SEISMIC UPGRADE OF BAY DIVISION PIPELINES NOS. 3 AND 4 AT HAYWARD FAULT

Transcription

1 SEISMIC UPGRADE OF BAY DIVISION PIPELINES NOS. 3 AND 4 AT HAYWARD FAULT Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses Volume 2 San Francisco Planning Department Case No E State Clearinghouse No December 2010 City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Planning Department Important Dates: Draft EIR Publication Date: December 23, 2009 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 24, 2009 to February 8, 2010 Draft EIR Public Hearing Dates: January 26, 2010, Fremont January 28, 2010, San Francisco EIR Certification Date: January 20, 2011

2 DATE: December 22, 2010 TO: FROM: RE: Members of the Planning Commission and Interested Parties Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Case No E, Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipelines Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project Attached for your review please find a copy of the Comments and Responses document for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above referenced project. This document, along with the Draft EIR, will be before the Planning Commission for Final EIR certification on January 20, Please note that the Draft EIR public review period ended on February 8, The Planning Commission does not conduct a hearing to receive comments on the Comments and Responses document, and no such hearing is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Interested parties, however, may always write to Commission members or to the President of the Commission at 1650 Mission Street and express an opinion on the Comments and Responses document, or on the Commission s decision to certify the Final EIR for this project. Please note that if you receive the Comments and Responses document in addition to the Draft EIR, you technically have the Final EIR. If you have any questions concerning the Comments and Responses document or the environmental review process, please call or the EIR Coordinator, Diana Sokolove at (415) or diana.sokolove@sfgov.org. Thank you for your interest in this project and your consideration of this matter. Attachment: Comments and Responses Document Memo

3 SEISMIC UPGRADE OF BAY DIVISION PIPELINES NOS. 3 AND 4 AT HAYWARD FAULT Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses Volume 2 San Francisco Planning Department Case No E State Clearinghouse No December 2010 City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Planning Department Important Dates: Draft EIR Publication Date: December 23, 2009 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 24, 2009 to February 8, 2010 Draft EIR Public Hearing Dates: January 26, 2010, Fremont January 28, 2010, San Francisco EIR Certification Date: January 20, 2011

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipelines Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project Comments and Responses on Draft EIR Page List of Acronyms... C&R v 1. Introduction... C&R Purpose of the Comments and Responses Document... C&R Environmental Review Process... C&R Document Organization... C&R List of Persons Commenting... C&R Project Updates... C&R Introduction to Project Updates... C&R Description of Project Updates... C&R Environmental Effects of Proposed Project Updates... C&R Summary of Comments and Reponses... C&R General Comments... C&R Project Description... C&R Plans and Policies... C&R Land Use and Land Use Planning... C&R Aesthetics... C&R Population and Housing... C&R Cultural Resources... C&R Transportation and Circulation... C&R Noise... C&R Air Quality... C&R Wind and Shadow... C&R Recreation... C&R Utilities and Service Systems... C&R Biological Resources... C&R Geology and Soils... C&R Hydrology and Water Quality... C&R Hazards and Hazardous Materials... C&R Mineral and Energy Resources... C&R Other CEQA Issues... C&R Alternatives... C&R Other Topics... C&R 4 54 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R i December 2010

5 Table of Contents Page 5. Draft EIR Revisions... C&R 5 1 Appendices A. Comment Letters... C&R A 1 B. Transcripts of Draft EIR Public Hearings... C&R B 1 Comments and Responses Figures C&R 3 1 Proposed Facilities... C&R 3 3 C&R 3 2 Project Area (Including Staging Areas)... C&R 3 7 Revised Draft EIR Figures 2.2 SFPUC Water Service Area San Francisco and SFPUC Wholesale Customers... C&R Project Location and Area... C&R Proposed Facilities... C&R Project Area (Including Staging Areas)... C&R Existing Land Uses Based on Alameda County Assessor Codes... C&R Location and Direction of Photo Viewpoints... C&R Noise Measurement Locations... C&R Habitat and Vegetation within the Project Area... C&R Trees to be Removed... C&R Site Geology... C&R Area Creeks and Drainages... C&R Creek and Well Locations... C&R 5 96 Comments and Responses Tables C&R 2 1 Public Agencies and Individuals Written Draft EIR Comments... C&R 2 1 C&R 3 1 Comparison of Treated Water Discharges Analyzed in the Draft EIR versus the Revised Estimate of Treated Water Discharges... C&R 3 10 C&R 3 2 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Land Use... C&R 3 13 C&R 3 3 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Aesthetics... C&R 3 15 C&R 3 4 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Cultural Resources... C&R 3 17 C&R 3 5 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Transportation and Circulation... C&R 3 20 C&R 3 6 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Noise... C&R 3 23 C&R 3 7 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Air Quality... C&R 3 26 C&R 3 8 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Utilities and Service Systems... C&R 3 29 C&R 3 9 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Biological Resources... C&R 3 31 C&R 3 10 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Geology and Soils... C&R 3 34 C&R 3 11 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Hydrology and Water Quality... C&R 3 37 C&R 3 12 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Hazards and Hazardous Materials... C&R 3 41 C&R 3 13 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Mineral and Energy Resources... C&R 3 44 C&R 3 14 Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Cumulative Impacts... C&R 3 45 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R ii December 2010

6 Table of Contents Revised Draft EIR Tables 3.2 Affected Utilities and Approach to Relocation/Protection... C&R Special Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity... C&R Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures... C&R Summary of Proposed Construction Activities... C&R Affected Utilities and Approach to Relocation/Protection... C&R Daily Vehicle Trip Generation (Highest Volume Week)... C&R Hourly Vehicle Trip Generation (Highest Volume Week) AM Peak Hour, Midday, and PM Peak Hour... C&R Summary of Levels of Service (LOS) Project Conditions... C&R Estimated Daytime Construction Noise Levels at the Closest Sensitive Receptors and Consistency with Significance Criterion... C&R Estimated Nighttime Construction Noise Levels at the Closest Sensitive Receptors and Consistency with Significance Criterion... C&R Maximum Equipment Included in Estimation of Construction related Emissions 27 month Construction Schedule... C&R Peak Construction Activity Criteria Pollutant Emissions 27 month Construction Schedule... C&R Peak Construction Activity Criteria Pollutant Emissions 29 month Construction Schedule... C&R Individual Cancer Risk from DPM Exposure 27 month Construction Schedule... C&R Individual Cancer Risk from DPM Exposure 29 month Construction Schedule... C&R Special Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity... C&R Summary of Impacts Biological Resources... C&R Individual Cancer Risk from DPM Exposure... C&R Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the CEQA Alternatives... C&R Page Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R iii December 2010

7 Comments and Responses List of Acronyms ACFCWCD ACWD AMP ARDTP BAAQMD BAWSCA BDPL BMP Caltrans C APE CARB CCR CCSF CDFG CEQA CESA cfs CIWMB CMP CNDDB CO CO2 CO2 E Corps CRLF CWA cy db dba DPM DWR Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Alameda County Water District archaeological monitoring plan archaeological research design and treatment plan Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Bay Division Pipelines best management practice California Department of Transportation CEQA Area of Potential Effect California Air Resources Board California Code of Regulations City and County of San Francisco California Department of Fish and Game California Environmental Quality Act California Endangered Species Act cubic feet per second California Integrated Waste Management Board corrugated metal pipe California Natural Diversity Database carbon monoxide carbon dioxide carbon dioxide equivalent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers California red legged frog Clean Water Act cubic yard(s) decibel A weighted decibel diesel particulate matter California Department of Water Resources Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R v December 2010

8 Comments and Responses EIR ERO FARR FEMA gpm HI HPTP environmental impact report Environmental Review Officer Final Archaeological Resources Report Federal Emergency Management Agency gallons per minute hazard index historic properties treatment plan I 680 Interstate 680 I 880 Interstate 880 Leq LOS LS MEA μg/m MMRP N/A NB NO2 NOx NPDES OHP OPR PG&E PM10 and PM2.5 PRC RCCP ROG ROW RWQCB S SB SCAQMD steady state energy level level of service less than significant San Francisco Planning Department, Major Environmental Analysis Division microgram per cubic meter mitigation monitoring and reporting program Not Applicable northbound nitrogen dioxide nitrogen oxide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System California Office of Historic Preservation Governor s Office of Planning and Research Pacific Gas and Electric particulate matter Public Resources Code reinforced concrete cylinder pipe reactive organic gases right of way Regional Water Quality Control Board significant southbound South Coast Air Quality Management District Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R vi December 2010

9 Comments and Responses SFBAAB SFPUC SHPO SO2 SU TAC U.S. EPA USD USFWS WSIP San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin San Francisco Public Utilities Commission State Historic Preservation Officer sulfur dioxide significant and unavoidable toxic air contaminant United States Environmental Protection Agency Union Sanitary District U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Water System Improvement Program Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R vii December 2010

10 Comments and Responses 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Comments and Responses Document This document contains public comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipelines (BDPL) Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project (State Clearinghouse No ), and presents responses to those comments. Included in this document are text changes initiated by San Francisco Planning Department staff, as well as text changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIR. 1.2 Environmental Review Process On December 23, 2009, the San Francisco Planning Department published the Draft EIR on the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project (project or proposed project) for public review and comment. The public review and comment period on the document extended from December 24, 2009 through February 8, During the 45 day public review period, the Planning Department received a total of eight written comment letters via mail, hand delivery, fax, or (see Appendix A). Public hearings were held on the following dates and at the following locations during the 45 day public review period: January 26, 2010, at the Fremont Main Library, 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont January 28, 2010, at the San Francisco Planning Commission, Room 400, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco No verbal comments were received at the two public hearings on the Draft EIR. A court reporter was present at each of the public hearings, transcribed the hearing proceedings verbatim, and prepared written transcripts (see Appendix B). This Comments and Responses document responds to comments received on the Draft EIR, addresses project updates that have been identified during the project development and design process since publication of the Draft EIR, and includes associated revisions to the Draft EIR. It has been distributed to the San Francisco Planning Commission, State Clearinghouse, and agencies and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR and, in combination with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project. If the Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) will review and consider the certified Final EIR, and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prior to its decision on the proposed project. If the SFPUC decides to approve the project, it will adopt California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings and the MMRP at the project decision hearing. An MMRP is required by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15097) and is designed to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce or avoid the project s significant environmental effects are implemented. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 1 1 December 2010

11 Comments and Responses 1.3 Document Organization In addition to Section 1, Introduction, this Comments and Responses document includes the following sections: Section 2, List of Persons Commenting, which contains a list of all agencies and individuals that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. Section 3, Project Updates, which presents elements of the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project that have been revised during the project development and design process since publication of the Draft EIR, and an analysis of the environmental effects of implementing the project with the updates. Section 4, Comments and Responses, which presents verbatim excerpts of the substantive comments received on the Draft EIR during the public comment period. Comments are grouped by environmental topic and generally correspond to the table of contents of the Draft EIR, and include general comments not related to the adequacy or accuracy of the CEQA analysis presented in the Draft EIR. The name of the commenter is indicated following each comment. Following each comment or group of comments is the Planning Department s response. Similar comments are grouped together by topic and may be addressed by a single response. The responses provide clarification of the Draft EIR, and may include revisions or additions to the Draft EIR. Revisions to the Draft EIR text are shown as indented text. New or revised text is double underlined; deleted material is shown in strike out. Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, which contains changes initiated by staff subsequent to publication of the Draft EIR to correct or clarify information, including changes to the Draft EIR text made to include the project updates and in response to comments. Section 5 also contains revised Draft EIR figures and tables. Appendix A, which presents copies of the written comment letters from which the excerpts are derived (annotated to indicate comment numbers). Appendix B, which presents the transcripts of the public hearings on the Draft EIR. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 1 2 December 2010

12 Comments and Responses 2. List of Persons Commenting The San Francisco Planning Department received written comments on the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project Draft EIR from seven agencies and one individual during the public comment period from December 24, 2009 through February 8, No organizations commented on the Draft EIR. No verbal comments were received at the public hearings on the Draft EIR held on January 26, 2010 at the Fremont Main Library and on January 28, 2010 before the Planning Commission. A complete list of commenters is provided in Table C&R 2 1. TABLE C&R 2 1 PUBLIC AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS WRITTEN DRAFT EIR COMMENTS Comment Form Name, Title, and Affiliation Date of Comment Letter State Agencies Letter Letter Letter Letter Scott Morgan, Acting Director, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, Governor s Office of Planning and Research Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation William Hurley, P.E., Senior Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game February 12, 2010 February 8, 2010 January 20, 2010 February 8, 2010 Regional and Local Agencies Letter Al D. Bunyi, Associate Engineer, Union Sanitary District January 27, 2010 Letter Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency February 8, 2010 Letter Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District February 8, 2010 Individuals Letter Bridget Ann Mayberry February 5, 2010 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 2 1 December 2010

13 Comment and Responses 3. Project Updates 3.1 Introduction to Project Updates The SFPUC has refined the project design since publication of the Draft EIR and, as a result, has updated select elements of the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project that were previously described and analyzed in the Draft EIR. These proposed project updates include: a second approach to construction of the southern point of connection of the new BDPL No. 3X to the existing BDPL No. 3; improvements to BDPL No. 4 where it crosses Trace A of the Hayward fault; revised approaches to relocating Union Sanitary District sewer lines and Alameda County Water District (ACWD) water lines; revised design for the connection of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert; revised estimates of discharges to Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks; and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard. These changes are described in Section 3.2 below, and updates to the project description are included as part of the revisions in Chapter 5, Draft EIR Revisions. Section 3.3 of this Comments and Responses document includes an evaluation of the environmental effects of implementing the project with the updates listed above. The evaluation includes an analysis of whether incorporating the project updates would result in any changes to the impact analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, and indicates how the project updates are accounted for in the Draft EIR analysis as well as any appropriate adjustments to the Draft EIR analysis. In general, the project updates would not result in substantial changes to the construction and operations presented in the Draft EIR. In some cases, the project updates would result in small increases or decreases in the duration of construction activities or area of ground disturbance, but in no case would these updates result in new significant effects (beyond those previously disclosed in the Draft EIR) or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact. None of the project updates affect the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, and mitigation measures identified in the EIR would adequately address the environmental effects resulting from these updates. Finally, none of the project updates would require any changes to the No Project Alternative or the range of alternatives already addressed in the Draft EIR. In summary, the environmental analysis of the project updates presented below indicates that no significant new information has been added to the EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 1 December 2010

14 Comment and Responses Section , the supplemental environmental analysis of the project updates presented below concludes that: no new significant impacts would result from the project updates or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact with implementation of mitigation measures; and there are no additional alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR. Any necessary new environmental analysis or verification in support of the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project with updates is described in this document. Chapter 5 incorporates the Draft EIR text revisions that are necessary to adequately reflect the proposed updates to the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project. In addition, all responses to comments presented in Chapter 4 of this document incorporate and account for these project updates. 3.2 Description of Project Updates Project updates identified by the SFPUC during the project development and design process subsequent to publication of the Draft EIR are described below Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection Since publication of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC has refined the project design and determined that it could be possible to move the southern point of connection between the new BDPL No. 3X and BDPL No. 3 to the north of Agua Fria Creek (see Figure C&R 3 1). Although final selection of the point of connection would not be determined until the design has been completed, this new location is currently the SFPUC s preferred approach, and use of this location would avoid replacing the pipeline across Agua Fria Creek. However, design considerations or unforeseen circumstances (e.g., condition of the pipeline at this connection point) could require the SFPUC to use the original approach described in the Draft EIR (i.e., replace the entire pipeline across the creek to the South Shutoff Station). Consideration of both approaches to the southern point of connection in this EIR provides the SFPUC with flexibility in the final engineering design; therefore, this Comments and Responses document includes text changes to address both approaches in the Project Description and impact analyses. Under this second approach, the proposed BDPL No. 3X would connect to the existing BDPL No. 3 between the Interstate 680 (I 680) southbound diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek, instead of immediately north of the South Shutoff Station. While this approach would avoid the need for a permanent new pipeline crossing of Agua Fria Creek, it would require a temporary access route (utilizing a steel plate) over the creek during the construction period. This temporary crossing would require excavation to a depth of 1.5 feet on the north bank and 3 feet on the south bank to provide a level access area for placement of the steel plate across the creek. The pit for construction of the southern point of connection would be excavated near the location of the receiving pit proposed for trenchless installation of the new BDPL No. 3X across Agua Fria Creek under the approach analyzed in the Draft EIR (see page 3 29 of the Draft EIR). The 25 foot deep pit would be 60 feet long by 28 feet wide to facilitate construction of the southern point of Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 2 December 2010

15 Brown Road Southbound Diamond Off-Ramp I-680 Southbound Loop On-Ramp Northbound Diamond Diamond On-Ramp On-Ramp Crystalline Drive Paseo Agua Fria Creek Point of Connection for Approach 1 Southbound Diamond Diamond On-Ramp On-Ramp CMP 3 Southbound Loop Off-Ramp Northbound Loop Off-Ramp North Slip Joint Vault South Slip Joint Vault on BDPL No. 4 on BDPL No. 4 (Option A only) (Options A & B) CMP 2 Omega Tissiack Drive Nuggett Way Place Padre North Shutoff Station Parkway South Shutoff Station Point of Connection for Approach 2 Install 83.5 inch Liner in BDPL No. 4 or Strengthen Existing Joints Northbound Loop On-Ramp Northbound Diamond Off-Ramp Modify Existing Slip Joint Vault and Encase BDPL No. 4 on Either Side Mission Boulevard Agua Caliente Creek Culvert Road Curtner Install 90 inch Liner in BDPL No. 4 or Replace Pipeline with New 96 inch Steel Pipe Proposed 78-inch Steel BDPL No. 3X in Filled Trench or Bore Proposed 78-inch Steel BDPL No. 3X within Corrugated Metal Pipeline Proposed 72-inch Steel BDPL No. 3X in Articulated Vault Existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Primary Rupture Zone at Trace A Primary and Secondary Rupture Zones at Traces B and C Notes CMP: 114-inch Diamter Corrugated Metal Pipe Segment SOURCE: URS, 2008a Feet Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure C&R 3-1 Proposed Facilities

16 Comment and Responses connection at the new locations, which is larger than the 40 foot long by 20 foot wide by 30 foot deep receiving pit analyzed for the original location identified in the Draft EIR. Using this second approach, the proposed BDPL No. 3X would be approximately 2,160 feet, or 200 feet less than the total length of pipe analyzed in the Draft EIR. If construction occurs when there is flow in Agua Fria Creek, a temporary dewatering system would be built to create a dry work area during construction (similar to the approach described on page 3 30 of the Draft EIR for open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek). As described in the Draft EIR, this system would likely entail construction of a sandbag cofferdam around the work site, with a flume pipe to sustain downstream flow at all times. Control measures would be implemented to prevent downstream pollution and sedimentation and to maintain the natural flow and temperature of the stream downstream of the construction area, as also described on page 3 30 of the Draft EIR. In accordance with the SFPUC s right of way (ROW) Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, the entire 80 foot SFPUC ROW would be cleared and grubbed under this approach, including all of the trees within the riparian zone (indicated on Figure of the Draft EIR). The extent of the clearing would be the same as the extent of clearing described on page 3 30 of the Draft EIR for open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek. All trees and shrubs would be removed from the ROW for access to the existing pipelines, as described below, and this vegetation removal would provide construction crew access to and from the South Shutoff Station. In total, approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat would be cleared. Approximately 26 trees would be removed, including 13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree, all of which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW. The ROW would be permanently cleared of woody vegetation in accordance with the SFPUC s ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy to protect the pipelines and provide for future operations and maintenance of the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, as a number of aboveground structures on these pipelines (e.g., pipeline risers) are currently difficult or impossible to access with heavy equipment Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward Fault The Draft EIR did not include improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault. Since publication of the Draft EIR, and as a result of further project development and design, the SFPUC has determined that damage to BDPL No. 4 could occur at this fault crossing during a seismic event. To address this, improvements are proposed to strengthen BDPL No. 4 to withstand 1 foot of horizontal offset and 0.7 foot of vertical offset at Trace A of the Hayward fault. Two design options are considered for the improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault. These options differ in terms of the method of pipe strengthening, but they both achieve the same goal and involve a similar area of disturbance. Consideration of both options in this EIR provides SFPUC with flexibility in the final engineering design; therefore, this Comments and Responses document includes text changes to address both options in the EIR Project Description and impact analyses. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 4 December 2010

17 Comment and Responses The SFPUC s preferred option for construction of these improvements includes constructing one slip joint 1 on the pipeline on the south side of the fault crossing (between the southbound diamond on ramp and I 680) and strengthening the pipeline by slip lining 2 at the point where it crosses Trace A (see Figure C&R 3 2). However, if necessary, based on further refinement of the project design, a second slip joint could be required to the north of Trace A (within the northbound loop on ramp); in this event, BDPL No. 4 would be strengthened by reinforcing the existing pipeline joints between the two slip joints. The slip joints would be constructed on either side of the existing corrugated metal pipe segment CMP3 in Zones 3 and 5 where substantial excavation would also occur for construction of the new BDPL No. 3X. Construction of the slip joint vault to the south of Trace A would require excavating a 20 foot long by 15 foot wide by 35 foot deep pit in Zone 3 to expose the pipeline and construct the vault. Construction of the slip joint vault to the north of Trace A, if needed, would require excavating a 20 foot long by 15 foot wide by 30 foot deep pit in Zone 5 to expose the pipeline and construct the vault. If sliplining is used to strengthen BDPL No. 4 across the fault, a 30 foot long by 15 foot wide by 25 foot deep pit would be excavated in Zone 5 to access the existing BDPL No. 4. Consistent with most construction activities addressed in the Draft EIR, work hours for the improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault would be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with occasional work on Sundays. The work would be conducted concurrently with other improvements to BDPL No. 4 analyzed in the Draft EIR, during the shutdown of BDPL No. 4 currently scheduled for January through April 2013, but could extend into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, currently scheduled for November 2013 to April or May 2014 in the event that construction activities are not completed at the end of the first shutdown period. If construction activities extend into the second shutdown, the entire length of the construction period could be extended two months from 27 to 29 months. Implementation of this project update would increase activities during the peak construction period if construction is completed within the first shutdown of BDPL No. 4, or would increase the length of the construction period if activities extend into the second shutdown of BDPL No. 4. Construction related equipment required for the project update would be similar in type and quantity to other construction activities described in Draft EIR Table 3.1. Each slip joint would be constructed in a belowground vault approximately 20 feet long by 15 feet wide and protruding 2.5 feet above ground surface, similar to the proposed south and north access structures to the articulated vault described on page 3 13 of the Draft EIR. The vaults would be waterproofed to minimize the infiltration of groundwater. However, a sump pump would capture any groundwater that infiltrated into the vault and pump it back to the surface into a small gravel drain (adjacent to the vault), which would allow for percolation back into the ground. No water is expected to reach stormwater drains, the nearest of which is located 1 A slip joint allows a pipeline to compress or extend in length. 2 Sliplining involves lining an existing pipeline with a new pipe of a smaller diameter. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 5 December 2010

18 Comment and Responses approximately 130 feet away. There are no existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company electrical connections in the vicinity of the vaults. Therefore, a small solar panel, similar to those used at call boxes on I 680, would be installed to provide power to the sump pump in the vaults. Inspections of the vaults would occur approximately every five years Utility Lines As described in Table 3.2 of the Draft EIR (p. 3 28), a 10 inch sewer line owned by the Union Sanitary District is located within the construction area in Zone 7, and a portion of the sewer line would be removed and replaced under the proposed project. As a result of refining the project design since publication of the Draft EIR and continued coordination with Union Sanitary District, a longer portion of the sewer line would be removed and replaced. The additional portion of the pipeline that would be removed and replaced would be located beneath Mission Boulevard. A portion of the pipeline replacement area would extend approximately 100 feet beyond the project boundaries included in the Draft EIR, beneath I 680. Figure C&R 3 2 includes the updated project boundary in this location. The Draft EIR figures have been revised to include this new approximately 10,000 square foot area as indicated in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, of this Comments and Responses document. Because this small area is entirely located within Mission Boulevard which is paved and heavily traveled, and because the extension of the utility replacement would not require additional nighttime construction, addition of this activity would not result in any changes in environmental impacts beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. While this update would extend construction within Mission Boulevard, it would not result in reduction of roadway capacity, traffic safety hazards, or impaired access for emergency response vehicles beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR because the construction activities required for removal and replacement of the Union Sanitary District 10 inch sewer line would be on the same order of magnitude as the level analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would be conducted in the same general area. Therefore, this project update is not discussed further and the remainder of this chapter focuses on the ACWD water lines project update described below. As described in Table 3.2 of the Draft EIR (p. 3 28), two water mains owned by the ACWD (one 12 inch and one 24 inch) conflict with the construction area for the proposed articulated vault in Zone 7. Table 3.2 in the Draft EIR indicates that these water lines would be removed and reconstructed around the new articulated vault in Zone 7. As a result of refining the project design since publication of the Draft EIR, temporary pipelines would be constructed across the ROW in Zone 6 to maintain water service during construction, rather than permanently relocating the pipelines as described in the Draft EIR. The temporary water lines would be in place during construction; they would cross the northbound loop on ramp to I 680 and connect with the permanent pipelines on either side of the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW. Because the pipelines would be temporary, they would be removed at the completion of construction, and new pipelines would be installed beneath the Mission Boulevard median, above the new articulated vault, BDPL No. 3X, and BDPL No. 4. Installation of the ACWD water lines is addressed in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 6 December 2010

19 GP JP GP X X X X JP LIMITORQUE JP OVERHEAD GP GP JP MH Underground Subsurface Transformer F E E S AT&T LIMITORQUE E Area of Sidewalk Improvement Along Mission Boulevard INTERSTATE 680 Mojave Drive Brown Road Southbound Diamond On-ramp Extended Area for Utility Line Relocation MISSION BLVD Northbound Diamond On-ramp 5 Area will be avoided during construction 4 Crystalline Drive Omega Drive Crawford Street Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A NORTH SHUT OFF STATION Southern Point of Connection for Approach AT&T Nugget Way Paseo Padre Pkwy Tissiack Place AT&T 2" 21Kv E 2" 21Kv E 2" 21Kv E AT&T AT&T AT&T DIRECT BURIED CABLE SOUTH SHUT OFF STATION TRACE A 2 SB1862 S AT&T AT&T AT&T AT&T DIRECT DIRECT BURIED BURIED CABLE CABLE AT&T AT&T Nugget Pl SB1861 Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection (Approach 2) Northbound Loop On-ramp TRACE B Curtner Road TRACE C Area of Sidewalk Improvements Along Mission Boulevard AT&T Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone Feet Limits of Project Area Caltrans Right Of Way Existing BDPL No. 3 SFPUC Right of Way 1 Staging Area 1 3 Staging Area 3 5 Freshwater Seep Construction Access Hayward Fault Trace Zone Existing BDPL No. 4 New BDPL No. 3A 2 Staging Area 2 4 Staging Area 4 XXXXXX Labels in red indicate a project update described in Section 3, Project Updates, of this document. SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; ESA, 2008; URS, 2008a Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure C&R 3-2 Project Area (Including Staging Areas)

20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

21 Comment and Responses Removal of the temporary pipelines and construction of the new permanent pipelines would require closure of the northbound loop on ramp to I 680 for one night and single lane closures on Mission Boulevard for two nights. As described on page 3 33 of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC would schedule the closure of the northbound loop on ramp during low travel periods (between midnight and 6:00 a.m. on weekday and weekend evenings) to avoid major traffic disruptions. During this closure, the SFPUC would establish a traffic detour along Warm Springs Boulevard on the west side of I 680 to provide a connection from Mission Boulevard to northbound I 680 via the Durham Road interchange (the same detour described on page 3 33 of the Draft EIR). Prior to the closure, the contractor would be required to submit a traffic control plan identifying the detour route and specifying a detailed contingency plan to ensure that the roadway is opened by the designated time. During nighttime construction, temporary construction lighting would be used to illuminate the work area. As described on page 3 38 of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC would schedule closure of single lanes on Mission Boulevard for low travel periods (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. for eastbound Mission Boulevard and 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. for westbound Mission Boulevard on weekday and Sunday evenings; midnight to 7:00 a.m. for eastbound Mission Boulevard and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for westbound Mission Boulevard on Saturday evenings) to minimize traffic disruptions. No detours would be required for these single lane closures, but temporary construction lighting would be used to illuminate the work area. The addition of temporary pipeline removal and new permanent pipeline construction would increase the number of construction nights from 17 (as described on page 3 50 of the Draft EIR) to 20. The northbound loop on ramp would be closed for a total of 5 nights rather than 4 (as described on page 3 33 of the Draft EIR). While the overall extent of excavation would not be increased as a result of implementing this proposed update, the amount of soil requiring disposal could be increased, if any of the soil excavated to remove the temporary water lines would require off site disposal Connection of BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert The SFPUC has updated the design of the connection between the abandoned BDPL No. 3 and the Agua Caliente Creek culvert, described on page 3 17 of the Draft EIR. The proposed design now connects the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert through a tee connection 3 located immediately above the culvert; this connection would accommodate approximately 80,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of an emergency release from BDPL No. 4 following a seismic event. This project update demonstrates how the connection would be designed to help dissipate the energy of the discharge to Agua Caliente Creek and prevent damage to the culvert. Under the updated design, discharges to Agua Fria Creek from the abandoned BDPL No. 3, also described on page 3 17 of the Draft EIR, have been eliminated. 3 This tee connection includes the connection of a larger diameter perforated pipe, perpendicular to the end of the discharge pipeline. Spreading the discharge through this larger area would help to dissipate the energy of the discharge. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 9 December 2010

22 Comment and Responses Revised Discharge Estimates Since publication of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC has determined that a longer length of pipeline would need to be drained during the shutdown of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 than was analyzed in the Draft EIR (page 3 48), and has thus refined the estimates of the volume of treated water that would be discharged for draining and disinfection of the pipelines during construction, as well as the duration of these discharges (described on page 3 48 of the Draft EIR). The volume of treated water that would be discharged as a result of these revisions is presented in Table C&R 3 1. The SFPUC has also refined the estimated volume of discharges from the proposed articulated vault and modified slip joint vault described on pages 3 13 and 3 50 of the Draft EIR. TABLE C&R 3 1 COMPARISON OF TREATED WATER DISCHARGES ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT EIR VERSUS THE REVISED ESTIMATE OF TREATED WATER DISCHARGES Project Activity Draft EIR Volume, gallons Project Update Volume, gallons (one BDPL No. 4 shutdown) Project Update Volume, gallons (two BDPL No. 4 shutdowns) BDPL No. 3 Pipeline Draining 606,000 1,984,000 1,984,000 Pipeline Disinfection 2,000,000 8,560,000 8,560,000 BDPL No. 3X Hydrostatic Testing NA 650, ,120 Pipeline Disinfection 2,000,000 2,292,380 2,292,380 BDPL No. 4 Pipeline Draining 916,000 1,503,200 3,006,400 Pipeline Disinfection 2,600,000 12,965,000 25,930,000 TOTAL 8,122,000 27,954,700 42,422,900 NOTE: Discharge volumes under the revised estimates would generally occur over 5 days or less. Pipeline flushing for disinfection would generally occur over 14 days or less. The Draft EIR assumed that these discharges would occur over 4 days or less. The refined estimates of volumes required for pipeline draining include approximately 992,000 gallons of treated water from BDPL No. 3 (twice) and 1,503,200 gallons of treated water from BDPL No. 4 (once) via the existing blowoff valves immediately north of the South Shutoff Station. The corresponding volumes analyzed in the Draft EIR are 606,000 gallons for BDPL No. 3 (once) and 916,000 gallons from BDPL No. 4 (once). In addition, the SFPUC has determined that the new BDPL No. 3X would also be dewatered once after hydrostatic testing, resulting in the additional discharge of approximately 650,120 gallons of treated water beyond what was indicated in the Draft EIR. In the event that construction is not completed during the first shutdown period, and construction of BDPL No. 4 improvements extends into a second shutdown of the pipeline, BDPL Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 10 December 2010

23 Comment and Responses No. 4 would require a second draining, which would result in an additional discharge of approximately 1,503,200 gallons of treated water. Because the potential for the construction period to extend into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4 was not anticipated at the time of publication of the Draft EIR, this discharge was not included in the Draft EIR. Based on the refined engineering analysis, the duration of draining, dechlorination, ph adjustment, and pumping of each pipeline segment would generally occur over five days or less, compared to four days or less as analyzed in the Draft EIR. The refined estimate of the volume of water discharged for disinfection of BDPL No. 3 is approximately 8,560,000 gallons, compared to 2 million gallons as analyzed in the Draft EIR. The refined estimate of the volume of treated water discharged for disinfection of the new BDPL No. 3X would be approximately 2,292,380 gallons, compared to 2 million gallons as analyzed in the Draft EIR. The refined estimate of the volume of treated water discharged for disinfection of BDPL No. 4 would be approximately 12,965,000 gallons, compared to 2.6 million gallons as analyzed in the Draft EIR. In addition, if construction of BDPL No. 4 improvements extends into a second shutdown of the pipeline, BDPL No. 4 would require a second disinfection, resulting in the additional discharge of 12,965,000 gallons of treated water. Because the potential for the project construction period to extend into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4 was not anticipated at the time of publication of the Draft EIR, this discharge was not addressed in the Draft EIR. The flushing of each pipeline segment would generally require 14 days or less. The duration described in the Draft EIR was 4 days or less. Although the volume of treated water discharged to Agua Fria Creek would increase as a result of this proposed project update, the discharges would continue to be subject to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No. R for discharges from SFPUC s transmission system (described on pp to of the Draft EIR), which would require onsite treatment of the water to remove chlorine and adjust the ph to protect downstream water quality. In addition, the SFPUC would be required to comply with specific effluent and receiving water limitations that are protective of water quality, and the flow rates of the discharge would be limited to 7.8 cubic feet per second (cfs). As described on page of the Draft EIR, this flow rate would be on the same order of magnitude as existing average flows in Agua Fria Creek, which, based on limited available data, historically range from 1 to 5 cfs, with measurements as high as 472 cfs. The SFPUC has also refined the estimate of discharges of treated water from the new articulated vault. The SFPUC has determined that, following a seismic event, up to 300 gpm could leak within the vault, including 100 gpm from the slip joint and each ball joint (URS, 2010). The Draft EIR (pp and 3 50) described discharges of up to 1,000 gpm after a seismic event. During the wet season, up to 6 gpm of groundwater could also accumulate within the vault. This accumulated groundwater would be collected in a sump and discharged to Agua Caliente Creek. The SFPUC has further determined that groundwater dewatering could also be required in Zone 7 during construction of the articulated vault. The impacts of groundwater dewatering discharges during construction in Zone 7 and wet season discharges of accumulated groundwater from the articulated vault in Zone 7 are described in Section 3.3 of this Comments and Responses document. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 11 December 2010

24 Comment and Responses Under the proposed updated design, the proposed new 24 inch drain from the existing slip joint vault (described on pages 3 17 and 3 42 of the Draft EIR) has been eliminated, and there would be no new discharges from the modified slip joint vault to Agua Caliente Creek. In addition, the Project Description has been revised to include an existing sump pump and drain pipe in the existing slip joint vault. This drain pipe discharges to Mission Boulevard, and it would continue to be used under the proposed project, the same as under existing conditions Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard The SFPUC has identified improvements that were not described in the Draft EIR, such as new sidewalks, curb ramps, and gutters, that would be constructed near the intersections of Mission Boulevard with Curtner Road and Brown Road. These improvements, including approximately 350 linear feet of new sidewalk along the south side of Mission Boulevard east of Curtner Road, would be constructed outside of the project area. Inclusion of these improvements slightly enlarges the project area (by less than ½ acre), relative to the description of the project in the Draft EIR, and the project area has been revised (as indicated on Figure C&R 3 2) to include these locations. Sidewalk improvements would involve short term construction activities, on the order of several days, and would require the use of limited equipment associated with rough grading and pouring of concrete. Brief closure of one traffic lane along Mission Boulevard could be required for construction of these improvements. 3.3 Environmental Effects of Proposed Project Updates This section evaluates the environmental impacts of implementing each of the above described proposed project updates. Tables C&R 3 2 through C&R 3 14 describe the impacts of each project update relative to the impacts addressed in the Draft EIR, and the sections below summarize the environmental effects of each project update. In some cases, the proposed project updates would result in a slight increase in the magnitude of an impact, but in no case would these updates result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously disclosed in the Draft EIR, change the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, or require new or modified mitigation measures. Text changes that incorporate these proposed project updates into the individual impact analyses from Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR are included in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, of this Comments and Responses document Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection As summarized in Tables C&R 3 2 through C&R 3 13, overall, implementation of the second approach to construction of the southern point of connection between the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek would reduce impacts in all environmental categories because it would reduce the length of the new BDPL No. 3X from 2,360 feet to 2,160 feet and locate the southern point of connection immediately north of Agua Fria Creek. This approach would involve less soil excavation than the approach described in the Draft EIR. A shorter pipeline length and less soil excavation would reduce impacts related to: the potential to encounter archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains; the potential for utility conflicts; the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 12 December 2010

25 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 2 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES LAND USE Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.2 Land Use Impact LU 1: Temporary impacts related to disruption of existing land uses and effects on the existing character of the project vicinity during construction. S/SU No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less construction activity in Zone 1, adjacent to residences, as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Less construction activity would result in a reduction in noise levels in this zone to a less than significant level (meeting but not exceeding the 70 dba speech interference criterion) with implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 1a, Noise Control Plan. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of impacts related to temporary disruption of existing land uses and effects on the character of the project vicinity during construction. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination in the Draft EIR would remain due to: 1) noise in close proximity to residential receptors in Zone 8 where construction would occur; 2) noise from haul and delivery trucks; and 3) noise from nighttime construction required for other project components. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: The additional construction activities associated with this proposed project update would slightly increase the number of haul and delivery truck operations in the interchange vicinity (Zones 3 through 5) from 82 to 102 trips per day, and along construction haul routes from 10 to 13 trucks per hour. Resulting noise levels would be below ambient noise levels in the interchange vicinity, but would slightly increase along construction haul routes from a maximum of 65 dba to 66 dba, more than a 5 dba increase over ambient noise levels. Although the SFPUC would implement mitigation measures described on page of the Draft EIR to control noise along construction haul routes, this proposed project update would slightly increase the magnitude of this significant and unavoidable land use impact. ACWD Water Lines: At the completion of construction, the temporary ACWD water lines would be removed and new permanent pipelines would be constructed beneath the Mission Boulevard median. This construction activity would be conducted in the vicinity of the I 680 and Mission Boulevard interchange, which experiences high ambient noise levels. Nighttime construction would be required for up to three nights, and could result in noise levels in excess of the minimum ambient noise level of 54 dba and vibration levels that could exceed the vibratory annoyance threshold. Construction during the nighttime would also contribute to construction related traffic on construction haul routes during the evening. Although the SFPUC would implement mitigation measures described on page of the Draft EIR to control nighttime noise and vibration levels, this proposed project update would slightly increase the magnitude of this significant and unavoidable land use impact. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase construction activities beyond those analyzed in the Draft EIR, and therefore would not increase temporary impacts related to disruption of existing land uses and effects on the existing character of the project vicinity during construction. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 13 December 2010

26 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 2 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES LAND USE Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.2 Land Use (cont.) Impact LU 1 (cont.) Impact LU 2: Temporary impacts related to displacement of existing land uses and effects on the existing character of the project vicinity during construction. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Construction of sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would result in a minor increase in noise near adjacent residences and would slightly increase the number of haul and delivery truck operations. The noise increases would be related to the operation of graders, cement mixers, pavers, and trucks required for installation of sidewalk improvements. However, these noise increases would be short term, on the order of several days, and would therefore be less than significant. However, the significant and unavoidable land use impact determined in the Draft EIR would remain due to: 1) noise in close proximity to residential receptors in Zone 8 where construction would occur; 2) noise from haul and delivery trucks; and 3) noise from nighttime construction required for other project components. LS/ No All Project Updates: All of the proposed project updates would be located on undeveloped land that is within the SFPUC ROW or California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ROW. For activities within the Caltrans ROW, the SFPUC would obtain all necessary permits for construction activities and would abide by the permit conditions. Therefore, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project updates would not displace any existing land uses or result in any effects on the existing character of the project vicinity during construction. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 14 December 2010

27 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 3 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES AESTHETICS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.3 Aesthetics Impact AE 1: Constructionrelated impacts on scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the surroundings. Impact AE 2: Temporary construction related sources of light and glare. S/LS No All Project Updates: Although vegetation removal from the riparian zone of Agua Fria Creek for construction of the second approach to the southern point of connection would be visible from I 680 and Mission Boulevard, this approach would involve the same amount of vegetation removal as described on page 3 30 of the Draft EIR for open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek. Construction activities for the remaining proposed project updates would occur adjacent to I 680 and Mission Boulevard, which are designated scenic routes. However, with the exception of the proposed sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard, the area of construction related disturbance for each proposed project update was analyzed in the Draft EIR. The magnitude of construction related impacts to scenic roadways would slightly increase due to the addition of the proposed sidewalk improvements. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this small increase in construction related impacts associated with increased construction activities and inclusion of the proposed sidewalk improvements would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, which would require the SFPUC contractor to restore areas disturbed by construction activity to pre construction conditions. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. LS/ No ACWD Water Lines: This proposed project update would require three additional nights of nighttime construction when lighting would be required. However, the impact remains less than significant because the project includes preparation of a lighting plan that identifies locations and methods to minimize light spillover to adjacent residential areas, as described in Section of the Draft EIR, Construction Equipment (Draft EIR p. 3 49). Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, Revised Discharge Estimates, Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project updates would not require construction activities at night, and thus would not require nighttime lighting. Impact AE 3: Permanent impacts on scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of a community. LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: Similar to the description in the Draft EIR for the use of open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek (Draft EIR p. 3 30), this proposed project update would require the removal of 26 trees from within the ROW. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR (p ), impacts related to the removal of these trees would not substantially degrade visual resources or the visual character of the area, because the overall riparian corridor, which is well developed with vegetation and trees, would remain. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: The slip joint vaults would add visual features within the viewshed of I 680 and Mission Boulevard, which are designated scenic routes. The vault(s), however, would be small low profile structures approximately 20 feet long by 15 feet wide, protruding 2½ feet above ground surface, similar to the proposed south and a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 15 December 2010

28 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 3 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES AESTHETICS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.3 Aesthetics Impact AE 3 (cont.) north access structures to the articulated vault described on page 3 13 of the Draft EIR. The vault areas would not be visible from residential land uses in the area due to the presence of soundwalls in residential areas. While the proposed structures would be visible to motorists traveling along area roadways, including scenic roadways, views would be short in duration and the structures would not be highly noticeable. The vaults would not require nighttime lighting. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The sidewalk improvements would result in new sidewalks, curb ramps, and gutters, which would be similar to those located in the surrounding area. While this proposed project update would result in a small increase in permanent structures within the project area, the structures would not result in substantial degradation of designated scenic resources or the visual character of the area, and the impact would remain less than significant. ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates are associated with belowground facilities and would not be visible upon completion of project construction. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 16 December 2010

