This Appendix presents a discussion of the environmental issues that must be addressed and resolved in order to expand water transit on the San Francisco Bay. This discussion was judged to be complete, and adopted by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on September 28, 1998.

Protection of the ecological integrity and natural majesty of San Francisco Bay is a key provision of the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative. The means to achieve this objective is through integration of economic vitality and environmental quality. Hence, careful and in-depth consideration of environmental issues and opportunities will be a key to the success of the Action Plan.

This Appendix presents an overview of the potential environmental issues that need to be considered during development and/or implementation of the Action Plan. The issues are further evaluated in the Conceptual Design and Analysis portion of the main document.

It is convenient to separate environmental issues into two categories: (1) landside issues, and (2) waterside issues. This breakdown approximately reflects the jurisdiction of agencies with responsibilities for landside developments and for permitting waterside operations. Landside environmental issues must be considered during land-based infrastructure developments such as terminals and intermodal connections. Waterside issues are those associated with the vessels themselves such as wake, emissions, and potential impacts on wildlife.

The list of landside and waterside environmental issues and opportunities that need to be considered during development of the water transit system was identified during interviews with agencies, organizations and environmental groups, literature searches and reviews of existing ferry systems. Personnel from organizations including the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the San Francisco Estuary Project, Save San Francisco Bay Association, and Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) were interviewed during the process.

The potential environmental issues and opportunities are discussed in general terms in this appendix, which was adopted by the Task Force on September 28, 1998. Appendix E-2 presents a complete inventory of environmental issues, specific to each site considered by the Task Force.

A screening level list of potential landside environmental issues was developed in discussion with regulatory agencies and by considering the public review process for landside developments as codified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A large number of environmental factors can trigger the CEQA process but not all are applicable to landside development activities for water transit projects. Once an activity has been determined to be a ‘project’ and a lead agency has been identified, it is usual that a finding of ‘potential significant effect’ on the environment will invoke CEQA. A positive answer to any of the key questions (non-inclusive) grouped under the following 12 factors is likely to invoke CEQA:

- will the project cause change in land use designation or zoning as in a general plan?

- is the project incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?

- will the project disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community?

- will the project induce substantial growth in area directly or indirectly?

- will the project cause growth which exceeds regional or local population projections?

- will the project expose people to impacts from fault rupture or seismic ground failure?

- will the project expose people to floods or storm surge?

- will the project expose people or property to a water related hazard?

- will the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?

- will the project result in increased trips or congestion?

- will the project result in inadequate emergency access or insufficient parking capacity?

- will the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or habitat?

- will the project result in impacts to locally designated species or natural communities?

- will the project result in impacts to wetland habitat, or wildlife migration corridors?

- will the project result in increased noise levels?

- will the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?

-will the project result in need for new or altered fire, police school or road maintenance services?

- will the project result in need for new or altered power, communication or water services?

- will the project affect a scenic vista or highway?

- will the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?

- will the project result in disturbance of archaeological resources?

- will the project affect historic resources or property greater than 50 years old?

If one or more of the above questions indicates a potential significant impact, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is likely to be required. Many potentially significant impacts can be mitigated, which leads to an evaluation of Less than Significant Impact. If all potential significant impacts can be mitigated, an EIR is not required and a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration is prepared. In all cases, the lead agency is required to notify the public of a review period for the environmental documentation.

Construction of new ferry terminals in locations without existing facilities is likely to require preparation of an EIR with the EIR process being triggered by land use, biological, traffic and other factors. Expansion or development of existing ports and marinas, where, a) a marine facility already exists as part of the local government general plan, b) traffic factors are mitigated by intermodal connections, and c) development is consistent with the ABAG Sustainable Development Initiative, is expected to be more expedient than development of ‘greenfields’ or previously undeveloped locations.

Existing studies (Danish Marine Authority, 1997 and Fast Ferry International, 1998), the experience of the Larkspur ferry system, and agencies such as BCDC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with jurisdiction in San Francisco Bay, indicate that key environmental concerns associated with high-speed ferries, including hovercraft, are:

Several of the proposed ferry terminal locations on the Peninsula and East Bay have been formerly or are currently used as a military installation, commercial port facility or recreational marina or landing. In these instances, the environmental concerns relative to the development of the waterside aspect of the ferry terminal are lessened because of historical use.

