Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Project Environmental Impact Report

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

APPENDICES SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER 2010082043

July 15, 2011 This page left blank intentionally. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

APPENDICES SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2010082043

Submitted to: East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605-0381 Contact: Mr. Jim Townsend (510) 544-2602

Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810

LSA Project No. URS1001

July 15, 2011

This page left blank intentionally.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION APPENDIX B: SUMMARY TABLE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS APPENDIX C: COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION APPENDIX D: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION APPENDIX E: WETLAND DELINEATION APPENDIX F: PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT APPENDIX G: NOISE MONITORING DATA SHEETS APPENDIX H: AIR QUALITY MODELING

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendixTOC.doc (7/13/2011) i

This page left blank intentionally.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011) NOTICE OF PREPARATION

To: Notice of Preparation Recipients

Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report

Lead Agency: Consulting Firm:

Agency Name: East Bay Regional Park District Firm Name: LSA Associates, Inc. Street Address: 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Street Address: 157 Park Place City/State/Zip: Oakland, California 94605-0381 City/State/Zip: Point Richmond, California 94801 Contact: Sean Dougan, Resource Analyst Contact: Laura Lafler, Principal

Project Title: San Francisco Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park

The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), acting as Lead Agency, will be preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed San Francisco Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park (project). The public is invited to submit comments regarding the scope of the EIR. EBRPD is also requesting comments from responsible agencies regarding the scope and content of the environmental document.

Project Location: The project would be located in the City of Pinole, California, along the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. Surrounding land uses include residential development and Bay Front Park.

Project Description: EBRPD would construct a section of the San Francisco Bay Trail in Pinole between Pinole Shores and Bay Front Park, a distance of approximately 0.5 mile. The proposed project would extend an existing Class I non-motorized, paved trail from a hillside bluff across from Hazel Lane in Pinole Shores east over the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to connect to an existing path in Bay Front Park. The alignment would begin with a paved trail traveling between the UPRR and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks for approximately 1,500 feet. The second component of the alignment would continue with an elevated structure of approximately 1,100 feet. This elevated structure would begin with 450 feet, sweep north and east on a 140-foot radius curve and include a 150-foot bridge crossing over the UPRR tracks. On the north side of the tracks, the elevated structure would continue for another 650 feet with the last segment of the trail parallel to the UPRR tracks, traverse wetlands and marsh lands of San Pablo Bay and with another 200 feet of paved trail, connect with the existing path in Bay Front Park. Construction of the proposed trail alignment would require earthwork, retaining walls, and installation of a grade-separated bridge over the railroad tracks.

Potential Environmental Effects: The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects, based on information known to date, are contained in the Initial Study prepared for the project. It has been determined that an EIR will be necessary to analyze potential environmental effects associated with the project.

Public Comment Period on Scope of EIR: August 16, 2010 through September 14, 2010 Public agencies, interested organizations, and the general public have the opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIR, including environmental issues which have the potential to be affected by the project and should be addressed further by EBRPD in the EIR, as well as alternatives and mitigation measures. Potential areas of environmental impact that have already been identified and that will be discussed in greater detail in the EIR are set forth in the Initial Study.

Due to time limits mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), responses must be received within the designated 30-day comment period and no later than September 14, 2010. Please send your response to:

Sean Dougan, Resource Analyst East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605-0381 [email protected]

08/12/10 (P:\URS1001\Notice of Preparation\Pinole Shores NOP.doc) 1

4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST and ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: S.F. Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park 2. Lead Agency Name & East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct., P.O. Box Address: 5381, Oakland, CA 94605-0381 3. Contact Person & Phone Sean Dougan, Resource Analyst, Interagency Planning and Land Number: Acquisition Division 510.544.2611 4. Project Location: City of Pinole 5. Project Sponsor Name & East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Address: Box 5381 Oakland, California 94605-0381 6. Plan Designation: San Pablo Bay Conservation Area 7. Zoning: Open Space (OS) 8. Description of Project: EBRPD would construct a section of the San Francisco Bay Trail in Pinole between Pinole Shores and Bay Front Park, a distance of approximately 0.5 mile. The proposed project would extend an existing Class I non-motorized, paved trail from a hillside bluff across from Hazel Lane in Pinole Shores east over the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to connect to an existing path in Bay Front Park. The alignment would begin with a paved trail traveling between the UPRR and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks for approximately 1,500 feet. The second component of the alignment would continue with an elevated structure of approximately 1,100 feet. This elevated structure would begin with 450 feet, sweep north and east on a 140-foot radius curve and include a 150-foot bridge crossing over the UPRR tracks. On the north side of the tracks, the elevated structure would continue for another 650 feet with the last segment of the trail parallel to the UPRR tracks, traverse wetlands and marsh lands of San Pablo Bay and with another 200 feet of paved trail connect with the existing path in Bay Front Park. Construction of the proposed trail alignment would require earthwork, retaining walls, and installation of a grade-separated bridge over the railroad tracks. 9. Surrounding Land Uses & The proposed trail alignment is located along the San Pablo Bay Setting: shoreline in Pinole. Surrounding land uses include residential development and Bay Front Park. 10. Approval Required from UPRR and BNSF Other Public Agencies: S.F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission U.S. Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Fish and Game Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City/County encroachment permits

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Air Quality ⌧ ⌧ Resources

Biological Cultural Resources Geology/Soils ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ Resources

Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hydrology/Water ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ Emissions Hazardous Materials Quality

⌧ Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources ⌧ Noise

Population/Housing Public Services ⌧ Recreation

Transportation/ Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings of ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ Traffic Systems Significance

DETERMINATION

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 project proponent. 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" impact 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.

Less Than 4.1 AESTHETICS Potentially Less Than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ⌧ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ⌧ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ⌧ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or ⌧ nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site offers panoramic views of San Pablo Bay, Marin County, and the San Francisco skyline. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce a lengthy and sizeable bridge structure over the existing railroad tracks that could reduce, obstruct or degrade scenic vistas. Grading and vegetation removal required to construct the proposed trail alignment would alter the existing visual character of the project site and could affect views from the park, wetlands, bluff and shoreline. It should be noted, however, that views from the adjacent residential uses in the City of Pinole will be retained as the trail (and associated structure) will be placed at elevations below the view vectors from these residences. Further discussion and evaluation of potential effects on visual resources will be included in the EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. The project site is not located within the viewing corridor of a City- or State- designated scenic highway.1 Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a designated scenic highway. The potential for impacts to scenic resources located within a State scenic highway will not be addressed extensively in the EIR. Overall, the project is intended to promote visual experiences for the trail users. The trail will open up scenic vistas previously unavailable, and will provide an intermediate landing overlook to San Pablo Bay.

1 California Department of Transportation, “The California Scenic Highway System: A List of Eligible and Officially Designated Routes,” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm.

4 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Potentially Significant Impact. Grading and vegetation removal would be required to construct the proposed trail and grade-separated bridge. Construction of the project could alter the existing visual character of the project site and may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Further discussion and evaluation of potential effects on visual resources will be included in the EIR. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

No Impact. The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No light standards would be installed as part of the proposed project. The potential effects of light and glare will not be addressed in the EIR.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact In determining whether impacts to Incorporated agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ⌧ pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

5 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ⌧ contract? 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 section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or ⌧ conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland ⌧ to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) designates the project site as Urban and Built Up Land.2 Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The project site is designated as San Pablo Bay Conservation Area by the City’s General Plan (2006), which encourages public access to open space areas. The project site is zoned Open Space (City of Pinole, 2006). The site is not under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. 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 section 4526)?

No Impact. As described above, the project site is designated as San Pablo Bay Conservation Area and is zoned Open Space. The project site does not contain forest land or timberland as defined in the Public Resources Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest or timber land. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR

2 Bay Area Region Important Farmland Map (2004). California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection: Urbanization and Important Farmlands 1984 - 2004 Regional Urbanization Maps Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/trends/Pages/regional_maps.aspx

6 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project site does not contain forest land and no forest land is located in proximity to the project area. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non- forest use. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. No agricultural land uses are located in proximity to the project area. Therefore, the project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR.

4.3 AIR QUALITY Less Than Potentially Less Than Where available, the significance criteria Significant with No Significant Significant established by the applicable air quality Mitigation Impact Impact Impact management or air pollution control district Incorporated may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ⌧ of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ⌧ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ⌧ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ⌧ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ⌧ substantial number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Potentially Significant Impact. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of Federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air

7 Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed the 2005 Ozone Strategy and the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP).

The air quality plans use the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans and Zoning Codes, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan and Zoning Code are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. The proposed project features are consistent with the City’s zoning, which is OS (Open Space), and the City’s General Plan (2006) land use designation (San Pablo Bay Conservation Area). A General Plan amendment would not be required for this project.

Once complete, the proposed trail project is not expected to generate additional vehicle trips (i.e. more than 2,000 vehicle trips per day, as determined by the BAAQMD)3 that would increase regional carbon monoxide and ozone precursor emissions (See Response 4.3-b below). Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed project is not expected to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, relevant air quality plans. However, construction of the proposed project would require extensive earthwork, including importing approximately 8,000 cubic yards of fill, and use of heavy-duty construction equipment to install the bridge structure, resulting in short-term emissions that could affect air quality. This impact is considered potentially significant. The potential for the proposed project to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, relevant air quality plans will be addressed in the EIR. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the proposed project promotes the use of non-motorized travel (bikes, pedestrians) and should assist in reducing regional vehicular trips, thus improving air quality over the long term. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin (SFBAB) and is within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. Within the SFBAB, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California (State) and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. As of October 2009, the SFBAB is under non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 4 and PM2.5) for State standards. The SFBAB is classified as marginal non-attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard.5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated 6 the Bay Area as nonattainment for PM2.5.

The BAAQMD has set thresholds of significance for operational period emissions. Below these thresholds, project operation emissions from mobile sources are anticipated to have a less than significant impact; however, projects within 20 percent of the threshold are required to undergo a

3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. San Francisco, California. 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2009. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status Website. Accessed on October 22, 2009: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm 5 The EPA lowered the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.80 to 0.75 parts per million (ppm) (i.e. 75 parts per billion [ppb]) effective May 27, 2008. The EPA will issue final designations based upon the new 0.75 ppm ozone standard by March 2010. 6 The EPA lowered the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3 in 2006. The EPA issued attainment status designations for the 35 µg/m3 standard on December 22, 2008. The EPA has designated the Bay Area as nonattainment for the 35 µg/m3 PM2.5 standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90 days after publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. President Obama has ordered a freeze on all pending federal rules; therefore, the effective date of the designation is unknown at this time.

8 more detailed analysis. The BAAQMD threshold of significance for ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxide [NOx]) is 80 pounds per day. Projects generating fewer than 2,000 vehicle trips per day are assumed to contribute emissions below this threshold.7 The proposed project would not generate cumulative daily vehicle trips to exceed this emissions threshold. In fact, implementation of the project could increase bicycle usage and reduce vehicular emissions, thereby improving air quality conditions. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to contribute substantial ozone precursor emissions.

However, short-term construction activities at the project site, which would include extensive earthwork (e.g., excavation, grading) and transport activities, could temporarily increase the local concentration of particulate matter. If construction activities associated with the proposed project result in blowing dust, a major cause of increased PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, the project could contribute to the Bay Area’s existing particulate matter air quality violation. According to the BAAQMD, temporary construction period air quality impacts (for all pollutants) are considered less than significant if standard BAAQMD particulate matter control measures are implemented. The BAAQMD does not maintain significance thresholds for PM2.5; however, mitigation measures for large particulate matter (PM10) would also be effective at reducing emissions of small particulate matter (PM2.5). The potential for the project to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation will be addressed in the EIR. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.3-b above. The proposed project has the potential to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction. The potential for the project to result in a significant net increase in the cumulative level of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment (i.e., particulate matter and ozone) will be addressed in the EIR. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Potentially Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site include neighboring residents with homes overlooking the project site. As a trail project, operational emissions are not expected to be generated after completion of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to long term substantial pollutant concentrations.

As described in Response 4.3-b above, construction of the proposed project may temporarily expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust as well as construction equipment pollutants (i.e., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). The project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations during the construction period will be further evaluated in the EIR.

7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. San Francisco, California.

9 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located downwind from any significant odor sources (e.g., landfills, sewage treatment plants) that could affect persons within the project area. The proposed use of the trail is not associated with objectionable odors Some objectionable odors may result from the construction activities. Although these odors would be temporary, they could impact adjacent residents for the duration of the construction period. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional ⌧ plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ⌧ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ⌧ pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ⌧ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ⌧ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

10 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community ⌧ conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located adjacent to the San Pablo Bay shoreline and the proposed trail would traverse wetlands and marsh lands associated with San Pablo Bay. The project area likely provides habitat for a number of special status species, including the California clapper rail, California black rail, and special status plant species on the hillside bluffs. The potential for the trail project to have a substantial adverse effect on any special status species or species protected by the State or federal Endangered Species Act will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project would be located adjacent to the San Pablo Bay shoreline and the proposed trail would traverse sensitive natural communities, including wetlands and marsh habitats associated with the Bay. The potential for the project to have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would require construction of a grade- separated bridge and new paved trail that would traverse a portion of the wetlands and marsh lands associated with San Pablo Bay. Activities related to trail construction could impact wetlands and/or intertidal habitat. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the permanent fill of waters of the U.S. associated with installation of bridge piers to support the proposed trail. The project would also result in temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters resulting from the installation of falsework used for bridge construction. The potential for the project to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands will be evaluated in the EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located adjacent to the San Pablo Bay shoreline and its associated wetlands and marsh lands. It is likely that birds and mammals travel through the project area. The potential for the project to interfere with the movement of any native resident wildlife species will be evaluated in the EIR.

11 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located adjacent to the San Pablo Bay shoreline and the proposed trail would traverse wetlands and marsh lands associated with the Bay. Impacts to natural resources associated with trail construction may conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting such resources. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. The project site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan, and this topic will not be addressed extensively in the EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ⌧ in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ⌧ pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ⌧ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ⌧ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

Potentially Significant Impact. A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California . . . Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (CCR Title 14, Chapter 3, § 15064.5(a)(3)). Archaeological resources may also be considered historical resources.

The project area contains no buildings or structures, with the exception of the existing railroad

12 tracks. It is unknown whether the project site contains historical resources listed in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory or the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the National Register of Historic Places. As part of the EIR, a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the State of California Historical Resources Information system, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, will be conducted to identify any historical resources within the project area. The potential for the project to have a substantial adverse effect on historic resources will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

Potentially Significant Impact. Based on its environmental characteristics, the project area has the potential to contain prehistoric archaeological deposits. Ground disturbing activities along the trail alignment could impact as-yet unidentified archaeological deposits in the project area. The potential for the project to have a substantial adverse effect on archaeological resources will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Potentially Significant Impact. Paleontological resources may be present in fossiliferous deposits in the project area. As part of the EIR, background research, including a fossil locality search and a literature review, would be conducted to enable an assessment of the potential for impacts to such resources. Although the nature of ground disturbance in the project area does not suggest a high potential for such impacts, the potential for the project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource will be evaluated in the EIR. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Potentially Significant Impact. It is unknown whether human remains are present within the proposed project area. Therefore, the possibility of encountering human remains during ground- disturbing activities cannot be discounted. The potential for the project to disturb any human remains will be evaluated in the EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area ⌧ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ⌧

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ⌧ including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? ⌧ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ⌧ of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 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 Code ⌧ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ⌧ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designated by the State. The proposed trail alignment would cross buried (or inferred) splays of the Pinole fault, which is considered inactive.8 The proposed project would not cross any active faults. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. This issue will not be addressed extensively in the EIR.

ii) Strong-seismic ground shaking?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California. Significant earthquakes have been associated with movements along well-defined fault zones. Earthquakes occurring along the San Andreas, Hayward, or any number of other Bay Area faults have the potential to produce strong ground shaking at the site. Studies by the United States Geological Survey’s Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities have

8 Placemakers, 2001. Final Environmental Issues and Constraints Report Shoreline Trail. Prepared for the East Bay Regional Park District. January.

14 estimated a 62 percent probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Region before the year 2031. As part of their prediction, they estimated the probability to be 27 percent for a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake to occur on the Hayward/Rodgers Creek fault by the year 2031.

As a result of the project area’s proximity to the Hayward, San Andreas, and other major faults in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is high potential for the site to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during a major earthquake. This impact is considered potentially significant, and the effects of ground shaking on the project will be evaluated in the EIR.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Potentially Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, unconsolidated, non-cohesive sediment (such as sand) to a fluid-like state because of earthquake ground shaking. Due to the project area’s location within a seismically-active region, impacts related to the exposure of people and/or structures to risks related to ground failure and liquefaction are potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

iv) Landslides?

Potentially Significant Impact. Earthquake ground shaking can induce landslides, especially where unstable slopes exist because the ground shaking provides a mechanism for ground movement. Mapping by the Association of Bay Area Governments shows the project area as an area where earthquake-induced landslide movement may be a risk. Portions of the project site contain hillside bluffs that could become unstable. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant, and the impacts related to landslides and slope stability will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil?

Potentially Significant Impact. Portions of the project site are subject to hillside bluff erosion. Bluff erosion could also impact the stability of the hillside, as well as the proposed trails and affect habitat values. The potential for the proposed project to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Potentially Significant Impact. Strong ground shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure and associated soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, and collapse. Site soils could be subject to subsidence. The impacts associated with geologic or soil stability are potentially significant. The effects of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse will be evaluated in the EIR. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Potentially Significant Impact. On-site soils could be subject to soil expansion. The impacts associated with expansive soils are potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

15 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area of the City of Pinole that is served by a municipal wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment system. No septic tanks are proposed. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS Significant with No Significant Significant EMISSIONS Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ⌧ significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the ⌧ purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated primarily with construction activities. The proposed project is a trail facility and would not generate increased vehicle trips to and from the project site; therefore, long-term operation of the project is not anticipated to generate GHG emissions. However, during construction of the project, greenhouse gases would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The climate change analysis contained in the EIR will provide both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with all relevant sources related to the project, including construction activities. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Potentially Significant Impact. California’s major initiatives for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006; Executive Order S-3-05; and AB 1493, which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. These efforts aim to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of approximately 25 percent, and then an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

Additionally, the City of Pinole is developing a GHG inventory to calculate emissions caused by activities within the City boundaries, including emissions from municipal and community activities such as energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled and waste production. The City of Pinole Draft

16 General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The consistency of the proposed project with the City’s General Plan policies, as well as State initiatives, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be addressed in the EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.8 HAZARDS AND Significant with No Significant Significant HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ⌧ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ⌧ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ⌧ 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 compiled pursuant to Government Code 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 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 a safety ⌧ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ⌧ response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

17 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent ⌧ to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project includes a Class I trail with a bridge crossing over the railroad tracks. No routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials would be associated with long-term operation of the project. However, the project site is located between two active rail lines. Railroad uses are typically associated with a high potential for contamination due to transportation and accidental hazardous waste spills. Construction and operation of the trail could result in potential threats to construction workers and/or future users as a result of this contamination. The potential for the project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials will be discussed in the EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Potentially Significant Impact. As described above, the project site is located between two active rail lines. Hazardous materials could be present in the surface and near surface soils of the project area and could pose a hazard to worker safety during construction activities or trail users, once the trail is completed. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. No existing or proposed schools are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed project. The closest school, Collins Elementary School, is located approximately 0.75 mile southeast of the project site. The potential for hazardous materials, substances or waste in proximity to a school will not be addressed in the EIR. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Potentially Significant Impact. According to the City of Pinole Draft General Plan, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 6596.25.9 As described above, the project site is located between two active rail lines and could contain hazardous materials associated with historic and ongoing use of the railroad tracks. As part of preparing the EIR, a government records search will be conducted to identify all documented hazardous waste sites and facilities located within the study area. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.

9 City of Pinole, 2009. City of Pinole Draft General Plan, Health and Safety Element.

18 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 the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The project site is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to a safety hazard related to airports. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. As described above, the project site is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. In 2006, the City of Pinole updated and adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to effectively and efficiently organize and coordinate the City’s response to major emergencies, such as flood, fire, earthquake, pestilence, war, sabotage, and riot. There are no dedicated evacuation routes in the City of Pinole. The proposed project would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans. This topic will not be addressed extensively in the EIR. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in an area designated as a fire severity zone by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire).10 However, the project site contains both native and introduced vegetation in close proximity to existing residences. Operation of construction equipment could spark a wildlfire in this area that could threaten people and structures. Construction equipment would be required to comply with existing regulations, including the use of spark arresters to prevent wildlfire. This topic will not be addressed extensively in the EIR.

10 City of Pinole, 2009. City of Pinole Draft General Plan, Health and Safety Element.

Less Than 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Less Than Significant with No QUALITY Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or ⌧ 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 table level (e.g., 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 or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ⌧ river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 the rate or ⌧ amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ⌧ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ⌧ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ⌧ Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ⌧ flood flows?

20 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ⌧ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ⌧ a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project may result in a violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board standards for water quality. During project construction, stormwater runoff could be affected by erosion and/or accidental spills of fuels or other chemicals, potentially impacting the quality of San Pablo Bay. This impact is potentially significant and will be discussed in the EIR. 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 table level?

Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly deplete any sources of groundwater or interfere with its recharge. The project improvements would not involve direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater. The proposed project would add additional impervious surfaces, which would reduce the amount of groundwater percolation and groundwater recharge on the site. However, stormwater runoff would still flow to subsurface areas in the watershed. In addition, the groundwater in the project area is not used to provide drinking water or for agricultural purposes. Project impacts related to groundwater and groundwater recharge are less than significant and will not be addressed extensively in the EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project does not propose to alter the course of any stream or river. However, construction activities on the site could alter drainage patterns in a manner that could increase erosion or sedimentation levels in receiving waters. The impact associated with the alteration of drainage patterns and the resulting onsite or offsite erosion and/or siltation is potentially significant. This issue will be analyzed in more detail in the EIR 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 the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project does not propose to alter the course of any stream or river. However, construction activities on the site could alter drainage patterns in a manner that could result in flooding offsite. The proposed project would add additional impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in the amount of storm water runoff over existing levels. The impact associated with the alteration of drainage patterns and the resulting increase in surface runoff is potentially significant. Drainage facilities will be incorporated into the project design to control runoff and minimize flood-related issues. This issue will be analyzed in more detail in the EIR. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater

21 drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would add additional impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in the amount of storm water runoff over existing levels. Pollutants (e.g., from motor oil from construction vehicles or equipment) may be released in the short-term into the storm water runoff, which could degrade surface and ground water quality. Over the long-term, the trail use should not result in the accumulation of pollutants that ultimately are contained in runoff. The project would have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns on the site, which could result in an increase in erosion or siltation and an increase in non-point surface pollutants in storm water runoff. Project impacts related to increases in runoff water and polluted runoff are potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Potentially Significant Impact. As described in Responses 4.9-a through 4.9-e above, the construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact water quality primarily during construction. The project impacts on water quality are potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation?

No Impact. The proposed project consists of a Class I trail and a bridge overcrossing. It does not include housing. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Less Than Significant Impact. Portions of the project site are located in a 100-year flood area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.11 Portions of the project site are located in Zone VE, which indicates areas that are subject to coastal flooding with potential wave action. The east end of the bridge structure, located in the tidal marsh area, would be elevated so that the bottom of the structure would not be inundated during bay-related high water events. The bridge structure would extend over the tidal marsh to connect with the existing park. Although, this impact is considered less than significant and it will be discussed in the EIR. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)12, a portion of the project site may be located within the flood inundation zone of the Maloney Reservoir. The Background Report for the General Plan states that recent improvements have been made to the reservoir by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Therefore, the risk of the project area being exposed to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam is considered less than significant and will not be evaluated extensively in the EIR.

11 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Contra Costa County, California and Incorporated Areas. Panel 43 of 602, Map Number 06013C0043F. Effective Date: June 16, 2009. 12 ABAG, 1995. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Hercules/Pinole/Rodeo. Accessed via the web at: (http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl)

22 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Potentially Significant Impact. Seiches are standing waves created by seismically induced ground shaking (or volcanic eruptions or explosions) that occur in large, freestanding bodies of water. A tsunami is a series of waves that are caused by earthquakes that occur on the seafloor or in coastal areas. The project area is located adjacent to San Pablo Bay and could be subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Discussion of impacts related to project inundation by seiche or tsunami will be addressed in the EIR.

As described in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, the bluffs in the project area are subject to erosion and could result in inundation of the project site by a mudflow. The stability of the slope and the potential for soil erosion or mudflows on the project site during construction and after project implementation will be discussed in the EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Impact Incorporated a) Physically divide an established 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 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 community ⌧ conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The project site is located along the San Pablo Bay shoreline, between two active rail lines. Residential development is located in the project area. The proposed project would include the addition of a Class I trail connection between two existing trails with a bridge crossing over the railroad tracks. These improvements would not create a physical barrier within the community or otherwise divide contiguous land uses. The proposed project would actually connect two neighborhoods that are currently separated. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and this issue will not be addressed in the EIR. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project?

Potentially Significant Impact. Land uses in the project area include residential development, open space associated with the San Pablo Bay shoreline, Bay Front Park and the existing railroad tracks. Implementation of the proposed trail alignment could be incompatible with these adjacent land uses. In addition, construction of the proposed project could be inconsistent with relevant land

23 use policies (e.g., preservation of natural resources, protection of scenic views). The EIR will analyze the consistency of the project with relevant, local land use policies, including those of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Contra Costa County and the City of Pinole. The potential for the proposed project to conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project will be addressed in the EIR. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to ⌧ the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ⌧ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. No known mineral resources are located at or near the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the loss or availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents or the state. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No Impact. See Response 4.11-b above.

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.12 NOISE Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the project result in: Impact Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established ⌧ in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

24 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground ⌧ borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ⌧ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project ⌧ vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 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 people ⌧ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project area is located adjacent to single-family residences, which are considered noise-sensitive land uses. During the construction period, noise levels at or near the project site would temporarily increase due to the use of construction equipment and increased truck traffic on neighborhood roads. Post-construction, use of the proposed trail would generate some noise related to increased recreational use of the area. The potential for the project to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the City’s General Plan or municipal code, or applicable standards of other agencies will be addressed in the EIR. b) Exposure of people to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

Potentially Significant Impact. Installation of the proposed trail could involve significant grading activities and the placement of driven piles or drilled piers to support the bridge abutments and the elevated portion of the trail extending over the marsh. As a result of the activities associated with the construction of the trail and bridge overcrossing, the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels is potentially significant. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Potentially Significant Impact. As described in Response 4.12-a above, the project would

25 generate new sources of noise related to increased use of the site by pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, the location of the proposed trail alignment along the railroads’ tracks would expose trail users to noise from passing trains. Therefore, the potential for the project to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project is potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with proposed project, resulting from the use of heavy machinery and increased construction traffic and truck trips, would generate a short-term increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. 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 the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to high levels of airstrip-related noise. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR.

Less Than 4.13 POPULATION AND Potentially Less Than Significant with No HOUSING Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ⌧ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ⌧ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ⌧ housing elsewhere? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?

No Impact. The proposed project would not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The proposed project includes the addition of a trail alignment and the construction of a bridge crossing over the railroad tracks. The project area is surrounded by areas that are either already developed with residential uses or protected as parks or open space. As such, the project would not facilitate growth-inducing development; rather, it would serve to complete a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The project’s potential for inducing substantial population growth will not be addressed in the EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. There are no existing housing units directly on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing. Housing displacement and the construction of replacement housing will not be addressed in the EIR. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. See Response 4.13-b.

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated 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:

Fire protection? ⌧

Police protection? ⌧

Schools? ⌧

Parks? ⌧

Other public facilities? ⌧ 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: fire protection, police

27 protection, schools, parks, other public facilities?

Less than Significant Impact. The project area is located in an area that is already served by public service systems. The level of fire and police protection services required for the area would be slightly increased over the level currently demanded with the introduction of a new trail facility.

As described in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not result in growth in the area that would require additional fire protection or emergency medical services. Trail improvements would be designed to meet City fire department standards and would not adversely impact the City’s ability to provide fire protection and emergency response services. The Pinole Police Department would continue to provide law enforcement services for the project area. Implementation of the project is not expected to require additional law enforcement personnel or equipment.

The proposed project would provide a new trail facility for both recreation and transportation. Schools, libraries, and other public facilities would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of public service. This topic will not be addressed extensively in the EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.15 RECREATION Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ⌧ 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 which ⌧ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed trail would serve the recreational needs of residents in the City and the region by providing an additional link in the San Francisco Bay Trail and connecting two existing trails. Implementation of the proposed trail alignment could increase use of existing facilities at Bay Front Park. However, it is not anticipated that use would increase substantially such that a physical deterioration of the facilities at Bay Front Park would occur or be accelerated. The potential for the project to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities will not be addressed extensively in the EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is a recreational facility. As indicated by this Initial Study, potential adverse effects on the environment from implementing the project will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR.

Less Than Potentially Less Than 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Impact Incorporated a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all 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 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 levels or ⌧ a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ⌧ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ⌧ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative ⌧ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness , taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project could create new vehicle trips traveling to and from the project area to access the proposed trail. However, such an

29 increase is expected to be negligible and would not result in level of service and volume to capacity related impacts to the existing circulation system in the area. In addition, implementation of the proposed trail alignment would create an opportunity for residents to use alternative modes of transportation (i.e., bicycle), thereby reducing vehicle traffic on local roads. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed project is not expected to exceed the vehicular capacity of the existing circulation system.

However, construction of the proposed trail alignment would require a significant amount of earthwork (approximately 8,000 cubic yards) to be imported to the project site, which could result in approximately 800 truck trips on local roads. In addition, construction activities would require the use of pile driving equipment, cement trucks, backhoes and other heavy-duty construction equipment that would access the staging area via local roads. Although construction traffic would be temporary, this impact is considered potentially significant. The potential for the project to exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system will be addressed in the EIR. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Potentially Significant Impact. See Response 4.16-a above. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase vehicle trips in the project area and may even result in a reduction in vehicle traffic. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with an applicable congestion management program or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. However, construction of the proposed project could result in a substantial increase in trips on local roadways during the construction period. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The project area is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at any airport in the area. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project would be located between two active rail lines and include construction of a bridge crossing over the railroads tracks. Implementation of the proposed trail would prevent local residents from crossing the train tracks illegally to access the shoreline. Implementation of the trail components may actually increase access to the shoreline in a safe and legal manner through the grade-separated overcrossing. However, the proximity of the trail to these active rail lines may result in a safety hazard for trail users if users stray off the trail limits. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will address the potential for the project to substantially increase vehicle and pedestrian hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, but would provide connections between existing recreational uses and trails. The proposed

30 trail would not be designed to handle large, heavy emergency vehicles. However, the proposed project would provide a trail connection between two existing trails allowing for easier ingress and egress for pedestrians and bicyclists during an emergency. This issue will not be addressed extensively in the EIR.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation?

No Impact. The proposed project would contribute to the use of non-motorized means of travel. The proposed trail alignment would connect to existing trails and construct a portion of the Bay Trail around San Francisco Bay.

No bus lines or turnouts would be impacted by the proposed improvements, as there are is no bus service in close proximity to the project area. The West Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) and AC Transit operate bus service in the City of Pinole. Bus services primarily run along Pinole’s main transportation corridors: San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way.

The City’s General Plan13 includes policies emphasizing pedestrian and bicycle travel, bus transit, and other modes of alternative transportation. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR.

Less Than 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE Potentially Less Than Significant with No SYSTEMS Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ⌧ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing 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 ⌧ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements ⌧ and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

13 City of Pinole, 2009. City of Pinole Draft General Plan.

31 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ⌧ capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ⌧ project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ⌧ waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

No Impact. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed project would not include new restroom facilities or generate wastewater, although increased bicycle and pedestrian use in the area could minimally increase bathroom demand at the park. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The proposed project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities or the construction of new or expansion of existing water facilities. No potable water facilities would be provided as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the demand for potable water would be the same as the existing demand.

As described in response Section 4.17-a above, the construction of new or the expansion of existing wastewater facilities would not be required to accommodate the proposed project. No restroom facilities would be provided as part of the proposed project.