29 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 4 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.4 Cultural Resources Impact CP 1: Impacts on the historical significance of an individual facility, historic district, or a contributor to a historic district Impact CP 2: Impacts on unknown and known prehistoric and historicperiod archaeological resources LS/ No All Project Updates: None of the proposed project updates would affect historic resources because no historical architectural resources eligible for listing in the National or California Registers were identified within or immediately adjacent to the CEQA Area of Potential Effects for the proposed project updates. S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would be located entirely within the area considered in the Draft EIR, would involve less soil excavation as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Less excavation would reduce the probability that previously unidentified archeological resources would be encountered. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The proposed improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines, and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would involve excavation or grading. Installation of the temporary ACWD water lines would involve excavation to the east of Mission Boulevard, and sidewalk improvements would involve minor grading in an area outside of the project area analyzed in the Draft EIR, while improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault would require excavation for two 25 to 30 foot deep pits on either side of the fault trace. Portions of this excavation would occur within the known archeological site CA ALA 576 and would slightly increase disturbance of this site. Excavation or grading outside the limits of this site would also slightly increase the potential to encounter previously unidentified archaeological resources. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to disturbance of known and previously unidentified resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M CP 2a, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Report for CA ALA 576; M CP 2b, Extended Archaeological Survey for Areas Outside of CA ALA 576; M CP 2c, Archaeological Evaluation Plan and Archaeological Evaluation and Effects Report; and M CP 2d, Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery Measures. Thus, these proposed project updates would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, but this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential to encounter archeological resources because no additional excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 17 December 2010

30 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 4 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.4 Cultural Resources (cont.) Impact CP 3: Impacts on paleontological resources PS/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less soil excavation because the length of the proposed BDPL No. 3X would be reduced. Less excavation would reduce the probability that paleontological resources would be encountered. Thus, this proposed project update would slightly reduce the potential for this impact to occur. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The proposed improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would involve additional excavation or grading. Sidewalk improvements would involve minor grading in an area outside of the project area analyzed in the Draft EIR, while improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault would require excavation for two 25 to 30 foot deep pits on either side of the fault trace. It is likely that the material excavated would be previously disturbed soil and artificial fill, but the analysis in the Draft EIR assumed that small quantities of undisturbed soil and sediment could be disturbed in the excavation process. Because these proposed project updates increase the volume of soil disturbance, the probability of impacts on paleontological resources also increases slightly. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to disturbance of paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M CP 3a, Paleontological Resources Worker Training, and M CP 3b, Paleontological Resources Monitoring Program, which would ensure that any paleontological resources encountered would be recognized, assessed for their significance, and salvaged, if appropriate. Thus, while these proposed project updates would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential to encounter paleontological resources because the overall extent of required excavation would not exceed what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. Impact CP 4: Impacts on human remains PS/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less soil excavation as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Less excavation would reduce the probability that human remains would be encountered. Thus, this proposed project update would slightly reduce the potential for this impact to occur. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The proposed improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would involve excavation or grading. Sidewalk improvements would involve minor grading, while improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 18 December 2010

31 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 4 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.4 Cultural Resources (cont.) Impact CP 4 (cont.) Hayward fault would require excavation for two 25 to 30 foot deep pits on either side of the fault trace. Additional soil disturbance associated with these proposed project updates would slightly increase the potential to encounter human remains. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR (p ), impacts related to the discovery of human remains would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M CP 4, Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. Thus, these proposed project updates would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, but this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential to encounter human remains because the overall extent of required excavation would not exceed what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 19 December 2010

32 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 5 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.5 Transportation and Circulation Impact TR 1: Short term increased traffic volumes and delays on roadways due to temporary reduction in roadway capacity S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: The construction activities associated with these proposed project updates would not require closure of any roadways, construction within existing roadways, or use of detour routes beyond what is described in the Draft EIR. ACWD Water Lines: Removal of the temporary ACWD water lines and installation of new permanent water lines would require closure of the northbound loop on ramp to I 680 for one night and single lane closures on Mission Boulevard for two nights. As described on page 3 33 of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC would schedule the closure of the northbound loop on ramp for low travel periods (between midnight and 6:00 a.m. on weekday and weekend evenings) to avoid major traffic disruptions. During this closure, the SFPUC would establish a traffic detour along Warm Springs Boulevard on the west side of I 680 to provide a connection from Mission Boulevard to northbound I 680 via the Durham Road interchange, the same detour as described on page 3 33 of the Draft EIR. For closure of single lanes on Mission Boulevard, the SFPUC would schedule lane closures for low travel periods (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. for eastbound Mission Boulevard and 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. for westbound Mission Boulevard on weekday and Sunday evenings, and midnight to 7:00 a.m. for eastbound Mission Boulevard and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for westbound Mission Boulevard on Saturday evenings) to minimize traffic disruptions, as described on page 3 38 of the Draft EIR. No detours would be required for these single lane closures. Consistent with the Draft EIR, impacts associated with temporary reductions in roadway capacity as a result of this proposed project update would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, which requires implementation of a traffic control plan that specifies traffic control measures to be implemented during the closures (including circulation and detour plans). Implementation of this proposed project update would slightly increase the magnitude of this impact because it would require the northbound loop on ramp to be closed for a total of five nights (rather than four nights as described on page 3 33 of the Draft EIR) as well as two additional evenings of single lane closures on Mission Boulevard. However, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Thus, while this proposed project update would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, the impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Sidewalk improvements could require temporary lane closures along Mission Boulevard, Curtner Road, or Brown Road. However, these would be brief interruptions during a period of several days, and would be effectively managed by the traffic control plan (Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan) discussed in the Draft EIR. Thus, while this proposed project update would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, the impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 20 December 2010

33 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 5 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.5 Transportation and Circulation (cont.) Impact TR 2: Short term increased traffic volumes and delays on roadways due to construction related vehicle trips Impact TR 3: Short term increased potential traffic safety hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways due to construction related vehicle trips and construction within roadways LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities because it would reduce the length of BDPL No. 3X and locate the point of connection north of Agua Fria Creek. Reduced construction activities would result in fewer construction related vehicle trips. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: The additional construction activities associated with this proposed project update would slightly increase the number of daily offsite construction related truck and vehicle trips during the peak week of construction, from 262 trips per day to 324 trips per day. This would increase the vehicle density by no more than 0.5 passenger cars per mile per lane on roadways in the project vicinity during the peak week of construction, compared to the maximum increase in vehicle density of 0.3 passenger cars per mile per lane described on page of the Draft EIR. Although this is an increase in vehicle density, the 0.5 passenger car per mile per lane increase would be a temporary and minor change that the average motorist would not notice. For this reason, this impact would remain less than significant. ACWD Water Lines and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Implementation of these proposed project updates would slightly increase overall construction related traffic on regional roadways in the vicinity of the project site. However, the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR is conservatively based on the peak week of construction which includes the maximum amount of traffic that would occur at the same time. Average traffic volumes for the duration of the proposed project would be lower than during the peak week. These proposed project updates would include construction over a limited time period of several days, would not likely occur during the peak week of construction analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not cause traffic levels at other times to exceed the peak traffic levels analyzed. Therefore, implementation of these proposed updates would not contribute to traffic levels beyond the maximum levels analyzed the Draft EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not result in an increase in construction related traffic volumes or delays on roadways beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Reduced construction activities would reduce construction related vehicle trips and associated traffic safety hazards. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Traffic volumes would increase slightly compared to the proposed project as described in the Draft EIR, and could result in a slight increase in traffic safety hazards. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to increases in a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 21 December 2010

34 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 5 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.5 Transportation and Circulation (cont.) Impact TR 3 (cont.) traffic safety hazards would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not result in an increase in traffic safety hazards beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. Impact TR 4: Short term impaired access to adjacent roadways and land uses for both general and emergency response traffic as well as for bicyclists and pedestrians due to construction within roadways S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: These project updates would not involve road closures or otherwise impede access to adjacent land uses or for emergency response traffic. Therefore, these proposed project updates would not affect access to adjacent roadways and land uses. ACWD Water Lines: Removal of the temporary ACWD water lines and installation of the permanent lines would require closure of the northbound loop on ramp to I 680 for one night and single lane closures on Mission Boulevard for two nights, and these closures could temporarily impede emergency access. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, requiring the construction contractor to notify local police and emergency responders of the planned closures. Thus, while this proposed project update would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, the impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Sidewalk improvements could require temporary lane closures along Mission Boulevard, Curtner Road, and Brown Road. However, these would be brief interruptions over a period of several days, and would be managed by the traffic control plan (Mitigation Measure M TR 1) discussed in the Draft EIR. Thus, while this proposed project update would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, the impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact TR 5: Short term displacement of on street parking due to temporary increased parking demand or construction within roadways LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: Parking required for the proposed project updates would be accommodated within the ROW and existing project area; therefore, the project updates would not reduce the parking availability on local streets. Sidewalk Improvements: Sidewalk improvements could require temporary lane closures along Mission Boulevard, Curtner Road, and Brown Road. However, there is currently no parking allowed on Mission Boulevard where the proposed sidewalk improvements would be constructed. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 22 December 2010

35 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 6 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES NOISE Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.6 Noise Impact NO 1: Disturbance from temporary construction related noise increases S/SU No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities in Zone 1, adjacent to residences, as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Reduced construction activities would reduce noise levels in this zone to a less than significant level (meeting but not exceeding the 70 dba speech interference criterion) with implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 1a, Noise Control Plan. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination would remain due to noise in Zone 8 where construction would occur in close proximity to residential receptors. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: Although the noise levels in Zones 3 through 5 would increase, the impact would be less than significant in these construction zones, because these construction zones are not be in close proximity to residential land uses and because construction related noise levels would not exceed the 70 dba speech interference criterion at the nearest receptor. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination would remain due to noise increases in Zone 8 (and Zone 1, depending on the option used for construction of the southern point of connection) where construction would occur in closer proximity to residential receptors. ACWD Water Lines: Although daytime noise levels in Zones 6 and 7 would increase slightly, the impact related to daytime noise increases would be less than significant in these construction zones, because they are not in close proximity to residential land uses and because construction related noise levels would not exceed the 70 dba speech interference criterion at the nearest receptor. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination would remain due to noise increases in Zone 8 (and Zone 1, depending on the option used for construction of the southern point of connection) where construction would occur in closer proximity to residential receptors. However, nighttime construction would be required on three nights. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR (page ), nighttime noise levels could exceed the minimum ambient noise level of 54 dba for the three nights when nighttime construction would be required. Although the SFPUC would implement mitigation measures to reduce nighttime noise levels (M NO 1a, Noise Control Plan, M NO 1b, Temporary Noise Barrier or Enclosures, and M NO 1d, Nighttime Restrictions on Construction Activities), implementation of this proposed project update would increase the number of nights when this threshold would be exceeded, from 17 to 20 nights. Thus, this proposed project update would slightly increase the magnitude of this significant and unavoidable impact. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase construction activities and associated noise levels beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 23 December 2010

36 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 6 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES NOISE Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.6 Noise (cont.) Impact NO 1 (cont.) Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Although construction of sidewalk improvements would result in a minor increase in noise levels near adjacent residences related to the operation of graders, cement mixers, pavers, and trucks, the increases would be short term, on the order of several days, and would therefore be less than significant. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination would remain due to noise increases in other construction zones where construction would occur in closer proximity to residential receptors. Impact NO 2: Consistency with Fremont Municipal Code time limits S/SU No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, Revised Discharge Estimates, Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Proposed construction hours would be consistent with the construction hours specified in the Fremont Municipal Code for construction activities, a less than significant impact. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to nighttime construction activities associated with other project components analyzed in the Draft EIR. ACWD Water Lines: Implementation of this proposed project update would require nighttime construction on three nights, outside the time limits of the Fremont Municipal Code, and would increase the number of nights requiring nighttime construction from 17 to 20 nights. Thus, this proposed project update would slightly increase the magnitude of this significant and unavoidable impact. Impact NO 3: Temporary noise disturbance along construction haul routes and detour routes due to road closures S/SU No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities in Zone 1, adjacent to residences, as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Reduced construction activities would reduce truck traffic along haul routes. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination would remain because noise levels from haul and delivery truck traffic could still be substantially above ambient noise levels on residential streets and at the residence at the end of Crystalline Drive during the day, and because the feasibility of locating a second access point to Staging Area 4, farther from the residence at the end of Crystalline Drive, is uncertain. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: The construction activities associated with this proposed project update would slightly increase the number of haul and delivery truck operations along construction haul routes, from 10 trucks per hour as analyzed in the Draft EIR to 13 trucks per hour. Resulting noise levels would increase from a maximum of 65 dba analyzed in the Draft EIR to 66 dba along construction haul routes during the day. This would be more than a 5 dba increase over ambient noise levels, a significant impact. Although, consistent with the Draft EIR analysis (p ), the SFPUC would implement Mitigation Measure M NO 3, Haul and Delivery Truck Operation Limits, noise levels could still exceed ambient noise levels at the residence at the end of Crystalline Drive and on residential streets; therefore, this proposed project update would slightly increase the magnitude of this significant and unavoidable impact. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 24 December 2010

37 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 6 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES NOISE Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.6 Noise (cont.) Impact NO 3 (cont.) ACWD Water Lines: Implementation of this proposed project update would require nighttime construction and associated nighttime deliveries on three nights, and even with implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 3, Haul and Delivery Truck Operation Limits (consistent with the Draft EIR analysis), nighttime noise levels could exceed the nighttime 54 dba noise threshold at the residence on Crystalline Drive. Because this proposed update would increase the number of nights requiring nighttime deliveries from 17 to 20 nights, this proposed project update would slightly increase the magnitude of this significant and unavoidable impact. Impact NO 4: Disturbance due to construction related vibration Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase construction activities, and therefore would not increase associated noise levels on haul routes beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Construction of the proposed sidewalk improvements would slightly increase the overall number of haul and delivery truck operations over a period of several days. However, the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR is conservatively based on the peak week of construction which includes the maximum amount of haul delivery truck operations that would occur at one time. Average operation for the duration of the proposed project would be lower than during the peak week. This project update would include construction over a limited period of several days, would not likely occur during the peak week of construction, and would not cause haul and delivery truck operations to exceed the peak levels analyzed. Therefore, this proposed project update would not contribute to haul and delivery truck operations beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination would remain due to noise increases from other project related haul and delivery truck operations. S/SU No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Refined Discharge Estimates, and Sidewalk Improvements: None of the proposed project updates would result in adverse effects from construction related vibration, either because they would be located more than 100 feet from the closest residential receptors or they would not generate sufficient vibration to cause damage. Because construction of these proposed project updates would be restricted to daytime hours, no vibration related annoyance impacts would occur at night. However, the significant and unavoidable determination for this impact would remain due to nighttime construction activities at other project locations. ACWD Water Lines: Implementation of this proposed project update would require nighttime construction on three nights, and could result in vibration levels in excess of the peak particle velocity annoyance threshold at nearby receptors. Consistent with the Draft EIR analysis (p ), the SFPUC would implement Mitigation Measure M NO 4a, Vibration Limits, limiting vibration levels associated with nighttime operation of heavy equipment. However, implementation of this measure could not ensure that the nighttime annoyance threshold would not be exceeded. Because this project update would increase the number of nights requiring nighttime construction from 17 to 20 nights, it would slightly increase the magnitude of this significant and unavoidable impact. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 25 December 2010

38 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 7 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES AIR QUALITY Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.7 Air Quality Impact AQ 1: Construction emissions of criteria pollutants S/LS or S/SU* No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities, and correspondingly less emissions of fugitive dust and other criteria air pollutants as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Furthermore, the new location would move construction activities to the north of Agua Fria Creek, farther away from sensitive receptors adjacent to Zone 1. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination under the 2010 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines would remain due to emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: Implementation of this proposed project update would increase construction activities during the peak construction period or increase the length of the construction period if construction activities extend into the second shutdown of BDPL No. 4. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable under the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines because construction emissions of NOx would be 304 or 379 pounds per day (depending on the duration of construction), in excess of the 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day, even after implementation of BAAQMD specified mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Controls, and M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Control Measures). Relative to the BAAQMD threshold, this would be an increase over the 278 pounds per day of NOx emissions analyzed in the Draft EIR, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated. ACWD Water Lines and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Implementation of both of these proposed project updates would require limited construction activities over a period of several days. While they would slightly increase the overall construction related emissions of NOx and other criteria pollutants, the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR is conservatively based on the peak week of construction activities which includes the maximum amount of construction activities that would occur at one time. The average level of construction activities for the duration of proposed project would be lower than during the peak week. These proposed project updates would include construction over a limited period of several days, would not likely occur during the peak week of construction analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not cause the emissions of NOx or other criteria pollutants to exceed the levels analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination under the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines would remain due to emissions of NOx in excess of BAAQMD thresholds from other construction activities. Connection of Abandoned BDLP No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase construction activities and associated emissions of criteria pollutants beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 26 December 2010

39 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 7 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES AIR QUALITY Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.7 Air Quality (cont.) Impact AQ 2: Exposure to diesel particulate matter during construction LS/ or PS/SU* No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities and correspondingly less emissions of diesel particulate matter as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Furthermore, the new location would move construction activities to the north of Agua Fria Creek, farther away from sensitive receptors adjacent to Zone 1. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination under the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines would remain due to the uncertainty in how the 1,000 foot radius zone of influence would be applied to the analysis of a project s construction related impacts. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: Implementation of this proposed project update would slightly increase construction activities during the peak construction period or increase the length of the construction period if construction activities extend into the second shutdown of BDPL No. 4. The incremental increase in diesel particulate matter emissions of the proposed project with this update would result in an excess individual cancer risk of 4.6 or 4.9 in a million, depending on the duration of construction. The chronic non cancer index would be 0.14 or These risks are below the BAAQMD thresholds, which are an increase of 10 cancer cases in a million and a non cancer hazard index of 1.0 (under both 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). PM2.5 emissions would be less than the BAAQMD s 2010 threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter with implementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 2, Use of Soot Filters. Based on these updated emission levels, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and the increase in emissions would not be considered substantial. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination under the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines would remain due to the uncertainty in how the 1,000 foot radius zone of influence would be applied to the analysis of a project s construction related impacts. ACWD Water Lines and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Implementation of both of these proposed project updates would require limited construction activities over a period of several days. While they would slightly increase the overall construction related emissions of diesel particulate matter, the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR is conservatively based on the peak week of construction activities which includes the maximum amount of construction activities that would occur at one time. The average level of construction activities for the duration of the proposed project would be lower than during the peak week. These proposed project updates would include construction over a limited period of several days, would not likely occur during the peak week of construction analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not cause the emissions of diesel particulate matter to exceed the levels analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, the significant and unavoidable significance determination under the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines would remain due to the uncertainty in how the 1,000 foot radius zone of influence would be applied to the analysis of a project s construction related impacts. Connection of Abandoned BDLP No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: No change. These project updates would not increase construction activities and associated emissions of diesel particulate matter beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 27 December 2010

40 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 7 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES AIR QUALITY Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.7 Air Quality (cont.) Impact AQ 3: Odors generated during project construction or operation Impact AQ 4: Greenhouse gas emissions and conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions LS/ No All Project Updates: None of the proposed project changes would produce objectionable odors during construction or operation. LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities, and correspondingly less greenhouse gas emissions as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: Implementation of this proposed project update would slightly increase construction activities during the peak construction period or increase the length of the construction period if construction activities extend into the second shutdown of BDPL No. 4. Implementation of the proposed project with this project update would result in emissions of 5,762 or 7,122 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 E) (greenhouse gas) emissions in one year, depending on the duration of construction. This is an increase over the 2,733 metric tons of CO2 E analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this contribution of CO2 E emissions would be extremely small in terms of both the statewide and Bay Area greenhouse gas emissions, representing an increase of a maximum of percent of the statewide inventory and percent of the Bay Area inventory. Furthermore, for the same reasons discussed in the Draft EIR, these emissions would not conflict with the state s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, nor would they conflict with San Francisco s Climate Action Plan goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions established by the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance. In addition, the SFPUC is committed to implementing specific greenhouse gas reduction actions during construction, as described in the Draft EIR. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant. ACWD Water Lines and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Implementation of both of these proposed project updates would require limited construction activities over a period of several days. While they would slightly increase the overall construction related emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, the analysis in the Draft EIR is conservatively based on the maximum amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would occur during the peak week of construction and then calculated for the overall project greenhouse gas emission as if that level of construction occurred for the entire project construction period. The average level of construction activities for the duration of the proposed project would be lower than during the peak week. These proposed project updates would include construction after a limited period of several days, would not likely occur during the peak week of construction analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not cause the emissions of greenhouse gases to exceed the levels analyzed in the Draft EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant. Connection of Abandoned BDLP No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase construction activities and associated greenhouse gas emissions beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 28 December 2010

41 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 8 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGES UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.8 Utilities and Service Systems Impact UT 1: Relocation or temporary damage to or disruption of existing regional or local public utilities PS/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would reduce the length of BDPL No. 3X. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact by reducing the area where potential utility conflicts could occur. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Implementation of these proposed project updates would not require the relocation or protection of additional utility lines beyond those identified in the Draft EIR. However, additional ground excavation under these project updates would result in additional areas where utility conflicts might occur, a slight increase in the potential for temporary damage to or disruption of regional or local utilities. Regardless, impacts related to the temporary damage to or disruption of existing utilities would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures M UT 1a, Preconstruction Utility Identification and Coordination; M UT 1b, Protection of Other Utilities During Construction; M UT 1c, Advanced Notification; and M UT 1d, Emergency Response and Notification. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. ACWD Water Lines: Implementation of this proposed project update would include the placement and removal of temporary ACWD water lines and installation of permanent water lines beneath the Mission Boulevard median, and could result in conflicts with other utilities. However, as analyzed in the Draft EIR, impacts related to the temporary damage to or disruption of existing utilities would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures M UT 1a, Preconstruction Utility Identification and Coordination; M UT 1b, Protection of Other Utilities During Construction; M UT 1c, Advanced Notification; and M UT 1d, Emergency Response and Notification. Although this proposed update would slightly increase the magnitude of this impact by increasing the potential for utility conflicts to occur, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential for utility conflicts to occur because no additional excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. Impact UT 2: Reduction in solid waste landfill capacity LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less soil excavation than that described in the Draft EIR as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact by reducing the amount of soil that would require offsite disposal. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements: The additional excavation required due to these proposed project updates would increase the volume of soil requiring offsite disposal by approximately 800 cubic yards. Although the impact of the proposed project on the capacity of solid waste landfills would a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 29 December 2010

42 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 8 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGES UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.8 Utilities and Service Systems (cont.) Impact UT 2 (cont.) increase slightly, the quantity of soil that would require offsite disposal remains a negligible fraction of the total remaining landfill capacity. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the amount of soil requiring excavation because there would be no additional excavation; therefore, no offsite disposal beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. Impact UT 3: Impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less soil excavation than that described in the Draft EIR as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact by reducing the amount of construction and demolition debris that would require offsite disposal. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The additional ground excavation required for implementation of these proposed project updates would slightly increase the volume of soil requiring offsite disposal or reuse, and additional construction and demolition debris would also be produced. Therefore, there is a slight increase in the potential for the City of Fremont s solid waste diversion goals to not be met. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure M UT 3, Solid Waste Management Plan, included in the Draft EIR would ensure that these goals would be met. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation, even with the additional ground excavation required for the proposed project updates. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not affect compliance with federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste because no additional excavation or production of construction debris that would require offsite disposal beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 30 December 2010

43 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 9 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.9 Biological Resources Impact BI 1: Impacts on wetlands, aquatic resources, and riparian habitats S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less construction within Agua Fria Creek than that described in the Draft EIR, as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. This approach would not include construction of a new pipeline across the creek, but impacts to riparian resources would be similar to those described in the Draft EIR for open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek (Draft EIR p ) because the entire SFPUC ROW would be cleared of woody vegetation in accordance with SFPUC s ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy to provide access to aboveground structures on the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat. Thus, this impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: None of these proposed project updates would involve excavation or other construction activities that would result in loss of wetlands, aquatic resources, or riparian habitats. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Although the proposed sidewalk improvements would occur in a limited area outside the project area analyzed in the Draft EIR, these improvements would occur in areas that are paved or landscaped, and no wetlands, aquatic resources, or riparian habitats are present in or near these areas. Thus, there would be no change in impacts on wetlands, aquatic resources, or riparian habitats resulting from this project update. Impact BI 2: Impacts on special status species direct mortality and/or habitat effects S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: Clearing and grubbing for these proposed project updates would take place within the same area of disturbance analyzed in the Draft EIR. Thus, the effects of and mitigation for impacts on special status species would be the same as those described in the Draft EIR. This impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Although the proposed sidewalk improvements would occur in a limited area outside the project area analyzed in the Draft EIR, the improvements would occur in the areas that are paved or landscaped, and no special status species or habitat for special status species are present in or near these areas. Thus, there would be no impact on special status species from these proposed improvements resulting from this project update. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 31 December 2010

44 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 9 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.9 Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BI 3: Pipeline and trench dewatering effects on riparian habitat and/or aquatic resources S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: There would be no changes in the volume of treated water discharged for draining and disinfection of the pipelines compared to that described in the Draft EIR. The dewatering scenario under the proposed update would result in the same or reduced volumes of dewatering discharges relative to the location of the southern point of connection analyzed in the Draft EIR. Thus, this proposed project update could reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: If this proposed project update requires a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, the pipeline would need to be drained and disinfected a second time. This would result in additional discharges of approximately 14.5 million gallons of treated water to Agua Fria Creek. In addition, this proposed project update would add to the amount of construction dewatering required in Zones 3 and 5, which would involve discharges to Agua Caliente Creek. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to pipeline and trench dewatering effects on riparian habitat and/or aquatic resources would be less than significant with: 1) compliance with RWQCB Order No. R for discharges from SFPUC s transmission system; and 2) implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, which includes practices to control erosion, dechlorinate the treated water discharges, control flow rates, and ensure compliance with water quality and temperature objectives. Implementation of these practices would ensure that riparian habitat and aquatic resources would be not be adversely affected by the increase in discharge volumes. While the increased volume of discharges slightly increases the magnitude of this impact, the impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Revised Discharge Estimates: Based on the SFPUC s updated engineering analysis and the longer length of pipelines requiring draining and disinfecting, the refined estimate of the volume of treated water that would be discharged from the pipelines for draining and disinfection would be 28 million gallons (excluding the volumes that would be discharged if construction activities occurred during a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, addressed above). This is 20.2 million gallons greater than the volume analyzed in the Draft EIR. In addition, this proposed project update includes construction dewatering in Zone 7, which was not analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to pipeline and trench dewatering effects on riparian habitat and/or aquatic resources would be less than significant with: 1) compliance with the erosion control requirements of RWQCB Order No. R (described in Draft EIR pages through ) for discharges from the SFPUC s transmission system; and 2) implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices. Implementation of the erosion control requirements of RWQCB Order No. R and Mitigation Measure M HY 1 would ensure that riparian resources would be not be adversely affected by this increase in discharge volumes. While the increased volume of discharges slightly increases the magnitude of this impact, the impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 32 December 2010

45 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 9 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.9 Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BI 3 (cont.) ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project updates would not involve discharges of groundwater or treated water to riparian habitat or aquatic resources. Impact BI 4: Conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources S/LS No All Project Updates: Clearing and grubbing and excavation for the proposed project updates would not require removal of additional trees beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR for open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek and in other portions of the project area. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 33 December 2010

46 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 10 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.10 Geology and Soils Impact GE 1: Soil erosion and loss of topsoil PS/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less soil excavation than that described in the Draft EIR as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Less excavation would reduce the amount of potential soil erosion. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and ACWD Water Lines: Increased construction activities within the same project boundaries identified in the Draft EIR associated with these proposed project updates would result in a slight increase in the potential for soil erosion. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, which would require implementation of erosion controls. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential for soil erosion or loss of top soil as a result of ground disturbance activities because no additional excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: This proposed project update increases the amount of soil excavation under the proposed project. Although there would be slightly more soil excavation and inclusion of the proposed sidewalk improvements would slightly increase the project area, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, which would require the implementation of erosion controls as described in the Draft EIR. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact GE 2: Slope instability during construction LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: Although the second approach to the southern point of connection would be constructed within a narrow zone of potential earthquake induced landslides on the south side of the diamond onramp to I 680 (designated by the California Geologic Survey), the site specific geotechnical investigation did not identify landslide deposits at this location; therefore, this update would not result in unstable slopes. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project updates would not be constructed within an area of potential landslides, and the updates would not result in unstable slopes. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential for slope instability during construction because no additional excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 34 December 2010

47 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 10 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.10 Geology and Soils (cont.) Impact GE 3: Substantial alteration of topography LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements: None of these proposed project updates would result in a substantial alteration of topography because project related excavations would be backfilled to the original grade when construction is completed. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not result in substantial alteration of topography because no additional excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. Impact GE 4: Surface fault rupture LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, and ACWD Water Lines: These proposed project updates would be designed in accordance with accepted design criteria for fault displacement and the SFPUC General Seismic Design Requirements, as applicable. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: The connection of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert provides only additional detail regarding the design of the connection, and the revised discharge estimates address only discharges of groundwater or treated water to a creek; therefore, impacts from surface fault rupture would not increase relative to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Sidewalk Improvements Along Mission Boulevard: The proposed sidewalk improvements at Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road would be located on or near Trace C of the Hayward Fault, whereas improvements at Brown Road would not be in a fault rupture zone. Damage to sidewalk improvements from potential rupture of the Hayward Fault would not present substantial risk of harm or injury to people or habitable structures, as they are flat structures, close to the ground (i.e., would not produce falling debris), and could be repaired easily, and therefore represent a less than significant impact. Impact GE 5: Seismically induced groundshaking LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, and ACWD Water Lines: These proposed project updates would be designed in compliance with current seismic standards and the SFPUC s General Seismic Design Requirements, as appropriate; therefore, impacts from seismically induced ground shaking would not increase relative to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, Revised Discharge Estimates, and Sidewalk Improvements: Removal of the temporary ACWD pipelines would involve pipeline removal and installation of new permanent pipelines. The connection of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert provides only additional detail regarding the design of the connection, and the revised discharge estimates address only discharges of groundwater or treated water to a creek; therefore, impacts from seismically induced ground shaking would not increase relative to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 35 December 2010

48 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 10 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.10 Geology and Soils (cont.) Impact GE 6: Seismically induced ground failure, including liquefaction and settlement Impact GE 7: Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures Impact GE 8: Expansive or corrosive soils LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, and ACWD Water Lines: The potential for liquefaction in the project area is low (as determined by the site specific geotechnical investigation), and these proposed project updates would be designed in accordance with the SFPUC s General Seismic Design Requirements, as appropriate. Furthermore, impacts from seismically induced ground failure would not increase relative to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, Revised Discharge Estimates, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The proposed project update related to the connection of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert provides only additional detail regarding the design of the connection, and the revised discharge estimates address only discharges of groundwater or treated water to a creek; therefore, impacts from seismically induced ground failure would not increase relative to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: Although this proposed project update would be constructed within a narrow zone of potential earthquake induced landslides on the south side of the diamond on ramp to I 680 (designated by the California Geologic Survey), the site specific geotechnical investigation did not identify landslide deposits at this location; therefore, the updates would not result in seismically induced landslides or other slope failures. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project improvements would not be constructed within an area of potential landslides. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential for seismically induced landslides or other slope failures because no additional excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, and ACWD Water Lines: Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, these proposed project improvements would be underlain by non expansive fill, which would reduce the potential effects of expansive soils. As required for similar project components described in the Draft EIR, BDPL No. 3X, improvements to BDPL No. 4, and ACWD water lines would be coated with corrosion resistant materials, and a cathodic protection system would be installed to offset the effects of potentially corrosive soils. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, Revised Discharge Estimates, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The connection of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert provides only additional detail regarding the design of the connection, and the revised discharge estimates address only discharges of groundwater or treated water to a creek. Damage to the proposed sidewalk improvements by corrosive or expansive soil would represent a less than significant impact because it would not cause substantial risk of harm or injury to people or habitable structures and could be easily repaired. Therefore, impacts from expansive or corrosive soils would not increase relative to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 36 December 2010

49 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 11 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HY 1: Degradation of water quality as a result of erosion and sedimentation or a hazardous materials release during construction S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less soil excavation and less construction within Agua Fria Creek (compared to open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek) as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. The reduced excavation area and volume would reduce the amount of potential soil erosion. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project updates would require a slight increase in soil disturbance, and construction of the sidewalk improvements would slightly increase the project area analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, which would require implementation of erosion control measures as well as measures to address a hazardous materials release. This impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential degradation of water quality as a result of erosion and sedimentation from ground disturbing activities or a hazardous materials release during construction because no additional excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. Impact HY 2: Depletion of groundwater resources LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The dewatering scenario for the second approach to the southern point of connection would result in the same or reduced volumes of dewatering discharges relative to the location of the southern point of connection analyzed in the Draft EIR. This second approach would require dewatering of only one pit, whereas the approach analyzed in the Draft EIR would require dewatering of two pits (or a trench across the creek). Thus, this proposed project update could reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: This proposed project update would add to the amount of groundwater dewatering required in Zones 3 and 5, but the effect would be minor and would remain less than significant because, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, the dewatering activities would be temporary and there are no nearby groundwater production wells. Thus, this impact remains less than significant. Revised Discharge Estimates: This proposed project update includes construction dewatering in Zone 7 that was not included in the discussion of construction dewatering in the Draft EIR. Although this project update would increase the amount of groundwater dewatering, the effect would be minor and would remain less than significant because, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, the dewatering activities would be temporary and there are no nearby groundwater production wells that would be impacted by the project dewatering activities. Thus, this impact remains less than significant. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 37 December 2010

50 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 11 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.) Impact HY 2 (cont.) ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project updates do not require groundwater dewatering. Impact HY 3: Degradation of water quality and flooding due to discharges during dewatering of trenches S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The dewatering scenario for the second approach to the southern point of connection would result in the same or reduced volumes of dewatering discharges relative to the location of the southern point of connection analyzed in the Draft EIR. This second approach would require dewatering of only one pit, whereas the approach analyzed in the Draft EIR would require dewatering of two pits (or a trench across the creek). Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: This proposed project update would add to the amount of construction dewatering required in Zones 3 and 5, but the increase in groundwater dewatering requirements would be similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, and M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont, which would require implementation of water quality control measures to ensure that water quality degradation and flooding do not occur as a result of the dewatering discharges. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Revised Discharge Estimates: This proposed project update includes the addition of construction dewatering in Zone 7 that was not included in the discussion of construction dewatering in the Draft EIR. Although this project update would increase the amount of groundwater dewatering required, the effect would be similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, and would remain less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices and M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont, which would require implementation of water quality control measures to ensure that water quality degradation and flooding do not occur as a result of the dewatering discharges. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, Revised Discharge Estimates and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project updates do not require groundwater dewatering. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 38 December 2010

51 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 11 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.) Impact HY 4: Erosion, degradation of water quality, and flooding due to construction related discharges of treated water (from pipelines) PS/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection, ACWD Water Lines, Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: These proposed project updates would not affect the volume of construction related discharges of treated water from the pipelines. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: This proposed project update could potentially be conducted during a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, which would necessitate draining and disinfecting BDPL No. 4 a second time, resulting in additional discharges of approximately 14.5 million gallons of treated water. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to erosion, degradation of water quality, and flooding would be less than significant with: 1) compliance with RWQCB c Order No. R for discharges from SFPUC s transmission system (described on pp to of the Draft EIR); and 2) implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water District and City of Fremont. Compliance with these regulations and mitigation measures would ensure that water quality objectives are met and flooding impacts are avoided by controlling the timing and flow rate of the discharges. With implementation of these requirements and as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the SFPUC would be required to treat the water onsite to remove chlorine and adjust the ph to protect downstream water quality. In addition, the SFPUC would be required to comply with specific effluent and receiving water limitations that are protective of water quality. The flow rates of the discharge would be limited to 7.8 cfs, on the same order of magnitude as existing average flows in Agua Fria Creek, and the timing of the discharge would be coordinated with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) to ensure that the discharges do not contribute to flooding effects. These requirements are equally effective in protecting water quality and preventing flooding, regardless of the amount of water discharged; therefore, this impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Revised Discharge Estimates: Based on the SFPUC s updated engineering analysis and a longer length of pipelines requiring draining and disinfecting, the refined estimate of the volume of treated water that would be discharged from the pipelines for draining and disinfection would be 28 million gallons (excluding the volumes that would be discharged if construction activities occurred during a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, addressed above). This volume is 20.2 million gallons greater than the volume analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to erosion, degradation of water quality, and flooding would be less than significant with: 1) compliance with RWQCB Order No. R for discharges from the SFPUC s transmission system (described on pp to of the Draft EIR); and 2) implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water District and City of Fremont. Compliance with these regulations and mitigation measures would ensure that water quality objectives are met and flooding impacts are avoided by controlling the timing and flow rate of the discharges. With implementation of these requirements and as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the SFPUC would be required to treat the water onsite to remove chlorine and adjust the ph to protect downstream water quality. In addition, the SFPUC would be required to a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 39 December 2010

52 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 11 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.) Impact HY 4 (cont.) comply with specific effluent and receiving water limitations that are protective of water quality. The flow rates of the discharge would be limited to 7.8 cfs, on the same order of magnitude as existing average flows in Agua Fria Creek, and the timing of the discharge would be coordinated with the ACFCWCD to ensure that the discharges do not contribute to flooding effects. These requirements are equally effective in protecting water quality and preventing flooding, regardless of the increase in treated water discharge estimates; therefore, this impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact HY 5: Damage to existing piezometer and cathodic protection wells, creating a potential conduit for pollutants to enter the underlying groundwater aquifer LS No All Project Updates: None of the proposed project updates would require abandonment of additional piezometers beyond those addressed in the Draft EIR, or require protection of additional cathodic protection wells. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 40 December 2010

53 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 12 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HZ 1: Potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil and groundwater and interference with groundwater remediations Impact HZ 2: Gassy conditions in tunnels Impact HZ 3: Accidental hazardous materials release from construction equipment PS/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less soil excavation as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Less excavation would reduce the potential to encounter hazardous materials in the soil. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The slightly greater volume of soil that would be disturbed and managed as a result of implementation of these proposed project updates would increase the potential to encounter hazardous materials in the soil. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M HZ 1a, Update Environmental Database Review; M HZ 1b, Perform Soil Sampling; M HZ 1c, Hazardous Spoils Disposal Plan; and M HZ 1d, Health and Safety Plan. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential to encounter hazardous materials in the soil because no additional soil excavation beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. LS/ No All Project Updates: None of the proposed project updates would require tunneling. PS/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Reduced construction activities would reduce the potential for a release of hazardous materials from construction equipment. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The increased amount of construction activity required for implementation of these proposed project updates would slightly increase the potential for a release of hazardous materials from construction equipment. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices. Thus, this impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not increase the potential for a release of hazardous materials from construction equipment beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 41 December 2010

54 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 12 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (cont.) Impact HZ 4: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan S/LS No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection and Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: These proposed project updates would not affect access to adjacent roadways or impair an emergency response plan. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert, and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not affect access to adjacent roadways or impair an emergency response plan because no additional construction activities beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. ACWD Water Lines: Removal of the temporary ACWD water lines and installation of the new permanent water lines would require closure of the northbound loop on ramp to I 680 for one night and single lane closures on Mission Boulevard for two nights, and these closures could temporarily interfere with emergency response services. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, requiring the construction contractor to prepare a traffic control plan that specifies circulation and detour plans, and to notify local police and emergency responders of the planned closures. Thus, while this proposed project update would slightly increase the potential for this impact to occur, the impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: Sidewalk improvements could require temporary lane closures along Mission Boulevard, Curtner Road, and Brown Road. However, these would be brief interruptions and, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan. Thus, this impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact HZ 5: Risk of fires during construction LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Reduced construction activities would reduce the risk of fires during construction. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The slightly increased amount of construction activity required for construction of these proposed project updates has the potential to increase the risk of fires during construction. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of California fire safety regulations. Thus, this impact remains less than significant. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not affect the risk of fires during construction because no additional construction activities beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR would be required. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 42 December 2010

55 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 12 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (cont.) Impact HZ 6: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Reduced construction activities would reduce the DPM emissions during construction. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A: This proposed project update would result in an increase in construction activity and an associated increase in emissions of diesel particulate matter. However, as discussed in Table C&R 3 7, the increased construction activities of the proposed project with this update would only result in an increased individual cancer risk of 4.6 to 4.9 in a million. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant because this increase is less than the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million. ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements: Implementation of both of these proposed project updates would require limited construction activities over a period of several days. However, as discussed in Table C&R 3 7, the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR is conservatively based on the peak week of construction which includes the maximum amount of construction activities that would occur at one time, and implementation of these proposed project updates would not cause the emissions of diesel particulate matter to exceed the levels analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would be constructed within the project area analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not increase emissions of DPM beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 43 December 2010

56 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 13 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates? Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates 5.13 Mineral and Energy Resources Impact ME 1: Construction related fuel, water, and energy use LS/ No Second Approach to Southern Point of Connection: The second approach to the southern point of connection would involve fewer construction activities as a result of reducing the length of BDPL No. 3X. Reduced construction activities would reduce consumption of fuel, water, and energy during construction. Thus, this proposed project update would reduce the magnitude of the impact. Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD Water Lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard: The additional construction activities required for implementation of these proposed project updates would involve the use of slightly greater amounts of fuel, water, and energy. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant because these resources would not be used in a wasteful manner, and the SFPUC would implement measures that either encourage or require increased efficiencies in fuel and energy use (including exhaust controls required by the BAAQMD, the State of California s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, greenhouse gas measures, and energy efficiency programs). Thus, this impact remains less than significant. Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert and Revised Discharge Estimates: These proposed project updates would not include construction activities or use of fuel, energy, or water beyond what is analyzed in the Draft EIR. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 44 December 2010

57 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C LU: Cumulative disruption or displacement of existing land uses, and effects on the existing character of the project vicinity LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR pages 6 12 and 6 13, cumulative impacts related to disruption of existing land uses and effects on the existing character of the project vicinity could result from increases in traffic, noise, and fugitive dust emissions. Cumulative impacts related to increased traffic would be potentially significant, but the project s contribution to this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of project level and cumulative mitigation measures. As described in Table C&R 3 2, the proposed project update related to improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and the sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would slightly increase construction related traffic and associated traffic hazards. However, consistent with the Draft EIR analysis, project level traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, and the contribution to cumulative traffic impacts and related impacts on land uses would not be cumulatively considerable with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR C, SFPUC Project Construction Traffic Coordinator. However, as described in Impact C TR, below, the proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M TR 1 and M C TR. As described on Draft EIR page 6 13, there would be no cumulative impact related to constructionrelated increases in noise and vibration as a result of the project. The project s contribution to temporary increases in noise along the proposed detour routes and construction traffic related noise on Mission Boulevard, I 680, and I 880 would not be cumulatively considerable. As described in Table C&R 3 2, the proposed project update related to improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and the sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would slightly increase construction related noise and traffic. However, as described in Impact C NO, below, these proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 13, the project s contribution to cumulative land use impacts associated with dust emissions would not be cumulatively considerable with implementation of project level mitigation. As described in Table C&R 3 2, the proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines, and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard could slightly increase the amount of fugitive dust emissions, but project levelimpacts related to these emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 1a, BAAQMD Dust Control Measures, requiring implementation of measures to control dust generation. However, as described in Impact C AQ, a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 45 December 2010

