recommended that every five years the ICUZ and/or Noise Zones be updated to incorporate pertinent changes to the noise environment.


i

SECTION

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 PROCESS AND PROCEDURE .............................................................................. 1-2

1.3.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS....................................................................... 1-2

1.3.2 NOISE EXPOSURE MODELS ............................................................................... 1-2

1.4 NOISE BASICS ....................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 NOISE METRICS ................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.2 SOUND PROPAGATION....................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 NOISE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................... 1-6

1.5.1 NOISE COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE ....................................... 1-6

2 NOISE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES .............................................................................. 2-1

3 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 LOCATION AND CLIMATE, ................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 MISSION AND STRUCTURE, .............................................................................. 3-3

3.4 TRAINING FACILITIES AND RANGES ............................................................. 3-3

3.5 LOCAL COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................... 3-7

4 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT RANGE NOISE ASSESSMENT .......................................... 4-1

4.1 SMALL ARMS WEAPONS NOISE ...................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 SMALL ARMS LIVE-FIRE RANGES................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 NON-FIXED FIRING POINT RANGES AND TRAINING AREAS .................... 4-4

4.1.2.1 NON-FIXED FIRING POINT NOISE EXPOSURE ..................................... 4-6

4.2 LARGE ARMS, DEMOLITION, AND OTHER IMPULSIVE NOISE ................. 4-7

4.2.1 DEMOLITION AND LARGE CALIBER NOISE ZONES .................................... 4-7

4.2.2 LARGE ARMS AND DEMOLITION COMPLAINT RISK POTENTIAL ........... 4-9

4.2.2.1 GRENADE LAUNCHER .............................................................................. 4-1

4.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.2 TUSI ARMY HELIPORT ....................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.3 SCHOONOVER TACTICAL AIRSTRIP AND LANDING ZONES .................... 4-3

4.3.4 FLIGHT CORRIDORS AND AVIATION OPERATIONS AREAS ..................... 4-6


ii

4.3.5 ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL FROM OVERFLIGHTS....................................... 4-10

4.3.5.1 HELICOPTER AND FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT ...................................... 4-10

4.3.5.2 UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM AIRCRAFT .......................................... 4-14

4.3.6 NOISE ABATEMENT AND NO FLY AREAS ................................................... 4-15

4.4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND ASSESSMENT ............... 4-16

4.4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 4-16

4.4.2 LAND USE AND ZONING .................................................................................. 4-16

4.4.3 SMALL ARMS ...................................................................................................... 4-16

4.4.4 EXPLOSIVE AND LARGE ARMS OPERATIONS............................................ 4-17

5 PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA.............................................................. 5-1

5.1 LOCATION AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION .................................................... 5-1

5.2 HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 MISSION AND STRUCTURE, .............................................................................. 5-4

5.4 TRAINING FACILITIES AND RANGES ............................................................. 5-4

5.5 LOCAL COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................... 5-7

5.6 PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA RANGE NOISE ASSESSMENT 5-9

5.6.1 SMALL ARMS NOISE ........................................................................................... 5-9

5.6.1.1 SMALL ARMS RANGES (CURRENT AND FUTURE) ............................. 5-9

5.6.1.2 NON-FIXED FIRING POINTS ................................................................... 5-11

5.7 AIRCRAFT NOISE ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 5-13

5.7.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................. 5-13

5.7.2 HELIPORT ............................................................................................................ 5-13

5.7.3 TACTICAL LANDING ZONE AND AIR STRIP ............................................... 5-13

6 NOISE RELATED LAND USE POLICY AND CONTROL ............................................. 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 ACHIEVING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ....................................................... 6-1

6.3 LAND USE PLANNING OPTIONS....................................................................... 6-1

6.4 THE ARMY COMPATIBLE USE BUFFER (ACUB) PROGRAM ...................... 6-2

6.5 JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS) ....................................................................... 6-3

6.6 STATEWIDE / LOCAL MILITARY POLICY ...................................................... 6-4

7 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT .................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA.................................................. 7-1


iii

7.3 AVIATION ACTIVITY .......................................................................................... 7-2

7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 7-2

A GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................. A-1

B FICUN GUIDELINES ...................................................................................... B-1

C AMMUNITION UTILIZATION ...................................................................... C-1

D REFERENCES .................................................................................................. D-1

FIGURES Figure 1-1. Example of a Temperature Inversion ........................................................................ 1-5

Figure 1-2. Noise Complaint Form .............................................................................................. 1-8

Figure 3-1. Fort Hunter Liggett General Location....................................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-2. FHL Training Facilities ............................................................................................. 3-5

Figure 3-3. Population Density for Census Year 2010 ................................................................ 3-8

Figure 4-1. Noise Zones for Small Arms Operations .................................................................. 4-2

Figure 4-2. Noise Zones for Small Arms Operations –Detailed East .......................................... 4-3

Figure 4-3. FHL Non-Fixed Point Training Sites ........................................................................ 4-5

Figure 4-4. Explosives and Large Arms Operations CDNL Noise Zones (CNEL Equivalent) .. 4-8

Figure 4-5. Explosives and Large Arms Operations Complaint Risk Areas (Unfavorable Weather Conditions) ................................................................................................................................. 4-10

Figure 4-6. Explosives and Large Arms Operations Complaint Risk Areas (Neutral Weather Conditions) ................................................................................................................................. 4-11

Figure 4-7. Tusi Army Heliport ................................................................................................... 4-4

Figure 4-8. FHL Schnoover Army Assault .................................................................................. 4-5

Figure 4-9. FHL Flight Routes .................................................................................................... 4-7

Figure 4-10. FHL Military Operations Areas and Restricted Areas ............................................ 4-9

Figure 4-11. Example of Ground Track Distance versus Flight Annoyance Potential (CH-47)4-12

Figure 4-12. Small Arms Noise Zones with Surrounding Generalized Zoning ........................ 4-18

Figure 4-13. Explosives and Large Arms Noise Zones with Surrounding Generalized Zoning 4-19

Figure 5-1. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Location .......................................................... 5-2

Figure 5-2. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area - Detailed ........................................................ 5-3

Figure 5-3. PRFTA Training Areas and Ranges .......................................................................... 5-6

Figure 5-4. Population Density 2012 ........................................................................................... 5-8

Figure 5-5. PRFTA Small Arms Noise Zones (Reactivated Ranges Scenario) ......................... 5-10

Figure 5-7. PRFTA Buffer Area for Non-Fixed Point Training Areas (5.56mm Rifle Blank) . 5-12

TABLES Table 1-1 University of Utah Criteria for "Good" and "Bad" Firing Conditions ....................... 1-6

Table 2-1. Noise Limits for Noise Zones ..................................................................................... 2-1

Table 3-1. FY2009 Personnel and Total Days Utilized at FHL .................................................. 3-4

Table 3-2. FHL Live fire Range Facilities ................................................................................... 3-6

Table 3-3. Population Surrounding FHL ..................................................................................... 3-7

Table 4-1. Predicted Peak Levels for 5.56mm Blank Round ...................................................... 4-6


iv

Table 4-2. Predicted Peak for 7.62mm Blank Round .................................................................. 4-6

Table 4-3. Predicted Peak for .50 Caliber Blank Round .............................................................. 4-7

Table 4-4. Complaint Risk Guidelines ......................................................................................... 4-9

Table 4-5. Complaint Risk to the Side of the 40mm Grenade Launcher, Inert* Round .............. 4-1

Table 4-6. Complaint Risk to the Rear of the 40mm Grenade Launcher, *Inert Round ............. 4-2

Table 4-7. Maximum A-Weighted Sound Levels for Rotary-Wing Aircraft ............................ 4-10

Table 4-8. Maximum A-Weighted Sound Levels for Fixed-Wing Aircraft .............................. 4-11

Table 4-9. Percentage of Population Highly Annoyed from Aircraft Noise ............................. 4-11

Table 4-10. Rotary-Wing Overflights Annoyance Potential1 .................................................... 4-13

Table 4-11. Fixed-Wing Overflights Annoyance Potential1 ...................................................... 4-14

Table 4-12. Small Caliber Noise Zones Acreage ....................................................................... 4-16

Table 4-13. Large Caliber Noise Zones Acreage ....................................................................... 4-17

Table 5-1. PRFTA Range and Training Site Description ............................................................ 5-5

Table 5-2. Population Surrounding PRFTA ................................................................................ 5-7