The potential for the proposed improvements to result in the construction or expansion of water or wastewater facilities is less than significant and will not be addressed in the EIR. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would add additional impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in the amount of storm water runoff over existing levels. As described in Section 4.9, Hydrology, the impact associated with the alteration of drainage patterns and the resulting increase in surface runoff is potentially significant. The potential for the proposed improvements to require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities will be evaluated as part of the hydrology analysis in the EIR.

32 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

No Impact. As described in Response 4.17-b above, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing water facilities. No potable water facilities would be provided as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the demand for potable water would be the same as the existing demand. The proposed project would not significantly increase demand on existing water entitlements. No new or expanded water entitlements are needed. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on wastewater treatment capacity. See responses 4.17-a and 4.17-b above. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to generate substantial amounts of solid waste. Material excavated during the project would be re-used on-site. Although some construction-related debris may require disposal into a landfill, the magnitude of waste would not be considered significant. The project would not generate additional waste once completed. Impacts related to solid waste disposal are considered less than significant and will not be addressed extensively in the EIR. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. The project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste during the construction and operation periods. All solid waste would be disposed of at an approved site in compliance with federal, state and local regulations. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR.

33 Less Than 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Significant with No Significant Significant SIGNIFICANCE Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ⌧ community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ⌧ project are considerable when 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 adverse ⌧ effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community reduce the number or restrict the range of rate or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory?

Potentially Significant Impact. As noted in this Initial Study, the implementation of the proposed project could potentially degrade the quality of the environment. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?

Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will discuss the cumulative impacts resulting from the project in combination with any past projects, current projects, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the project area. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

34 Potentially Significant Impact. As noted in this Initial Study, the implementation of the proposed project could potentially cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR.

35 Project Site

rPinole

FIGURE 1

P:\URS1001\g\Figure1_ProjectVicinity.cdr (07/07/10) ling au P u s Lin A lf r e d

N o b e l Project Trail Segment Location d Kings a ro Ends at Ra i l Bay Front Park

d a Bay ro il Zephyr a R Pinole S a A A n p t Ridgeview h t o O a e Hermes l l v o n

F Weiss a e

e r

Trail Segment l Cardoza e il o On Ol o y mpus k Begins Fawcett W W Zeus s o ill Hercules a Titan Lookout o ia A t l d ld m fie s Stout rest W Forest o P F il D OZ rlea Rosti d ns e Calais e Cypress r l o a San Pablo o m r t e La Salle Pavon res s Scanlan c Fo o Hutchinson e e n H te Hazel Leroy y e l r Tennent el c Sk u Cypress l es Gately Summ Del Monte Belfair Pinon i s t nn d e a Brenda n m r o k D hr e m Greenwich r o o rm g o iew Fa ista lenwo a a h V G L l ay V od ll B y i ore w S Primrose a n n e m o n Quinan Park V

B d d e n B r l s e e o a ea John Anne Highland a u g Birch M Walter o e p a Emma n D B l Alice i o Vil High P Encina le L Laurel F Samuel Fahey la F Lompico nd b e o e r w n Spring R r San Pablo edale o n a s d o Quinan Pear n R a d d Salem w e r r o d e F as o k e e e B z a o l o MBetty i r a w c Plum s c k i v b i S w r y y o h h w t ut p Adams 5th a o r Rogers Henry u Crestview n Brandt Francis M M o a n u 4th a stvi n 3rd 2nd Prune n e d P i q jo e w Pine D n r r r u Antonia o ra Robert a Smith Jones V C Nob H ia C u D ista e S ill Dublin Alvarez d T u B M D i Eire rs e Peach owne s r b ey lm a o Marlesta c Ellerhorst O n is P t n Bernardo c Amethyst ac O n ific a c i O a onnor M Glen r O M a F cdon p Ohatchto Barkley A a k o l a le m n d p R El B e n r nd a i i o o d a A r Sky Golden Gate n M g o Spencer n o l t Kenmare e Emerald r K o s b y la e il e y a k T e P e ck Hanley n u n Doolin n B P y Wallace o a Wilde nd S Mayo Cornelius 80 e A § r Sargent ¤ƒ g K Rim View o n a it l s a ls Kerry t Boyle r t Tara Hil M e il a r e A Limerick Kildare r H u Fisher r a y C Fitzpatrick h d Oharte m Kevin g t Lewis g Brian o e es a r r e n e Poquito c n no Tara Hills R id ge Dean a K M n v a i h l a c S l C a K m Alberdan a Gar r n ri Jade o Galway n y ty e o r r on r y o Faria S o E l T h w Ruff a Dolan Ebsen m D e

l ro m Mahan n c o A Duncan k Neal r Oneil w e p Sarah ha p S i Paloma Kenney a R n e 80 Lynn b a Flannery D Banion § t ¤ƒ d e r al s Alamo S a r c e c o p itzg Estates h e F a H R a r ok C i l m l e P c r Ra h e o mo m n c i na a k n n t o Michael i o l n d o C o e Shea l d R O l u m e n s ic r l a h o l i a

l m V l R e C a Naomi o a h

t n

n c Lindell c a t h Kyer S d A i o l l Lucas Kelvin v

M e Appian i z s r Silverado Rancho y Ge FIGURE 2

San Francisco Bay Trail 0 1000 2000 Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park FEET Location Map SOURCE: Streetmap North America (2009). I:\URS1001\GIS\Maps\Figure1_LocationMap.mxd (7/7/2010) SAN PABLO BAY 0

10 10 10 20 10 30 20 10 30 10 10 10 40 10 10 50 40 10 60 50 F 10 UPRR 10 F 10 F 10 8+00 20 F C 20 12+00 13+00 9+00 C 11+00 TO PINOLE 10+00 60 F C 15+00 16+00 30 SHORES 17+00 14+00 18+00 40 20 30 19+00 C C 20+00 C C F 21+00 20 30 C F F C C F F 22+00 23+00 20 Staging Area F F C 30 40 50 2’ to 3’ High Retaining Wall 30 C Potential Landslide 30 40 Grading Area C C 40 40 50 60 50 50 60 50 BEGIN BRIDGE

BNSF 50 60 60 60

C 40 30 22+00 SAN PABLO BAY C F 20 C BAY FRONT 50 PARK 30 40

23+00

36+00 50

10 C 24+00 27+00 C 20 35+00 10 C 60 10 C 10 26+00 28+00 END BRIDGE F

10 34+00 25+00 F 10 C 29+00 10 C 10 10 F 10 30+00 33+00 20 31+00 32+00 F 10 10 30 10 70 Tennant Avenue 10

40 UPRR 10 50 TENNANT AVENUE 60 40 20 BNSF50 30 20 20 30 30 40 40 50 60 50 60 50 50 LEGEND FIGURE 3 Trail Alignment Area of Potential Effects Bridge Column Staging Area Limit of Cut and Fill Matchline San Francisco Bay Trail 025 50 100 Station Location Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park FEET Proposed Project SOURCE: URS Corporation (June 2010) I:\URS1001\GIS\Maps\Project Description\Figure3_Proposed Project.mxd (7/8/2010) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY TABLE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011) SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park September 2010

Date Commenter’s Letter Date Company Title City Comments EIR Topic EIR Section Received Name

Government Agencies

09/14/2010 09/14/2010 California Public Moses Sittes Rail Corridor Safety Sacramento • Recommends working with CPUC staff early to identify potential project TRAFFIC AND 4.8 Utilities Specialist, Consumer impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to rail corridor safety. CIRCULATION Commission Protection Safety • Project proponent needs to work with CPUC/RCES to discuss pedestrian Division, Rail Transit treatments along the railroad ROW as well as pedestrian overpass design. and Crossings Branch Tracks in project area are a Union Pacific mainline with heavy freight traffic, and 44 Amtrak passenger trains per day. • A formal application is required to the CPUC for a pedestrian overpass. • The overpass must meet GO26-D requirements. • Fencing will need to channel pedestrians to overpass. • There needs to be a large amount of high security fencing. Existing fence between Union Pacific tracks and park trail is inadequate- high incidences of trespassing have occurred, resulting in two fatalities earlier this year. • Funds must be set aside for proper maintenance of fencing. • Please include above requirements in the mitigation and monitoring section of the EIR for project compliance and follow-up. 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 City of Pinole, Dean Allison Director of Public Pinole • The City of Pinole would like the EBRPD to consider several different types of ALTERNATIVES 5.0 Department of Works bridge designs for the crossing of the railroad and for the shoreline segment ANALYSIS Public Works from the rail crossing to Bay Front Park, for a full consideration of aesthetics. Local Interest Groups

09/12/2010 09/13/2010 Harbour Cove of Larry President, Harbour Pinole • Concerned that if heavy construction vehicles were to travel on the Bay Trail TRAFFIC AND 4.3, 4.5, 4.8, Pinole Johnson Cove of Pinole or Pinole Shores Drive to the staging area for trail construction, they would CIRCULATION 4.9, 4.10 Homeowners Homeowners cause hillside instability, noise, traffic congestion and loss of trees along the Association, Association existing Bay Trail. Suggest that the construction access route be from San GEOLOGY AND Pablo Avenue, perhaps via the largely empty nearby business park and across Pinole Shores SOILS the BNSF tracks, or via other nearby City roads adjacent to the staging area. Association 1, Lorene Treasurer, Pinole Pinole Harbour Scalora Shores Association 1 • Request that DEIR include an analysis of alternative construction access routes NOISE Point 1 that would avoid impacts to homeowner’s neighborhood, and analysis of noise, Homeowners Cheryl Bizar President, Pinole air quality, and geologic/seismic impacts of any construction traffic on AIR QUALITY neighborhood. Association, Harbour Point 1 Pinole Harbour Homeowners • If the construction access route is along the existing bay trail, it would result BIOLOGICAL Point 2 Association in reduced access to the park and parking lot, trail widening, and severe RESOURCES Homeowners trimming or removal of trees. DEIR should consider these impacts. Association Jiing Su Lo Director, Pinole Harbour Point 2 Homeowners Association Individuals

09/08/2010 09/10/2010 John (Jack) Pinole • Existing trail segment beginning at foot of Pinole Shores Drive was used as a PROJECT 3.0 Meehan model trail by the EBRPD for years after its dedication in 1988 and includes an DESCRIPTIION equestrian side-trail of decomposed granite. The proposed project should consider accommodation of equestrian users; note this must be reconciled CEQA PROCESS

02/01/11 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Public Comments on NOP\Comments Recvd by Topic_Pinole Shores.doc) 1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park September 2010

Date Commenter’s Letter Date Company Title City Comments EIR Topic EIR Section Received Name

with ADA accessibility. • The local populace and public agencies should be consulted regarding the intended uses and capacity of proposed railroad overcrossing. • Equestrian staging areas should be constructed at the Bay Front Park as part of the proposed project, and impacts of such construction should be included in the EIR. • Dismayed (at scoping session) that EBRPD engineers did not have UPRR land title documents, original valuation maps of the UPRR, or recently prepared “As-Built” route maps. • Have owners of nearby tidelands been informed of project and does the EBRPD intend to offer them an access easement through its property? • Intended continuation route of trail eastward, crossing Pinole Creek, and into Hercules, and extension westward to connect to Point Pinole needs to be considered. • Proposed overcrossing could provide opportunity for viewing and photographing passing trains. 09/12/2010 09/12/2010 Julie Pinole • Concerned that if heavy construction vehicles were to travel on the Bay Trail TRAFFIC AND 4.3, 4.5, 4.8, VanTilburg or Pinole Shores Drive to the staging area for trail construction, they would CIRCULATION 4.9, 4.10 cause hillside instability, noise, traffic congestion and loss of trees along the existing Bay Trail. Suggest that the construction access route be from San GEOLOGY AND Pablo Avenue, perhaps via the largely empty nearby business park and across SOILS the BNSF tracks, or via other nearby City roads adjacent to the staging area.

• Request that DEIR include an analysis of alternative construction access routes NOISE that would avoid impacts to homeowner’s neighborhood, an analysis of noise, air quality, and geologic/seismic impacts of any construction traffic on AIR QUALITY neighborhood, and an analysis of impacts to the hillside that supports homes

off of Carlotta Circle along the trail. BIOLOGICAL • If the construction access route is along the existing bay trail, it would result RESOURCES in reduced access to the park and parking lot, trail widening, and severe trimming or removal of trees. DEIR should consider these impacts. 09/14/2010 09/14/2010 Cindy Trego Pinole • DEIR should address air quality impacts to sensitive receptors on Pinole AIR QUALITY 3.0, 4.5, 4.8, Shores Drive and air quality, noise and health impacts to residents near Pinole 4.9, 4.10, Shores Regional Park parking lot from construction equipment. NOISE • Please provide estimated number of vehicles and heavy equipment anticipated to use Pinole Shores Drive for project and any proposed plans to remove any TRAFFIC AND mediums and landscaped material on Pinole Shores Drive. CIRCULATION • How will wear and tear to streets be mitigated? PROJECT • Please provide information on staging area locations, construction hours, DESCRIPTION timeframe to complete project, and how construction site will be accessed. Note no parking allowed on Pinole Shores Drive or nearby residential GEOLOGY AND communities. SOILS • Please address safety impacts of project and include a plan for nighttime security, a plan in case of emergency at the construction site from hillside erosion, underground pipelines, etc. • Please provide contact information for residential concerns and complaints.

02/01/11 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Public Comments on NOP\Comments Recvd by Topic_Pinole Shores.doc) 2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park September 2010

Date Commenter’s Letter Date Company Title City Comments EIR Topic EIR Section Received Name

08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Cindy Trego Pinole • Concerned about effects of proposed project on local community in conjunction PROJECT 3.0, 4.5, 4.7, with Praxair project and Hercules wastewater project. DESCRIPTION 4.8, 4.10, • Please address in DEIR: 4.11 NOISE -hours of construction operation; -noise study statistics and how noise impacts would be addressed; TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION -staging areas;

-construction site access; GEOLOGY AND -removal of existing structures such as medians or landscaping; SOILS

-how workers will access construction site; PUBLIC -plans for delivering heavy equipment; SERVICES -plans for clean up; HAZARDS AND -environmental impacts; HAZARDOUS -provide trail and site improvements; MATERIALS

-ground/hillside stabilization; -safety and security; -how will community complaints be addressed; -emergency response plans and potential issues in case of earthquake, etc.; -EBRPD police response, monitoring and enforcement plan for those who access the trail after curfew hours; -EBRPD police monitoring plan during regular peak hours so community knows what to expect; -Does EBRPD plan to revise current State law regarding fisherman only being able to access shoreline where it is safe; and

-No illegal crossing of railroad tracks. Public Hearing Comments

08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Cindy Trego Pinole • Wrote comment letter for pipeline project, and the comments were not CEQA PROCESS 3.0, 4.3, 4.5, addressed in the DEIR for that project-wants to be assured that comments will 4.7, 4.8, be addressed in this DEIR TRAFFIC AND 4.11, 6.0 CIRCULATION • Wants to know how construction site will be accessed- concerned about impacts to local residential community, concerned about access via Pinole Shores park next to residences HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS • Wants testing for Radon contamination in project area because there are MATERIALS pipelines in the area

• Geological impacts including earthquake impacts, liquefaction and landslides GEOLOGY AND should be addressed in the DEIR SOILS • Concerned about construction hours of operation- pipeline project construction was proposed to be 24/7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Concerned about parking impacts during construction

02/01/11 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Public Comments on NOP\Comments Recvd by Topic_Pinole Shores.doc) 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park September 2010

Date Commenter’s Letter Date Company Title City Comments EIR Topic EIR Section Received Name

• How will construction equipment access project site- by barge or San Pablo PUBLIC Avenue? SERVICES • Wants to know where construction staging will take place. BIOLOGICAL • DEIR should address project impact on City’s emergency response plan RESOURCES • How will crime be enforced on the bridge? CUMULATIVE • Concerned about the environmental impacts of vegetation removal during project construction IMPACTS • Is there any communication between this project and the pipeline and railroad projects- wants to know if any of these projects will be constructed at the same time. Response: • Laura Lafler, LSA Associates, Principal, urged Cindy to resubmit the previously submitted letter on the pipeline project such that it’s addressed to EBRPD, has a current date, and applies specifically to this project. • Laura Lafler assured Cindy that biological and geological impacts would be addressed in the DEIR • Garry Horton, URS Engineer, assured Cindy that construction will not be 24/7, and will not take place on evenings or weekends except for one bridge placement for which the placement timing is regulated by the railroad • Noise will be addressed in DEIR • Garry Horton states that the staging area will be on the bluff at the end of the trail • The possibility of site access via the Burlington railroad will be investigated, and access via Pinyon Avenue may be possible. Concrete will be delivered within the railroad right-of-way. • Garry Horton states that construction will take 9-10 months and is labor intensive but not equipment intensive which will help minimize noise • Dean Allison, City of Pinole Director of Public Works, reminds the public that this is just a scoping session and there will be other opportunities for public participation down the line, and acknowledges that the City is aware of other projects in the area 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Sylvia Flood Pinole • Concerned she will lose her view of the bay due to the project, she does not AESTHETICS 4.2 want to see the bridge structure. Response: • Garry Horton, URS Engineer, says she likely won’t see the project because the height will be lower than the existing Burlington railroad tracks 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Joe Mariotti Pinole • Advocated for trail along waterfront for 35 years. PROJECT 3.0 • Concerned about the cost of the project- it would be better to have it along DESCRIPTION the waterfront than along the railroad tracks 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Anastasia Pinole GEOLOGY AND 4.5 • Concerned about stability of hillside with heavy vehicles accessing the site Dodson SOILS 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Unknown Pinole • Concerned about impact of project on views AESTHETICS 4.2

02/01/11 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Public Comments on NOP\Comments Recvd by Topic_Pinole Shores.doc) 4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park September 2010

Date Commenter’s Letter Date Company Title City Comments EIR Topic EIR Section Received Name

08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Dave Rupert Pinole • Commends project, but concerned about cost PROJECT COST 4.2 • Concerned about aesthetic impacts- project should fit in with local area, does not want a large concrete surface to attract graffiti or vandalism AESTHETICS 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Jack Meehan Pinole • Powerpoint graphic in presentation does not show property lines- were PROJECT 3.0, 4.8 invitations to this scoping session sent to all property owners along the DESCRIPTION project? • Concerned that construction of third railroad track would require moving CEQA PROCESS existing tracks TRAFFIC AND • Railroad survey established that Union Pacific can do whatever they want within railroad property boundaries (not called right-of-way), whereas CIRCULATION Burlington railroad has a right-of-way that only permits railroads, not pipelines or other land uses • Mike Anderson designed past trails on Pinole shoreline; his trail is considered the “ideal trail” and included an equestrian trail- would the proposed project include an equestrian trail and a staging area for equestrians? • Emergency vehicle access must be accommodated on the proposed trail • Wants a railroad viewpoint along the proposed trail • According to legal documents, Union Pacific railroad is obligated to build and maintain fencing along its property

08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Unknown Pinole • Concerned about visual impacts- view corridors; design should match existing AESTHETICS 4.2, 4.11 community/maintain old town/historical atmosphere PUBLIC • Concerned about safety in area where trail would enter park SERVICES 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 Cindy Trego Pinole • Displeased about EBRPD response to community request for signs/lighting for PUBLIC 4.11 safety/prevention of vandalism- wants EBRPD to consider safety for residents SERVICES with increase in trail capacity and resulting pedestrian traffic in project area Response: • Jim Townsend, EBRPD Trails Development, Program Manager, said that the proposed project would facilitate access for increased police patrols and increase in foot traffic in project area could discourage criminals from loitering in the area

02/01/11 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Public Comments on NOP\Comments Recvd by Topic_Pinole Shores.doc) 5

This page left blank intentionally.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX C

COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

September 14, 2010

Sean Dougan East Bay Regional Parks District 2950 Peralta Parks District Oakland, CA 94605

Re: Notice of Preparation-Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) San Francisco ay Trail Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park SCH# 2010082043

Dear Mr. Dougan:

As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) recommends that development projects proposed near rail corridors be planned with the safety of these corridors in mind. New developments and improvements to existing facilities may increase vehicular traffic volumes, not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings. In addition, projects may increase pedestrian movement at crossings, and elsewhere along rail corridor rights-of-way. Working with CPUC staff early in project planning will help project proponents, agency staff, and other reviewers to identify potential project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures, and thereby improve the safety of motorists, pedestrians, rail personnel, and rail passengers.

o The project proponent needs to work with the CPUC/RCES to discuss pedestrian treatments along the railroad right of way as well as the pedestrian overpass design. The tracks in this area are a Union Pacific mainline with heavy freight traffic. Amtrak also operates 44 passenger trains per day at this location.

o A formal application to the Commission is required for the pedestrian overpass.

o The overpass must meet GO26-D clearance requirements.

o Fencing will be required to channelize pedestrians to the overpass.

o There needs to be a LARGE amount of high security fencing. The existing fence between the Union Pacific tracks and the park trail is inadequate. There were two trespassing fatalities at Pinole Sholes Park earlier this year. The area experiences a high amount of trespassing as the area is a popular fishing location. The Parks district left an opening in the existing chain link fence because of maintenance issues caused by trespassers who routinely cut through the fence. ALL of the fencing needs to be replaced with high security fencing to prevent trespassing. o Funds must be set aside for proper maintenance of the fencing.

Sean Dougan SCH # 2010082043 September 14, 2010 Page 2 of 2

Please include the above Commission project requirements in the mitigation monitoring section of the EIR for project compliance and follow-up.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions on this matter, please call Felix Ko, Utilities Engineer, CPUC Rail Crossings Engineering Section, at (415) 703- 3722 or email at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

Moses Stites Rail Corridor Safety Specialist Consumer Protection and Safety Division Rail Transit and Crossings Branch 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95834-2936

Harbour Cove of Pinole Homeowners Association Pinole Shores Association 1 Pinole Harbour Point 1 Homeowners Association Pinole Harbour Point 2 Homeowners Association c/o Cindy Trego P.O. Box 787, Pinole, CA 94564

September 12, 2010

Sean Dougan, Resource Analyst East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605-0381 [email protected]

Re: San Francisco Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Project

Dear Mr. Dougan:

On behalf of the over 300 homes in the four Pinole Shores Area Homeowners Associations, we are writing to comment on the scope Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Project.

Many of our homes are very close to the existing Bay Trail and Pinole Shores Drive, and we are concerned about the impact on hillside stability, noise, traffic congestion, and the loss of trees on the existing trail if heavy construction vehicles were to travel on these two routes to the staging area for the new trail construction. We strongly suggest that the construction access route to the staging area at the end of the existing path be designed in a more direct route from San Pablo Ave, perhaps via the largely empty nearby business park and across the BNSF tracks, or via other nearby city roads that are directly adjacent to the staging area.

We request that the Draft EIR include the following:

1) Analysis of alternative construction access routes that would avoid significant negative impact on our neighborhood; 2) Specific analysis (including baseline data) of noise, air quality, and geologic/seismic impacts of any construction traffic through our neighborhood.

We note that viable alternatives to the construction access route exist and should be considered. CEQA requires a Draft EIR to analyze alternatives that would

Comments on Scope of EIR 1 September 12, 2010 have a reduced environmental impact, even if that alternative is more costly, but would substantially lessen the project’s significant impacts.

Below is a summary of our comments and concerns. Photo examples and alternate construction access routes are provided at the end of our letter. Note that the last chart was prepared for a different project, but would have used similar access routes, so we have included it for reference.

Trail Construction Access Impacts

1. Noise: The project may result in severe noise and vibration from passage of construction vehicles. The EIR should document the potential noise impact and mitigation measures.

2. Air Quality: The Draft EIR should provide information on the impact of air quality from construction processes and construction vehicle traffic.

3. Geologic/Seismic Concerns: The proposed project would extend an existing East Bay Regional Park walking/biking path (Bay Trail) that currently has sections constructed along the top of a steep hillside. A number of private homes are directly adjacent to this path. This path was not designed to accommodate frequent trips by heavy construction vehicles, and in fact already has cracks from soil erosion, despite being repaved a few years ago. Any heavy vehicle traffic along this path, in addition to the potential removal of hillside trees to widen the path for construction vehicles, may cause structural damage to homes, weaken the hillside, and make the hill more vulnerable to landslides, particularly since we live in an area subject to earthquakes. The Draft EIR should address this issue.

4. East Bay Regional Park/Bay Trail: If the construction access route for the bay trail extension is along the existing Bay Trail, this would result in reduced access to the park and parking lot, trail widening, and severe trimming or removal of trees along the trail. The Draft EIR should describe the short- and long-term reduction in the quality of the park due to any tree removal and trail widening. Furthermore, the Draft EIR should identify the aesthetic impact of tree removal and construction on Bay Trail. The long-term reduction in the beauty of the park would have a significant, unmitigated negative impact on our quality of life. Further, widening the Bay Trail may also require construction activities into the back yards of some homes along the trail, creating a significant negative impact.

5. Alternatives: The Draft EIR should analyze alternative construction access routes, including alternate routes that would not disturb our neighborhood. We provide alternative routes in detailed document.

Comments on Scope of EIR 2 September 12, 2010

Comments on Scope of EIR 3 September 12, 2010 Pinole Shores Area HOA Photo Comments on Current Bay Trail Condition

Photo 1: Cracks in East Bay Regional Park Path Adjacent to Steep Hillside

Photo 2: Cracks in East Bay Regional Park Path Adjacent to Steep Hillside

Comments on Scope of EIR 4 September 12, 2010 Photo 3: Proximity of EBRP Path to Homes on Carlotta Circle in Pinole – path is 12 yards from back of houses.

Comments on Scope of EIR 5 September 12, 2010

Julie VanTilburg 602 Carlotta Circle Pinole, CA 94564

September 12, 2010

Sean Dougan, Resource Analyst East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605-0381 [email protected]

Re: San Francisco Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Project

Dear Mr. Dougan:

I am writing to comment on the scope Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Project.

My home is on Carlotta Circle off of Pinole Shores and is only 12 yards from the existing Bay Trail. I am extremely concerned about the impact on hillside stability – especially the hill that supports my home, noise, traffic congestion, and the loss of trees on the existing trail if heavy construction vehicles were to travel on these two routes to the staging area for the new trail construction. I strongly suggest that the construction access route to the staging area at the end of the existing path be designed in a more direct route from San Pablo Ave, perhaps via the largely empty nearby business park and across the BNSF tracks, or via other nearby city roads that are directly adjacent to the staging area.

I request that the Draft EIR include the following:

I note that viable alternatives to the construction access route exist and should be considered. CEQA requires a Draft EIR to analyze alternatives that would have a reduced environmental impact, even if that alternative is more costly, but would substantially lessen the project’s significant impacts.

Comments on Scope of EIR 1 September 12, 2010 Below is a summary of my comments and concerns. Photo examples and alternate construction access routes are provided at the end of this letter. Note that the last chart was prepared for a different project, but would have used similar access routes, so we have included it for reference.

Trail Construction Access Impacts

1. Noise: The project may result in severe noise and vibration from passage of construction vehicles. The EIR should document the potential noise impact and mitigation measures.

2. Air Quality: The Draft EIR should provide information on the impact of air quality from construction processes and construction vehicle traffic.

Sincerely,

Julie VanTilburg (510-932-3770 cell)

Comments on Scope of EIR 2 September 12, 2010 Pinole Shores Area HOA Photo Comments on Current Bay Trail Condition

Photo 1: Cracks in East Bay Regional Park Path Adjacent to Steep Hillside

Photo 2: Cracks in East Bay Regional Park Path Adjacent to Steep Hillside

Comments on Scope of EIR 3 September 12, 2010 Photo 3: Proximity of EBRP Path to Homes on Carlotta Circle in Pinole – path is 12 yards from back of houses.

Comments on Scope of EIR 4 September 12, 2010

Cindy Trego – Pinole Shores Resident 711 Live Oak Lane, P.O. Box 787 Pinole, CA 94564

September 14, 2010

Sean Dougan, Resource Analyst East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605-0381 [email protected]

Re: San Francisco Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Project

Dear Mr. Dougan:

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Public Scoping Session for the Bay Trail Project on August 26, 2010 7pm held at Pinole City Hall. In addition to the letter already emailed from the Pinole Shores community on September 13, 2010, as a resident living very close to Pinole Shores Drive I have some additional comments and items I would appreciate being addressed in the Environmental draft EIR.

1) Health and Noise Impact: We have elderly residents that live on the corners of 700 and 701 Live Oak Lane and Pinole Shores Drive that have considerable health issues with Asthma. Please address the heavy equipment and increased traffic impacts that may affect the health of those living along Pinole Shores Drive.

Please also address the noise, air and any health impacts to those residents who live within a few feet from the Pinole Shores Regional Park Parking Lot which is the proposed access site for this project.

2) Traffic: Pinole Shores Drive has very narrow one lane each way streets with landscaped mediums. Please address any proposed plans to remove any mediums and landscaped material. What are the plans and mitigation measures to address the wear and tear to our streets? Please provide the estimated number of vehicles and heavy equipment anticipated to use Pinole Shores Drive for this project.

3) Staging areas and Parking: Please address the staging area locations, construction hours, time frame anticipated to complete the project and how workers will access the construction site. Our communities are private communities and there is no parking allowed in our communities or along Pinole Shores Drive.

4) Safety: Please address all safety aspects and impacts of this project to include a plan for night time security, a plan in case of an emergency at the construction site for hillside erosion, underground pipelines etc.

5) Customer Service/Project Hotline for residents: Please provide contact information for residential concerns and complaints.

Below you will find the list of items I discussed and provided you at the August 26, 2010 meeting as a matter of record.

August 26, 2010

Scoping Session and Public Information Meeting Pinole City Hall, Council Chambers 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 94564 Thursday, August 26, 7:00pm

From: Cindy Trego – Pinole Shores Association resident

Question: Has EBRPD been in any conversations recently with Praxair regarding this project? If so, please advise the community.

Concern: I understand Praxair has settled their law suit with the environmentalist and after checking with Winston – Pinole City Planner and we have not heard any direction/updated status of this project from the County. The concern for our community would be long term construction impacts to Pinole Shores residents should the Bay Trails project and the Praxair projects not coincide with one another if the Praxair project is still being considered. There is also the matter of the Hercules wastewater moving to West County and the rumors they would want to use the Railroad property for this project in order to connect to West County. This could be three potential projects impacting our community at separate times.

Impact topics our community would like to see addressed in EIR:

Hours of construction operation Noise impact study statistics and how noise impacts will be addressed. Staging areas Where do you plan to access the construction site? Will there be any removal of existing structures or plant materials such as medians? How will workers be brought in to the construction site daily? Bus or other? What are your plans for delivering heavy equipment? Plans for clean up Environmental Impacts Provide trail and site improvements Ground/hillside stabilization Safety and Security How will community complaints be addressed? Emergency response plans and potential issues in case of earthquake, etc. EBRPD Police response, monitoring and enforcement plan for those who access the trail after curfew hours EBRPD Police monitoring plan during regular park hours so the community knows what to expect Wonder if EBRPD plans to propose a revision to current state law regarding fishermen only being able to access the shoreline where it is safe. No illegal crossing of railroad tracks.

Thank you for your time and for giving the opportunity to submit a comments letter.

Kind regards, Cindy Trego Pinole Shores Resident

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS SCOPING SESSION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK AUGUST 26, 2010

MEETING BEGINS 7 PM

1. Introductions: Jim Townsend, EBRPD Trails Development, Program Manager

2. Description of the proposed project: Garry Horton, URS Engineer

3. Description of the CEQA process and intent for scoping session: Laura Lafler, LSA Associates, Principal

4. Public Comment:

Cindy Trego, Pinole Shores Association Resident • Wrote comment letter for pipeline project, and the comments were not addressed in the DEIR for that project-wants to be assured that comments will be addressed in this DEIR • Wants to know how construction site will be accessed- concerned about impacts to local residential community, concerned about access via Pinole Shores park next to residences • Wants testing for Radon contamination in project area because there are pipelines in the area • Geological impacts including earthquake impacts, liquefaction and landslides should be addressed in the DEIR • Concerned about construction hours of operation- pipeline project construction was proposed to be 24/7 • Concerned about parking impacts during construction • How will construction equipment access project site- by barge or San Pablo Avenue? • Wants to know where construction staging will take place. • DEIR should address project impact on City’s emergency response plan • How will crime be enforced on the bridge? • Concerned about the environmental impacts of vegetation removal during project construction • Is there any communication between this project and the pipeline and railroad projects- wants to know if any of these projects will be constructed at the same time.