58 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C LU (cont.) below, the proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 13, there would be no cumulative impact related to displacement of existing land uses during project construction as a result of project implementation because the project would not displace any existing land uses. None of the project updates would involve displacement of existing land uses during construction, therefore there would continue to be no cumulative impact related to displacement of existing land uses as a result of project implementation. Impact C AE: Cumulative impacts on scenic resources, visual character, and new sources of light and glare LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 14, where the proposed project and the cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity affect the same visual resources, construction related cumulative impacts on visual resources could be potentially significant due to the removal of vegetation during construction. However, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with project level mitigation and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 3, the proposed project updates would slightly increase the magnitude of construction related impacts to scenic roadways due to the increased project area for the proposed sidewalk improvements. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this small increase in construction related impacts associated with increased construction activities and larger project area would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, which would require the SFPUC contractor to restore areas disturbed by construction activity to pre construction conditions. The proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR pages 6 14 and 6 15, where the proposed project and the cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity affect the same visual resources, cumulative impacts associated with new sources of light and glare could be potentially significant. However, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with project level mitigation and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 3, the proposed project update associated with ACWD water lines would require three additional nights of nighttime construction when lighting would be required. However, the impact remains less than significant because the impact would be temporary and the project includes preparation of a lighting plan that identifies locations and methods to minimize light spillover to adjacent residential areas. The a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 46 December 2010

59 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C AE (cont.) proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 14, where the proposed project and the cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity affect the same visual resources, permanent cumulative impacts on visual resources could be potentially significant. As described in Table C&R 3 3, no trees other than those identified in the Draft EIR would be removed and, while the proposed project update would result in a small increase in permanent structures within the project area, the structures would not result in substantial degradation of designated scenic resources or the visual character of the area and the impact would remain less than significant. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. Impact C CP: Cumulative impacts on historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 16, the proposed project would not affect a historic architectural resource eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Places. Similarly, none of the proposed project updates would affect a historical architectural resource, and there would continue to be no cumulative impact on historical architectural resources as a result of project implementation. As described on Draft EIR page 6 16, most of the potentially cumulative projects and the proposed project would involve excavation within an area of high sensitivity for archaeological resources, resulting in a potentially significant impact on archaeological resources. However, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with project level mitigation and would be less than significant. As described in Table C&R 3 4, with the exception of the sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard, the proposed project updates would take place within the same area of disturbance analyzed in the Draft EIR, and similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts of the proposed project updates on archaeological resources and human remains would be site specific and would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M CP 2a, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Report for CA ALA 576, requiring implementation of a data recovery program and data recovery report for the known site, as well as Mitigation Measures M CP 2b, Extended Archaeological Survey for Areas Outside of CA ALA 576; M CP 2c, Archaeological Evaluation Plan and Archaeological Evaluation and Effects Report; M CP 2d, Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery Measures; and M CP 4, Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. These measures would require an extended survey to evaluate the a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 47 December 2010

60 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C CP (cont.) presence of previously unidentified archaeological resources and human remains in the project area and follow up measures for the treatment of any resources identified. Implementation of these measures would ensure that any archaeological resources encountered during construction would be recovered and appropriately managed. The proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 17, most of the potentially cumulative projects and the proposed project would involve excavation within an area of high sensitivity for paleontological resources, resulting in a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources. However, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with project level mitigation and would be less than significant. As described in Table C&R 3 4, with the exception of the sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard, the proposed project updates would take place within the same area of disturbance analyzed in the Draft EIR, and similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, the impacts of the proposed project updates would be to a less thansignificant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures M CP 3a, Paleontological Resources Worker Training, and M CP 3b, Paleontological Resources Monitoring, which require that workers are trained to recognize areas likely to yield fossils, that a trained paleontologist monitors excavation activities in formations most likely to yield fossils, and that accidentally discovered fossils be appropriately assessed for their significance and salvaged, if deemed necessary. Implementation of this measure would ensure that any paleontological resources encountered during construction would be recovered and appropriately managed. The proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. Impact C TR: Cumulative impacts related to increases in traffic and traffic hazards, access, and parking PS/LS No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR pages 6 18 through 6 20, the project could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts related to temporary reductions in roadway capacity, temporary increased traffic volumes and delays and safety hazards, and impaired access for emergency response vehicles where the project s construction schedule would overlap with cumulative projects that would also contribute to these impacts. However, the project s contribution to these impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of project level and cumulative mitigation measures. As described in Table C&R 3 5, the proposed project updates related to the ACWD water lines would require closure of the northbound loop on ramp to I 680 for one night and single lane closures on Mission Boulevard for two nights. The sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard could also require temporary lane closures along Mission Boulevard, Curtner Road, and Brown Road. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 48 December 2010

61 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C TR (cont.) Increased traffic resulting from Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, the ACWD water lines, and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would also slightly increase construction related traffic, and could result in associated traffic safety hazards. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, project level impacts of these updates would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, which would ensure implementation of a traffic control plan to reduce project level traffic related safety hazards. However, even with implementation of this mitigation measure, the project s contribution to this impact would continue to be cumulatively considerable, but reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M C TR, SFPUC Project Construction Traffic Coordinator, which requires SFPUC construction coordination with Caltrans, the City of Fremont, and county agencies responsible for reviewing and/or approving the construction of other identified private and public development projects to minimize traffic impacts on local access roads; particularly local streets where sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, residences, or hospitals) are located. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M TR 1 and M C TR. As discussed on Draft EIR page 6 20, there would be no cumulative impact on short term displacement of on street parking because construction parking would occur almost entirely within the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 right of way, designated staging areas within the project area, or in an offsite designated parking area. Although limited on street parking could occur at the north end (Tissiack Way area) and south end (Mohave Drive area) of the right of way, none of the cumulative projects would involve parking on the same streets as the proposed project. As described in Table C&R 3 5, parking for the proposed project updates would be accommodated in the same areas, and construction of the sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would not displace any parking. Therefore, there would continue to be no cumulative impact on short term displacement of on street parking as a result of project implementation. Impact C NO: Cumulative impacts related to increases in noise and vibration LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 20, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise from construction equipment, noise from haul and delivery trucks, and annoyance from construction related vibration at night. However, these impacts would be restricted to construction activities in the immediate vicinity of residences. None of the cumulative projects would include construction in the vicinity of proposed project construction zones or haul and delivery routes. Therefore, there would not be a cumulative impact related to temporary constructionrelated noise increases, noise from haul and delivery trucks, or vibration as a result of project a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 49 December 2010

62 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C NO (cont.) implementation. As described on Table C&R 3 6, proposed project updates associated with sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would slightly increase the overall project area and could result in construction noise impacts in the vicinity of additional residences. However, none of the proposed project updates would overlap with any of the cumulative projects. Therefore, there would continue to be no cumulative impact related to temporary construction related noise increases, noise from haul and delivery trucks, or vibration as a result of project implementation. As described on Draft EIR page 6 21, cumulative construction related traffic increases could occur on I 680, I 880, and Mission Boulevard due to implementation of the proposed project in combination with other projects. The project s and the cumulative projects construction related traffic increases along these routes would contribute incrementally to cumulative traffic noise increases on these three roadways, which currently carry high traffic volumes and generate high noise levels. Since the project s contribution to traffic increases on these roadways would be small compared to the total traffic volumes currently on these roadways, the project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 6, proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines, and Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard would slightly increase construction related traffic, including traffic on I 680, I 880, and Mission Boulevard and would slightly increase the incremental contribution of project related cumulative traffic noise. However, the project s contribution to traffic increases on these roadways would continue to be small compared to the total traffic volumes currently on these roadways, and the project s contribution to this cumulative impact which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. Impact C AQ: Cumulative impacts related to violations of air quality standards, increases in emissions of criteria air pollutants, exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants, and greenhouse gas emissions LS/ or S/SU* No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 22, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction emissions of criteria pollutants, despite implementation of project level mitigation. As discussed in Table C&R 3 7, the proposed project with the project update related to Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A would increase construction emissions of NOx to 304 or 379 pounds per day (depending on the duration of construction), in excess of the 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day, even after implementation of BAAQMD specified mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Controls, and M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Control Measures). Relative to the BAAQMD threshold, this would be an increase over the 278 pounds per day of NOx emissions. Analyzed in the Draft EIR, and the proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain significant and unavoidable. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 50 December 2010

63 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C AQ (cont.) As described on Draft EIR pages 6 22 through 6 25, under the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts related to exposure to diesel particulate matter during construction would be significant if the cancer risk for all sources within a 1,000 foot zone of influence exceeds 100 in a million; the chronic non cancer risk exceeds a Hazard Index (HI) of 1.0; or ambient annual average PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). The worst case cumulative health risk impact, assuming no reduction in baseline risk levels, would be less than the proposed BAAQMD threshold of 100 in a million and mitigated project emissions in combination with other major sources would not exceed the BAAAMD cumulative TAC threshold of 0.8 μg/m 3. Therefore, the project s contribution to cumulative DPM emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. As summarized in Table C&R 3 7, emissions of diesel particulate matter under the proposed project with the project update related to Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A would result in an excess individual cancer risk of 4.6 or 4.9 in a million, depending on the duration of construction. The chronic non cancer index would be 0.14 or PM2.5 emissions would be less than the BAAQMD s 2010 threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter with implementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 2, Use of Soot Filters. The incremental cancer risk, in combination with the cancer risk associated with the I 680 freeway and Mission Boulevard would be 87 in a million, less than the BAAQMD threshold of 100 in a million. The incremental cumulative chronic non cancer HI would be 0.69 or 0.71 depending on the duration of construction, less than the 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 1.0. With implementation of project level Mitigation Measures M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures, M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Control Measures, and Mitigation Measure M AQ 2, Use of Soot Filters, cumulative emissions of PM2.5 would be or μg/m 3, and would not exceed the BAAAMD cumulative TAC threshold of 0.8 μg/m 3. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 25, the proposed project and the cumulative projects could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact related to emissions of greenhouse gasses and conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As described in Table C&R 3 7, the proposed project with the project update related to improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A would result in emissions of 5,762 or 7,122 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 E) (greenhouse gas) emissions in one year, depending on the duration of construction. This is an increase over the 2,733 metric tons of CO2 E analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this contribution of CO2 E emissions would be extremely small in terms of both the statewide and Bay Area greenhouse gas emissions, representing a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 51 December 2010

64 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C AQ (cont.) an increase of a maximum of percent of the statewide inventory and percent of the Bay Area inventory. Furthermore, for the same reasons discussed in the Draft EIR, these emissions would not conflict with the state s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, nor would they conflict with San Francisco s Climate Action Plan goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions established by the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance. In addition, the SFPUC is committed to implementing specific greenhouse gas reduction actions during construction, as described in the Draft EIR. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. Impact C UT: Cumulative impacts related to disruption or relocation of utilities, landfill capacity, and compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 26, the proposed project area would not overlap with any of the cumulative projects, and none would be immediately adjacent to the proposed project area. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact related to relocation or temporary damage to or disruption of existing utilities as a result of project implementation. As described in Table C&R 3 8, proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard, and ACWD water lines would increase the potential impact associated with potential disruption or relocation of utilities. However, none of the proposed project updates would overlap with any of the cumulative projects, and none would be immediately adjacent to the proposed project update areas. Therefore, there would continue to be no cumulative impact related to relocation or temporary damage to or disruption of existing utilities as a result of project implementation. As described on Draft EIR page 6 26, the proposed project and all of the cumulative projects would generate construction related waste requiring offsite disposal and could contribute to a significant cumulative impact on landfill capacity. However, the project s demand on landfill capacity represents an immeasurably small fraction of the total remaining landfill capacity in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and the project s contribution to cumulative demand on regional landfill capacity would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. As described in Table C&R 3 8, proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would require additional excavation and would increase the volume of soil requiring offsite disposal by approximately 800 cubic yards. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 52 December 2010

65 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C UT (cont.) As described on Draft EIR page 6 26, the proposed project and all of the cumulative projects would generate waste that requires offsite disposal and could contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations if they did not include waste diversion measures in accordance with Assembly Bill 939 or the City of Fremont s (or other jurisdiction, as applicable) waste management ordinance. However, with mitigation the project s contribution to cumulative impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local solid waste statutes and regulations would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant, regardless of the compliance status of other projects. As described on Table C&R 3 8, the project updates related to improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would require additional ground excavation and would slightly increase the volume of soil requiring offsite disposal or reuse, and additional construction and demolition debris would also be produced. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure M UT 3, Solid Waste Management Plan, included in the Draft EIR would ensure that these goals would be met. The proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. Impact C BI: Cumulative impacts related to wetlands, aquatic resources, riparian habitat, special status species, and compliance with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 27, project construction activities along the Agua Fria Creek corridor and the cumulative projects would have the potential to affect these resources, a potentially significant cumulative impact. However, because project specific mitigation would ensure no net loss of jurisdictional waters and riparian resources, the project s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 9, the second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less construction within Agua Fria Creek than the approach that was described in the Draft EIR. Impacts to riparian resources would be similar to those described in the Draft EIR for open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek (Draft EIR p ) because the entire SFPUC ROW would be cleared of woody vegetation in accordance with SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy to provide improved access to aboveground structures on the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat. The proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 27, the proposed project could adversely affect riparian resources in Agua Fria Creek due to discharges of treated water and groundwater. However, there are no a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 53 December 2010

66 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C BI (cont.) cumulative projects with the potential to discharge to the same stretch of Agua Fria Creek or cause adverse effects on the riparian habitat of the creek. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact related to the effects of water discharges on riparian habitat as a result of project implementation. As described on Table C&R 3 9, the proposed project updates would not overlap with projects with the potential to cause adverse effects on the riparian habitat of the creek and there would continue to be no cumulative impact related to riparian resources as a result of project implementation. As described on Draft EIR pages 6 27 and 6 28, the proposed project and the cumulative projects have the potential to affect at some of the same sensitive species, a potentially significant cumulative impact. However, with project level mitigation, the project s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 9, the proposed project updates would take place within the same area of disturbance analyzed in the Draft EIR or, as is the case for the proposed sidewalk improvements, would occur in areas that are paved or landscaped and no special status species, or habitat for special status species, are present in or near these areas. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 28, the proposed project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources because project construction would require the removal of up to 44 trees that meet the City of Fremont size and species criteria for protection. However, while the cumulative projects would likely also remove protected trees, the majority of these projects would be required to adhere to the City of Fremont s (or other jurisdiction, as appropriate) criteria for tree removal permits, which stipulate that protected trees be replaced with trees of similar type and size, and there would be no cumulative impact related to conflicts with local plans and ordinances. As described on Table C&R 3 9, no additional trees beyond those identified in the Draft EIR would be removed as a result of implementing the proposed project updates. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. Impact C GE: Cumulative impacts related to seismic hazards, soil erosion, unstable geologic units, expansive soils, and changes to topography LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 28, excavation and grading under the proposed project would occur in an urban area where the soil has already been disturbed by highway or pipeline construction. Large amounts of fill are present, and there would not be a strongly developed topsoil horizon. Therefore, the project s impacts related to loss of top soil are less than significant; the project s contribution to cumulative loss of top soil would not be cumulatively considerable and would a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 54 December 2010

67 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C GE (cont.) be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 10, the additional construction activities required for implementation of the proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would increase the amount of soil excavation required under the proposed project. However, the increased excavation would occur in areas similar to those areas evaluated in the Draft EIR, and would also consist of areas where large amounts of fill are present, and there would not be a strongly developed topsoil horizon. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6.29, the proposed project and the single cumulative project located within or immediately adjacent to the project area are both SFPUC projects designed in accordance with the SFPUC General Seismic Design Requirements, which specifies appropriate construction methods to address site specific seismic hazards (including groundshaking, seismically induced slope failures, and seismically induced ground failure such as liquefaction and settlement). In addition, the cumulative project was constructed in 2007 and would not contribute to cumulative impacts during construction of the proposed project (such as slope instability). Neither project would alter the topography of the area, and both projects are designed to withstand expansive and corrosive soils. Therefore, the cumulative impact associated with geologic and soils impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project and cumulative projects would reduce the vulnerability of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 to surface fault rupture and seismically induced groundshaking where these pipelines cross the Hayward fault. With respect to seismic safety, the project s contribution to cumulative seismic effects would be beneficial. Similarly, the proposed project updates would be designed in accordance with the SFPUC General Seismic Design Requirements, as applicable, and would generally support the proposed project objective to reduce the vulnerability of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 to surface fault rupture and seismically induced groundshaking where these pipelines cross the Hayward fault. With the proposed project updates, the cumulative impact associated with geologic and soils impacts would continue to be less than significant and the project s contribution to cumulative seismic effects would continue to be beneficial. Impact C HY: Cumulative impacts related to degradation of water quality, depletion of groundwater resources, and flooding LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR pages 6 29 and 6 30, the proposed project and the cumulative projects have the potential to degrade water quality as a result of construction related soil erosion and accidental discharges of hazardous materials into downstream water bodies as well as construction related discharges of groundwater and treated water to Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks, a potentially significant cumulative impact. However, the proposed project s contribution to a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 55 December 2010

68 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C HY (cont.) this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with project level mitigation and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 11, proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines, and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would require a slight increase in soil disturbance, construction of the sidewalk improvements would slightly increase the project area, and improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and the refined discharge estimates would increase the volume of groundwater and treated water discharged to Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices and implementation of the requirements listed in RWQCB Order No R and SFPUC Erosion Control Standard Operating Procedures. Mitigation Measure M HY 1 requires preparation of a site specific stormwater pollution prevention plan that includes best management practices to be implemented during construction activities in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. RWQCB Order No R regulates discharges of altered water from the SFPUC Drinking Water Transmission System and sets numerical restrictions on water quality constituents, including the requirement that all chlorine be removed from treated water supplies. Because both NPDES permits were developed based on a consideration of regional water quality, implementation of Mitigation Measures M HY 1 and compliance with RWQCB Order No R , the proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. As described on Draft EIR page 6 30, the proposed project and the cumulative projects have the potential to deplete groundwater resources if the projects were to involve significant long term or permanent groundwater dewatering and could result in significant cumulative impacts on depletion of groundwater resources. However, based on the limited and temporary nature of groundwater dewatering under the proposed project, the project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. As described in Table C&R 3 11, the improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A would add to the amount of dewatering in Zones 3 and 5, and the revised discharge estimates would result in an increase in the amount of groundwater dewatering in Zone 7. However, the effect of this groundwater dewatering would also be limited and temporary in nature. The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 56 December 2010

69 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C HY (cont.) As described on Draft EIR pages 6 30 and 6 31, the proposed project and cumulative projects could result in cumulative flooding impacts if the other projects resulted in discharges or increased runoff at the same time as the discharges to Agua Fria Creek under the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project and the cumulative projects could result in significant cumulative impacts related to flooding. However, because the allowable flow rate of discharges to Agua Fria Creek under the proposed project would be restricted as required by project level mitigation, the project s contribution to potential flooding in the creek would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 11, the proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A and revised discharge estimates would result in additional discharges beyond those included in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to flooding would be less than significant with compliance with RWQCB Order No. R for discharges from SFPUC s transmission system (described on pp to of the Draft EIR), and Mitigation Measure M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water District and City of Fremont. In accordance with RWQCB Order No. R , the flow rates of the discharge would be limited to 7.8 cubic feet per second, on the same order of magnitude as existing average flows in Agua Fria Creek, and the timing of the discharge would be coordinated with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to ensure that the discharges do not contribute to flooding effects in accordance with Mitigation Measure M HY 3. The proposed project updates, with project level mitigation, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. Impact C HZ: Cumulative impacts related to a release of hazardous materials into the environment and impairment of or interference with implementation of an adopted emergency plan PS/LS No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR page 6 31, there are no cumulative projects with overlapping construction schedules that would be implemented in the same location as the proposed project and thus, there would be no cumulative impact related to exposure to hazardous materials in the soil or groundwater as a result of project implementation. The proposed project updates would not include new project areas such that the proposed project would overlap with the construction schedule of cumulative projects that would be implemented in the same area and there would continue to be no cumulative impact related to exposure to hazardous materials in the soil or groundwater as a result of project implementation. As described on Draft EIR page 6 32, the cumulative projects that have construction schedules that overlap with the proposed project and that could utilize the same roadways could result in cumulative interference with implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan as a result of road closures, increased traffic and traffic delays. Therefore, the proposed project and a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 57 December 2010

70 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C HZ (cont.) the cumulative projects could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts related to implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, but the project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with implementation of the project level mitigation measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, and the cumulative mitigation measure M C TR, SFPUC Construction Traffic Coordinator. As described on Table C&R 3 12, removal of the temporary ACWD water lines and installation of the new permanent water lines, and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would require increased roadway or land closures and these closures could temporarily interfere with emergency response services as a result of the closures or disruption of traffic. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, the project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with implementation of the projectlevel Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, requiring the construction contractor to prepare a traffic control plan specifying circulation and detour plans, and to notify local police and emergency responders of the planned closures and the cumulative mitigation measure M C TR, SFPUC Construction Traffic Coordinator, requiring assignment of an SFPUC Project Construction Traffic Coordinator. The proposed project updates, would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M TR 1 and M C TR. Impact C ME: Cumulative impacts related to the use of large amounts of energy resources or wasteful use of these resources LS/ No All Project Updates: As described on Draft EIR pages 6 32 and 6 33, construction of the project in combination with other projects in the region would require the operation of construction machinery during excavation, grading, and materials hauling and would contribute to the regional use of fuels (primarily gas, diesel, and motor oil), water, and energy. Thus, construction of the project in combination with other regional projects would contribute to regionwide cumulative increases in use of fuel, water and energy, a significant cumulative impact. However, the project s contribution to cumulative use of fuels, water, and energy would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. As described on Table C&R 3 13, the additional construction activities required for implementation of the proposed project updates associated with improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A, ACWD water lines, and sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would require slightly greater amounts of fuel, water and energy than the amount evaluated in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this impact would continue to be less than significant because these resources would not be used in a wasteful manner, and the SFPUC would implement measures that either encourage or require increased efficiencies in fuel and energy use, including exhaust controls required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the State of California s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Greenhouse Gas Measures, and energy efficiency programs. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 58 December 2010

71 Comment and Responses TABLE C&R 3 14 (Continued) EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT UPDATES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact Significance Determination in Draft EIR a Change in Significance Determination with Proposed Project Updates Evaluation of Proposed Project Updates Impact C ME (cont.) The proposed project updates would not substantially affect the project s contribution to this cumulative impact, which would remain less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant. a PS/LS indicates level of significance before mitigation/level of significance after mitigation; LS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; S = significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; = mitigation not required because impact is less than significant without mitigation; * = Significance determination under 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines/significance determination under 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 59 December 2010

72 Comment and Responses potential for soil erosion; and the potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil. Smaller soil excavation volumes would also reduce the amount of soil requiring offsite disposal or reuse. Decreased construction activities associated with this approach would result in lower constructionrelated traffic volumes and associated traffic hazards and noise levels along haul routes; fewer emissions of criteria pollutants, diesel particulate matter (DPM), and greenhouse gases; lesser potential for a release of hazardous materials from construction equipment; reduced fire hazard; and reduced use of fuel, energy, and water. Because construction activities would be avoided near residences adjacent to Zone 1, construction noise levels in this zone would be below the 70 A weighted decibel (dba) speech interference criterion with implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 1a, Noise Control Plan. In addition, residents would only be subject to intermittent and brief increases in noise from construction equipment accessing the new location, thus eliminating a significant and unavoidable impact in this zone (although this impact as a whole would remain significant and unavoidable due to construction related noise in other construction zones where construction or haul traffic would occur in close proximity to residential receptors). Compared to the analysis in the Draft EIR, the proposed project update associated with the second approach to the southern point of connection would involve less groundwater dewatering because only one access pit would require dewatering, compared to what would be required for open cut excavation or trenchless construction across Agua Fria Creek. Impacts to jurisdictional waters would be reduced because this approach would not include construction of a new pipeline across Agua Fria Creek. Only limited excavation would be required within the creek for the temporary construction access using steel plates and for a small amount of excavation required for the access pit to construct the southern point of connection at the new location. This proposed project update would not change the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, result in any new significant effects beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, or substantially increase the severity of a significant impact. Furthermore, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of implementation of this proposed project update Improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A As summarized in Tables C&R 3 2 through C&R 3 13, implementation of the proposed project update related to improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A would have similar impacts to those addressed in the Draft EIR in all environmental categories. This proposed project update would increase the amount of soil excavated by up to 800 cubic yards, which would result in a slightly greater magnitude of impacts related to: the potential to encounter archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains; the potential for utility conflicts; the potential for soil erosion; and the potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil. The increased soil excavation volumes, considered in the context of the more than 40,000 cubic yards of excavation required for the project as a whole, represents a minor increase. The proposed project update would also increase the amount of soil requiring offsite disposal or reuse. Increased construction activities associated with this proposed project update would result in slightly greater construction related traffic volumes and associated traffic hazards and noise levels along haul routes than are analyzed in the Draft EIR; slightly greater emissions of criteria pollutants, DPM, Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 60 December 2010

73 Comment and Responses and greenhouse gases; slightly greater groundwater dewatering, slightly greater potential for a release of hazardous materials from construction equipment; greater fire hazard; and slightly greater use of fuel, energy, and water. There would be no new noise impacts associated with construction activities because construction activities would occur in Zones 3 and 5 at a substantial distance from residential receptors, residential receptors would be protected by the I 680 soundwall, and no nighttime construction would occur. Compared to the analysis in the Draft EIR, this proposed project update would entail slightly more groundwater dewatering because dewatering would be required in Zones 3 and 5, in addition to the dewatering addressed in the Draft EIR. If construction of BDPL No. 4 improvements extends into the second shutdown of this pipeline, the construction period would be extended by two months, and a second set of discharges could be required for draining and disinfecting BDPL No. 4, resulting in additional discharges of approximately 14.5 million gallons of treated water to Agua Fria Creek. This increased discharge volume would also have a potentially greater impact on the riparian habitat of Agua Fria Creek. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR (see Impact HY 4 on Draft EIR page ), water quality and flooding impacts related to these discharges would be less than significant with implementation of the requirements of RWQCB Order No. R for discharges from the SFPUC s transmission system and Mitigation Measure M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont. Because implementation of the requirements of RWQCB Order No. R would ensure compliance with water quality objectives, and implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 3 would ensure that the discharges would be scheduled and maintained at a flow rate that would not contribute to flooding or degradation of water quality, impacts related to water quality and flooding would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, even with the increased discharge volumes. Similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts on riparian habitat and/or aquatic resources associated with these discharges would also be less than significant, even with the increased discharge volumes, with implementation of the requirements of RWQCB Order No. R (which would include implementation of practices to control erosion, dechlorinate the treated water discharges, control flow rates, and ensure compliance with water quality and temperature objectives, as discussed in Table C&R 3 10). Although the magnitude of some project impacts would be slightly increased, this proposed project update would not change the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, result in any new significant effects beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, or substantially increase the severity of a significant impact. Furthermore, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of implementation of this proposed project update ACWD Water Lines As summarized in Tables C&R 3 2 through C&R 3 13, implementation of the proposed project update related to the ACWD water lines would have similar impacts to those addressed in the Draft EIR in all environmental categories. This proposed project update would increase the number of evenings that nighttime construction is required, from 17 (as analyzed in the Draft Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 61 December 2010

74 Comment and Responses EIR) to 20. These additional evenings of work would result in a slightly greater magnitude of impacts related to nighttime construction related noise and vibration, as well as related nighttime traffic from haul and delivery trucks. Closure of the NB loop onramp for an additional evening and single lane closures on Mission Boulevard for an additional two evenings would result in a slightly greater magnitude of impacts related to reductions in roadway capacity and associated access for emergency responders. The proposed project update could also slightly increase the amount of soil requiring offsite disposal or reuse due to the need to remove the temporary pipelines, and would slightly increase the potential for utility conflicts during removal of the temporary pipelines and installation of the new permanent pipelines. The traffic and air quality analyses in the Draft EIR are based on the peak week of construction which includes the maximum amount of construction activities that would occur at one time, but is greater than the level of construction activities that would occur through the entire duration of the project. Therefore, increased construction activities associated with this proposed project update would not result in greater construction related traffic volumes or greater constructionrelated emissions of criteria pollutants, DPM, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the levels analyzed in the Draft EIR, because the construction activities associated with this project update would not be conducted within the peak week of construction. Increased construction activities under this proposed project update could result in a slightly greater potential to encounter archaeological resources, as well as a slightly greater potential for a release of hazardous materials from construction equipment; slightly greater fire hazards; and slightly greater use of fuel, energy, and water. Although the magnitude of some project impacts would be slightly increased, this proposed project update would not change the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, result in any new significant effects beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, or substantially increase the severity of a significant impact. Furthermore, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of implementation of this proposed project update Connection of Abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert The proposed project update regarding connection of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to Agua Caliente Creek Culvert clarifies how the connection of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert would be designed to dissipate the energy of an emergency discharge and prevent damage to the culvert. As summarized in Tables C&R 3 2 through C&R 3 13, the impacts associated with the connection would not change from that analyzed in the Draft EIR because soil excavation and other construction activities required for construction of this connection are already analyzed in the Draft EIR, and inclusion of the additional design details does not affect the impact analyses of the Draft EIR. Therefore, this proposed project update would not change the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, result in any new significant effects beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, or substantially increase the severity of a significant impact. Furthermore, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of implementation of this proposed project update. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 62 December 2010

75 Comment and Responses Revised Discharge Estimates Based on the SFPUC s updated engineering analysis, the refined estimate of the volume of treated water that would be discharged from the pipelines for draining and disinfection would be up to 28 million gallons, which is 22.2 million gallons more than the volume analyzed in the Draft EIR. As summarized in Tables C&R 3 2 through C&R 3 13, implementation of this proposed project update could result in a slightly greater potential for impacts related to erosion, degradation of water quality, and flooding. Without proper procedures, this increased discharge volume would also have a potentially greater impact on the riparian habitat of Agua Fria Creek. However, similar to the Draft EIR analysis, water quality and flooding impacts related to these discharges would be less than significant with implementation of the requirements of RWQCB Order No. R for discharges from SFPUC s transmission system and Mitigation Measure M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont. With implementation of these requirements, and as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the SFPUC would be required to treat the water onsite to remove chlorine and adjust the ph to protect downstream water quality. In addition, the SFPUC would be required to comply with specific effluent and receiving water limitations that are protective of water quality. The flow rates of the discharge would be limited to 7.8 cfs, the same order of magnitude as existing average flows in Agua Fria Creek, and the timing of the discharge would be coordinated with the ACFCWCD to ensure that the discharges do not contribute to flooding effects. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality and flooding would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, even with the increased discharge volumes. Similar to the Draft EIR analysis, impacts on riparian habitat and/or aquatic resources associated with these discharges would also be less than significant with implementation of the requirements of RWQCB Order No. R Based on the SFPUC s updated engineering analysis, the SFPUC has further determined that groundwater dewatering could also be required in Zone 7 during construction of the articulated vault. This would result in a slight increase in the volume of groundwater produced as a result of excavation dewatering during construction. However, as described in Table C&R 3 11, the effect on depletion of groundwater resources would be minor and would remain less than significant because the dewatering activities would be temporary and there are no nearby groundwater production wells that would be impacted by the project dewatering activities (similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR). Similarly, water quality and flooding effects of this slightly increased discharge would remain less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices and M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont, which would require implementation of water quality control measures to ensure that water quality degradation and flooding do not occur as a result of the dewatering discharges. Thus, this impact remains less than significant with mitigation incorporated. During the wet season, up to 6 gpm of groundwater could also accumulate within the articulated vault after construction and would be collected in a sump and discharged to Agua Caliente Creek. In addition, the SFPUC has determined that the volume of treated water discharged from the articulated vault after a seismic event would be on the order of 100 gpm, less than the 1,000 gpm described in the Draft EIR. However, similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 63 December 2010

76 Comment and Responses (pp and ), this discharge would be very small, and would not result in any longterm effects on water quality or groundwater resources. Although the magnitude of some project impacts would be slightly increased, this proposed project update would not change the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, result in any new significant effects beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, or substantially increase the severity of a significant impact. Furthermore, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of implementation of this proposed project update Sidewalk Improvements along Mission Boulevard The proposed sidewalk improvements along Mission Boulevard would include improvements to sidewalks at the intersections of Mission Boulevard with Brown Road and Curtner Road. Inclusion of these improvements slightly enlarges the project area (by less than ½ acre) relative to the description in the Draft EIR. As summarized in Tables C&R 3 2 through C&R 3 13, construction of the proposed improvements would require excavation that could result in a slightly greater magnitude of impacts related to: the potential to encounter archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains; the potential for utility conflicts; the potential for soil erosion; and the potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil. Increased soil excavation volumes would also increase the amount of soil requiring offsite disposal or reuse. Construction of the improvements could require temporary lane closures on Mission Boulevard, Brown Road, and Curtner Road, but these would be brief interruptions and could be effectively managed by the traffic control plan (Mitigation Measure M TR 1, Traffic Control Plan) discussed in the Draft EIR. As a result of increased construction activities, this project update would result in a slightly greater potential for release of hazardous materials from construction equipment; a slightly greater fire hazard; and a slightly greater use of fuel, energy, and water. However, all of these effects would be minor because the construction would be limited in extent and duration, and construction of these improvements would not involve a substantial increase in soil excavation, construction activities, or related traffic hazards. The traffic, noise, and air quality analyses in the Draft EIR are based on the peak week of construction which includes the maximum amount of construction activities that would occur at one time, but is greater than the level of construction activities that would occur through the entire duration of the project. Therefore, increased construction activities associated with this proposed project update would not affect the construction related traffic volumes and associated traffic hazards and noise levels along haul routes beyond those analyzed in the Draft EIR because they would not occur during the peak construction period. Similarly, this update would not result in greater emissions of criteria pollutants, DPM, or greenhouse gases. Although the magnitude of some project impacts would be slightly increased, this proposed project update would not change the impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, result in any new significant effects beyond those identified in the Draft EIR, or substantially increase the severity of a significant impact. Furthermore, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of implementation of this proposed project update. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 3 64 December 2010

77 Comment and Responses 4. Summary of Comments and Responses 4.1 General Comments Inclusion of Information on Construction Drawings Comment [G1] A note should be provided in the contract drawings that should specify the replacement and/or restoration to original or better condition of all ACFC & WCD s fences, maintenance access roads and any other existing improvements and facilities that will be impacted by the project. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWRKS 01]) A note in the contract drawings should be specified that the Contractor should submit to, and discuss/coordinate with ACFC & WCD any temporary diversion and dewatering system plans or groundwater dewatering discharges that will involve Agua Caliente and Agua Fria Creeks. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWRKS 02]) A note should be provided in the contract drawings specifying that an encroachment permit shall be obtained from ACFC & WCD prior to commencement of any work within the District s current and future right or way and for the construction, modification or connection to Districtmaintained facilities. All workmanship, equipment, and materials shall conform to District standards and specifications. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWRKS 03]) Response The Draft EIR states, in Section 3.7, Required Permits and Approvals (p. 3 53), and in Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality (pp , , , , and ), that the SFPUC would comply with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance (Chapter 6.36 of the General Ordinance of the County of Alameda) and obtain an encroachment permit from the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) for any discharges to and work within the flood control facilities under ACFCWCD jurisdiction, including Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks. The permit would address protection of ACFCWCD facilities from the effects of erosion, contamination, and other damage. The ACFCWCD would have the right to inspect work conducted pursuant to the permit to ensure that these adverse effects do not occur. The permit would also address the SFPUC s responsibility for repair of and damage to ACFCWCD facilities (e.g., fences, maintenance access roads, and other improvements and facilities). As stated on pages and of the Draft EIR, compliance with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance could require a groundwater treatment plan and discharge plan for discharges to the Agua Fria or Agua Caliente Creek. For work that Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 1 December 2010

78 Comments and Responses involves diversion of creek flows, a formal diversion plan could be required. All plans would specify the appropriate level of coordination with the ACFCWCD and would require ACFCWCD approval prior to implementation. Compliance with these permitting requirements and required plans would be included in the construction specifications for the project, and specifics would be included on the construction drawings as appropriate to ensure compliance with ACFCWCD requirements. The SFPUC and its contractor would coordinate with the ACFCWCD to ensure that construction specifications are consistent with ACFCWCD standards and specifications. Comment [G2] It is described that in the event BDPL No. 4, located within the intersection of and Mission Boulevard where the Hayward fault lies were to break in an earthquake, the release of water from this pipeline will be directed to Agua Caliente Creek. Engineering and construction details of the proposed drain line as well as necessary connection details to the Agua Caliente Creek should be adequately shown and called out in the contract drawings. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWRKS 04]) Engineering and construction details of the proposed 78 inch diameter pipe connection to both Agua Fria Creek and Agua Caliente culvert as referenced above should also be adequately shown and called out in the contract drawings. The County is confused as to the intent of this aspect of the project. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWRKS 06]) Response Page 3 17 of the Draft EIR states that the abandoned BDPL No. 3 would be perforated and connected to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert to alleviate surface flooding that might result in the event of a rupture of BDPL No. 4. As discussed in Section 3, Project Updates, the SFPUC has provided clarification regarding the proposed design of the connection. The proposed design would connect the then abandoned BDPL No. 3 to the Agua Caliente culvert through a tee connection located immediately above the culvert, allowing the culvert to act as a drain rather than a closed conduit. The tee connection would accommodate approximately 80,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of the release. It would also help dissipate the energy of the discharge to Agua Caliente Creek and prevent damage to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert in the event of an emergency release resulting from a rupture of BDPL No. 4 following a seismic event, and the design of the tee connection would be shown on contract drawings. Under the new proposed design, the 24 inch drain from the slip joint vault and discharges to Agua Fria Creek from the abandoned BDPL No. 3 have been eliminated. The text changes associated with these project updates are included in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 2 December 2010

79 Comment and Responses Weed Abatement Comment [G3] Will there be abatement of waist high budding weeds on east side of sound wall, along south entrance ramp to San Jose by 680 from Mission Blvd. In a few weeks the winds will pick up the pollen from the weeds and spread them. This makes it hard for allergy sufferers and the looks [sic] below the beautiful sound wall. (Bridget Ann Mayberry [I_Mayberry 01]) Response As discussed on Draft EIR page 4 5 in Section , Right of Way Vegetation Management Policy, the SFPUC adopted the Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy to manage vegetation that poses a threat or hazard to the operation, maintenance, or infrastructure of any of its water distribution and collection systems. The elements of the SFPUC vegetation management policy address the management and removal of vegetation, annual grasses, and weeds within the SFPUC ROW. Consistent with this policy, weeds along the soundwall that are within the SFPUC ROW would be abated by the SFPUC as part of ongoing ROW management. Weeds along the remainder of the soundwall are the responsibility of Caltrans. Comment [G4] This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. (Scott Morgan, Acting Director, State Clearinghouse [A_OPR 01]) Response Comment noted. 4.2 Project Description Discharges from a Rupture of BDPL No. 4 Comment [P1] It is described that the existing BDPL No. 3 would be perforated along the length of the vault after it is taken out of service and replaced by BDPL 3X to act as a conduit for excess water from BDPL No. 4 and would drain to Agua Fria Creek and to the Agua Caliente culvert through a new 78 inch diameter pipe connection. What is not clear in the DEIR is if the discharges to Agua Fria and Agua Caliente of excess water from BDPL No. 4 will be performed by SFPUC on a regular basis or only on emergency basis. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWRKS 05]) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 3 December 2010

80 Comments and Responses Response As discussed on page 3 17 of the Draft EIR and as modified as a result of the proposed project updates (described in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document), emergency discharges between approximately 100,000 gallons per minute (gpm) and 585,000 gpm of water from BDPL No. 4 could occur following a seismic event. These discharges would last approximately 30 to 60 minutes until the valves at the North and South Shutoff Stations are closed. During this period, approximately 80,000 gpm of water would be discharged to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert through the proposed new tee connection with the perforated BDPL No. 3, also described in Section 3, Project Updates. There would be no regular discharges of water from BDPL No. 4 or the slip joint vault to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert as a result of this connection, only an emergency discharge in the event of a rupture of BDPL No. 4. Text changes related to this emergency discharge are included in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions. 4.3 Plans and Policies There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Plans and Policies. 4.4 Land Use and Land Use Planning There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Land Use and Land Use Planning. 4.5 Aesthetics Tree Removal and Classified Landscaped Freeway Status Comment [A1] In the DEIR, the project proposes to remove a large oak tree on the southeast quadrant in Zone 3. Since Interstate (l) 680 is a designated scenic highway, the Department recommends preserving this tree through the tunneling option rather than the proposed open trench installation option. However, if the City chooses to remove the tree, please provide mitigation measures to address the scenic highway and landscaped status impacts. (Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation [A_DOT 01]) Response As discussed on Draft EIR page 4 5, Section , Right of Way Vegetation Management Policy, the SFPUC adopted the Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy to manage vegetation that poses a threat or hazard to the operation, maintenance, or infrastructure of any of its water distribution and collection systems. The Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy states that roots of large woody vegetation can corrode the outer casements of transmission pipelines. It also states that trees and other vegetation directly adjacent to pipelines can make emergency and annual maintenance difficult, hazardous, and expensive, and can threaten public safety. The Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 4 December 2010

81 Comment and Responses policy therefore addresses the management and removal of vegetation, annual grasses, and weeds within the SFPUC ROW and the management and removal of vegetation and trees on land leased or permitted by the SFPUC. With some exceptions, the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy restricts most tree species from remaining or being planted within 25 feet of the edge of a pipeline, and prohibits certain tree species, including willow and black walnut, on any ROW property. Therefore, the oak tree within Zone 3 (which is located directly above the pipelines) would be removed under the proposed project even if tunneling were implemented as suggested in comment [A1], as it is within the 25 feet of the pipelines. As discussed in Impact AES 3 (Draft EIR p ), removal of the oak tree within Zone 3 would only slightly open views of the area and would only be slightly noticeable to motorists along Mission Boulevard, I 680 (state designated scenic highway), and the I 680 on and off ramps. Therefore, the project s impact on scenic resources and the visual character of the area would be less than significant. As defined by Caltrans ( a Classified Landscaped Freeway is a section of freeway with plantings that results in requirements for control and regulation of outdoor advertising displays. The proposed project does not include outdoor advertising displays. Further, the proposed project area would be restored and revegetated, consistent with Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices and would not result in a change to the Landscaped Freeway status of I Population and Housing There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Population and Housing. 4.7 Cultural Resources Evaluation and Mitigation Requirements for Prehistoric Site Comment [C1] There is a known prehistoric site (CA ALA 576) located within the State s right of way (ROW). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resource Code 5024, and the Department s Environmental Handbook Vol. 2, the Department requires a Cultural Resource Study that includes the following items before an encroachment permit can be issued: An effects evaluation of potential project impacts to the archaeological site A mitigation plan per CEQA Guidelines (b)(3) Evidence of Native American consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code 5097 (Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation [A_DOT 02]) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 5 December 2010

82 Comments and Responses Response As discussed in Impact CP 2 (Draft EIR p ) and Mitigation Measure M CP 2a, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Report for CA ALA 576 (Draft EIR pp and ), an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan/Historic Properties Treatment Plan (ARDTP/HPTP) would address potential project impacts on this historically significant archaeological site. The ARDTP/HPTP, including a mitigation plan, is being prepared. The ARDTP/HPTP provides evidence of Native American consultation in accordance with applicable regulations. The content of the ARDTP/HPTP is consistent with the Cultural Resource Study described in comment [C1]. Comment [C2] Please note, archaeological monitoring is not an appropriate mitigation measure prior to evaluation of a resource. If the cultural resource evaluation results in the finding of a historically or culturally significant resource, based on the project impacts, a Data Recovery Plan may be necessary. The Plan requires approval by the Department. (Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation [A_DOT 03]) On page , Impact CP 2, please note that the State Historic Preservation Officer does not evaluate eligibility for listing on the California and National Registers under Criterion 4/D, but they may concur with the potential eligibility. (Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation [A_DOT 04]) Response As discussed in Impact CP 2 (Draft EIR p ), Site CA ALA 576 is located partially within the project area and has been previously evaluated and recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see Draft EIR p ). As clarified by comment [C1], the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this recommendation on December 29, 1999 (see the text revision below and in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, of this Comments and Responses document). Further, the ARDTP/HPTP that is being prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure M CP 2a, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Report for CA ALA 576 (Draft EIR pp and ) is required to specify data recovery efforts that would be implemented to recover archaeological resources, including possibly human remains, from the site prior to construction as well as mitigate for archaeological resources that could be permanently lost as a result of project construction. Caltrans would be provided with a copy of the ARDTP/HPTP for review. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 6 December 2010