Table 5-3. Noise Zone Acreage (Future scenario with active small arms ranges) ...................... 5-9


v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAF Army Airfield ABAG Association of Bay Area Government ACUB Army Compatible Use Buffer ADNL A-Weighted Day-Night Average Sound Level AGL Above Ground Level AHP Army Heliport AR Army Regulation CAS Close Air Support CDNL C-Weighted Day-Night Average Sound Level CHABA Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics CLFX Convoy Live Fire Exercises CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dB Decibel(s) dBA Decibels, A-Weighted dBC Decibels, C-Weighted dBP Decibels, Unweighted Peak DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level DoD Department of Defense DODI Department of Defense Instruction DPTO Directorate of Plans and Training Office DZ Drop Zone ERG Explosives Research Group FHL Fort Hunter Liggett FICUN Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise GIS Geographical Information System ICUZ Installation Compatible Use Zone IED Improvised Explosive Device JLUS Joint Land Use Study LEQ Equivalent Sound Level LFSH Live Fire Shoot House LUPZ Land Use Planning Zone LZ Landing Zone MOA Military Operations Area MOUT Military Operations in Urban Terrain MPRC Multi-Purpose Range Complex MSL Mean Sea Level NEW Net Explosive Weight NOE Nap Of the Earth NLR Noise Level Reduction ONMP Operational Noise Management Plan OPR Office of Planning and Research Pa Pascal PAO Public Affairs Office


vi

POC Point of Contact PRFTA Parks Reserve Forces Training Area SARNAM Small Arms Range Noise Assessment Model SEL Sound Exposure Level SRTA Short Range Training Ammunition STX Squad Training Exercise TA Training Area TASS The Army School System TLZ Tactical Landing Zone TP Target Practice TTC Training Center USAR U.S. Army Reserve USARC U.S. Army Reserve Command UAC Urban Assault Course UAS Unmanned Aerial System UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle USACHPPM U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine USAPHC U. S. Army Public Health Command USAR U.S. Army Reserve VFR Visual Flight Rules


1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

The Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) study provides a strategy for noise management in the areas surrounding Fort Hunter Liggett (FHL) and Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). Elements of the ICUZ include noise analysis, education about noise and Army noise metrics, complaint management, and when necessary, noise abatement procedures. The report assists both installation personnel and local community officials. Specifically, the ICUZ provides a methodology for analyzing noise exposure associated with military operations and provides land use guidelines for achieving compatibility between the noise generated by the Army and the surrounding communities. As local communities prepare and modify comprehensive development plans, the PHC recommends that the conclusions from this ICUZ is considered in the planning process with a goal of preventing incompatible land use.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Army has an obligation to U.S. citizens to recommend land use around its installations, which will: (a) protect citizens from noise and other hazards; and (b) protect the public's investment in these training facilities. To meet these obligations, the Army will recommend land uses that are compatible with military operations while allowing maximum beneficial use of adjacent properties. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and component Services have published guidelines that reflect these land use recommendations. Through Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, noise exposure on communities translates into Noise Zones. Regulation guidelines state that for land use planning purposes, noise-sensitive land uses range from acceptable to not recommended within the Noise Zones. These guidelines apply throughout the ICUZ as individual or combined training operations are analyzed. The program defines the following four Noise Zones:

Zone III- Noise-sensitive land uses are not recommended in Zone III. Zone II - Although local conditions such as availability of developable land or cost may

require noise-sensitive land uses in Zone II, this type of land use is strongly discouraged on the installation and in surrounding communities. All viable alternatives should be considered to limit development in Zone II to non-sensitive activities such as industry, manufacturing, transportation and agriculture.

Zone I - Noise-sensitive land uses are generally acceptable within the Zone I. However, though an area may only receive Zone I levels, military operations may be loud enough to be heard - or even judged loud on occasion. Zone I is not one of the contours shown on the map; rather it is the entire area outside of the Zone II contour.


1-2

LUPZ - The Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) is a subdivision of Zone I. The LUPZ is 5 dB lower than Zone II. Within this area, noise-sensitive land uses are generally acceptable. However, communities and individuals often have different views regarding what level of noise is acceptable or desirable. To address this, some local governments have implemented land use planning measures out beyond the Zone II limits. Additionally, implementing planning controls within the LUPZ can develop a buffer to avert future noise conflicts.

The need for noise compatibility assessments in the Army is a greater challenge today than at any point in the past. Rapid population growth has brought land development directly adjacent to many Army installations, which were at one point relatively remote locations. This development, often referred to as encroachment, has brought military installations and civilian communities in much closer proximity, leading to issues of incompatibility. To prevent incompatibilities between military operations and civilian land use from reaching a significant level, the Army must take reasonable steps to protect the community from training noise, and it must work with the local governments and landowners to make sure that adjoining lands develop in ways compatible with the noise environment. Of particular concern are areas within the aforementioned Noise Zones, as well as areas that may occasionally be subject to noise levels that the local community may find objectionable.

1.3 PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

1.3.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

This assessment has been conducted in accordance with the DoD Instruction Directive 4715.13 subject: DoD Noise Program (DoD 2005) and Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, Chapter 14, Operational Noise (U.S. Army 2007).

1.3.2 NOISE EXPOSURE MODELS

Operational data includes the types of weapons and ammunitions fired, number of rounds fired, time of day of firing, and the location of firing areas and targets. The data is input into computer software models to calculate noise exposure levels associated with the multiple types of military operations ongoing at FHL and PRFTA. A summary of the computer models is below:

The computer model used to create the noise contours for small arms (.50 caliber and below) ranges is the Small Arms Range Noise Assessment Model (SARNAM). SARNAM incorporates the latest available information on weapons noise source models, directivity, sound propagation, and the effects of noise mitigation and safety structures such as berms, wall, and ricochet barriers. The SARNAM calculation algorithms assume weather conditions or wind direction that favors sound propagation. Small caliber weapon noise is addressed utilizing peak levels and therefore has no assessment period.

The BNOISE2 modeling program calculates noise levels generated by the firing of

large arms (20mm and greater) and high-explosive charges. The sounds from large


1-3

arms, demolitions, and other impulsive sounds generally create the largest complaint issues because the sound can travel so far, it is so difficult to mitigate and can be accompanied by vibration that may increase the public’s annoyance. An assessment period of 104 days developed the Blast Noise Zones.

1.4 NOISE BASICS

Sound is the vibration of air pressure about a mean atmospheric pressure defined as 100,000 Pa (Pascal) or 14.7 pounds per square inch (the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level). While all animals have different hearing ranges, these changes in atmospheric pressure as they relate to human hearing vary from approximately 0.0006 Pa for a whisper at two meters, to 1,000 Pa for an M16 rifle at the shooter’s ear. Due to this large range of sound pressures and the fact that the human ear responds more closely to a logarithmic scale (rather than a linear), the decibel (dB) system was developed to quantify sound energy (loudness) into a meaningful and manageable scale. On this scale, the range of average human hearing runs from approximately zero (threshold of hearing) to 140 for a human ear.

1.4.1 NOISE METRICS

When measuring sound, the levels are often filtered (i.e. frequency weighted) to accommodate how the human ear functions known as "A-weighting". Unless otherwise specified, A-weighting applies for all sound levels in this report. Military impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, artillery blasts) can be felt as well as heard and utilize “C-Weighting” where the low-frequency components of these sounds are not de-emphasized to the same extent as A-weighting. Explanations of the noise metrics used in this assessment listed below.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). California and the U.S. Army do not label noise contour maps in the same way. In California, noise maps show the location of contours of CNEL, usually starting with a CNEL 60 and multiples of 5 dB inside of the CNEL 60. The CNEL metric is an average sound level over a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty applied to evening events (7 p.m.-10 p.m.) and a 10 dB applied to night events (10 p.m.- 7 a.m.). The Army labels noise contour maps by Zones I, II or III, which are based on Day Night Levels (DNL). In practice, there is little difference between DNL and CNEL. On-site measurement studies conducted by the Operational Noise team at the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) generally show the CNEL to be no more than 1 dB above the DNL.

Day–Night Average Sound Level (DNL). DNL is a noise metric describing the average noise level over the course of a 24-hour period. A 10 dB penalty applies to operations that happen during nighttime hours (10 p.m. through 7 a.m.) because noise tends to be more intrusive at night than during the day. DNL accounts for the total or cumulative noise level at a given location.

Maximum Sound Level (Lmax). The highest sound level measured during a single event in which the sound level changes value with time (e.g., an aircraft overflight) is the maximum sound level, or Lmax. The maximum sound level is important in judging the


1-4

interference caused by a noise event with conversation, television or radio listening, sleeping, or other common activities.