09/14/10 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Scoping Session\Summary of public comments.doc) 1 Response: • Laura Lafler, LSA Associates, Principal, urged Cindy to resubmit the previously submitted letter on the pipeline project such that it’s addressed to EBRPD, has a current date, and applies specifically to this project. • Laura Lafler assured Cindy that biological and geological impacts would be addressed in the DEIR • Garry Horton, URS Engineer, assured Cindy that construction will not be 24/7, and will not take place on evenings or weekends except for one bridge placement for which the placement timing is regulated by the railroad • Noise will be addressed in DEIR • Garry Horton states that the staging area will be on the bluff at the end of the trail • The possibility of site access via the Burlington railroad will be investigated, and access via Pinyon Avenue may be possible. Concrete will be delivered within the railroad right-of-way. • Garry Horton states that construction will take 9-10 months and is labor intensive but not equipment intensive which will help minimize noise • Dean Allison, City of Pinole Director of Public Works, reminds the public that this is just a scoping session and there will be other opportunities for public participation down the line, and acknowledges that the City is aware of other projects in the area

Sylvia Flood, resident at 1410 Hutchinson Ct. • Concerned she will lose her view of the bay due to the project, she does not want to see the bridge structure. Response: • Garry Horton, URS Engineer, says she likely won’t see the project because the height will be lower than the existing Burlington railroad tracks

Joe Mariotti, local resident • Advocated for trail along waterfront for 35 years. • Concerned about the cost of the project- it would be better to have it along the waterfront than along the railroad tracks

Anastasia Dodson, local resident • Concerned about stability of hillside with heavy vehicles accessing the site

?, local resident • Concerned about impact of project on views

09/14/10 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Scoping Session\Summary of public comments.doc) 2 Dave Rupert, local resident of 30 years and park/waterfront user • Commends project, but concerned about cost • Concerned about aesthetic impacts- project should fit in with local area, does not want a large concrete surface to attract graffiti or vandalism

Jack Meehan, has had relationship with trail since 1980 • Powerpoint graphic in presentation does not show property lines- were invitations to this scoping session sent to all property owners along the project? • Concerned that construction of third railroad track would require moving existing tracks • Railroad survey established that Union Pacific can do whatever they want within railroad property boundaries (not called right-of-way), whereas Burlington railroad has a right-of-way that only permits railroads, not pipelines or other land uses • Mike Anderson designed past trails on Pinole shoreline; his trail is considered the “ideal trail” and included an equestrian trail- would the proposed project include an equestrian trail and a staging area for equestrians? • Emergency vehicle access must be accommodated on the proposed trail • Wants a railroad viewpoint along the proposed trail • According to legal documents, Union Pacific railroad is obligated to build and maintain fencing along its property

?, involved in trail project for a long time • Concerned about visual impacts- view corridors; design should match existing community/maintain old town/historical atmosphere • Concerned about safety in area where trail would enter park

Cindy Trego again • Displeased about EBRPD response to community request for signs/lighting for safety/prevention of vandalism- wants EBRPD to consider safety for residents with increase in trail capacity and resulting pedestrian traffic in project area Response: • Jim Townsend, EBRPD Trails Development, Program Manager, said that the proposed project would facilitate access for increased police patrols and increase in foot traffic in project area could discourage criminals from loitering in the area

MEETING CLOSE 8:30 PM

09/14/10 (P:\URS1001\CEQA\Scoping Session\Summary of public comments.doc) 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX D

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL – PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to: URS Corporation, Inc. 1380 Lead Hill Blvd., Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661-2997

Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810

LSA Project No. URS1001

July 8, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 PURPOSE...... 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 1 1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT...... 9 2.0 METHODS...... 14 3.0 BIOLOGICAL SETTING...... 15 3.1 VEGETATION AND COVER TYPES...... 15 3.2 WILDLIFE...... 18 3.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ...... 19 3.4 SENSITIVE HABITATS...... 25 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES...... 27 4.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS...... 27 4.2 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS...... 27 4.3 NESTING BIRDS...... 30 4.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS...... 30 5.0 REFERENCES...... 32

APPENDICES

A: Potential Waters of the United States (from LSA delineation report)

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Vicinity ...... 2 Figure 2: Location Map...... 3 Figure 3: Proposed Project ...... 5 Figure 4: Vegetation and Cover Types...... 16

TABLES

Table A: Special-status Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole, Contra Costa County, California..20

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE This report presents the results of a reconnaissance-level biological resources study of the proposed Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail in Pinole. The purpose of the study was to identify potentially significant biological resources along the proposed alignment that may be impacted by project construction, to determine the significance of those impacts, and to propose feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. The information contained herein is intended to form the basis for the biological resources section of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.2.1 Project Location The project area is located along the San Pablo Bay shoreline in the City of Pinole in west Contra Costa County (Figure 1). The trail alignment would extend approximately 0.5 mile from Pinole Shores eastward to Bay Front Park on the east (Figure 2).

1.2.2 Project Background The San Francisco Bay Trail is a non-motorized recreational corridor proposed to encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 500-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. The corridor will connect the shoreline of all nine bay area counties, link 47 cities and eventually cross all the major toll bridges in the region. Approximately 290 miles of the alignment have been completed.

A key segment of the Bay Trail exists along the San Pablo Bay Shoreline within the City of Pinole between Pinole Shores and Bayfront Park. Nearly ten years ago, the EBRPD began to evaluate the alternatives for providing a trail alignment in this area. A URS report prepared in 2001 included alternatives for crossing two sets of railroad tracks within the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) rights of way but only one alternative was accepted by the City of Pinole. Subsequent to completion of these studies, UPRR informed the Park District and the City of Pinole that they might add a third track on the inland side of the existing tracks at a future date which would require additional setbacks from the railroad tracks. Further discussions with UPRR led to the development of additional alignment alternatives1 with the proposed project alignment, Alternative 2-A (the proposed project), recommended for design.

1 URS, 2003. City of Pinole San Pablo Bay Trail – Design Technical Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Pinole. March 25.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 1 Project Site

rPinole

FIGURE 1

P:\URS1001\g\Figure1_ProjectVicinity.cdr (07/07/10) Project Location

FIGURE 2

San Francisco Bay Trail 0 1000 2000 Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park FEET Location Map SOURCE: USGS 7.5’ Quads; Mare Island, Calif. (1980) and Richmond, Calif. (1980) I:\URS1001\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure2_LocationMap.mxd (9/24/2010)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

1.2.3 Existing Conditions The proposed trail is located within or adjacent to the UPRR mainline corridor (Milepost 22.65 to 22.85). In this area the UPRR right-of-way varies in width from 100 feet to approximately 170 feet, with the eastern segment located predominately in San Pablo Bay and the western segment transitioning steep and unstable bluffs. In the bluff area the proposed trail alignment is bounded by either residential properties or the BNSF railroad. The UPRR railroad corridor has two mainline tracks that carry over 40 freight and passenger trains per day at moderate speeds (estimated at 30-55 mph). The railroad corridor is located along the shoreline, with tracks at approximately 10 feet elevation, rising in elevation to approximately 50 feet, and it includes numerous curves and cuts through unstable hillsides. The UPRR right-of-way is not fenced, signed, or routinely patrolled for trespassers. School children, fishermen, and others frequently cross the tracks via the numerous informal trails that are present in the project area. The railroad corridor directly abuts a large residential area, and effectively separates the residents of Pinole from the shoreline. As a result of this separation, safe passage to the shoreline is restricted to limited roadway crossings at the railroad tracks (e.g., Tennent Avenue).

1.2.4 Project Characteristics The western trail segment would begin at the terminus of the Pinole Shores segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail on a hillside bluff across from Hazel Lane. The trail alignment would parallel the BNSF right of way for approximately 1,200 feet then the eastern segment would sweep north over the UPRR tracks via a 1,100-foot long elevated structure to join a path in Bayfront Park (Figure 3).

Three distinct segments comprise the proposed non-motorized trail project:

• Station 8+00 to 22+75: The western 1,500 feet of the proposed trail would lie between the BNSF and UPRR tracks. Construction of this portion of the proposed trail alignment would involve significant earthwork and construction of retaining walls to support the hillside bluffs. A security barrier (fence) would be placed at the top of the bluff to separate the users from both the BNSF and UPRR tracks. • Station 22+75 to 28+00: The proposed trail would sweep down from the bluff and cross the UPRR railroad right-of-way at a 2 percent downgrade. The trail would then turn east via a 140- foot radius curve and descend at a 5 percent grade to the existing ground level. This portion of the project would be placed on a 1,100-foot grade-separated bridge structure with a descent over a distance of approximately 550 feet. • Station 28+00 to 35+00: The eastern portion of the proposed trail would parallel the UPRR tracks and the wetlands of San Pablo Bay for about 500 feet. The trail would then connect with the existing trail in Bayfront Park.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 4 SAN PABLO BAY 0

10 10 10 20 10 30 20 10 30 10 10 10 40 10 10 50 40 10 60 50 F 10 UPRR 10 F 10 F 10 8+00 20 F C 20 12+00 13+00 9+00 C 11+00 TO PINOLE 10+00 60 F C 15+00 16+00 30 SHORES 17+00 14+00 18+00 40 20 30 19+00 C C 20+00 C C F 21+00 20 30 C F F C C F F 22+00 23+00 20 Staging Area F F C 30 40 50 2’ to 3’ High Retaining Wall Potential Landslide 30 C 30 C 40 Grading Area C 40 40 50 60 50 50 60 50 BEGIN BRIDGE BNSF 50 60 60 60

Hazel Lane

C 40 30 22+00 SAN PABLO BAY C F 20 C BAY FRONT 50 PARK 30 40

23+00

50 36+00

C 24+00 10

27+00 C 20 35+00 10 C 60 10 C 10 26+00 28+00 END BRIDGE F

10 34+00 25+00 F 10 C 29+00 10 C 10 10 F 10 30+00 33+00 20 31+00 32+00 F 10 10 30 10 70 Tennent Avenue 10

40 UPRR 10 TENNANT AVENUE 50 60 40 20 BNSF50 30 20 20 30 30 40 40 50 60 50 60 50 50 LEGEND FIGURE 3 Trail Alignment Project Area Bridge Column Staging Area Limit of Cut and Fill Matchline San Francisco Bay Trail 025 50 100 Station Location Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park FEET Proposed Project SOURCE: URS Corporation (June 2010) I:\URS1001\GIS\Maps\Bio\Figure3_Proposed Project.mxd (12/6/2010)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

The overall width of the proposed trail would be 14 feet consisting of a 10-foot paved trail with a 2- foot shoulder on each side. The grade-separated bridge structure over the UPRR railroad right-of-way would maintain 12 feet of clearance between the railings. The maximum cross slope on the trail would be 2 percent to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The maximum grade of the trail alignment would be 5 percent with an intermediate landing between Bayfront Park and the proposed bridge. The landing would provide a scenic overlook to San Pablo Bay, a resting point for mobility-impaired individuals and a viewpoint for train watchers.

Grading along portions of the trail that traverse side slopes (primarily in the western segment) would require removal of all vegetation and unsuitable soils within embankment limits, and benching into firm earth materials on the slope. Suitable support for minor structures such as retaining walls would require stripping and excavation to expose firm, undisturbed earth foundation materials. Field study of soils profiles would be required to determine the extent of material removal for benching or foundation support for embankments and retaining walls. Support for trail embankments and/or shallow bridge foundations might be locally inadequate where crossing areas of “bay mud” or soft alluvial soils north of the UPRR (primarily in the eastern segment). Establishment of appropriate firm subgrade for embankments may require specialized measures of support and reinforcement (e.g. use of geotextiles, geogrids) to avoid large differential settlements and local embankment failures. Construction of the proposed trail would require approximately 7,300 cubic yards of imported earthwork for the westerly section located on the hillside bluff. Fill would be obtained from commercial sources and would be hauled and placed immediately on the upper slope area. No fill would be stored on-site.

1.2.5 Trail Alignment and Right-Of-Way The EBRPD and UPRR entered into a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) on June 14, 1996 as part of the agreement process for the UPRR and Southern Pacific Railroad merger. The MOU permits EBRPD to place a trail within the outside 15 feet of the UPRR right of way and to construct a new grade separated crossing at UPRR Mile Post 22.65. The bridge overcrossing is proposed to be located at Mile Post 22.76, approximately 600 feet east of the MOU-approved location. As such, additional coordination with UPRR would be required to obtain concurrence in meeting the intent of the MOU. The trail alignment, as proposed, would significantly reduce the potential encroachment into the San Pablo Bay wetlands and tidal marsh and would reduce the length of the trail that would be proximate to the UPRR tracks from the trail alignment agreed to under the MOU.

1.2.6 Bridge Overcrossing The bridge structure over the UPRR railroad would consist of a cast-in-place, pre-stressed concrete box girder for the portion of the bridge located outside of the UPRR tracks and a “drop-in” pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete section for the portion directly over the tracks. Due to potential safety and operation concerns, UPRR prefers the “drop-in” method of construction for bridges over active lines that provide passenger service. Utilizing a drop-in section eliminates the need to construct bridge falsework over the active tracks and expedites UPRR approval because of the limited impact to their operations.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 6

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

The length of the proposed bridge structure would be approximately 1,100 feet, in compliance with the latest bridge design codes (Load Resistance Factor Design). The end of the existing trail at the west end of the proposed bridge would be graded to accommodate the proposed structure by excavation and backfilling methods. At the west end of the trail alignment, a short height retaining wall, approximately two to three-foot high, approximately 100 feet long, would be required to support the trail as it approaches the bridge.

The proposed elevated bridge structure could likely be composed of three distinct structural segments:

• At the west end, cast-in-place reinforced concrete box girders 14-feet wide, 8-feet deep would provide a 12-foot wide walkway surface. Spans for this structure type are anticipated to be approximately 100 feet long. The bridge section would have small overhangs and sloped girders to provide a shadowing effect on the bridge, giving the appearance of a streamlined structure. • Because of construction work window limitations set by the railroad company, the segment over the existing railroad tracks would consist of a precast, prestressed, concrete “bathtub” girder, which would match the aesthetics of the approach cast-in-place reinforced concrete box girder, that is, it would have the same cross section, sloped exteriors and overhangs and present a consistent streamlined ribbon appearance. • At the east end of the bridge where the profile of the path approaches the park, cast-in-place, reinforced, concrete slab spans would be used. These spans would be shorter in length, approximately 40 feet, and shallower in depth to accommodate clearance to water levels.

The substructure for the bridge would consist of a series round concrete columns, potentially with one-way flares, that would give a proportional and transitional appearance to the sloped exteriors girders of the superstructure. The approximate 100-foot long spans for the box girder and approximate 40-ft long spans for the slab would provide a consistent and proportional rhythm for column heights and span lengths. At this time it is proposed to utilize a single column at each bridge pier location.

The proposed railings for the elevated structure would consist of two heights, one needed for pedestrian and bicycles, and one needed over the railroad tracks as required by the BNSF Railway- Union Pacific Railroad Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects. The bicycle railing would be 42 inches tall and could consist of ornamental pickets at 4-inch clear spacing (without any mesh or chain link fencing). The railing over the railroad according the Railroad Guidelines would need to be 10 feet tall with black, vinyl-clad, chain link fence with a mesh no greater than 2 inches. The railing over the railroad would need to be installed within 25 feet of the centerline of the existing and future railroad tracks. As an alternative, a 10-foot tall ornamental picket railing that mimics the bicycle railing could be used but a chain link fabric or mesh would still be required over the pickets, subject to subsequent review and approval by the railroad company.

As part of the proposed project, a two-part geotechnical evaluation would be conducted to evaluate soil stability. The first phase, the Preliminary Foundation Report, was completed in January 2011 and consisted of six to eight Cone Penetration Tests and mapping of geologic and seismic hazards. The Preliminary Foundation Report recommended deep foundation types consisting of driven piles or drilled piers (see Section 4.5, Geology and Soils). After the structure design is advanced and the bridge foundations and abutments are sited, the final geotechnical investigation, including soil

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 7

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

borings at each support location and abutment, would be conducted. The Final Foundation Report would include the results of the field investigations, geologic hazard evaluations, and foundation design and earthwork recommendations for the bridge structure.

1.2.7 Construction Access permits and flagmen would be required for investigations within the railroad right-of-way and separate access permits and specialized equipment would be required for investigations in the lowland Bay Margin. The construction staging area would be located adjacent to the existing trail at the west end of the project alignment as shown on Figure 3. Access to the staging area would occur from the existing Class I trail via the trailhead off of Pinole Shores Drive. The contractor may also access the site via Tennent Avenue at the east end of the project site. Construction would last approximately 10 months beginning in March 2013. The construction methodology for each of the three trail segments is described below.

Station 8+00 to 22+75. Construction for the section of the trail that begins in Pinole Shores would consist of cut and fill on the hillside bluff and construction of the paved trail on the compacted material. Construction would begin with clearing and grubbing using dozers and tree removal equipment as needed. Where cutting into the hillside would be necessary, excavators would be utilized to remove excavated material. In areas where the cut would extend into the BNSF right-of- way, retaining walls would be constructed just outside the right-of-way to avoid encroaching onto BNSF property.

Dump trucks would be utilized to transport approximately 7,300 cubic yards of fill material for the northern side slope of the trail. Trail side slopes would be graded at a slope of 2:1 or flatter where possible. The trail base material would be dumped from a truck, spread by a grader and compacted using a roller prior to placing the finish surface material. The finish surface material for this section of the trail would consist of asphalt concrete, which would be placed using an asphalt paver and rollers. Other minor equipment, such as backhoes, would be used to excavate and place drainage pipes.

Access to the bluff area would occur along the existing Class I trail via the trailhead off of Pinole Shores Drive. Grading of the bluff area, construction of retaining walls and reconstruction of the unstable bluff area (if necessary) would be conducted concurrently with the bridge construction.

Station 22+75 to 28+00. Within this section, a bridge structure would be constructed to elevate the trail and carry it over the UPRR right of way. Outside the right of way, a cast-in-place concrete structure would be constructed on single-pile bents with drilled shaft foundations. The cast-in-place concrete structure would require the use of falsework, concrete trucks and concrete pumping equipment. Drilled shaft foundations would require a drill/auger rig. Minor equipment, such as a small crane and delivery trucks, would also be used for construction of this portion of the bridge structure.

The span crossing over the UPRR right of way would consist of a pre-cast concrete section to allow placement onto the single-pile bents without the need for falsework and staging within the UPRR right-of-way. This method would minimize interference to railroad operations during construction. A crane would be required to lift and put this concrete span in place. The crane would be located between the bridge and the railroad tracks with access along the railroad right-of-way. Once in place,

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 8

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

a cast-in-place concrete deck would be constructed using concrete trucks and concrete pumping equipment.

During construction of the bridge structure, work would be performed outside of the UPRR minimum temporary horizontal setback distance to a point where the drop-in section could be placed over the UPRR tracks. At that point, it would be necessary for UPRR to shut down the tracks for approximately 1-2 hours so the drop-in section could be lifted into place and secured to both sides of the previously completed structure. Once the drop-in section is in place, train traffic would resume its normal schedule.

Station 28+00 to 35+00. The final section of the trail alignment that ties into Bayfront Park would likely be a slab type structure on multi-pile bents to avoid the need of placing earth fill in the tidal marsh area. The elevated trail would maintain the bottom of the structure above the bay high water levels. The pile foundations would require pile drilling equipment and the slab superstructure would require falsework and concrete trucks.

At the end of the trail where it ties into Bayfront Park, the trail would transition from the slab type structure into an abutment that would continue the trail on grade to match the elevation of the park. Fill material at the tie in would be graded to match the existing slopes and utilize dozers, compactors, graders, an asphalt paver and rollers.

Construction access to the east end of the proposed trail alignment would be via the existing public at- grade crossing located at Tennent Avenue.

Trail maintenance would be conducted from the trail itself. Bridge maintenance would occur from the bridge deck under the encroachment permit from UPRR. The trail and bridge would be designed to accommodate light duty maintenance vehicles.

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT Biological resources in the project area may fall under the jurisdiction of various regulatory agencies and be subject to regulations, as described below. In general, the greatest legal protections are provided for species formally listed as threatened or endangered by the federal or state government. Informally listed species and habitats receive lesser legal protection.

1.3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed species from harm or “take,” broadly defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Any such activity can be defined as a “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental.

An endangered species is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Federal agencies involved in funding or permitting projects that may result in take

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 9

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

of federally listed species (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) are required under Section 7 of the FESA to consult with the USFWS prior to issuing such permits. Any activity that could result in the take of a federally listed animal species, and is not authorized as part of a Section 7 consultation, requires a FESA Section 10 take permit from the USFWS. This does not apply to listed plant species for projects on private land with no federal funding or federal jurisdiction.

In addition to endangered and threatened species, which are legally protected under the FESA, the USFWS has a list of proposed and candidate species. Proposed species are those for which a proposed rule to list them as endangered or threatened has been published in the Federal Register. A candidate species is one for which the USFWS currently has enough information to support a proposal to list it as a threatened or endangered species. Proposed species could be listed at any time, and many federal agencies protect them as if they already are listed. Candidate species are not afforded legal protection under the FESA.

1.3.2 Clean Water Act The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3(a) and include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (33 CFR Part 328.3[e]) or the limit of adjacent wetlands (33 CFR Part 328.3[b]). Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the U.S., whether natural or man-made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction (33 CFR Part 328.5).

Waters of the United States fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters include unvegetated waterbodies and watercourses such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries. Seasonally inundated or intermittent waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are often classified as other waters of the United States. Wetlands include marshes, wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended seasonal or permanent soil saturation that support wetland vegetation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities.

Wetlands and other waters that cannot trace a continuous hydrologic connection to a navigable water of the United States are not tributary to waters of the United States. These are termed “isolated” wetlands and waters. Isolated wetlands and waters are jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR Part 328.3[a]). The Corps may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands and waters, depending on the specific circumstances.

In general, a Section 404 permit must be obtained from the Corps before filling or grading jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States. Certain projects may qualify for authorization under a nationwide permit (NWP). The purpose of the NWP program is to streamline the evaluation and approval process throughout the country for certain types of activities that have only minimal impacts to the aquatic environment. Many NWPs are only authorized after the applicant has submitted a pre-construction notification (PCN) to the appropriate Corps office. The Corps is

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 10

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

required to consult with the USFWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the ESA if the permitted activity may result in the take of federally listed species.

1.3.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act (16 USC 703-712).

1.3.4 California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over threatened or endangered species that are formally listed by the State under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CESA is similar to the FESA both in process and substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. The CESA does not supersede the FESA, but operates in conjunction with it. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts (in which case the provisions of both state and federal laws apply) or under only one act. A candidate species is one that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFG for addition to the State list. Candidate species are protected by the provisions of the CESA.

1.3.5 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Under this Act (California Water Code Sections 13000–14920), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State’s waters. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it may still require review and approval by the RWQCB (e.g., for impacts to isolated wetlands and other waters). When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the “beneficial uses” associated with waters of the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of water quality control measures into projects that will require discharge into waters of the State. For most construction projects, the RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices (BMPs).

1.3.6 California Fish and Game Code The CDFG is also responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code, which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. For example, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code (CCR; Title 14, Div. 1) governs the issuance of Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements by the CDFG. Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by the CDFG. Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 11

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

The Fish and Game Code also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected, which may not be taken or possessed at any time. The Fully Protected designation does not allow “incidental take” and is thus more restrictive than the CESA. Fully Protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code, while protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42 (CCR; Title 14, Div. 1).

Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code (CCR; Title 14, Div. 1) prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of most bird species. Subsection 3503.5 (CCR; Title 14, Div. 1) specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their nests. These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds. Certain non-native species, including European starling and house sparrow, are not afforded such protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code.

1.3.7 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State or local governmental agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and requiring a discretionary decision by a public agency. Under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, a species not included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria” for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA, which would lower the threshold of significance for project impacts.

1.3.8 California Species of Special Concern The CDFG maintains an administrative list of Species of Special Concern (SSC), defined as a “species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:

• is extirpated from the State, or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; • is listed as federally, but not State-, threatened or endangered; • meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; • is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; • has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status.”

The CDFG’s Nongame Wildlife Program is responsible for producing and updating SSC publications for mammals (Williams 1986); birds (Shuford and Gardali 2008); and reptiles and amphibians (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines clearly indicates that SSC should be included in an analysis of project impacts if they can be shown to meet the criteria of sensitivity

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 12

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

outlined therein. In contrast to species listed under the FESA or CESA, however, SSC have no formal legal status.

1.3.9 California Rare Plant Ranks Special-status plants in California are assigned to one of five “California Rare Plant Ranks” by a collaborative group of over 300 botanists in government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. This effort is jointly managed by the CDFG and the non-profit California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The five California Rare Plant Ranks currently recognized by the CNDDB include the following:

• Rare Plant Rank 1A – presumed extinct in California. • Rare Plant Rank 1B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. • Rare Plant Rank 2 – rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. • Rare Plant Rank 3 – a review list of plants about which more information is needed. • Rare Plant Rank 4 – a watch list of plants of limited distribution.

Substantial impacts to plants ranked 1A, 1B, and 2 are typically considered significant based on Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, depending on the policy of the lead agency. Plants ranked 3 and 4 may be evaluated by the lead agency on a case-by-case basis to determine significance thresholds under CEQA.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 13

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

2.0 METHODS

Prior to visiting the project area, LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG 2010) and CNPS on-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2010) for records of special-status species occurrences within the Mare Island and Richmond U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles. LSA also obtained an online species list from the USFWS Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office for the above-referenced quadrangles. Additional sources of information included the Final Environmental Issues and Constraints Report: Shoreline Trail (Placemakers 2001) and LSA biologists’ knowledge of biological resources along the North Richmond and Pinole shorelines.

LSA biologist Matt Ricketts conducted a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the project area on September 3, 2010 to map vegetation and cover types, document existing habitat conditions, record information on plant and animal species, and assess the project area for its potential to support special-status plant and/or animal species (see definition below). Wildlife species (mostly birds) were identified both aurally (i.e., listening for calls and songs) and visually using binoculars. LSA wetland scientist Chip Bouril conducted a formal delineation of jurisdictional waters of the United States concurrently with the biological survey.

For the purposes of this report, special-status species are defined as follows:

• Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA • Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the CESA • Plant species assigned to California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, and 2 • Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFG • Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines • Considered to be a taxon of special concern by the relevant local agencies

Plant taxonomy and nomenclature in this report follow Hickman (1993) and/or Beidleman and Kozloff (2003). Common and scientific names for special-status species or subspecies conform to the CNDDB (CDFG 2010). Common and scientific names for other herpetofauna (i.e., amphibians and reptiles) and mammals conform to Crother (2008) and Baker et al. (2003), respectively. Scientific names for bird species are not provided in the text because common names are standardized in the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) Check-list of North American Birds (AOU 1998).

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 14

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

3.0 BIOLOGICAL SETTING

3.1 VEGETATION AND COVER TYPES For the purposes of this study, vegetation types on the project area were classified, to the greatest extent possible, according to A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009), which is based on the National Vegetation Classification Hierarchy. The lower levels of the hierarchy, alliances, are the focus of this report. Alliances have both a common and scientific name; in the discussion below, the common name of the alliance appears first and the scientific name follows.

Alliances are defined and named by the dominant species; however, many alliances exhibit variation in subdominant species composition and structure. Sawyer et al. (2009) refer to these variations in species composition and structure as associations. Each alliance has at least one association, and some are comprised of many complex associations that are not easily described. Sawyer et al. (2009) also identify semi-natural stands, which are vegetation types dominated by non-native species that have become naturalized in California.

Two cover types that are not defined on the basis of dominant plant species (developed and landscaped) are also present in the project area. Vegetation and cover types within the project area are depicted in Figure 4.

3.1.1 Ruderal Vegetation Ruderal vegetation is not a natural community but refers to a general category of vegetation that occurs in developed areas and disturbed landscapes and is typically dominated by weedy, non-native (alien) plant species. Ruderal vegetation may consist of shrubs, broadleaved species and grasses. Along with Himalayan Blackberry Brambles (see below), this vegetation type is widely distributed throughout the project area. Although no one weedy species dominates throughout the entire area of ruderal vegetation mapped on Figure 4, several areas conform to the Upland Mustards (Brassica nigra and Other Mustards Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands) and Poison Hemlock or Fennel Patches (Conium maculatum-Foeniculum vulgare Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands) vegetation types as described in Sawyer et al. (2009). Mustard (Brassica sp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) are the most common ruderal species in the eastern portion of the project area (i.e., between UPRR tracks and tidal marsh), with cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), and wild oats (Avena fatua) also present in varying amounts. Several grassy openings dominated by Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) mixed with saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) occur among the dense mustard and poison hemlock stands adjacent to the railroad in the eastern portion of the project area, although these stands are not mapped in Figure 4 due to their small size.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 15 Himalayan San Pablo Bay Blackberry Brambles

Poison Oak Scrub

Creeping Rye Wild Oats Arroyo Grass Turfs Grassland Himalayan Arroyo Developed Willow Blackberry Willow Arroyo Thickets Brambles Thickets Willow Ruderal Thickets Vegetation Ruderal Himalayan Arroyo Blackberry Willow Brambles Thickets

Developed BNSF

San Pablo Bay

Ruderal Vegetation

Arroyo Pickleweed Mats Willow Thickets Landscaped

Himalayan Blackberry Brambles Ruderal Vegetation Pickleweed Mats

Developed UPRR BNSF

LEGEND FIGURE 4 Project Area Matchline San Francisco Bay Trail Cover Type 025 50 100 Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park FEET Vegetation and Cover Types SOURCE: URS Corporation (June 2010) I:\URS1001\GIS\Maps\Bio\Figure4_Vegetation.mxd (12/6/2010)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

Creeping rye grass (Leymus triticoides), a native grass species, grows among the annual grasses and ruderal forbs in some parts of the central and western project area, but with the exception of one area (see Creeping Rye Grass Turfs, below) does not form patches where it is dominant over other species. Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), a native shrub adapted to disturbed sites, occurs as scattered shrubs or small groups of shrubs in the central and western portions of the project area, including those mapped as ruderal vegetation on Figure 4.

3.1.2 Himalayan Blackberry Brambles: Rubus armeniacus Semi-Natural Shrubland Stands This vegetation type is characterized by a dominance or co-dominance of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) in the shrub layer with emergent trees of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and willows (Salix sp.). Himalayan blackberry is a non-native species that grows along riparian sites, mesic clearings, disturbed areas, and stock ponds throughout cismontane California (Sawyer et al. 2009). Within the project area, this vegetation type occurs in two areas where unstable bluffs and slumping have created somewhat disturbed conditions in which Himalayan blackberry, coyote brush, poison hemlock, and other disturbance-adapted plant species thrive. Indeed, the boundaries between this and the ruderal vegetation type as depicted on Figure 4 are somewhat illusory, as many ruderal herbaceous species occur with equal frequency in both, but the presence of several native coast live oaks, California buckeyes (Aesculus californica), and arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis; see below) in the Himalayan blackberry brambles lends a degree of habitat diversity that areas dominated by ruderal vegetation lack. Other plant species observed growing within this vegetation type include poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and creeping rye grass.

