Initial Study West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project

Prepared by East Bay Municipal Utility District

February 2012

EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project Title: West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Distribution Planning Division – MS 701 375 11th Street Oakland, CA 94607 3. Contact Person: Timothy McGowan, Associate Civil Engineer, Project Manager 4. Project Location/Description: The project involves the construction and operation of four transmission pipeline segments in western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (see Figure 1). The proposed pipeline routes are located within existing city streets and on non-street properties owned by EBMUD and City of San Pablo. The exact placement of the pipelines within selected roadways is not presently known for all segments. • Wildcat Pipeline (Berkeley). This proposed pipeline, 48 inches in diameter and approximately 1.5 miles long, would be located in the City of Berkeley, Alameda County (see Figure 2). An alternative alignment for a segment of this pipeline, located in Benvenue Avenue, is under consideration and will be evaluated in the EIR. • Wildcat Pipeline (El Cerrito). This proposed pipeline, 36 inches in diameter and approximately 2.5 miles long, would be located in the City of El Cerrito, Contra Costa County (see Figure 3). • Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (El Cerrito/Richmond). This proposed pipeline, 36 inches in diameter and approximately 2.5 miles long, would be located in San Pablo Avenue in the Cities of El Cerrito and Richmond, Contra Costa County (see Figure 3). • Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (Richmond/San Pablo). This proposed pipeline, 36 inches in diameter and approximately1.9 miles long, would be located primarily in 23rd Street in the Cities of Richmond and San Pablo, Contra Costa County (see Figure 4). At San Pablo Creek, the pipeline would be constructed within an existing EBMUD utility corridor consisting of two EBMUD-owned properties (assessor parcels 411-282-002 and 412-300-001, totaling 0.28 acres) located between Brookside Drive and Road 20 in San Pablo. An alternative alignment at San Pablo Creek (near San Pablo Avenue) is under consideration and will be evaluated in the EIR. This alternative alignment would be developed partly within a parcel owned by the City of San Pablo (assessor parcel 411- 282-001). For the most part, construction of the pipelines would be by conventional open trench construction methods. Where the Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (Richmond/San Pablo) crosses San Pablo Creek, EBMUD proposes to construct a pipe bridge and trenchless (“bore and jack”) construction is proposed where the Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (Richmond/San Pablo) crosses Wildcat Creek. At Wildcat Creek, a vacant parcel (assessor parcel 411-281-015) owned by the

February 2012 1 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

City of San Pablo and intended for park development may be used to locate the entry pit for the bore and jack crossing of the Creek. Construction would typically occur between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Longer construction hours (up to 24 hours per day) may be required where the proposed pipelines connect with existing pipelines. Lane and roadway closures would be required during construction hours, with access restored during non-working hours. Construction of both Wildcat Pipeline segments would occur over a 9 to 14 month period from approximately January 2015 to June 2016. Construction of both Central Pressure Zone Pipeline segments would occur over a 10 to 16 month beginning in 2021. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Distribution Planning Division – MS 701 375 11th Street Oakland, CA 94607 6. General Plan Designation: The proposed pipeline routes are located within existing streets, and on properties owned by EBMUD, and the City of San Pablo. The EBMUD properties at San Pablo Creek are designated by the City of San Pablo General Plan as Parks/Recreation (411-282-002) and Medium Density Residential (412-300-001). The City of San Pablo parcel at San Pablo Creek is designated Parks/Recreation. The City of San Pablo parcel at Wildcat Creek is designated Commercial Mixed Use. 7. Zoning: The proposed pipeline routes are located within existing streets, and on properties owned by EBMUD, and the City of San Pablo. The EBMUD parcels at San Pablo Creek are zoned Open Space (411-282-002) and Multi-Family Residential (412-300-001). The City of San Pablo parcel at San Pablo Creek is zoned Open Space. The City of San Pablo owned parcel at Wildcat Creek is zoned Open Space. It should be noted that pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091(e), county and city zoning ordinances do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the transmission of water. 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: Land uses along the pipeline routes are primarily residential and commercial and include schools, churches and parks. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Cities of Berkeley, El Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo: Encroachment permits for construction within city streets. Regional Water Quality Control Board: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit; Waste Discharge Requirements for dewatering and work within the bed and banks of waters of the State. California Department of Fish and Game: Streambed Alteration Agreement notification for work within the bed and banks of waters of the State. California Department of Transportation: Encroachment permits for construction within streets that are designated state highways and a transportation permit required for the movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on state roadways.

February 2012 2 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit for work within the bed and banks of waters of the U.S.