Peak (dBP). Peak is a single-event sound level without frequency weighting. PK15(met). PK15(met) is a single-event peak sound level that is exceeded only 15

percent of the time by the loudest munitions type detonation. The metric accounts for variations caused by weather conditions that favor sound propagation. The metric does not communicate any information about how often the detonations occur for the loudest munitions type.

PK50(met). PK50(met) is similar to the PK15(met) except that it represents the peak sound level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. This metric accounts for weather conditions that are not favorable for sound propagation, rather average or neutral weather conditions concerning sound.

1.4.2 SOUND PROPAGATION

One of the principle influences on sound propagation is the day-to-day weather conditions. Wind and temperature significantly influence how far sound travels and how loud it will be at the receiver’s location. As sound travels through air, a receiver downwind of the source is subjected to higher sound levels than a receiver upwind, in effect the wind is actually helping move the sound to the downwind receiver, while upwind the sound must “swim against the current.” Combine wind direction with temperature variation (as a rule, sound usually travels further in cold temperatures) and one may observe the phenomena of atmospheric refraction. This atmospheric condition bends and/or focuses sound waves toward some areas and away from others by this process. When a temperature inversion is present, military operations may sound much louder than normal, or be heard at greater distances. The inversion layer acts as a boundary for the sound, trapping it close to the ground. This can create areas of high intensity sound far from the sound’s source. As a result, on most days it may be possible to detonate 10 pounds of explosives without disturbing a community (neutral weather conditions), while on another day with a temperature inversion, the detonation of 1 pound at the same location may be disruptive (unfavorable weather conditions). Figure 1-1 illustrates how temperature inversions bend (refraction) the sound created by a typical explosion. The sound waves from the explosion initially travel upward, but the inversion reflects the sound back downward toward the ground, generating high noise levels many miles away. Under normal conditions, the Noise levels at that distance would otherwise be much lower.


1-5

Figure 1-1. Example of a Temperature Inversion Based on these phenomenon it’s easy to see how predicting sound travel can be very difficult, but the Explosives Research Group (ERG) and the University of Utah developed guidelines to help determine what would be “good” or “bad” firing times. These summarized guidelines are in Table 1.1.


1-6

Table 1-1 University of Utah Criteria for "Good" and "Bad" Firing Conditions

“Good” Firing Conditions “Bad” Firing Conditions

Clear skies with billowy cloud formations, especially during warm periods of the year. A rising barometer immediately following a storm.

Days of steady winds (5-10 mph) with gusts of greater velocities (above 20 mph) in the direction of nearby residences. Clear days on which “layering” of smoke or fog are observed. Cold, hazy, or foggy mornings. Days following a day when large extremes of temperature (about 36°F) between day and night are observed. Generally high barometer readings with low temperatures.

1.5 NOISE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

In accordance with AR 200-1, Army installations are responsible for maintaining a Noise Management Program. The program includes two main components:

(1). Evaluate and document the impact of noise produced by ongoing and proposed actions/activities.

(2). Monitor, record, archive and address operational noise complaints. The ICUZ document is generally the center of the noise management program. The ICUZ is designed to provide the information needed so installations can work with communities to solve issues of noise incompatibility. The ICUZ along with an effective noise complaint procedure will help installations not only address complaints, but advise local planning commissions, and be instrumental in developing action plans which limit future encroachment threats.

1.5.1 NOISE COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE

Experience has shown at Army installations that a centralized procedure to log and investigate noise complaints is most effective when responding to public inquires. This makes monitoring, recording and archiving noise complaints more efficient and useful to the program manager.


1-7

The goal of a complaint procedure is to reduce the potential for noise complaints by keeping the public informed about what is happening and to satisfy the complainants so that noise complaints do not escalate. A proactive noise complaint program will help prevent the degradation of the mission due to controversy over noise impacts, while at the same time protecting the health and safety of the local community, both civilian and military, on and off the installation. In accordance with AR 200-1, FHL and PRFTA have implemented a noise management program. A part of this program as stated in AR 200-1 is to “monitor, record, archive and address operational noise complaints.

After noise complaints are initially received, they are forwarded to the Facility POC for the activity responsible for the complaint.

The PAO oversees and assists the Facility POC with the investigation, confers with the Environmental Office, and reports the results back to the complainant.

A copy of the Noise Complaint form used by FHL and PRFTA is in Figure 1-2.


1-8

Figure 1-2. Noise Complaint Form


2-1

2 NOISE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

The USAPHC applies the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN, 1980) guidelines (shown in Appendix B) when recommending land use options for areas near noise producing activities. The guidelines were originally developed to be applicable to A-weighted noise sources such as aircraft and aviation. Using the FICUN guidelines in conjunction with recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA 1981), the Army developed Noise Zone limits for weapons and explosive noise. Army Regulation 200-1 contains the Noise Zone limits, which are in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Noise Limits for Noise Zones

Noise Zone

Noise Limits Aviation

ADNL (dB) Impulsive

CDNL (dB)Small Arms

dBP LUPZ 60 – 65 57 – 62 n/a

I < 65 < 62 < 87 II 65 – 75 62 – 70 87 – 104 III > 75 > 70 > 104

Notes: dB = decibel ADNL = A-weighted Day-Night Level CDNL = C-weighted Day-Night Level P = Peak n/a = Not Applicable There are often existing “noise-sensitive” land uses defined as non-conforming within a Noise Zone. In most cases, this is not a risk to community quality of life or mission sustainment. Long-term neighbors outside the installation boundary often acknowledge that they hear training, but most are not bothered. Average noise levels may be the best tool for long-term land use planning, but they may not adequately assess the probability of community noise complaints. As recommended in AR 200-1, this assessment includes supplemental metrics to identify where noise from aviation overflights, demolition activity, and large caliber weapons may periodically reach levels high enough to generate complaints.


5-1

5 PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA

5.1 LOCATION AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA) is located in Dublin, California along the boundary between Alameda and Contra Costa counties approximately 21 miles east of Oakland (Figure 5-1). The training area is northeast of the interchange of Interstates 580 and 680, bordered to the south by the City of Pleasanton, east and west by the City of Dublin, and northwest by the City of San Ramon (Figure 5-2). PRFTA covers over 2,700 acres, of which 635 acres are used for administration, support and logistics (cantonment area). The remaining areas, predominantly open space, implement small-unit field training and small arms weapons training. Since its establishment as a U.S. Navy base in 1943, the communities around the original installation have grown. There has been residential development occurring along the western boundary, and the potential exists for further residential development along the northern and eastern boundaries. Changes in the installation and in the surrounding community emphasize the need to protect PRFTA military training operations as well as protect the public health and welfare of the surrounding communities.

5.2 HISTORY23

Built during World War II, Parks was commissioned on 19 January 1943 as Camp Parks. The training area was named after Rear Admiral Charles W. Parks. In 1945, Camp Parks was the home for Seabee battalions returning from the Pacific Theater of Operations. They came to Camp Parks for medical treatment, military training and reorganization. In 1946, at the end of World War II, the Secretary of the Navy disestablished the three facilities, and from 1946 to 1951, the Navy leased the land to the County of Alameda for use as a rehabilitation center. Camp Parks sat unused until the Air Force established a basic training center in 1951, during the Korean War, and renamed the facility Parks Air Force Base, and made it a Basic Military Training Center. In July 1959, the installation transferred to the United States Army. In 1973, the U.S. Army determined that Camp Parks was needed as a mobilization and training center for Reserve Components in the event of war or natural disaster. On December 11, 1980, the Army officially designated Camp Parks as a semi-active installation, renaming it Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. Today, PRFTA is a direct-reporting installation of Fort Hunter Liggett.

23 http://www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:0::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:20166%2CINSTALLATION


5-2

Figure 5-1. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Location


5-3

Figure 5-2. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area - Detailed


5-4

5.3 MISSION AND STRUCTURE24,25

PRFTA, a sub-command of Fort Hunter Liggett, is a semi-active mobilization and training center for the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the event of war or natural disaster. The PRFTA Command reports directly to FHL Command. The training area is a vital part of the total Army in the western United States. PRFTA has a primary mission of exercising the functions of command, training, security, administration, servicing and supply to all troop units, military activities and other governmental agencies assigned or attached. PRFTA provides forces with meaningful training and offers the convenience of accessibility. Airports, freeways and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system provide easy access to the installation.