83 Comment and Responses The Draft EIR, page , is revised as follows to reflect changes in response to this comment: Construction could result in direct impacts on known and/or unknown archaeological resources during earthmoving activities. Known archaeological site CA ALA 576 is located within the C APE. and has been evaluated by t The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the archaeological evaluation of the site in 1999, and concurred that it is as eligible for listing on the California and National Registers under Criterion 4/D. Resources eligible for listing on the National Register are automatically eligible to the California Register of Historical Resources. The significance of this resource could be materially impaired because construction excavation to depths of 15 to 30 feet could alter characteristics that convey its significance that is, the site s ability to yield information important to prehistory. The Draft EIR text changes in response to this comment are intended to clarify information. They do not introduce a new environmental impact or affect the severity of an existing impact discussed in the Draft EIR. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of these changes. Determination of Adverse Effects Comment [C3] Also, in the second paragraph, please note that the federal agency makes a determination of effect on a site, not the State Historic Preservation Officer. Again, the State Historic Preservation Officer may concur with the federal agency s determination of adverse effect. (Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation [A_DOT 05]) Response The second paragraph of Impact CP 2 (Draft EIR p ) is revised as follows: Avoidance is not a feasible option for the project because the pipelines need to be upgraded where they cross the Hayward fault. Without these upgrades, rupture of these pipelines at this location would result in flood damage, public safety hazards, and temporary loss of potable water supply to downstream customers for domestic consumption, commercial uses, hospitals, and firefighting purposes. Therefore, impacts on this known archaeological resource would be significant. The State Historic Preservation Officer additionally determinedconcurs with the Corps determination that the proposed project would have an adverse effect on archaeological site CA ALA 576 and agrees that avoidance through redesign is infeasible (OHP, 2009). Implementation of Mitigation Measure M CP 2a, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Report for CA ALA 576, which specifies preparation of a research design and treatment plan and a data recovery report for the site would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by requiring systematic data recovery. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 7 December 2010

84 Comments and Responses The Draft EIR text change in response to this comment is intended to clarify information. It does not introduce a new environmental impact or affect the severity of an existing impact discussed in the Draft EIR. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of this change. 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Encroachment Permit and Mitigation Requirements Comment [T1] Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. District Design Review approval will be required for all WSIP projects prior to applying for encroachment permits. Traffic related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: (Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation [A_DOT 06]) 4.9 Noise Response The need to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans is noted on pages 3 43, 3 51, 3 52, and of the Draft EIR. As indicated in comment [T1], traffic related mitigation measures would be incorporated into construction plans and contracts. As stated on page 3 52 of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC signed a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans on February 19, 2009 that outlines the review process by Caltrans, required submittals, formatting of documents, payments between the two agencies, and maintenance responsibilities during design, construction, and post construction. The SFPUC would continue to coordinate with Caltrans consistent with this agreement. There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Noise Air Quality There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Air Quality Wind and Shadow There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Wind and Shadow Recreation There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Recreation. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 8 December 2010

85 Comment and Responses 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems Potential Disruption to Water Service Comment [U1] ACWD has two vital pipelines, one 30 inch transmission main and one 12 inch distribution main, that will be affected by the SFPUC project. The 30 inch pipeline supplies water to an 18 million gallon potable water storage reservoir. This reservoir is a critical component of the distribution system and provides water to the southern end of ACWD s service area. The 12 inch main is an important artery for supplying water to the southern section of ACWD s Zone 2 South service area. Disruptions to these pipelines could compromise water service to ACWD s customers as well as adversely impact ACWD water production facilities. Therefore, outages of ACWD s pipelines will only be possible during low system demand and will be limited to 3 months or less. It is critically important that SFPUC take all the necessary steps to mitigate adverse impacts to ACWD facilities and customers. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 01]) It is requested that SFPUC closely coordinate any service disruption with ACWD, well in advance. It is requested that SFPUC provide an updated schedule showing all the proposed shutdowns and also name a point of contact responsible for coordinating operational issues with ACWD. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 04]) UT 1 does not address the potential issue for ACWD s water lines to be out of service. The waterlines are vital components of the water system and short term outages can only occur during low system demand. Any proposed outage must be coordinated and approved by ACWD. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 08]) Response Impacts related to the relocation and potential disruption of utilities are described in Impact UT 1 (Draft EIR pp and ). As discussed in this impact and Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR, Required Permits and Approvals, the SFPUC would enter into agreements with utility owners (including the Alameda County Water District [ACWD]) for the relocation, replacement, or protection of underground utilities that cross the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW (see Draft EIR p and Section 5.8 of Draft EIR). These agreements would specify appropriate procedures and scheduling for managing the utilities to avoid damage and disruption to service or for providing alternate service if service disruption is required. The agreements would also specify a point of contact for the SFPUC and the utility owners. Mitigation Measure M UT 1a, Preconstruction Utility Identification and Coordination (Draft EIR p ), requires notification to utilities in Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 9 December 2010

86 Comments and Responses advance of project construction and requires the SFPUC to make arrangements with these entities for the protection, relocation, or temporary disconnection of services and prompt reconnection of services, as required. Mitigation Measure M UT 1b, Protection of Other Utilities During Construction (Draft EIR p ), also requires the preparation of detailed specifications describing measures for the protection of underground utilities during construction. The SFPUC is involved in ongoing discussions with the ACWD regarding options to eliminate facility conflicts with the ACWD water lines within the SFPUC ROW during construction and would coordinate with the ACWD regarding appropriate measures and schedules for managing the relocation of water pipelines. These measures would be incorporated into the detailed specifications prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure M UT 1b. Plans for Protection and/or Relocation of ACWD Water Mains Comment [U2] The second paragraph states new pipelines will be constructed around the new articulated vault and reconnect to the existing water lines on either side of the right of way. This statement should be changed to state that ACWD is currently exploring other options with SFPUC to mitigate facility conflict issues and that ACWD s preference is for the pipelines to remain within Mission Boulevard at its current location. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 02]) The third bullet on page describes the relocation of ACWD s 30 inch and 12 inch pipelines. As stated previously, ACWD has not agreed to a permanent relocation of these pipelines outside of Mission Boulevard. Please modify the text accordingly. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 09]) Response The SFPUC and ACWD are continuing to coordinate regarding options for managing facility conflict issues with the ACWD water mains. The option for a temporary water line is addressed in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document (see Section 3.2.3, ACWD Water Mains). This additional option would involve temporarily relocating the ACWD water mains and then permanently relocating them beneath the Mission Boulevard median at the completion of construction. The EIR text changes associated with this change are provided below. Table 3.2 of the Draft EIR (p. 3 28) is revised as follows to update the options under consideration for eliminating facility conflict issues with the ACWD water mains: Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 10 December 2010

87 Comment and Responses TABLE 3.2 (REVISED) AFFECTED UTILITIES AND APPROACH TO RELOCATION/PROTECTION Location Affected Utilities Approach to Relocation/Protection (The rows above are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Construction Zone 7 Alameda County Water District 30 inch and 12 inch water lines The SFPUC and ACWD are currently evaluating options to eliminate facility conflicts with the ACWD water lines within the SFPUC ROW. One option includes temporarily relocating Remove the existing 30 inch and 12 inch 12 and 30 inch water lines that conflict with the proposed alignment around the articulated vault during construction, installing new permanent water lines in the Mission Boulevard median and over the articulated vault and pipelines after construction, and then removing the temporary water lines. Another option includes constructing new permanent pipelines around the articulated vault, and reconnecting them to existing water lines on either side of the SFPUC right of way, then removing the existing 30 inch and 12 inch water lines that conflict with the proposed alignment prior to construction. (The rows below are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) The last paragraph of Draft EIR page 3 36 is revised as follows to address the approach to eliminating facility conflict issues with the ACWD water mains: The ACWD water lines and the 10 inch USD sanitary sewer line that cross the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW would be temporarily relocated and later replaced beneath the Mission Boulevard median and above the new articulated vault, the new BDPL No. 3X, and the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, or they would be removed and permanently relocated around the vault. Under either option, the Nnew pipelines would be constructed around the new articulated vault and reconnected to existing water lines on either side of the ROW. The 10 inch USD sanitary sewer line would be removed and relocated around the articulated vault. The PG&E gas and electrical lines would be temporarily removed and replaced in kind at the completion of construction. Modifications would be made to the pipes and inlets of the Caltrans/City of Fremont storm drainage system to accommodate the temporary bridges needed to maintain traffic flow on Mission Boulevard and the I 680 onramps. The existing AT&T line would be relocated approximately 5 to 8 feet from its current position and temporarily supported/hung from supports above the construction work area. Removal or alteration of the existing 2 foot by 3 foot cement conduit boxes and manholes, and splicing the existing cable to the new cable could also be required for the line crossing Mission Boulevard. City of Fremont street lighting would be de energized, and the portion that conflicts with the BDPL No. 3X construction would be demolished and replaced at the end of construction. The City of Fremont or the construction contractor would provide temporary street lighting, similar to existing street lighting, during construction. The Agua Caliente Creek Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 11 December 2010

88 Comments and Responses culvert runs beneath the proposed BDPL No. 3X and would not be affected by construction of the pipeline. However, the culvert would be modified to accommodate drainage from the existing slip joint vault and the articulated vault constructed at the Trace B crossing, as described below. The third bullet on page of the Draft EIR is also revised to address the facility conflict issues: The SFPUC and ACWD are currently exploring options to eliminate facility conflicts with Tthe 12 inch and a 30 inch water supply distribution pipelines owned by ACWD would be relocated in Zone 7. One option is to temporarily relocate the existing water lines that conflict with the proposed alignment around the articulated vault during construction, install new water lines in the Mission Boulevard median and over the articulated vault and pipelines after construction, and then remove the temporary water lines. Another option includes constructing new permanent pipelines around the articulated vault and connecting them to existing water lines on either side of the SFPUC ROW, then removing the existing 30 inch and 12 inch water lines that conflict with the proposed alignment. The replacement pipelines would connect to the existing water lines on either side of the BDPL No. 3 and 4 ROW. The additional option to install temporary ACWD water lines during construction and then install new, permanent water lines in the Mission Boulevard median over the articulated vault at the completion of construction is also included as a proposed update to the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document, the additional option for managing the ACWD water line conflict would not introduce a new environmental impact or result in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of this change. Access to ACWD Water Lines Comment [U3] The DEIR proposes to use the area in the I 680/Mission Boulevard interchange as a staging area for large equipment used to construct the articulating concrete vault in Zone 7 and also for the relocation of ACWD s 12 inch and 30 inch water mains. Unobstructed access to its facilities will be significantly impacted if ACWD facilities are relocated within the vicinity of the proposed construction staging area. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 03]) Response We acknowledge that the planned location for the permanently relocated ACWD water mains would traverse Staging Area 3 between I 680 and the northbound diamond onramp. However, use of this staging area during project construction would result in surface disturbance only and would not cause disruption of service or require the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 12 December 2010

89 Comment and Responses underlying relocated ACWD water mains to be moved. During construction, equipment and materials could be stored in Staging Area 3 but could be moved in the event that ACWD requires access to the relocated water lines. After construction, the staging area would be returned to its existing condition, and there would be no further activities that would interfere with ACWD s ability to access the relocated water lines. The appropriate level of access during construction would be addressed in the agreement with the ACWD for the relocation, replacement, or protection of its underground utilities (see the response to comment [U1]). The description of the required agreements on p of the Draft EIR is revised as follows to address access to facilities during construction: Utility Arrangements with Utility Owners: The SFPUC would enter into agreements with utility owners for the relocation, replacement, or protection of their underground utilities that cross the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW where project construction would occur and for access to these facilities during construction (see Section 5.8, Utilities and Service Systems). The Draft EIR text change in response to this comment is intended to clarify information. It does not introduce a new environmental impact or affect the severity of an existing impact discussed in the Draft EIR. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of this change. Maintenance of Relocated ACWD Water Mains Comment [U4] The fifth paragraph on page states that project implementation will not have a direct, longterm impact on public utilities. ACWD disagrees with that statement should the proposed water lines be relocated through Caltrans right of way and private property. The pipelines currently in Mission Boulevard are easily accessible for maintenance and repairs should the need arise. The 30 inch pipeline is the sole transmission main providing water supply to ACWD s 18 million gallon reservoir that serves customers on the west and east side of Interstate 680. There has been no analysis on the impacts to maintenance associated with relocation of these pipelines. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 05]) UT 1 does not address the easement acquisition issues should the pipelines be relocated to Caltrans and private properties. This could have significant impacts to the project schedule since acquisition of these easements could take a year. Construction of the water mains cannot begin until all the easements have been acquired. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 06]) The EIR should also address environmental impacts associated with maintenance and repair of these pipelines and other utilities should they be relocated to non paved areas. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 07]) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 13 December 2010

90 Comments and Responses Response The significance criterion for determining impacts related to utility disruption (provided on Draft EIR p ) is whether the project would disrupt or require relocation of local utilities. The basis for the statement in Section , Approach to Analysis, that the project would not have a direct long term impact on public utilities (Draft EIR p ) is that, although some local utilities would be relocated (potentially including the ACWD water mains), there would be no disruption service during construction. If a utility could not be permanently relocated prior to the beginning of construction, temporary pipelines would be installed to maintain service. At the completion of construction and relocation of utilities, the utilities would be fully operational. Procedures for managing the utilities to avoid temporary disruption of service during construction would be addressed in the agreements between the SFPUC and utility owners (discussed on Draft EIR pp and ). Note that page 3 44 of the Draft EIR incorrectly states that Staging Area 3 (which would be traversed by the relocated pipelines if they are permanently relocated outside of the Mission Boulevard median) is partially located on private property. Further review has indicated that this area is solely within the Caltrans ROW, and edits to make this clarification are included in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, of this Comments and Responses document. The ACWD water mains currently run beneath Mission Boulevard, which is within the Caltrans ROW. If the ACWD water lines are relocated within the Caltrans ROW, including Staging Area 3, as presented in the Draft EIR, ACWD would need to apply for new encroachment permits and impacts associated with maintenance of the water mains would be similar to existing conditions. Further, relocation of the water mains would not result in impacts beyond those discussed in the Draft EIR. The SFPUC is currently working with the ACWD to finalize plans for managing water mains during construction. The intent of this coordination during the design of the proposed project is to incorporate ACWD requirements for relocation, prevent disruption of utility service, and ensure that all arrangements are in place in sufficient time to relocate the utilities while avoiding delays in project construction. The project is scheduled to start in late 2011 or early 2012; according to the SFPUC, this is sufficient time to ensure that appropriate agreements are in place. Coordination of Utility Notifications Comment [U5] Please ensure ACWD is contacted prior to any water service related notifications to ACWD customers. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 10]) A 2 4 day prior notification for shutdown is too short of a notice for outages. It would be preferable to have a shutdown schedule for each of the BDPL outages in advance so that ACWD Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 14 December 2010

91 Comment and Responses can coordinate outages of Water Treatment Plants so that they do not occur during the same time frame. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 11]) Response In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure M UT 1c, Advance Notification (Draft EIR p ) is revised as follows: Two to four days pprior to construction, the SFPUC or its contractor(s) will coordinate with the owner of the affected utility to provide advance notification to residents and businesses that could be affected by a potential utility service disruption. The SFPUC will provide the affected utility owner with a schedule of anticipated shutdowns and will work with the utility owner on timing and distribution requirements for public notification. The notification will provide information about the timing and duration of the potential service disruption. The required timing for notifications would be addressed in the agreements between the SFPUC and utility owners (discussed on Draft EIR pp and ). The Draft EIR text change in response to this comment is intended to clarify information. It does not introduce a new environmental impact or affect the severity of an existing impact discussed in the Draft EIR, but only clarifies Mitigation Measure M UT 1c, Advance Notification. Emergency Response Planning Comment [U6] ACWD appreciates SFPUC will develop emergency plans for potential utility ruptures. ACWD would like to review and approve the plans associated with ACWD facilities. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 12]) Response As noted in comment [U6], an emergency response plan would be prepared, as specified in Mitigation Measure M UT 1d, Emergency Response Plan and Notification (Draft EIR p ). This plan would address response measures to be implemented in the event of a leak or explosion resulting from rupture of a utility line during construction. The SFPUC would coordinate with the ACWD concerning its facilities and would provide a copy of this plan to the ACWD prior to construction. Adequacy of EIR Analysis on Relocating Sewer Lines Comment [U7] The DEIR appears to have addressed the relocation of the sewer line completely and we therefore offer no comments at this time. We have been in contact with the SFPUC Engineering to Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 15 December 2010

92 Comments and Responses coordinate the sanitary sewer relocation project and are moving forward with the design. (Al D. Bunyi, Associate Engineer, Union Sanitary District [A_USD 01]) Response The SFPUC would continue this coordination with Union Sanitary District, during development of an agreement for relocation of the Districtʹs utilities (discussed on Draft EIR pp and ). Note that as a result of continued coordination with Union Sanitary District, a longer length of the existing 10 inch sewer line in Zone 7 that is discussed in Table 3.2 of the Draft EIR on p would be removed and replaced, than was analyzed in the Draft EIR. The additional portion of the pipeline that would be removed and replaced would be located beneath Mission Boulevard, and would extend 100 feet beyond the project boundaries included in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR figures have been revised to include this new approximately 10,000 square foot area within Mission Boulevard as discussed in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document Biological Resources Environmentally Superior Option for Agua Fria Creek Crossing Comment [B1] DFG recommends that the new BDPL No. 3X be constructed across Agua Fria Creek using trenchless construction (Option A) to reduce permanent impacts to riparian habitat by 0.32 acres and reduce the need to remove 21 trees compared to open trench construction (Option B). Of the two options, we consider Option A, trenchless construction, the environmentally superior alternative since both options appear to meet all of the Project goals and objectives. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 01]) Response The Department of Fish and Game s preference for use of trenchless construction across Agua Fria Creek is noted. However, since publication of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC has determined that even with the use of trenchless construction, the entire ROW would need to be permanently cleared of trees and shrubs where it crosses Agua Fria Creek to provide adequate access to a number of above ground structures on the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, such as pipeline risers, that are currently difficult or impossible to access for maintenance with heavy equipment. Therefore, all woody vegetation would be permanently removed from the SFPUC ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek, regardless of which option would be used for crossing Agua Fria Creek (trenchless construction or open cut excavation) in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 16 December 2010

93 Comment and Responses Further, as described in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document the SFPUC has developed a second approach to the southern point of connection between the existing BDPL No. 3 and the new BDPL No. 3X. Under this approach, the southern point of connection would be moved to a new location between the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek. If this location is used for the point of connection, construction of a new pipeline across Agua Fria Creek would not be required. However, similar to open cut excavation and trenchless construction (as modified above), the same portion of the SFPUC ROW would be permanently cleared of woody vegetation in accordance with the Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. This would provide adequate access to a number of above ground structures on the existing BDPL No. 4, such as pipeline risers, that are currently difficult or impossible to access for maintenance with heavy equipment (see Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, of this Comments and Responses document for the text edits related to this update). Therefore, the same amount of riparian resources would be affected by construction under any of the three options. Biological resource and water quality impacts associated with implementation of the second approach to the southern point of connection are addressed in Section 3, Project Updates, and described in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, of this Comments and Responses document and would be similar to the impacts described in the Draft EIR (see Impact BI 1 on Draft EIR pages and ) associated with trenchless construction with the changes incorporated in this Comments and Responses document (see Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions). Note that if, upon further design review, the SFPUC determines that the southern point of connection would need to be constructed near the South Shutoff Station as analyzed in the Draft EIR, and the trenchless construction technique is not practicable due to design considerations or unforeseen circumstances, open trench construction could be required. Inclusion of the approaches under consideration for the southern point of connection in the EIR provides the SFPUC with flexibility in the final engineering design. However, the selected location for the southern point of connection and associated work within Agua Fria Creek and its riparian corridor would be addressed in the environmental permits required for the project, including the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, Section 7 Consultation, Section 401 water quality certification, and Stream Bed Alteration Agreement. The last paragraph on Draft EIR page 3 29 is revised as follows to correct an editorial error and address clearing of the entire ROW at the Agua Fria Creek crossing if trenchless construction is used to cross the creek: The driving pit would extend approximately 30 feet into the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek on the south side of the creek, and the receiving pit would extend approximately 10 feet into the corridor on the north side of the creek. The riparian habitat is classified as other waters of the United States (see Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 17 December 2010

94 Comments and Responses Section 5.9, Biological Resources). Installation of BDPL No. 3X using trenchless construction methods across Agua Fria Creek would require the removal of approximately five red willow trees which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROWThe entire 80 foot SFPUC ROW would be permanently cleared of woody vegetation to provide for future operations and maintenance of the existing BDPL No. 4 and the new BDPL No. 3X, in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. In all, approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat would be cleared. Approximately 26 trees would be removed, including 13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree, all of which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW (see Section 5.9, Biological Resources). The section titled Agua Fria Creek (tree removal) on Draft EIR page is revised as follows to address clearing of the entire ROW at the Agua Fria Creek crossing if trenchless construction is used to cross the creek: Agua Fria Creek (tree removal). Use of trenchless excavation techniques at Agua Fria Creek would require removal of six trees within the riparian zone. Due to the density of trees in the riparian zone, the tree removal would not significantly affect the visual character of the area as seen from land uses to the south of Agua Fria Creek or by motorists along I 680. However, the use of cut and cover excavation at Agua Fria Creek Clearing of the ROW to provide adequate access to aboveground pipe structures would requireresult in removal of all 26 trees within the 80 foot wide ROW and would partially open views between the residential area to the south and the transportation corridor to the north. From land uses south of the riparian zone, a segment of the I 680 soundwall would be exposed. For motorists traveling along I 680, the continuous riparian zone seen in Figure 5.3 2c would be interrupted. However, removal of 26 trees in this area would not substantially degrade designated scenic resources or the visual character of the area, as the overall riparian corridor, which is well developed with vegetation and trees, would remain, and the project s impact would be less than significant. The first full paragraph on Draft EIR page is revised as follows for clarification regarding the inclusion of two approaches for construction of the southern point of connection described in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document and clearing of the entire 80 foot ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction: Potential Impacts on Agua Fria Creek and Riparian Habitat using Trenchless Construction (Approach 1). For trenchless construction of the new BDPL 3X beneath Agua Fria Creek under Approach 1, the drive pit would be dug on the south side of the creek just north of the shutoff vault, and the receiving pit would Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 18 December 2010

95 Comment and Responses be dug on the north side of the creek adjacent to the freeway soundwall. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the driving pit for trenchless construction would extend approximately 30 feet into the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek on the south side of the creek, and the receiving pit would extend approximately 10 feet into the riparian corridor on the north side., requiring the removal of approximately five red willows. Construction of these pits would result in a permanent loss of 0.08 acre of riparian habitat because, The entire 80 foot SFPUC ROW would be cleared and grubbed where it crosses Agua Fria Creek to provide adequate access to aboveground pipeline structures, in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007) prohibiting willows within the ROW and specifying that other trees must be farther than 15 or 25 feet from the pipelines (see Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, Section ),. In all, approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat would be cleared. Approximately 26 trees would be removed, including 13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree, all of which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW. tthe removed trees removed for excavation of the drive pit and receiving pit would not be replaced within the ROW, but would be replaced in a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location (see Impact BI 4 and Mitigation Measure M BI 5a). Avoidance of this habitat is not feasible because of the limited space between the south shutoff vault (where the new BDPL No. 3X would be connected to the existing BDPL No. 3) and the riparian corridor on the south, and between the freeway soundwall and the riparian corridor on the north. This option for crossing Agua Fria Creek would minimize result in the loss of 0.4 acre of riparian habitat, the same as to 0.08 acre compared to crossing the creek with opencut excavation (described below)., which would involve the permanent loss of 0.4 acre of riparian habitat. The last paragraph on Draft EIR page is revised as follows to address clearing of the entire 80 foot ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction: Because of the permanent removal of riparian habitat where the drive and receiving pits would be constructed, and potential temporary effects on Agua Fria Creek during construction, impacts related to the loss of jurisdictional waters, aquatic resources, and riparian habitat would be significant. Impacts on riparian habitat would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat. This measure requires the SFPUC to provide protection to minimize impacts on adjacent riparian habitat on either side of the ROW and compensation for the permanent loss of riparian habitat within the ROW. Additional impacts related to water quality and aquatic resources (including erosion, sedimentation, and potential releases of hazardous materials or drilling materials) would be reduced to a less than Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 19 December 2010

96 Comments and Responses significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices (see Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality). In addition, construction at the Agua Fria Creek crossing would be completed in accordance with a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. The last two paragraphs on Draft EIR page are revised as follows to address clearing of the entire 80 foot ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction: Depending on the method of construction used to cross Agua Fria Creek (trenchless or open trench excavation), uup to 21 trees that meet Fremont s tree protection ordinance 8 criteria would be removed from the Agua Fria Creek riparian corridor where it crosses the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW, including 8 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree. In accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy prohibiting willows and black walnut trees within the ROW (see in Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, Section ), these trees would not be replaced within the ROW. However, the trees would be replaced at a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location, or the SFPUC would provide compensation for tree removal, in accordance with Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Replacement/Compensation. 8 Although there were 26 trees surveyed within the ROW, only 21 of these trees meet the Fremont tree protection ordinance criteria based on their diameter. The second and third paragraphs on Draft EIR page are revised as follows to provide clarification about the applicability of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat and to address clearing of the entire 80 foot ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction: To mitigate for permanent loss of approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat (0.08 acre for trenchless construction, or 0.4 acre for open cut construction), the SFPUC will compensate for the loss at a minimum ratio of 1:1. Compensation could take the form of purchasing credits at a mitigation bank approved by the CDFG or restoring Central Coast riparian scrub habitat at a suitable location acceptable to the CDFG. The compensation plan for the restoration will address site selection, legal arrangements and instruments for long term site protection, compensation ratios, a mitigation work plan for the compensation project, a maintenance plan, success criteria, a monitoring plan to determine if the compensation project is meeting performance criteria, long term management requirements, and an adaptive management plan to address unforeseen changes. If the SFPUC purchase credits at a mitigation bank, its obligation will be fully met. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 20 December 2010

97 Comment and Responses If the SFPUC fulfills the requirement for compensation through habitat restoration, the land will be preserved in perpetuity with a commitment that the land not be used for any purpose that conflicts with the primary purpose of maintaining wildlife and riparian habitat. The success criteria and monitoring schedule compensation plan will be developed by a qualified restoration specialist and will require approval from the CDFG. An annual monitoring report will be submitted to the CDFG. If the site meets success criteria within the schedule agreed to with the CDFG, the mitigation site will be determined to be self sustaining, and no further monitoring or reporting will be required. If the site does not meet the success criteria, then SFPUC will consult with the CDFG to determine and implement appropriate steps to facilitate the site as selfsustaining. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of this clarification to the Draft EIR. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of this change. Restoration of Agua Fria Creek Comment [B2] This measure requires SFPUC to provide protection for riparian habitat adjacent to the ROW, compensate for the permanent loss of riparian habitat and restore Agua Fria Creek to its pre construction conditions (pg ). If Agua Fria Creek is permanently impacted by preventing the growth of riparian vegetation, please clarify how it will also be restored to its pre construction condition. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 02]) Response As stated in Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat (Draft EIR p ), Central Coast riparian scrub would not be restored within the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW because the establishment of riparian trees is not consistent with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Policy. However, the SFPUC would not prevent the growth of all riparian vegetation along Agua Fria Creek in the impacted area. The SFPUC would restore temporarily disturbed habitat to the extent that is consistent with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, as discussed on pages and of the Draft EIR. While riparian scrub is not consistent with the vegetation management policy, other types of riparian vegetation would be consistent, such as native plants with root systems that would not adversely affect the pipelines. To establish vegetation, the SFPUC would remove and store topsoil during construction and replace topsoil when construction is complete; reestablish original natural contours; and plant the appropriate vegetation as determined by a qualified restoration specialist, as discussed on page of the Draft EIR. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 21 December 2010

98 Comments and Responses Regarding Agua Fria Creek, it is intended that Agua Fria Creek s natural contours would be restored to preconstruction conditions, as indicated in Mitigation Measure M BI 1. The first paragraph on page of the Draft EIR is revised as follows to make a clarification about restoration of the Agua Fria Creek channel: Because of the permanent removal of riparian habitat within the ROW, temporary loss of other waters of the United States within the streambed of Agua Fria Creek, and potential temporary effects on Agua Fria Creek and its aquatic resources during construction, impacts related to the loss of jurisdictional waters, aquatic resources, and riparian habitat would be significant. Impacts on riparian habitat and other waters of the United States would be reduced to a less thansignificant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat. This measure requires the SFPUC to provide protection for riparian habitat adjacent to the ROW, compensate for the permanent loss of riparian habitat, restore temporarily disturbed habitat to the extent that is consistent with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, and restore the Agua Fria Creek channel to its preconstruction topographycondition. Additional impacts related to water quality and aquatic resources (including erosion, sedimentation, and potential releases of hazardous materials) and associated mitigation measures would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices (see Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality). In addition, the stream crossing would be completed in accordance with a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 404 permit from the Corps, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or Report of Waste Discharge from the RWQCB. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of this clarification to the Draft EIR. The text edits provide clarification of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, but no new mitigation measures are required in response to this comment. California Tiger Salamander Comment [B3] Additional supporting information would strengthen the CEQA document to provide a high degree of certainty that CTS or suitable CTS habitat is not present within the Project area. The draft EIR indicates there is a 0.29 acre freshwater seep within Staging Area 4 mapped as wetlands (pg ) and 14.1 acres of ruderal land and 8.3 acres of non native annual grassland (pg ). The draft EIR also indicates that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records include known occurrences of CTS approximately one mile upstream of the Project area within the upper watershed of Agua Fria Creek. In addition the draft EIR notes Some portions of the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 22 December 2010

99 Comment and Responses project area could possibly serve as a wildlife movement corridor for native resident and migratory species, including the pipeline ROW itself and Agua Fria Creek (pg ). (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 03]) Response The text on page of the Draft EIR is revised as follows to provide further evidence that neither California tiger salamander nor suitable habitat is present within the project area, to reflect the recent addition of the California tiger salamander to the state list of threatened species, and to correct the distance to nearest known occurrence of California tiger salamander. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). California tiger salamander is federally listed as threatened, and is a candidate for listing as endangered state listed as threatened under CESA, and is designated as a California species of special concern (CDFG, 2008a, 2009, 2010). When not breeding, adults live and forage in upland small mammal burrows or cracks in soil. Breeding occurs in a vernal pool or similar ephemeral water body, including stock ponds, where no bullfrogs (predators of California tiger salamander eggs and larvae) are present, and where pools contain standing water continuously for at least 10 weeks, extending into April (USFWS, 2003). California tiger salamanders do not breed in streams or other flowing water. There is no suitable breeding habitat within the project area because Agua Fria Creek has flowing water, and the freshwater seep within Staging Area 4 is a sloped feature that drains through a swale to Agua Caliente Creek, has no standing water, and is not a pool or pond. When not breeding, adults live and forage in upland small mammal burrows or cracks in soil that are within 1.24 miles of suitable breeding habitat (the greatest distance that California tiger salamanders have been known to travel) (USFWS, 2003). Based on site visits conducted in 2007 and 2008, the ruderal habitat of Staging Area 4 and annual grasslands that cover much of the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW as well as Staging Areas 1, 2, and 3 have no small mammal burrows or cracks in the soil. Furthermore, the project area is at least 1.7 linear miles northwest of the closest CNDDB record for breeding California tiger salamander. Moreover, as discussed on pages and 5.9 8, there are no suitable migration corridors that could be used by California tiger salamanders to move to the project area. Because the project area does not contain suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander, the upland areas have no small mammal burrows or cracks in the soil, and the upland areas are inaccessible from suitable breeding habitat, there is no potential for this species to occur within the project area. This conclusion is consistent with that reached during the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species consultation for the I 680 Sunol Grade Northbound High Occupancy Vehicle Widening project in 2005, the project area of which completely encompasses the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 project area (USFWS, 2005). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 23 December 2010

100 Comments and Responses The closest California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record for California tiger salamander is from 1998, in an artificial pond within the upper watershed of Agua Fria Creek, approximately one linear mile upstream of the project area. There is no suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders in the project area due to the urban and ruderal nature of the area, and the lack of small seasonal water sources (such as small ponds); in addition, there is no suitable upland habitat for adults in the project area, as the ruderal habitat and annual grasslands have no small mammal burrows or cracks in the soil, which the species uses as refugia. Based on the lack of suitable habitat, there is no potential for this species to occur within the project area. Table (Draft EIR p ) is also revised as follows to reflect the updated designation of California tiger salamander and the correct distance of the nearest known occurrence: TABLE (REVISED) SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Federal/State/ CDFG Habitat Potential to Occur in Project Area (The rows above are omitted for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) T/TCE/SSC Needs underground refuges, such as mammal burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources (The rows above are omitted for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) None; CNDDB closest occurrence within miles of thefrom project area; however, development and I 680 block access to project area; no breeding habitat present The following references are added to Section 5.9.6, References (Draft EIR p ): California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), New and Proposed Regulations, Accessed on September 10, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Formal Endangered Species Consultation and Conference Opinion on the I 680 Sunol Grade Northbound High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Widening Project in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California, No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of this clarification to the Draft EIR. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of these changes. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 24 December 2010

101 Comment and Responses Comment [B4] CTS is a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. As such, incidental take authorization must be provided by DFG for the take, or incidental take of any CTS. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 04]) Response This comment is acknowledged. As discussed in response to comment [B3], there is no potential for California tiger salamander to be present in the project area. Western Burrowing Owl Comment [B5] To avoid violation of Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and , any occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Initial pre construction surveys should be conducted outside of the owl breeding season (from February 1 to August 31). Generally, initial pre construction surveys should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities (e.g., disking, clearing, grubbing, grading). Additional surveys are necessary when the initial disturbance is followed by periods of inactivity or the development is phased spatially and/or temporally over the Project area. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 05]) Response As described by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) breeding season surveys are necessary to conclusively establish the presence or absence of burrowing owls. If construction starts during the breeding season, the initial surveys would not be conducted during the breeding season when construction work is scheduled to start, but rather during the breeding season in the year prior to the start of construction, as specified in Mitigation Measure M BI 2d, Avoidance and Mitigation Measures for Western Burrowing Owls (Draft EIR pp and ). This portion of the measure is consistent with the California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines (1993). To further ensure that no occupied burrows are disturbed should initial disturbance be followed by periods of inactivity, and consistent with the Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines (1993), the following bullet is added to the end of Mitigation Measure M BI 2d on Draft EIR page : Repeat Surveys. If initial disturbance from construction activity is followed by periods of 30 days or more of inactivity, a survey must be conducted no more than 30 days prior to reinitiating ground disturbing activity. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of this addition to the mitigation measure. The text edits provide clarification to Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 25 December 2010

102 Comments and Responses Mitigation Measure M BI 2d, but no new mitigation measures are required in response to this comment. Comment [B6] If suitable habitat is destroyed prior to adequate burrowing owl surveys, DFG may assume owls to have been present, and mitigation should be required by the Lead Agency in consultation with DFG. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 06]) If burrowing owls have been documented to occupy burrows at the Project site at any time during the previous three years, the site should be considered occupied by owls and mitigation should be required. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 07]) Any project impacting burrowing owls or owl habitat should provide compensation, based on the best available scientific information provided above, that is roughly proportional to the impacts of the project [CEQA Guidelines (a)(4)(B)]. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 08]) Mitigation should be based on the assumption that the acquired lands do or will provide equal or superior habitat value compared to the impacted lands. This will likely require habitat enhancement and long term habitat management. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 10]) Response Mitigation Measure M BI 2d, Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Burrowing Owl (Draft EIR pp to ), requires burrowing owl surveys and implementation of measures to avoid adverse effects on burrowing owls and loss of suitable habitat. Nevertheless, compensation for the permanent loss of suitable habitat is added as the last bullet of Mitigation Measure M BI 2d to address the unlikely event that suitable habitat is destroyed. The added measure specifies that the compensation would be a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per occupied burrow identified in the project area (per 1995 California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] guidance) and that the compensation lands would provide equal or superior habitat value compared to the affected lands. This measure also requires the SFPUC to implement habitat enhancement actions and long term habitat management to ensure the quality of the compensation lands. In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure M BI 2d is revised to include the following measure on page : If occupied burrowing owl burrows are found and the owls must be relocated, or if suitable habitat is destroyed prior to adequate burrowing owl surveys, and habitat is permanently impacted by the construction of a project facility, the SFPUC will offset the permanent loss of foraging and Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 26 December 2010

103 Comment and Responses burrow habitat in the project area by either acquiring mitigation credits or permanently protecting a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per each pair or unpaired resident bird that is passively relocated from an occupied burrow (per 1995 CDFG guidance). The protected lands will be located adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and must provide equal or superior habitat value compared to the affected lands. The location of the protected lands will be determined in coordination with the CDFG. The SFPUC will provide habitat enhancement as necessary to ensure the required habitat value of the protected lands and will also prepare a monitoring plan and provide long term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The mitigation land will be protected in perpetuity, and the area will be managed as a conservation easement. The monitoring plan will specify success criteria, identify remedial measures, and require an annual report to be submitted to the CDFG for a minimum of five years. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the above text changes. The text edits provide clarification of Mitigation Measure M BI 2d, and no new mitigation measures are required in response to this comment. Comment [B7] Cumulative/indirect effect assessments should consider the following: the project s proportional share of reasonably foreseeable impacts on burrowing owls that are caused by that project, or in combination with other projects having impacts on burrowing owls. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 09]) Response The Draft EIR (pp and 6 28) addresses cumulative impacts on burrowing owls and concludes that with project level mitigation, the project s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore would be less than significant. Comment [B8] Direct take of nests outside of the breeding season does not reduce the impact to a level of lessthan significant for birds known to have high site fidelity such as burrowing owl, red shouldered hawk, Swainson s hawk, red tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, and barn owl. If there will be direct take of nests on the Project site for species known to have high site fidelity, mitigation measures should be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These should include protection and enhancement of known nesting sites at a location acceptable to DFG, in accordance with established protocol, if available. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 11]) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 27 December 2010

104 Comments and Responses Response The significance criterion for the evaluation of impacts on a candidate, sensitive, or special status species is whether the project would 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 CDFG or USFWS. As further stated in the Draft EIR (Section , Approach to Analysis, p ), the word substantial is defined by the magnitude and duration of the impact, uniqueness of the affected resource, and the susceptibility of the resource to disturbance. Removal of unoccupied nests during project implementation could potentially result in nesting failure of one set of birds for one year; however, this impact would not be large enough to be considered substantial. Further, for birds with high site fidelity, it is unknown whether removal of nests outside of the breeding season results in lower future nesting success and it is speculative to predict that the removal of a nest in the nonbreeding season would result in nest failure the following year because, even when some birds return to the same nest tree, nests are abandoned for any number of natural reasons (e.g., destruction by rain or wind or the eventual collapse of the nest from its own weight). Therefore, the removal of nests lacks the magnitude to be considered a substantial adverse effect on a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, and no compensation is necessary. California Red legged Frog Comment [B9] California Red Legged Frog Impacts from construction activities which could cause direct mortality from site clearing and excavation activities are reduced from protection measures described in Mitigation Measure M BI 2a and avoidance and minimization measures described in Mitigation Measure M BI 2b. Although these measures will reduce direct mortality, they do not address significant impacts to California red legged frog (CRLF) from habitat loss. We recommend compensation with respect to habitat area and quality for permanent and temporary impacts to CRLF habitat. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 12]) Response As stated in Table of the Draft EIR (p ) and discussed on pages and , the California red legged frog s potential to occur within the project area is low, and its presence would be as a transient only. There is no suitable breeding habitat for the California red legged frog in the project area, and what might be suitable upland habitat at Agua Fria Creek is surrounded by urban development that would impede California red legged frog movement into the project area. Further, as stated on page of the Draft EIR, Agua Fria Creek is not a fully functional wildlife corridor that would Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 28 December 2010

105 Comment and Responses provide for movement of the California red legged frog. The significance criterion for adverse impacts on listed species is whether the project would 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 CDFG or USFWS (Draft EIR pp and ). The loss of 0.4 acre of riparian habitat is compensated for in Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat, which requires compensation for the loss of riparian habitat, either through purchasing credits at a mitigation bank approved by the CDFG or restoring Central Coast riparian scrub at a location acceptable to the CDFG. The riparian habitat that would be lost within the project area only supports transient California red legged frog use and does not provide a link to suitable breeding or upland habitat. Therefore, the loss of this habitat would not have a substantial adverse effect on the California red legged frog and is not considered significant under the referenced criterion, and no additional compensation is necessary. Tree Replacement Comment [B10] Comments to Mitigation Measure M BI 4b: Tree Replacement/Compensation This mitigation measure indicates SFPUC may pay the City of Fremont a fee in lieu of on site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site. Since there is no way to guarantee the in lieu fee will go directly to replacing trees, the Mitigation Measure does not guarantee impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. (Charles Armor, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game [A_CDFG 13]) Response The last two paragraphs on Draft EIR page are revised as follows to address this comment and to reflect clearing of the entire ROW in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (see Section , Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy in the Draft EIR) if trenchless construction is used to cross Agua Fria Creek, described in Section 3 of this Comments and Responses document: Depending on the method of construction used to cross Agua Fria Creek (trenchless or open trench excavation), uup to 21 trees that meet Fremont s tree protection ordinance 8 criteria would be removed from the Agua Fria Creek riparian corridor where it crosses the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW, including 8 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree. In accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy prohibiting willows and black walnut trees within the ROW (see in Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, Section ), these trees would not be replaced within the ROW. However, the trees would be replaced at a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location, or the SFPUC would provide compensation Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 29 December 2010

106 Comments and Responses for tree removal, in accordance with Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Replacement/Compensation. 8 Although there were 26 trees surveyed within the ROW, only 21 of these trees meet the Fremont tree protection ordinance criteria based on their diameter. The SFPUC would also implement mitigation measures for the removal and protection of the remaining trees in the project area. These measures include Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Replacement/Compensation, which requires replacement of or compensation for protected trees that are removed, and Mitigation Measure M BI 4b, Tree Protection Measures, which requires the contractor to implement measures that would protect the remaining trees in the project area by establishing a Tree Protection Zone, marked by orange construction fencing, and implementing other measures to protect tree roots and limbs during construction. These mitigation measures meet the intent of the protection measures afforded to trees by the Fremont tree ordinance. Although replacement trees would not be placed within 25 feet of BDPL Nos. 3, 3X, or 4 in accordance with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (described in Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, and Section , Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy), trees removed from within the ROW would be replaced in an appropriate location outside of the ROW in the same general vicinity, if a location can be identified. If replanting trees in the same general vicinity is not feasible, the SFPUC will find a suitable alternative location acceptable to CDFG. If the SFPUC provides compensation for tree removal in lieu of replacement, the tree ordinance specifies that the funds would be use to plant or upgrade street trees throughout the City, beautify or enhance public spaces by planting trees, or to fund administrative activities related to implementation of the ordinance. With implementation of Mitigation Measures M BI 4a and M BI 4b, impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure M BI 4b, Tree Replacement/Compensation (Draft EIR p ), is revised as follows to address this comment and to correct an editorial error in numbering of the mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure M BI 4ab: Tree Replacement/Compensation. For each removed tree protected by the City of Fremont and located outside of the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek, the SFPUC will plant a 24 inch box size replacement tree of similar species or of a native species. Removed trees that are located within the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW will be replaced outside the ROW, but in the same general vicinity. If replanting trees on the same site is not feasible, the SFPUC will find a suitable alternative location, or the SFPUC will pay the City of Fremont a fee in lieu of onsite replacement, for each tree that is not replaced onsite. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 30 December 2010