3.1.3 Arroyo Willow Thickets: Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance Several portions of the north-facing slope between the UPRR and BNSF tracks support dense thickets of arroyo willow that warrant separate classification from the adjacent Himalayan blackberry brambles because of their substantial cover. This species grows on seasonally or intermittently flooded sites, and some plants in California stands are sufficiently tall to be called trees (Sawyer et al. 2009). Several individuals in the project area have attained tree height, and the presence of these and other, more shrubby stands, suggests that soils retain moisture long enough after the rainy season to support this species.

3.1.4 Wild Oats Grasslands: Avena Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands Wild oats grasslands occur at the western end of the project area, at the terminus of the existing Bay Trail segment (Figure 4). Although wild oats are dominant throughout most of the area, in some portions they are sparse to absent. Other herbaceous species occurring in the grassland include foxtail fescue (Vulpia myuros), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), rough cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), clover (Trifolium sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and Italian ryegrass. Several coyote brush shrubs are scattered throughout the grassland, and a few toyon shrubs appear to have been planted in the grassland south of the existing Bay Trail segment. Ruderal forbs such as prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Italian thistle, and poison hemlock are scattered throughout the grassland, becoming more common at the eastern portion where the grassland transitions into ruderal vegetation.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 17

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

3.1.5 Pickleweed Mats: Sarcocornia pacifica Herbaceous Alliance (Tidal Marsh) Pickleweed mats, more commonly referred to as tidal marsh or salt marsh, intrude into the project area near its eastern end. A much larger, adjacent area of tidal marsh is outside of the project area. Within the project area, common pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica; formerly Salicornia virginica) is co-dominant with saltgrass, although large areas of bare Bay mud covered by algae are also present. Other species detected on site in the marsh and marsh-upland transition zone include salt marsh dodder (Cuscuta salina), fat hen (Atriplex triangularis), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), rabbit-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass, and creeping rye grass. Throughout the remainder of the report, this vegetation type will be referred to as “tidal marsh” since this term is more widely used by biologists and resource agency personnel in the Bay Area.

3.1.6 Poison Oak Scrub: Toxicodendron diversilobum Shrubland Alliance This vegetation type is limited to a small patch on a steep north-facing bluff in the northwestern portion of the project area (Figure 4). As its name implies, poison oak scrub is dominated by poison oak, with smaller amounts of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), toyon, and coyote brush also occurring in the shrub layer. Several emergent coast live oaks are also present.

3.1.7 Creeping Rye Grass Turfs: Leymus triticoides Herbaceous Alliance This vegetation type was observed at a single location in the central portion of the project area where creeping rye grass is the dominant species in the herbaceous layer, in contrast to the surrounding ruderal vegetation where non-native annual grasses dominate.

3.1.8 Other Cover Types Two other non-vegetative cover types, Developed and Landscaped, are depicted on Figure 4. Developed areas are those consisting of pavement, gravel, bare ground, railroad tracks, or other features constructed by humans. The lone landscaped area consists of Bay Front Park and its associated ornamental tree and shrub plantings. Ornamental tree and shrub species observed in the park include the following: ash (Fraxinus sp.), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), alder (Alnus sp.), coast live oak, and toyon.

3.2 WILDLIFE Wildlife species expected to occur in the project area are those adapted to urban, ruderal, scrub, and marsh habitats of the Central Coast Range bioregion. Most species detected during LSA’s reconnaissance survey were birds, due to their higher detectability compared to other taxa. LSA detected the following bird species on or in the immediate vicinity of the project area on September 3, 2010: turkey vulture, white-tailed kite, red-shouldered hawk, mourning dove, Anna’s hummingbird, Nuttall’s woodpecker, downy woodpecker, black phoebe, western scrub-jay, American crow, common raven, barn swallow, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, northern mockingbird, European starling, orange-crowned warbler, yellow warbler, California towhee, song

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 18

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

sparrow, western tanager, black-headed grosbeak, house finch, and lesser goldfinch. With the exception of barn swallow, yellow warbler, western tanager, and black-headed grosbeak (all of which are Nearctic-Neotropical migrant songbirds), all of these species are year-round residents that likely nest in the project area vicinity. Other species not detected but that may nest in the project area (based on the presence of suitable habitat) include great horned owl, Allen’s hummingbird, belted kingfisher, northern flicker, Hutton’s vireo, oak titmouse, brown creeper, American robin, spotted towhee, white- crowned sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and American goldfinch. The dense shrub cover and numerous oaks and willows throughout the project area provide suitable stopover foraging habitat for common Nearctic-Neotropical migrant species such as Pacific-slope flycatcher, warbling vireo, black-throated gray warbler, and hermit warbler. During the winter, the bird community of such habitats is augmented by species that breed further north or at higher elevations such as ruby-crowned kinglet, hermit thrush, yellow-rumped warbler, fox sparrow, Lincoln’s sparrow, and golden-crowned sparrow. Of the above-described vegetation types, Himalayan blackberry brambles and arroyo willow thickets are expected to have the highest habitat value for both resident and migratory bird species due to their greater structural complexity (i.e., dense shrub layer with scattered openings and emergent trees) compared to other vegetation types.

Although only one reptile species, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was detected during LSA’s reconnaissance survey, the dense shrub and herbaceous ground cover that characterizes most of the project area likely supports numerous additional amphibian and reptile species. Common species expected to occur include arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), western toad (Bufo boreas), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), sharp-tailed snake (Contia tenuis), racer (Coluber constrictor), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula).

The only mammal sign observed by LSA were several northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks in the bare mud within the tidal marsh, but other species adapted to both human-altered and natural habitats are also expected to occur. Urban-adapted species that likely forage in and move through the project area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), and black-tailed deer (Odicoileus hemionus). The dense shrub cover provides habitat for species such as brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and common gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Common bat species such as Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) may forage over the project area, although the lack of abandoned buildings, large tree hollows, bridges, or other suitable roost sites likely precludes them from roosting in the project area.

3.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 3.3.1 Plants Based on a review of the CNDDB (CDFG 2010) and the CNPS on-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2010), LSA identified 23 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the project area vicinity (Table A). Of these, 13 were eliminated from consideration due to a lack of suitable habitat (i.e., chaparral, vernal pools, serpentine soils) or because they are considered extirpated from the area.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 19

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

Table A: Special-status Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole, Contra Costa County, California

Status* Species (Federal/State Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion /Other) Plants Amsinckia lunaris –/–/1B Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane May occur. Marginal habitat Bent-flowered fiddleneck woodland, valley and foothill present in grassland. grassland. 3–500 meters. Blooms March to June. Arctostaphylos pallida FT/SE/1B Shale or thin chert substrates in Not expected to occur. Project Pallid manzanita deciduous and coniferous forests area is outside known and woodlands, chaparral, or distribution of species and coastal scrub. Known from fewer suitable habitat is not present. than 10 occurrences in the Diablo Range. 185–465 meters. Blooms December to March. Astragalus tener var. –/–/1B Alkali playas, vernal pools, and May occur. Marginal habitat tener grasslands. 1–60 meters. Blooms present in grassy openings Alkali milk-vetch March to June. adjacent to tidal marsh. California macrophylla –/–/1B Clay soils in woodland and May occur. Marginal habitat Round-leaved filaree grassland. 15–1200 meters. Blooms present in grassland. March to May. Calystegia purpurata ssp. –/–/1B Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and Not expected to occur due to saxicola coniferous forest. 10–105 meters. lack of suitable habitat. Coastal bluff morning- Blooms May to September. glory Centromadia parryi ssp. –/–/1B Alkaline soils in valley and foothill May occur. Suitable habitat in congdonii grassland. 1–230 meters. Blooms grassland and grassy openings Congdon’s tarplant May to October. adjacent to tidal marsh. Centromadia parryi ssp. –/–/1B Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows May occur. Suitable habitat in parryi and seeps, coastal salt marsh, grassland and grassy openings Pappose tarplant vernally mesic grassland. Often adjacent to tidal marsh. occurs in alkaline soils. 0–100 meters. Blooms May to October. Cordylanthus maritimus –/–/1B Coastal salt marsh. 0–10 meters. Not expected to occur. ssp. palustris Blooms June to October. Suitable habitat present in Point Reyes bird’s-beak tidal marsh but only known occurrence in vicinity (West Berkeley) likely extirpated (CDFG 2010). Cordylanthus mollis ssp. FE/–/1B Coastal salt marsh. 0–3 meters. May occur. Suitable habitat mollis Blooms July to November. present in tidal marsh. Soft bird’s-beak

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 20

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

Status* Species (Federal/State Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion /Other) Dirca occidentalis –/–/1B A variety of forest and woodland May occur. Marginal habitat Western leatherwood types, mostly on brushy slopes in present on slopes with dense mixed evergreen forest and foothill blackberry, oaks, and woodland communities. 30–395 willows. meters. Blooms January to March. Fritillaria liliacea –/–/1B Coastal scrub, grassland, coastal Not expected to occur due to Fragrant fritillary prairie; mostly in serpentine soils. lack of serpentine soils. 3–410 meters. Blooms February to April. Helianthella castanea –/–/1B Rocky soils in chaparral/oak Not expected to occur due to Diablo helianthella woodland interface. 60–1300 lack of chaparral. meters. Blooms March to June. Hemizonia congesta ssp. –/–/1B Valley and foothill grassland, May occur. Suitable habitat congesta sometimes along roadsides. 20–560 present in grassland. Pale yellow hayfield meters. Blooms April to November. tarplant Hoita strobilina –/–/1B Serpentine soils in chaparral and Not expected to occur due to Loma Prieta hoita woodland. 30–860 meters. Blooms lack of suitable habitat. March to July (uncommonly into October). Holocarpha macradenia FT/SE/1B Clay or sandy soils in coastal Not expected to occur. Last Santa Cruz tarplant prairie, coastal scrub, and natural Bay Area population grassland. 10–220 meters. Blooms extirpated by development in June to October. 1993 (CNPS 2010). Lasthenia conjugens FE/–/1B Vernal pools, swales, and moist Not expected to occur due to Contra Costa goldfields alkaline depressions. 0–470 meters. lack of vernal pools. Blooms March to June. Lilaeopsis masonii –/SR/1B Tidal zone of brackish and May occur. Suitable habitat Mason’s lilaeopsis freshwater marshes and swamps, present in tidal marsh. riparian scrub. 0–10 meters. Blooms April to November. Meconella oregana –/–/1B Coastal prairie and coastal scrub. Not expected to occur due to Oregon meconella 250–620 meters. Blooms March to lack of suitable habitat. April. Monardella villosa ssp. –/–/1B Chaparral, broadleaved upland Not expected to occur. Project globosa forest, cismontane woodland, area too low in elevation. Robust monardella coastal scrub, and grassland. 100– 915 meters. Blooms June to July. Senecio aphanactis –/–/2 Drying alkaline flats in woodland Not expected to occur due to Chaparral ragwort and coastal scrub. 15–800 meters. lack of suitable habitat. Blooms January to April. Streptanthus albidus ssp. –/–/1B Serpentine soils in chaparral, Not expected to occur due to peramoenus cismontane woodland, and lack of suitable habitat. Most beautiful jewel- grassland. 94–1000 meters. Blooms flower April to September.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 21

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

Status* Species (Federal/State Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion /Other) Suaeda californica FE/–/1B Margins of coastal salt marsh. 0–15 Not expected to occur. California seablite meters. Blooms July to October. Suitable habitat present along margin of tidal marsh, but species has not been detected since 1912 and may be extirpated from area (CDFG 2010). Symphyotrichum lentum –/–/1B Brackish and freshwater marsh. 0–3 May occur. Suitable habitat Suisun marsh aster meters. Blooms May to November. present in tidal marsh. Invertebrates Conservancy fairy shrimp FE/–/– Large, cool-water vernal pools with Not expected to occur due to Branchinecta conservatio moderately turbid water lack of vernal pools. California freshwater FE/SE/– Low-elevation and low-gradient Not expected to occur due to shrimp perennial coastal streams with lack of suitable habitat. Syncaris pacifica exposed tree roots, undercut banks, and/or overhanging woody debris or vegetation. Monarch butterfly –/–/CEQA Protected areas in groves of trees Not expected to occur due to (wintering aggregations) with dense canopy cover and lack of dense groves of trees. Danaus plexippus nearby water and nectar sources. Callippe silverspot FE/–/– Native grassland and adjacent Not expected to occur due to butterfly habitats. Requires larval host plant lack of suitable habitat. Speyeria callippe callippe (Viola pendunculata) for egg- laying. Amphibians and Reptiles California red-legged frog FT/–/CSC Ponds, streams, drainages and Not expected to occur due to Rana draytonii associated uplands; requires areas lack of suitable aquatic of deep, still, and/or slow-moving habitat. water for breeding. Western pond turtle –/–/CSC Ponds, streams, drainages, and Not expected to occur due to Actinemys marmorata associated uplands. lack of suitable aquatic habitat. Alameda whipsnake FT/ST/– Chaparral and sage scrub with rock Not expected to occur due to Masticophis lateralis outcrops and an abundance of prey lack of suitable habitat. euryxanthus species such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Birds White-tailed kite –/–/CFP Open grasslands, meadows, or Known to occur. Individual Elanus leucurus marshes. Requires dense-topped heard south of project area trees or shrubs for nesting and during LSA’s reconnaissance perching. survey. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat present. California black rail –/ST/CFP Salt marshes bordering larger bays, May occur. Marginal habitat Laterallus jamaicensis also found in brackish and present in tidal marsh; has coturniculus freshwater marshes. been recorded 2 miles to the southwest (CDFG 2010).

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 22

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

Status* Species (Federal/State Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion /Other) California clapper rail FE/SE/CFP Tidal salt marshes with sloughs and May occur. Marginal habitat Rallus longirostris substantial cordgrass (Spartina sp.) present in tidal marsh; has obsoletus cover. been recorded 2 miles to the southwest (CDFG 2010). Western snowy plover FE/–/– Sandy beaches, salt ponds, and salt Not expected to occur due to Charadrius alexandrinus pond levees. Needs sandy, gravelly, lack of suitable habitat. No nivosus or friable soils for nesting. known nesting locations in project area vicinity. California least tern FE/–/CFP Sandy beaches, alkali flats, hard- Not expected to occur due to Sterna antillarum browni pan surfaces (salt ponds). lack of suitable habitat. Burrowing owl –/–/CSC Open habitats (e.g., grasslands, Not expected to occur due to Athene cunicularia agricultural areas) with mammal lack of suitable burrows and burrows or other features (e.g., open habitats. culverts, pipes, debris piles) suitable for nesting and roosting. Northern spotted owl FT/–/– Old-growth forests or mixed stands Not expected to occur due to Strix occidentalis caurina of old growth and mature trees. lack of suitable habitat. Loggerhead shrike –/–/CSC Open grasslands and woodlands May occur. Grassland and Lanius ludovicianus with scattered shrubs, fence posts, scattered coyote brush shrubs utility lines, or other perches. Nests at west end of project area in dense shrubs and lower branches provide suitable foraging and of trees. nesting habitat. Salt marsh common –/–/CSC Salt, brackish, and freshwater May occur. Marginal habitat yellowthroat marshes; and riparian woodlands. present in tidal marsh. Geothlypis trichas Nests on or near ground in low sinuosa vegetation. Alameda song sparrow –/–/CSC Tidal salt marshes on the fringes of Not expected to occur. Project Melospiza melodia south and central San Francisco area outside known range of pusillula Bay. Nests primarily in pickleweed this subspecies. and marsh gumplant. San Pablo song sparrow –/–/CSC Tidal and muted salt marshes on the Known to occur. Observed in Melospiza melodia fringes of San Pablo Bay, Tomales project area by LSA. Suitable samuelis Bay, and Richardson Bay. Nests nesting and foraging habitat primarily in pickleweed and in tidal marsh. gumplant. Yellow-headed blackbird –/–/CSC Freshwater emergent marsh with Not expected to occur due to Xanthocephalus dense vegetation and deep water. lack of suitable habitat. xanthocephalus Mammals Suisun shrew –/–/CSC Salt marshes of northern San Pablo Not expected to occur. Project Sorex ornatus sinuosus and Suisun Bays. Requires dense area outside known range of low-lying cover and driftwood or this subspecies. other litter above the high tide line for nesting and foraging.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 23

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

Status* Species (Federal/State Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion /Other) Salt-marsh wandering –/–/CSC Tidal salt marshes with abundant Not expected to occur. Project shrew driftwood and other debris (for area outside known range of Sorex vagrans halicoetes shelter and foraging). Current this subspecies. distribution limited to the south arm of San Francisco Bay. Pallid bat –/–/CSC Roosts in caves, tunnels, buildings, May occasionally fly or Antrozous pallidus under bridges, and in tree hollows; forage over project area, but forages over a variety of habitats. not expected to roost due to lack of suitable habitat. Salt-marsh harvest mouse FE/SE/CFP Tidal salt marshes of San Francisco May occur. Marginal habitat Reithrodontomys Bay and its tributaries. Requires present in tidal marsh; raviventris tall, dense pickleweed (Salicornia adjacent dense ruderal sp.) for cover and nearby dense vegetation provides suitable vegetation for high-tide refugia. high-tide refugia. San Pablo vole –/–/CSC Salt marshes of San Pablo Creek, Not expected to occur. Project Microtus californicus on the southeast side of San Pablo area outside known range of sanpabloensis Bay. Requires soft soils for this subspecies. burrows. * Status Codes FE = Federally listed as endangered FT = Federally listed as threatened SE = State-listed as endangered ST = State-listed as threatened 1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B: plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CSC = California Species of Concern CFP = California Fully Protected Species – = No status

There is at least some potential for the remaining 10 species to occur due to the presence of marginal or suitable habitat (i.e., salt marsh, grassland) in the project area. Species potentially occurring in or along the margin of the tidal marsh in the eastern portion of the project area include soft bird’s beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis), Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii), and Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum). Species potentially occurring in the grassland portions of the project area, including the grassy openings among the otherwise ruderal vegetation south of the salt marsh, include bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), round- leaved filaree (California macrophylla), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi), and pale yellow hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta). Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) may occur among the emergent willows, oaks, and coyote brush on the steep slopes dominated by Himalayan blackberry brambles. The likelihood of these species occurring is somewhat low due to the disturbed soil conditions, but their potential presence cannot be ruled out without focused botanical surveys by a qualified botanist in accordance with CDFG protocols (CDFG 2009a).

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 24

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

3.3.2 Animals Based on a review of the CNDDB, the USFWS online species list, and observed habitat conditions, LSA identified 24 special-status animal species as potentially occurring in the project area vicinity (Table A). Federally listed fish species known to occur in San Pablo Bay are not listed in Table A since the project area lacks streams into which anadromous fish could enter. Fifteen of the 24 species are not expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat or because their known range does not extend to the project area vicinity. The numerous coyote brush shrubs, oaks, and willows in the project area provide suitable nest sites for white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and open habitats within the project area (grassland, salt marsh, and openings in ruderal vegetation) provide suitable foraging habitat. Pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) may occasionally forage over the project area, but are not expected to roost due to the absence of rocky cliffs, caves, large tree hollows, bridges, barns, and vacant buildings.

The tidal marsh at the eastern end of the project area is of somewhat marginal habitat value due to its small size, poor tidal channel development, low pickleweed cover, and adjacent disturbance levels (e.g., park users, regular train traffic, railroad maintenance), but nevertheless could potentially be used by federally and/or State-listed tidal marsh species including California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), and salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). Both black and clapper rails have been recorded in the marshes near the mouth of Garrity Creek, approximately 2 miles southwest of the project area (CDFG 2010). The closest known occurrence of salt marsh harvest mouse is at Point Pinole Regional Park, approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the project area (CDFG 2010). LSA detected San Pablo song sparrow (Melospiza melodia samuelis) adjacent to the marsh during its reconnaissance survey on September 3, 2010, and the marsh may also support salt marsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), a California Species of Special Concern.

3.4 SENSITIVE HABITATS 3.4.1 Jurisdictional Waters A formal wetland delineation by LSA (2010) identified 3,975 square feet (0.09 acre) of wetlands of the Untied States within the project area, including 3,875 square feet (0.089 acre) of brackish marsh wetland (i.e., tidal marsh) and 100 square feet (0.002 acre) of seasonal wetland (see map in Appendix A). The seasonal wetlands are in a constructed ditch/drainage swale that is located between the southern side of the UPRR tracks and the toe of the adjacent north-facing slope. Much of the ditch is covered in dense vegetation, but only three areas were found to meet all three jurisdictional wetland criteria (vegetation, soils, and hydrology). These areas are mapped Seasonal Wetlands A, B, and C. Seasonal Wetland A is vegetated with nut sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), has hydric soils (redoximorphic mottling), and contains sediment deposits on vegetation debris, indicating seasonal ponding. A wider portion of the ditch with similar characteristics was mapped as Seasonal Wetland B. Seasonal Wetland C consists of a short reach of the ditch that is vegetated with cattails (Typha spp.). The area between Seasonal Wetlands B and C has coast live oak trees interspersed with willows, strongly indicating that the reach of ditch between these features does not have jurisdictional wetland characteristics.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 25

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

3.4.2 Rare Vegetation Types and Sensitive Natural Communities The CDFG tracks the occurrences of vegetation types that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. In the most recent list of vegetation alliances recognized in California (Sawyer et al. 2009, CDFG 2009b), alliances with a NatureServe Global ranking code of G1 through G3 are considered to be of high inventory priority, while alliances marked with G4 or G5 are generally considered common enough to not be of concern (CDFG 2009b). These “rare” vegetation types (G1 through G3) are sometimes addressed by lead or trustee agencies in CEQA documents, but generally are not afforded the same protection as CNPS List 1B and 2 plant species. Many rare vegetation types support special-status plants and animals and are addressed under CEQA as habitat for those species. “Sensitive natural communities” currently included in the CNDDB using the older Holland classification system (Holland 1986), including their existing names and rankings, are still recognized and considered valid by CDFG. The long-range plan of CDFG’s Vegetation Program is to revisit and reclassify the natural community occurrences in the CNDDB over time, with the ultimate goal of replacing the old CNDDB classification system with the new alliance-based system (CDFG 2009b).

The CNDDB identifies three sensitive natural communities as occurring in the vicinity of the project area: northern coastal salt marsh, northern maritime chaparral, and valley needlegrass grassland. The tidal marsh in and adjacent to the eastern end of the project area, which is classified above as “Pickleweed Mats: Sarcocornia pacifica Herbaceous Alliance” (Sawyer et al. 2009), would be considered northern coastal salt marsh in accordance with the older Holland (1986) classification scheme, and thus qualifies as a sensitive biological resource under CEQA. Northern maritime chaparral and valley needlegrass grassland are not present in the project area.

Although arroyo willow and Himalayan blackberry are often associated with riparian habitats, the dense stands that occur in the project area are not “riparian” in the sense that they do not “pertain to the banks and other terrestrial environs of freshwater bodies, watercourses, estuaries, and surface emergent aquifers (springs, seeps, and oases)” (Warner and Hendrix 1984). When inspecting one of the arroyo willow stands during its jurisdictional wetland delineation, LSA observed several non- hydrophytic plant species growing under the willow canopy and also failed to find evidence of hydric soils or wetland hydrology below the willows. In addition, no streams or channels leading to San Pablo Bay were observed along the north-facing slope. As such, although they provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of wildlife, the arroyo willow and blackberry thickets in the project area are unlikely to be considered “riparian habitat” by CDFG.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 26

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

This section identifies potentially significant impacts to biological resources that may result from implementation of the proposed project. Given that the project is in the early stages of design and that detailed grading and construction plans have not yet been developed, the following analysis should be considered preliminary. The recommended mitigation measures should also be considered preliminary, and may be refined or modified as the project design is further developed.

4.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS As described above, the project area contains marginal or suitable habitat for 10 special-status plant species: bent-flowered fiddleneck, alkali milk-vetch, round-leaved filaree, Congdon’s tarplant, pappose tarplant, pale yellow hayfield tarplant, western leatherwood, soft bird’s-beak, Mason’s lilaeopsis, and Suisun marsh aster. Project construction could result in the removal of individuals or populations of these species, if present.

Implementation of the following measures would avoid or minimize project-related impacts on special-status plant species:

• To further evaluate the presence or absence of special-status plant species, a qualified botanist should conduct focused botanical surveys in accordance with CDFG (2009a) protocols. Surveys should be timed to coincide with the blooming period for the target species. Based on the blooming periods for the target species, botanical surveys should be conducted for western leatherwood in late winter (January–March) and for other species in early spring (April–May), and late summer (August–September). • If any special-status plants are detected, their locations should be mapped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and their population sizes estimated. Project designers should strive to avoid any impacts to special-status plants to the greatest extent feasible. • Depending on the species detected and its rarity, further mitigation may be required if the project is unable to avoid special-status plants detected during the focused botanical surveys. EBRPD should work with CDFG and the botanist who conducted the surveys to develop measures to compensate for the loss of special-status plants.

4.2 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS 4.2.1 White-Tailed Kite and Loggerhead Shrike Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for these two special-status bird species are present in the project area. If conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), vegetation removal activities could directly impact nesting white-tailed kites, loggerhead shrikes, and other birds by

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 27

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

removing trees or shrubs that support active nests. Construction-related disturbance could also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nests, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the project avoids significant impacts to nesting white-tailed kites, loggerhead shrikes, and other nesting birds:

• To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities should occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees and other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey should be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist should determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work would be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer should be determined by the biologist and should be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

4.2.2 State and/or Federally Listed Tidal Marsh Rails The small tidal marsh fragment adjacent to the eastern portion of the project area contains marginal habitat for the State-threatened California black rail and federally and State-endangered California clapper rail. Both of these species are also designated as Fully Protected Species under the California Fish and Game Code. Neither species is likely to nest in or adjacent to the project area due to the small size of the tidal marsh fragment, limited pickleweed cover, poor tidal channel development, and existing disturbance in adjacent uplands. Nevertheless, rails may occur in the marsh during the non- breeding season or while dispersing along the Bay shoreline. Construction of the bridge south of the marsh is unlikely to directly impact individual rails or result in the loss of nest sites, but the dense ruderal vegetation adjacent to the marsh provides suitable high-tide refuge habitat for both species and construction activities in the area could cause rails seeking high-tide cover to flush, exposing them to predators. Such disturbance or harassment would constitute “take” under both the FESA and CESA, and thus requires preconstruction consultation with the USFWS and CDFG. If either or both rail species use the marsh fragment on a regular basis, construction of the bridge columns would constitute a permanent impact to upland high-tide refuge habitat and would require preconstruction consultation with the USFWS and CDFG.

Implementation of the following measures would minimize potential project impacts on California black rail and California clapper rail.

• Prior to construction, EBRPD should obtain required authorization from the USFWS (FESA Section 7 biological opinion) for any construction activities within and adjacent to the tidal marsh and implement any additional protective measures required as part of such authorization. Given the Fully Protected status of both rails under the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG is unable to authorize incidental take of these species under Section 2081 of CESA.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 28

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

• Construction activity between the UPRR tracks and the tidal marsh fragment should be conducted only when high tides are not at their winter or summer extremes, to reduce the likelihood that tidal marsh rails will be present in the work area. Construction next to the marsh should be avoided during the highest tides of June–July and December–January (± one week each month). • A qualified biological monitor familiar with the habitat and ecology of California black rail, California clapper rail, and salt marsh harvest mouse (see below) should be present on site during all construction activities between the UPRR tracks and the tidal marsh (i.e., approximately Station 26+50 to 33+50) to ensure that avoidance and minimization measures and construction limits are enforced. The monitor would have the authority to stop any construction activity that is not consistent with approved plans and amendments.

4.2.3 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Given the limited extent and density of pickleweed in the tidal marsh adjacent to the project area, and the lack of nearby occurrences of salt marsh harvest mice, the likelihood of this species occurring in or adjacent to the project area is low. In the absence of trapping surveys, however, its presence or absence cannot be conclusively determined. The dense ruderal vegetation adjacent to the southern edge of the marsh provides suitable high-tide refuge habitat for the species. If present in the adjacent marsh, individual salt marsh harvest mice could be killed during any bridge construction activities conducted during high tides, resulting in “take” of the species that would require preconstruction consultation with the USFWS.

Implementation of the following measures would minimize project impacts on salt marsh harvest mouse and assist in avoiding “take” of the species.

• Prior to construction, EBRPD should obtain the required authorization from the USFWS (FESA Section 7 biological opinion) for any construction activities within or adjacent to the tidal marsh and implement any additional protective measures required as part of such authorization. Given the Fully Protected status of salt marsh harvest mouse under the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG is unable to authorize incidental take of the species under Section 2081 of CESA. • The above mitigation measure requiring that construction near the tidal marsh be conducted outside high-tide periods to avoid potential impacts to tidal marsh rails would also avoid or minimize potential impacts to salt marsh harvest mice. • Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall prepare a site-specific salt marsh harvest mouse avoidance plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include (1) the installation of silt fencing around the entire portion of the work area (that is within 100 feet from the edge of the marsh) to exclude salt marsh harvest mice from entering, (2) the clearing of all ground vegetation within the fenced area, taking care to avoid take of any salt marsh harvest mice, if present, and (3) the relocation to the tidal marsh of any salt marsh harvest mice found during the vegetation removal effort (if prior authorization has been obtained from both USFWS and CDFG). If no salt marsh harvest mice are found, construction work should start as soon as possible (and no longer than one week) after vegetation has been cleared. All exclusion measures and initial ground disturbance activities should be monitored by a biologist with the necessary federal permits to handle and relocate salt marsh harvest mice.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 29

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

4.3 NESTING BIRDS The numerous trees and shrubs within the project area, particularly the dense blackberry brambles and arroyo willow thickets, provide suitable nesting habitat for a variety of native birds, including San Pablo song sparrow and salt marsh common yellowthroat (California Species of Special Concern). The nests of native birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. If conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), vegetation removal activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees or shrubs that support active nests. Construction-related disturbance could also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nests, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential.

Implementation of preconstruction nest surveys as described above in subsection 4.2.1 would ensure that the project avoids significant impacts to nesting birds.

4.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS The project area contains 0.09 acre of jurisdictional wetlands (0.089 acre of brackish marsh wetland and 0.002 acre of seasonal wetland) subject to Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (see map in Appendix A). Construction of the bridge foundations next to the tidal marsh will require the placement of an unknown amount of earth fill in the marsh (i.e., brackish marsh wetlands). Construction of the proposed trail is expected to result in approximately 0.75 acre of temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the State located on the bay side of the UPRR tracks. Approximately 0.2 acre of permanent fill to jurisdictional waters would result from construction of the trail between the end of the bridge and Bay Front Park. It is unknown whether project construction will require the fill any of the seasonal wetlands. Project construction may also indirectly impact jurisdictional waters if oil or grease from heavy equipment and/or uncured concrete enters the wetlands. Project construction could also result in excess sediment runoff into the wetlands if proper erosion control methods are not implemented.

Implementation of the following measures would minimize project impacts on jurisdictional waters:

• Obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps and Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB to authorize the proposed fill of the tidal marsh. The proposed fill may qualify for authorization under NWP 14 for Linear Transportation Projects, which regulates “activities required for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects (e.g., roads, highways, railways, trails, airport runways, and taxiways) in waters of the United States.” Given the potential presence of federally endangered species (California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse), the Corps would not be able to authorize the NWP without first consulting USFWS under Section 7 of FESA. • Prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in consultation with the RWQCB, in accordance with the new State Water Resources Board General Stormwater Permit (effective July 1, 2010). The SWPPP should include the following components, at a minimum:

o A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 30

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

o A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices to be used during construction, and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff.

o Specifications and designs for appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase. Examples of BMPs that could be implemented include hydroseeding, straw mulch, silt fences, sediment traps, and stockpile management.

o A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance and identifies the party responsible for monitoring.

o A site map that locates all water quality control measures and restricted areas to be left undisturbed. • Given the high ecological value of the tidal marsh and its designation as a “sensitive natural community” under CEQA, the Corps and/or RWQCB will likely require compensatory mitigation at a minimum 2:1 ratio (acreage preserved or replaced: acreage impacted). Mitigation may be accomplished by preserving existing tidal marsh on other EBRPD properties along the San Pablo Bay shoreline, creating or restoring new tidal marsh on- or off-site, purchasing credits at an approved mitigation bank, or other activities considered adequate by the Corps and RWQCB as compensation for impacts. Mitigation activities must be described in a mitigation and monitoring plan that will be submitted to the agencies as part of applicable permit applications. The plan should include goals and objectives, measurable success criteria, restoration and enhancement methodology, monitoring techniques, and maintenance guidelines, at a minimum.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 31

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

5.0 REFERENCES

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffmann, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229.