Assigned Units at PRFTA:26

91st Division (Training Support)-headquarters and various units. 104th Division (IT): 4th Bde CSS; 6th Bn PSS; 9th Bn PN/HS Regional Training Site-Medical Equipment Concentration Site (ECS30) / Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA) Western Army Reserve Intelligence Support Center (WARISC) Navy Seabees (NMCB 18, Detachment 1018) Company B, 319th Signal Battalion Company B, 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment (Air Assault) Western Information Operations Center (WIOC) 352nd Combat Support Hospital 368th Military Intelligence Battalion

5.4 TRAINING FACILITIES AND RANGES

PRFTA is the only local training facility for more than 11,000 Army Reserve Soldiers in the San Francisco Bay Area where firing ranges and a wide variety of training facilities are available. USAR units permanently stationed at PRFTA conduct weekend inactive duty training throughout the year, and Reserve Component units travel to the base for their two-week annual training.

The small arms live-fire ranges at PRFTA are currently inactive and await approval from the Department of the Army for reopening. However, non-live fire training areas are open and include a non-fixed MOUT site, a Land Navigation site, and Squad Training Exercise (STX) lanes (Table 5-1). Figure 5-3 indicates the training areas, ranges, and cantonment area located at PRFTA.

24 http://www.usar.army.mil 25 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-parks.htm 26 http://www.usar.army.mil


5-5

Table 5-1. PRFTA Range and Training Site Description

Range Description

Range 2* Shotgun / Pistol Range (currently inactive) Range 3* Pistol Range (currently inactive) Range 4* M16 Zero Range (currently inactive) Range 5* M-16 Qualification Range (MFR) (currently inactive) Range 6* COQC/M203 Range (currently inactive) Light Demolition (currently inactive) MOUT site Pistol, 9mm (blank) and Rifle, 5.56mm (blank) Land Navigation Site Pistol, 9mm (blank) and Rifle, 5.56mm (blank) STX Lanes (Training Areas: A, D, E, J, K, M)

Pistol, 9mm (blank) and Rifle, 5.56mm (blank)

*awaiting approval from the Department of the Army for reopening Although the small arms ranges are currently inactive, PRFTA receives 7 to 9 complaints per year on average. Additionally, an active 5.56mm and 7.62mm civilian range (Sheriff Range) is located adjacent to Training Area M (see Figure 5-3) which could be a possible contributor to complaints received by the PRFTA Public Affairs Office.


5-6

Figure 5-3. PRFTA Training Areas and Ranges


5-7

5.5 LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Table 5-2 indicates the population change of the area surrounding PRFTA. The Town of Dublin is the second-fastest growing city in the state of California, behind only Santa Clarita. Forecasts indicate that by 2030, the population will grow to about 75,900. 27 San Ramon is a city in Contra Costa County and is a suburban city of the San Francisco Bay Area, and lies in the San Ramon Valley. San Ramon borders to the west and north of PRFTA. San Ramon is the fourth largest city in Contra Costa County, behind Richmond, Concord and Antioch. Pleasanton is south of PRFTA, located in Alameda County. It is a suburb in the San Francisco Bay Area located about 25 miles east of Oakland, and 6 miles west of Livermore. In 2005 and 2007, the Census Bureau ranked Pleasanton the wealthiest middle-sized city in the United States. Pleasanton is reported being ranked fourth by "USA Today" in "America's 50 best cities to live in" in 2014.28 The Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) published population projection findings that predict that between 1995 and 2020, the San Francisco Bay Area population will increase by 1.4 million. Of this increase, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and Alameda counties will lead the region in numerical population, household and job growth. The three counties will account for over 61 percent of the region's population growth. The ABAG also forecasts that the largest percentage increase in jobs will occur in medium to small cities (population less than 75,000). The Tri-Valley sub regional study areas of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton will add 85,670 jobs between 1995 and 2020 (a 107 % increase over 1995). Table 5-2. Population Surrounding PRFTA

2000 2010 % ChangeDublin 29,973 46,036 53.6%San Ramon 44,792 72,148 61.1%Pleasanton 63,654 70,285 10.4%Alameda County 1,443,741 1,510,271 4.6%Contra Costa County 948,816 1,049,025 10.6%California 33,871,648 37,253,956 10.0%United States 281,421,906 308,745,531 9.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau / censusviewer.com Figure 5-4 indicates the population density (per square mile) for 2012 surrounding PRFTA. The land surrounding PRFTA is highly populated, and with growth rates particularly high in the towns of Dublin and San Ramon. Areas to the east of PRFTA indicate a slightly lower population density (<1000 people per square mile), though still heavily populated.

27 http://patch.com/california/dublin/dublin-is-the-second-fastest-growing-city-in-california 28 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-150602965.html


5-8

Figure 5-4. Population Density 2012


5-9

5.6 PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA RANGE NOISE ASSESSMENT

5.6.1 SMALL ARMS NOISE

Small arms include weapons of .50 caliber or less. Currently, the small arms ranges at PRFTA are inactive. The only existing active areas include non-fixed small arms blank training at a MOUT site, a Land Navigation site, and STX lanes. Small arms noise within the ICUZ divides into subsections based on the type of range facility:

Small Arms Live-Fire Ranges - a defined area with fixed firing points and/or targets. Non-fixed Firing Point Areas - area or range with non-fixed firing points and/or targets

5.6.1.1 SMALL ARMS RANGES (CURRENT AND FUTURE)

There are no current Noise Zones for PRFTA since the small arms ranges are inactive. However, since there is a potential that the ranges could be operational in the future, modeling assessed the noise impacts that reopening specific ranges would have (see Appendix C.3). The reactivated ranges scenario included 9 mm (live) and 5.56 mm (live) at Ranges 3, 4, and 5 along with 9mm (live) at Range 6. The future scenario keeps Range 2 inactive. The Noise Zones are based on a Short Range Training Ammunition (SRTA) being fired on the small arms ranges (Figure 5-5). The noise represents a maximum small caliber-training scenario (all ranges actively firing). Calculations accounted for the earthen berms located at each range and on the western boundary. Modeling results show that Noise Zones II and III would not extend off post and would remain localized near the ranges. In addition, the Noise Zones would not extend into any noise-sensitive areas on post. Table 5-3 provides a breakout of Noise Zone acreage. According to Army guidelines, if the small caliber ranges were to reopen, there would no Noise Zone acreage off post. Table 5-3. Noise Zone Acreage (Future scenario with active small arms ranges)

Noise Zone Total Acreage Off-Post Acreage

Percentage Off-Post Acreage

Zone II 843 0 0 % Zone III 133 0 0 %


5-10

Figure 5-5. PRFTA Small Arms Noise Zones (Reactivated Ranges Scenario)


5-11

5.6.1.2 NON-FIXED FIRING POINTS

The SARNAM software cannot produce noise contours for training areas and non-fixed ranges with the absence of specific firing point and target point locations. The non-fixed areas at PRFTA include a MOUT site, a Land Navigation site, and STX lanes. The largest round fired in these areas is the 5.56mm rifle blank. Looking at the predicted peak levels in Chapter 4 (Table 4-1); we can attempt to assess the noise exposure from these training activities. Table 4-1 indicates in each column, the upper limit levels that would occur under weather conditions that enhance sound propagation (unfavorable), such as the wind blowing toward the receiver. The lower limit levels occur under favorable weather conditions, such as the wind blowing away from the receiver. The azimuth angle is the direction of fire, i.e. 0 degrees is directly in front of the weapon and 180 degrees is directly behind the weapon. When combining these two variables, the highest peak levels occur when rounds are fired in the direction of the receiver (0 degree azimuth) and under unfavorable weather conditions (exception is 5.56 mm). As an example, Table 4-1 indicates that under unfavorable weather conditions, a Zone II noise level [87 dBP] extends approximately 200 meters for the 5.56mm blank round at all three given azimuth angles. Thus, a 200-meter buffer around the firing location of the 5.56mm blank would indicate areas exposed to Zone II levels under these conditions. Figure 5-7 indicates a 200 meter buffer area would exist around the majority of PRFTA and overlap bordering residential areas in San Ramon and Dublin. The buffer area off post is resultant of 5.56 mm blank firing on the land navigation course and STX lanes. The buffer area was based on the maximum size of the training areas; realistically the buffer area would be smaller.