107 Comment and Responses In order to ensure success of the replacement trees, a qualified professional will monitor the planted trees annually for five years following planting. If the monitoring indicates that a tree has not survived, or is not being maintained in a healthy condition, corrective actions such as additional plantings will be initiated. If a fee in lieu of onsite replacement is paid to the City of Fremont, the SFPUC will not be required to monitor trees. Native trees to be removed that are located within the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW along or adjacent to Agua Fria Creek (in Zone 1) will be replaced at a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location determined by the SFPUC and acceptable to CDFG., or the SFPUC will pay the City of Fremont a fee in lieu of replacement No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the above text changes. The text edits provide clarification to Mitigation Measure BI 4a, and no new mitigation measures are required. The title of Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Protection Measures (Draft EIR p ), is also revised as follows to correct an editorial error in numbering of the mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure M BI 4ba: Tree Protection Measures The section titled Conflicts with Local Policies and Ordinances on page 6 28 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows to address this comment: The proposed project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources because project construction would require the removal of up to 44 trees that meet the City of Fremont size and species criteria for protection (see Impact BI 4). Although it is likely that several projects listed in Table 6.1 would also remove protected trees, the majority of these projects would be required to adhere to the City of Fremont s (or other jurisdiction, as appropriate) criteria for tree removal permits, which stipulate that protected trees be replaced with trees of similar type and size, and there would be no cumulative impact related to conflicts with local plans and ordinances. Further, the proposed project s impacts related to tree removal would be less than significant with replacement or compensation for the protected trees, as prescribed in Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Replacement/ Compensation. Therefore, with project level mitigation, the project s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of these text changes. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of these changes Geology and Soils There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Geology and Soils. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 31 December 2010

108 Comments and Responses 4.16 Hydrology and Water Quality A number of comments on the Draft EIR were related to the analysis of the effects of discharges that would be conducted under the proposed project on hydrology and water quality in the project area. Comments [H1] through [H7] generally address water quality and flooding impacts associated with the proposed discharges as well as the need to comply with ACFCWCD encroachment permitting requirements for discharges to ACFCWCD facilities. Planned discharges that would occur under the proposed project include discharges of groundwater dewatered from construction trenches and treated water from emptying and disinfecting the pipelines during construction. These discharges would only occur during construction, with one exception (discussed below). All discharges during construction would be subject to RWQCB and ACFCWCD permitting requirements and Mitigation Measures M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices and M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as discussed in Impacts HY 3 and HY 4 of the Draft EIR (see Draft EIR pp through ). Implementation of permitting requirements and these mitigation measures would ensure that water quality and flooding impacts associated with these discharges would be less than significant, as discussed in Impacts HY 3 and HY 4 of the Draft EIR. Construction discharges would all be made to Agua Fria Creek with the exception of groundwater from Zones 3 to 5 that would be discharged to Agua Caliente Creek. During operation, minor quantities of groundwater would drain to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert from the proposed new articulated vault during the wet season. Emergency (or unplanned) discharges to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert include approximately 300 gallons per minute of treated water from the slip joint and ball joints on BDPL No. 3X, and the discharge of approximately 80,000 gallons per minute of treated water from BDPL No. 4 in the event of an earthquake on the Hayward fault. While these discharges would not be subject to the same permitting requirements as the construction related discharges, the SFPUC would comply with ACFSWCD encroachment permitting requirements for alteration of the Agua Caliente Creek culvert and has specified design features for each of the discharge facilities to ensure that damage to the culvert would not occur as a result of an emergency discharge. Because of these design features, and because the amount of water released in the event of an earthquake would be less than under existing conditions, impacts related to hydrology and water quality as a result of these discharges would be less than significant, as discussed below. Other topics addressed by the comments include permitting requirements for long term discharges of groundwater from the articulated vault (comment [H8]), the identification and abandonment of wells within the project area (comments [H9] through [H10]), and impacts on groundwater resources (comments [H11] through [H13]). The comments are grouped by topic below to facilitate responses. Water Quality and Aquatic Habitats Comment [H1] Throughout the deir there are references that discharges, groundwater or treated water, may be discharged to Agua Fria or Agua Caliente Creek. These creeks are tributary to Coyote Creek which is one of the few creeks within southern San Francisco Bay that has both a steelhead and Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 32 December 2010

109 Comment and Responses Chinook salmon population. For this reason, any discharges to these drainages need to meet the highest water quality standards in order to prevent negative impacts on these and other aquatic resources. Additionally on page of the deir, it states that Agua Fria and Agua Caliente are tributary to Coyote Creek, therefore the beneficial uses identified for Coyote Creek apply to these creeks. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 07]) It is stated that Groundwater collected from excavations in Zones 3, 5, and 8 would be discharged to the local storm drain or sewer system or Aqua Caliente Creek. For the trenchless pits in Zone 1, groundwater would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek or to local storm drains. The County is concerned with any releases of non stormwater to the flood control facilities, including the proposed dewatering discharges. The proposed discharge into the storm drain/flood control facilities will need to be coordinated with the County. These creeks are tributary to Coyote Creek. Coyote Creek is one of the few creeks within southern San Francisco Bay that has both a steelhead and Chinook salmon population. For this reason, any discharges to these drainages needs to meet the highest water quality standards and not negatively impact these and other aquatic resources. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A PUBWKS 10]) It is stated that Other construction activities could also affect aquatic resources in Agua Fria Creek, including removal of vegetation resulting in increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as spills of fuel and lubricants during construction. All of these activities could result in temporary disturbance of aquatic plant and animal communities and loss of wildlife habitat value. and Open cut excavation across Agua Fria Creek would also result in the temporary loss of approximately 0.07 acre of other waters of the United States (the streambed of Agua Fria Creek within the ROW) while the streamflow is diverted around the excavation area. Other activities could also affect aquatic resources in Agua Fria Creek, including the removal of vegetation (although most vegetation is the non native giant reed), resulting in increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as spills of fuel and lubricants during construction. All of these activities could result in temporary disturbance of aquatic plant and animal communities, loss of wildlife habitat value, and disruption of natural hydrology. These creeks are tributary to Coyote Creek. Coyote Creek is one of the few creeks within southern San Francisco Bay that has both a steelhead and Chinook salmon population. For this reason, any discharges to these drainages needs to meet the highest water quality standards and not negatively impact these and other aquatic resources. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 14]) Response The Draft EIR discusses that Agua Fria Creek is tributary to Coyote Creek on page and that Agua Caliente Creek is tributary to Coyote Creek on page Beneficial uses of Coyote Creek are identified on page of the Draft EIR and include groundwater recharge, coldwater habitat, fish migration, rare species, spawning, warmwater habitat, Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 33 December 2010

110 Comments and Responses wildlife habitat, and noncontact water recreation. Water contact recreation is also listed as a potential beneficial use. As discussed in the Draft EIR, these beneficial uses also apply to Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks because they are tributary to Coyote Creek. Discharges to Agua Fria Creek under the project would include stormwater runoff produced during construction (discussed in Impact HY 1, pp through ); groundwater produced during construction dewatering of excavated trenches (discussed in Impact HY 3, p ); and treated drinking water produced as a result of emptying the pipelines for construction, or disinfecting the pipelines prior to returning them to service (discussed in Impact HY 4, pp through ). Groundwater produced during construction dewatering of excavated trenches would also be discharged to Agua Caliente Creek (discussed in Impact HY 3). All of these discharges would meet Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) water quality standards through implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements and the mitigation measures identified in Impacts HY 1, HY 3, and HY 4 as discussed below. These measures would avoid impacts on steelhead, Chinook salmon, and other aquatic resources in Coyote Creek because they would prevent water quality impacts related to sedimentation and erosion. They would also avoid water quality issues related to discharging treated potable water to the natural system. For stormwater runoff and discharges of groundwater produced during construction dewatering (Impacts HY 1 and HY 3), the SFPUC would implement best management practices to control and reduce discharges of sediment and pollutants in accordance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, and the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No ) (Draft EIR pp through ). Implementation of the specified best management practices would control and reduce discharges of sediment and pollutants to the natural system, and would be subject to approval by the RWQCB. As such, they would ensure that impacts related to discharges of construction runoff and groundwater produced during construction dewatering are less than significant and that steelhead, Chinook salmon, and other aquatic resources of Coyote Creek would not be adversely affected. For discharges of treated drinking water (Impact HY 4), the SFPUC would implement the requirements of the NDPES permit for discharges from the SFPUC drinking water transmission system (Order No. R ). This order, described in Section of the Draft EIR (pp through ), was written with the intent of reducing impacts to and protecting the beneficial uses of receiving waters. As such, it contains specific effluent limitations for discharges of water from the SFPUC regional water system to creeks; requires implementation of erosion control best management practices and preparation of standard operating procedures describing these best management practices; specifies receiving water limitations based on water quality objectives contained in the Basin Plan; and specifies compliance procedures that include a Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 34 December 2010

111 Comment and Responses monitoring and reporting program and an annual compliance evaluation. These requirements mandate that water be treated onsite prior to discharge to remove chlorine and adjust the ph so that downstream water quality is protected. In addition, Order No. R specifies that the discharge shall not alter the temperature of the receiving water from ambient levels, unless it can be demonstrated that altering the temperature would not affect beneficial uses. Compliance with the receiving water and effluent limitations of Order No. R , as well as the erosion control and temperature requirements, would ensure that the beneficial uses of Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks are maintained, and that the discharges would not negatively affect the aquatic species supported by these creeks. Compliance with the requirements of the order, as well as the SFPUC erosion control standard operating procedure (described in Section , SFPUC Standard Procedures, pp and ) would ensure that impacts related to discharges of treated drinking water are less than significant and that steelhead, Chinook salmon, and other aquatic resources of Coyote Creek would not be adversely affected. The SFPUC has begun coordinating with the RWQCB and ACFCWCD regarding these discharges and, in addition to complying with the above RWQCB requirements for nonstormwater discharges, the SFPUC would coordinate these discharges with the ACFCWCD through complying with the encroachment permitting requirements of the ACFCWCD as discussed for impacts HY 1, HY 2, and HY 3 in the Draft EIR (pp , , and ), and further clarified below in response to comment [H4]. Comment [H2] The DEIR indicates that the Project would potentially impact waters of the U.S. and state, including impacts to Agua Fria Creek from construction of BDPL No. 3X. Both a Clean Water Act (CWA) for Section 401 Water Quality Certification and a CWA Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be necessary if the Project involves dredge and fill impacts to waters of the U.S. Additionally, the project proponent may need to file a Report of Waste Discharge if the project may result in a discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. (William B. Hurley, Senior Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board [A_RWQCB 02]) Response Comment noted. The application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification includes a Report of Waste Discharge, and the fourth paragraph on page 3 52 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows to address this requirement: Clean Water Act, Section 401 Permit, Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB: This certification is required when a proposed project s construction may result in the discharge of dredge or fill material to a water body. The federal Section 404 permit would be subject to Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge (see Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 35 December 2010

112 Comments and Responses The text of the last paragraph on page of the Draft EIR is also revised as follows to reflect this change: In addition to implementing Mitigation Measure M HY 1, the SFPUC or its contractor(s) would be subject to the following permit requirements in Zone 1 where direct disturbance of the creek would occur under either approach to installation of the southern point of connectionpipe installation would cross Agua Fria Creek: Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404); RWQCB (Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge); and CDFG (Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement). These permits are briefly described in Section , Regulatory Framework, and are discussed in Section 5.9, Biological Resources. Work within Agua Fria Creek would also be subject to the encroachment permitting requirements of the ACFCWCD, in accordance with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance described in Section No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of these text changes. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of these changes. Comment [H3] To construct BDPL No. 3X beneath Aqua Fria Creek, the SFPUC proposes to use either a trenchless construction technique or open cut excavation. The trenchless construction technique would avoid 0.07 acres of direct impacts to Agua Fria Creek and would minimize impacts to the riparian corridor adjacent to Agua Fria Creek (0.08 acres of impacts for trenchless construction versus 0.4 acres of impacts for open cut excavation). Based on this information, the trenchless construction technique appears to be the LEDPA. Therefore, unless it is not practicable to use this technique to place BDPL No. 3X beneath Agua Fria Creek, the trenchless construction technique must be used for the Water Board to issue a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements. If using the trenchless technique is not practicable, the application for Section 401 water quality certification or Report of Waste Discharge must include a detailed explanation of why this technique is not practicable. (William B. Hurley, Senior Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board [A_RWQCB 03]) Response Note that, as described in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document, and discussed in response to comment [B1], all woody vegetation would be permanently removed from the SFPUC ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek to provide adequate access for maintenance of aboveground structures on the pipelines in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (see Section , Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, in Draft EIR). Further, the SFPUC has identified a second approach to locating the southern point of connection between the existing BDPL No. 3 and the new BDPL No. 3X as discussed in Section 3, Project Updates. The proposed new location is between the I 680 southbound Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 36 December 2010

113 Comment and Responses diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek. If this location is used for the point of connection, construction of a new pipeline across Agua Fria Creek would not be required. However, the same portion of the SFPUC ROW would be permanently cleared of woody vegetation to provide access to above ground facilities on the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, and in accordance with the Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (see Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, of this Comments and Responses document for the text edits made to include these updates). Therefore, approximately 0.4 acres of riparian resources would be affected by construction of any of the three options. If the proposed new location for the southern point of connection is used, there would not be a new pipeline constructed across Agua Fria Creek. However, some excavation would be required within Agua Fria Creek for construction of temporary construction access across the creek using steel plates as well as a small amount of the excavation needed for the access pit for construction of the point of connection. Biological resource and water quality impacts associated with this approach are described in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document and Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions, and would be similar to open cut excavation but of lesser magnitude. Based on refinements to the proposed design since completion of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC s preferred approach is to construct the southern point of connection at the new location between the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek. However, unforeseen circumstances (e.g., condition of the pipeline at this connection point) could require the SFPUC to use the original approach described in the Draft EIR (i.e., replace the entire pipeline across the creek to the South Shutoff Station). Inclusion of both approaches to the southern point of connection provides SFPUC with flexibility in the final engineering design; therefore, both approaches to constructing the southern point of connection and associated impacts are addressed in this Comments and Responses document. The selected location for the southern point of connection and associated work within Agua Fria Creek and its riparian corridor would also be addressed in the environmental permits required for the project, including the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, Section 7 Consultation, Section 401 water quality certification, and Stream Bed Alteration Agreement which would be described in these permit documents. ACFCWCD Encroachment Permitting Requirements Comment [H4] In accordance with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance, the ACFCWCD would require an encroachment permit for any construction within or discharge to one of its flood control or storm drainage facilities under its jurisdiction, including Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 08]) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 37 December 2010

114 Comments and Responses It is stated that The driving pit would extend approximately 30 feet into the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek on the south side of the creek, and the receiving pit would extend approximately 10 feet into the corridor on the north side of the creek. All encroachment onto County jurisdictional properties, specifically within a riparian zone, would require permit from the County and impacts adequately mitigated. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 09]) Response As stated in Draft EIR Section 3.7, Required Permits and Approvals (p. 3 53), and in Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality (pp , , , , and ), the SFPUC would comply with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance (Chapter 6.36 of the General Ordinance of the County of Alameda) and obtain an encroachment permit from the ACFCWCD for any work in areas under the jurisdiction of the ACFCWCD within Agua Fria Creek (and riparian zone, as appropriate), discharges to Agua Fria or Agua Caliente Creek, or connection to ACFCWCD facilities. Flooding Effects of Discharges on ACFCWCD Facilities Comment [H5] It is stated that Water from the individual pipeline segments would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek through the existing blowoff valves and dechlorinated before discharging to the creek. Draining, dechlorination, and pumping of each pipeline segment would last approximately four days or less. The County is concerned with any releases of non stormwater to the flood control facilities, including the proposed dewatering discharges. The proposed discharge into the storm drain/flood control facilities will require approval from the County. This approval will require strict controls in place for any proposed releases, especially so during the rainy season. As noted in the draft EIR, the flood control facilities do not have capacity for accepting augmented flows during large storm events and there are FEMA identified flood zones in downstream areas. The District will also require a written confirmation that any discharges from the project meet water quality requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 11]) It is stated that As discussed in Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality (see Impact HY 4), the volume of groundwater produced during dewatering would be minimal, but a total of approximately 16.4 million gallons of water from pipeline draining and disinfection would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek. Besides the previous comments concerning water quality issues, the County is concerned that this volume of water may negatively impact its flood control facilities. Additionally, the County is concerned that its flood control facilities may not be able to handle these volumes of water Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 38 December 2010

115 Comment and Responses without flooding adjacent properties. This issue needs to be resolved with the County prior to project implementation. It is not clear what is considered minimal ground water discharge, please clarify. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 15]) (Refer to Impact nos.: HY 1, Degradation of water quality as a result of erosion and sedimentation or a hazardous materials release during construction; HY 3, Degradation of water quality and flooding due to discharges during dewatering of trenches; and HY 4, Erosion, degradation of water quality, and flooding due to construction related discharges of treated water from pipelines). It is stated that The SFPUC or its contractor would contact the ACFCWCD and the City of Fremont prior to beginning the discharge of water produced during trench dewatering or water drained from BDPL Nos. 3, 3X, or 4 to verify that the flow rate can be accommodated by the existing storm drain system. The flow rate will be managed in coordination with these agencies to avoid downstream flooding. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) considers these discharges significant impacts which have not been adequately addressed. The District requires the SFPUC to consult with the District hydrologist and obtain appropriate permits prior to any discharge, especially during the rainy season. As noted in the draft EIR, the flood control facilities do not have capacity for accepting augmented flows during large storm events and there are FEMA identified flood zones in downstream areas. The District will also need written confirmation that any discharges from the project meet water quality requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 16]) Response As discussed in Impacts HY 3 and HY 4 of the Draft EIR and in response to Comment [H4], the SFPUC would comply with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance (Chapter 6.36 of the General Ordinance of the County of Alameda) and obtain an encroachment permit from the ACFCWCD for any work within Agua Fria Creek (and riparian zone, as appropriate), discharges to Agua Fria or Agua Caliente Creek, or connection to ACFCWCD facilities. For discharges, a groundwater treatment plan and discharge plan could be required. For work that would involve diversion of creek flows, a formal diversion plan could be required. All plans would specify the appropriate level of coordination with the ACFCWCD and controls that would be implemented during discharges to the creeks or diversion of Agua Fria Creek, and would require approval of the ACFCWCD prior to implementation. The groundwater treatment and discharge plans for these discharges would be prepared in accordance with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance and would include written confirmation that the discharges meet the requirements of the RWQCB. Planned discharges to the ACFCWCD facilities that could increase flows or affect water quality in Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks include groundwater produced during construction dewatering of excavated trenches (discussed in Impact HY 3), and treated Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 39 December 2010

116 Comments and Responses drinking water produced as a result of emptying the pipelines for construction or disinfecting the pipelines prior to returning them to service (discussed in Impact HY 4). Groundwater dewatering would be required in Zones 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8. The maximum estimated discharge rate for groundwater dewatering would be 6 gpm. This flow rate is approximately 0.01 cubic feet per second (cfs), and is far less than the Agua Caliente peak discharge of 1,000 cfs for a 100 year storm at I 680 and the Agua Fria Creek peak discharge of 600 cfs for a 100 year storm at I 680 (Draft EIR p ). As discussed in Impact HY 4, the maximum discharge rate for treated drinking water discharges to Agua Fria Creek permitted under RWQCB Order No. R is 7.8 cfs. This is similar to the range of flows in Agua Fria Creek which typically range from as little as 1 cfs to about 5 cfs, but have been measured as high as 472 cfs (Draft EIR p ) and far less than the peak discharge of 600 cfs for a 100 year storm at I 680 (Draft EIR p ). To ensure flood control facilities have capacity for accepting discharges of treated drinking water from BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, the SFPUC would notify the ACFCWCD and the City of Fremont of the planned discharge, verify that the discharge can be accommodated by existing storm drains and flood control channels, and manage the flow rate in coordination with these agencies to avoid flooding, as specified in Mitigation Measure M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont (Draft EIR p ). This mitigation measure is revised as follows to more specifically refer to the coordination requirements with the ACFCWCD: Mitigation Measure M HY 3: Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont. The SFPUC or its contractor will contact the ACFCWCD and the City of Fremont prior to beginning the discharge of water produced during trench dewatering or water drained from BDPL Nos. 3, 3X, or 4 to verify with the appropriate ACFCWCD staff that the flow rate can be accommodated by the existing storm drain system, and will obtain the necessary permits from the ACFCWCD for the discharge. The flow rate will be managed in coordination with these agencies to avoid downstream flooding. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the above text changes. The text edits provide clarification to Mitigation Measure M HY 3, and no new mitigation measures are required. Comment [H6] It is stated that After a seismic event, these joints could leak at rates of up to 1,000 gallons per minute until repaired. Water from both vaults would be discharged to Agua Caliente Creek via new connections constructed in each vault. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 40 December 2010

117 Comment and Responses The County commends the effort to attenuate discharges during a seismic event through the implementation of the proposed project. However, the associated discharge impacts of this effort on flood control infrastructure have not been fully discussed. Please provide details of the impact and provide mitigation to address these impacts. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 12]) Response As discussed in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document and in the response to comment [G2], the SFPUC has proposed a new design of the slip joint vault to eliminate the 24 inch drain to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert and to refine the estimated leakage rates from the slip joint and ball joints installed within the articulated vault. These project updates are described in Section 3, Project Updates, and the associated text changes to the Draft EIR are presented in Section 5. After a major seismic event on the Hayward fault, the articulated vault for the new BDPL No. 3X would discharge approximately 300 gpm (as opposed to 1,000 gpm as stated in the Draft EIR) of treated drinking water to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert through the 4 inch discharge line for a short duration until the slip joint and ball joints are repaired. During operation, discharges of accumulated groundwater from the articulated vault would be on the order of 6 gpm (0.01 cfs) during the rainy season. Due to the size of the discharge line and low flow rates, these discharges would not damage ACFCWCD facilities or substantially contribute to exceeding the capacity of existing flood control infrastructure, and no mitigation is required. EIR text revisions related to the revised design of the slip joint vault are provided in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions. Comment [H7] It is stated that blowoff valves and vacuum valves would be exercised once per year. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) will be concerned with any releases of non stormwater to the flood control facilities, including routine maintenance discharges. Releases shall not be made during the rainy season without prior notification to the District. Approval and permit may be required from the District s Maintenance and Operations Department and Permits Section regarding schedules for these discharges into the storm drain/flood control facilities. Damages due to unexpected releases could be incurred by the District on work being undertaken in downstream areas by the District or other parties doing work under permit. The District will also need confirmation that any discharges from the Bay Division Pipelines meet water quality requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Kwablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Manager, County of Alameda Public Works Agency [A_PUBWKS 13]) Response This comment refers to discharges of treated drinking water from the blowoff valves and vacuum valves that would be exercised once per year, as discussed on page 3 50 of the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 41 December 2010

118 Comments and Responses Draft EIR (second paragraph of Section 3.6, Operations and Maintenance). These maintenance discharges would be made consistent with current operating procedures, and the frequency and volume of discharges would not change under the project from existing conditions, as described on page 3 50 of the Draft EIR. Further, the SFPUC would continue to conform to the requirements of the NDPES permit for discharges from the SFPUC drinking water transmission system (Order No. R ), described in response to comment [H1], and would continue to obtain prior approval of the ACFCWCD for these discharges. Discharge plans for these discharges would be prepared in accordance with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance, and these plans would include written confirmation that the discharges meet the requirements of the RWQCB. Conformance with these ACFCWCD requirements for the scheduled discharges, consistent with current operating procedures, would ensure that ACFCWCD facilities are adequately protected and that water quality in the creeks is maintained. Long Term Dewatering Requirements Comment [H8] On Page 3 13, the DEIR discloses that the new vault for BDPL No. 3X might accumulate groundwater and will be designed to drain water. In addition, a permanent pump may be required to maintain drainage from the vault. Please note that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit may be required if long term dewatering of groundwater from the vault is necessary. The SFPUC should determine whether the Water Board s General NPDES Permit for Structural Dewatering and Aquifer Restoration (Order No. R ) is applicable to the discharge of dewatered groundwater from the BDPL No. 3X Vault. If the General Permit for Structural Dewatering and Aquifer Restoration is applicable, the SFPUC must apply for and receive coverage under this general permit before it begins discharging dewatered groundwater from the vault. The General Permit for Structural Dewatering and Aquifer Restoration is available at (William B. Hurley, Senior Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board [A_RWQCB 01]) Response As discussed in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document the SFPUC estimates that groundwater infiltration to the articulated vault would be a maximum of 6 gpm during the wet season. This is a conservative estimate of groundwater infiltration into the vault based on peak groundwater levels and the fissured clay conditions that can be expected within the fault zone. The Water Board s General NPDES Permit for Structural Dewatering and Aquifer Restoration (Order No. R ) applies to structural dewatering activities that result in the discharge of greater than 10,000 gallons per day and require treatment of the discharge to comply with the prohibitions and limitations of the order. A maximum discharge rate of 6 gpm would result in a discharge of 8,640 gallons per day, which is less than the permit threshold of 10,000 gallons per day. Thus, the NPDES Permit for Structural Dewatering and Aquifer Restoration does not apply to the proposed project. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 42 December 2010

119 Comment and Responses Groundwater Well Identification and Abandonment Comment [H9] Monitoring Well Locations: Reference is made to Figure Creek and Well Locations (page ). ACWD has identified 5 additional monitoring wells located within the project area. According to ACWD records, these wells were installed in 2003 as part of a Geotechnical Investigation for the SFPUC Seismic Upgrade of BDPL No. 3 and 4. Therefore, ACWD requests Figure in the EIR be corrected. The following table provides the State Well Number, Owner Well Number, and the ACWD permit number for the 5 additional monitoring wells: State Well Number Owner Well Number ACWD Permit Number 5S/1W 13G003 B S/1W 13G004 B S/1W 13K005 B S/1W 13K006 B S/1W 13Q001 B (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 13]) Abandoned Water Well: An abandoned water well, 5S/1W 13G001, may also be located within the project area. The well location is provided in Appendix B of the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin No. 81 (December 1960). According to Bulletin No. 81, the well is located at the corner of Curtner Road and Mission Boulevard (formerly known as Highway 9). Since the well has not been located, ACWD requests that the EIR include the provision that SFPUC will: 1) contact DWR and request additional information regarding the location of the well, and 2) coordinate with ACWD so that ACWD can assist in identifying the abandoned well location so the well can be properly destroyed in accordance to ACWD specifications. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 14]) Review of Wells: The DEIR states The ACWD (2009) conducted a review of wells located within a five mile radius of the project area (page ). ACWD did not conduct a review of wells located within the project area prior to receiving the DEIR. The reference in Section (page ) is for an ACWD Nearby Wells Report that was provided in response to SFPUC s request. This report provides a list of wells within a 0.5 mile radius of an area identified on a request form. The list only includes information that is in ACWD s electronic records and cannot be viewed as being complete. Therefore, ACWD requests the language in the EIR be corrected. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 15]) Damage to Existing Piezometers and Cathodic Protection Wells: Reference is made to Impact HY 5 (page ). ACWD strongly concurs that the well destruction work be completed prior Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 43 December 2010

120 Comments and Responses to construction activities. As stated in previous comments, ACWD has identified six (6) additional wells located within the project area and all wells must be destroyed in accordance to ACWD specifications. Therefore, ACWD requests the language in the EIR be corrected to include the five (5) additional monitoring wells and the abandoned water well identified above. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 20]) The DEIR also states the cathodic project wells are located in a portion of the project area where excavation and construction staging would not occur. Therefore, it is unlikely that construction activities would damage these wells. Although damage is unlikely, ACWD requests the EIR include the provision that the wells will be protected during construction and that project proponents notify ACWD if a well is damaged or the surface seal is jeopardized in any way during construction activities. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 21]) Response The locations of wells B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7 as well as the approximate location of the abandoned irrigation well have been added to Figure , Creek and Well Locations (Revised), in Section 5 of this Comments and Responses document. Further, the Draft EIR text has been changed to correct the reference to the ACWD Nearby Wells Report and to describe that wells B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7 would be located and properly abandoned prior to construction. The SFPUC has been unable to locate former agricultural well no. 5S/1W 13G001 identified in Appendix B of the DWR (1960) reference. However, the well location is shown on Plate 2 of the reference. The approximate location of this well is added to Figure , Creek and Well Locations (Revised), in Section 5 of this Comments and Responses document. As shown on the revised figure, the abandoned irrigation well is located approximately at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road, outside of the excavation area and near the project area boundary, and would not be disrupted during excavation. Furthermore, the well is located in an area that was likely filled during the construction of I 680 in 1969 (WIP, 2004). The Draft EIR text has been changed to describe how this well and the cathodic protection wells would be protected during construction. Section , Groundwater Piezometers and Cathodic Protection Wells (Draft EIR p. 3 9), is revised as follows to describe the additional wells: There are eight three groundwater piezometers 4 (installed by the SFPUC) within the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW and several cathodic protection wells 5 located within the project area (ACWD, 2009). One former agricultural well is also potentially located within the project area (DWR, 1960). The locations of these wells are shown on (see Figure , in Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality, for locations). Five of Tthe piezometers (B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7) were installed as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2003 (WIP, 2004). These piezometers range in depth Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 44 December 2010

121 Comment and Responses from 42 to 70 feet. They may have been previously abandoned, but the SFPUC does not have record of their abandonment. Three of the piezometers (UB 2, UB 5, and UB 8) were installed as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2008 (URS, 2008b). These piezometers are 100 feet deep and are currently used to monitor groundwater levels to determine the design and dewatering requirements for the proposed project. 4 A piezometer is a groundwater monitoring well used to monitor groundwater levels. 5 Cathodic protection wells are used to prevent the corrosion of metal in underground pipelines. These wells use a sacrificial metallic anode that is designed to corrode in place of the pipeline. These types of wells do not involve the extraction of groundwater. There is a cluster of three Alameda County Water District (ACWD) cathodic protection wells (No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7) that are 12 feet deep, and two Briar Court Association cathodic protection wells (No. 1 and No. 2) that are 150 feet deep located near the intersection of Curtner Road and Mission Boulevard. According to ACWD (2009) well records and a DWR (1960) groundwater bulletin, there may also be a former agricultural well about 400 feet deep in the vicinity of Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road. However, this well has not been accurately located and the referenced location is near the project boundary in an area that was covered with artificial fill during the construction of I 680 in 1969 (WIP, 2004). The cathodic protection wells and former agricultural well are located in a portion of the project area where excavation and construction staging would not occur. The locations of these wells would be demarked during construction, and construction activities would be prohibited in the vicinity of these wells. In the unlikely event that one of them is damaged or the surface seal is damaged as a result of construction activities, the ACWD would be notified immediately. The third paragraph on page of the Draft EIR is revised as follows to address the additional wells: Figure identifies existing wells within the project area, as identified by The ACWD (2009) well records and a DWR (1960) groundwater bulletin. conducted a review of wells located within a five mile radius of the project area and identified three Eight 100 foot deep groundwater piezometers 2 were installed by the SFPUC consultants to obtain information needed to for the design of the proposed project. The ppiezometers B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7 were installed to depths of 42 to 70 feet as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2003 (WIP, 2004). These piezometers may have been previously abandoned, but the SFPUC does not have record of their abandonment. Piezometers (UB 2, UB 5, and UB 8 were installed to a depth of 100 feet as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2008 (URS, 2008b) and are currently used to monitor groundwater levels in the project area. All of these piezometers) are located within the pipeline ROW (see Figure ). The review also identified a 2 Piezometers are groundwater monitoring wells used to monitor water levels; they do not involve the extraction of groundwater. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 45 December 2010

122 Comments and Responses There is also a cluster of three ACWD cathodic protection wells (No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7) 3 that are 12 feet deep and two Briar Court Association cathodic protection wells (No. 1 and No. 2) that are 150 feet deep near the intersection of Curtner Road and Mission Boulevard (see Figure ). According to ACWD (2009) well records and a DWR (1960) groundwater bulletin, there may also be a former agricultural well about 400 feet deep in the vicinity of Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road, near the project boundary. The well has not been accurately located; however, the approximate location of the well is shown on Figure No other wells were identified within or in the vicinity of the project area, although the information available on a number of domestic and agricultural wells was insufficient to determine the well locations. The lack of information on these wells suggests that they were This well was initially installed when the region was used for agricultural purposes (mainly orchards) prior to the construction of I 680, and the well is located in an area that was covered with artificial fill during the construction of I 680 in 1969 (WIP, 2004). The developed areas surrounding the project area are now primarily residential and lie within the ACWD water supply service area, where drinking water is not generally obtained from private wells. 3 Cathodic protection wells are used to prevent the corrosion of metal in underground pipelines. These wells use a sacrificial metallic anode that is designed to corrode in place of the pipeline. These types of wells do not involve the extraction of groundwater. Impact HY 5 (Draft EIR p ) is modified as follows to address ACWD comments regarding well abandonment and protection of the cathodic protection wells: As described in Section , Setting, threeeight project related 100 foot deep piezometers are located within the ROW, five of which may have been previously abandoned. and In addition, one former agricultural well and five 12 foot and 150 foot deep cathodic protection wells are located within the project area near the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road. Because these wells are located in an area where the Newark Aquifer is present and in direct communication with the underlying production aquifer, damage to these wells during construction could create a potential conduit for contaminants, such as sediments, discharge water, and hazardous materials, to enter the underlying groundwater aquifer. Prior to construction, the SFPUC would conduct hand excavation to locate the five piezometers that may have been previously abandoned (B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7). These piezometers (if found to be intact) and the existing piezometers (UB 2, UB 5, and UB 8) would be abandoned in accordance with the DWR and ACWD well abandonment requirements, described in Section , Groundwater Management, which require the wells to be cleared, drilled out, and sealed with impermeable materials such asfilled with neat cement, and therefore the wells would not provide a conduit for groundwater contamination. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 46 December 2010

123 Comment and Responses The cathodic protection wells are located in a portion of the project area where excavation and construction staging would not occur. The former agricultural well, installed prior to 1960, is also located near the intersection of Mission Boulevard and I 680, but in an area that was filled during the construction of I 680 in Therefore, it is unlikely that the location of this well is evident at the ground surface. Further, the well is located near the project boundary, outside of the excavation area, and would not be disrupted during excavation. Therefore, damage to this well during construction is unlikely. The locations of the cathodic protection wells and the former agricultural well would be demarked during construction, and construction activities would be prohibited in the vicinity of these wells, as described in Section , Groundwater Piezometers and Cathodic Protection Wells. In the unlikely event that one of them is damaged or the surface seal is damaged as a result of construction activities, the ACWD would be notified immediately. Section , References, on page , is updated with the following two additional references: Department of Water Resources (DWR), Intrusion of Salt Water into Groundwater Basins of Southern Alameda County, DWR Bulletin No. 81, Plate 2, December Water Infrastructure Partners (WIP), Geotechnical Investigation, Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at the Hayward Fault Zone Crossing, Fremont, California, prepared for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Figure 2, May No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the above text changes. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of these changes. Comment [H10] Reference is made to Drilling Permits (page ). As the Enforcing Agency for the City of Fremont Well Ordinance, ACWD requires the removal of all well materials, including the well casing, screen, filter pack, and annular seal, by drilling to the full depth and diameter of the original borehole for all PVC wells. The borehole shall then be backfilled from the bottom to top with neat cement. Therefore, ACWD requests the language in the EIR be corrected. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 16]) Response The third paragraph on page , in Section , Groundwater Management, is revised as follows to provide this clarification: Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 47 December 2010

124 Comments and Responses Destruction or abandonment of wells is required to adhere to the standards specified in the California Water Well Standards that have been produced by the DWR (1991), as well as ACWD requirements for well abandonment. These DWR standards for well abandonment include: Wells must be inspected and all obstructions within the well must be cleared. The wells must be completely filled with appropriate materials (sealing materials shall comprise a minimum of the upper 20 feet). Sealing materials can include neat cement, sand cement grout, concrete, and bentonite clay. Filling materials can include clay, silt, sand, gravel, crushed stone, native soils, or mixtures thereof. Neat cement must be placed in one continuous operation. For some wells, the removal of all or part of the well casing may be required. ACWD is the enforcing agency for the City of Fremont Well Ordinance (City of Fremont Ordinance No. 950, June 26, 1973, as amended by Ordinance No. 963 on October 16, 1973), which largely incorporates DWR well standards by reference, with a number of specific provisions addressing the local groundwater concerns, such as co mingling of groundwater between aquifers and saline intrusion. As part of its responsibility to enforce well standards, ACWD has developed a well destruction program in cooperation with the cities (ACWD, 2001). For well abandonment, the ACWD specifically requires the removal of all well materials, including the well casing, screen, filter pack, and annular seal, by drilling to the full depth and diameter of the original borehole for all PVC wells. Following removal of all well materials, the ACWD requires that the borehole be backfilled from the bottom to top with neat cement, consistent with the DWR well standards and Fremont Well Ordinance. Section , References, on page , is updated with the following additional reference and edits to one reference: Alameda County Water District (ACWD), Groundwater Management Policy, adopted January 26, 1989, Amended March 22, Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Water Well Standards: State of California, Bulletin , (Supplement to Bulletin 74 81), June 1991 December No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the above text changes. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of these changes. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 48 December 2010

125 Comment and Responses Groundwater Resources Comment [H11] Temporary Dewatering: Reference is made to Impact HY 2, Depletion of Groundwater Resources (page ). The DEIR acknowledges that temporary groundwater dewatering of excavated trenches could be required in Zones 1, 3, 5, and 8 in order to maintain a relatively dry excavation area during pipeline installation. However, the DEIR concludes that the impact on groundwater resources would be less than significant due to the temporary nature of the dewatering activities and because the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Although the DEIR estimates that the temporary nature of the dewatering activities would be approximately eight months, the DEIR does not estimate the total amount of groundwater that would be extracted from the groundwater basin. Since groundwater is an important component of ACWD s water resources, it is critical that the amount of water that may be extracted by dewatering be estimated and documented in the EIR. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 17]) Response The need for groundwater dewatering during construction of the project is described on page 3 47 of the Draft EIR (Section , Groundwater Dewatering Discharges), and impacts related to groundwater dewatering are assessed in Impact HY 3 on page of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 3 47 of the Draft EIR, groundwater dewatering is expected to be required in Zones 1, 3, 5, and 8, where excavation could extend to below the water table. Further analysis by the SFPUC has indicated that groundwater dewatering could also be required in Zone 7 where the articulated vault would be constructed and in Zones 2 and 5 where the improvements to BDPL No. 4 would be made at Trace A of the Hayward fault. Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document addresses the need for this additional groundwater dewatering in Zone 7. The rate of groundwater extraction required for excavation dewatering would depend on the time of year that excavation is conducted, the extent of excavation below the water table, the permeability of the materials that are encountered in the excavated trenches, and the size of the excavation. Due to the number of variables involved, an accurate estimate of the total volume of groundwater to be extracted due to construction related groundwater dewatering is not possible. However, for the purposes of this comment response, a rough order of magnitude estimate can be made based on estimated seepage rates in Zone 7 and a number of conservative assumptions. As a worst case estimate, the SFPUC calculated that groundwater flow rates into the Zone 7 excavation the largest excavation where dewatering could be required would be approximately 6 gpm. Conservatively assuming the same discharge rate from each Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 49 December 2010

126 Comments and Responses zone where construction dewatering could be conducted, and that dewatering would be required for 24 hours per day during six months of excavation in Zone 7 and for the full duration of construction in each of the other zones, the total amount of groundwater extracted would be approximately 12 acre feet. This estimate is overly conservative because it assumes that the maximum estimated groundwater seepage rate would occur in all zones, and that construction dewatering would be required for six months in Zone 7 and for the full duration of construction in each of the other zones. In addition, further review of the characteristics of the Niles Cone Groundwater basin indicates that the project area is located in the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron on the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. The aquifers in the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron are thin and fine grained, with limited recharge, and well logs indicate that the upper 100 feet of the aquifer material contains less than 17 to 24 percent gravel (ACWD, 2009). The ACWD reports that groundwater in the alluvial apron flows to the west, but flow is limited due to low permeability deposits. Therefore, the estimated groundwater withdrawal does not necessarily represent a loss of available groundwater resources for ACWD because the extracted water would be from the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron which does not provide substantial recharge to the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. Also, the amount of water that would be removed by construction related dewatering would only represent approximately 0.03 percent of the approximately 38,000 acre feet of groundwater that was stored above sea level in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin in ACWD fiscal year (DWR, 2006). This analysis is provided in response to ACWDʹs comments related to depletion of groundwater resources and provides further support for the conclusion that impacts related to groundwater depletion from construction dewatering would be less than significant. The last paragraph on page of the Draft EIR is revised as follows to address location of the project within the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron: Within Niles Cone basin, the Hayward fault acts as a barrier to groundwater flow and separates the basin into the Below Hayward Fault and Above Hayward Fault subbasins. The project area is close to the boundary of these two subbasins, but within the Below Hayward Fault subbasin. The sources of water that feed the basin are runoff and precipitation from the Alameda Creek watershed, and applied water obtained from the State Water Project and the SFPUC (ACWD, 2009) (which is introduced through percolation ponds). The shallowest aquifer 1 west of the Hayward fault is the Newark Aquifer, which consists primarily of thick gravel and sand layers. The aquifer is found between 40 and 140 feet below ground surface. Low permeability silts and clays, referred to as the Newark Aquiclude, overlie most of the aquifer (with the exception of areas just west of the Hayward fault), allowing for direct recharge of the aquifer. The project area is located in this unconfined area. The unconfined area consists of very thick alluvial deposits that Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 50 December 2010

127 Comment and Responses act to recharge the Newark Aquifer as well as the deeper aquifers referred to as the Centerville, Fremont, and Deep Aquifers that make up the Niles Cone Groundwater Basinthe Warm Springs Alluvial Apron on the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. The aquifers in the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron are thin and fine grained, with limited recharge, and well logs indicate that the upper 100 feet of the aquifer material contains less than 17 to 24 percent gravel (ACWD, 2009). The ACWD reports that groundwater in the alluvial apron flows to the west, but flow is limited due to low permeability deposits. 1 A stratum of earth or porous rock that contains water. The text of Impact HY 2 (Draft EIR p ) is revised as follows to provide additional clarification for why the impact is less than significant: Dewatering from the pipeline trenches and pits during the construction period would be limited because the subsurface materials consist of hard to stiff clays of the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron that generally have low permeability. The dewatering could temporarily affect groundwater levels in the shallow groundwater zone, but this effect would be limited to the immediate area of excavation because of the low permeability of the aquifer materials of the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron which does not provide substantial recharge to the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin as described in Section , Setting. The ACWD manages and protects groundwater resources in the project area, and groundwater is one of its major water supply sources. However, as discussed in Section , Setting, no groundwater producing wells have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project area. There are no ACWD production wells within five miles of the project site (and even if they did exist, such wells would not be affected by dewatering activities because they draw water from deeper aquifers outside of the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron). Based on the limited extent of excavation requiring dewatering (approximately 1,8001,300 linear feet of pipeline trench); the low permeability of the subsurface materials; the temporary nature of the dewatering activities (approximately 16eight months in total, assuming that dewatering would only be required for 6 months in Zone 7); and the absence of any identified groundwater production wells nearby, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or cause other adverse effects such as subsidence; therefore, the potential impact on groundwater resources would be less than significant. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the above text changes. Further, no new or modified mitigation measures would be required as a result of these changes. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 51 December 2010