Beidleman, L. H. and E. N. Kozloff. 2003. Plants of the San Francisco Bay Region (Revised Edition). University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009a. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. November 24.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009b. List of California vegetation alliances. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. December 28.

———. 2010. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), commercial version dated July 3, 2010. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California (online edition, v7-10b). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.

Crother, B. I., editor. 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) Herpetological Circular 37.

Hickman, J. C., editor. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Third printing with corrections, 1996. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of terrestrial natural vegetation of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova.

LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2010. Request for Verification of Wetland Delineation, San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Project Site, City of Pinole, Contra Costa County,

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 32

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California. October 18.

Placemakers. 2001. Final Environmental Issues and Constraints Report, Shoreline Trail. Prepared for East Bay Regional Park District in conjunction with Union Pacific Railroad. January.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento.

Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

URS Corporation, Inc. (URS). 2003. City of Pinole San Pablo Bay Trail – Design Technical Memorandum. Submitted to Brent M. Salmi, City of Pinole. March 25.

Warner, R. E. and K. M. Hendrix, editors. 1984. California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and management. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Williams, D. F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt.doc (07/08/11) 33

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION JULY 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL - PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PINOLE, CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX A

POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (FROM LSA DELINEATION REPORT)

P:\URS1001\Biology\BRE rpt_Final.doc (07/08/11) Union Pacific Railroad

sp-4

sp-5

sp-3 sp-6 SW-A W-3’ L-25

Burlington Northern Railroad

sp-6 SW-B Tennant Avenue SW-A W-6’ Brackish Marsh Brackish Marsh W-3’ L-35’ Wetland F Wetland D Brackish Marsh L-25’ 0.071 acre 0.017 acre Wetland E 0.001 acre Burlington Northern Railroad SW-C sp-1 0.001 sp-2 acre

Unio n Pacific Railroad

LEGEND Potential Jurisdictional Features FIGURE 3 Project Site Boundary Limit of Section 10 Jurisdiction Matchline Area Outside BCDC Jurisidiction Jurisdictional Sample Point Stream/Ditch Non-jurisdictional Sample Point San Francisco Bay Trail 025 50 100 Wetlands Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Non-jurisdictional Ditch FEET Potential Waters of the United States SOURCE: URS Corporation (June 2010) I:\URS1001\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure3_PotentialWaters.mxd (5/23/2011) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX E

WETLAND DELINEATION

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011) R I V E R S I D E LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. B E R K E L E Y F R E S N O R O C K L I N 157 PARK PLACE 510.236.6810 TEL C A R L S B A D I R V I N E SAN LUIS OBISPO PT. RICHMOND, CA 94801 510.236.3480 FAX FT. COLLINS PALM SPRINGS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

May 23, 2011

Cameron Johnson, South Branch Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1455 Market Street, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103-1398

Subject: Request for Verification of Wetland Delineation, San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Project Site, Cities of Pinole, Contra Costa County, California

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On behalf of URS Corporation and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is requesting confirmation of the extent of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act on the San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Project Site, City of Pinole, Contra Costa County, California. This letter reports the results of a delineation by LSA of the potential extent of waters of the United States, including wetlands, on the project site.

In addition, this report also delineates jurisdiction by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game.

SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is an approximately 8.68-acre, 2,900-foot long proposed segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, located north of San Pablo Avenue, within the City of Pinole, along the Union Pacific (UP) railroad tracks near the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. The northern portion of the project site is accessed from Tennant Avenue and Bayfront Park. The southern portion of the site is accessed from a parking lot trailhead of the existing Bay Trail at the end of Pinole Shores Drive.

The project site, beyond the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad, includes portions of assessors parcels 401010007, 401010009, 401010010, and 402140007 in Contra Costa County (Figures 1 and 2). The site is located within partially un-sectioned land within the northeastern ¼ of Section 21 and the northwestern ¼ of Section 22, Township 2 North, Range 4 West, on the Mare Island, California, 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle. The study site is centered at approximately 38.010° N latitude and 122.301° W longitude.

Site elevations range from sea level at San Pablo Bay to approximately 60 feet above sea level at the western end of the site. The site includes small portions of marshland on the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. The site is bisected by the UP Railroad tracks at an approximate elevation of 10 to 12 feet above sea level. From the tracks, the site slopes up steeply to the south toward residential neighborhoods and the adjacent Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad tracks. The portions of the site near

PLANNING | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES | DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

the railroad rights-of-way have been graded. The sloped land south of the UP Railroad tracks and the flat area near the western end of the site may be relatively undisturbed.

Land uses surrounding the site include railroads, parkland, residential development, and recreational trail.

The vegetation on the majority of the site comprises ruderal grasses, forbs, and shrubs such as wild oats (Avena fatua), rip-gut (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail fescue (Vulpia myuros), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), rough cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), clover (Trifolium sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), black mustard (Brassica (nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). The flatter areas near the shoreline contain Italian rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Shrubs include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). Trees on the hill slope include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The brackish marsh bordering the bay is predominantly vegetated with common pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica; formerly Salicornia virginica), salt marsh dodder (Cuscuta salina), fat hen (Atriplex triangularis), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), and rabbit’s-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Landscaped areas in Bayfront Park contain ash (Fraxinus sp.), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).

The site soils are mapped as Joice muck (Map Unit Ja) along San Pablo Bay, Cut and fill land-Los Osos complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes (CnE) in the eastern corner of the site, and Cut and fill land- Millsholm complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes (CoE) elsewhere (Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, 1977). The Joice muck is a nearly level, very poorly drained soil in brackish marshes affected by tides. Although this soil is mapped throughout Bayfront Park and well beyond the southern side of the UPRR tracks, the only soils observed matching the Joice characteristics are located in the brackish marshland within the bay tidal range, on the north side of the railroad tracks. Either the original soil mapping was imprecise or both the park and track areas were filled in the past. Both Cut and fill complex soils are located on the steep lands sloping up to the south and to the neighborhoods or the BNSF railroad tracks. Most of the slope on the project site is mapped as Cut and fill-Millsholm complex, which also may include areas of Lodo clay loam and Los Gatos loam. The Millsholm, Lodo, and Los Gatos soils are formed on shale and fine-grained sandstones, which comprise the bedrock observed near the project site. The Cut and fill-Millsholm complex is described as well to somewhat excessively drained with slow to very slow permeability in compacted areas. The Joice soil is listed as hydric. Neither of the cut and fill soils are listed as hydric.

The majority of the project site slopes steeply northward toward the bay. The UP railroad right-of- way is a 40-to 80-foot wide, relatively level graded area between the toe of the slope and the shore of the bay. Drainage from the slope is collected in a ditch along its base. Some of the ditch shows evidence of seasonal inundation, but the ditch shows no sign of scour or sediment transport. Only one possible small-diameter culvert draining the ditch northward under the tracks was observed, so most of the water drained to the ditch may just infiltrate into the right-of-way soils. The watershed upslope from the UP railroad tracks is minimal, ending at the residences or at the BNSF Railroad tracks. No streams or channels were observed along the slope. The entire project site drains directly to San Pablo Bay, a traditional navigable water of the United States.

05/23/11 (P:\URS1001\Delineation2010\CorpsDelinPinoleShoresCorps_email.doc) 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND Clean Water Act Jurisdiction The Corps is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) or the limit of adjacent wetlands. Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the United States, whether natural or man-made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction.

Waters of the United States fall into two categories: wetlands and non-wetland waters. Wetlands include marshes, meadows, seep areas, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation and dominated by wetland plant cover. Non-wetland waters include waterbodies and watercourses such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries.

Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrological connection to a navigable water of the United States are not tributary to waters of the United States. These are termed "isolated wetlands." Isolated wetlands are jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce.

In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of the United States. The type of permit depends on the acreage involved and the purpose of the proposed fill.

Rivers and Harbors Act Jurisdiction The Corps administers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which prohibits "the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States.” Obstruction or alteration includes construction either in or over a navigable water, excavation or deposition of material, or any other work affecting the course, location, condition or capacity of such waters.

Section 10 jurisdiction extends shoreward to the line of Mean High Water (MHW), and includes areas behind dikes that are below the MHW line. Areas that have been filled to elevations above MHW are not subject to Section 10 jurisdiction, provided that the filling was carried out under a Corps permit.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission Jurisdiction The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has jurisdiction over San Francisco Bay, including San Pablo Bay. BCDC jurisdiction on the bay extends to its shoreline and includes 1) all areas subject to tidal action, and 2) the marshlands lying between mean high tide and five feet above mean high tide. In addition BCDC has jurisdiction over a shoreline band consisting of all territory located between the previously defined shoreline and a line 100 feet landward from that line.

05/23/11 (P:\URS1001\Delineation2010\CorpsDelinPinoleShoresCorps_email.doc) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction The California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602) requires an entity to notify DFG of any proposed activity that may substantially modify a river, stream, or lake. Section 1602 jurisdiction does not extend to wetlands or tidal brackish wetlands along the shore of San Pablo Bay.

However, if any State-listed threatened or endangered species might be present on the project site, Sections 2081(b) and (c) of the California Endangered Species Act would require coordination with the Department of Fish and Game and an Incidental Take Permit for any activity that might result in incidental take.

METHODS LSA wetland scientist Chip Bouril investigated the site on 3 September 2010. The area had received no significant rainfall since May 2010.

The presence of potential wetlands was determined by applying the parameters outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the revised procedures in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). This method assesses the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. All of these parameters must be satisfied for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland.

LSA established 6 sample points on the study site.

Wetland boundaries and sample point locations were mapped using a global position system (GPS) receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Wetland boundaries were determined by mapping a combination of the limits of hydrophytic vegetation species, the limits of observed wetland hydrology, and topographic breaks.

OBSERVATIONS Brackish Marsh Wetland Three locations on the project site intersect the tidal brackish marsh along the shore of San Pablo Bay. The edge of the marsh is visible as a distinct vegetation species shift along the toe of the fill for the railroad. Vegetation in the marsh is dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), alkali rush (Scirpus maritimus), jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), fat hen (Atriplex triangularis), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and dodder (Cuscuta salina). The upper edge of the marsh contains saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides), and Italian rye (Lolium multiflorum). The vegetation on the adjacent upland slope is predominantly wild oats (Avena spp.), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Sample Points 1 and 2 illustrate the respective wetland and non-wetland characteristics present. The three brackish marsh features are mapped as Brackish Marsh Wetlands D, E, and F, with respective potentially jurisdictional areas of 755 sq. ft, 40 sq. ft, and 3080 sq. ft. Brackish Marsh Wetland F contains areas without any vegetative cover, which are saline flats that appear to become ponded only during seasonal high tides or seasonal storm runoff.

05/23/11 (P:\URS1001\Delineation2010\CorpsDelinPinoleShoresCorps_email.doc) 4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Seasonal Wetland Ditches A constructed ditch or drainage swale is located between the southern side of the UP railroad tracks and the toe of the adjacent slope. This feature is mostly covered in dense vegetation, has a cross- section that varies from a defined ditch to a shallow swale, and is designed to keep slope runoff away from the tracks. This ditch appears to slope very gently to the east and then northeast and may drain under the tracks in a culvert that outfalls to an excavated ditch leading to the edge of the brackish marsh along the bay. Many areas near the ditch are at least partially vegetated with Himalayan blackberries or willows, both hydrophytic species, so were investigated for wetland characteristics. Sample Points 4 through 6 were placed at locations along the ditch that appeared to have more notably hydrophytic vegetation than adjacent areas outside of the ditch. Sample Point 4 was placed in a swale segment of the ditch. Although it has vegetation that meets jurisdictional hydrophytic plant criteria, it did not show any evidence of hydric soils or wetland hydrology. Sample Point 5 was placed at a location where the ditch has a more defined cross-section and where the thalweg of the ditch was unvegetated. The only vegetation on the banks of the ditch, Italian rye, meets jurisdictional hydrophytic plant criteria, but no evidence of hydric soils or wetland hydrology was observed.

Sample Point 6 was placed at a location in the ditch vegetated with nut sedge (Cyperus eragrostis). The soil at this location contains common redoximorphic mottling that meets jurisdictional wetland criteria. The ditch contained sediment deposits on vegetation debris, indicating seasonal ponding. The area of the ditch with nut-sedge and sediment stains is mapped as Seasonal Wetland A, with a potentially jurisdictional area of 75 sq. ft.

A wider portion of the ditch with similar characteristics is mapped as Seasonal Wetland B, with a potentially jurisdictional area of 210 sq. ft. A small patch of cattails (Typha spp.) along the ditch alignment is mapped as Seasonal Wetland C, with a potentially jurisdictional area of 40 sq. ft. Seasonal Wetlands B and C both correlate with elevation contour lines which indicate probable small topographic basins along the ditch alignment. The area between Seasonal Wetlands B and C has coast live oak trees interspersed with willows, strongly indicating that the reach of ditch between these features does not have jurisdictional wetland characteristics.

Other Observations The constructed ditch which contains Seasonal Wetlands A, B, and C continues eastward for approximately 400 feet from Seasonal Wetland C to where it loses definition near the location of the possible small-diameter culvert draining the ditch northward under the tracks and is thought to drain to this presumed culvert. Further northeast from this location, there is no ditch or swale along the southeastern side of the tracks, as there is probably not enough runoff along this length of track to have justified construction of a ditch. The remainder of the ditch along the southern side of the tracks does not display any convincing wetland vegetation, doesn’t show evidence of seasonal ponding, and doesn’t show evidence of scour or sediment transport, so is determined to be a non-jurisdictional ditch segment constructed in uplands.

The approximately 1- to 2-foot wide ditch between a possible culvert outlet and the edge of the bay brackish marsh does not contain any hydrophytic vegetation and does not show evidence of scour or sediment transport, so is also determined to be a non-jurisdictional ditch constructed in uplands.

05/23/11 (P:\URS1001\Delineation2010\CorpsDelinPinoleShoresCorps_email.doc) 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Portions of the slope between the UP railroad tracks and the BNSF tracks are vegetated with dense willows. Some of these areas appear to have a slumpy topography that may indicate recent landslides. These areas therefore could possibly have wet seeps that might have been involved in the sliding. Sample Point 3 was placed in one of these possibly slumped areas in a shallowly sloped location predominantly vegetated with willows. Although this location is under a complete canopy of willow, it also has cover of other non-hydrophytic plant species and fails to meet jurisdictional hydrophytic plant criteria. This site likewise shows no evidence of hydric soil or evidence of wetland hydrology. It thus appears unlikely that other sloped areas with willow canopy have jurisdictional wetland characteristics.

No other evidence of potential waters of the United States was observed on the site.

Rivers and Harbors Act Jurisdiction Mean high water (MHW), the extent of Rivers and Harbors Act jurisdiction, at the project site is approximately 5.91 feet NAVD88 above mean sea level (MSL) based on NOAA data for nearby Hercules Wharf tide station (ID #9415074) (http://www.co- ops.nos.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?stn=9415074 HERCULES WHARF, CA&type=Bench Mark Data Sheets) and Mare Island tide station (ID #9415218) (http://www.co- ops.nos.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?stn=9415218 Mare Island, CA&type=Bench Mark Data Sheets), using tidal/NAVD88 elevation conversions from Mare Island PID JT0318. Using Contra Costa County LIDAR elevation contours for the project site, Rivers and Harbors Act jurisdiction extends slightly upslope from the brackish marsh wetlands, but does not reach the UP railroad tracks. The area of the project site within Section 10 jurisdiction is approximately 0.11 acre and is mapped on Figure 3.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission Jurisdiction Using the data sources listed for Rivers and Harbors Act jurisdiction, mean sea level (MSL) at the project site is 3.64 feet NAVD88. Five feet above MSL is therefore 8.64 feet NAVD88. Using Contra Costa County LIDAR elevation contours for the project site, BCDC jurisdiction extends 100 feet landward from this elevation contour and includes much of the project site and all of the UPRR tracks. The area of the project site within BCDC jurisdiction is approximately 5.27 acres (see Figure3).

California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction would be limited to consultation and an Incidental Take Permit for any activity that might result in incidental take of any State listed threatened and endangered species (listed under the California Endangered Species Act), such as salt- marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), or California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus). There is a potential for these species to occur in the brackish marsh wetlands along the San Pablo Bay shoreline.

05/23/11 (P:\URS1001\Delineation2010\CorpsDelinPinoleShoresCorps_email.doc) 6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

RAPANOS JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS This section provides a description and data that the Corps will use to analyze potential changes to jurisdiction based on Corps/EPA guidance on how to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court Rapanos decision.

Seasonal Wetlands A, B, and C are within 100 feet of San Pablo Bay, a traditional navigable water of the United States, and presumably drain to the bay through constructed ditches under the UPRR tracks or through the intervening soil. Brackish Marsh Wetlands D, E, and F abut the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. Seasonal Wetlands A, B, and C and Brackish Marsh Wetlands D, E, and F will therefore likely be determined by the Corps to be wetlands adjacent to a Traditionally Navigable Water.

No chemical testing or other biological observations have been conducted by LSA.

CONCLUSIONS Potential Clean Water Act Section 404 waters of the United States identified on the San Francisco Bay Trail, Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Project Site total 0.09 acre as summarized in Table A, below.

Table A: Clean Water Act Section 404 Potential Jurisdictional Features

Area Area Wetlands (sq. ft.) (acres) Seasonal Wetland A 25 0.001 Seasonal Wetland B 35 0.001 Seasonal Wetland C 40 0.001 Brackish Marsh Wetland D 755 0.017 Brackish Marsh Wetland E 40 0.001 Brackish Marsh Wetland F 3080 0.071 Wetlands Subtotal 3,975 0.09

Total Potential Jurisdictional Area 3,975 0.09

The limit of potential Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 jurisdiction on the study site is approximately 0.11 acre.

The limit of potential San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission jurisdiction on the study site is approximately 5.27 acres.

Potential jurisdictional features, study site boundaries, and sample point locations are mapped on Figure 3, which is attached.

The findings and conclusions presented in this report, including the location and extent of other waters subject to regulatory jurisdiction, represent the professional opinion of LSA. These findings and conclusions should be considered preliminary until verified by the Corps.

05/23/11 (P:\URS1001\Delineation2010\CorpsDelinPinoleShoresCorps_email.doc) 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Please feel free to contact me or Steve Granholm at 510-236-6810 to schedule a verification visit.

Sincerely,

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Chip Bouril Wetland Scientist cc: Gary Horton, URS Corporation, 1380 Lead Hill Blvd., Ste. 100, Roseville, CA 95661 Steve Granholm, Laura Lafler, LSA Jim Townsend, EBRPD, PO Box 5381, Oakland, CA 94605-0381 Sean Dougan, EBRPD, PO Box 5381, Oakland, CA 94605-0381

Attachments: Figure 1 - Regional Location Map Figure 2 - Site Location Map Figure 3 - Delineation Map Data Sheets 1 through 6

05/23/11 (P:\URS1001\Delineation2010\CorpsDelinPinoleShoresCorps_email.doc) 8 Project Site

rPinole

FIGURE 1

P:\URS1001\g\Figure1_ProjectVicinity.cdr (05/02/11) Project Location

FIGURE 2

sp-4

sp-5

sp-3 sp-6 SW-A W-3’ L-25

Burlington Northern Railroad

Unio n Pacific Railroad

This page left blank intentionally.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX F

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011) PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTICT – PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT PARK PINOLE, CA

Prepared for East Bay Regional Park District

January 21, 2011

URS Corporation 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, California 94612

27560821

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction...... 1-1

1.1 Background...... 1-1 1.2 Project Description...... 1-1 1.3 Scope of Work ...... 1-1 1.4 Report Organization...... 1-2 1.5 Project Team and Acknowledgments ...... 1-2

Section 2 Geologic and Seismotectonic Setting ...... 2-1

2.1 Regional Geology ...... 2-1 2.2 Site Geology...... 2-2 2.3 Seismotectonic Setting...... 2-2

Section 3 Geotechnical Exploration Program...... 3-1

3.1 Geotechnical Exploration Program...... 3-1 3.1.1 Exploratory Soil Borings ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Cone Penetration Tests ...... 3-2 3.1.3 Laboratory Testing Program...... 3-3

Section 4 Site and Subsurface Conditions ...... 4-1

4.1 Site Conditions...... 4-1 4.2 Subsurface Conditions ...... 4-1 4.3 Groundwater Conditions...... 4-2

Section 5 Seismic and Geologic Hazard ...... 5-1

5.1 Fault Rupture ...... 5-1 5.2 Strong Ground shaking ...... 5-1 5.3 Liquefaction Potential...... 5-1 5.4 Seismic Design Criteria ...... 5-2 5.4.1 Seismic Design Methodology...... 5-2 5.4.2 Site Soil Profile...... 5-2 5.4.3 Fault Type and Near-Field Spectral Accelerations...... 5-2 5.4.4 Design Acceleration Response Spectrum ...... 5-3 5.5 Soil Corrosivity Potential...... 5-4 5.6 Landslides and Slope Failure...... 5-4

Section 6 Geotechnical Recommendations...... 6-1

6.1 Foundations...... 6-1 6.1.1 Axial Pile Capacity ...... 6-1 6.1.2 Lateral Capacity...... 6-3 6.1.3 Pile Installation ...... 6-5 6.2 Approach Embankment Earthwork...... 6-5

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC i Table of Contents

6.3 Approach Embankment Settlement ...... 6-6 6.4 Temporary Construction Excavations...... 6-6 6.5 Construction Dewatering ...... 6-6 6.6 Effects of Construction Work on Adjacent Structures ...... 6-6

Section 7 Limitations ...... 7-1

Section 8 References ...... 8-1

Tables

1 Major Active Faults in the Project Vicinity 2 Spectral Acceleration Values 3 Aerial Photos Reviewed 4 Idealized Soil Profiles Used for Foundation Analyses 5 Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Existing Condition using Soil Profile 1 6 Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Liquefaction Condition using Soil Profile 1 7 Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Existing Condition using Soil Profile 2 8 Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Liquefaction Condition using Soil Profile 2 9 Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Existing Condition using Soil Profile 3 10 Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Soil Erosion Condition using Soil Profile 3 11 Drilled Pile P-Multiplier Reduction Factors for Pile Group Effects

Figures

1 Project Location Map 2 Site Geologic Map 3 Regional Geologic Map 4 Map of Major Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area 5 Idealized Geologic Cross Section Along Proposed Alignment 6 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map 7 5%-Damped Design Spectrum 8 Ultimate Drilled Pile Compression Capacity at North of UPRR Track with Downdrag 9 Ultimate Drilled Pile Compression Capacity at South of UPRR Track with Downdrag 10 Ultimate Drilled Pile Compression Capacity at Topographic Bench 11 Ultimate Drilled Pile Tensile Capacity at North of UPRR Track 12 Ultimate Drilled Pile Tensile Capacity at South of UPRR Track 13 Ultimate Drilled Pile Tensile Capacity at the Topographic Bench

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC ii Table of Contents

Appendices

A Logs of Soil Borings B Cone Penetration Test Results C Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC iii SECTIONONE Introduction

1. Section 1 ONE Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND This draft report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed bike and pedestrian bridge for the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) – Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Project in Pinole, California as shown in Figure 1, Site Location Map. The site is located along the San Pablo Bay shoreline and 100 feet north of the Orleans Drive. URS began studying this proposed Class 1 bicycle path and performed the initial “Engineering and Feasibility Study – Project Issues and Constraint Report” dated January 12, 2001 for EBRPD. Later in 2003, the City of Pinole hired URS to follow–up on the EBRPD study and provide the evaluation of additional alternatives that went outside of the UPRR right-of-way that would minimize the impact to the wetland resources, provide a more geologically stable path location, improve the user experience, and also provide the opportunity for scenic enhancements. URS evaluated five variations of the alignment and presented these to the City of Pinole in a Design Technical Memorandum. The URS-recommended alternative was ultimately selected by the City for continuation of the project. This report describes the results of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed alignment near the Pinole Shores, and provides geotechnical evaluations and foundation recommendations for the proposed project.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes extending the existing bike path, which ends on the hillside bluff across from Pinon Avenue, over the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to join a path in Bay Front Park, a distance of approximately 1/2 mile. There are three distinct segments of the proposed bike path. The westerly 1,500 feet of the proposed bike trail will lie between Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and UPRR tracks and generally involve minor earthwork or short retaining walls. Over the next 1,000 feet, the bike path will sweep down from the bluff, over the UPRR tracks, and curve sharply to parallel the UPRR tracks. This portion of the project will be on a bridge structure. The approximate proposed bridge alignment is shown on the Site Geologic Plan, Figure 2. The last segment of the path will be parallel the UPRR tracks, traversing wetlands and marsh lands, until it joins up with the existing path in Bay Front Park. At the time this report was prepared, the bridge design was not finalized and design loads were not available. Our foundation recommendations are based on preliminary design concepts that assumptions on the foundation configurations. Once the final design becomes available, our foundation recommendations will be modified accordingly.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions along the proposed bridge alignment, evaluate the geologic and seismic hazards associated with the site, and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project components. This study was performed by URS in accordance with the scope of work outlined in the proposal dated November 6, 2009, which included the following:  Reviewing existing information and geologic maps in the site vicinity;

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 1-1 SECTIONONE Introduction

 Obtaining required permits and environmental and utility clearance of the exploration locations;  Drilling 5 soil borings;  Performing 5 Cone Penetration Test borings;  Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on selected soil samples to evaluate index properties, grain size, strength and corrosivity of the soil and rock encountered in the borings;  Performing geotechnical analyses for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge foundations;  Preparing a Draft Geotechnical Design Report summarizing the results of the geotechnical investigations and presenting the geotechnical recommendations.

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is organized into 8 sections and 3 appendices. After this introductory section, the geologic and seismotectonic setting of the site is discussed in Section 2. Section 3 summarizes the field and laboratory investigations performed for the study, followed by a discussion of site and subsurface conditions in Section 4. Seismic and geologic hazards are discussed in Section 5. Section 6 presents our geotechnical recommendations for the foundations of the new bridge and other associated improvements. Sections 7 and 8 contain Limitations and References, respectively. Appendices A through C present supporting documentation, including field and laboratory data.

1.5 PROJECT TEAM AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project team that contributed to the work presented in this report includes the following individuals:  Philip Meymand, Registered Geotechnical Engineer and Task Manager  Timothy Wong, Registered Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineer  Chi-Chin Tsai, Registered Professional Engineer and Independent Checker  Phil Respess, Principal Geologist, Independent Technical Reviewer  Benjamin Kozlowicz, Staff Geologist  Eric Wilson, Staff Geologist

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 1-2 SECTIONTWO Geologic and Seismotectonic Setting

2. Section 2 TWO Geologic and Seismotectonic Setting

2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The San Francisco Bay area has a structurally controlled topography that consists primarily of north- to northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys that are a characteristic of the Coast Range geomorphic province. This fabric is subparallel to the San Andreas fault. The Coast Ranges are composed of a thick sequence of late Mesozoic (200 to 65 million years old) and Cenozoic (less than 65 million years old) metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. San Francisco Bay is a topographic trough formed by combination of warping and faulting and is underlain by an approximately 30-kilometer (km)-wide down-dropped or tilted block (the Bay Block), bounded by the San Andreas fault on the west and the Hayward fault on the east. East of the Bay Block is the East Bay Hills domain, an elongate structural domain bound by the Hayward fault on the west and the Calaveras fault-Briones source zone-West Napa fault complex on the east (Page, 1981). Although some strike-slip faulting has occurred within this structural block, the internal structure is dominated by compressional folds and faults oriented subparallel to the block boundary faults. The geology of the Bay area is made up of three different geologic provinces: the Salinian block, Franciscan complex, and the Great Valley sequence. The Salinian block is located west of the San Andreas fault. It is composed primarily of granitic plutonic rocks, which are similar to those found in the Sierra Nevada, and are believed to be rocks of the Sierra Nevada Batholith that have been displaced along the San Andreas fault. Between the San Andreas fault on the west, and the Hayward fault on the east, is the Mesozoic-era Franciscan complex. The Franciscan rocks represent pieces of former oceanic crust that have accreted to North America by subduction and collision. These rocks are primarily deep marine sandstone and shale. However, chert, greenstone, serpentinite, blueschist, and limestone are also found within the assemblage. Serpentinite, a greenish, greasy-looking rock, that is easily sheared and fractured, is also associated with the Coast Range Ophiolite, an assemblage of mafic and ultramafic igneous rocks of Jurassic to Cretaceous age, throughout much of coastal central and northern California, including along the Hayward fault. These rocks are believed to be the upper mantle and the lower oceanic crust of the ancient Farallon Plate, which predates the development of the San Andreas Fault system, and lies at the base of the Great Valley Sequence. To the east of the Hayward fault is the Great Valley sequence, which is composed of Cretaceous and Tertiary marine sedimentary rocks that accumulated in a forearc basin located between the Sierran Arc on the east and the Mesozoic subduction zone on the west. Marine sediments continued to be deposited in early Cenozoic time, after the magmatic activity in the Sierra Nevada had ceased. Older (stratigraphically-lower) sandstones of the Great Valley sequence are rich in volcanic rock fragments eroded from the volcanoes of the Jurassic and early Cretaceous Sierran arc. Younger sandstones of the Great Valley sequence are rich in feldspar and quartz eroded from the granitic plutons of the Sierra Nevada. The late Pliocene and Pleistocene (3.5 million to 10 thousand years before present) Coast Range orogeny, or mountain-building episode, is responsible for the present topography. Compression across the Coast Ranges resulted in uplift of the ranges and corresponding depression of intervening basins. Erosion from the ranges quickly filled the basins with terrestrial and shallow marine sediments.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 2-1 SECTIONTWO Geologic and Seismotectonic Setting

2.2 SITE GEOLOGY The project site is underlain by Miocene-age sedimentary rocks of the Great Valley sequence, including tuffaceous sandstone, sandstone and mudstone, dipping north to northeast between 15 and 45 degrees (Graymer et. al., 1994, Wentworth, 1997) as shown in Figure 3. Surficial deposits and outcrops in the site vicinity include historical artificial fill over estuarine mud, (Witter et.al., 2006), represented by the UPRR railroad grade, and an unnamed Miocene tuffaceous sandstone unit, represented by the steep eroding bluff east of the site and under the proposed west abutment (Figure 2).