5-12

Figure 5-6. PRFTA Buffer Area for Non-Fixed Point Training Areas (5.56mm Rifle Blank)


5-13

5.7 AIRCRAFT NOISE ASSESSMENT

5.7.1 GENERAL

PRFTA does not have military restricted airspace. All airspace is controlled by the FAA which has towers in Livermore, which is the closest air tower to PRFTA, and the San Francisco FAA Office. Flight clearance is managed by the Federal agency and PRFTA only registers the number of aircraft, type of aircraft, times, and personnel on board. Livermore provides the approach direction.

5.7.2 HELIPORT

PRFTA supports two helipads with occasional helicopter activity. The PRFTA Training Management indicates 5 to 6 landing/departures on average per year. The helicopters utilized at PRFTA are:

UH60 Blackhawk CH-47 Chinook Bell 407 (small civilian helicopter)

Off post, aircraft are not permitted to hover over residential areas below 1,000 feet AGL. With less than ten operations per year, Noise Zones cannot be generated. Additionally, although annoyance from individual overflights is always a possibility, with such limited operations from heliport operations, annoyance potential would be very low.

5.7.3 TACTICAL LANDING ZONE AND AIR STRIP

The PRFTA airstrip is for helicopter use only. It is an inactive airstrip which does not have air traffic control support. It is a non-paved; dirt strip approximately 2,000 feet long in Area A and is surrounded by built up areas and commercial buildings. The use of the Tactical Landing Zone and Air Strip requires additional coordination through the Directorate of Plans and Training Office (DPTO) at PRFTA.


6-1

6 NOISE RELATED LAND USE POLICY AND CONTROL

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Implementation of the ICUZ is intended be a joint effort between FHL, PRFTA and the adjacent communities. The role of FHL and PRFTA is to minimize noise impacts on the surrounding local communities by operational activities on the installation. The role of the communities is to ensure that development in the surrounding area is compatible with accepted planning, zoning, and development principles and practices to protect the installation’s mission. Sensible, proactive land use planning outside the installation’s boundary can create a win-win situation for both the military and its neighboring civilian communities.

6.2 ACHIEVING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY

Achieving land use compatibility requires both flexibility and creativity from land use planners, installation commanders, and the citizenry. The previous sections of this document detailed the operational noise impacts. The following sections detail land use planning tools which are available to both the installation and local communities.

6.3 LAND USE PLANNING OPTIONS

The following land use planning tools are available to help local governments create areas of compatible use around military installations. Many on the list are already in use; however, the installation and local governments are strongly encouraged to revisit and/or update any of these options to find the equitable solutions that best work for their situation. These planning tools may be used individually or in combination. Zoning. The most common method of land use control is zoning, or the partitioning of areas into sections reserved for different purposes. This method is an exercise of the police powers of state and local governments that designates the uses permitted in each parcel of land. It normally consists of a zoning ordinance that delineates the various use districts and a zoning map based on the land use element of the community’s comprehensive general plan. Easements. Easements can be an effective and permanent form of land use control; in many instances, better than zoning when trying to resolve an installations compatibility issues. Easements are permanent (with the title held by the purchaser until sold or released), work equally well within different jurisdictions, are enforceable through civil courts, and may be acquired often at a fraction of the cost of the land value. Another consideration may be that the land is left free for full development with noise-compatible uses. Subdivision Regulations. Subdivision regulations are a means by which local governments can ensure that proper lot layout, design, and improvements are included in new residential or commercial developments. These requirements may be anything from dictating the width of the roads to placement of the water and/or sewer systems. Since most local governments require some type of public dedication of open space when approving development plans, the installation


6-2

may lobby to have a provision added to the subdivision regulations that requires this open space to be located nearest the installation boundary to create a buffer. Disclosure of Noise Levels. Since noise levels in a community can be effectively modeled, as well as measured and recorded, making noise level information readily available can sometimes be all it takes to discourage incompatible land uses. These noise levels can be disclosed in several ways, including ordinances (or amendments to existing ordinances), deeds, posting noise levels on any sale/lease/rent sign, and initiating voluntary programs among local realtors to provide potential buyers with installation-provided information and noise level/contour mapping. Deed Restrictions/Covenants. A deed is a document conveying ownership of land from one party to another, and restrictions called covenants can be added to the deed to specify restrictions on the use of the land. These covenants are on top of the restrictions already imposed by the current zoning of the property and in many instances may supersede zoning by prohibiting specified uses that would otherwise be allowed. Restrictive covenants “run with the land;” that is, no matter how often the land is resold, these covenants remain in effect until the specified length of the covenant has expired (usually 20-30 years). In order to utilize this option, the installation must already own or must acquire the property. Then, when reselling the property, the installation specifies which uses are permitted on the land thereby preventing incompatible uses (such as residential housing) for as long as the restrictions remain in effect.

6.4 THE ARMY COMPATIBLE USE BUFFER (ACUB) PROGRAM

Along with the aforementioned Noise Zones, the Army has a specific program designed to limit the effects of encroachment. The ACUB program was borne out of a 2002 expansion of the Private Lands Initiative (10 USC §2684a) allowing military departments to partner with private organizations to establish buffer areas around active installations. These partnerships benefit the citizens of the United States in a number of ways:

Military readiness is maintained when training days are not lost to encroachment issues.

Open spaces are protected from development and many times may be used by the public for recreational purposes.

The military need not buy and maintain more land in order to meet its training needs.

Critical habitat for threatened and endangered species can be preserved or created. The ACUB benefits of conservation easements are as follows:

To installation: – Manages development adjacent to and near installation – Protects effective training space to the installation boundaries


6-3

– Averts training restrictions – Mitigates against noise and smoke complaints

To Community Partners: – Protects installations mission and strength – Does not remove lands from tax base – Maintains agricultural lands and wild lands in California

To Landowners: – Maintains current, compatible land uses – Provides cash in hand – Retain rights to ownership and management of land

6.5 JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS)

The JLUS is a collaborative land use planning effort involving the military installation and adjacent local governments that evaluates the planning rationale necessary to support and encourage compatible development of land surrounding the installation. Stated another way, it is a means for the installation and local governments to develop a land use plan that effectively addresses the long-term land use needs of the of the surrounding communities, yet still provides the military with the mission flexibility it needs to meet training doctrine. The JLUS program is sponsored by the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) (DODI, 2004), and it provides technical and financial assistance to the planning agencies for developing master plans that are consistent, when economically feasible, with the noise, accident potential, and safety concerns from an installation’s training and operations. The cost of the plan is split between the OEA and the jurisdictions involved. The scope of the program is divided into three major tasks:

1. Impact Analysis. Impact analysis provides an in-depth review of existing and proposed land use patterns; drainage (as it effects land use designations); mission encroachment (particularly noise); transportation improvements, existing and proposed routes; and noise/vibration.

2. Land Use and Mission Compatibility Plan. Examines the above findings to identify conflicts in land use and provide alternative land use solutions; to project the impact on growth potential for adjacent areas; and to project the impact of military missions on the surrounding jurisdictions.

3. Implementation. Lists a series of actions and proposals for adoption by local jurisdictions to resolve land use conflicts and move toward a compatible land use plan for the installation, the adjacent counties, and the communities therein.


6-4

While the study report makes certain recommendations, each participating jurisdiction must decide which recommendations are best suited to their particular needs. Implementation follows the final recommendations at the discretion of elected officials in each jurisdiction and the installation military command.