128 Comments and Responses Comment [H12] Permanent Dewatering: Reference is made to Facility Siting, Operation, and Maintenance Impacts (page and ). The Draft EIR acknowledges that following completion of the project, both the modified slip joint vault for BDPL No. 4 and the proposed articulated vault for BDPL No. 3X would be equipped with drains to collect and remove groundwater accumulated in the vaults, as well as incidental leakage of system water from the slip joints and ball valves within the vaults. The Draft EIR concludes that Under normal conditions, these discharges would be very small, on the order of 100 gpm. Therefore, the project would not result in any long term effects on water quality or groundwater resources. The permanent drainage system from these vaults would equate to approximately 161 acre feet per year, which is not an insignificant quantity of water from ACWD s groundwater basin. ACWD requests that modification to the project design be incorporated to eliminate or minimize the amount of dewatering required during and subsequent to construction of the project. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 18]) Response As discussed in Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document and response to comment [G2], the SFPUC has revised the proposed design of the modified slip joint vault. Under the new proposed design, the 24 inch drain from the slipjoint vault is eliminated. Further, no additional groundwater would accumulate in the slipjoint vault relative to existing conditions. The only permanent drainage system constructed under the proposed project would be for the articulated vault. The SFPUC estimates that groundwater accumulation within the vault could occur at rates of up to 6 gpm during the wet season. Conservatively assuming that this rate of discharge occurred continually for six months per year, the maximum amount of groundwater that would infiltrate into the vault and subsequently be discharged to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert would be approximately 5 acre feet per year, and this rate of inflow would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater resources for the same reasons described in response to comment [H11]. Note that the source of any treated drinking water that accumulated in the vault as a result of leakage from the slip joint or ball joints after a seismic event on the Hayward fault would derive from the SFPUC system, and not from groundwater. Revisions to the proposed design of the modified slip joint vault and estimates of groundwater inflow rates into the articulated vault are described in Section 3, Project Updates, and appropriate text changes are provided in Section 5, Draft EIR Revisions. Comment [H13] Mitigation Measures for Dewatering: Since the DEIR concluded that both temporary and permanent dewatering would not have a significant impact on groundwater resources, mitigation measures were not included. However, the accumulative effect of both temporary and permanent groundwater dewatering activities will result in an impact on ACWD s groundwater resources. If modifications to the project design are not feasible, then mitigation measures should Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 52 December 2010

129 Comment and Responses be proposed to replace this loss of ACWD s water supplies. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 19]) Response As discussed in response to comments [H11] and [H12], neither temporary groundwater dewatering during construction or permanent groundwater dewatering in the articulated vault would result in significant impacts related to groundwater depletion. These dewatering discharges do not overlap in time (i.e. construction related discharges cease when permanent groundwater drainage in the articulated vault begins), and therefore, their effects are not additive. The effects are not cumulatively considerable, and therefore, no mitigation is required Hazards and Hazardous Materials There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mineral and Energy Resources There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Mineral and Energy Resources Other CEQA Issues There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Other CEQA Issues Alternatives Comment [AL1] This section states that the alternative design, a new 48 inch BDPL No. 3X will require the relocation and protection of the same utility lines as the proposed project. Please identify the options and impacts associated with the relocation and/or protection of affected ACWD facilities. (Walter L. Wadlow, General Manager, Alameda County Water District [A_ACWD 22]) Response As addressed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, relocation of utilities could contribute to construction related impacts on the potential to encounter archaeological and paleontological resources; increases in construction related traffic and associated safety hazards; temporary reductions in roadway capacity as a result of temporary lane closures; construction related noise; construction related emissions of criteria air pollutants and diesel particulate matter; soil erosion; the potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil; and the use of fuel, energy, and water during construction. Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description Table 3 2 identifies options for relocation of affected ACWD water lines. As a result of refining the project design and continued Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 53 December 2010

130 Comments and Responses consultation with ACWD since publication of the Draft EIR, the SFPUC has revised the proposed approach to relocating the ACWD water lines. Section 3, Project Updates, of this Comments and Responses document further describes the revised approach along with the impacts associated with these changes. As stated on page 7 30 of the Draft EIR, the impacts related to relocation of utilities under Alternative 3, Alternate Design New 48 inch BDPL No. 3X and Improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, would be similar to those of the proposed project because the same utility lines would be affected. Similarly, the impacts associated with incorporation of the proposed changes to the management of the ACWD lines (described in Section 3, Project Updates) would also apply to this alternative Other Topics There were no comments on the Draft EIR regarding Other Topics. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 4 54 December 2010

131 Comments and Responses 5. Draft EIR Revisions The following changes to the Draft EIR for the SFPUC s proposed Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project are provided at the initiation of staff to address refinements to the proposed project design since the release of the Draft EIR, incorporate updated information, clarify content, or correct content in the Draft EIR. In addition, changes that were made in response to a comment (see Section 4, Summary of Comments and Responses) are also reiterated in this section. This section presents changes by Draft EIR page number (the first page number if there is more than one). In each change, new language is double underlined, while deleted text is shown in strike out. On Draft EIR page 1 5, Section 1.4.2, BDPL No. 3, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Approximately 2,160 feet to 2,360 feet of the existing 78 inch diameter BDPL No. 3 would be abandoned between the North and South Shutoff Stations once the proposed BDPL No. 3X is operational. Pipe abandonment would occur by capping the pipeline segment at the two points of connection. However, the existing pipeline a section of the then abandoned BDPL No. 3 would still be used to provide drainage should BDPL No. 4 rupture at Trace B of the Hayward fault, as described below. On Draft EIR page 1 5, Section , BDPL No. 4 Crossing at Trace A is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: BDPL No. 4 Crossing at Trace A Based on an engineering analysis of BDPL No. 4, no improvements are required on BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault. At Trace A, improvements to BDPL No. 4 would include constructing one or two slip joints on the pipeline on either side of the fault crossing and strengthening the pipeline where it crosses Trace A. If only one slip joint is installed, BDPL No. 4 would be strengthened by sliplining the pipeline where it crosses the fault trace. If a second slip joint is installed, BDPL No. 4 would be strengthened by reinforcing the existing joints between the two slip joints. Each slip joint would be constructed in a below ground vault, approximately 20 feet long by 15 feet wide, extending 2 ½ feet above ground surface. On Draft EIR page 1 6, Section , BDPL No. 4 Crossing at Trace B, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: BDPL No. 4 Crossing at Trace B At Trace B, improvements would be made to ensure that breakage of BDPL No. 4 would occur within the existing slip joint vault, primarily by encasing portions of the 96 inchdiameter BDPL No. 4 in concrete on either side of the slip joint vault. This improvement Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 1 December 2010

132 Comments and Responses would strengthen BDPL No. 4 outside of the vault and direct earthquake forces to the segment of pipeline within the slip joint vault where breakage would occur. To accommodate drainage from a break of BDPL No. 4 in the vault, a new 24 inch drain to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert would be constructed, and the existing BDPL No. 3 would be perforated along the length of the vault (after the pipeline is taken out of service) and the perforated pipeline would discharge to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert through a tee connection that would accommodate 80,000 gallons per minute of an emergency discharge from BDPL No. 4 after a seismic event. The perforated BDPL No. 3 would act as a conduit for excess water from BDPL No. 4 and would drain to Agua Fria Creek. The existing aluminum panel roof of the vault would be replaced with pressure activated blowoff panels to direct excess leakage into surface drainage created to help direct water from BDPL No. 4 into the Mission Boulevard storm drain system. On Draft EIR page 1 6, the title of Section , BDPL No. 4 Crossing at Trace C, is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: BDPL No. 4 at Crossing at Trace C On Draft EIR page 1 6, the beginning of Section 1.4.5, Project Construction, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2012 and continue through the spring or summer of 2014, but could begin as early as winter On Draft EIR page 1 6, the beginning of Section 1.4.6, Operations and Maintenance, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Following construction of the proposed BDPL No. 3X and modifications to BDPL No. 4, pipeline operations would be the same as existing operations (i.e., discharges from maintenance activities every 5 to 20 years), with the exception of new discharges of accumulated groundwater and system water from the articulated vault and modified slipjoint vault. On Draft EIR page 1 13, Table 1.1 is revised to reflect changes in the mitigation measure titles, as shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page 2 3, the first paragraph is revised as follows to correct the number of Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) customers: Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which consists of 2627 total customers, shown on Figure Some of these wholesale customers have other sources of water in addition to what they receive from the SFPUC regional water system, while others rely completely on the SFPUC for supply. 1 The Cordilleras Mutual Water Association is also a wholesale customer receiving water from the SFPUC, but it is not a BAWSCA member and not shown in Figure 2 2. It is a small water association serving 18 single family homes located in San Mateo County. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 2 December 2010

133 Comments and Responses TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT Significance Determination Before Mitigation Significance Determination After Mitigation (The rows above are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Impact CP 3: Impacts on paleontological resources. PS LS Mitigation Measures M CP 3a: Paleontological Resources Worker Training. M CP 3: Paleontological Resources Monitoring. (The rows between are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Impact BI 4: Conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. S LS Mitigation Measures M BI 4a: Tree Replacement/Compensation. M BI 4b: Tree Protection Measures. (The rows below are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Draft EIR, page 2 4, Figure 2.2, SFPUC Water Service Area San Francisco and SFPUC Wholesale Customers, is revised to reflect a change in the number of Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency customers. The revised figure is shown on the following page. Draft EIR page 3 2, Figure 3.1, Project Location and Area, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on page C&R 5 5 of this document. Draft EIR page 3 7, Section 3.4.1, Site Description, is revised as follows to incorporate verification of the wetlands delineation and to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Within the project area (traveling from south to north), the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW crosses Agua Fria Creek, I 680 and associated on ramps, Agua Caliente Creek, and Mission Boulevard. Where the ROW crosses Agua Fria Creek, the creek flows in a shallow, natural creek bed with a 150 foot wide riparian zone. The portion of the creek that crosses the ROW has been verified as other waters of the United States by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps, 2010). Where the ROW crosses I 680, access to and from I 680 is provided via four loop on and off ramps and four diamond on and offramps (Figure 3.3). The freeway on ramps crossed by the ROW include the northbound diamond on ramp, northbound loop on ramp, and southbound diamond on ramp. The southbound diamond on ramp is bordered by a soundwall on the south side, between the on ramp and Agua Fria Creek. Where the ROW crosses Mission Boulevard, there are Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 3 December 2010

134 San Francisco Daly City Pacific Ocean Half Moon Bay 21 4c 2 14 San Andreas Reservoir Pilarcitos Reservoir 5 5* 9 SFO 3 5* 11 San Francisco Bay 4a San Mateo 4b 13 Crystal Springs Reservoir 8 4b San Mateo County 20 4a 12 4a Palo Alto Hayward San Jose Alameda County 15 Santa Clara County Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory San Antonio Reservoir Calaveras Reservoir NOT TO SCALE 18 Legend (Wholesale customers and members of Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency) 1 Alameda County Water District 2 City of Brisbane 3 City of Burlingame 4a CWS Bear Gulch 4b CWS Mid-Peninsula 4c CWS South San Francisco 5 Coastside County Water District 6 City of Daly City 7 City of East Palo Alto 8 Estero Municipal Improvement District 9 Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District 10 City of Hayward 11 Town of Hillsborough 12 City of Menlo Park 13 Mid-Peninsula Water District 14 City of Millbrae 15 City of Milpitas 16 City of Mountain View 17 North Coast County Water District 18 City of Palo Alto 19 Purissima Hills Water District 20 City of Redwood City 21 City of San Bruno 22 City of San Jose (North) 23 City of Santa Clara 24 Stanford University 25 City of Sunnyvale 26 Westborough Water District NOTE: For the purposes of this EIR, the California Water Service (CWS) Company is a single wholesale customer with three different water service districts. SOURCE: BAWSCA, 2010 * Portions of Coastside County Water District not served by the SFPUC regional water system. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure 2.2 (Revised) SFPUC Water Service Area San Francisco and SFPUC Wholesale Customers

135 SOURCE: ESA+Orion Auto Mall Pkwy 880 S Grimmer Blvd Osgood Rd Warm Springs Blvd Durham Rd Rd E Warren Ave Ave Mission Agua Caliente Creek 262 Blvd PROJECT AREA Culvert Agua Fria Creek Padre Pkwy Pkwy Paseo SANTA ROSA NAPA VACAVILLE FAIRFIELD NOVATO VALLEJO SAN RAFAEL RICHMOND CONCORD BDPL Nos. 3 & 4 Right-of-Way SAN FRANCISCO BERKELEY OAKLAND ALAMEDA WALNUT CREEK SAN RAMON Pacific Ocean DALY CITY PROJECT LOCATION SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY HAYWARD FREMONT MOUNTAIN VIEW SAN JOSE 680 BDPL Nos. 3 & 4 Right-of-Way 0 1/2 Mile Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure 3.1 (Revised) Project Location and Area

136 Comments and Responses two eastbound and two westbound lanes of traffic separated by a raised median. Where the ROW crosses Agua Caliente Creek, the creek is contained in an 8 foot high by 10 foot wide concrete culvert, approximately 15 to 20 feet below ground level, which parallels Mission Boulevard (Figure 3.1). Draft EIR page 3 9, Section , Groundwater Piezometers and Cathodic Protection Wells, is revised as follows in response to comment [H8]: There are eight three groundwater piezometers 4 (installed by the SFPUC) within the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW and several cathodic protection wells 5 located within the project area (ACWD, 2009). One former agricultural well is also potentially located within the project area (DWR, 1960). The locations of these wells are shown on (see Figure , in Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality, for locations). Five of Tthe piezometers (B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7) were installed as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2003 (WIP, 2004). These piezometers range in depth from 42 to 70 feet. They may have been previously abandoned, but the SFPUC does not have record of their abandonment. Three of the piezometers (UB 2, UB 5, and UB 8) were installed as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2008 (URS, 2008b). These piezometers are 100 feet deep and are currently used to monitor groundwater levels to determine the design and dewatering requirements for the proposed project. 4 A piezometer is a groundwater monitoring well used to monitor groundwater levels. 5 Cathodic protection wells are used to prevent the corrosion of metal in underground pipelines. These wells use a sacrificial metallic anode that is designed to corrode in place of the pipeline. These types of wells do not involve the extraction of groundwater. There is a cluster of three Alameda County Water District (ACWD) cathodic protection wells (No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7) that are 12 feet deep, and two Briar Court Association cathodic protection wells (No. 1 and No. 2) that are 150 feet deep located near the intersection of Curtner Road and Mission Boulevard. According to ACWD (2009) well records and a DWR (1960) groundwater bulletin, there may also be a former agricultural well about 400 feet deep in the vicinity of Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road. However, this well has not been accurately located and the referenced location is near the project boundary in an area that was covered with artificial fill during the construction of I 680 in 1969 (WIP, 2004). The cathodic protection wells and former agricultural well are located in a portion of the project area where excavation and construction staging would not occur. The locations of these wells would be demarked during construction, and construction activities would be prohibited in the vicinity of these wells. In the unlikely event that one of them is damaged or the surface seal is damaged as a result of construction activities, the ACWD would be notified immediately. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 6 December 2010

137 Comments and Responses Draft EIR page 3 9, Section 3.4.3, Proposed Facilities, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Improvements under the proposed project include construction of a new BDPL No. 3X where the pipelines cross all three traces of the Hayward fault, between the two shutoff stations (with seismic design features at each fault trace crossing to prevent rupture of the pipeline in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward fault); abandonment of the existing BDPL No. 3 between the points of connection with North and South Shutoff Stations once the new BDPL No. 3X once the new pipeline is operational; and seismic improvements to BDPL No. 4 to control where breakage would occur and prevent damage to BDPL No. 3X should BDPL No. 4 rupture. The abandoned portion of BDPL No. 3 would remain in place, and one section would be used to provide drainage should BDPL No. 4 rupture at Trace B of the Hayward fault as discussed below. These improvements are summarized briefly below and are shown on Figure 3.4. Sidewalk improvements such as new sidewalks, curb ramps, and gutters would also be constructed near the intersections of Brown Road and Curtner Road with Mission Boulevard. The new BDPL No. 3X would connect to the existing BDPL No. 3 to the north and south of the three traces of the Hayward fault. There are two approaches for connecting to BDPL No. 3 on the south side of the fault. Approach 1 includes constructing the southern point of connection near the South Shutoff Station, south of Agua Fria Creek, and Approach 2 includes constructing the southern point of connection immediately south of the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp, north of Agua Fria Creek (Figure 3.4). Final selection of the point of connection, and options for the construction of other project features described below, cannot be determined until the design of the project has been completed. Therefore, all options under consideration for each project feature are addressed below to provide the SFPUC with flexibility in the final engineering design, while ensuring that the environmental impacts of the project are appropriately evaluated. Draft EIR page 3 9, Section , Proposed BDPL No. 3X, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The proposed BDPL No. 3X would run parallel to the existing BDPL No. 3,. Under Approach 1, the new BDPL No. 3X would be for approximately 2,360 feet long, and would extend from the South Shutoff Station to the North Shutoff Station. Under Approach 2, the new BDPL No. 3X would be approximately 2,160 feet long, and would extend from the soundwall along the southbound I 680 diamond on ramp to the North Shutoff Station. BDPL No. 3 would continue to provide water throughout the construction of BDPL No. 3X, except during the pipe shutdown period described in Section 3.5.9, Planned Shutdowns and Operations During Construction, and would be abandoned once BDPL No. 3X is operational. The proposed BDPL No. 3X (and surrounding structures, if applicable) would be designed to address specific concerns at each of the fault trace crossings, as described below. All new facilities except access manholes and structures would be constructed below ground. A detailed description of the proposed facilities is provided below. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 7 December 2010

138 Comments and Responses Draft EIR page 3 10, Figure 3.4, Proposed Facilities, is revised to show the southern points of connection under Approaches 1 and 2 and proposed improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault. The revised figure is shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page 3 13, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The SFPUC has determined that following a seismic event, leaks of up to 1, gallons per minute could occur in this segment of BDPL No. 3X, including 100 gallons per minute from the slip joint and each ball joint (URS, a). The vault drainage system would be designed to drain water resulting from leaks from the ball joints or slip joint (following a strong seismic event), as well as up to 6 gallons per minute of groundwater that could accumulate within the vault during the wet season. Water from this vault would be collected in a sump and discharged to the underlying Agua Caliente culvert via a 4 inch discharge linedrain pipe connected to the southern (downhill) end of the vault. A permanent pump might be required to maintain drainage from the vault. Proposed security measures for the vault include an access control system, intrusion detection system, closed circuit television video surveillance, and manhole/vault security systems. Lock and key is proposed for new manholes. No new permanent fencing is proposed. On Draft EIR page 3 16, the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: To ensure continued water service to SFPUC customers, the existing BDPL No. 3 would remain in service during the proposed construction period, with the exception of a twomonth shutdown, described in Section 3.5.9, Planned Shutdowns and Operations During Construction, to install valving to facilitate the future connection of the proposed BDPL No. 3X. To facilitate this process, a new wye (a pipeline fitting that can be used to connect a new pipe to an existing pipe while still allowing flow through the existing pipe) and two valves would be installed on BDPL No. 3 at the north point of connection (just south of the North Shutoff Station) and at the south point of connection (just north of the South Shutoff Station for Approach 1, and just south of the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp for Approach 2) during the shutdown period. During construction, the valve that is in line with the existing BDPL No. 3 would be kept open, and the new valve on the future BDPL No. 3X connection would be kept closed. As an additional safety feature, the future connection point for BDPL No. 3X would be capped with a blind flange, or steel plate, to ensure that leakage would not occur before the proposed BDPL No. 3X is completely connected. Upon the completion of construction, flow would be redirected to the proposed BDPL No. 3X by opening the valve on that line and closing the valve on the existing BDPL No. 3. One shutdown would be required for approximately two months to allow for installation of the new wyes and valves. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 8 December 2010

139 Brown Road Southbound Diamond Off-Ramp I-680 Southbound Loop On-Ramp Northbound Diamond Diamond On-Ramp On-Ramp Crystalline Drive Paseo Agua Fria Creek Point of Connection for Approach 1 Southbound Diamond Diamond On-Ramp On-Ramp CMP 3 Southbound Loop Off-Ramp Northbound Loop Off-Ramp North Slip Joint Vault South Slip Joint Vault on BDPL No. 4 on BDPL No. 4 (Option A only) (Options A & B) CMP 2 Omega Tissiack Drive Nuggett Way Place Padre North Shutoff Station Parkway South Shutoff Station Point of Connection for Approach 2 Install 83.5 inch Liner in BDPL No. 4 or Strengthen Existing Joints Northbound Loop On-Ramp Northbound Diamond Off-Ramp Modify Existing Slip Joint Vault and Encase BDPL No. 4 on Either Side Agua Caliente Creek Culvert Mission Boulevard Road Curtner Install 90 inch Liner in BDPL No. 4 or Replace Pipeline with New 96 inch Steel Pipe Proposed 78-inch Steel BDPL No. 3X in Filled Trench or Bore Proposed 78-inch Steel BDPL No. 3X within Corrugated Metal Pipeline Proposed 72-inch Steel BDPL No. 3X in Articulated Vault Existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Primary Rupture Zone at Trace A Primary and Secondary Rupture Zones at Traces B and C Notes CMP: 114-inch Diamter Corrugated Metal Pipe Segment SOURCE: URS, 2008a Feet Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure 3.4 (Revised) Proposed Facilities

140 Comments and Responses Draft EIR page 3 16, Section , BDPL No. 3, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Approximately 2,360 feet of tthe existing 78 inch diameter BDPL No. 3 would be abandoned between the two points of connectionnorth and South Shutoff Stations once the proposed BDPL No. 3X is operational. Pipe abandonment would occur by capping the pipeline segment between the two points of connection. However, a section of the abandoned existing pipeline would still be used to provide drainage should BDPL No. 4 rupture at Trace B of the Hayward fault, as described below. On Draft EIR page 3 16, the second paragraph of Section , BDPL No. 4 Upgrades, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: BDPL No. 4 Crossing Trace A Based on an engineering analysis of BDPL No. 4 (G&E, 2008), no improvements would be required on BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault. Improvements would be made to strengthen BDPL No. 4 to withstand 1 foot of horizontal offset and 0.7 foot of vertical offset at Trace A of the Hayward fault. The improvements would include constructing one or two slip joints on the pipeline on either side of the fault crossing and strengthening the pipeline where it crosses Trace A. If only one slip joint is required, it would be located south of Trace A (between the southbound diamond on ramp and I 680), and BDPL No. 4 would be strengthened by sliplining the pipeline where it crosses Trace A. If a second slip joint is installed, it would be located to the north of Trace A (within the northbound loop on ramp), and BDPL No. 4 would be strengthened by reinforcing the existing joints between the two slip joints. Each slip joint would be constructed in a below ground vault, approximately 20 feet long by 15 feet wide, extending 2 ½ feet above ground surface. On Draft EIR page 3 17, the second paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: If BDPL No. 4 were to break in an earthquake, the release rate from the pipeline would range frombe approximately 300,000100,000 gallons per minute to 585,000 gallons per minute over the 30 to 60 minutes that would be required to close the north and south shutoff valves, depending on such factors as the season, time of day and size of the rupture. To accommodate this drainage and alleviate surface flooding, a new 24 inch drain to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert would be constructed, andthe existing BDPL No. 3 would be perforated along the length of the vault (after the pipeline is taken out of service). The perforated BDPL No. 3 would act as a conduit for excess water from BDPL No. 4 and would drain to Agua Fria Creek and to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert through a new 78 inch diameter pipe connection via a tee connection located immediately above the culvert (URS, 2010). The tee connection would accommodate Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 10 December 2010

141 Comments and Responses 80,000 gpm of the flow. By design, it would also help dissipate the energy of the discharge to Agua Caliente Creek and prevent damage to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert in the event of an emergency release resulting from a rupture of BDPL No. 4 following a seismic event. The existing aluminum panel roof of the vault would be replaced with pressure activated blowoff panels to allow excess leakage to flow into surface drainage created to direct the remaining water from BDPL No. 4 and into the Mission Boulevard storm drain system. The vault drainage system would also drain water resulting from leaks from the slip joint (following a strong seismic event), as well as groundwater that could accumulate within the vault. A permanent pump might be required to maintain drainage from the vault.an existing drain in the slip joint vault that discharges to Mission Boulevard would be retained and would also facilitate flows from an emergency release. The topography of the area would lead this water towards the I 680 cloverleaf area and Mission Boulevard. Currently, all water from a rupture of BDPL No. 4 as a result of a seismic event would flow towards the same areas. Therefore, the project would result in a decrease of water discharged to these areas compared to the existing condition. Draft EIR page 3 17, Section 3.5.1, Installation of Proposed BDPL No. 3X, is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Under both Approaches 1 and 2, Tthe limits of proposed construction activities extend approximately 3,800 linear feet along the SFPUC s existing 80 foot wide pipeline ROW for BDPL Nos. 3 and 4; the estimated total disturbance area is 29 acres, including four construction staging areas that would be established adjacent to and outside of the ROW (Figure 3.9). Installation of the proposed BDPL No. 3X would require construction activities along the entire 2,360 foot segment of pipeline to be replaced under Approach 1 or the 2,160 foot segment of pipeline to be replaced under Approach 2. Construction would include pipeline installation within existing corrugated metal pipes, open trench excavation, and cut and cover excavation, as described below. Under Approach 1, either Ttrenchless or open trench excavation, also described below, could be used to cross Agua Fria Creek at the south end of the project area. Implementation of Approach 2 would not require installation of the new BDPL No. 3X across Agua Fria Creek, but would require construction of a temporary creek crossing to provide access to construction activities south of the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp and minimal construction within the creek for excavation of the pit for construction of the southern point of connection. For the purpose of this EIR, the pipeline alignment between the North and South Shutoff Stations has been divided into the eight construction zones, starting at the South Shutoff Station and moving north, depending on the method(s) of construction to be used. Table 3.1 summarizes the proposed construction activities and construction equipment required in each construction zone, as well as for project mobilization and utility relocation. Because construction activities are similar in several zones, Table 3.1 groups each zone by type of construction activity. The table provides the estimated duration of Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 11 December 2010

142 Comments and Responses construction in each zone, and the preliminary construction schedule for these activities is discussed in Section , below. Activities to be conducted in Zone 1 would depend on the approach chosen for connection of the new BDPL No. 3X to the existing BDPL No. 3. Table 3.1 summarizes the proposed construction activities and construction equipment required for both Approaches 1 and 2. Construction activities in all other construction zones would be the same for either approach. On Draft EIR page 3 18, the following text is added immediately following the heading Zone 1 Southern Point of Connection and Agua Fria Creek Crossing to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Sidewalk improvements such as new sidewalks, curb ramps, and gutters would also be constructed near the intersection of Brown Road and Mission Boulevard. On Draft EIR page 3 18, the first two paragraphs of Section , Zone 1 Southern Point of Connection and Agua Fria Creek Crossing, are revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Approach 1: The southern point of connection adjacent to South Shutoff Station Under Approach 1, the southern point of connection would be immediately north of the South Shutoff Station, and either trenchless construction (Option A) or open cut excavation (Option B) would be used to cross Agua Fria Creek. Southern Point of Connection As described above, a new wye and valves would be constructed at the southern point of connection to the existing BDPL No. 3 in Zone 1, immediately north of the South Shutoff Station. Soil would be excavated from a minimum 51 by 30 foot area to a depth of 25 feet to expose BDPL No. 3, and an additional 24 foot by 10.5 foot area would be excavated to a depth of 25 feet for pipeline installation. Draft EIR page 3 19, Figure 3.9, Project Area (Including Staging Areas), is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements would be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on the following page. Draft EIR page 3 21, Table 3.1, Summary of Proposed Construction Activities, is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates, as shown on the following pages. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 12 December 2010

143 AT&T AT&T DIRECT BURIED CABLE SOUTH SHUT OFF STATION Limits of Project Area Construction Access SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; ESA, 2008; URS, 2008a DIRECT BURIED CABLE Underground Subsurface Transformer F JP JP GP GP JP X E SB1861 S AT&T X LIMITORQUE X MH X AT&T AT&T GP GP 1 Zone 3 TRACE A Zone 4 Existing BDPL No. 3 Existing BDPL No. 4 LIMITORQUE AT&T Street Crawford MISSION BLVD Mojave Drive JP OVERHEAD Southbound Diamond On-ramp Point of Connection for Approach 1 Point of Connection for Approach 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Caltrans Right Of Way Hayward Fault Trace Zone Brown Road 2 SFPUC Right of Way 1 Staging Area 1 3 Staging Area 3 New BDPL No. 3A 2 Staging Area 2 4 Staging Area 4 AT&T AT&T SB1862 S AT&T AT&T Tissiack Place Omega Drive Northbound Diamond On-ramp Crystalline Drive Area will be avoided during construction 3 3 Northbound Loop On-ramp TRACE B TRACE C Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Curtner Road 5 4 INTERSTATE Feet AT&T Paseo Padre Pkwy Nugget Pl E E 2" 21Kv E 2" 21Kv E AT&T AT&T DIRECT BURIED CABLE 2" 21Kv E Nugget Way NORTH SHUT OFF STATION Freshwater Seep Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure 3.9 (Revised) Project Area (Including Staging Areas)

144 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

145 Comments and Responses TABLE 3.1 (REVISED) SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Pipeline Segment/ Staging Area Construction Task Estimated Construction Duration Approximate Construction Area Approximate Depth of Excavation / Quantity of Excavation and Fill b Estimated Construction Equipment (Quantity) Construction Timing (hours/days) (The rows above are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Construction Zones 6, 7, and 8 Utilities relocation Varies Varies Varies Crane (1) Backhoe (1) Forklift (1) Welding set (1) Generator (1) Concrete truck (1) Loader (1) Dump truck (2) Water truck (1) Pump and hoses (2) Compactor (1) Pickup (4) Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Weekday and Weekend Evenings Midnight to 6 a.m. Occasional Sundays INSTALLATION OF BDPL NO. 3X Construction Zones 1 and 8 Points of connection Zone 1 (Approach 1) Connection adjacent to South Shutoff Station Zone 1 (Approach 2) Connection adjacent to I 680 soundwall north of Agua Fria Creek Install wye and valves on BDPL No. 3X Install wye and valves on BDPL No. 3X 3 months Southern point of connection 1,782 sq. ft. 4 months Southern point of connection 1,680 sq. ft Depth: 25 ft. Excavation: 1,650 cy Fill: 891 cy Spoil: 759 cy Structural fill: 872 cy Depth: 25 ft. Excavation: 1,185 cy Fill: 0 cy Spoil: 1,185 cy Structural fill: 1,185 cy Crane (2) Backhoe (2) Forklift (2) Generator (2) Pickup (4) Welding set (2) Ventilation equipment Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Occasional Sundays Clear and grub riparian zone within ROW and construct Agua Fria Creek crossing 4 months Excavation within and adjacent to Agua Fria Creek 1,260 sq. ft Depth: 1.5 to 3 ft. Excavation: 80 cy Fill: 0 cy Spoil: 80 cy Structural fill: 80 cy Zone 8 (Approaches 1 and 2) Install wye and valves on BDPL No. 3X 3 months Northern point of connection 1,530 sq. ft. Depth: 21 ft. Excavation: 1,190 cy Fill: 538 cy Spoil: 652 cy Structural fill: 538 cy Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 15 December 2010

146 Comments and Responses TABLE 3.1 (REVISED) (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Pipeline Segment/ Staging Area Construction Task Estimated Construction Duration Approximate Construction Area Approximate Depth of Excavation / Quantity of Excavation and Fill b Estimated Construction Equipment (Quantity) Construction Timing (hours/days) Construction Zone 1 Approach 1 Agua Fria Creek crossing Zone 1 Approach 1 Trenchless (Option A) a Creek crossing by trenchless construction methods 4 months Driving pit 3,750 sq. ft. Depth: 30 ft. Excavation: 4,167 cy Fill: 2,569 cy Spoil: 1,597 cy Structural fill: 1,597 cy Crane (2) Backhoe (2) Forklift (1) Loader (1) Dump truck (3) Water truck (2) Pump and hoses (2) Compactor (1) Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Occasional Sundays Zone 1 Approach 1 Trenchless (Option A) a (cont.) Boring N/A Depth: N/A Excavation: 242 cy Fill: 0 cy Spoil: 242 cy Structural fill: 0 cy Winch (2) Hydraulic jacks (2) Pickup (4) Welding set Ventilation equipment Receiving pit 800 sq. ft. Depth: 30 ft. Excavation: 889 cy Fill: 548 cy Spoil: 341 cy Structural fill: 341 cy Zone 1 Approach 1 Open cut excavation (Option B) a Creek crossing by opencut excavation 3 months 1,250 sq. ft. Depth: 30 ft Excavation: 1,660 cy Fill: 1,135 cy Spoil: 525 cy Structural fill: 390 cy Crane (1) Backhoe (2) Forklift (1) Trench shield (1) Loader (1) Dump truck (2) Water truck (1) Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Occasional Sundays Zone 1 Approach 1 Open cut excavation (Option B) a (cont.) Pump and hoses (2) Compactor (1) Pickup (4) Concrete pump truck Welding set Ventilation equipment (The rows between are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 16 December 2010

147 Comments and Responses TABLE 3.1 (REVISED) (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Pipeline Segment/ Staging Area Construction Task Estimated Construction Duration Approximate Construction Area Approximate Depth of Excavation / Quantity of Excavation and Fill b Estimated Construction Equipment (Quantity) Construction Timing (hours/days) BDPL No. 4 Improvements Zone 3 Install new slip joint to the south of Trace A 6 months 300 sq. ft. Depth: 35 ft. Excavation: 389 cy Fill: 0 cy Spoil: 389 cy Structural fill: 11 cy Crane (2) Backhoe (2) Forklift (2) Generator (3) Concrete truck (4) Loader (2) Dump truck (2) Water truck (1) Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Occasional Sundays Zone 5 New slip joint (Option A) Zone 5 Slipline (Option B) Install new slip joint to the north of Trace A Slip line BDPL No. 4 at Trace A 6 months 300 sq. ft. Depth: 30 ft. Excavation: 333 cy Fill: 0 cy Spoil: 33 cy Structural fill: 11 cy 6 months 450 sq. ft. Depth: 25 ft. Excavation: 417 cy Fill: 417 cy Spoil: 0 cy Structural fill: 0 cy Concrete pump (1) Pickup (4) Welding set (3) Compactor (1) Winch (2) Hydraulic jack (2) Ventilation equipment (The rows below are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 17 December 2010

148 Comments and Responses Draft EIR page 3 28, Table 3.2, Affected Utilities and Approach to Relocation/Protection is revised as follows in response to comment [U2] and to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: TABLE 3.2 (REVISED) AFFECTED UTILITIES AND APPROACH TO RELOCATION/PROTECTION Location Affected Utilities Approach to Relocation/Protection (The rows above are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Construction Zone 7 Alameda County Water District 30 inch and 12 inch water lines The SFPUC and ACWD are currently evaluating options to eliminate facility conflicts with the ACWD water lines within the SFPUC ROW. One option includes temporarily relocating Remove the existing 30 inch and 12 inch 12 and 30 inch water lines that conflict with the proposed alignment around the articulated vault during construction, installing new permanent water lines in the Mission Boulevard median and over the articulated vault and pipelines after construction, and then removing the temporary water lines. Another option includes, constructing new permanent pipelines around the articulated vault, and reconnecting them to existing water lines on either side of the SFPUC right of way, then removing the existing 30 inch and 12 inch water lines that conflict with the proposed alignment. Caltrans Agua Caliente Creek culvert No relocation required, but modifications to the culvert would be made to allow the existing slip joint vault, proposed articulated vault, and perforated BDPL No. 3 to drain to the culvert. (Additional rows are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) On Draft EIR page 3 29, the last paragraph is revised as follows to correct an editorial error and address permanent removal of all woody vegetation from the SFPUC where it crosses Agua Fria Creek, as described in response to comment [B1]: The driving pit would extend approximately 30 feet into the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek on the south side of the creek, and the receiving pit would extend approximately 10 feet into the corridor on the north side of the creek. The riparian habitat is classified as other waters of the United States (see Section 5.9, Biological Resources). Installation of BDPL No. 3X using trenchless construction methods across Agua Fria Creek would require the removal of approximately five red willow trees which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW. The entire 80 foot SFPUC ROW would be permanently cleared of woody vegetation to provide for future operations and maintenance of the existing BDPL No. 4 and the new BDPL No. 3X, in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. In all, approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat would be cleared. Approximately 26 trees would be removed, including 13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree, all of which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW (see Section 5.9, Biological Resources). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 18 December 2010

149 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 3 30, the second paragraph is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: Once the trench is excavated and the pipeline has been installed, the steel pipe would be encased in an 8 inch thick reinforced concrete encasement; the trench would be backfilled with excavated soil from the trench and compacted to near existing density; and the piles would be removed. If open cut excavation is used, approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat classified as other waters of the United States would be affected and approximately 26 trees would be removed, including 13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree, all of which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW (see Section 5.9, Biological Resources). Groundwater piezometer UB 8 (described above in Section , Groundwater Piezometers and Cathodic Protection Wells) would also require abandonment prior to construction in this zone (see Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality). On Draft EIR page 3 30, the following text is added immediately after the second paragraph to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Approach 2: Southern Point of Connection Immediately South of the I 680 Soundwall Under Approach 2, the southern point of connection would be located immediately south of the soundwall along the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp. Southern Point of Connection As described above, a new wye and valves would be constructed at the southern point of connection to the existing BDPL No. 3 in Zone 1, immediately south of the soundwall along the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp. The connection would be made at the point where BDPL No. 3 transitions from steel pipe to RCCP and bends to go under Agua Fria Creek. The exact location of this transition is not known, and prior to excavation the SFPUC would conduct potholing to expose the pipe. Once the transition and bend are located, shoring would be placed around the 60 by 28 foot excavation area, and the area would be excavated to the bottom of the pipe at a depth of approximately 25 feet. Approximately 6 square feet of this excavation would occur within Agua Fria Creek. Excavated soil would be stockpiled above the high water mark on the creek bank and/or along the service road at the top of the creek bank, and used as fill, and excess soil would be hauled offsite for disposal. To provide for future operations and maintenance of the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, the entire 80 foot SFPUC ROW would be cleared of woody vegetation in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, and this would also provide construction crew access from the South Shutoff Station. In total, approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat would be cleared. Approximately 26 trees would be removed, including 13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree, all of which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 19 December 2010

150 Comments and Responses Nos. 3 and 4 ROW (see Section 5.9, Biological Resources). For future operations and maintenance of the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 and the new BDPL No. 3X, the ROW would be permanently cleared of woody vegetation. The creek banks would be excavated or filled as necessary within a 1,260 square foot area to provide a temporary creek crossing for vehicular access during construction. Excavation to a depth of 1.5 feet would be required on the north bank, and to a depth of 3 feet on the south bank. Approximately 225 square feet of this excavation would occur within the creek. During construction, equipment and materials may be stockpiled above the high water mark on the north and south creek banks and /or along the service road adjacent to the soundwall. If construction occurs when there is flow in the creek, Agua Fria Creek would be dewatered via a temporary dewatering system that would be built to create a dry work area during construction. This system would likely entail constructing a sandbag cofferdam around the worksite together with a flume pipe to sustain downstream flow at all times. Control measures would be implemented to prevent downstream pollution and sedimentation and to maintain the natural flow and temperature of the stream downstream of the construction area. The wye and valves would be installed during the planned shutdown of BDPL No. 3 in November and December of 2012, as described in Section 3.5.9, Planned Operations and Shutdowns During Construction, below. During this shutdown, the segment of BDPL No. 3 between the South Shutoff Station and the New Irvington Tunnel would be completely drained through the existing blowoff valve immediately north of the South Shutoff Station to accommodate the installation of the wye and valves. Once the valves are in place, they would be configured to allow water flow through BDPL No. 3, and the pipeline would be placed back in operation for the remainder of the construction period. When construction of the proposed BDPL No. 3X is complete, the valves would be reconfigured to direct flow through the new pipeline, and the existing BDPL No. 3 would be abandoned by capping the pipeline segment between the two points of connection. On Draft EIR page 3 33, the section title is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Temporary Bridges Utility Relocation and Associated Traffic Management On Draft EIR page 3 33, the third paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Temporary closure of the northbound loop on ramp could be required for up to four nights to facilitate traffic relocation activities, installation of the cast in place drilled hole secant pile walls, and construction or removal of the temporary bridges. These closures would include two nights during the two month period for bridge installation and two nights Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 20 December 2010

151 Comments and Responses during the one month period for removal of the bridges. The on ramp would be closed for one additional night at the completion of construction activities to remove the ACWD water lines temporarily relocated from Zone 7. The SFPUC would schedule the closures for low travel periods (between midnight and 6 a.m. on weekday and weekend evenings) to avoid major traffic disruptions. During these closures, the SFPUC would establish a detour along Warm Springs Boulevard on the west side of I 680 to provide a connection from Mission Boulevard to northbound I 680 via the Durham Road interchange (Figure 3.11). Prior to any lane closure, the contractor would be required to submit a traffic control plan identifying the detour route and specifying a detailed contingency plan to ensure that the roadway is opened by the designated time. During nighttime construction, temporary construction lighting would be used to illuminate the work area (see Section , Construction Equipment, for a description of this temporary lighting). On Draft EIR page 3 36, the last paragraph is revised as follows in response to comment [U2] and to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The ACWD water lines and the 10 inch USD sanitary sewer line that cross the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW would be temporarily relocated and later replaced beneath the Mission Boulevard median and above the new articulated vault, the new BDPL No. 3X, and the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, or they would be removed and permanently relocated around the articulated vault. Under either option, the Nnew pipelines would be constructed around the new articulated vault and reconnected to existing water lines on either side of the ROW. The 10 inch USD sanitary sewer line would be removed and relocated around the articulated vault. The PG&E gas and electrical lines would be temporarily removed and replaced in kind at the completion of construction. Modifications would be made to the pipes and inlets of the Caltrans/City of Fremont storm drainage system to accommodate the temporary bridges needed to maintain traffic flow on Mission Boulevard and the I 680 on ramps. The existing AT&T line would be relocated approximately 5 to 8 feet from its current position and temporarily supported/hung from supports above the construction work area. Removal or alteration of the existing 2 foot by 3 foot cement conduit boxes and manholes, and splicing the existing cable to the new cable could also be required for the line crossing Mission Boulevard. City of Fremont street lighting would be de energized, and the portion that conflicts with the BDPL No. 3X construction would be demolished and replaced at the end of construction. The City of Fremont or the construction contractor would provide temporary street lighting, similar to existing street lighting, during construction. The Agua Caliente Creek culvert runs beneath the proposed BDPL No. 3X and would not be affected by construction of the pipeline. However, the culvert would be modified to accommodate drainage from the existing slip joint vault and the articulated vault constructed at the Trace B crossing, as described below. On Draft EIR page 3 37, the section title is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Temporary Bridges and Utility Relocation and Associated Traffic Management Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 21 December 2010