2.3 SEISMOTECTONIC SETTING The Project is located physiographically in the northern Coast Ranges and tectonically within the northern East Bay Hills domain of the Coast Ranges tectonic province, an area characterized by a moderate to high level of seismicity. The Coast Ranges are principally composed of the Franciscan Complex, which was assembled and dismembered by the subduction of oceanic plate(s) beneath the western margin of North America from Late Jurassic to Early Tertiary times (Page, 1981). During the Neogene (Miocene to Pliocene epochs, or 24 million to 1.8 million years old), en echelon compressional basins of deposition, en echelon folds, northwest-trending strike-slip faults, and lesser east-west-trending thrust faults were formed. The formation and uplift of individual ranges and the subsidence of structural valleys within the Coast Ranges is primarily the result of transform tectonics (Page, 1981). Other assemblages within the Coast Ranges include the forearc basin sediments of the Great Valley sequence and plutonic and metamorphic rocks of the Salinian Block (Page, 1981). The Coast Ranges tectonic province is bounded on the west by the northwest-trending San Andreas fault system, the primary boundary between the Pacific and North American plates. A broad region, 100 to 200 km wide, centered on the plate boundary, including much of the Coast Ranges, is tectonically dominated at present by the dextral horizontal shear caused by the relative motion of the two plates. In the San Francisco Bay region, the plate boundary is a 100-km-wide zone of deformation consisting of several major right-lateral strike-slip fault zones including the San Gregorio, San Andreas, Hayward-Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, and Concord-Green Valley faults (Table 1 and Figure 4) (USGS, 2007). The Pinole fault, located approximately 0.5 km east of the site, is a potentially active southern extension of the Rodgers Creek fault (Parsons et al., 2003); however, little is known about the history of this fault and it is not considered an independent seismic source (URS, 2007). Table 1. Major Active Faults in the Project Vicinity Distance from Project Length Slip rate Fault Site (km) (km) (mm/yr) Mmax Hayward-Rodgers Creek 5 140 9 7.3 San Andreas 33 473 24 7.9 Concord-Green Valley 18 56 5 6.7 Calaveras 29 123 15 6.9 San Gregorio 45 175 7 7.4

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 2-2 SECTIONTWO Geologic and Seismotectonic Setting

The earliest written accounts of earthquakes in California come from the logs of the Spanish missions established throughout California in the 1700s. In the San Francisco Bay region, the population was somewhat sparser than that of southern California, and the earliest reports of earthquakes were written in the 1800s. The majority of the historical seismicity in the San Francisco Bay region is associated with the major faults of the San Andreas fault system. Fourteen earthquakes of approximately moment magnitude (M) 6.0 or greater have occurred in the San Francisco Bay region in historical times. The most significant earthquakes to the site are discussed in detail below. June 10, 1836 For several decades, this earthquake was thought to be associated with the Hayward fault, as is the 1868 Richter magnitude (ML) 6.8 earthquake. Lindh (1983) proposed that the 1836 earthquake probably ruptured the northern Hayward fault, while the 1868 earthquake was probably centered on the southern Hayward fault. However, Toppozada and Borchardt (1998) reevaluated historical evidence and concluded that this earthquake was erroneously associated with the Hayward fault and actually probably occurred somewhere between Monterey and Santa Clara. Toppozada and Borchardt (1998) assigned this event a ML 6¼ ± ½ based on felt reports. Recent paleoseismic trenching along the northern Hayward Fault indicates that the last surface rupturing earthquake along this part of the fault was sometime between 1626 and 1724 (Lienkaemper and Galehouse, 1997). This study also indicated at least four surface-rupturing earthquakes in the last 2,250 years.

June 1838 Very few written records of the June 1838 ML 7½ earthquake exist, and the exact date is not known. No reports of this earthquake are available from north of San Francisco or south of Santa Clara, except from Monterey (Toppozada et al., 1981). Toppozada and Borchardt (1998) reviewed the historical records for this earthquake and found that reported shaking intensities suggest that this earthquake was the result of rupture of more than the 60-km-long Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault as was originally believed. Rather rupture may have extended a distance of 140 km from San Francisco to San Juan Bautista.

October 21, 1868 This ML 6.8 earthquake probably occurred on the southern Hayward fault. It was one of the most destructive in California history, because it occurred in a populated area. Heavy damage was sustained in towns along the Hayward fault in the eastern San Francisco Bay area, as well as in San Francisco and San Jose. The San Leandro Courthouse second floor collapsed. March 31, 1898 On March 31, 1898, the San Francisco Bay region was shaken by an earthquake that appeared to be centered near Mare Island in San Pablo Bay. The maximum intensity was MM VIII or greater and buildings were damaged in areas around the Bay. Toppozada et al. (1992) have reevaluated the magnitude of this event through comparisons with other historical earthquakes and have assigned a ML 6.7 April 18, 1906 The Great San Francisco earthquake of 1906, M 7.9, centered near Olema, was arguably the most destructive earthquake to have occurred in northern California in historical times. The earthquake was felt from southern Oregon to south of Los Angeles, and as far east as central Nevada. It ruptured the northernmost 430 km of the San Andreas fault, from San Juan Bautista to the Mendocino Triple Junction. Damage was widespread in northern California and injury and loss of life was particularly severe. Ground shaking and fire caused the deaths of more

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 2-3 SECTIONTWO Geologic and Seismotectonic Setting than 3,000 people and injured approximately 225,000. Damage from shaking was most severe in areas of saturated or loose, young soils. October 17, 1989 The M 7.0 Loma Prieta earthquake at 5:04 pm local time, occurred on or adjacent to the southern Santa Cruz segment of the San Andreas fault. The cities of Los Gatos, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz were hard hit with damage, as was San Francisco and Oakland. Shaking was felt throughout the San Francisco Bay area and as far away as San Diego and Nevada. While the Loma Prieta earthquake was one of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history, causing in excess of $6 billion damage, the loss of life was significantly less than in 1906. Sixty-two people died and about 3,500 were injured. About 12,000 people were displaced from their homes. As in the 1906 earthquake, the worst damage from shaking occurred at buildings on unconsolidated or saturated soils, or with unreinforced masonry or improperly designed structures.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 2-4 SECTIONTHREE Geotechnical Exploration Program

3. Section 3 THREE Geotechnical Exploration Program

3.1 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM Our subsurface investigation was performed in four phases on September 8, October 28 to 29, November 9 to 10, and December 13, 2010. It included the advancement of five cone penetration tests (CPT) designated B-1 through B-5, and five exploratory borings, identified as B-6 and B-8 through B-11, to depths ranging from 13 to 100 feet below ground surface (bgs), at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2.

3.1.1 Exploratory Soil Borings Two of the five exploratory soil borings, B-6 and B-8, were drilled by Gregg Drilling and Testing Company of Martinez, California, using a track-mounted CME 850 drill rig. Borings B-9 and B-10 were performed by Pitcher Drilling Company of East Palo Alto, CA, a subsidiary of Gregg Drilling, using a Fraste Multidrill XL. Due to restricted site access to the upper bench area, the remaining soil boring, B-11 was drilled by Access Soil Drilling of San Mateo, California using a mobile Minuteman drill rig. The upper 5 feet of each exploratory borings (except B-11) was advanced using a hand auger to clear the location of underground utilities. Below a depth of 5 feet, the exploratory borings were advanced using rotary wash technique, except B-11, which was advanced using a solid stem auger. The borings were advanced using a 4-7/8-inch (B-6 and B-8) or 3-7/8-inch (B-9 and B-10) diameter drag bit at the end of N-size rods or a 4-inch rock bit (B-11). Cuttings were monitored as they were discharged from the collar in order to assess changes in stratigraphy between sample intervals and to enable proper sampler choice. Soil samples were obtained at selected depths in the borings by advancing the sampler into the soil at the bottom of the borehole. Two types of samplers were used for this study:  Standard Penetration Sampler (SPT) – 1.5-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., 18-inch long, split barrel.  Modified California Sampler (MC) – 2-1/2-inch I.D., 3-1/4-inch O.D., split-barrel equipped with thin-walled brass tube liners. In general, the SPT sampler is used to obtain drive samples in granular (i.e., sandy) soils. Modified California samplers are used to obtain larger, brass-tube lined soil samples in stiffer fine-grained soils. Both the SPT and Modified California samples are typically considered to be “disturbed” due to the dynamic sampling procedure and the thickness of the sampler wall. After the borehole was drilled to the specified depth, the sampler mounted on the drill rods was lowered to the bottom, seated, and then driven into the soil with a hammer to retrieve a MC or SPT sample. The MC and SPT samplers were driven 18 inches into the material at the bottom of the borehole using a 140-pound automatic hammer with a free fall of 30 inches for each blow or a 140-pound slide hammer and cathead (B-11 only). The number of hammer blows required to advance the sampler each of the three successive 6-inch increments was counted in the field. Where coarse-grained soils were expected, the blow counts were monitored at 1-inch intervals for each of the 6-inch increments to verify consistency within each 6-inch increment. The first 6-inch increment is considered to be a “seating interval” in the more highly disturbed soils at the base of the borehole, and the corresponding blow counts were not taken into consideration until the sampler was driven beyond the seating interval. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches was recorded as the penetration resistance (blows-per-foot).

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 3-1 SECTIONTHREE Geotechnical Exploration Program

Upon retrieval, the MC samples were sealed on both ends with plastic caps. The SPT samples were placed in 1-gallon plastic bags and sealed. The soil samples and cuttings were examined and classified in the field as the drilling proceeded. All samples were carefully labeled and transported to Signet Testing Laboratories of Hayward, CA and Cerco Analytical of Concord, CA for further examination and testing. Preliminary visual soil classifications were made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) and verified by further inspection of the samples in the laboratory and by testing. Logs of the exploratory borings were prepared based on the soil classification made in the field and on the laboratory test results. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A of this report. After completion of the drilling and sampling, the borings were backfilled with neat cement grout. Soil cuttings and drilling fluid were collected in 55-gallon drums that were temporarily stored onsite. The retained soil cuttings will be off-hauled and disposed in accordance with the regulatory requirements.

3.1.2 Cone Penetration Tests On September 8, 2010, Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. of Martinez, California, performed five Cone Penetrometer Test borings (CPT), designated as B-1 through B-5, under the general direction of our Engineering Geologist to depths between 13 and 35 feet, at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The upper 5 feet of each CPT was advanced using a hand auger to clear for underground utilities and the data was not shown on the CPT logs. The soundings were performed using an integrated electronic piezocone system with a tip area of 15 cm2 and a friction sleeve area of 225 cm2. The cone has a tip end area ratio of 0.85. Pore pressures were monitored from a position immediately behind the probe tip during the advancement of the cone. The CPT probe was advanced using a hydraulic push system mounted in a mobile truck with 14-ton capacity. Tip resistance, sleeve friction, pore pressure and inclination data were obtained electronically at a 0.05 m interval as the sounding was advanced. Two of the CPT soundings (B-1 and B-5) included Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDTs). The PPDTs were conducted in the sandy soil layers identified by the exploratory soil borings and CPT soundings to measure hydrostatic water pressures in the layers. Two PPDTs were performed in B-1 at 20.3 and 35.9 feet bgs and one PPDT was performed in B-5 at 12.5 feet bgs. A PPDT was conducted when the cone was halted at specific intervals determined by our geologist in the field. The pore pressure was monitored until such time as there was no variation in pore pressure with time. This time is commonly referred to as t100, the point at which 100 percent of the excess pore pressure due to probing activity has dissipated. Four of the CPT soundings (B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-5) included Seismic Cone Penetrometer Testing (SCPT) at 5-foot increments. The SCPT uses a modified CPT cone that contains a built- in seismometer to measure compression and shear wave velocities in addition to the standard piezocone parameters. The shear waves were generated by striking a seismic beam coupled to the ground surface by a hydraulic cylinder under the CPT rig. Compression waves were generated by striking an auger in the ground. The sledgehammer that strikes the beam/auger acts as a trigger, initiating the recording of the seismic wave trace. Before measurements were taken, the rods are decoupled from the CPT rig to prevent energy transmission down the rods. Geophones in the body of the piezocone recognize the arriving waves generated at the ground

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 3-2 SECTIONTHREE Geotechnical Exploration Program

surface. At least two waves are recorded for each test depth for consistency check of the waveforms. Shear wave data is sampled at a frequency of 20 kHz and compression wave data is sampled at 50 kHz. The input sensitivity (gain) is increased with depth to maintain a desired signal resolution. The CPT testing was performed in general conformance with the requirements of ASTM D3441 and D5778 test methods. The soil properties and stratigraphy, as interpreted from the CPT data obtained, are presented graphically on the CPT logs in Appendix B. Upon completion of the CPTs, the holes were backfilled using cement grout in accordance with the requirement of Environmental Health Division of Contra Costa County.

3.1.3 Laboratory Testing Program Representative soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings were tested at Signet Testing Laboratories to evaluate their engineering properties. All tests were performed in general accordance with the appropriate ASTM standards. Engineering strength and index laboratory tests on selected soil and/or rock samples included the following:  Particle-size (sieve) analysis (ASTM D422 and D1140),  Atterberg limits determination (ASTM D4318),  Moisture content determination (ASTM D2216),  Unconfined compression test (ASTM D2166), and  Unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression test (ASTM D2850) The results of the laboratory testing are summarized on the logs of borings at the corresponding sample depths along with the sample blow counts. Detailed results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C of this report. To evaluate the corrosion potential of the soil at the site, four representative soil samples were tested using Caltrans Test Methods by CERCO Analytical, which specializes in corrosion testing. Tests were performed on samples obtained from borings B-6, B-8 at depths of 4.5 feet and 15 feet, respectively, and boring B-9 at depths of 2 feet and 14.5 feet. The corrosivity test results are discussed in Section 5.5 and are also presented in Appendix C. .

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 3-3 SECTIONFOUR Site and Subsurface Conditions

4. Section 4 FOUR Site and Subsurface Conditions

4.1 SITE CONDITIONS The site is located in the city of Pinole, along the south shoreline of the San Pablo Bay and 100 feet north of the Orleans Drive. The site is bounded by San Pablo Bay to the north, UPRR and BNSF railroad tracks and residential area to the south, and Bay Front Park to the east. The site is generally sloped towards the north, with site elevations varying between 8 and 12 feet; except on the southwest side of the site where there is an elevated bluff at approximately elevation 50 feet (NGVD 29). The UPRR Martinez Subdivision railroad is a double-track railroad located along the northern boundary of the city near the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. The BNSF Stockton Subdivision is located south of the UPRR above the bluff. There is abundant vegetation at the site, particularly on the south side of the UPRR track, where very dense blackberries, willow and oak trees, and various shrubs occupy much of the area. On the west side of the site, the bluff becomes very steep, approximately 1.5:1 (H:V), and planar, with a topographic bench near the top of the bluff at elevation 42 feet, extending approximately 400 feet to the west.

4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As described in Section 3.1, five exploratory borings and five Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) were performed along the proposed alignment, and their descriptions follow: Boring B-6 was drilled to a depth of 61 feet. The boring encountered approximately 7 feet of fill, composed of medium stiff sandy lean to fat clay. Below the fill is a 2- to 3-foot-thick layer of very soft sandy fat clay, locally known as Bay Mud. This layer is underlain by weathered, interbedded fine-grained sandstone and siltstone to the maximum depth explored. This sandstone/siltstone layer is composed of dense to very dense sand with varying amounts of silt (10 to 70 percent) and has a moderate (30°-50°) bedding dip, observed as oxidation laminations below 40 feet, bgs. An Atterberg limits1 test was performed at a depth of 14.5 feet and indicates the silt has a plasticity index (PI) of 25. Boring B-8 was drilled to a depth of 100 feet. The boring encountered approximately 8 feet of fill, consisting of very soft sandy silt (PI of 6 at 5.5 feet), overlying 3 feet of very soft Bay Mud. The Bay Mud is underlain by about 22 feet of medium dense to very dense silty sand with pumice fragments (tuffaceous sandstone), with an approximate 30° bedding dip. This tuffaceous sandstone then grades into an approximately 20-foot-thick, very dense sandstone, composed of sand with silt (the fines content varies between 10 to 30 percent). An approximately 10-foot- thick layer of hard sandy silt was encountered below the sandstone. This layer, and the sandstone layer above, had bedding dips of approximately 40°. This layer is then underlain by about 32 feet of massive mudstone, composed of hard clay with sand, to the maximum depth explored. Boring B-9 was drilled to a depth of about 101 feet. This boring encountered about 7 feet of fill/colluvium, composed of loose silty sand, with about 30% non-plastic fines. The fill is underlain by about 4 feet of very soft to soft, sandy silt (Bay Mud) with a PI of about 14. Beneath the Bay Mud, there is approximately 25 feet of medium dense to dense silty sand (non-

1 Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 4-1 SECTIONFOUR Site and Subsurface Conditions

plastic fines content of about 20 to 40%) with abundant pumice fragments and poorly expressed bedding dipping 20°-35° (tuffaceous sandstone). Below this layer, the boring encountered 20 feet of hard, sandy clay (mudstone), followed by 10 feet of very dense silty sand with clayey interbeds. This was followed by 26 feet of mudstone and 7 feet of very dense silty sand. From 98 feet bgs to the bottom of the hole at 101 feet, the sandstone became coarser with 15% chert and mudstone rock fragments. Boring B-10 was drilled to a depth of about 100 feet. The boring encountered about 7 feet of fill/colluvium, composed of loose silty sand with organics. The fill is underlain by 6 feet of very loose, clayey sand (Bay Mud). This overlies 24 feet of medium dense to dense silty sand (fines content of about 12 to 30%) with pumice fragments (tuffaceous sandstone). This layer is underlain by very stiff to hard clay with sand (mudstone) at depths between 36 and 92 feet, corresponding to Elevations -25 and -80 feet. This mudstone is then underlain by 8 feet of very dense sand with silt (sandstone) to the maximum depth explored. Boring B-11 was located on a topographic bench near the top of the bluff at an elevation of 42 feet. (Figure 2). The boring encountered 12 feet of medium dense clayey and very stiff sandy clay, interpreted to be colluvium on top of highly weathered bedrock. This layer is then underlain by dense to very dense sand with silt and pumice fragments (tuffaceous sandstone) to the bottom of the boring at 40 feet bgs. The sandstone has a fines content of about 10% and bedding dips between 35° and 50°. The five CPTs performed on the north side of the UPRR track encountered similar subsurface conditions as in Borings B-6 and B-8. All five CPTs encountered soft to medium stiff clay with varying amounts of sandy and clayey silt from 5 to approximately 8 feet bgs, interpreted as locally derived fill (above 5 feet was hand-augered). Below this to depths of 11 to 12 feet bgs was sensitive fine material, interpreted as Bay Mud. CPT borings B-3, B-4 and B-5 encountered dense to very dense sand and silty sand below the Bay Mud, interpreted as tuffaceous sandstone bedrock. These borings met refusal between 13 and 20 feet, bgs. CPT borings B-1 and B-2 encountered finer-grained, softer and less dense material below the Bay Mud than in the other CPTs, interpreted as weathered siltstone and fine-grained sandstone. These borings met refusal at approximately 35 feet bgs. The CPT results are shown in Appendix B. Figure 5 is an idealized geologic cross section along the proposed alignment, based on an interpretation of the subsurface data obtained from the borings, published geologic maps and site reconnaissance. The site is generally flat at Elevations between 9 and 12 feet, and it slopes up at the south side to the topographic bench at Elevation 42 feet. The site is generally blanketed by 7 to 8 feet of fill (north of the railroad track) or colluvium (south of the track) overlying approximately 3 to 5 feet of Bay Mud. Bay Mud gradually thins out towards south near the toe of the bluff. The Bay Mud is then underlain by weathered tuffaceous sandstone, sandstone/siltstone and mudstone.

4.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was not encountered during drilling in boring B-11, and not measured in the other borings during drilling due to the rotary wash drilling method. Based on the observation of the soil moisture content and the proximity to the San Pablo Bay, we estimate the high groundwater level during rainy season will be near the existing site grade, approximately Elevations 9 to 12 feet (NAVD 29).

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 4-2 SECTIONFIVE Seismic and Geologic Hazard

5. Section 5 FIVE Seismic and Geologic Hazard

5.1 FAULT RUPTURE Historically, ground surface fault rupture closely follows the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, (Hart, 1975 and 1997), and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. The Pinole fault, located approximately 0.5 km east of the site, is a potentially active southern extension of the Rodgers Creek fault (Parsons et. al., 2003); however, little is known about the history of this fault and it is not considered an independent seismic source (URS, 2007). The major active fault in the area is the Hayward-Rodgers Creek, approximately 5 km west of the site. These and other major faults of the region are shown on Figure 4. Therefore, the risk of fault related surface rupture at the site from a known active fault is considered to be very low.

5.2 STRONG GROUND SHAKING During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong to very strong shaking is expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure, such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential compaction and slope failure.

5.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby soil deposits temporarily lose shear strength and collapse. This condition is caused by cyclic loading during earthquake shaking that generates high pore water pressures within the soil deposits. The soil type most susceptible to liquefaction is loose, cohesionless, granular soil below the water table and within about 50 feet of the ground surface. Liquefaction can result in a loss of foundation support and settlement of overlying structures, ground subsidence and translation due to lateral spreading, lurch cracking, and differential settlement of affected deposits. Lateral spreading occurs when a soil layer liquefies at depth and causes horizontal movement or displacement of the overlying mass on sloping ground or towards a free face such as a streambank or excavation. In a regional study of the nine-county San Francisco Bay region for the U.S. Geological Survey, Witter et al. (2006) mapped the liquefaction susceptibility of the site soils as shown in Figure 6. The liquefaction map shows the project site and its vicinity as having a low to moderate liquefaction potential. Between Elevations +10 and -13, our investigation encountered interbedded loose to medium dense silty sand and sand with silt of low to medium plasticity below the groundwater table. These materials were present in the fill, colluvium and highly weathered sandstone layers. The thickness of these layers ranged from less than a foot in Boring B-6 to 18 feet in Boring B-10, with a similar trend observed in the CPTs. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of these materials, we performed an initial screening based on the criteria of Bray and Sancio (2006). These layers were found to be susceptible to liquefaction, so we then analyzed liquefaction-induced settlement of these layers using a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.7g, and a design earthquake moment magnitude, M 7.3 (Section 5.4). With the field blow counts adjusted for hammer type, sampler size, overburden pressure, rod length, and fines content; the magnitude of liquefaction-induced settlement is estimated to be on the order 1 to 4 inches. The consequences of liquefaction may

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 5-1 SECTIONFIVE Seismic and Geologic Hazard

include loss of bearing capacity, downdrag loads imposed on deep foundations, and lateral spreading. Methods to mitigate the liquefaction hazard may include excavating and replacing liquefiable soils, or designing deep foundations that can accommodate the consequences of liquefaction. Once the proposed structure foundation design and grading plans are presented, we can evaluate the consequences and mitigation for liquefaction at each support location.

5.4 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

5.4.1 Seismic Design Methodology The seismic design methodology adopted for this project is based on the following current Caltrans standards: 1) Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), v 1.6, December 2010 2) Guidelines for Structures Foundation Reports, v 2.0, updated March 2009 3) California Seismic Hazard Map (2007) 4) Caltrans ARS online (v1.0.4) The new acceleration response spectrum (ARS) curve is the envelope of the deterministic and probabilistic spectra, in contrast to the old procedure that use only deterministic spectrum. The new deterministic spectrum is now adopting two next generation attenuation (NGA) models: an average of the Campbell and Bozorgnia and Chiou and Youngs attenuation models. The probabilistic spectrum is based on the 5% in 50 year 2008 USGS Hazard map. In addition, the new procedure also updates the site factor, the near fault factor and includes the deep basin effect.

5.4.2 Site Soil Profile As discussed in Section 3.2, we performed seismic cone penetration tests at CPT locations B-1 and B-3 through B-5. Based on the test results and engineering judgment, we determined the weighted average shear wave velocity (Vs,30) over a depth of approximately 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) to be 295 m/s. The average shear wave velocity was used to classify the soil profile based on the guidelines given in SDC Table B.12. Accordingly, this site is classified as a stiff soil site or Soil Profile Type D.

5.4.3 Fault Type and Near-Field Spectral Accelerations The technical report that accompanies the California Seismic Hazard Map (2007) indicates that the controlling fault is Hayward fault, which is 5 km away. Since the project site is less than 15 km from the nearest active fault, design spectral accelerations should be modified to account for near-fault effects as follows:

Period (sec) Increase in Spectral Acceleration (%) < 0.5 0 0.5 – 1.0 0 – 20 (determined by linear interpolation) >1 20

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 5-2 SECTIONFIVE Seismic and Geologic Hazard

However, this does not include adjustments for bridges with fundamental periods of vibration greater than 1.5 seconds. As the design proceeds, we will verify the fundamental period of vibration of the planned structures for this project with the structural engineer.

5.4.4 Design Acceleration Response Spectrum Based on Caltrans SDC (Version 1.6), the design seismic response spectrum can be estimated with spectral acceleration values generated by:

 Soil Profile Type D with Vs,30 = 295 m/s  Hayward fault zone (ID = 353) with Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) Magnitude 7.3 and site to fault distance (Rrup) = 3.6km  No deep basin effect  ARS increase for near-field effect

The Design Acceleration Response Spectrum corresponding to Vs,30 = 295m/s, magnitude of controlling event 7.3, was obtained from ARS online and modified to account for near field effects as described above. The Design Acceleration Response Spectra is attached as Figure 7, and the spectral values are provided in Table 2. The design ARS curve is the envelope of the deterministic curve (Mw = 7.3, R = 3.6 km) and the probabilistic curve (975 yr return period) and is dominated by the probabilistic curve.

Table 2. Spectral Acceleration Values T (sec) Sa (g) T (sec) Sa (g) T (sec) Sa (g) T (sec) Sa (g) 0.01 0.699 0.11 1.179 0.46 1.45 2.6 0.499 0.02 0.812 0.12 1.207 0.48 1.448 2.8 0.458 0.022 0.829 0.13 1.233 0.5 1.445 3 0.424 0.025 0.852 0.133 1.24 0.55 1.422 3.2 0.392 0.029 0.88 0.14 1.257 0.6 1.402 3.4 0.364 0.03 0.886 0.15 1.28 0.65 1.387 3.5 0.352 0.032 0.899 0.16 1.303 0.667 1.382 3.6 0.34 0.035 0.916 0.17 1.324 0.7 1.374 3.8 0.319 0.036 0.922 0.18 1.344 0.75 1.363 4 0.3 0.04 0.943 0.19 1.363 0.8 1.326 4.2 0.285 0.042 0.953 0.2 1.382 0.85 1.293 4.4 0.272 0.044 0.963 0.22 1.404 0.9 1.264 4.6 0.26 0.045 0.967 0.24 1.424 0.95 1.238 4.8 0.248 0.046 0.972 0.25 1.434 1 1.214 0.048 0.981 0.26 1.443 1.1 1.12 0.05 0.99 0.28 1.461 1.2 1.039

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 5-3 SECTIONFIVE Seismic and Geologic Hazard

Table 2. Spectral Acceleration Values T (sec) Sa (g) T (sec) Sa (g) T (sec) Sa (g) T (sec) Sa (g) 0.055 1.01 0.29 1.469 1.3 0.971 0.06 1.029 0.3 1.477 1.4 0.911 0.065 1.047 0.32 1.473 1.5 0.859 0.067 1.054 0.34 1.469 1.6 0.813 0.07 1.064 0.35 1.468 1.7 0.772 0.075 1.08 0.36 1.466 1.8 0.735 0.08 1.095 0.38 1.462 1.9 0.702 0.085 1.11 0.4 1.459 2 0.672 0.09 1.124 0.42 1.456 2.2 0.603 0.095 1.137 0.44 1.453 2.4 0.546 0.1 1.15 0.45 1.452 2.5 0.521

5.5 SOIL CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL The soil corrosivity tests were performed by Cerco Analytical, Inc., of Concord, California, in accordance with Caltrans standards. Corrosion potential was estimated based on the nominal resistivity measurement (100 percent saturation), electrical conductivity, chloride ion concentration, sulfate ion concentration, soluble sulfide concentration, pH, and redox potential. Based on the resistivity measurement, the samples are considered “corrosive” to buried metals. All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel, and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion, depending on the critical nature of the structure. The detailed analyses and recommendations regarding protection to concrete, steel reinforcement, and metals are presented in Appendix C. The comments and recommendations presented above are general in nature. We recommend that a consultant specializing in corrosion be retained to provide specific corrosion protection recommendations for the soil conditions encountered and the planned construction.

5.6 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE FAILURE To analyze the hazard posed to the project by landslides and slope failure, historic aerial photographs were reviewed, and observations were compared with the current site conditions and subsurface data obtained from the borings. Five sets of photos, from 1949 to 2002 (at approximately 10-year intervals), were reviewed stereoscopically, to observe historic slope failure and bluff retreat at the project site (Table 3).

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 5-4 SECTIONFIVE Seismic and Geologic Hazard

Table 3. Aerial Photos Reviewed Year Series Line Frames Scale Date 1949 AV-28 11 02, 03 1:7200 9-16 1949 AV-29 12 02, 04 1:7200 9-16 1959 AV-334 05 56, 57 1:9600 6-8 1969 AV-902 11 02, 03 1:12000 5-19 1978 AV-1515 03 51- 53 1:12000 6-6 1988 AV-3368 06 02, 03 1:12000 8-3 2002 AV-8202 07 02, 03 1:12000 6-17

In 1949, the Union Pacific (lower) and BNSF (upper) railroad grades were present in their current configuration. The Pinole sewage treatment plant and Bayside Park were not yet constructed. Instead, there was a tidal marsh in those locations. Residences along the south side of the BNSF railroad, west of Pinon Drive, were present, but Orleans Drive and residences on top of the bluff between the two railroad grades were not yet constructed. The scalloped bluff, south of borings B-9 and B-10, had a very similar shape and condition to that presently observed; this area was moderately vegetated with shrubs on the bluff face and grass below the bluff. The topographic bench and planar bluff, extending from the proposed west abutment (boring B-11) approximately 400 feet to the west, was also in its present condition. The planar nature of the bluff and bench indicate that this area was likely excavated and graded when the UPRR was constructed prior to 1949. It is estimated that as much as 100 horizontal feet of bluff was excavated, based on the presence of submarine material north of the UPRR across from the bluff (Figure 2). A small ridge of material above the bluff immediately south of the bench was also present, however it appears this ridge was subsequently modified by a dozer road/trail. A small, discreet slope failure is present at the west end of the bench (Figure 2), and appeared fresh (<15 years old) in the 1949 photos. The slope here likely failed along a bedding plane in the bluff, possibly as a response to previous grading. This slide is approximately 100 feet long, 50 feet wide and has a tall east side scarp, up to 25 vertical feet, an approximately 8-foot-tall head scarp, and a very short (>5-foot) west side scarp. Based on the morphology, it appears that a 30- to 50-foot-wide slice of the graded bluff failed. By 1959, the Pinole sewage treatment plant was constructed, but was less than half of the current size. Orleans Drive was constructed and the residences were under construction. There was no apparent change to the scalloped bluff east of the bench, but the landslide west of the bench showed some enlargement to the west, likely a remobilization of previously failed material. Bayfront Park was still a tidal marsh. In 1969 there is a new dozer road/trail constructed from the east end of the Bay Trail (present location west of project area), through the small active slide west of the bench, through the small ridge south of the bench and down off the bench east of Boring B-11, ending at the location of boring B-9 (Figure 2). Most of the residences in the vicinity were constructed and fill was placed in the location of Bayfront Park. There was no apparent enlargement of the landslide or scalloped bluff.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 5-5 SECTIONFIVE Seismic and Geologic Hazard

In 1978, the dozer road had eroded with the small landslide and the slope had revegetated below the bluff. Between the landslide and the east end of the Bay Trail, some grading was done and likely fill was placed. Small to medium trees are present in the vicinity of Boring B-10. There was no apparent enlargement of the landslide or scalloped bluff, other than surficial erosion of the dozer road/trail. By 1988, both the slide area and scalloped bluff area were revegetated. The area west of the active slide still had apparently fresh trails in the previously graded area, but the east portion of the dozer road/trail no longer appeared to be in use. Additional fill was placed, Bayfront Park was constructed, and the residential neighborhood south of BNSF railroad, east of Pinon Drive was constructed. No measurable bluff retreat or discreet landslides or enlargement were apparent. In 2002, there was additional vegetation in all areas except in a small area on the scalloped bluff south of boring B-9, where the surface was fresh-looking, but there was no measurable change in landform from the previous photo. It is likely that a small amount of surfical erosion took place in this area, but it is possible that this fresh surface was caused by grading/sidecast material from the BNSF railway. The site condition in 2002 is very similar to that presently observed both in site reconnaissance and in satellite imagery from 2009 (Figure 2). The presence of Bay Mud in borings B-9 and B-10 indicates that the position of the bluff adjacent to these borings is relatively long-lived and is eroding/retreating at a slow rate. The consistent position and morphology of the scalloped bluff in the historical aerial photos confirm this conclusion. The presence of in-situ tuffaceous sandstone at shallow depths below the Bay Mud in these borings indicates that a deep-seated landslide associated with the bluff at this location is unlikely. Based on these findings, we estimate that there is a relatively low probability of a discreet mass failure that would lead to additional lateral loading of piers below the bluff at this location. In the vicinity of boring B-11 at the east end of the bench, there is a significant risk of mass failure similar to what is observed at the west end of the bluff. Contributing to this conclusion is the apparent grading of the bluff below the bench, the over-steepening of the bluff and removal of toe support, the steep dip of the tuffaceous sandstone (northward out of the bluff) observed in boring B-11, below approximately 12 feet bgs, and the presence of an apparently historically active landslide 400 feet west where conditions are very similar. We conclude that the colluvium overlying the tuff sandstone on the bluff may be potentially erodable during the design life of the project. Erosion is not expected to occur at a constant rate, but rather in response to specific storm events. The occurrence of such events is difficult to predict, so our foundation analyses for the west abutment have assumed that the colluvium is not present to a depth of 12 feet below existing grade. Several options may be considered to mitigate the potential slope and bluff instability at the west abutment. The first option is to do nothing and accept that potential landslide movement may threaten the integrity of the abutment, to be managed as a maintenance effort. The second option is to design the foundations of the bridge such that additional loads due to landslides and/or soil creep are accommodated. The third alternative is relocating the abutment outside the potential landslide area. The last option is to reinforce the slope through re-grading, drainage control, installing soil nails or rock bolts and shotcreting, etc. Evaluation of the mitigation alternatives should also consider the potential impact on the railroad operations.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 5-6 SECTIONSIX Geotechnical Recommendations

6. Section 6 SIX Geotechnical Recommendations The following sections provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the foundations for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge.