6.6 STATEWIDE / LOCAL MILITARY POLICY

The following is from the State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for Military Affairs29: “The US military plays an important role in California. It is steward to approximately ten percent of California’s land, its operations and personnel contribute billions of dollars to our state economy and its military bases provide critical training for our national defense. Executive Order S-16-06 established the Governor’s Advisor for Military Affairs within OPR. Under this executive order, OPR coordinates state policies that affect the military, including land use planning, regulatory activities by state agencies, and state legislation. OPR is working to improve communication and encourage collaboration between local governments and the United States Military on land use planning and development issues in California. The Governor’s Advisor for Military Affairs works closely with all branches of the military on areas of mutual concern and priority. Areas of focus include: Land Use: OPR works with active military installations in California and local communities to reduce potential land use conflicts. This function enables appropriate growth and local economic vitality, ongoing military training and military readiness and public health and safety. Regulatory Activities: OPR and the military work cooperatively to ensure that active military installations are able to comply with state regulations. MISSION On March 28, 2013, the Governor announced the creation of the Governor’s Military Council. This Council will position California to maintain and grow its military operations in California. The Department of Defense has announced several strategic shifts, including increasing force strength in the Pacific theater and prioritizing cyber-security, that provide California opportunities to increase military investment in our state. The Council will provide insight to state leaders who are developing a strategy to support and grow military operations in the Golden State. The Council will also articulate the military value of California bases and operations as federal leaders consider cuts and realignment to federal military operations. The Secretary of Defense recently explained that coming military cuts “will impact all 50 states and many districts across America." Recognizing these threats to military operations, the Council will highlight the ongoing military value of California installations. 29 http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_military.php


6-5

CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC COORDINATION AND ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM OPR has established a Strategic Coordination and Engagement Program to work with local governments and the Military to support local land use decisions and decision making processes which balance the land use needs of local government and the military mission in California. This program will develop partnerships and provide tools, staff support, mapping capability, and information to local governments to assist in development, adoption, and implementation of local polices and ordinances. The primary focus of this program will be areas without bases or installations, but where testing and training occur on a regular basis. The program will provide direct outreach and support to cities and counties to comply with existing statutory mandates to notify the military of potential land use conflicts, and help to develop policies at the local level to ensure the viability and sustainability of active military operations and avoid project-specific conflicts. The program will create collaborative coalitions between the Military, the State, and local governments to meet these objectives. In addition to early coordination, and notification of proposed new development, OPR will work with the Military and local land use agencies and elected officials to incorporate provisions into city and county General Plans and implementing ordinances to establish project review and permitting procedures that foster land uses that are compatible with military operations. The program will also seek to balance and integrate California’s goals for renewable energy development and natural resources protection with the mission of the military in California and each local government’s specific land use priorities. Resources: Land Use Compatibility SB 1462 (Kuehl, 2004) requires local governments to notify the military when projects are within military land use areas, or changes to the general plan may affect military land use areas. OPR has provided a memo explaining SB 1462 and the notification process to all affected local governments. Mapping OPR developed the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA), which is a mapping tool that local governments and developers can use to identify whether proposed planning projects are located in the vicinity of military bases, military training areas, or military airspace. This mapping tool helps local governments and developers comply with state law that requires the military to be notified of certain development applications and general plan actions.


6-6

Joint Land Use Studies The Beale Joint Land Use Study(JLUS) and R-2508 JLUS were released in 2008. The overall goal of each JLUS was to reduce potential conflicts while accommodating growth, sustaining the economic health of the respective region, and protecting public health and safety. Active military installations, surrounding counties and cities, and other affected agencies collaborated to produce the studies. Guidelines and Handbooks The California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military Compatibility Planning provides guidance to local governments, the military and developers on how to address land use activities near military installations and activities. The Community and Military Compatibility Planning, Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines, is intended to assist cities and counties in addressing military compatibility issues when developing, updating or significantly amending their general plans. These guidelines are the result of the passage of SB 1468 (Knight, 2002) and SB 1462 (Kuehl, 2004), which outline the responsibilities of cities and counties regarding the military in the planning and land use decision-making process.” Local Governments30 “One of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) core principles is to interface with and provide general planning assistance to local governments. The State delegates most local land use and development decisions to cities and counties. Planning decisions usually require local political approval, and reflect the desires and interests of the community. Local and state laws define the process for making planning decisions. (Government Code Sections 65000-66037). As the state's comprehensive planning agency, OPR has statutory responsibilities to review general plans, prepare general plan guidelines, consider general plan extension requests, and provide other general technical assistance to planning agencies. OPR often acts as a liaison between state and local governments and between state agencies to encourage collaboration in the achievement of land use goals and objectives. OPR annually surveys local planning agencies and responds to thousands of requests for planning assistance from state and local government agencies. OPR, in its role as the state planning agency, provides technical assistance in the areas of land use planning and environmental review.”

30 http://www.opr.ca.gov/m_lg.php


7-1

7 SUMMARY

7.1 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT

Land Use Compatibility The Noise Zones for all range operations remain on post except for a small area to the north-northeast of the installation. With the exception of two residences on a single farm property, the Noise Zones do not encompass noise-sensitive land uses. Complaint Risk The unfavorable weather Moderate Complaint Risk (115-130 dBP) area extends beyond the eastern boundary 1600 meters in one small area and beyond the western boundary 200 meters in one small area. To the east, there is a single farm with two homes contained within the Moderate Complaint Risk area. The High Complaint Risk (>130 dBP) area extends beyond the eastern boundary approximately 230 meters in one small area. Based on the current land uses and the complaint risk guidelines, the risk of complaints from large caliber activity during unfavorable weather conditions is considered minimal. The neutral weather Moderate Complaint Risk area extends beyond the eastern boundary 300 meters. There are no noise-sensitive land uses within the risk area. The High Complaint Risk area remains within the FHL boundary. Based on the complaint risk guidelines, the risk of complaints from large caliber activity during neutral weather conditions is considered minimal.

7.2 PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA

Small Arms Firing There are no current Noise Zones for PRFTA since the small arms ranges are inactive. However, since there is a potential that the ranges could be operational in the future, modeling assessed the noise impacts that reopening specific ranges (see Appendix C.3) would have. Computer modeling indicated that Noise Zones II and III would not extend off post and would remain localized near the ranges. In addition, the Noise Zones would not extend into any noise sensitive areas on post. According to Army guidelines, if the small caliber ranges were to reopen, there would no Noise Zone acreage off post. Non-live fire training sites include a MOUT site, a Land Navigation site, and STX lanes. These training areas utilize only blank rounds (up to 5.56 mm). Levels approaching Noise Zone II limits could extend 200 meters from where the weapon is fired. If firing occurs in close proximity to the boundary, the activity may be audible in some residential areas of San Ramon and Dublin.


7-2

7.3 AVIATION ACTIVITY

Although the number of operations at FHL and PRFTA is not high enough to generate Noise Zones, there is always a potential that individual overflights could annoy people near the flight tracks. However, measures are in place to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise at FHL and PRFTA including minimum flight altitudes and designated no-fly areas. These measures in conjunction with the limited number of operations result in the complaint risk being low.

7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The ICUZ is a proactive planning tool, which will help to guide future development in surrounding communities. At a minimum, local municipal governments are encouraged to support public disclosure of all Noise Zones and supplemental metrics, which may convey how military training operations affect the noise environment. The ICUZ and Noise Zones describe the noise characteristics of a specific operational environment, and as such, will change if a significant operational change is made. Therefore, if FHL and PRFTA’s mission, training, or training facilities undergo changes, contact the PHC to determine if the current noise assessment is sufficient or if a full ICUZ update is necessary. At a minimum, the PHC recommends that every five years the ICUZ and/or Noise Zones be updated to incorporate changes. This may include changes in the installation noise environment, existing or planned land use and/or economics of the area.


A-1

A GLOSSARY OF TERMS

A-Weighted Sound Level – a sound level (in decibels) that has been weighted to correspond with the non-linear sensitivity of the human ear. A-weighting discriminates against the lower frequencies and is used to measure most common military sounds such as transportation and small-arms fire. Ambient Noise – the background noise that is usually present at a particular location; anything from cars on a highway, to insects in the woods. Atmospheric Refraction – the bending and/or focusing of sound waves by the varying layers and densities of the earth’s atmosphere. C-Weighted Sound Level – like A-weighting, this is another sound level weighting technique that is used to normalize the low, impulsive sounds to the range of human hearing. It is used when measuring low frequency sound such as those from large arms, demolitions, and sonic booms. Community – those individuals, organizations, or special interest groups affected by or interested in decisions affecting towns, cities, or unincorporated areas near or adjoining a military installation, and officials of local, state, and Federal governments, and Native American tribal councils responsible for the decision making and administration of programs affecting those communities. Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) – the 24-hour average frequency-weighted sound level, in decibels, from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibel “penalties” to sound levels between midnight and 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. to midnight (0000 to 0700 hours and 2200 to 2400 hours). A-weighting (ADNL) is understood unless otherwise specified, but C-weighting (CDNL) is also common. Decibels (dB) – a logarithmic sound pressure unit of measure. Encroachment – use or development of the land around a military installation that is incompatible with the operations of that installation. Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ) – the level of a constant sound which, in a given situation and time period, has the same energy as does a time varying sound. For noise sources which are not in continuous operation, the equivalent sound level may be obtained by summing individual sound exposure level (SEL) values and normalizing them over the appropriate time period. Frequency – the number of complete oscillation cycles per unit of time. The unit of frequency is the Hertz.