152 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 3 37, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: During construction and removal of the temporary bridge on Mission Boulevard as well as installation of the relocated ACWD water lines at the completion of construction, single lanes would be closed on Mission Boulevard where this street crosses the ROW. To minimize traffic disruptions, the SFPUC would schedule these single lane closures for low travel periods (11 p.m. to 6 a.m. for eastbound Mission Boulevard and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. for westbound Mission Boulevard on weekday and Sunday evenings, and 12 midnight to 7 a.m. for eastbound Mission Boulevard and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for westbound Mission Boulevard on Saturday evenings. Complete closure of Mission Boulevard could also be required for up to nine nights during an 11 month period (including 9 months for bridge installation and 2 months for bridge removal) to facilitate traffic relocation activities, installation of the cast in place drilled hole secant pile walls, and construction or removal of the temporary bridges. The SFPUC would schedule these closures during low travel periods (11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekday and weekend evenings and 12 midnight to 7 a.m. on Saturday evenings) to avoid major traffic disruptions. On Draft EIR page 3 41, the following text is added immediately following the first paragraph to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Sidewalk improvements such as new sidewalks, curb ramps, and gutters would also be constructed near the intersection of Curtner Road and Mission Boulevard. Draft EIR page 3 42, Section 3.5.2, BDPL No. 4 Improvements is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: BDPL No. 4 Improvements Improvements to BDPL No. 4 would include modifications to the existing slip joint vault and pipeline. These improvements would be constructed during the planned shutdown of BDPL No. 4, which is estimated to take place in January and February of 2013, but could extend into a second shutdown that would take place from November 2013 through April or May 2014 as described in Section 3.5.9, Planned Operations and Shutdowns During Construction, below. On Draft EIR page 3 42, the following text is added after the first paragraph of Section 3.5.2, BDPL No. 4 Improvements, to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Zone 3 Installation of a New Slip Joint Vault BDPL No. 4 would be upgraded at Trace A of the Hayward fault by installing a new slip joint and associated vault between I 680 and the southbound diamond on ramp. Construction of the slip joint and vault would require excavating a 20 foot long, 15 footwide, 35 foot deep pit to expose the pipeline, and removing a piece of BDPL No. 4. The Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 22 December 2010

153 Comments and Responses new slip joint vault would be constructed within the excavation, and the slip joint would then be installed within the vault and connected to the pipeline Zone 5 Installation of a New Slip Joint Vault or Construction of an Insertion Pit and Upgrades to BDPL No. 4 There are two options for upgrades to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault (see Table 2.1). Option A is to install a new slip joint to the north of Trace A and to strengthen the existing pipeline by reinforcing the existing joints between the two slip joints. Option B is to slip line BDPL No. 4 where it crosses Trace A. Construction of the slip joint and vault under Option A would require excavating a 20 foot long, 15 foot wide, 30 footdeep pit to expose the pipeline, and removing a piece of BDPL No. 4. The new slip joint vault would be constructed within the excavation, and the slip joint would then be installed within the vault and connected to the pipeline. Under this option, the existing joints would be reinforced from within the pipeline, and no additional excavation would be required for construction of the improvements. Slip lining of BDPL No. 4 under Option B would require excavating a 30 foot long, 15 foot wide, 25 foot deep pit to expose the pipeline. A piece of BDPL No. 4 would be removed, and a smaller diameter pipe (83.5 inch diameter 1 inch thick) would be advanced through the larger diameter pipe. Subsequent sections would be welded together and advanced to the desired length, extending approximately 170 feet on either side of Trace A. Grout may be injected into the space between the two pipelines after the final pipe segments have been welded together, and the inner pipeline may be supported on shear studs connected to BDPL No. 4. The vaults would be waterproofed to minimize the infiltration of groundwater. However, a sump pump would capture any groundwater that has infiltrated into the vault, and pump it back to the surface into a small gravel drain (adjacent to the vault) which would allow for percolation back into the ground. No water is expected to reach stormwater drains, the nearest being approximately 130 feet away. There are no existing PG&E electrical connections in the vicinity of the vaults. Therefore, a small solar panel, similar to those used at call boxes on I 680, would be installed adjacent to the vault to provide power to the sump pump in the vaults. Inspections of the vault would occur approximately every 5 years, and could require draining the vault if groundwater has infiltrated. Draft EIR page 3 42, Section , Zone 6 Modifications to Slip Joint Vault and Upgrades to BDPL No. 4, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Zone 6 Modifications to Slip Joint Vault and Upgrades to BDPL No. 4 The modifications to the existing slip joint vault for BDPL No. 4 would require: Removal of the metal roof of the vault Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 23 December 2010

154 Comments and Responses Demolition of the west concrete wall enclosing BDPL No. 3 Construction of a new wall between the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Installation of panels to allow leakage from BDPL No. 4 to flow into onsite drainage in the event the pipeline breaks (the panels would replace the roof of the vault) Installation of an access hatch and security screen Enlargement of the openings to the vault where BDPL No. 4 enters and exits the vault in order to accommodate movement of the pipeline Installation of a 24 inch drain connecting to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert In addition, it might be necessary to regrade the curbs and gutters of the storm drain system on Mission Boulevard, which would facilitate flows in the event that BDPL No. 4 ruptured at this location. BDPL No. 4 would be strengthened on either side of the existing slip joint vault by excavating a 45 foot long by 20 foot wide trench to a depth of 20 feet on either side of the vault to expose the pipeline and encasing it in concrete. The trench would then be backfilled with granular material to 12 inches above the crown of the pipeline, and the remaining depth would be backfilled with excavated soil from the trench and compacted to near existing density. The 24 inch drain would be used to direct leakage away from BDPL No. 4 as well as groundwater infiltration to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert. As described above, once BDPL No. 3 is taken out of service, the segment of BDPL No. 3 adjacent towithin the slip joint vault would be perforated so that it would act as a conduit for leakage in the event of a break in BDPL No. 4. Perforation would be accomplished by a crew working from inside the pipelineslip joint vault. A 72 inch diameter pipe connection may also be constructed from To drain away leakage from a BDPL No. 4 rupture, thea portion of the then abandonedexisting BDPL No. 3 would be connected to the Agua Caliente culvert to drain away leakage from a BDPL No. 4 rupture. via a tee connection located immediately above the culvert. The tee connection would accommodate 80,000 gpm of the flow. By design, the tee connection would also help dissipate the energy of the discharge to Agua Caliente Creek and prevent damage to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert in the event of an emergency release resulting from a rupture of BDPL No. 4 following a seismic event. On Draft EIR page 3 42, the following section number is revised as a result of the above text additions addressing the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Zone 8 Upgrades to BDPL No. 4 at Trace C Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 24 December 2010

155 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 3 43, the third paragraph is deleted as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: These improvements would be constructed during the planned shutdown of BDPL No. 4, which is estimated to take place in January and February of 2013, as discussed in Section 3.5.9, below. On Draft EIR page 3 43, Section 3.5.3, Temporary Work Areas and Easements, is revised as follows to reflect that Staging Area 3 is not partially located on private property, as described in response to comment [U4]: Construction activities would generally be conducted within the SFPUC s existing 80 foot ROW and Caltrans easement for I 680 and Mission Boulevard. An encroachment permit from Caltrans would be required for construction of the proposed improvements adjacent to I 680 and its associated on ramps as well as within the Caltrans easement, including access to and from the construction site. Potential Staging Area 4 and part of Staging Area 3 (Figure 3.9), north of the northbound diamond on ramp, are is located on private property and would need to be designated as temporary construction easements would need to be obtained prior to project implementation. TheseThis staging areas are is described below. Parking would be provided within the project area, although some construction parking could occur on neighborhood streets on both the north end (Tissiack Way area) and at the south end (Mohave Drive area) of the ROW. During peak construction activities, offsite parking could also be required, and if necessary, the SFPUC or its construction contractor would transport workers to the construction area via a shuttle. Some, but not all, of the utility owners have revocable SFPUC permits for utilities that cross the SFPUC ROW; the SFPUC would coordinate with each utility owner prior to relocation of the utilities. On Draft EIR page 3 44, the second bullet is revised as follows to reflect that Staging Area 3 is not partially located on private property, as described in response to comment [U4]: Staging Area 3 includes a portion of the area within the northbound loop onramp cloverleaf as well as an area to the east of Mission Boulevard. This staging area is bounded by the northbound diamond on ramp and is located within the SFPUC ROW and Caltrans easement, and partially on private property Draft EIR page 3 44, Section , Staging Areas 2 and 3, is revised as follows to reflect that Staging Area 3 is not partially located on private property, as described in response to comment [U4]: Staging Areas 2 and 3 would be established within the I 680/Mission Boulevard interchange to facilitate construction of the new articulated concrete vault in Zone 7. Most of the heavy equipment, including cranes and excavators, would be stored and operated within the interchange area. Construction activities and materials stockpiling would take place in the SFPUC ROW and Caltrans easements, and partially within Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 25 December 2010

156 Comments and Responses private property in Staging Area 3. Three Lombardy poplars and one Peruvian/California pepper trees would require removal in these staging areas (see Section 5.9, Biological Resources). On Draft EIR page 3 46, the first paragraph of Section 3.5.7, Fill Placement, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The estimated cut and fill quantities for the entire project would be approximately 42,40041,600 cubic yards and 13,300 cubic yards, respectively, resulting in approximately 29,10028,300 cubic yards of soil requiring offsite placement. As further discussed in Section 5.12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a Phase I environmental site assessment for the proposed pipeline alignment (AEW, 2009) indicated that the excavated soil has a low potential to contain hazardous materials, and the geotechnical investigation (WIP, 2004) indicated that the soil would likely be suitable for reuse as construction fill or could be disposed of at a conventional disposal facility. On Draft EIR page 3 46, the first paragraph of Section 3.5.9, Planned Shutdowns and Operations During Construction, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: It would be necessary to shut down BDPL No. 3 to construct the connections of the new and existing pipelines and to shut down BDPL No. 4 to construct the proposed improvements. BDPL No. 3 would be taken out of service for approximately two months during the installation of the connections., and BDPL No. 4 would be taken out of service for approximately two months during construction of the slip joint(s) and pipeline improvements, the concrete encasement construction, and sliplining. Construction of these improvements could require approximately two months and could be accomplished within one shutdown of BDPL No. 4 but could potentially extend into a second shutdown of this pipeline. These shutdowns would be coordinated with the overall SFPUC WSIP shutdown schedule. (The shutdown of BDPL No. 3 is anticipated to be during November and December for BDPL No. 3 and The two shutdowns of BDPL No. 4 are scheduled for January and February 2013 and November 2013 to April or May 2014 for BDPL No. 4). With implementation of the standard SFPUC procedures described below, there would be no interruption of service for downstream water customers during these shutdowns. On Draft EIR page 3 47, the first paragraph of Section , Groundwater Dewatering Discharges, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: In 2003, the water table was measured at depths of 12 feet to 39 feet below ground surface within the project area, with groundwater levels generally decreasing in elevation from north to south (WIP, 2004). More recent groundwater monitoring identified stabilized groundwater levels at depths between 13 and 41 feet below ground surface (URS, 2008b). Based on these results, groundwater dewatering could be required in Zone 3, Zone 5, Zone 7, and in the pits excavated in Zone 1 for the trenchless construction across Agua Fria Creek. Excavations in Zones 5 and 8 would be near the water table and Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 26 December 2010

157 Comments and Responses could also require dewatering. Dewatering could be accomplished by pumping directly from the excavation or through dewatering wells installed in support of construction. Groundwater collected from excavations in Zones 3, 5, 7, and 8 would be discharged to the local storm drain or sewer system or Aqua Caliente Creek. For the trenchless pits in Zone 1, groundwater would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek or to local storm drains. On Draft EIR page 3 48, Sections and are revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Pipeline Dewatering Discharges Dewatering of the existing BDPL No. 3 between the North and South Shutoff Stations would be required during installation of the interconnections and when the pipeline is abandoned after the new BDPL No. 3X is operational., and ddewatering of the same segment of the existing BDPL No. 4 would also be required during construction of the slip joint(s) and pipeline improvements at Trace A, concrete encasements at Trace B, and sliplining or pipeline replacement at Trace C. These one time discharges would involve discharge of approximately 992,000606,000 gallons of chloraminated water from BDPL No. 3 (twice) and 1,503,200916,000 gallons of chloraminated water from BDPL No. 4 (once) via the existing blowoff valves immediately north of the South Shutoff Station. The new BDPL No. 3X would also be dewatered once after hydrostatic testing, resulting in the discharge of approximately 650,120 gallons of chloraminated water. If construction of improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A extend into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, then BDPL No. 4 could require draining again, resulting in the discharge of an additional 1,503,200 gallons of treated water. Water from the individual pipeline segments would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek through the existing blowoff valves and dechlorinated before discharging to the creek. Draining, dechlorination, and pumping of each pipeline segment would last approximately fivefour days or less. As mentioned above, all discharges would be conducted in a manner that avoids downstream erosion and other water quality impacts and would comply with applicable discharge regulations and requirements of the City of Fremont, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD), and/or the RWQCB Pipeline Disinfection Prior to returning BDPL No. 3 to service after installation of the interconnections, returning BDPL No. 4 into service after construction of the proposed improvements, and placing the proposed BDPL No. 3X into service, the pipelines would be disinfected, flushed, and tested for bacteria. Disinfection would involve flushing the pipelines with highly chlorinated water and discharging the chlorinated water through existing blowoff valves. The discharge would be dechlorinated before discharging to the creek. The volume of water discharged for disinfection of BDPL No. 3 and 3X would be approximately 8,560,0002 million gallons, the volume of water discharged for Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 27 December 2010

158 Comments and Responses disinfection of the new BDPL No. 3X would be approximately 2,292,380 gallons, and the volume of water discharged for disinfection of BDPL No. 4 would be approximately 12,965, million gallons. If construction of improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A extend into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, then BDPL No. 4 could require disinfection again, resulting in the discharge of an additional 12,965,000 gallons of treated water. Disinfection and fflushing of each pipeline segment after disinfection would require approximately 14 four days or less. As mentioned above, all discharges would be conducted in a manner that avoids downstream erosion and other water quality impacts and would comply with applicable discharge regulations and requirements of the City of Fremont, ACFCWCD, and/or RWQCB. On Draft EIR page 3 50, Section , Construction Schedule, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2012 and continue through the spring of 2014 but could begin as early as winter If construction of improvements to BDPL No. 4 extends into the second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, then construction activities would extend into the summer of During the approximately 27 to 29 month construction period, construction could be conducted concurrently in two or more of the construction zones, depending on the construction phasing. Nighttime construction would be required in Zones 6 and 7 on weekday and weekend nights, for up to a total of 1720 nights, during removal of the temporary ACWD lines as well as during installation and removal of the temporary bridges to avoid causing major traffic disruptions during traffic relocation activities, installation of the cast in place drilled hole secant pile walls, and construction or removal of the temporary bridges across the I 680 on ramps and Mission Boulevard. Because construction activities would overlap in both Zones 6 and 7, the 1720 nights of nighttime construction would occur over approximately 11 months. Approximately nine of these nights willwould require closure of Mission Boulevard, and approximately eightnine nights willwould require closure of the I 680 northbound loop and diamond on ramps. All other construction would be conducted on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., with occasional construction activities occurring on Sundays. On Draft EIR page 3 50, the first paragraph of Section 3.6, Operations and Maintenance, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Following construction of the proposed BDPL No. 3X and modifications to BDPL No. 4, pipeline operations would be the same as existing operations, and pipeline maintenance would be performed as identified under the WSIP maintenance plan and asset management strategy, which is currently under development. This plan will outline inspection as well as minor and major maintenance activities for the regional water system following completion of the WSIP facility improvement projects. Under the proposed project, both the articulated vault and new slip joint vault would include minor Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 28 December 2010

159 Comments and Responses discharges of up to 6 gallons per minute of accumulated groundwater during the wet season (URS, 2010). After a seismic event, these joints could leak at rates of up to 300 1,000 gallons per minute until repaired. Water from this both vaults would be discharged to Agua Caliente Creek via a new connections constructed in each vault. On page 3 52, the fourth paragraph is revised as follows in response to comment [H2]: Clean Water Act, Section 401 Permit, Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB: This certification is required when a proposed project s construction may result in the discharge of dredge or fill material to a water body. The federal Section 404 permit would be subject to Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge (see Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality). On page 3 53, the second paragraph of Section 3.7.3, Local City, County, and Utility Approvals and Permits, is revised as follows in response to comment [UT3]: Utility Arrangements with Utility Owners: The SFPUC would enter into agreements with utility owners for the relocation, replacement, or protection of their underground utilities that cross the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW where project construction would occur and for access to these facilities during construction (see Section 5.8, Utilities and Service Systems). On Draft EIR page 3 54, Section 3.8, References, the following references are added to support the above updated information: Department of Water Resources (DWR), Intrusion of Salt Water into Groundwater Basins of Southern Alameda County, DWR Bulletin No. 81, Plate 2, December URS Corporation, Seepage Evaluation of BDPL #3X Hayward Fault Crossing, March 5, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), letter to the SFPUC confirming the extent of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction at the location of the Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 project located at I 680 and Mission Boulevard in the City of Fremont, Alameda County, California, February 26, Draft EIR page 5.1 2, Section 5.1.1, Scope of Analysis, is revised as follows to reflect new amendments to the CEQA Guidelines: In the course of this evaluation, the San Francisco Planning Department determined that the proposed project would have no impact on several resources, including population and housing, wind and shadow, recreation, public services, and agricultural and forest resourcesagriculture; these resource topics are discussed below. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 29 December 2010

160 Comments and Responses Draft EIR page 5.1 3, Section , Agriculture, is revised as follows to reflect new amendments to the CEQA Guidelines: AgricultureAgricultural and Forest Resources The proposed project would be located on a site that has already been developed, and there are no agricultural or forestry uses on the project site or in the project area. Further, the project site is not zoned for such uses, and the project would not include any improvements that would require a change in land use. The California Department of Conservation s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the project site as Urban and Built Up Land, defined as land [that] is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures (California Department of Conservation, 2008). The proposed project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non agricultural use, and would not conflict with existing agricultural land uses, zoning for agricultural land use, or a Williamson Act contract. In addition, the project area is mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as being on urban land (Calfire, 2003). Therefore, the project would have no impact on agricultural or forest resources. On Draft EIR page 5.1 3, the following text is added immediately before the subheading Section 5.1.2, Significance Determinations New Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments to Appendix G that were recommended by the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR, 2010). The amendments became effective on March 18, The amendments include updates to the sample questions in the Environmental Checklist Form, which is included as Appendix G in the CEQA Guidelines. This section summarizes the updates and explains why the updates are not reflected in Sections 5.2 through 5.13 of this EIR. Forest Resources The agricultural resources discussion (Section , Agriculture) has been revised to include forest resources, and the discussion under this impact category has been amended to consider environmental impacts related to conflicts with zoning of forest or timber land and the loss or conversion of forest resources as identified in the CEQA Guideline Amendments. Relationship to the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project The project area does not include any lands zoned or managed for forest or timber uses. Implementation of this project would not affect any large tracts of land with a high Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 30 December 2010

161 Comments and Responses density of trees. Although project construction would remove up to 49 trees in various locations throughout the project area, the removal of these isolated trees is not considered a loss or conversion of forest lands. The impacts of tree removal are thoroughly evaluated in Section 5.9, Biological Resources. No further consideration of this topic is required in this EIR. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The amendments include a new section called Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The checklist questions under this new impact category consider whether the project would generate significant direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Relationship to the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project A detailed analysis of greenhouse gases, including consideration of the new checklist questions, is included in this EIR in Section 5.7, Air Quality, using similar significance criteria previously developed by the City and County of San Francisco. No further consideration of this topic is required in this EIR. Transportation/Traffic The checklist questions under this impact category have been amended to require transportation/traffic impact analyses to consider applicable plans, ordinances, or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The amendments require consideration of congestion management programs as well as policies, plans, or programs pertaining to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Amendments under this impact category also remove the need to consider parking capacity impacts, and clarify the meaning of alternative modes of transportation. Relationship to the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project Section 5.5, Transportation and Circulation, describes congestion management plans, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The transportation analysis in Section 5.5 presents an LOS analysis for the project construction phase and finds that potential impacts are either less than significant, or significant but reduced to less than significant with mitigation. However, as discussed in Section , Approach to Analysis (Draft EIR p ), the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Project would not result in long term impacts on roadways; therefore, no further consideration of level of service impacts, as they relate to congestion management plans, is necessary. In addition, the proposed project would not permanently change the existing or planned transportation network in the city of Fremont, and therefore would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel. No further consideration of this topic is required in this EIR. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 31 December 2010

162 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 5.1 3, the following subheading is revised to accommodate text additions: Significance Determinations On Draft EIR page 5.1 5, the following subheading is revised to accommodate text additions: References On Draft EIR page 5.1 5, the following references are added to support updated information: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Calfire), Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover: Multi Source Data Compiled for Forest and Range 2003 Assessment, 1:1,100,000 scale map, Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CEQA Guidelines, available online at accessed on March 11, Draft EIR page 5.2 2, Figure 5.2 1, Existing Land Uses Based on Alameda County Assessor Codes, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Divide an established community. With the exception of modifications to the existing slipjoint vault in the vicinity of the northbound loop on ramp to I 680, several access manholes, the BDPL No. 4 at Trace A slip joint vault(s), sidewalk improvements, and the north and south access structures for the articulated vault, all facility improvements under the proposed project would be constructed below grade within the existing SFPUC ROW for BDPL Nos. 3 and 4. The aboveground structures would be located within the ROW, with the exception of small areas associated with sidewalk improvements, and would not divide an established community. Therefore, although the project area and existing ROW physically cross an established community, the project would not divide the community, so no impact would result. No additional discussion is presented regarding potential project impacts related to the division of an established community. On Draft EIR page 5.2 7, under the section titled Construction Related Effects on Existing Land Uses and the Character of the Project Vicinity, the first sentence is revised to reflect project updates: The total duration of construction activities is estimated to be 27 to 29 months, with concurrent activity in two or more of the construction zones depending on the construction phasing. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 32 December 2010

163 Auto Mall Parkway Durham Road Osgood Road Road Project Site Mission Boulevard 1000-Foot Land Use Study Area Detour Route for I-680 On-Ramp Closures Warm Springs Boulevard Boulevard South Grimmer Boulevard 680 Boulevard Paseo Padre Parkway Paseo Padre Parkway Boulevard 880 Mission East Warren Avenue Feet SOURCE: City of Fremont, 2008 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure (Revised) Existing Land Uses Based on Alameda County Assessor Codes

164 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 5.2 8, the second bullet is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Short term impacts related to disruption of land uses from nighttime construction would be significant and unavoidable because nighttime work would be conducted approximately 1720 times over approximately 11 months for installation and removal of the temporary bridges on the I 680 on ramps and Mission Boulevard as well as the removal of temporary ACWD water lines installed around the location of the articulated vault and installation of new permanent water lines. This nighttime construction would result in nighttime noise levels above the sleep interference criterion at the nearest sensitive receptor from construction activities, delivery truck traffic, and increased traffic on detour routes through residential neighborhoods (see Impacts NO 1 and NO 3). Nighttime vibration levels could also exceed the vibratory annoyance threshold (see Impact NO 4). Implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 1a, Noise Control Plan, requiring implementation of noise reduction measures as part of a noise control plan; Mitigation Measure M NO 1b, Temporary Noise Barriers or Enclosures, requiring the construction contractor to erect temporary noise barriers or enclosures if feasible; Mitigation Measure M NO 1d, Nighttime Restrictions on Construction Activities, requiring the contractor to restrict certain construction activities at night to the maximum extent feasible to reduce nighttime construction noise levels to the adjusted sleep interference criterion; Mitigation Measure M NO 3, Haul and Delivery Truck Operation Limits, requiring time restrictions on truck traffic to the maximum extent possible; and Mitigation Measure M NO 4a, Vibration Limits, limiting vibration levels associated with nighttime operation of heavy equipment, could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. However, since some activities might have to be performed at night during the non peak traffic periods, and since the feasibility of implementing some of these measures is uncertain, nighttime construction noise and vibration levels could occasionally exceed the applicable criterion. Therefore, potential nighttime exceedances of the sleep interference criterion and vibratory annoyance threshold, if they occur, would result in the short term disruption of land uses, a significant and unavoidable impact. On Draft EIR page 5.2 9, the first paragraph of Impact LU 2 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Staging Area 4 and a portion of Staging Area 3 areis proposed to be located on private property that is currently vacant and undeveloped. Temporary construction easements, and sstaging aareas 1, 2, and 3, and sidewalk improvements are also proposed within the Caltrans ROW for Staging Areas 1, 2, and 3. These staging areas, which are also undeveloped and would require encroachment permits. Because all of these areas are currently undeveloped, no active land uses would be displaced. Sidewalk improvements could require brief periods where pedestrian access is restricted; however, the existing land use (Mission Boulevard right of way) would not be displaced during construction. Therefore, impacts related to the displacement of existing land uses during project construction would be less than significant. Furthermore, for activities within the Caltrans ROW, the SFPUC would obtain all necessary permits for construction activities and would abide by the permit conditions. For Staging Area 4 and the portion of Staging Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 34 December 2010

165 Comments and Responses Area 3 located on private property, the SFPUC would make arrangements with the property owners for temporary use of their land for construction staging and would obtain a temporary construction easements or other authorizations. On Draft EIR page , the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Following completion of proposed improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, pipeline operations would be consistent with existing operations, and pipeline maintenance would occur as needed. While project facilities would be monitored regularly in accordance with the standard inspection schedule, the frequency of monitoring or maintenance activities would not change substantially from current conditions and operation of the improved pipelines. All structures except for the modified slip joint vault at Trace B of the Hayward fault, access structures to the new articulated vault, new slip joint vaults at Trace A, sidewalk improvements, and structures such as blowoff and air relief valves would be constructed below ground within the existing ROW for BDPL Nos. 3 and 4. No new land uses would be introduced, and the project would not require the permanent acquisition of additional property. Therefore, operations and scheduled maintenance of the pipeline would not disrupt or divide an established community or displace an existing land use, and there would be no impacts related to land use and land use planning during operation and maintenance of the project. On Draft EIR page , the following mitigation measure is added to the list of applicable mitigation measures to correct an editorial error: Mitigation Measure M AQ 1a: BAAQMD Dust Control Measures (See Section 5.7, Air Quality) Draft EIR page 5.3 2, Figure 5.3 1, Location and Direction of Photo Viewpoints, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the Union Sanitary District sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on the next page. On Draft EIR page 5.3 9, the first paragraph of Impact AE 1 is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: Construction activities within the project area would occur over a two year period and would involve equipment operation and soil stockpiling throughout different sections of the entire project area, as well as construction of temporary bridges on the northbound onramps to I 680 and Mission Boulevard. Overall, approximately 29 acres, including of ROW and approximately 16 acres of staging areas would be affected by construction activities at the project site, resulting in short term impacts on the scenic resources and scenic quality of the project area. Grasslands and vegetation would be removed during excavation activities and would be disturbed by construction machinery in areas that are not excavated. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 35 December 2010

166 DIRECT BURIED CABLE AT&T DIRECT BURIED CABLE Underground Subsurface Transformer SB1862 S AT&T AT&T F JP JP JP JP X GP GP E SB1861 AT&T S X LIMITORQUE X MH X GP GP LIMITORQUE AT&T AT&T AT&T 2b OVERHEAD 2a SOUTH SHUT OFF STATION Viewpoint Location and Direction Limits of Project Area Construction Access Caltrans Right Of Way SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; ESA, 2008; URS, 2008a Street Crawford Mojave Drive Zone 1 Southbound Diamond On-ramp 1 Zone Zone 2 3 MISSION BLVD Northbound Diamond On-ramp 2c 2d 3b 3 Slip Joint Vault 2 Northbound Loop On-ramp Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Existing BDPL No. 3 Existing BDPL No. 4 SFPUC Right of Way New BDPL No. 3X c 3 3a Zone 7 Staging Area 1 Staging Area 2 Staging Area 3 Staging Area 4 INTERSTATE Zone Feet AT&T AT&T Paseo Padre Pkwy AT&T AT&T E E Tissiack Place 2" 21Kv E 2" 21Kv E AT&T AT&T DIRECT BURIED CABLE 2" 21Kv E Nugget Way Nugget Pl Omega Drive NORTH SHUT OFF STATION 4b 3d 4a Crystalline Drive 4c Note: Viewpoint labels refer to the picture number in Figures through Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure (Revised) Location and Direction of Photo Viewpoints

167 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the section titled Agua Fria Creek (tree removal), is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Agua Fria Creek (tree removal). Use of trenchless excavation techniques at Agua Fria Creek would require removal of six trees within the riparian zone. Due to the density of trees in the riparian zone, the tree removal would not significantly affect the visual character of the area as seen from land uses to the south of Agua Fria Creek or by motorists along I 680. However, the use of cut and cover excavation at Agua Fria Creek Clearing of the ROW to provide adequate access to aboveground pipe structures would requireresult in removal of all 26 trees within the 80 foot wide ROW and would partially open views between the residential area to the south and the transportation corridor to the north. On Draft EIR page , the heading for the last paragraph is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Modifications to Slip Joint Vault (alteration of existing structure at Trace B of Hayward fault, construction of new structure, and tree and vegetation removal). On Draft EIR page , the following sections are added after the first full paragraph to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: New Slip Joint Vaults (construction of new slip joint vaults at Trace A of the Hayward fault). Slip joint vault(s) would be constructed within the viewshed of I 680 and Mission Boulevard, which are designated scenic routes. The vault(s) would be small, low profile structures approximately 20 feet long by 15 feet wide, protruding 2 ½ feet above ground surface, similar to the south and north access structures to the articulated vault. The vault areas are not visible from residential land uses in the area due to the presence of soundwalls in residential areas. While the proposed structures would be visible by motorists traveling along area roadways, including scenic roadways, views would be short in duration and the structures would not be highly noticeable. The vaults would not require nighttime lighting. While the vault(s) would result in a small increase in permanent structures within the project area, the structures would not result in substantial degradation of designated scenic resources or the visual character of the area and the impact would be less than significant. Sidewalk Improvements. The proposed sidewalk improvements would result in new sidewalks, curb ramps, and gutters, which would be similar to those located in the surrounding area. While the sidewalk improvements would result in a small increase in permanent structures within the project area, the structures would not result in substantial degradation of designated scenic resources or the visual character of the area and the impact would be less than significant. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 37 December 2010

168 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised to correct an editorial error: Various Locations within Project Area (construction of new structures). The proposed project includes the construction of six aboveground manholes that would provide access to blowoff valves, and the construction of air release valves. Similar to the existing manholes (see Figure 3.4 in Chapter 3, Project Description), the proposed manholes would be approximately 6 feet in diameter and would protrude roughly 2.5 feet above grade. Because the access manholes would be close to the ground and barely visible, impacts related to permanent effects on scenic vistas or the visual character of a community due to construction or alteration of these aboveground structures would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page , the section titled Records Search and Literature Findings is revised as follows to provide additional information regarding the cultural resources identified at Site CA ALA 76: One archaeological site CA ALA 576 (formerly CA ALA 342 and CA ALA 509) was identified within the C APE (Gmoser et al., 1999; King, 1968). The site was first uncovered in 1968 (King, 1968) and a wide variety of artifacts were uncovered. Additional investigations by Galvan and Thompson also uncovered artifacts. Cultural constituents of the site include middens, burials, rock ovens, and a variety of other features. Gmoser et al. (1999:III 2) recommended the site as eligible to the National Register under Criterion D, because it has yielded or may be likely to yield additional information important to prehistory. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this determination in a response dated December 29, 1999 (SHPO, 2009). On Draft EIR page , Section , Significance Criteria, is revised as follows to reflect updated significance standards of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF): The CCSF has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to cultural resources, but generally considers that implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section , including those resources listed in Article 10 or Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code; Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an unique archaeological resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083; Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature; or Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 38 December 2010

169 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the first paragraph of Impact CP 2 is revised as follows in response to comment [C2]: Construction could result in direct impacts on known and/or unknown archaeological resources during earthmoving activities. Known archaeological site CA ALA 576 is located within the C APE. and has been evaluated by t The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the archaeological evaluation of the site in 1999, and concurred that it is as eligible for listing on the California and National Registers under Criterion 4/D. Resources eligible for listing on the National Register are automatically eligible to the California Register of Historical Resources. The significance of this resource could be materially impaired because construction excavation to depths of 15 to 30 feet could alter characteristics that convey its significance that is, the site s ability to yield information important to prehistory. On Draft EIR page , the second paragraph of Impact CP 2 is revised as follows in response to comment [C3]: Avoidance is not a feasible option for the project because the pipelines need to be upgraded where they cross the Hayward fault. Without these upgrades, rupture of these pipelines at this location would result in flood damage, public safety hazards, and temporary loss of potable water supply to downstream customers for domestic consumption, commercial uses, hospitals, and firefighting purposes. Therefore, impacts on this known archaeological resource would be significant. The State Historic Preservation Officer has additionally determined concurred with the Corps determination that the proposed project would have an adverse effect on archaeological site CA ALA 576 and agrees that avoidance through redesign is infeasible (OHP, 2009). Implementation of Mitigation Measure M CP 2a, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Report for CA ALA 576, which specifies preparation of a research design and treatment plan and a data recovery report for the site would reduce this impact to a less thansignificant level by requiring systematic data recovery. On Draft EIR page , the third paragraph of Impact CP 2 is revised as follows to provide clarification: Although no additional archaeological sites were identified by the records search or found during the surface survey of the C APE, the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources is a high possibility because of the known sensitivity of the area. Therefore, impacts related to the potential to encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be potentially significant. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M CP 2b, Extended Archaeological Survey for Areas Outside of Site CA ALA 576, Mitigation Measure M CP 2c, Archaeological Evaluation Plan and Archaeological Evaluation and Effects Report, and Mitigation Measure M CP 2d, Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery Measures. Because this project requires a federal permit and compliance with Section 106, these mitigation measures are tailored to ensure that the project also satisfies federal Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 39 December 2010

170 Comments and Responses requirements. Continued Native American consultation will would be required throughout development and implementation of Mitigation Measures M CP 2a, M CP 2b, M CP 2c, and M CP 2d as a component of Section 106 compliance. On Draft EIR page , the third paragraph of Impact CP 3 is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Installation of the new BDPL No. 3X would require construction activities along the entire 2,160 foot or 2,360 foot segment of pipeline to be installed. Construction would include pipeline installation within existing corrugated metal pipes, open trench excavation, and cut and cover excavation. Jack and bore or open trench excavation could be used to cross Agua Fria Creek at the south end of the project area if the southern point of connection of the new BDPL No. 3X to the existing BDPL No. 3 is constructed immediately north of the South Shutoff Station. The depths of excavation required for installation of the new pipeline would range from 13 to 35 feet below the ground surface, depending on the specific zone and method of excavation. On Draft EIR page , the first two sentences of the fifth paragraph of Impact CP 3 are revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Improvements to BDPL No. 4 would include modifications to the existing slip joint vault and upgrades to BDPL No. 4 at Traces A, B, and C of the Hayward fault. Construction of these improvements would include excavations to depths of 15 to 2035 feet to access the existing pipeline and for construction of one or two slip joint vaults at Trace A. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised as follows to provide clarification: Because both Irvington Gravels and undivided surficial deposits could be encountered during installation of the new BDPL No. 3X and during construction of improvements to BDPL No. 4, and these geologic units have a high potential to yield paleontological resources, impacts related to disturbance or destruction of paleontological resources would be potentially significant. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures M CP 3a, Paleontological Resources Worker Training and M CP 3b, Paleontological Resources Monitoring, which require that workers are trained to recognize fossils, that a trained paleontologist monitors construction activities, and that accidentally discovered fossils be appropriately assessed for their significance and salvaged if deemed necessary. Implementation of this measure would ensure that any paleontological resources encountered during construction would be recovered and appropriately managed. On Draft EIR page , Mitigation Measure M CP 2a, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Report for CA ALA 576, is revised as follows to provide clarification: Prior to construction, the SFPUC will retain a qualified archaeologist to design and implement an archaeological research design and treatment plan (ARDTP) to recover Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 40 December 2010

171 Comments and Responses important cultural resources that may be present in CA ALA 576,. The ARDTP will be used for federal and state consultation as the historic properties treatment plan (HPTP). The ARDTP/HPTP will be prepared in conjunction, as appropriate, with a Memorandum of Agreement among the Corps, SFPUC, State Historic Preservation Officer, and Native American organizations. Once approved, the archaeologist will implement a data recovery investigation and/or other treatment, consistent with the ARDTP/HPTP. The Memorandum of Agreement and implementation of the ARDTP/HPTP will conform, as applicable, to state law requirements for the treatment of any human remains and associated funerary objects that are recovered at this site, as set forth in Mitigation Measure CP 4. A Native American consultant will be present during all ground disturbing activities associated with the data recovery effort. Upon completion of the data recovery and treatment efforts, the archaeologist will prepare an archaeological data recovery report (ADRR) that describes the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological evaluation/monitoring/data recovery program(s) undertaken, and that also presents, analyzes, and interprets the recovered data. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource will be provided in a separate removable insert within the final report. Once approved by the Environmental Review Officer (ERO), copies of the ADRR will be distributed as follows: the relevant California Historical Resources Information System Information Center will receive one copy and the ERO will receive a copy of the transmittal of the ADRR to the Information Center. MEA will receive three copies of the ADRR, along with copies of any formal site recordation forms (DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for evaluation under National Register/California Register criteria. Copies will also be submitted to the appropriate federal agencies, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation as necessary. On Draft EIR page , Mitigation Measure M CP 2d, Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery Measures, is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: A qualified archaeologist will prepare an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP), including measures that will be implemented to ensure that important, previously unrecorded archaeological resources that are discovered during construction (but were not identified during implementation of the EAS or ARDTP/HPTP) are identified, evaluated, and treated appropriately. The AMP will include the following measures should construction activities result in the accidental discovery of a cultural resource: Construction activities will immediately be suspended within 50 feet of the find if there is any indication of a potential archaeological resource. To avoid any potential adverse effect from the proposed project on accidentally discovered buried or submerged historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section (a)(c), the SFPUC will distribute the Planning Department s archaeological resource ALERT sheet to the project prime contractor; to any project subcontractor firms (including demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, pile driving, etc.); and/or to utilities firms involved in soil disturbing activities within the project site. Prior to any soil disturbing activities being undertaken, each contractor is responsible for ensuring that the ALERT sheet is circulated to all field personnel, Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 41 December 2010

172 Comments and Responses including machine operators, field crew, pile drivers, supervisory personnel, etc. The SFPUC will provide the ERO with a signed affidavit from the responsible parties (prime contractor, subcontractor(s), and utilities firm) confirming that all field personnel have received copies of the ALERT sheet. Should any indication of an archeological resource be encountered during any soils disturbing activity of the project, the project sponsor will immediately notify the ERO and will immediately suspend any soils disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery until the ERO has determined what additional measures should be undertaken. If the ERO determines that an archaeological resource may be present within the project site, the SFPUC will retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant. The archaeological consultant will advise the ERO as to whether the discovery is an archaeological resource that retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. If an archaeological resource is present, the archaeological consultant will identify and evaluate the archaeological resource. The archaeological consultant will make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. Based on this information, the ERO may require, if warranted, specific additional measures to be implemented by the SFPUC. Measures might include: preservation in situ of the archaeological resource; an archaeological monitoring program; or an archaeological evaluation program. The ERO may also require that the SFPUC immediately implement a site security program if the archaeological resource is at risk from vandalism, looting, or other damaging actions. The project archaeological consultant will submit a Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical significance of any discovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological monitoring/data recovery program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable insert within the final report. Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: the relevant California Historical Resources Information System Information Center shall receive one (1) copy, and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the Information Center. The MEA shall receive three copies of the FARR along with copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical Resources. The SFPUC shall receive the number of copies of the FARR requested. In instances of high public interest in or when a resource has high interpretive value, the ERO may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented above. On Draft EIR page , the title of Mitigation Measure M CP 3a is revised as follows to provide clarification: Mitigation Measure M CP 3a: Paleontological Resources Worker Training Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 42 December 2010

173 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 5.5 8, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Individual or cumulative long term exceedence of LOS standards. LOS standards, established by county CMAs and documented in Congestion Management Programs, are intended to regulate long term traffic impacts due to future development, and do not apply to temporary construction projects whose short term traffic increases end when construction activities end. The proposed project would not generate any long term, ongoing traffic volume increases. However, the impact analysis below does present an LOS analysis for the project construction phase because, while traffic increases would end when construction activities end, the project includes construction over an extended period of 27 to 29 months. The construction phase LOS analysis evaluates whether construction or detour traffic would cause traffic levels to exceed the V/C ratio on area roadways or increase congestion at intersections (see Impacts TR 1 and TR 2), and cumulative increases in construction traffic are addressed in Section , Cumulative Impact analysis. On Draft EIR page 5.5 9, the first full paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Standard transportation engineering methodologies were used in conducting the transportation impacts analysis. Construction related transportation impacts are not generally considered significant because of their limited duration. However, because project construction would occur at varying levels of intensity over a two year27 to 29 month period, from early 2012 to the summer ofapproximately April 2012 to February 2014, such impacts could be significant. Construction activities that affect roadway operations are typically regulated through permits and construction requirements to ensure that traffic flow is not unduly disrupted. Construction best management practices, which include the preparation of a traffic control plan, typically ensure the safety of construction workers, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians throughout the construction phase. Accordingly, preparation of a traffic control plan is specified as a mitigation measure for all traffic related impacts of the project (see Section 5.5.4, Mitigation Measures). On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: For the daily traffic volumes that would be generated by the proposed project from April Spring 2012 to March Summer 2014, the expected greatest amount of vehicle activity was estimated to occur during an approximately one week long period in December 2012 with approximately vehicles per day, including approximately vehicles associated with construction worker trips, 2426 with material/equipment deliveries, with spoils removal and/or backfill delivery to offsite locations, and with onsite truck trips, as summarized in Table The duration of this highest tripgeneration period would account for less than 1 percent of the entire construction period, and would occur when work is conducted concurrently in Zones 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (utilizing all staging areas). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 43 December 2010

174 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , Table is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates and reflect associated changes in daily traffic volumes: TABLE (REVISED) DAILY VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION (HIGHEST VOLUME WEEK) a Construction Zone and Tasks Worker Vehicle Trips Delivery Truck Trips Spoils and Fill Truck Trips b Onsite Truck Trips Total Trips Zone 7 Temporary Bridges and Articulated Vault Zone 6 Temporary Bridges and Cut and Cover Zones 1 and 8 Install Valve and Tee Zone 2 Trenchless Zone 3 and 5 Trenchless TOTAL a b Calculations by CHS Consulting Group, based on the preliminary construction information (task durations, schedule, number of workers and deliveries, and estimates of excavated and backfill materials; (see Appendix B). Spoils and backfill truck trips are based on 15 cubic yard capacity truck. On Draft EIR page , Table is revised to reflect changes in hourly traffic volumes due to project updates, as shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page , the second and third paragraphs are revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Construction activities under the proposed project that could affect roadway capacity and increase traffic delays include the construction and removal of the temporary ACWD water lines around the location of the articulated vault and construction of the new permanent pipelines beneath the Mission Boulevard median and the construction and removal of temporary bridges on the northbound I 680 diamond and loop on ramps, as well as Mission Boulevard, to facilitate construction of the new BDPL No. 3X (see Figure 3.10 in Chapter 3, Project Description); the temporary bridges would be used to prevent major traffic disruptions by providing traffic flow on these roadways while construction occurs beneath the bridges. Potential effects on roadway capacity and increased traffic delays during installation of these bridges are discussed below. Utility relocations and removals (described in Table 3.2 in Chapter 3) would occur in Zone 7, which crosses Mission Boulevard and the I 680 northbound diamond on ramp. The affected utilities (Caltrans / City of Fremont storm drain pipes and inlets, Union Sanitary District sanitary sewer line, AT&T communication lines, PG&E gas and electric lines, City of Fremont street lighting, and Alameda County Water District water lines) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 44 December 2010