All vessels create waves, or a wake, as they pass through water. If the energy in the wake wave reaching the shoreline is significantly greater than the natural energy regime, adverse shoreline impacts are possible. The issue of wake energy is particularly important in San Francisco Bay due to the presence of sensitive wetlands. Both the Vallejo and Larkspur high-speed ferry systems currently operating in the Bay Area are subject to wake related speed restrictions in the channels leading up to the Vallejo and Larkspur terminals.

Waves which are higher than the naturally occurring or ambient wave climate can cause erosion of wetland perimeters and disruption of sediment movement along the shoreline. Wetlands usually form in more tranquil areas that experience lower wave and current energy than the rest of San Francisco Bay. In undisturbed environments, tidal mudflats transition smoothly to tidal marsh and wetlands. Wave action acts at the shoreline leading to resuspension of fine materials, such as muds and clays, which results in very steep or near-vertical mud faces at the marsh line. Further wave action will focus energy at the base of the mud slopes and cause under-cutting and collapse of the wetland perimeter. As well as causing under-cutting of marshes, such wave activity impedes upon the natural deposition of sediments in wetlands that reduces the suitability of the fringing tidal mudflats for worm and macroinvertebrate habitat (crabs, clams, shrimps and amphipods), and hence for the bird populations which feed on them. A description of natural bayland habitats can be found in the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Wetlands Goals Project (San Francisco Bay, June, 1998).

The size of the wave generated by a vessel depends on hull volume and shape, and the vessel speed. In conventional vessels, wake energy increases with hull size and vessel speed. Of the ferries operating on the Bay, the conventional monohulls such as the older Spaulding-class Larkspur ferries generate the largest wakes. However, recent advances in hull design have lead to significant reductions in wake. Long, sleek hulls that ‘cut’ through water rather than ‘plow’ through it have particularly good wake characteristics. Light-weight, high-speed vessels that ‘plane’ on the water and effectively reduce the size of the hull in water also have improved wake characteristics. It is indicative that the new high-speed Larkspur catamaran Del Norte makes the San Francisco run at 36 knots, 15 knots faster than the older 20 knot monohull ferries, and actually generates much less wake when it is at speed.

Both advanced hull design and operational controls can be used to reduce wake generation near sensitive wetlands areas. Operational speed restrictions have been used to reduce the wake impacts on the Corte Madera Marsh caused by the older Spaulding-class Larkspur ferries. Generally, advanced hull design is a more attractive option for reducing wake from new ferries since operations controls increase commute time and reduce the competetiveness of water transit.

As part of the environmental analysis, wake energy criteria will be developed against which the performance of high-speed and other ferries can be measured. Experience in Seattle and Europe with advanced catamarans shows that it is possible reduce wake impacts to back ground wave energy levels by specifying the required wake characteristics of vessels. A similar approach will be used for the Bay Area

Noise is a potential issue where frequent ferry traffic approaches residential zones and sensitive wildlife habitat. Low-frequency noise generated by older diesel engines was found to be the greatest noise concern in European studies (Fast Ferries International, 1998). Noise is a major issue for hovercraft, both along water routes and while accelerating up ramps near boarding facilities.

Most existing and proposed ferry terminals in the Bay Area are not located near residential areas and residential noise is not expected to be a concern. However, ferry routes are located near commercial and tourism areas where moderate and excessive noise levels are not desirable. The noise impacts on wildlife, particularly hovercraft noise impacts on wintering birds and benthic communities in the South Bay (PRBO), are an issue which will need study on specific routes.

Design technology and operational controls can effectively reduce noise from conventional ferries. Incorporating noise and emission suppression into vessel design does have cost implications; "environmental efficiency in design adds up to a third of the cost of these ships" (Fast Ferries, 1998). Other operational controls include carefully controlled start-ups, which also control air emissions and speed reductions in environmentally sensitive areas. Some reduction in hovercraft noise has been achieved through the use of advanced design and materials. However, the noise footprint along potential hovercraft routes will need detailed evaluation.

Air emissions need to be considered from both the actual emission and alternative transportation perspectives. Air emissions from diesel engines can also be controlled using both technology and operational controls. Engine start-ups need to be carefully controlled and alternative fuels missions considered. Gas turbines, which can be used on longer routes, are generally cleaner than diesels but are more expensive and have higher maintenance requirements. The Spaulding-class Larkspur ferries initially used gas-turbine engines. The engines were converted to diesels due to poor slow-speed performance of the gas-turbine engines while moving along the Corte Madera channel, and high maintenance costs.

Alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG) may soon become practical for use on smaller vessels such as water taxis since smaller vessel will not need to store large volume of the gas onboard. For CNG to be a practical consideration for large vessels, the issue of safe storage of CNG on vessels will need to be resolved. Development of light-weigh, advanced polymer tanks may be one solution.

Taking the macro viewpoint of air emissions from water transit vehicles, it is apparent that a modern water transit vessel carrying 300 to 400 people will generate less net air emissions than those same 300 to 400 people starting their automobiles and individually travelling in congested peak hour traffic. A comparison to substantiate this assertion will be made.

Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) personnel assisted with identification of potential environmental impacts of ferry traffic on wildlife and with identification of data sources. Sensitive foraging and breeding habitats for residential and migratory birds, including eelgrass beds, have been identified. Staff from Point Reyes National Seashore assisted PRBO staff regarding mammal related issues.

The San Francisco Bay Area Regional Wetlands Goals Project (San Francisco Bay, June, 1998), the San Francisco Estuary Project and SF Estuary Institute’s Bay Area EcoAtlas, and studies by California Fish & Game / Fish & Wildlife are key sources of data on wildlife in San Francisco Bay. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife have completed winter waterfowl studies including flying transects and PRBO has studied shorebirds and completed census work.

A preliminary, non-inclusive, list of bird species which need further consideration in reference to specific routes has been developed including; Caspian terns (Brooks Island), Least terns, phalaropes (salt ponds), and breeding colonies such as cormorants on Alcatraz and rails (Black and Clapper) in Sonoma and other marshes. Though wintering ducks seem fairly tolerant of boat traffic, the effect on these water fowl has to be assessed and minimized, or avoided. Their prime winter foraging and resting areas also need to be identified.

South Bay and North Bay locations are affected to a greater degree by the presence of sensitive shorelines and wildlife. The South Bay is the major winter feeding ground of the Pacific flyway, one of the most important winter feeding grounds in North America. Therefore, future development of ferry terminals in the South Bay will be subject to extensive environmental review. In the North Bay, several ferry terminal locations are proposed to be located on rivers or sloughs, such as Port Sonoma on the Petaluma River and Suisan City on the Suisun Slough. In these instances the effects on wildlife areas and the dredging of channels would require detailed analysis.

Harbor seals are present in San Francisco Bay and haul-out areas in particular and will need consideration (Allen, 1991). Harbor seals are the specialty of staff at Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS). PRNS staff indicated they are a consultant to Caltrans on the Bay Bridge Replacement Project investigating impacts of pile driving on harbor seals. Other pinnipeds (fin-footed mammals)such as the sea lions on Pier 39 are not an issue, nor are harbor porpoises (intermittent) or sea otters (rare).

Dredging, dredge material disposal, and fill in San Francisco Bay are potentially contentious environmental issues. A variety of agencies including the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), BCDC and State Water Resources Control Board have jurisdiction in this area. These agencies have joined together to establish a comprehensive Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for Bay Area dredged materials. BCDC is in the process of amending dredging and fill policy as outlined in the BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan.

Some ferry terminal projects may experience less severe dredging and fill constraints if the projects achieve other policy objectives. BCDC reported that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the local Air Resources Board, MTC, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board have formed a Sustainable Development Initiative to address the issue of sustainable growth in the Bay Area. This initiative has identified high-density transit node development as one mechanism to achieve sustainable development. Thus, while in general terms dredging for projects other than channel maintenance purposes would face opposition from regulatory and environmental groups, if a ferry terminal project can demonstrate a net benefit to the Bay Area and can facilitate transit node development, BCDC may permit limited dredging or fill.

Allen, S.G., March 1991. Harbor Seal Habitat Restoration at Strawberry Spit, San Francisco Bay. Marine Mammal Commission and Point Reyes Bird Observatory

Danish Maritime Authority, January 1997. Report on the Impact of High-Speed Ferries on the External Environment.

Fast Ferry International, April 1998. Proceedings of the 14th Fast Ferry International Conference, Copenhagen.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994. National Ocean Service Coast and Geodetic Survey.

Page, G.W., W.D. Shuford, J.E. Kjelmyr and L.E. Stenzel, November 1992. Shorebird Numbers in the Wetlands of the Pacific Flyway: A summary of Counts from April 1988 to January 1992. Point Reyes Bird Observatory.

San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Project, June 1998. San Francisco Estuary Baylands Ecosystem Goals, Draft for Public Review. June 26, 1998.