A-2

Frequency Weighting – the process of factoring in certain frequencies more or less heavily in order to bring the sound measurement more in line with the characteristics of the receiver (and thus make the numbers more meaningful to the task at hand). Example: A- or C-weighting to specifically parallel the sensitivity of the human ear. Hertz – the unit of frequency equal to once cycle per second. Impulse (or Impulsive) Noise – noise of short duration (typically less than one second), high intensity, abrupt onset and rapid decay, and often rapidly changing spectral composition. Impulsive noise is characteristically associated with such sources as explosions, impacts, the discharge of forearms, the passage of supersonic aircraft (creating sonic booms), and many industrial processes. Large Arms – conventional military weapons over 20 millimeters in diameter. Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) – The Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) is a subdivision of Zone I. The LUPZ is 5 dB lower than the Zone II. Noise – any sound without value or unwanted sound. Noise Level Reduction – the difference, in decibels, between the sound level outside a building and the sound level inside a designated room in the building (usually A-weighted). The NLR is dependent upon the transmission loss characteristics of the building surfaces exposed to an exterior noise source, the particular noise characteristics of the exterior noise source, and the acoustic properties if the designated room in the building. Noise Zone III – the area around a noise source in which the C-weighted day-night sound level (CDNL) is greater than 70 dB (demolition and large caliber weapons), the A-weighted day-night level (ADNL) is greater than 75 dB (aviation), or the dB Peak is greater than 104 (small caliber weapons). Noise Zone II – the area around a noise source in which the CDNL is 62-70 dB (demolition and large caliber weapons), the ADNL is 65-75 dB (aviation), or the dB Peak is 87-104 (small caliber weapons). Noise Zone I – included all areas around a noise source in which the CDNL is less than 62 dB (demolition and large caliber weapons), the ADNL is less than 65 dB (aviation), or the dB Peak is less than 87 (small caliber weapons). This area is usually suited for all types of land use activities. Peak – Peak is a single-event sound level without weighting. PK15(Met) – peak sound level, without frequency weighting and accounting for the statistical variation cause by weather, expected to be exceeded by 15% of all events that might occur. A


A-3

PK15(met) level of greater than 130 dB has a high risk of complaints, 115-130 dB has a moderate risk of complaints, and below 115 dB has a low risk of complaints. PK50(Met) - is similar to the PK15(met) except that it represents the peak noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. This metric also accounts for weather but assumes conditions which are not favorable for noise propagation. Propagation – the process by which sound travels through space or material; may be affected by such things as weather, terrain, and barriers. Slant Distance – the straight-line distance between two points not at the same elevation as contrasted with ground distance. Also known as slant range. Small Arms – conventional military weapons .50 caliber and below in diameter. Sound Exposure Level (SEL) – the total energy of a sound event normalized to a specific amount of time (e.g., one second) so that sounds of different durations may be compared directly. Sound Level Meter – an instrument consisting of an amplifier, microphone, and a graduated readout that provides a direct reading of the sound pressure level at a particular location. Sound may be measured in a variety of metrics (e.g., ADNL, CDNL, Peak, etc.) and they must satisfy the requirements of the American National Standards Institute Standard for Sound Level Meters (S1.4-1983). Unweighted Peak Sound Level – the peak, single event sound level without weighting, without taking into account berms or other attenuation, and without any particular certainty.


B-1

B FICUN GUIDELINES

SLUCM No. LAND USE

NOISE ZONES AND ADNL LEVELS (dBA) Noise Zone I Noise Zone II Noise Zone III 0-55 55-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85+

10 RESIDENTIAL 11 Household Units Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No 12 Group Quarters Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No 13 Residential Hotels Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No 14 Mobile Home Parks or

Courts Yes Yes* No No No No No

15 Transient Lodgings Yes Yes* 251 301 351 No No 16 Other Residential Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No

20, 30 MANUFACTURING

21 Food & Kindred Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

22 Textile Mill Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

23 Apparel/Other Finished Products

Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

24 Lumber & Wood Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

25 Furniture & Fixtures Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

26 Paper & Allied Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

27 Printing, Publishing & Allied Products


28 Chemicals & Allied Products


29 Petroleum Refining & Related Industries


31 Rubber & Misc Plastic Products - Manufacturing


32 Stone, Clay & Glass Products Manufacturing


33 Primary Metal Industries Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

34 Fabricated Metal Products - Manufacturing


25 Professional, Scientific & Controls

Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No

39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing



B-2

SLUCM No. LAND USE

NOISE ZONES AND ADNL LEVELS (dBA) Noise Zone I Noise Zone II Noise Zone III

0-55 55-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85+

40

TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & UTILITIES

41 Railroad, Rapid Rail Transit & Street Rail

Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

42 Motor Vehicle Transportation Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

43 Aircraft Transportation Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

44 Marine Craft Transportation Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

45 Highway & Street Right-of-Way

Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

46 Automobile Parking Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

47 Communications Yes Yes Yes 255 305 No No

48 Utilities Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

49

Other Transportation, Communication & Utilities


50 TRADE

51 Wholesale Trade Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

52 Retail - Building Materials, Hardware/Farm


53 Retail - General Merchandise


54 Retail - Food Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No

55 Retail - Auto, Marine, Aircraft & Parts


56 Retail - Apparel & Accessories


57 Retail - Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment


58 Retail - Eating & Drinking Facilities


59 Other Retail Trade Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No


B-3

SLUCM No. LAND USE

NOISE ZONES AND ADNL LEVELS (dBA) Noise Zone I Noise Zone II Noise Zone III 0-55 55-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85+

60 SERVICES

61 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services


62 Personal Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No

62.4 Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes6

63 Business Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No

64 Repair Services Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No

65 Professional Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No

65.1 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Yes Yes* 25* 30* No No No

65.1 Other Medical Facilities Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No

66 Contract Construction Services


67 Government Services Yes Yes* Yes* 25* 30* No No

68 Educational Services Yes Yes* 25* 30* No No No

69 Miscellaneous Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No

70

CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT & RECREATIONAL

71 Cultural Activities, Including Churches

Yes Yes* 25* 30* No No No

71.2 Nature Exhibits Yes Yes* Yes* No No No No

72 Public Assembly Yes Yes Yes No No No No

72.1 Auditoriums, Concert Halls Yes Yes 25 30 No No No

72.11

Outdoor Music Shells, Amphitheaters

Yes Yes* No No No No No

72.2 Outdoor Sports Arenas, Spectator Sports

Yes Yes Yes7 Yes7 No No No

73 Amusements Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

74 Recreational Activities Yes Yes* Yes* 25* 30* No No

75 Resorts, Groups & Camps Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* No No No

76 Parks Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* No No No

79

Other Cultural, Entertainment & Recreation

Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* No No No


B-4

SLUCM No. LAND USE

NOISE ZONES AND ADNL LEVELS (dBA) Noise Zone I Noise Zone II Noise Zone III

0-55 55-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85+

80

RESOURCE PRODUCT & EXTRACT

81 Agriculture (Except Livestock)11 Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 Yes10 Yes10 Yes10

81.5 to 81.7

Livestock Framing & Animal Breeding

Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 No No No

82 Agricultural Related Activities

Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 Yes10 Yes10 Yes10

83 Forestry Activities & Related Services

Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 Yes10 Yes10 Yes10

84 Fishing Activities & Related Services

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

85 Mining Activities & Related Services


89 Other Resource Production & Extraction


Legend: SLCUM Standard Land Use Coding Manual

Yes Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions.

No Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.

ADNL A-weighted day-night sound level

Yesx “Yes” but with restrictions. Land use and related structures generally compatible; see footnotes.

25, 30, 35 Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve noise level reduction (NLR) of 25, 30 or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.

25*, 30*, 35* Land use generally compatible with NLR; however, measures to achieve an overall NLR do not necessarily solve noise difficulties and additional evaluation is warranted.

NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure.


B-5

Footnotes:

* The designation of these uses as "compatible" in this zone reflects individual Federal agencies' consideration of general cost and feasibility factors as well as past community experiences and program objectives. Localities, when evaluating the application of these guidelines to specific situations, may have different concerns or goals to consider.

a) Although local conditions may require residential use, it is discouraged in 65-70 ADNL and strongly discouraged in 70-75 ADNL. The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an evaluation indicating that a demonstrated community need for residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones should be conducted prior to approval.

b) Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor NLR of at least 25 dB (65-70 ADNL) and 30 dB (70-75 ADNL) should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. Additional consideration should be given to modifying NLR levels based on peak noise levels.

c) NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. However, building location and site planning, design, and use of berms and barriers can help mitigate outdoor noise exposure particularly from ground level transportation sources. Measures that reduce noise at a site should be used wherever practical in preference to measures that only protect interior spaces.

x2 Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.



x5 If noise-sensitive, use indicated NLR; if not, use is compatible.

x6 No buildings.

x7 Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.

x8 Residential buildings require a NLR of 25.

x9 Residential buildings require a NLR of 30.

x10 Residential buildings not permitted.

x11 In areas with ADNL greater than 80, land use not recommended, but if community decides use is necessary, hearing protection devices should be worn by personnel.