6.1 FOUNDATIONS We considered both shallow and deep foundations for the support of the proposed structure. The site is underlain by soft Marine Deposits (Bay Mud) on the order 5 to 10 feet thick. In addition, the settlement induced by liquefaction (Section 5.3) and movement due to potential lateral spreading may not be tolerable for shallow foundations. We therefore judge that shallow foundations would not be appropriate to support the proposed structure. From a structural standpoint, the proposed structure can be supported on deep foundations such as driven piles or cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles. Pile foundations would derive their capacity from a combination of skin friction in the Bay Mud (Marine Deposits), dense to very dense sand with varying amount of silt (weathered tuffaceous sandstone and sandstone/siltstone) and hard clay (Mudstone). For driven piles, it may be difficult to mobilize the pile driving equipment to the site due to its large size and limited site access, and the noise levels may also be an issue. Furthermore, vibrations created during pile driving may de-stabilize the natural slope at the bluff area and may also undermine the railroad track. We therefore recommend CIDH piles to be used for the project. CIDH piles have the advantages of easy penetration into dense/hard soil zones, the availability of larger diameters for increased lateral capacity and adaptability of length to variable subsurface conditions. The presence of shallow groundwater or caving soils can complicate the use of CIDH piles. From the constructability standpoint, CIDH piling rigs are more economical to mobilize than pile driving rigs, can work in limited access conditions, and have significantly lower noise and vibration impacts during pile installation than driving operations. For preliminary design purposes, the structural engineer recommended drilled pile foundations consisting of 2-, 3-, 6- and 7-foot diameters be used to support the proposed bridge, depending on the pile location. Axial, uplift, and lateral pile capacities for the recommended piles are presented in the following subsections. Based on the boring information and the configuration of the proposed bridge, two soil profiles were created for foundation analyses and are shown in Table 4.

6.1.1 Axial Pile Capacity CIDH piles should be designed to derive their axial capacity from the skin friction in the soil layers starting at one pile diameter below the bottom of the pile cap. In local practice, the contribution of end bearing in supporting the load is neglected for CIDH piles installed below the groundwater level.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 6-1 SECTIONSIX Geotechnical Recommendations

Table 4. Idealized Soil Profiles Used for Foundation Analyses Soil Profile No. Soil Profile Description Soil Profile Location Reference Boring No. 10 feet Bay Mud 20 feet Tuff Sandstone 1 North of UPRR Track B-6 and B-8 30 feet Sandstone 40 feet Mudstone 7 feet of Fill 5 feet Bay Mud 10 feet Tuff Sandstone South of UPRR Track 2 B-9, B-10 and B-11* 15 feet Sandstone and on the bluff bench 55 feet Mudstone 10 feet Sandstone *Boring B-11 was approximately 30 feet above B-9 and B-10, the soil profile below Elevation 2 (bottom of boring B-11) was assumed to be consistent with B-9 and B-10 based on the interpretation of the local geology.

To facilitate the alternatives analysis process during preliminary design, we evaluated the ultimate axial capacities as a function of depth for CIDH piles of various diameters with a maximum length of 100 feet. Additional axial capacity can be obtained for the new piles by using larger diameter or longer piles. If groups of piles are used, for no reduction in axial loading, the center to center spacing should be no closer than three pile-diameters. It should be noted that the site is underlain by potentially liquefiable material that will likely liquefy and settle under strong ground shaking associated with a moderate to large earthquake on a nearby fault (Section 5.3). The piles may experience downdrag loads due to the settlement of the soil above the liquefiable soil layer. Downdrag is the additional load transferred to the piles when the soil around the piles moves downward relative to the piles. Settlement of the soil around the shaft may also occur due to placement of new fill on top of the Bay Mud. We can evaluate settlement of Bay Mud if there is additional fill placed on site. Accordingly, the CIDH piles of the new bridge should be designed to support the downdrag loads, in addition to the structural loads on each pile. The results of the axial pile capacity analyses are presented in Figures 8 through 10. These ultimate capacities may be used in combination with a factor of safety of 1.0 to calculate allowable capacities for seismic loads, and should be divided by a factor of safety of 2.0 to calculate allowable capacities for dead plus live loads. The recommended pile capacities relate only to pile support and the structural capacity of the piles should be checked. The pile capacity analysis ignores the contribution within the top one pile diameter. In addition, the recommended axial pile capacity has taken into account soil liquefaction and downdrag. While liquefaction is not present on the bench, the foundation was analyzed to account for soil erosion within the top 12 feet as discussed in Section 5.5. The piles will develop resistance to uplift loads through skin friction in the fill, Bay Mud and weathered bedrock. Pile uplift capacity may also be obtained from the curves included in Figures 11 through 13.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 6-2 SECTIONSIX Geotechnical Recommendations

6.1.2 Lateral Capacity CIDH piles are capable of resisting lateral loads. Resistance to lateral loads can be developed by bending of the pile and by pile-soil interaction. The magnitude of the lateral load resistance that can develop depends upon several factors such as the pile size, the physical properties of the surrounding soils, the structural design of the pile, and the direction of loading. We used LPILE Plus 5.0 (Ensoft Inc., 2010) to estimate the lateral load resistance for multiple scenarios. The lateral pile capacity was analyzed using two different soil profiles (as for axial pile capacity). For each soil profile, we consider the existing and liquefaction conditions. For foundations located on the bench, soil erosion within the top 12 feet is considered instead of liquefaction. No lateral load due to soil movement was applied in the analysis, the CIDH pile was modeled as having a free length of 8 feet below the pile cap. Each soil condition was then analyzed using various pile diameters, ranging from 2 to 7 feet and pile head conditions (fixed or free). We have assumed the following in the LPILE analyses:  Loads applied at the top of pile (4 feet below ground surface)  Axial load of 200 kips  Lateral resistance of the pile cap is ignored  Pile is reinforced with steel equal to 2% area of pile cross section area  1-inch maximum lateral deflection at the top of pile The results of the LPILE analyses are presented in Tables 5 through 10: Table 5. Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Existing Condition using Soil Profile 1 2-ft 2-ft 3-ft 3-ft 6-ft 6-ft 7-ft 7-ft Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free M (kips- -329 125 -1041 397 -7391 2936 -11510 4618 ft) V (kips) 50 19 123 48 566 241 802 343 M = Maximum Bending Moment, V = Maximum Shear Force

Table 6. Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Liquefaction Condition using Soil Profile 1 2-ft 2-ft 3-ft 3-ft 6-ft 6-ft 7-ft 7-ft Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free M (kips- -221 91 -803 336 -6295 2587 -10062 4111 ft) V (kips) 26 -9.4 76 28 415 162 610 239

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 6-3 SECTIONSIX Geotechnical Recommendations

Table 7. Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Existing Condition using Soil Profile 2 2-ft 2-ft 3-ft 3-ft 6-ft 6-ft 7-ft 7-ft Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free M (kips- -331 124 -1033 389 -5289 2217 -11757 4747 ft) V (kips) 51 19 122 49 455 198 825 354

Table 8. Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Liquefaction Condition using Soil Profile 2 2-ft 2-ft 3-ft 3-ft 6-ft 6-ft 7-ft 7-ft Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed Free M (kips- -234 92 -815 330 -6341 2600 -10083 4182 ft) V (kips) 32 13 82 33 417 160 617 245

Table 9. Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Existing Condition using Soil Profile 3 2-ft Fixed 2-ft Free 3-ft Fixed 3-ft Free

M (kips-ft) -364 152 -1143 437

V (kips) 70 35 155 71

Table 10. Maximum Shear Force and Moments for Soil Erosion Condition using Soil Profile 3 2-ft Fixed 2-ft Free 3-ft Fixed 3-ft Free

M (kips-ft) -179 81 -715 311

V (kips) 17 8 60 -23

For pile groups where the center-to-center spacing is less than eight pile diameters in the direction of loading, the single pile capacities should be reduced. The Caltrans Amendment to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications recommends that a P-multiplier (Pm) be applied to the lateral capacity of individual piles to account for pile group reduction effects. Table 11 presents the Caltrans recommended Pm for the corresponding rows of piles within a group.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 6-4 SECTIONSIX Geotechnical Recommendations

Table 11. Drilled Pile P-Multiplier Reduction Factors for Pile Group Effects Group Efficiency Factor (P-Multiplier, Pm) Pile Center-to-Center Spacing (in the direction of loading) Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 and higher 2 x Pile Width/Diameter 0.60 0.35 0.25 (B) 3 B 0.75 0.55 0.4 5 B 1.0 0.85 0.7 7 B 1.0 1.0 0.9

Table 11 is based on Caltrans Amendments of AASHTO LRFD, Section 10.7.2.4. Row 1 refers to the leading row of piles in the direction of loading. We can provide lateral load analyses for pile groups when the specific arrangement, number, and spacing of piles have been established. If additional lateral capacity is needed beyond the lateral load capacity of the piles, we should be consulted to evaluate whether passive resistance against the pile caps or abutment walls can be utilized. Base friction cannot be mobilized for pile caps.

6.1.3 Pile Installation Drilled piles should be installed by a qualified contractor with demonstrated experience in this type of foundation construction. In order to minimize “necking” of the CIDH pile shaft due to yielding in the very soft Bay Mud, we recommend that temporary steel casing be installed; the casing should extend to a minimum embedment of Elevation 0 feet. The casing should be a minimum of 6 inches larger than the pile diameter. During tremie concrete placement, the casing should be withdrawn from the hole slowly as the concrete is being placed; a minimum head of concrete of 3 feet should be maintained in the casing at all times to prevent reduction of the diameter of drilled shaft due to earth and/or hydrostatic pressures on the fresh concrete. We expect that drilling fluid will be required to support the CIDH pile excavations. The Contractor may anticipate the need for rock coring due to the variable nature of the weathered bedrock encountered at the site. Concrete placement should start upon completion of the drilling and clean out. Concrete should be placed from the bottom up in a single operation using a tremie pipe. The tremie pipe should be maintained at least 5 feet below the upper surface of the concrete during casting of the piles. Care should be taken to prevent extraneous material from mixing with fresh concrete. We recommend the CIDH piles be installed under the direct observation of a representative of the URS on a full-time basis to allow us to compare actual with anticipated soil conditions and verify that the Contractors work conforms to the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications.

6.2 APPROACH EMBANKMENT EARTHWORK All earthworks should be completed in accordance with the applicable sections of the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Project Standard Special Provisions.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 6-5 SECTIONSIX Geotechnical Recommendations

6.3 APPROACH EMBANKMENT SETTLEMENT If new fill is needed to raise the grade of the approach embankment at this location, consolidation settlement of the Bay Mud will occur. The amount of the settlement depends on the thickness and density of the fill. We can perform the settlement analysis when the final grading information becomes available. Lightweight fill or EPS Geofoam blocks may be utilized to minimize surcharge loads and settlements. Alternatively, the Bay Mud may be excavated and replaced with compacted engineered fill.

6.4 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATIONS Safety standards set by OSHA limit the height of unshored vertical excavations to 5 feet if construction personnel will be working in the excavations. The set of guidelines published by OSHA (Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2001), classifies soils in detail as Type A, B or C. In general, Type A soils are stronger and more cohesive, Type B soils are intermediate, and Type C soils are weaker or more granular. Based on the soil type, depth, duration the excavation is open, and sequence of soils exposed in the excavation, OSHA recommends maximum allowable slopes. For example, for excavations 20 feet or less in depth through homogeneous soils, they state that maximum allowable slopes (horizontal to vertical) should be ¾:1, 1:1, and 1½:1 for Type A, B, and C soils, respectively. Based on the strengths of the soils encountered in our boring, the existing fills and the native sand strata are considered to be OSHA Type C. The guidelines provided by OSHA are for trench excavations; they state that there is uncertainty as to when and to what degree an employer must slope, shore, or otherwise protect employees in a “non-trench” excavation. In consideration of these factors, we recommend that temporary cut slopes in the existing embankment fills not exceed 1½:1 during construction. For locations where excavation with sloping sides is not viable because of space limitations or in areas where temporary slopes steeper than 1½:1 are planned, shoring will be required. The selection, design, construction, and performance of the temporary shoring system should be the responsibility of the contractor. The Contractor should retain an experienced Registered Civil Engineer to design the shoring system. We can provide the design parameters for the shoring system when the proposed shoring plans become available. We recommend that URS and the project Structural Engineer’s office review temporary shoring plans. In addition, we recommend a representative from our office observe the installation of the temporary shoring system.

6.5 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING The foundation elevations and locations are not finalized during the preparation of this report. On the basis of the field investigations, it is possible the groundwater could be encountered during pile cap excavation and dewatering system may be required.

6.6 EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK ON ADJACENT STRUCTURES Efforts should be made to minimize the effects of construction work on adjacent structures. If new foundation excavations and over-excavations are located in close proximity to existing

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 6-6 SECTIONSIX Geotechnical Recommendations railroad alignment, shoring could be required to minimize exposure of existing UPRR railroad foundations, if any and potential lateral movement of the railroad.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 6-7 SECTIONSEVEN Limitations

7. Section 7 SEVEN Limitations This geotechnical investigation was performed in accordance with the standard of care commonly used as state-of-practice in our profession. Specifically, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geological and geotechnical engineering profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either express or implied. The conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the indicated project criteria and data available at the time this report was prepared. Background information, design bases, and other data have been furnished to URS by third parties, which URS has used in preparing this report. URS has relied on this information as furnished, and is neither responsible for nor has confirmed the accuracy of this information. The conclusions presented in this report are intended only for the purpose, site location, and project indicated. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed in the site-specific exploratory borings. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified so that additional recommendations can be made, if necessary. URS should be informed of any changes that are made in the assumptions described in this report (such as the location and configuration of the proposed structures, and the design loads) so that additional recommendations may be provided, if necessary. We also recommend that URS be retained to observe the earthwork operations and foundation construction.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 7-1 SECTIONEIGHT References

8. Section 8 EIGHT References Bray and Sancio, 2006, Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, in press. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2007 Caltrans Deterministic PGA Map. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2008, Caltrans Memo to Designers dated July. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2009, Guidelines for Structures Foundation Reports, Version 2.0, dated March. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2010, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.6, dated December. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone revised official map of the Petaluma River quadrangle, scale 1: 24,000, January 1. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2001, Classification of Soils for Excavations ID-194. Graymer, R.W., Jones, D.L., and Brabb, E.E., 1994, Preliminary geologic map emphasizing bedrock formations in Contra Costa County, California: A digital database, U. S. Geological Survey OFR 94-622. Hart, E.W., 1975 (revised 1997), Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas with locations and ages of recent volcanic eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale 1: 750,000. LPILE, (2010), “Software for Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis,” Ensoft, Inc. Mualchin, L., 1996, California Seismic Hazard Map 1996, California Department of Transportation, Office of Earthquake Engineering. Page, B.M., 1981, The southern Coast Ranges, in The geotectonic development of California, Ernst, W.G. (ed.) Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 329-417. Parsons, T., Sliter, R., Geist, E.L., Jachens, R.C., Jaffe, B.E., Foxgrover, A., Hart, P.E., and McCarthy, J., 2003, Structure and Mechanics of the Hayward–Rodgers Creek Fault Step- Over, San Francisco Bay, California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; 93 (5), 2187-2200. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.113, No.8, pp.861-878. Toppozada, T.R. and Borchardt G., (1998), Re-Evaluation of the 1836 “Hayward Fault” and the 1838 San Andreas Fault Earthquakes, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 88(10), 140-159. URS Corporation and Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc., (2007), “Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) Phase 1 – Seismology,” Prepared for CA Dept. of Water Resources.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 8-1 SECTIONEIGHT References

Wentworth, C.M., 1997, Geologic materials of the San Francisco Bay Region, U. S. Geological Survey OFR 97-744, compiled from the work of Brabb (1989) , Ellen and Wentworth (1995) and Helley and Lajoie (1979) a digital database. Wilchek, L.A., 1994, Liquefaction Stability in Cohesionless Soils Using In-Situ Testing, University of British Columbia. Witter, R.C., Knudsen, K.L., Sowers, J.M., Wentworth, C.M., Koehler, R.D., Randolph, C.E., 2006, Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey OFR 2006-1037.

X:\X_GEO\EBRPD\EBRPD PINOLE SHORES TO BAY FRONT\08_REPORTS\8.1 FOUNDATION REPORT\URS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EBRPD BAY TRAIL PINOLE 012411.DOC 8-2 N

San Pablo Bay

Bay Front Park

Tennant Ave. Project Site

Union Pacif ic Railroad

Orleans Dr ington Northern Santa Fe Railway

Burl Pinon Dr Pinon

27560821 Figure Site Location Map East Bay Regional Park District 1 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Bay Front Park

Legend

Proposed Bridge Alignment San Pablo Bay CPT

Borings Qhbm Geologic contacts

B1 Geologic Units

Qhls--Historic Landslide B6 Afem--Artificial Fill over Estuarine Mud B2 Qhbm--Holocene Bay Mud Qmz--Pleistocene Montezuma Formation B3

Tut--Miocene Tuffaceous Sandstone (unnamed)

B5 B8

Afem

Likely UPRR Excavation

UPRR B9

Planar Bluff B10 Qhls Orleans Dr. Bench B11

Scalloped Bluff Qmz Dozer Trail Tut

BNSF RR

27560821 0 200 400 Feet Figure East Bay Regional Park District Site Geologic Map 2 Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Contour Interval = 2 feet N San Pablo Bay

Pinole Fault

Project Site

Tut

Qmz

Tmu

Hayward Fault

Tcgl—Conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone

Tut—Tuttaceous Sandstone

Tdl—Diatomite

Tsa—Sandstone 4 Miles

Tmu—Mudstone

Qmz—Montezuma Formation—sand, clay and gravel

From Graymer et al., 1994

27560821 Figure Regional Geologic Map East Bay Regional Park District 3 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park 122°50'0"W 121°40'0"W C H R M C unt S G r B Sacramento aac ee C ar i ng R T b a k- r Davis e m S o West Sacramento r B W B Winters vi a S u t e t l . rr r G l H a C e C o e y g r r e g r e e le s d e e n s C o k Dixon k a a a n f f - n a R a D V Northern o u y u r a l d l y zone fault Cordelia o t l t San Andreas Fault g n l Midland e Vacavillee r fa y s W Zone 38°20'0"N 38°20'0"N Cr u f G a es l t u e r e t e l t k en Thorton f N Fairfield a a u V Po Arch l p trero t a a P l K Zone f l Hi l i a e ls i t

y r u sb Rio Vista S N b Isleton l f t o o a y u r u u r t H t g Montezuma h l t h i - C e l l Hils oa r Briones L s o n s s M f Zone t Source R au M o e i e d l Pittsburg t d Zone L C Is an N l a o l o a . V a s/ f n Antioch nd n Ha a a c Concord d l y o Brentwood l r y e e L d f w t a a y W t s u a e F T Walnut Creek es r l r - Mt. Diablo - t d a aR er t u m n e p T l North l a t r i s a s z a c n y C t M f f i Mt. Diablo - a u c u a li id l ul l n South t Oakland l e W w t C e a s y a t f n e a Tracy Dublin s r u y a n l Project Site o Livermore t n T B S V osit r l San Andreas Fault . Pleasantone P a ac Hayward H r c k a o y y n Las f B w a a u N ul t S a W e . i a r ll t f d C ia a n m u a s l G l t a r v e e g r o a r s i P o e n f i M a n t u su Hayward O l F s t la oo o th Southeast Fa ill S. ul Th t ( ru Extension Ca bl st in f a u Zone la lt v er a s

37°10'0"N 37°10'0"N

Z a S ya a nt rg e- e V nt er f g au el l SAF - San Andreas Fault es t

122°50'0"W 121°40'0"W

105 0 10 Miles Faults with surface rupture Blind faults and zones

Fault Source: URS Seismic Source Model

Project No. 27560821 MAP OF MAJOR FAULTS IN THE Figure EBRPD - 4 Bayfront to SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Pinole Project W E 60

B-11 N75E N48E N62E Bend in Section Bend in Section Feet, NVGD 29 NVGD Feet, ? ? 30

B-10 UPRR B-4 B-3 B-2 B-6 B-1 B-9 B-8 B-5 ? Colluv/Alluv Fill ? Fill Bay Mud 0 Bay Mud Bay Mud ?

Tuff Sandstone ? ? ? ? ? -30 ? Sandstone and Siltstone ? ? ? ? Sandstone ? -60 ? ? ? Mudstone ?

? ?

-90 Sandstone ?

60'

2x Vertical Exaggeration = CPT Boring Cross Section follows proposed bridge alignment

27560821 Idealized Geologic Cross Section Figure East Bay Regional Park District Along Proposed Alignment 5 Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8 Spectral Acceleration (g) Spectral Acceleration

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Period (s)

Source: California Department of Transportation, 2010, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.6, dated Decemeber 2010

27560821 Figure 5%-Damped Design Spectrum East Bay Regional Park District 7 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Pile Capacity (kips) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0.0

2-feet6-feet 3-feet7-feet

6-feet2-feet 20.0 7-feet3-feet

40.0

60.0 Pile length (ft)

80.0

100.0

120.0

27560821 Ultimate CIDH Pile Compressive Capacity Figure East Bay Regional Park District (North of UPRR track ) 8 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Pile Capacity (kips) -200 300 800 1300 1800 0.0 2-feet

3-feet

6-feet

20.0 7-feet

40.0

60.0 Pile length (ft)

80.0

100.0

120.0

27560821 Ultimate CIDH Pile Compressive Capacity Figure East Bay Regional Park District (South of UPRR track) 9 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Pile Capacity (kips) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.0 2-feet

3-feet

2-feet with 10.0 erosion 3-feet with erosion

20.0

30.0

Pile length (ft) 40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

27560821 Ultimate CIDH Pile Compressive Capacity Figure East Bay Regional Park District (bench) 10 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Pile Capacity (kips) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.0

2-feet

3-feet

6-feet 20.0 7-feet

40.0

60.0 Pile length (ft)

80.0

100.0

120.0

27560821 Ultimate CIDH Pile Tensile Capacity Figure East Bay Regional Park District (North of UPRR track) 11 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Pile Capacity (kips) -200 300 800 1300 1800 0.0

2-feet

3-feet

20.0 6-feet 7-feet

40.0

60.0 Pile length (ft)

80.0

100.0

120.0

27560821 Ultimate CIDH Pile Tensile Capacity Figure East Bay Regional Park District (South of UPRR track) 12 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park Pile Capacity (kips) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0.0 2-feet

3-feet

2-feet with 10.0 erosion 3-feet with erosion

20.0

30.0

Pile length (ft) 40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

27560821 Ultimate CIDH Pile Tensile Capacity Figure East Bay Regional Park District (bench ) 13 —Pinole Shores to Bay Front Park

Appendix A Logs of Soil Borings

Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Key to Log of Soil Boring Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 1 of 1

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf Depth, feet Number Sampling Resistance Recovery, % Graphic Log Elevation feet Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation: Elevation in feet referenced to specified datum. 8 Material Description: Description of material encountered; may include density/consistency, moisture, color, and grain size. 2 Depth: Depth in feet below the ground surface. 9 Water Content: Water content of soil sample measured in 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at depth interval laboratory, expressed as percentage of dry weight of specimen. shown; sampler symbols are explained below. 10 Dry Unit Weight: Dry weight per unit volume of soil measured 4 Sample Number: Sample identification number. in laboratory, expressed in pounds per cubic feet (pcf). 5 Sampling Resistance: Number of blows required to advance 11 Unconfined Compressive Strength: Unconfined compressive driven sampler each 6-inch drive interval, or distance noted, strength of soil sample measured in laboratory, expressed in psf. using a 140-lb hammer with a 30-inch drop; or down-pressure for pushed sampler. 12 Remarks and Other Tests: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. 6 Recovery: Percentage of driven or pushed sample length Other field and lab test results, using the following abbreviations: recovered; "NA" indicates data not recorded. LL Liquid Limit (from Atterberg Limits test), percent 7 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of subsurface material PI Plastic Limit (from Atterberg Limits test), percent encountered; typical symbols are explained below. PP/TV Pocket penetrometer / torvane field consistency test SA Sieve analysis, percent passing #200 sieve TX-UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test, confining pressure and peak deviator stress, psf

TYPICAL MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

POORLY GRADED POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT SILTY SAND (SM) CLAYEY SAND (SC) SAND (SP) (SP-SM)

WELL-GRADED SAND (SW) LEAN CLAY (CL) FAT CLAY (CH) SILTY CLAY (CL)

GRAVEL (GP/GW) SILT (ML) ELASTIC SILT (MH) CLAYEY SILT (ML)

TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

Standard Penetration Shelby tube (3-inch OD, First water encountered at time of drilling Test (SPT) unlined split and sampling (ATD) spoon thin-wall, fixed head) Static water level measured after drilling and Modified California Pitcher barrel with sampling completed (2-inch ID), lined Shelby tube liner Change in material properties within a layer

California (2.5-inch ID) Bulk / grab sample split barrel Inferred or gradational contact

GENERAL NOTES 1. Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive; actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2. Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK_KEY; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 keybayfront Figure A-1 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-6 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 1 of 2

Date(s) Drilled 10/28/10 Logged By B. Kozlowicz Checked By P. Meymand Drilling Drill Bit Total Depth Method Mud Rotary Size/Type 4-7/8-inch drag bit of Borehole 61.0 feet Drill Rig Drilling Approx. Ground Type CME-850 (track) Contractor Gregg Drilling & Testing Surface Elevation 9 feet (NGVD 29) Groundwater Sampling Hammer Automatic trip hammer; Level(s) Not measured Method(s) SPT Data 140 lbs, 30-inch drop Borehole Borehole Backfill Neat cement grout Location Approx. 4 ft north of CPT B-2, north of UPRR

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 0 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log SANDY LEAN to FAT CLAY (CL/CH), medium stiff, wet, light olive Start drilling at 10:50. brown (2.5Y 5/3); 55% medium plasticity fines, 45% fine-grained sand, trace black organics [FILL]

5 2 Sample at 11:05. 5 S01 2 56 4 With layers of black organics and coarse-grained sand

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), very soft, wet [BAY MUD] (as observed in adjacent CPT B-2) At 8 ft, seam of coarse-grained sand 0 and shell hash POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), wet, very dark greenish gray observed in cuttings. 10 7 Sample at 11:25. S02 17 100 (10GY 3/1); fine-grained sand [BAY SAND] 22.0 105.0 4320 Test performed on 27 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dense, wet, light disturbed sample olive brown (2.5Y 5/4); 90% fine-grained sand, 10% low plasticity from SPT sampler. fines [WEATHERED SANDSTONE]

SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH), hard, wet, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3); -5 55% medium plasticity fines, 45% fine-grained sand, trace black organics, trace orange oxidation streaks, silty chips up to 1/4 inch Sample at 11:35. 15 8 S03 17 78 [WEATHERED SILTSTONE] LL=66, PI=25 19

SANDY SILT (ML), hard, wet, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3); 70% low -10 plasticity fines, 30% fine-grained sand, abundant orange oxidation streaks [WEATHERED SILTSTONE] 20 10 Sample at 11:50. S04 14 100 33.2 89.6 4500 Test performed on 18 disturbed sample from SPT sampler.

Hole sloughing at 8-10 ft. Refill water tender at 12:25. SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL (ML), hard, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); -15 60% low plasticity fines, 25% fine-grained sand, 15% angular rock 17 fragments to 1 inch, trace orange oxidation streaks, trace tan silt Sample at 13:15. 25 S05 19 67 laminations [SILTSTONE] 21

SANDY SILT (ML), hard, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); 55% nonplastic fines, -20 45% fine-grained sand, trace orange oxidation streaks [SILTSTONE] Two-inch-thick zone of SILTY SAND (SM), 80% fine-grained sand Sample at 13:40. 30 S06 10 94

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-06 Figure A-2 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-6 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 2 of 2

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log 30 14 S06 94 SANDY SILT (ML), hard, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); 55% nonplastic fines, 20 45% fine-grained sand, trace orange oxidation streaks [SILTSTONE] (continued)

SILTY SAND (SM), dense, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); 80% fine-grained -25 sand, 20% nonplastic fines, trace oxidation streaks [SANDSTONE] 35 12 Sample at 14:00. S07 19 89 27.1 97.0 1410 Test performed on 31 disturbed sample from SPT sampler.