February 2012 3 4

Pinole Hercules

San Pablo Bay

A LH A MBR A V 80 AL LEY RD

Figure 4

S A N PAB LO D A San M R Pablo D

RICHMOND PKWY

23RD ST

Figure 3 Richmond San Pablo Reservoir

580 El Cerrito

AlbanySAN PABLO AVE Contra Costa Co

Alameda Co

San Francisco Bay

80 Figure 2 Berkeley

13 24

0 1

Mile Emeryville Oakland

EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines . 211488 SOURCE: ESA Figure 1 Project Location DWIGHT WAY

DANA ST

Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve

PARKER ST

Willard Park Emerson Willard COLLEGE AVE Elementary Middle The School School WARD ST Academy STUART ST

BENVENUE AVE Berkeley John Muir Elementary School Leconte RUSSELL ST Elementary ASHBY AVE School

ASHBY AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

CLAREMONT AVE NOGALES ST

DR P IDE THE ARKS TELEGRAPH AVE UP L A WOOLSEY ST N DS

St Augustine Elementary School

ALCATRAZ AVE Chabot Chabot Rec Center Elementary Peralta School Elementary School Oakland

COLLEGE AVE

Colby Park

Washington Elementary School Claremont 24 Middle Bushrod Park School CLAREMONT AVE 0 1000

Feet

Wildcat Pipeline (Berkeley)

Alternative Alignment (Benvenue Ave)

EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines . 211488 SOURCE: ESA Figure 2 Wildcat Pipeline (Berkeley) BARRETT AVE

Wildc a t C ree k NEVIN AVE Mira Vista MACDONALD AVE Country Club & Golf Course Wildcat Canyon

Regional Canyon Trail Park Park Prospect Elementary School AR LI NG TO N B L V D

Hillside Madera Natural Elementary CUTTING BLVD Windrush Area School Elementary School

LIBERTY ST HILL ST Plaza Park AVE Arlington Park POTRERO

POTRERO AVE Castro Hillside Stege Park Castro Elementary Elementary Natural School School Area RICHMOND ST Booker T Anderson Jr Park 80 El Cerrito

SAN PABLO AVE

Portola Casa Cerrito Middle Crescent Rec Ctr School Park

East Bay Sierra Cerrito Elementary MOESER LNVista School Park Huber 123 Park Richmond

Fairmont Sunset Elementary View School Cemetary CARLSON BLVD Fairmont Park 580 ASHBURY AVE El Cerrito San High School Francisco Bay LINCOLN AVE Pt Isabel Regional Shoreline Harding Elementary CENTRAL AVE School St Jerome Elementary School S Central A Park N

FAIRMOUNT AVE C ST A R

L LYNN AVE O 0 1000 S

El Cerrito A

Plaza E Feet Eastshore State Park

Wildcat Pipeline (El Cerrito)

Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (El Cerrito/Richmond)

EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines . 211488 SOURCE: ESA Figure 3 Wildcat Pipeline (El Cerrito) and Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (El Cerrito/Richmond) Middle College HS Rollingwood North BROOKSIDE DR ROAD 20 San Pablo 21ST ST ROAD 20 Richmond EL PORTAL DR Kennedy S a Helms Plaza n P W Cre k a Middle School ildcat e John Hubert b lo C Davis Park reek

RUMRILL BLVD St Joseph Cemetary DOVER AVE

Dover SAN PABLO AVE Elementary 80 School MARKET AVE

St Paul Elementary School

Shield Reid Park

Downer Salesian Elementary Richmond High School High School School Ford Elementary COSTA AVE School 23RD ST MARICOPA AVE

Richmond Vista Christian Elementary School Ceasar Chavez Elementary School

Wendell Park

Lucus Park GARVIN AVE

Wood Grant Park Burg Park Elementary School Elm Park

ROOSEVELT AVE

BARRETT AVE

MACDONALD AVE NEVIN AVE 0 1000 Memorial Park Feet

Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (Richmond/San Pablo) Alternative Alignment

EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines . 211488 SOURCE: ESA Figure 4 Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (Richmond/San Pablo) EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below could potentially be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name For

February 2012 4 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST

I. AESTHETICS / VISUAL QUALITY Less than Significant with Potentially Mitigation Less than Would the Project: Significant Impact Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact a) Have substantially adverse effect on X a scenic vista? b) Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock X outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Site X and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X affect day or night time views in the area?

DISCUSSION a. Potentially Significant Impact. In general the pipelines would be installed below ground and would not affect scenic vistas (viewpoints that provide expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public). However, a pipe bridge would be used to cross San Pablo Creek. The pipe bridge may be visible and could adversely impact views of the creek. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential visual impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. b. No Impact. There are no designated or eligible state scenic highways in the project area. c. Potentially Significant Impact. As noted under item a. above, a proposed pipe bridge may affect the visual character at San Pablo Creek. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential visual impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. d. No Impact. The proposed pipelines would not include any lighting or otherwise create a new source of light or glare.