C-1

C AMMUNITION UTILIZATION

C.1 SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION UTILIZATION AT FORT HUNTER LIGGETT

Facility name Pist

ol, 9

MM

Pist

ol, 3

8 Cal

iber

Pist

ol, 4

0 Cal

iber

Pist

ol, 4

5 Cal

iber

Rifl

e, 5

.56 M

M L

ive

Rifl

e, 5

.56 M

M B

lank

Rifl

e, .3

0 Calib

er L

ive

Rifl

e, 7

.62 M

M L

ive

Mac

hine

Gun

, 5.5

6 M

M L

ive

(SAW

)

Mac

hine

Gun

, 7.6

2 M

M L

ive

Mac

hine

Gun

, 7.6

2 M

M B

lank

Mac

hine

Gun

, .50

Cal

iber

Live

Sho

tgun

, 12

Gau

ge

RANGE-Z1 KD CPQC xRANGE-Z2 KD ZERO x x x x x xRANGE-Z3 KD MRF x x x xRANGE-Z4 MPRC CPQC x x x x xRANGE-Z5 MPRC MRF RANGE x x x x xRANGE-Z6 MPRC ZERO RANGE x x x x xRANGE-Z7 MPRC MPMG x x x x xRANGE-Z8 MPRC MAIN TANK RANGE-Z8 x x x x x xRANGE-Z9 MPRC B9 MG x x x x x x x xTA12A x x x x x x xTA12C x x x x x x xR-2513A x x xSHOOTHOUSE FACILITY TA24 x x x xURBAN ASSAULT COURSE TA24 x x


C-2

C.2 DEMOLITION AND LARGE CALIBER AMMUNITION EXPENDITURE AT FORT HUNTER LIGGETT 31

31 All large caliber ground training along with Air to Ground exercises were included. Range operations indicated that training occurred 85% during the day time and 15% at night. The exception was that demolition occurred only during the day time.

Facility/Airspace S bdi i i

Nomenclature Quantity FiredDEMOLITIONS

RANGE TA20

Demolition, Bangalore Torpedo M1A1 11


Demolition, M221 Shaped Charge 80

Demolition, Sheet Roll 25 ft .80 lbs PETN/ft 5

Demolition, Shaped Linear Flex Charge 20

Demolition, Charge Assembly Kit M183 5

Demolition, Military Dynamite M1 10

Demolition, High Explosive Cutter 4

Demolition, TNT 1lb Block 20

Demolition, 1 1/4 lb C-4 Block 159

Demolition, 2 lb PETN Block M118 30

Demolition, 15lb Shaped Charge 6

Demolition, 40lb Cratering Charge 4

Mine, M181 Claymore 50

DEMOLITIONS RG

HAY CMP TA16


Demolition, 15lb Shaped Charge 1R-2513A Gun, 20 MM Inert 2000

Gun, 30 MM Inert 9650

Rocket, 2.75 Inch Mk66 Inert 1184

RANGE-Z10 MPRC

M203/M320 Grenade, 40MM Inert 2280RANGE-Z8 MPRC

MAIN TANK RANGE

Grenade, 40MM Inert 223

Gun, 30MM Inert 2240


TA12A Demolition, Bangalore Torpedo M1A1 5

Demolition, M221 Shaped Charge 65

Demolition, Sheet Roll 38 FT 1/2 lb PETN /FT 95

Demolition, Kit Haversack 2

Demolition, 40 lb Shaped Charge 2

Demolition, 15lb Shaped Charge 12

Demolition, 40lb Cratering Charge 9


Demolition, 1 1/4 lb C-4 Block 385

Grenade 40MM Inert 4867

Grenade, M67 52



Mine, M181 Claymore 117

Mine, Limpit 20

Mortar, 60MM Inert 89

Mortar, 81MM Inert 114


Simulator, Ground Burst M115A2 20TA12C Grenade 40MM Inert 80




C-3

C.3 SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION UTILIZATION AT PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA

PISTOL, 9 MM, LI

VE

PISTOL, 9 MM, B

LANK*

RIFLE, 5.

56 MM, LI

VE

RIFLE, 5.

56 MM, B

LANK*

Remarks

Range 2 - Shotgun/Pistol Range

Range 3 - Pistol Range x x

Range 4 - M16 Zero Range x x Currently Inactive

Range 5 - M16 Qualification Range (MRF) x x

Range 6 - CPQC/M203 Range x

MOUT Site x x

Land Nav Site x x also uses NON-Lethal set

STX Lanes x x

*Blank is defined as any round that does not make noise upon impact.

Currently Inactive


D-1

D REFERENCES

DODI, 1977, Department of Defense Instruction 4165.57, Air Installation Compatible Use Zones. DODI, 2004, Department of Defense Instruction 3030.3, Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Program. EDAW, 2005, Flint Hills Joint Land Use Study, January 2005. Email correspondence with CHIEF TRAINING DIVISION, Building 320C Fort Hunter Liggett, CA. 4 November 2014 Email correspondence with FHL Range Operations, 9 October 2014 FICUN, 1980, Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control. Fort Hunter Liggett Regulation 350-2, 8 May 2014 Pater, 1976, “Noise Abatement Program for Explosive Operations at NSWC/DL,” Presented at the 17th Explosives Safety Seminar of the DOD Explosives Safety Board. Public Law 92-574, 1972, 92nd U.S. Congress, Noise Control Act of 1972. Public Law 95-609, 1978, 95th U.S. Congress, Quite Communities Act of 1978. Rylander, et al., 1974, “Re-Analysis of Aircraft Noise Annoyance Data against the dBA Peak Concept,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Volume 36, pages 399-406. Siskind, 1989, “Vibrations and Airblast Impacts on Structures from Munitions Disposal Blasts,” Proceedings, Inter-Noise 89, G. C. Maling, JR., editor, pages 573-576. U.S. Air Force, 2005, SELcalc2 Noise Model, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. U.S. Army 1983, USAEHA Environmental Noise Assessment No. 52-34-0415-83, Noise Levels from Machine Guns, Grenade and Artillery simulators from Training at Sudbury Annex, Fort Devens, MA, 23-24 March 1983. U.S. Army, 1984, Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Environmental Noise Assessment No. 52-34-0442-84, Noise Measurement Study, Camp Bullis, Texas, 27 February – 2 March 1984. U.S. Army 1989, USAEHA Environmental Noise Assessment No. 52-34-0447-89, Results of Monitoring Edgewood Area Field Training Exercise Site, Aberdeen proving Ground, MD, June 1989.


D-2

U.S. Army, 1999, Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Health Hazard Assessment Report on the 40mm XM1001 Canister Cartridge for the MK-19 Mod 3 Grenade Machine Gun, No. 69-37-2735-00, November 1999. U.S. Army, 2003, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, SARNAM Computer Model, Version 2.6. 2003-06-06. U.S. Army, 2007, Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, Chapter 14 Operational Noise. U.S. Army, 2009, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, BNOISE2 Computer Model, Version 1.3 2009-11. 30. U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. U.S. Air Force, 2005a, NOISEMAP/BASEOPS, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. U.S. Air Force, 2005b, SELcalc2 Noise Model, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. Rylander, et. al., 1974, "Re-Analysis of Aircraft Noise Annoyance Data Against the dBA Peak Concept", Journal of Sound and Vibration, Volume 36, pages 399 - 406. Rylander and Bjorkman, 1988, "Maximum Noise Levels as Indicators of Biological Effects", Journal of Sound and Vibration, Volume 127, pages 555 - 563. URL: http://www. census.gov http://www.liggett.army.mil http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/fort-hunter-liggett.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/tusi.htm http://www.baesystems.com http://investor.avinc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=666018 http://www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:0::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:20166%2CINSTALLATION http://www.usar.army.mil http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-parks.htm


D-3

http://patch.com/california/dublin/dublin-is-the-second-fastest-growing-city-in-california http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-150602965.html http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_military.php

No Impact Environmental Assessment Modernizing … · draft finding of no significant impact...

Documents

Transcript of No Impact Environmental Assessment Modernizing … · draft finding of no significant impact...