-30 Becomes very dense 16 Sample at 14:20. 40 S08 25 94 36

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), very dense, wet, olive (5Y 4/4); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 10% nonplastic -35 fines, subangular to subrounded grains, trace orange oxidation 15 [SANDSTONE] Sample at 14:50. 45 S09 26 83 34

-40 Grades coarser, with 15% fine rounded gravel (possibly slough) Possibly slough. 50 8 Sample at 15:10. S10 21 67 SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, olive (5Y 5/4); 65% fine-grained 36 sand, 35% nonplastic fines, steeply dipping orange oxidation laminations [SANDSTONE]

-45 18 Sample at 15:30. 55 S11 23 72 37

-50 Trace fine gravel, abundant irregular orange oxidation surfaces 11 Sample at 15:50. 60 S12 26 83 50 TOTAL DEPTH = 61.0 feet bgs

-55 65

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-06 Figure A-2 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-8 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 1 of 3

Date(s) Drilled 10/29/10 Logged By B. Kozlowicz Checked By P. Meymand Drilling Drill Bit Total Depth Method Mud Rotary Size/Type 4-7/8-inch drag bit of Borehole 100.0 feet Drill Rig Drilling Approx. Ground Type CME-850 (track) Contractor Gregg Drilling & Testing Surface Elevation 10 feet (NGVD 29) Groundwater Sampling Hammer Automatic trip hammer; Level(s) Not measured Method(s) Modified California, SPT Data 140 lbs, 30-inch drop Borehole Borehole Backfill Neat cement grout Location Approx. 35 ft west of CPT B-5, north of UPRR

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 10 0 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log SANDY SILT (ML), very soft, wet, dark olive brown (2.5Y 3/3); Start drilling at 08:20. 55% low plasticity fines, 45% fine- to medium-grained sand, mottled with black organics and orange oxidation [FILL]

5 5 1 Sample at 08:42. Decreasing sand content S01 1 61 LL=29, PI=6 1

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), very soft, wet dark gray (N 4/) [BAY MUD]

0 10 0 Sample at 08:50. S02 2 89 9 SILTY SAND (SM), loose, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); 80% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 20% nonplastic fines, angular to subrounded grains, abundant orange oxidation, trace organics [WEATHERED SANDSTONE]

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), very dense, wet, -5 15 olive (5Y 4/4); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 10% nonplastic 13 fines, abundant orange oxidation [TUFF SANDSTONE] Sample at 09:00. S03 23 83 30

-10 20 Becomes dense, strong brown (7.5YR 4/6); 90% fine- to 12 coarse-grained sand, subangular to subrounded grains, angular Sample at 09:20. S04 21 83 medium- to coarse-grained sand-size white pumice fragments, 28 ~30° bedding dip

-15 25 13 Sample at 09:40. S05 20 94 29

-20 30

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-08 Figure A-3 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-8 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 2 of 3

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf -20 30 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log 14 SILTY SAND (SM), dense, wet, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4); Sample at 09:53. S06 18 89 80% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 20% nonplastic fines, trace fine 26 subangular to subrounded gravel, fine pumice clasts; olive (5Y 5/3) below 31.5 ft [TUFF SANDSTONE]

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), very dense, wet, olive (5Y 4/3); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 10% nonplastic fines [SANDSTONE] -25 35 22 Sample at 10:05. S07 40 71 50/5"

-30 40 Becomes olive gray (5Y 4/2); sand grades fine- to 21 coarse-grained, subangular to subrounded grains Sample at 10:20. S08 35 83 35

-35 45 2 Sample at 10:38. S09 28 67 30

SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); 70% fine-grained sand, 30% nonplastic fines, trace silt clasts and fine angular gravel, orange oxidation mottling and laminations, ~40° bedding dip -40 50 16 [SANDSTONE] Sample at 10:53. S10 33 94 32

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), very dense, wet, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6); 85% fine- to coarse-grained sand subangular to rounded grains, 15% fine subangular to rounded -45 55 18 gravel [SANDSTONE] S11 83 Sample at 11:10. 50/6" Increasing gravel with depth

SANDY SILT (ML), hard, moist, olive (5Y 5/4); 60% nonplastic fines, 40% fine-grained sand, abundant oxidation mottling and oxidation laminations dipping ~40° [SILTSTONE] -50 60 5 Sample at 11:25. S12 15 83 4-inch-thick lens of medium-grained sand 39

-55 65

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 65 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log SANDY SILT (ML), hard, moist, olive (5Y 5/4); 60% nonplastic fines, 40% fine-grained sand, abundant oxidation mottling and oxidation laminations dipping ~40° [SILTSTONE] (continued)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH), hard, dark greenish gray (5G 4/1); Cuttings greenish 80% high plasticity fines, 20% fine-grained sand [MUDSTONE gray and clayey. Sample at 11:52. -60 70 26 S13 83 TX-UU: 50/6" 19.3 109.0 Peak Deviator Stress=9110 psf Confining Pressure=2240 psf

-65 75

Easier drilling; cuttings less green, more gray.

Light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 25% fine-grained sand Sample at 12:17. -70 80 20 TX-UU: S14 50 72 22.2 105.1 Peak Deviator 50 Stress=3870 psf Confining Pressure=2560 psf

-75 85

-80 90 S15 50/1" 0 Sample at 12:50; minimal recovery.

-85 95

TX-UU: Peak Deviator 38 Stress=7330 psf S16 45 100 Confining TOTAL DEPTH = 100.0 feet bgs 27.4 96.5 Pressure=3200 psf -90 100 50/5"

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-08 Figure A-3 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-9 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 1 of 4

Date(s) Drilled 11/9/10 - 11/10/10 Logged By B. Kozlowicz Checked By P. Meymand Drilling Drill Bit Total Depth Method Mud Rotary Size/Type 3-7/8-inch drag bit of Borehole 101.0 feet Drill Rig Drilling Approx. Ground Type Fraste Multidrill XL (track) Contractor Pitcher Drilling Co. Surface Elevation 11 feet (NGVD 29) Groundwater Sampling Hammer Automatic trip hammer; Level(s) Not measured Method(s) Bulk, Modified California, SPT Data 140 lbs, 30-inch drop Borehole Borehole Backfill Neat cement grout Location South of UPRR, refer to site map

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Depth, feet Elevation feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 0 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log SILTY SAND (SM), loose, moist, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) to dark olive Start drilling on brown (2.5Y 3/3); 60% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 30% nonplastic 11/9/10 at 12:40. 10 fines, 10% fine subrounded gravel, black organics, fine roots Hand auger to 5 ft. [FILL/COLLUVIUM] Collect bulk sample from auger cuttings S01 2-4.5 ft.

5 Set up mud rotary 5 at 13:00.

SANDY SILT (ML), very soft to soft, wet, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2); 70% medium plasticity fines, 30% fine-grained sand [BAY MUD]

Sample at 13:20. 10 0 S02 0 67 LL=46, PI=14 0 3 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), very dense, wet, olive brown (2.5Y 4/4); 90% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 10% nonplastic fines [TUFF(?) SANDSTONE]

14 Sample at 13:40. 15 S03 18 94 -5 25

SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); 60% fine- to Easier drilling. medium-grained sand, 40% nonplastic fines, abundant white pumice clasts [TUFF SANDSTONE] Sample at 13:54. 20 4 S04 6 100 SA: 38%<#200 -10 7

Becomes dense, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2); 80% fine- to 25 14 coarse-grained sand, 20% nonplastic fines, trace fine gravel, Sample at 14:13. S05 19 100 abundant oxidation -15 26

Becomes light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) Sample at 14:29. 30 S06 13 100

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-09 Figure A-4 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-9 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 2 of 4

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log 30 15 S06 100 SILTY SAND (SM), dense, wet, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3); 23 80% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 20% nonplastic fines, abundant -20 white pumice clasts and oxidation [TUFF SANDSTONE] (continued)

SILTY SAND (SM), dense, wet, olive (5Y 5/4); 60% fine-grained sand, 40% low plasticity fines, oxidation laminations [SANDSTONE]

16 Sample at 14:53. 35 S07 22 100 26 -25 FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH), hard, moist, dark greenish gray (5G 4/1); 85% high plasticity fines, 15% fine-grained sand [MUDSTONE]

Sample at 15:10. 40 21 S08 36 100 22.0 105.5 TX-UU: -30 50 Peak Deviator Stress=10990 psf Confining Pressure=1280 psf

45 -35

27 Sample at 15:50. 50 S09 92 50/5.5" 18.8 110.0 TX-UU: -40 Peak Deviator Stress=6650 psf Confining Pressure=1600 psf

55 -45 Observe brown silt in SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, olive (5Y 4/3); 55% fine-grained cuttings. sand, 45% low plasticity fines, oxidation laminations, occasional clayey beds to 3/4 inch thick [SANDSTONE] Very hard, white cuttings 57-59 ft.

20 Sample at 16:08. 60 S10 33 94 -50 45

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 65 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, olive (5Y 4/3), clayey interbeds -55 [SANDSTONE] (continued) FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH), hard, moist, dark greenish gray Observe green clay (5G 4/1); 85% high plasticity fines, 15% fine-grained sand in cuttings. [MUDSTONE]

Sample at 16:38. 70 16 S11 29 89 25.5 100.0 TX-UU: -60 35 Peak Deviator Stress=2710 psf Confining Pressure=2240 psf

75 -65

Drill to 79.5 ft, then end for 11/9/10. Resume on 11/10/10. 80 S12 50/6" 67 Sample at 07:53. -70

85 -75

90 Observe green mudstone or clay in -80 cuttings; hard drilling.

Easier drilling; brown POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), very dense, olive silty sand in cuttings. (5Y 4/4); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 10% low plasticity fines 25 [SANDSTONE] S13 100 Sample at 08:25. 50/6"

95 -85

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM), very dense, olive gray (5Y 4/2); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 15% angular to rounded clasts, 10% fines [SANDSTONE] Sample at 08:50. 100 S14 40 NA

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-09 Figure A-4 Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-09 Project Number:27560821 Project Location:BayfrontPark,Pinole,CA Project: EBRPD-BayfronttoPinoleProject -120 -115 -110 -105 -100 -95 -90 Elevation feet 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 Depth, feet Type S14

Number SA MPLES

36 36 Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. NA Recovery, %

Graphic Log TOTA (continued) cry 15% angulartoroundedchert,siltstone/mudstone,andcalcite dense, olivegray(5Y4/2);90%fine-tomedium-grainedsand, POORLY GRADEDSANDW stals to1/4inch,10%lowplasticityfines[SANDSTONE] L DEPTH=101.0feetbgs MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ITH SILTANDGRAVEL(SP-SM),very Log ofSoilBoringB-9 Sheet 4of Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf REMA OTHER TESTS Figure A RKS A -4 ND Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-10 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 1 of 3

Date(s) Drilled 11/10/10 Logged By B. Kozlowicz Checked By P. Meymand Drilling Drill Bit Total Depth Method Mud Rotary Size/Type 3-7/8-inch drag bit of Borehole 100.0 feet Drill Rig Drilling Approx. Ground Type Fraste Multidrill XL (track) Contractor Pitcher Drilling Co. Surface Elevation 12 feet (NGVD 29) Groundwater Sampling Hammer Automatic trip hammer; Level(s) Not measured Method(s) Bulk, Modified California, SPT Data 140 lbs, 30-inch drop Borehole Borehole Backfill Neat cement grout Location Approx. 110 ft west of B-9, south of UPRR

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 0 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log SILTY SAND (SM), loose, moist, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) to dark Start drilling at 10:45. olive brown (2.5Y 3/3); 50% fine- to medium-grained sand, Hand auger to 5 ft. 40% nonplastic to medium plasticity fines, 10% fine gravel and rock fragments, black organics, fine roots [FILL/COLLUVIUM] 10 Collect bulk sample from auger cuttings S01 2.5-4.5 ft.

5 Set up mud rotary.

5 CLAYEY SAND (SC), very loose, wet, very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1); 50% fine- to medium-grained sand, 45% medium plasticity fines, 5% fine gravel, fine roots, black organics [BAY MUD]

Sample at 11:24. 10 0 S02 0 94 SA: 42%<#200 0

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM), medium dense, wet, olive (5Y 4/3); 70% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 20% fine subangular to subrounded gravel, 10% nonplastic fines [WEATHERED SANDSTONE] Sample at 11:34. 15 5 S03 4 56 SA: 12%<#200 9

-5

SILTY SAND (SM), dense, wet, olive (5Y 4/4); 70% fine- to medium-grained sand, 30% low plasticity fines; decreasing fines with depth [TUFF SANDSTONE] 6 Sample at 11:43. 20 S04 11 61 21

-10

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dense, wet, olive (5Y 4/4); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 10% nonplastic fines [TUFF SANDSTONE] 11 Sample at 11:56. 25 S05 21 67 25

-15

SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, wet, olive (5Y 5/6); 70% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 15% nonplastic fines, 15% pumice fragments [TUFF SANDSTONE] Sample at 12:08. 30 S06 6 94

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-10 Figure A-5 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-10 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 2 of 3

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log 30 12 S06 94 SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, wet, olive (5Y 5/6); 70% fine- to 14 coarse-grained sand, 15% nonplastic fines, 15% pumice fragments [TUFF SANDSTONE] (continued) Drillers break for lunch and to get -20 Bobcat.

Sample at 13:20. 35 7 S07 10 100 SA: 17%<#200 14 Trace fine subangular gravel to 3/4 inch Rounded gravel to 3/4 in. in cuttings. -25 Smoother drilling. SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), very stiff, olive (5Y 5/4); 70% medium plasticity fines, 30% fine-grained sand, oxidation mottling and laminations [MUDSTONE]

5 Sample at 13:30. 40 S08 7 89 10

-30

Olive clay grades to FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH), hard, very dark greenish gray green 43-44 ft. (5G 3/1); 80% high plasticity fines, 20% fine-grained sand [MUDSTONE] Sample at 13:40. 45 3 S09 14 64 33.4 90.3 TX-UU: 23 Peak Deviator Stress=2630 psf -35 Confining Pressure=1440 psf

-40

-45

Sample at 14:00. 60 24 S10 26 89 23.4 103.5 TX-UU: 37 Peak Deviator Stress=9000 psf -50 Confining Pressure=1920 psf

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 65 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH), hard, very dark greenish gray (5G 3/1); 80% high plasticity fines, 20% fine-grained sand [MUDSTONE] (continued) -55

Sample at 14:40. 70 16 S11 20 78 26.7 97.8 TX-UU: 27 Peak Deviator Stress=3200 psf -60 Confining Pressure=2240 psf

-65

Sample at 15:00. 80 28 S12 40 100 22.6 103.6 TX-UU: 43 Peak Deviator Stress=13310 psf -70 Confining Pressure=2560 psf

-75

90 No sample; cuttings same as above.

-80 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), very dense, olive Olive silty sand (5Y 4/3); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 10% nonplastic fines observed in cuttings. [SANDSTONE]

-85

27 S13 37 NA 100 46 TOTAL DEPTH = 100.0 feet bgs

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-10 Figure A-5 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-11 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 1 of 2

Date(s) Drilled 12/13/10 Logged By B. Kozlowicz Checked By P. Meymand Drilling Drill Bit Total Depth Method Solid-Stem Auger Size/Type 4-inch rock bit of Borehole 40.0 feet Drill Rig Drilling Approx. Ground Type Mobile Drill Minuteman 8.5-HP Contractor Access Drilling Surface Elevation 42 feet (NGVD 29) Groundwater Sampling Hammer Slide hammer; Level(s) Not encountered Method(s) SPT Data 140 lbs, 30-inch drop Borehole Borehole Backfill Neat cement grout Location On east end of bench, refer to site map

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 0 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log CLAYEY SAND (SC), loose, moist, dark brown; 60% fine-grained sand, 40% medium plasticity fines, trace organics and fines roots CLAYEY SAND (SC), medium dense, moist, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3); 40 60% fine-grained sand, 40% medium plasticity fines [COLLUVIUM]

7 Sample at 10:33. S01 9 100 5 10

35 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), very stiff, moist, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3); 70% medium plasticity fines, 30% fine-grained sand, 9 trace coarse-grained sand and fine angular gravel, trace black Sample at 10:52. S02 11 100 organics and oxidation, subhorizontal dark and light brown laminations [COLLUVIUM] 10 12

30 SILTY SAND (SM), dense, dry, light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3); Harder drilling; chert 80% fine-grained sand, 20% low plasticity fines, trace fine fragments in cuttings. 12 subangular chert gravel, trace oxidation Sample at 11:11. S03 19 100 [WEATHERED SANDSTONE] 15 25

25 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), medium dense, dry, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 11 10% low plasticity fines, subangular to subrounded grains, trace Sample at 11:32. S04 14 94 pumice fragments [TUFF SANDSTONE] SA: 10%<#200 20 16

Becomes dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4); trace pumice 13 fragments and fine rounded gravel, ~45° bedding dip Sample at 11:55. S05 17 83 25 17

15 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), dense, moist, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4); 95% fine-grained sand, 5% nonplastic fines, massive 16 [SANDSTONE] Sample at 12:25. S06 20 89 30 23

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-11 Figure A-6 Project: EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project Log of Soil Boring B-11 Project Location: Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Project Number: 27560821 Sheet 2 of 2

SAMPLES

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Elevation feet Depth, feet Water Content, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf 30 Type Number Sampling Resistance, blows / 6 in. Recovery, % Graphic Log POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), dense, moist, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4); 95% fine-grained sand, 5% nonplastic fines, massive [SANDSTONE] (continued) 10 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dense, moist, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6); 90% fine- to medium-grained sand, 10% low 16 plasticity fines, trace pumice fragments, ~40% bedding or lamination Sample at 12:51. S07 20 100 dip [TUFF SANDSTONE] 35 22

5 CLAYEY SAND (SC), very dense, wet, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4); 80% fine- to coarse-grained sand, 20% medium plasticity fines, trace 14 pumice fragments, oxidation [TUFF SANDSTONE] Sample at 13:25. S08 21 NA 40 32 TOTAL DEPTH = 40.0 feet bgs

-5

-10

-15

-20

Report: GEO_10B1_OAK; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-11 Figure A-6

Appendix B Cone Penetration Test Results

GREGG DRILLING & TESTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES

September 14, 2010

URS Attn: Phil Meymand 1333 Broadway Ste 800 Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: CPT Site Investigation EBRPD - Pinole Pinole, CA GREGG Project Number: 10-128MA

Dear Mr. Meymand:

The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling & Testing’s Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed:

1 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU) 2 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD) 3 Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU) 4 UVOST Laser Induced Fluorescence (UVOST) 5 Groundwater Sampling (GWS) 6 Soil Sampling (SS) 7 Vapor Sampling (VS) 8 Pressuremeter Testing (PMT) 9 Vane Shear Testing (VST) 10 Dilatometer Testing (DMT)

A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (925) 313-5800.

Sincerely, GREGG Drilling & Testing, Inc.

Mary Walden Operations Manager

950 Howe Rd • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 OTHER OFFICES: LOS ANGELES • HOUSTON www.greggdrilling.com

GREGG DRILLING & TESTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES

Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary

-Table 1-

CPT Sounding Date Termination Depth Depth of Groundwater Depth of Soil Samples Depth of Pore Pressure Identification (Feet) Samples (Feet) (Feet) Dissipation Tests (Feet)

B-1 9/3/10 36 - - 20.3, 35.9 B-2 9/3/10 35 - - - B-3 9/3/10 17 - - - B-4 9/3/10 13.5 - - - B-5 9/3/10 20 - - 12.5

950 Howe Rd • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 OTHER OFFICES: LOS ANGELES • HOUSTON www.greggdrilling.com

GREGG DRILLING & TESTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES

Bibliography

Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice” E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750, 1997

Roberston, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 1990 pp. 151-158.

Mayne, P.W., “NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization”, available through www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112.

Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, 1986 pp. 791-803.

Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539-550.

Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, “Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing”, Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47.

Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, “Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater Contamination Studies”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, 1990 pp. 557-567.

DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, “Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques”, International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998.

Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, “Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT”, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000.

Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, “Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers” BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings, 1992, pp 299-312.

Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org

950 Howe Rd • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 OTHER OFFICES: LOS ANGELES • HOUSTON www.greggdrilling.com

Appendix C Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATA

Sample Information Sieve Atterberg Limits UU Triaxial In Situ In Situ Boring Sample Depth, Elevation, USCS Water Dry Unit Gravel, Sand, <#200, Unconfined Peak Confining Number Number feet feet MSL Group Content, Weight, % % % LL PL PI Compressive Deviator Pressure, Symbol % pcf Strength, psf Stress, psf psf

B-6 S02 9.5-11 -1.0 SP-SM 22.0 105.0 4320

B-6 S03 14.5-16 -6.0 MH 66 41 25

B-6 S04 19.5-21 -11.0 ML 33.2 89.6 4500

B-6 S07 34.5-36 -26.0 SM 27.1 97.0 1410

B-8 S01 5.5-6 4.5 ML 29 23 6

B-8 S13 70.5-71 -60.5 CH 19.3 109.0 9110 2240

B-8 S14 80.5-81 -70.5 CH 22.2 105.1 3870 2560

B-8 S16 99.5-100 -89.4 CH 27.4 96.5 7330 3200

B-9 S02 9.5-11 1.0 ML 46 32 14

B-9 S04 19.5-21 -9.0 SM 0 62 38

B-9 S08 40-40.5 -29.0 CH 22.0 105.5 10990 1280

B-9 S09 50-50.5 -39.0 CH 18.8 110.0 6650 1600

B-9 S11 70-70.5 -59.0 CH 25.5 100.0 2710 2240

B-10 S02 9.5-11 2.0 SC 7 51 42

B-10 S03 14.5-16 -3.0 SP-SM 19 69 12

B-10 S07 34.5-36 -23.0 SM 2 81 17

B-10 S09 45-45.5 -33.0 CH 33.4 90.3 2630 1440

B-10 S10 60-60.5 -48.0 CH 23.4 103.5 9000 1920

B-10 S11 70-70.5 -58.0 CH 26.7 97.8 3200 2240

B-10 S12 80-80.5 -68.0 CH 22.6 103.6 13310 2560

B-11 S04 18.5-20 23.0 SP-SM 1 89 10

NOTE: The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the following standards: Water Content - ASTM Test Method D2216 Dry Unit Weight - ASTM Test Method D2937 Particle Size Distribution Analysis by Mechanical Sieving - ASTM Test Method D422 (-#200 by ASTM D1140) Atterberg Limits - ASTM Test Method D4318 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil (in psf) - ASTM Test Method D2166 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test (TX-UU) - ASTM Test Method D2850

EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project

Report SOIL_1_PORTRAIT_SA_AL_UCUU; OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 01/19/2011 Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA Sheet 1 of 1 80

CH or OH

50 "A" LINE

CL or OL

PLASTICITY INDEX, PI 30

MH or OH

10 CL-ML ML or OL

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT, LL

Boring Sample Depth Test Water Number Number (feet) Symbol Content (%) LL PL PI Classification

B-6 S03 14.5-16 66 41 25 Sandy Elastic Silt (MH)

B-8 S01 5.5-6 29 23 6 Sandy Silt (ML)

B-9 S02 9.5-11 46 32 14 Sandy Silt (ML)

EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project PLASTICITY CHART Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA

Report: ATTERBERG_PLOT_8 PTS HWC; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-09 27560821 Figure B-1 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine COBBLES BOULDERS

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 12 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT PASSING PERCENT RETAINED 30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

Boring Sample Depth Symbol %G %S %F Classification Number Number (feet)

B-9 S04 19.5-21 0 62 38 Silty Sand (SM)

B-10 S02 9.5-11 7 51 42 Clayey Sand (SC)

B-10 S03 14.5-16 19 69 12 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM)

B-10 S07 34.5-36 2 81 17 Silty Sand (SM)

B-11 S04 18.5-20 1 89 10 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

EBRPD - Bayfront to Pinole Project PARTICLE SIZE Bayfront Park, Pinole, CA DISTRIBUTION CURVES

Report: SIEVE_5_CURVES_SNA_GSF; File: OAK_BAYFRONT.GPJ; 1/19/2011 B-11 27560821 Figure B-2

This page left blank intentionally.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX G

NOISE MONITORING DATA SHEETS

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: PINOLE SHORES TO BAYFRONT PARK PROJECT JULY 2011 APPENDICES

APPENDIX H

AIR QUALITY MODELING

This page left blank intentionally.

P:\Shanna's Projects_All Active\PinoleShores(URS1001)\CEQA\Appendices\Pinole_AppendicesDividers.doc (7/13/2011) Road Construction Emissions Model Version 6.3.2 Data Entry Worksheet Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background. Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. The user is required to enter information in cells C10 through C25.

Input Type Project Name Pinole Shores EIR

Enter a Year between 2005 and Construction Start Year 2013 2025 (inclusive)

Project Type 1 New Road Construction 1 2 Road Widening To begin a new project, click this button to clear 3 Bridge/Overpass Construction data previously entered. This button will only work if you opted not to disable macros when Project Construction Time 8.9 months loading this spreadsheet. Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1. Sand Gravel 1 2. Weathered Rock-Earth 3. Blasted Rock Project Length 0.5 miles Total Project Area 3.0 acres Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.3 acres 1. Yes 2. Water Trucks Used? 1 No 3 Soil Imported 730.0 yd /day 3 Soil Exported 0.0 yd /day Average Truck Capacity 14.6 yd3 (assume 20 if unknown)

The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional.

Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells C34 through C37.

Program User Override of Calculated Construction Periods Construction Months Months 2005 % 2006 % 2007 % Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation 1.50 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 6.25 3.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving 0.10 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 8.85 8.85

Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells C45 through C46.

Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of User Input Soil Hauling Defaults Default Values Miles/round trip 30 Round trips/day 50 Vehicle miles traveled/day (calculated) 1500

Hauling Emissions ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Emission rate (grams/mile) 0.84 10.25 5.45 0.40 0.33 1874.76 Emission rate (grams/trip) 10.32 7.57 172.85 0.01 0.01 199.87 Pounds per day 5.1 35.5 56.1 1.3 1.1 6238.2 Tons per contruction period 0.08 0.59 0.93 0.02 0.02 102.93

Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells C60 through C65.

User Override of Worker Worker Commute Emissions Commute Default Values Default Values Miles/ one-way trip 20 One-way trips/day 2 No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 8.00 4 No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 8.00 6 No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 12.00 6 No. of employees: Paving 10.00 5

ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Emission rate - Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.118 0.211 2.201 0.033 0.018 426.660 Emission rate - Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.118 0.211 2.201 0.033 0.018 426.660 Emission rate - Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (gr/mile) 0.118 0.211 2.201 0.033 0.018 426.660 Emission rate - Paving (grams/mile) 0.118 0.211 2.201 0.033 0.018 426.660 Emission rate - Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.746 0.316 7.305 0.130 0.013 192.690 Emission rate - Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.746 0.316 7.305 0.130 0.013 192.690 Emission rate - Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (gr/trip) 0.746 0.316 7.305 0.130 0.013 192.690 Emission rate - Paving (grams/trip) 0.746 0.316 7.305 0.130 0.013 192.690 Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.136 0.171 2.066 0.032 0.014 314.311 Tons per const. Period - Grub/Land Clear 0.001 0.002 0.023 0.000 0.000 3.457 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.136 0.171 2.066 0.032 0.014 314.311 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.002 0.003 0.034 0.001 0.000 5.186 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.136 0.171 2.066 0.032 0.014 314.311 Tons per const. Period - Drain/Util/Sub-Grade 0.009 0.012 0.142 0.002 0.001 21.609 Pounds per day - Paving 0.157 0.171 2.066 0.032 0.014 389.494 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.428 tons per construction period 0.013 0.017 0.201 0.003 0.001 30.681

Water truck default values can be overriden in cells C91 through C93 and E91 through E93.

Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Miles Traveled/Day Miles Traveled/Day Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 140 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 140 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 140 ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Emission rate - Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.84 10.25 5.45 0.40 0.33 1874.76 Emission rate - Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.84 10.25 5.45 0.40 0.33 1874.76 Emission rate - Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (gr/mile) 0.84 10.25 5.45 0.40 0.33 1874.76 Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.07 0.90 0.48 0.04 0.03 165.18 Tons per const. Period - Grub/Land Clear 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.73 Pound per day - Grading/Excavation 0.07 0.90 0.48 0.04 0.03 165.18 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.73 Pound per day - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.07 0.90 0.48 0.04 0.03 165.18 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 11.36

Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells C110 through C112.

Fugitive Dust User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.3 3.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.3 3.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 Off-Road Equipment Emissions

Default Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Off-Highway Trucks 0.78 2.28 6.42 0.23 0.21 976.95 3.00 Other Construction Equipment 0.22 1.13 1.50 0.12 0.11 172.67 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 1.13 5.00 9.63 0.40 0.37 934.34 1.00 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.27 1.35 2.05 0.12 0.11 229.43 0.00 1 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 2.4 9.8 19.6 0.9 0.8 2313.4 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 25.4

Default Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Off-Highway Trucks 1.56 4.56 12.83 0.45 0.42 1953.90 4.00 0 Other Construction Equipment 0.29 1.50 2.00 0.16 0.15 230.22 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Rollers 0.25 1.03 1.59 0.14 0.13 149.93 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Rubber Tired Dozers 1.13 5.00 9.63 0.40 0.37 934.34 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.27 1.35 2.05 0.12 0.11 229.43 0.00 1 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grading/Excavation pounds per day 3.5 13.5 28.1 1.3 1.2 3497.8 Grading tons per phase 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 57.7

Default Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Air Compressors 0.01 0.34 0.51 0.05 0.04 48.81 1.00 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.14 0.58 1.23 0.04 0.03 328.35 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Cranes 0.25 0.87 2.34 0.09 0.08 295.86 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Excavators 0.09 0.49 0.65 0.04 0.03 82.10 1.00 Forklifts 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.01 13.04 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 Off-Highway Trucks 3.11 9.12 25.66 0.91 0.84 3907.80 4.00 Other Construction Equipment 0.29 1.50 2.00 0.16 0.15 230.22 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Pavers 0.39 1.41 2.33 0.20 0.19 193.09 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Pumps 0.04 0.19 0.28 0.02 0.02 29.34 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.05 0.23 0.32 0.03 0.03 33.70 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Drainage pounds per day 4.4 14.8 35.4 1.5 1.4 5162.3 Drainage tons per phase 0.3 1.0 2.4 0.1 0.1 354.9

Default Paving Number of Vehicles ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 Off-Highway Trucks 3.11 9.12 25.66 0.91 0.84 3907.80 3.00 Other Construction Equipment 0.22 1.13 1.50 0.12 0.11 172.67 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 Pavers 0.78 2.82 4.67 0.41 0.38 386.18 1 Paving Equipment 0.58 2.12 3.52 0.31 0.28 291.96 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 Rollers 0.50 2.07 3.18 0.27 0.25 299.86 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Rubber Tired Dozers 1.13 5.00 9.63 0.40 0.37 934.34 1.00 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.27 1.35 2.05 0.12 0.11 229.43 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving pounds per day 6.6 23.6 50.2 2.5 2.3 6222.2 Paving tons per phase 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.8

Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) => 0.4 1.4 3.2 0.1 0.1 444.9

Equipment default values for horsepower, load factor, and hours/day can be overridden in cells C285 through C317, E285 through E317, and G285 through G317.

Default Values Default Values Default Values Equipment Horsepower Load Factor Hours/day Aerial Lifts 60 0.46 8 Air Compressors 106 0.48 1.60 8 Bore/Drill Rigs 291 0.75 1.60 8 Cement and Mortar Mixers 10 0.56 8 Concrete/Industrial Saws 19 0.73 8 Cranes 399 0.43 1.60 8 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 142 0.78 8 Excavators 168 0.57 1.20 8 Forklifts 145 0.30 0.80 8 Generator Sets 549 0.74 8 Graders 174 0.61 8 Off-Highway Tractors 267 0.65 8 Off-Highway Trucks 300.00 479 0.57 8 Other Construction Equipment 75 0.62 1.60 8 Other General Industrial Equipment 238 0.51 0.80 8 Other Material Handling Equipment 191 0.59 8 Pavers 100 0.62 4.00 8 Paving Equipment 104 0.53 8 Plate Compactors 8 0.43 8 Pressure Washers 1 0.60 8 Pumps 53 0.74 0.80 8 Rollers 95 0.56 4.00 8 Rough Terrain Forklifts 93 0.60 0.80 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 357 0.59 6.00 8 Rubber Tired Loaders 157 0.54 4.00 8 Scrapers 313 0.72 8 Signal Boards 20 0.78 8 Skid Steer Loaders 44 0.55 8 Surfacing Equipment 362 0.45 8 Sweepers/Scrubbers 91 0.68 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 108 0.55 8 Trenchers 63 0.75 8 Welders 45 0.45 8 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2

Emission Estimates for -> Pinole Shores EIR Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (English Units) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 2.6 12.3 20.7 3.9 0.9 3.0 1.5 0.8 0.6 2,792.9 Grading/Excavation 8.8 72.1 64.7 5.7 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.3 0.6 10,215.5 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4.6 17.4 36.5 4.6 1.6 3.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 5,641.8 Paving 6.7 25.7 50.4 2.6 2.6 - 2.3 2.3 - 6,611.7 Maximum (pounds/day) 8.8 72.1 64.7 5.7 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.3 0.6 10,215.5 Total (tons/construction project) 0.5 2.5 3.9 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 595.3 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2013 Project Length (months) -> 9 Total Project Area (acres) -> 3 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0 Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd 3/day)-> 730 PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.

Emission Estimates for -> Pinole Shores EIR Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Metric Units) ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.2 5.6 9.4 1.8 0.4 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 1,269.5 Grading/Excavation 4.0 32.8 29.4 2.6 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.3 4,643.4 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.1 7.9 16.6 2.1 0.7 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.3 2,564.5 Paving 3.1 11.7 22.9 1.2 1.2 - 1.1 1.1 - 3,005.3 Maximum (kilograms/day) 4.0 32.8 29.4 2.6 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.3 4,643.4 Total (megagrams/construction project) 0.5 2.3 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 540.0 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2013 Project Length (months) -> 9 Total Project Area (hectares) -> 1 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0 Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters 3/day)-> 558 PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.