Less than II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Significant with RESOURCES Potentially Mitigation Less than Would the Project: Significant Impact Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) , as shown in maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of theCalifornia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Dept. of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract?

February 2012 5 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

Less than II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Significant with RESOURCES Potentially Mitigation Less than Would the Project: Significant Impact Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code X section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- X forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use??

DISCUSSION a - e No Impact. The proposed pipelines would primarily be developed within existing roadways. Tree removal would occur within two EBMUD-owned properties to the extent necessary for the construction and maintenance of the proposed and existing pipelines. These properties are small urban lots (totaling approximately 0.28 acres) that serve as a utility corridor; they are not used for or zoned for agricultural or forest/timberland production.

III. AIR QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation X of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state X ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people?

February 2012 6 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

DISCUSSION a - e. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed pipelines would not develop a new stationary source of criteria pollutants; however, construction of the pipelines would result in the short-term generation of emissions. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential construction-related air quality impacts and measures to mitigate any significant impacts.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or X regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and X regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

DISCUSSION a - e. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the project would require the trimming of the branches and roots of trees overhanging roadways where the pipelines would be installed. Tree removal would be required in the riparian habitat of San Pablo Creek on EBMUD-owned properties to the extent necessary for the construction and maintenance of the proposed and existing pipelines. San Pablo Creek, Wildcat Creek and other streams (primarily with culverts) may be affected during construction. The EIR will

February 2012 7 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

provide a detailed evaluation of potential biological resource impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. f. No Impact. The project area is not covered by a habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X as defined in section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries?

DISCUSSION a - d. Potentially Significant Impact. Though the pipeline routes are in substantially disturbed zones given past construction activity, construction of the proposed pipelines has the potential to disturb or damage archaeological, paleontological or historic resources in the project area. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential cultural resource impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the X risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based X on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial erosion or the loss of X topsoil?

February 2012 8 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building X Code, 1994, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

DISCUSSION a - d. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed pipelines may be susceptible to unstable soil or geologic conditions including seismic faulting, ground shaking, ground failure and erosion. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential geology and soil impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. e. No Impact. The project does not include the development of a wastewater disposal system. No impact would occur.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have X a significant impact on the environment,? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of X reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

DISCUSSION a - b. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would result in a short-term emission of greenhouse gases. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential greenhouse gas emission impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts.

February 2012 9 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in X a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?

DISCUSSION a - d. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the pipelines would require the use and appropriate handling of typical construction-related hazardous materials (e.g. fuel, lubricants and solvents), as well as appropriate handling and disposal of contaminated soil and/or groundwater, if encountered. Specific precautions would be needed to safely work near existing fuel and/or natural gas lines located in proximity to the proposed pipelines. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of the potential hazards and measures to mitigate significant impacts. e - f. No Impact. None of the proposed pipeline routes is located near an airport or airstrip. No impacts would occur. g. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the pipelines would require temporary lane and roadway closures which could impede emergency access. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. h. Potentially Significant Impact. While most of the construction would occur in urban streets, the proposed Central Pressure Zone Pipeline (Richmond/San Pablo) would require construction within the riparian

February 2012 10 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

corridor of San Pablo Creek. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater X table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase X the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or X redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow?

February 2012 11 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

DISCUSSION a, c, d. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the pipelines would require construction near San Pablo Creek, Wildcat Creek and culvert drainages located along the pipeline routes. Disruption of the bed or banks of creeks or culverts has the potential to impede flows, cause erosion and affect water quality. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts including potential construction site dewatering activities and measures to mitigate significant impacts. b. No Impact. The proposed pipelines would be constructed primarily within existing roadways. As a result, the project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surfaces, increase runoff or affect groundwater recharge. The project does not include the use of local groundwater supplies. e, f. Potentially Significant Impact. Pipeline trenching and excavation of bore and jack pits will likely encounter shallow groundwater in some areas, which would require dewatering during construction. Dewatering would require appropriate handling of groundwater. Adequate stormwater drainage would need to be provided during the construction process. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. g. No Impact. The proposed project does not include the development of housing. h. Potentially Significant Impact. Development of a pipe bridge at San Pablo Creek would require avoidance of the 100-year flood zone to ensure that flood flows are not impeded. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. i. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not cause flooding due to the failure of a dam or levee, as no dams or levees are adjacent to the project nor would any be constructed. Construction procedures call for trenchless (“bore and jack”) construction under Wildcat Creek and a pipe bridge over San Pablo Creek neither of which will alter the original dimensions of the streambeds nor reduce the stream flow capacity of the creeks. EBMUD maintains a Dispatch Center and field crew 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to respond to emergencies. The pipelines would be designed with isolation valves that can be closed to interrupt the flow of water to a ruptured pipe. The pipelines would be designed to withstand substantial stress and pressures, and the possibility of a rupture is considered remote. Due to the remote possibility of rupture and the level of protection inherent in the design of the pipeline, this impact is considered to be less than significant. j. No Impact. The proposed project is not located in an area susceptible to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established X community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general X plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X communities’ conservation plan?

February 2012 12 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

DISCUSSION a. No Impact. The proposed pipelines would be constructed within existing roadways, EBMUD and City of San Pablo properties. The project would not change land uses or physically divide an established community. b. Less than Significant Impact. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091(e), county and city zoning ordinances do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the transmission of water. However, the EIR will consider specific resource policies identified in the Berkeley, El Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo city zoning ordinances (e.g. noise ordinances, tree preservation ordinances) within the corresponding EIR sections (e.g. Noise and Vibration, Biological Resources) to assist with the determination of significance of impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. c. No Impact. The project area is not covered by a habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of X value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource X recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

DISCUSSION a - b. No Impact. The proposed pipeline routes are located within existing streets, properties owned by EBMUD, and properties owned by the City of San Pablo that are not known to contain important mineral resources. As a result, the project would not affect the availability of mineral resources.

XII. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or X ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

February 2012 13 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

XII. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

DISCUSSION a, b, d. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would result in short-term noise and vibration. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate any significant impacts. c. No Impact. The proposed project does not include any facilities that would generate noise during operation of the pipelines. e - f. No Impact. The proposed project is not located near an airport or airstrip.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere?

DISCUSSION a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed pipelines would increase water transmission capacity to meet the projected future water demand of customers located west of the Oakland-Berkeley Hills north of the Claremont Tunnel. The customers served include parts of north Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules and the unincorporated communities of West Contra Costa including Crockett. As a result, the project has the potential to indirectly support population growth in this area. The Growth Inducement Section of the EIR will address the potential for the project to induce substantial growth in the project’s service area. b - c. No Impact. The proposed pipelines would be developed within existing streets, properties owned by EBMUD, and properties owned by the City of San Pablo. No homes or people would be displaced by construction of the project.

February 2012 14 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION a, i-v. No Impact. The proposed project would improve the reliability of water service to EBMUD’s service area located west of the Oakland-Berkeley Hills north of the Claremont Tunnel. The customers served include parts of north Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules and the unincorporated communities of West Contra Costa including Crockett. The project would correct existing transmission and storage operation deficiencies, and provide for future water demands (including water supply for fire protection, schools and parks). The construction and operation of the proposed pipelines would not require the provision of new public services or the alteration of existing public services.

XV. RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

DISCUSSION

February 2012 15 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study a-b. No Impact. The proposed project consists of water transmission pipelines located within existing streets, properties owned by EBMUD, and properties owned by the City of San Pablo. The project does not include any recreational facilities, nor would the project increase the use of existing recreational facilities.

Note: Because the project has the potential to disrupt access to parks and other recreational facilities during the construction process, the EIR will include a Recreation Section to evaluate potential access impacts and identify mitigation measures.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulations system, taking into account all modes of transportation including X mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other X standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic X levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or X otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

DISCUSSION a - b. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would result in temporary traffic delays and disruptions associated with lane and roadway closures. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. c. No Impact. The project is not located near an airport or airstrip and does not have the potential to change air traffic patterns. d. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would require the operation of heavy equipment and handling of materials in public roadways. Adequate safety precautions and traffic

February 2012 16 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

control would be required to address potential hazards. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. e. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the project would require short-term lane and roadway closures, disrupting access for emergency vehicles. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. f. Potentially Significant Impact. During project construction, the temporary closure of lanes and roadways may affect the bike lanes, pedestrian access and transit service. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional X Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing X entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste?

DISCUSSION a - e. No Impact. The project does not include or require new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities. The project would not require additional water supplies; rather, the project would correct existing water transmission and storage operational deficiencies. f - g. No Impact. Solid waste generated in the form of construction debris (broken pavement, fill) that cannot be reused as fill would be disposed of at appropriate receiving locations identified by the contractor in response to standard EBMUD construction specification regarding material off-haul and disposal. The project would dispose of all demolition debris in accordance with all applicable state and local rules and regulations. No additional solid waste would be generated after the completion of project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

February 2012 17 EBMUD West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project Initial Study

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION a. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the project would require tree removal and construction within the riparian habitat of San Pablo Creek on EBMUD-owned properties. San Pablo Creek, Wildcat Creek and other streams may be affected during construction. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential habitat and endangered species impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. Construction of the proposed pipelines has the potential to disturb or damage archaeological, paleontological and historic resources in the project area. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential cultural resource impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts. b-c. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in environmental impacts that have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts and adverse effects on human beings. The EIR will provide a detailed evaluation of potential impacts and measures to mitigate significant impacts.

February 2012 18