175 Comments and Responses TABLE (REVISED) HOURLY VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION (HIGHEST VOLUME WEEK) AM PEAK HOUR, MIDDAY, AND PM PEAK HOUR a Worker Vehicle Trips b Delivery Truck Trips c Spoils and Fill Truck Trips d Onsite Truck Trips Total Trips Construction Zone and Tasks AM Midday PM AM Midday PM AM Midday PM AM Midday PM AM Midday PM Inbound Zone 7 Temporary Bridges and Articulated Vault Zone 6 Temporary Bridges and Cut and Cover Zones 1 and 8 Install Valve and Tee Zone 2 Trenchless Zone 3 and 5 Trenchless (BDPL No. 4) Outbound Zone 7 Temporary Bridges and Articulated Vault Zone 6 Temporary Bridges and Cut and Cover Zones 1 and 8 Install Valve and Tee Zone 2 Trenchless Zone 3 and 5 Trenchless (BDPL No. 4) TOTAL a Calculations by CHS Consulting Group, based on the preliminary construction information (task durations, schedule, number of workers and deliveries, and estimates of excavated and backfill materials; (see Appendix B). b Worker trips would occur during the AM and PM peak hour only. c Delivery truck trips would occur during the AM and midday peak hours only. d Spoils and backfill truck trips are distributed evenly over a 10 hour workday. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 45 December 2010

176 Comments and Responses would be temporarily or permanently relocated or supported in place during construction (see Section 5.8, Utilities and Service Systems). The work on the affected utilities would have no additional impact on roadway capacity beyond that described below, with the exception of the removal of the temporary ACWD water lines that would be constructed in Zone 6 around the location of the articulated vault and the construction of the new permanent pipelines beneath the Mission Boulevard median which would require the closure of the northbound loop on ramp for one night and single lane closures on Mission Boulevard for two nights. Utility relocations could also occur in Zone 8 (in the area of Nugget Way). The affected utilities (PG&E 2 inch electricity line and 2 inch gas line, Union Sanitary District sanitary sewer line, and AT&T communication lines) could be temporarily or permanently rerouted around the limits of BDPL No. 3X construction or supported in place. This work would occur at the same time or prior to project construction in the area and would have no additional impact on access to adjacent roadways or land uses for both general and emergency response traffic or for bicyclists and pedestrians (see Impact TR 4). On Draft EIR page , the second full paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes included in Section 3, Project Updates: Single Lane Closures on Mission Boulevard. Temporary lane closures on Mission Boulevard could be needed during construction to maximize the number of temporary bridge structure elements that could be installed at any given time and during the installation of the new permanent ACWD water lines beneath the Mission Boulevard median at the end of construction. To minimize traffic delays, the individual lane closures would be scheduled during low travel periods, which for Mission Boulevard at the I 680 underpass would be weekdays and Sundays between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. (westbound) and between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. (eastbound), and Saturdays between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (westbound) and between 12 midnight and 7 a.m. (eastbound), as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. On Draft EIR page , the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes included in Section 3, Project Updates: The new BDPL No. 3X and articulated vault would be installed beneath the northbound I 680 diamond on ramp under temporary bridges and modifications to the existing slipjoint vault would be constructed beneath the northbound I 680 loop on ramp under temporary bridges. To facilitate the bridge installations prior to construction, temporary detour paving would be laid adjacent to the affected ramps to allow continued freeway access while the temporary bridges are installed. Each of the on ramps would be closed approximately four nights to shift traffic to the detour route and back during bridge installation and removal. In addition, the northbound loop on ramp would be closed for one evening for the removal the temporary ACWD water lines, installed around the location of the articulated vault. These closures would occur during the overnight hours on weekday or weekend evenings from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (diamond ramp), and from Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 46 December 2010

177 Comments and Responses 12 midnight to 6 a.m. (loop ramp). For the loop on ramp, two closures would occur over a two month period for temporary bridge installation, and two closures would occur during a one month period for bridge removal, and one closure would occur at the completion of construction for the removal of the temporary ACWD water lines. For the diamond onramp, two closures would occur over a three month period for bridge installation, and two closures would occur over a two month period for bridge removal. During closure, traffic that ordinarily uses the affected ramps would be detoured onto other roads to access I 680 at the Auto Mall Parkway Durham Road interchange, which is the next adjacent interchange to the north along I 680. On Draft EIR page , the end of the last paragraph is revised as follows to reflect modified data on project generated traffic due to project updates: The addition of project generated trips would increase vehicle density by no more than passenger cars per mile per lane, a minor change that the average motorist would not notice. Although the p.m. peak hour level of service under 2012 conditions would worsen on northbound I 680 north of Mission Boulevard from LOS D to LOS E, the vehicle density on this roadway segment would only increase by 0.3 passenger cars per mile per lane, which is less than the maximum increase in vehicle density that would occur as a result of the project and, similarly, is a minor change that the average motorist would not notice. Further, the projected increases in vehicle density included in Table reflect a worst case scenario for the peak week of traffic, and the vehicle densities with project conditions would be less during the remainder of the construction period when there would be less construction related traffic. On Draft EIR page , Table is revised to reflect changes in level of service projections due to project updates, as shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page , the first two paragraphs are revised to reflect modified data on projectgenerated traffic due to project updates: Project generated traffic would contribute a maximum of 58 percent of the growth (net increase) between existing and future freeway traffic volumes, and a maximum of percent of the total future freeway traffic volume. For northbound I 680 south of Mission Boulevard, construction traffic would account for about 38 percent of the growth between existing and future volumes and percent of the total future volume. For southbound I 680 north of Mission Boulevard, construction traffic would account for 45 percent of the growth between existing and future volumes, and percent of the total future volume. For northbound I 880 south of Mission Boulevard, construction traffic would account for about 4.56 percent of the growth between existing and future volumes, and percent of the total future volume. For southbound I 880 north of Mission Boulevard, construction traffic would account for 4.56 percent of the growth between existing and future volumes, and percent of the total future volume. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 47 December 2010

178 Comments and Responses TABLE (REVISED) SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) PROJECT CONDITIONS a Existing Conditions (2008) Existing Plus Project Conditions 2012 Without Project Conditions 2012 With Project Conditions Intersection AM Peak LOS/Criteria b PM Peak LOS/Criteria b AM Peak LOS/Criteria b PM Peak LOS/Criteria b AM Peak LOS/Criteria b PM Peak LOS/Criteria b AM Peak LOS/Criteria b PM Peak LOS/Criteria b Mission Blvd. / Mohave Dr. (signal) C / 21.4 D / 38.8 C / D / C / 24.4 D / 44.6 C / 24.6 D / Mission Blvd. / Paseo Padre Pkwy. (signal) Paseo Padre Pkwy. / Omega Dr. (side street stop control) Freeway Ramp Junction B / 18.4 B / 12.3 B / 18.6 B / 12.3 C / 20.4 B / 13.8 C / 20.9 B / 13.8 B / 10.5 A / 9.2 B / 10.7 A / 9.2 B / 10.9 A / 9.2 B / 11.5 A / 9.4 I 680 Northbound off ramp diverge C / 21.2 C / 28.9 C / C / 28.9 C / 23.0 D / 31.4 C / D / 31.4 I 680 Northbound on ramp merge B / 17.2 C / 21.1 B / 17.2 C / 21.1 B / 18.4 C / 22.6 B / 18.4 C / 22.6 I 680 Southbound off ramp diverge F / 37.8 D / 28.2 F / 37.9 D / 28.2 F / 40.9 D / 30.5 F / D / 30.5 I 680 Southbound on ramp merge C / 22.4 C / 21.1 C / 22.4 C / C / 23.8 C / 21.9 C / 23.8 C / I 880 Northbound off ramp diverge B / 12.9 B / 13.6 B / B / 13.6 B / 14.7 B / 15.5 B / 14.9 B / 15.5 I 880 Northbound on ramp merge C / 25.9 F / 33.9 C / 26.0 F / D / 28.4 F / 37.0 D / 28.4 F / I 880 Southbound off ramp diverge D / 33.3 F / 36.6 D / 33.3 F / 36.6 F / 35.2 F / 38.6 F / 35.3 F / 38.6 I 880 Southbound on ramp merge C / 20.8 C / 21.0 C / 20.8 C / 21.0 C / 21.8 C / 22.0 C / 21.8 C / 22.0 Freeway Mainline Segments I 680 NB, north of Mission Blvd. C / 25.4 D / 30.6 C / 25.4 D / 30.8 D / 27.9 D / 34.8 D / 27.9 DE / I 680 NB, south of Mission Blvd. D / 27.9 E / 39.5 D / E / 39.5 D / 31.2 F / >45 c D / F / >45 c I 680 SB, north of Mission Blvd. D / 30.6 C / 22.2 D / C / 22.2 E / 35.1 C / 24.2 E / C / 24.2 I 680 SB, south of Mission Blvd. D / 27.0 C / 24.5 D / 27.0 C / D / 30.1 D / 26.9 D / D / I 880 NB, north of Mission Blvd. C / 22.3 D / 29.9 C / 22.3 D / C / 24.2 D / 34.0 C / 24.3 D / I 880 NB, south of Mission Blvd. C / 22.7 D / 27.7 C / D / 27.7 C / 24.8 D / 31.1 C / D / 31.1 I 880 SB, north of Mission Blvd. D / 34.6 E / 42.4 D / E / 42.4 E / 40.6 F / >45 c E / F / >45 c I 880 SB, south of Mission Blvd. C / 24.5 C / 25.0 C / 24.6 C / 25.1 D / 27.0 D / 27.5 D / 27.0 D / NOTE: NB = northbound; SB = southbound a Calculations by CHS Consulting Group. b The LOS criterion for intersections is average delay, expressed in terms of seconds per vehicle, for the overall LOS/delay for signalized intersections, and for the worst LOS/delay for a stop controlled turning movement at side street stop controlled intersections. The LOS criterion for freeway ramp junctions and mainline segments is vehicle density, expressed in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. c The projected traffic flow rate would exceed the maximum capacity of the roadway, and queues would begin to form on the freeway. Vehicle density tends to increase sharply within the queue and may be considerably higher than the maximum value of 45 passenger cars per mile per lane for LOS E. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 48 December 2010

179 Comments and Responses The percent increase in daily traffic volumes on local serving (low volume) residential roadways would be noticeable to residents of those neighborhoods. Nevertheless, with the limited addition of construction related vehicles, traffic volumes would remain at levels less than the carrying capacity of the local roadways. For example, current traffic volumes along Omega Drive are minimal. Inbound construction traffic during the peak period would turn left onto Omega Drive from the Paseo Padre Parkway / Mission Boulevard intersection, increasing the existing volume for this movement from 4 to vehicles during the AM peak hour. Outbound construction traffic during the peak period would turn right from Omega Drive to the Paseo Padre Parkway / Mission Boulevard intersection, increasing the existing volume for this movement from 9 to 2329 vehicles during the PM peak hour. These residential streets typically have a capacity of 600 to 800 vehicles per hour. While adding more vehicles per hour would be noticeable to the residents in the area, it would not cause significant traffic impacts along these roadways or at area intersections because project traffic would not substantially disrupt traffic flows or change the LOS for any of the affected roadways. On Draft EIR page , the last sentence of the first paragraph of Impact TR 4 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The ROW also crosses (underneath) I 680, and construction would not cause changes in highway operation because the pipelinebdpl No. 3X would be installed beneath the freeway through an existing corrugated metal pipe segment or via trenchless construction, and improvements to BDPL No. 4 would be made from within the pipeline. On Draft EIR page , the second paragraph of Impact TR 4 is revised as follows to address the changes included in Section 3, Project Updates: Where construction would cross the northbound diamond and loop on ramps to I 680, access to I 680 would be affected because the twonorthbound diamond on ramps would each be temporarily closed four nights during construction to install and remove the temporary bridges and the northbound loop on ramp would be temporarily closed for five nights to install and remove the temporary bridges and to remove the temporary ACWD water lines (a total of eightnine nights over an approximately 8 month period). Emergency access could also be impeded during closure of Mission Boulevard (nine nights over a 11 month period). However, as discussed in Impact TR 1, these roadways would be closed during the overnight hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays or Saturdays. Although this would impede emergency access on Mission Boulevard and to northbound I 680 from eastbound and westbound Mission Boulevard, detours would be active during the roadway closures to direct traffic to local streets and to the Auto Mall Parkway Durham Road freeway interchange about two miles north via Warm Springs Boulevard, running parallel to I 680. These detours would provide alternative routing for emergency vehicles needing to travel on Mission Boulevard and northbound on I 680. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 49 December 2010

180 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the next to the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The project would also impair pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation along Mission Boulevard because the existing and temporary sidewalks would be closed during some stages of construction, including the construction of sidewalk improvements. and rroadway shoulders would also be removed during some stages of the traffic handling process. For pedestrian access, it is expected that either the north or south sidewalks along Mission Boulevard would be closed during certain traffic handling stages, but not both at any given time. Also, with the removal of the roadway shoulder during some stages of construction, bicyclists would share the roadway with vehicular traffic, impairing access and circulation for bicyclists. Draft EIR page 5.6 5, Figure 5.6 1, Noise Measurement Locations, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page , the second sentence of the second paragraph is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Project construction activities would vary by zone over an approximately 27 to 29 month period (see Table 3.1 in Chapter 3, Project Description). On Draft EIR page , the bullet points are revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Mobilization and Preparation (including relocation of utilities): Areawide and Construction Zones 6, 7, and 8 Points of Connection (Approaches 1 and 2): Construction Zones 1 and 8 Open Cut Construction: Construction Zones 1 (Approach 1, Option B), 3, 5, and 8 Trenchless Construction: Construction Zones 1 (Approach 1, Option A), 2 (Option A or B), and 4 (Options A or B) Cut and Cover Construction: Construction Zones 6 and 7 BDPL No. 4 Improvements: Construction Zones 3, 5, 6, and 8 (Option A or B) Staging Area 4: Residences on Crystalline Drive adjacent to this staging area Draft EIR page , Table 5.6 5, Estimated Daytime Construction Noise Levels at the Closest Sensitive Receptors and Consistency with Significance Criterion, is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates, and to correct an editorial error. The revised table is shown on pages C&R 5 53 through C&R 5 54 of this document. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 50 December 2010

181 DIRECT BURIED CABLE AT&T DIRECT BURIED CABLE Underground Subsurface Transformer SB1862 S AT&T AT&T F JP JP E SB1861 AT&T S MH GP AT&T AT&T AT&T AT&T OVERHEAD Existing BDPL No. 3 Existing BDPL No. 4 SFPUC Right of Way New BDPL No. 3A Briar Place Southbound Diamond On-ramp Street Crawford MISSION BLVD Mojave Drive Kidango WEST QUADRANT First United Methodist Church SOUTH QUADRANT Extended Stay America Hotel D 1 Bradley Street E 2 SOUTH SHUT OFF STATION Zone 1 Zone Zone 2 3 Zone 4 Construction Limits Construction Access Caltrans Right Of Way SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; ESA, 2008; URS, 2008a Motel 6 South Fremont Northbound Diamond On-ramp 3 Northbound Loop On-ramp Zone 5 Zone Kiddo Land Learning Center Mary Beth Court A 3 1 C B Zone 7 Staging Area 1 Staging Area 2 Staging Area 3 Staging Area 4 INTERSTATE A AT&T AT&T Paseo Padre Pkwy AT&T AT&T E E 2" 21Kv E 2" 21Kv E Tissiack Place AT&T AT&T DIRECT BURIED CABLE 2" 21Kv E Nugget Way Nugget Pl Tissiack Court EAST QUADRANT Tissiack Wy Wy Cheyenne Place Omega Drive Cherokee Lane Crystalline Place NORTH QUADRANT NORTH SHUT OFF STATION Zone 8 Long-term noise measurement location Short-term noise measurement location Feet Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure (Revised) Noise Measurement Locations

182 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the following text is added immediately after the second full paragraph to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The only exception would be during construction of the southern point of connection (installation of a wye and valve) in Zone 1 at the soundwall location under Approach 2. This approach would include clearing and grubbing of the ROW adjacent to Aqua Fria Creek and grading to provide access to the construction area north of the creek, followed by excavation and construction of the new point of connection immediately south of the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp. Most construction work associated with this approach would occur north of Agua Fria Creek and south of the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp, which is farther away from adjacent residences. As shown in Table 5.6 5, construction activities associated with this approach would occur 50 feet or more from the closest residences. At this distance, construction noise levels could be reduced to a less than significant level (meeting, but not exceeding the 70 dba speech interference criterion) with implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 1a, Noise Control Plan. On Draft EIR page , the second sentence is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: These areas could be used over the duration of the 27 to 29 month construction period, and adjacent residential receptors could be subjected to noise from parking vehicles. On Draft EIR page , the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Construction activities associated with the installation and removal of the temporary ACWD water lines, installation of the new permanent ACWD water lines, and installation and removal of the temporary bridges on Mission Boulevard and the two northbound freeway on ramps are proposed to occur temporarily at night so that traffic is not substantially disrupted on these roadways, and these activities would take place on an estimated nights over approximately 11 months. For this nighttime construction, noise would primarily affect residences located at the ends of Crystalline Drive, Tissiack Court, and Mary Beth Court, each of which have a direct line of sight with the construction activities, and the nearest receptors are located 200 feet or less from work areas. Nighttime construction activities could include the operation of heavy equipment such as cranes, a drill rig, backhoes, loaders, dump and water trucks, a paver, pumps, and generators, but would not likely involve the operation of all this equipment. However, to evaluate worst case conditions, noise levels at these noise sensitive receptors were estimated for nighttime construction activities (assuming the use of all these types of equipment), as summarized in Table Residential receptors located farther from the construction activities would be subjected to lower noise levels. On Draft EIR page , Table is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates. The revised table is shown on page C&R 5 55 this document. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 52 December 2010

183 Comments and Responses TABLE (REVISED) ESTIMATED DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND CONSISTENCY WITH SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION Project and Receptor Location Construction Duration a (Construction Hours) Maximum Noise Source Reference Hourly Leq in dba at 50 feet b Distance to Closest Receptor c Distance Adjustment Adjusted Leq Attenuation Due to Existing Fencing Adjusted Leq Administrative and Source Control Reductions (Mitigation Measure M NO 1a) d Mitigated Leq With Mitigation Measure M NO 1a Exterior Speech Interference Threshold Additional Mitigation Required? Mobilization and Preparation (Site Preparation and Utilities Relocation) Total duration: 2 months Areawide and Zones 6, 7, and 8; Pipeline construction: < 2 weeks e closest residential receptors on Activities in ROW: > 2 weeks Omega Drive are 25 feet from ROW (Construction to occur weekdays and 30 feet from edge of work area. 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays f ) Points of Connection (Installation of Wye Valve and Tee) Zone 1 (Approach 1); closest residential receptors on Bradley Street are 20 feet from ROW and 25 feet from edge of work area. Zone 1 (Approach 2); closest residential receptors on Bradley Street are 50 feet or more from edge of work area. Zone 8; closest residential receptors on Omega Drive are 25 feet from ROW and 30 feet from edge of work area. Open-Cut Construction Zone 1 (Approach 1, Option B); closest residential receptors on Bradley Street are 20 feet from ROW and 25 feet from edge of work area. Zones 3 and 5; closest residential receptors on Bradley Street and Mary Beth Court are 175 feet from edge of pipeline trench. Zone 8; closest residential receptors on Omega Drive are 25 feet from ROW and 30 feet from edge of work area. Trenchless Construction Zone 1 (Approach 1, Option A); closest residential receptors on Bradley Street are 20 feet from ROW and 65 feet from driving pit. Total duration: 3 months Excavation: 3 weeks Backfill: 2 weeks (Construction to occur weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) Total duration: 3 months Excavation: 3 weeks Backfill: 2 weeks (Construction to occur weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) Total duration: 3 months Excavation: 3 weeks Backfill: 2 weeks (Construction to occur weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) Pipeline construction: < 2 weeks e Activities in ROW: > 2 weeks (Construction to occur weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) Pipeline construction: < 2 weeks e Activities in ROW: > 2 weeks (Construction to occur weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) Pipeline construction: < 2 weeks e Activities in ROW: > 2 weeks (Construction to occur weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) Total duration: 5 months Pit excavation: 1 week Pit shoring: 1 week Backfill: 2 weeks (Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Pumps, Generators, Roller Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller Backhoes, Loader Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver, Jack & Bore Power Unit f Pumps, Generators Ventilation Fan Intake Provision of temporary noise barriers (Mitigation Measure M-NO-1b), but if barriers are not feasible or cannot feasibly lower noise levels by 4 db, then no other feasible mitigation is available. Provision of temporary noise barriers (Mitigation Measure M-NO-1b), but if barriers are not feasible or cannot feasibly lower noise levels by 4 db, then no other feasible mitigation is available. Additional mitigation is not required because construction noise would not exceed 70-dBA criterion with source controls and existing fencing. Provision of temporary noise barriers (Mitigation Measure M-NO-1b), but if barriers are not feasible or cannot feasibly lower noise levels by 4 db, then no other feasible mitigation is available. Provision of temporary noise barriers (Mitigation Measure M-NO-1b), but if barriers are not feasible or cannot feasibly lower noise levels by 4 db, then no other feasible mitigation is available. Additional mitigation not required because construction noise would not exceed 70-dBA criterion with source controls and existing fencing. Provision of temporary noise barriers (Mitigation Measure M-NO-1b), but if barriers are not feasible or cannot feasibly lower noise levels by 4 db, then no other feasible mitigation is available. Additional mitigation not required because construction noise would not exceed 70-dBA criterion with source controls and existing fencing. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 53 December 2010

184 Comments and Responses TABLE (REVISED) (Continued) ESTIMATED DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND CONSISTENCY WITH SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION Project and Receptor Location Construction Duration a (Construction Hours) Maximum Noise Source Reference Hourly Leq in dba at 50 feet b Distance to Closest Receptor c Distance Adjustment Adjusted Leq Attenuation Due to Existing Fencing Adjusted Leq Administrative and Source Control Reductions (Mitigation Measure M NO 1a) d Mitigated Leq With Mitigation Measure M NO 1a Exterior Speech Interference Threshold Additional Mitigation Required? The rows between are omitted from the comments and responses document for brevity. The omitted rows have no text changes. BDPL No. 4 Improvements Zones 3 and 5 (construct slip-joint vault(s) and strengthen BDPL No. 4 at Trace A); closest residential receptors on Bradley Street are 150 feet from BDPL No. 4, Trace A work area. Total duration: 6 months Pit shoring: 2 weeks Excavation: 1 week Strengthen BDPL No. 4: 4 months New vault(s) and slip joint(s): 3 weeks (Weekdays 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., occasional Sundays) The rows below are omitted from the comments and responses document for brevity. The omitted rows have no text changes. Backhoes, Loader Additional mitigation not required Dump Trucks because receptors are protected by freeway soundwall. and Cranes, Compactor construction noise would not exceed 70-dBA criterion with Pumps, Generators, Roller source controls and existing soundwall. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 54 December 2010

185 Comments and Responses TABLE (REVISED) ESTIMATED NIGHTTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND CONSISTENCY WITH SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION Project and Receptor Location Construction Duration a (Construction Hours) Maximum Noise Source Reference Hourly Leq in dba at 50 feet b Distance Between Closest Project and Receptor c Distance Adjustment Adjusted Leq Attenuation Due to Existing Fencing Adjusted Leq Noise Reduction Measures (Mitigation Measure M NO 1a d ) Mitigated Leq With Controls Minimum Nighttime Ambient Reduction Needed by Additional Mitigation e Mitigated Leq With Additional Mitigation Cut-and-Cover Construction Zone 6 (Install and remove temporary bridge and temporary ACWD water lines); closest residential receptor on Mary Beth Court is 200 feet from edge of bridge. Total duration: 2 months Wall/bridge support: 6 weeks Bridge/support removal: 1-2 weeks (Construction to occur weekday and weekend nights) Backhoes, Loader Drill Rig Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller (The rows between are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Zone 7 - Stage 6 (Remove temporary bridges and install permanent ACWD water lines); closest residential receptors on Crystalline Drive is 125 feet from edge of bridge. Total duration: 2 months Bridge/support removal: 4 weeks Reconstruct pavement and reroute traffic: 4 weeks (Construction to occur weekday and weekend nights) Backhoes, Loader Drill Rig Dump Trucks, Water Trucks Cranes, Compactor Paver Pumps, Generators, Roller Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 55 December 2010

186 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

187 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , Impact NO 2 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The Fremont Municipal Code specifies the following time limits for construction activities: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays; 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays; and prohibited on Sundays. All but one stage of project construction (installation and removal of the temporary bridges) is proposed to occur on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and on Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., which would be consistent with these time limits. However, limited construction also could occur on Sundays. At least some of the construction activities associated with installation and removal of the temporary bridges, installation and removal of the temporary ACWD water lines, and installation of the new permanent ACWD water lines would occur at night, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekday and Sunday evenings and between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on Saturdays, to avoid traffic disruption on the I 680 on ramps and Mission Boulevard. Because this construction activity would occur outside of the time limits of the Fremont Municipal Code, impacts related to consistency with Fremont Municipal Code time limits would be significant and unavoidable. On Draft EIR page , the third paragraph of Impact NO 3 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Haul and delivery truck volumes associated with the proposed project would vary from day to day, with the highest volumes generally occurring during the excavation, concrete placement, and backfilling stages of construction. When haul and delivery truck noise is considered on an hourly basis rather than as a single noise event, noise levels generated by an average of offsite haul truck trips per day (highest volume week), or 1620 trucks per hour when averaged over eight hours per day, would generate noise levels of 6263 dba (Leq) at 50 feet from the road centerline when trucks are operating along local streets to access the site from the freeway. Such a noise level would generally not exceed daytime ambient noise levels in the interchange vicinity (measured at about 63 dba, (Leq). However, it would increase daytime ambient noise levels on residential streets providing access to the project site (ranging from 56 to 60 dba, Leq) by up to 89 db (up to 6566 dba, Leq) as well as exceed nighttime ambient noise levels (a minimum of 54 dba and average of 59 dba, Leq) by up to 1012 db (6465 dba, Leq) if all truck trips per day occurred on the same route. Although truck traffic noise levels would not exceed the daytime 70 dba speech interference threshold, they would exceed the nighttime 50 dba sleep interference threshold and would be more than 56 db above ambient noise levels. On Draft EIR page , the fourth paragraph of Impact NO 3 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: On site Trucks would operate along the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW as well as between the ROW and staging areas. Because three of the four staging areas would be located within Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 57 December 2010

188 Comments and Responses the interchange, onsite trucks (up to trips per day based on the highest volume week) would generate noise levels of 6061 dba (Leq) when traveling between work zones and staging areas, which would be lower than existing ambient noise levels in the freeway vicinity, and therefore less than significant. However, trucks accessing Staging Area 4 would travel along one of two routes: (1) BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW to Nugget Way, Omega Drive, and Crystalline Drive; or (2) BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW along a temporary road paralleling the northbound diamond on ramp to Staging Area 4. Residences along the route through the neighborhood are located as close as 40 to 50 feet from the centerline of the truck route. Based on the peak week estimate of onsite trucks per day, or 1013 trucks per hour, onsite trucks could generate noise levels of approximately 6061 dba (Leq) along this access route, which would exceed daytime ambient noise levels along these streets (measured at 57 dba, Leq at the south end of Crystalline Drive). Each passing truck could be noticeable to residential receptors along the route as a single event noise (individual noise peak of 80 to 85 dba), and receptors would also be subject to an increase of 5 db above ambient noise levels (approximately 6263 dba, Leq 4 ), which would be a significant impact. If offsite haul and delivery trucks use this same route and overlap with staging area related onsite truck traffic, ambient noise levels could increase by up to 3 dba more (6566 dba, Leq). 4 When the estimated increase in truck related noise of 60 dba (Leq) is added to the ambient noise level of 57 dba (Leq), the resulting combined noise level would be 62 dba (Leq), which represents a 5 db increase over the existing ambient noise level of 57 dba (Leq). On Draft EIR page , the fifth paragraph of Impact NO 3 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Noise increases from on site onsite truck traffic would also be noticeable along the second possible route to Staging Area 4 that includes a temporary road paralleling the northbound diamond on ramp to Staging Area 4. Along this route, trucks could travel as close as 30 feet from the residence at the end of Crystalline Drive, and this closer proximity of trucks would result in noise increases that are approximately 3 db higher (6364 dba, Leq) than noise increases that would occur using the first route (Nugget Way, Omega Drive, and Crystalline Drive). When combined with existing daytime ambient noise levels of 57 dba (Leq) measured at the end of Crystalline Drive, use of this route would result in noise levels of approximately 6465 dba (Leq) 5 at this residence, and this would represent an increase of 78 db above ambient noise levels. Although this second route would subject substantially fewer homes to haul truck noise than the first routes and truck traffic noise levels would not exceed the daytime 70 dba speech interference threshold, the increase of 78 db above ambient noise levels (approximately 6465 dba, Leq) would be a significant impact. If off site offsite haul and delivery trucks use this same route and overlap with staging area related on site onsite truck traffic, ambient noise levels could increase by up to 3 dba more (6768 dba, Leq). 5 When the estimated increase in truck related noise of 63 dba (Leq) is added is added to the ambient noise level of 57 dba (Leq), the resulting combined noise level would be 64 dba (Leq), which represents a 7 db increase over the existing ambient noise level of 57 dba (Leq). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 58 December 2010

189 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the middle of the second paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: However, it should be noted that the above noise levels represent traffic noise during the peak week of construction when the most construction activities would be taking place at one time, and would not occur over the entire 27 to 29 month construction period. On Draft EIR page , the third paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Impacts Related to Nighttime Deliveries. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, nighttime construction would be required approximately 1720 times in 11 months to install and remove the temporary bridges on the I 680 northbound on ramps and Mission Boulevard, install and remove the temporary ACWD water lines, and install the permanent ACWD water lines. This nighttime construction would be necessary to avoid major traffic disruptions on the affected roadways during installation and removal of the temporary bridges. However, noise from nighttime deliveries (particularly if Staging Area 4 is used) would exceed the nighttime 50 dba sleep interference threshold or the 54 dba nighttime threshold in the vicinity of the Crystalline Drive residence. Therefore, noise increases associated with haul and delivery trucks accessing the site along residential streets or along a temporary road paralleling the northbound diamond on ramp to Staging Area 4 during nighttime hours would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 3, Haul and Delivery Truck Operation Limits, which requires time restrictions to the maximum extent possible, would reduce potential noise impacts from haul and delivery truck operations to Staging Area 4, but not necessarily to a less than significant level, since nighttime truck deliveries would be necessary. Therefore, nighttime noise impacts along the truck route to Staging Area 4 would be significant and unavoidable. On Draft EIR page , the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Traffic Detour. The proposed temporary bridges on the two northbound freeway onramps would be installed and removed at night and the temporary ACWD water lines would also be installed and removed at night to avoid substantial traffic disruption on these roadways, and could involve temporary closure of the on ramps (approximately four times for each the northbound diamond on ramp and five times for the northbound loop on ramp over approximately 11 months). As part of these road closures, traffic would be diverted to Warm Springs Boulevard and the Durham Road Auto Mall Parkway interchange to the north. Land uses along the detour route (Mission Boulevard to Warm Springs Road to Auto Mall Parkway) are predominantly industrial, with some commercial uses. Diversion of nighttime traffic to this route is not expected to cause any significant noise increases at noise sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts related to changes in the noise environment due to the proposed traffic diversion associated with the temporary closure of the two northbound freeway ramps would be less than significant. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 59 December 2010

190 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the second paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: For any nighttime construction activities, it is more appropriate to apply the annoyance threshold of in/sec PPV. Table indicates that nighttime operation of most equipment, including loaded trucks, large bulldozers, and large vibratory rollers/ compactors, would exceed the annoyance threshold in areas within 50 feet. In addition, operation of vibratory equipment, such as large vibratory rollers/compactors, could result in vibration levels in excess of this nighttime annoyance threshold within at least 500 feet. Therefore, impacts related to disturbances from construction related vibration during the night would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M NO 4a, Vibration Limits, limiting vibration levels associated with nighttime operation of heavy equipment to the maximum extent feasible, would reduce this impact but not necessarily to a less than significant level because it does not guarantee that nighttime vibration limits would not be exceeded. Although this exceedance would only potentially occur on 1720 nights during the 11 months required for temporary bridge installation and removal on Mission Boulevard and the I 680 on ramps, the installation and removal of the temporary ACWD water lines, and the installation of the new permanent ACWD water lines, the potential nighttime vibration impact is considered significant and unavoidable. On Draft EIR page , the second paragraph is revised as follows to address adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance and update of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: The BAAQMD is currently in the process of recently updated their 1999 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD, 1999) and adopteding new CEQA significance thresholds for air quality. The updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which include quantitative CEQA significance thresholds for construction related and operational emissions of criteria pollutant emissions, precursor emissions, and health risks (from emissions of toxic air contaminants [TACs]), and GHGs (BAAQMD, 2009c and 2009d2010a and 2010b). The BAAQMD has not yet adopted these guidelines or quantitative significance thresholds for construction related emissions, although the BAAQMD expects to adopt these new guidelines in early According to the BAAQMD, these recently adopted thresholds of significance are only intended to apply to environmental analyses that began on or after June 2, 2010, and thresholds pertaining to the health risks to new sensitive receptors are only intended to apply to environmental analyses that began on or after January 1, Even though the environmental analysis of the proposed project began well in advance of June 2, 2010, the analysis in this EIR also conservatively relies on the recently adopted (BAAQMD, 2010b) significance thresholds and mitigation strategies. On Draft EIR page , the description of the BAAQMD Climate Protection Program is updated as follows: The BAAQMD recently updated their 1999 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD, 1999) by adopting new CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which include quantitative CEQA Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 60 December 2010

191 Comments and Responses significance thresholds for operational emissions of GHGs (BAAQMD, 2010b). According to the BAAQMD, these recently adopted thresholds of significance are only intended to apply to environmental analyses that began on or after June 2, The BAAQMD also established a climate protection program to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the SFBAAB. The climate protection program includes measures that promote energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy, all of which assist in reducing emissions of GHG and in reducing air pollutants that affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders. On Draft EIR page through , Section , Approach to Analysis, is revised to incorporate the adopted 2010 BAAQMD thresholds of significance: The air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Although the BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance in June 2010, according to the BAAQMD, these new thresholds are only intended to apply to environmental analyses that began on or after June 2, 2010, and thresholds pertaining to the health risks to new sensitive receptors are only intended to apply to environmental analyses for new receptors that began on or after January 1, Even though the environmental analysis of the proposed project began well in advance of June 2, 2010, the analysis in this EIR evaluates Cconstruction air emissions are evaluated in accordance with both the adopted1999 BAAQMD guidelines for assessing and mitigating air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 1999) and the significance thresholds and mitigation strategies outlined in the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD, 2010a). Similarly, operational impacts on air quality are evaluated in accordance with both the 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD guidelines. The approach to analysis of the various categories of air pollutants is described below. In anticipation of the BAAQMD s expected adoption of new guidelines and quantitative significance thresholds for construction related emissions, this EIR also includes a quantitative analysis of the project s construction related emissions based on the proposed BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (which include qualitative and quantitative significance thresholds), and worst case assumptions for the project s construction emissions as discussed below. Under the current (1999) guidelines, the BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction related fugitive dust emissions, but provides guidance for quantification and considers the significance of a project s impact based on the extent of control measures that are proposed to be implemented. For example, if appropriate mitigation measures are implemented for each project to control fugitive dust emissions, the BAAQMD considers potentially significant project related impacts and potentially significant contributions to cumulative impacts to be less than significant. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 61 December 2010

192 Comments and Responses The current1999 guidelines similarly consider temporary construction equipment exhaust emissions to have been included in the regional emissions budget for on and off road sources. By virtue of this inclusion, the 1999 CEQA Guidelines do not consider these emissions to be new to the air basin. Therefore, the emissions from the project would not prevent attainment or maintenance of the CO and ozone standards within the Bay Area. If measures are implemented to maintain such equipment in good working order, the BAAQMD considers potentially significant project related and potentially significant contributions to cumulative regional exhaust emissions impacts to be less than significant under current1999 guidelines. As indicated above (under Section 5.7.2, Regulatory Framework), the BAAQMD has notrecently adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for construction related exhaust emissions at this time. However, the BAAQMD is currently considering the adoption of new CEQA Air Quality Guidelines as well as quantitative CEQA significance thresholds for construction related exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, TACs, and GHGs (BAAQMD, 2009c and 2009d). The BAAQMD expects to adopt these new guidelines and thresholds of significance in early Therefore, in anticipation of the BAAQMD s expected adoption of new guidelines and quantitative significance thresholds for construction related exhaust emissions, Even though these thresholds are not considered by the BAAQMD to apply to this project because the environmental analysis of this project began prior to June 2, 2010, this EIR alsoconservatively includes a quantitative analysis of the project s construction related exhaust emissions based on the draft BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (which include qualitative and quantitative significance thresholds) (BAAQMD, 2009c and 2009d, and worst case assumptions for the project s construction emissions. According to the draft2010 BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it were to produce construction related emissions of criteria pollutants as follows: more than 54 pounds per day of ROGs or NOx, or 54 pounds per day of PM2.5 (exhaust emissions only), or 82 pounds per day of PM10 (exhaust emissions only). Under the draft2010 BAAQMD guidelines, construction emissions of fugitive dust are analyzed in the same manner as under the current (1999) guidelines (i.e., implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would lower impact to a less than significant level). In addition, the draft2010 guidelines do not change the BAAQMD s current1999 guidelines for TACs, which are: an increased cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million for a person with maximum exposure potential, and a chronic non cancer hazard index (HI) of 1.0 or greater. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 62 December 2010

193 Comments and Responses However, the draft2010 guidelines apply these thresholds of significance to construction projects, whereas under the current1999 guidelines these thresholds apply only to operational impacts. Further, the draft2010 guidelines add an additional threshold to for both construction related and operational emissions: 4 an increase in ambient PM2.5 of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter. 4 The draft 2010 thresholds of significance (BAAQMD, 2009d2010b) specify a 1,000 foot radius zone of influence for evaluating risks and hazards impacts of an individual project, but the draft 2010 guidelines (BAAQMD, 2009c2010a) do not indicate how this zone of influence should be applied to assessment of construction related impacts. There are no adopted numerical significance thresholds for GHG emissions. Preliminary draft CEQA Guidelines Amendments for GHG emissions were issued by the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on January 8, 2009 (California Governor s Office of Planning and Research, 2009). These draft amendments proposeon December 30, 2009, the State of California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA guidelines that address GHG emissions. These amendments became effective in March The adopted amendments provide a basic framework for assessing GHG impacts but do not establish numerical significance thresholds for GHG emissions. The newly adopted guidelines add the following criteria: (1) generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that couldmay have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or (2) conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. These two criteria are considered in the impact evaluation under Impact AQ 4, below. For GHG emissions during construction, no state or regional government agency has adopted a methodology or quantitative threshold (similar to those for priority pollutants) that can be applied to a specific development or construction project to evaluate the significance of its contribution to these emissions. The draft2010 BAAQMD thresholds of significance do not include a construction GHG threshold at this time because the BAAQMD has not identified sufficient evidence to determine a level at which construction emissions are significant (BAAQMD, 2009c2010b). The draft2010 guidelines recommend quantification and disclosure of GHG emissions that would occur during construction and determination of the significance of these construction generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting the state s GHG reduction goals. a case by case consideration of construction GHG emissions and The BAAQMD also encourages incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, such as using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet, using at least 10 percent local building materials, and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials (BAAQMD, 2010a).project applicants to quantify and disclose GHG emissions, and implement construction GHG reduction strategies where feasible. The BAAQMD has also indicated that it plans to develop a list of BMPs, such as alternative fuels, use of local materials, and recycling of construction and demolition waste, to provide lead agencies with strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from construction (BAAQMD, 2009c). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 63 December 2010

194 Comments and Responses Because the level of construction activities would vary during the peak construction period, depending on whether construction activities extend into the second shutdown of BDPL No. 4 as discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the analysis of air quality impacts considers emissions related to both the 27 and 29 month construction periods. For these construction periods, the peak level of emissions is assumed to occur over the entire period that construction would be active, 24 and 26 months, respectively; during the remaining months of project construction activities would include mobilization, demobilization, and site cleanup/restoration. The current1999 and draft2010 BAAQMD guidelines also provide significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions associated with project operation while only the 2010 guidelines provide significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions. However, with implementation of the project, pipeline operations would remain essentially unchanged. Further, water storage, transmission, and treatment facilities are not typically a source of traditional air pollution emissions. Therefore, direct and secondary emissions associated with operation of project facilities are discussed qualitatively. On Draft EIR page , the footnote in Table is revised as follows to address adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance and the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: * Significance determination under current1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines / significance determination under draft2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines On Draft EIR page , the end of the first paragraph of Impact AQ 1 is revised as follows to address the project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: This impact would be temporary and would span the approximately 27 to 29 month duration of planned construction. On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the third paragraph of Impact AQ 1 is revised as follows to address the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Fugitive Dust. As noted previously, neither the current1999 or draft BAAQMD guidelines do not require quantification of construction dust emissions. Under both sets of guidelines, but any project s construction related impacts are considered to be adequately mitigated if BAAQMD recommended dust control measures are implemented. The extent of dust control measures required by the BAAQMD depends on the size of the project. Construction of the proposed project would disturb a total of 29 acres, and the project s fugitive dust emissions could contribute to the SFBAAB nonattainment status for particulate matter and are therefore considered to be significant. However, the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do require quantification of construction related emissions, and the project s construction related emissions were quantified using the URBEMIS model. The model output estimates for PM10 include fugitive dust and under both the 27 and 29 month construction schedules, the project s fugitive dust emission (PM10) would not Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 64 December 2010

195 Comments and Responses exceed the BAAQMD s 2010 threshold of 54 pounds per day, as summarized in Tables and Regardless, the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require implementation of dust control measures, even if the PM10 emissions do not exceed the threshold. Therefore, Uunder both the current1999 and draft2010 guidelines, the impact associated with fugitive dust emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 1a, BAAQMD Dust Control Measures, which requires the use of BAAQMD recommended dust control measures (BAAQMD, 1999 and 2010a), as appropriate for proposed construction activities, to reduce PM10 emissions during construction. On Draft EIR page , the second and third paragraphs are revised as follows to address adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, and project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: Combustion Equipment Emissions. Exhaust emissions from combustion equipment and vehicles would be generated from multiple sources, including, heavy mobile equipment and delivery/haul trucks, worker commute vehicles, and semi stationary sources such as air compressors and generators. Similar to fugitive dust emissions, under the current1999 guidelines, the BAAQMD considers exhaust emissions to be significant but mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of BAAQMD recommended exhaust control measures, which are reflected in Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures. However, the draft2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include new quantitative significance thresholds for construction related exhaust emissions. Therefore, this analysis includes a quantitative analysis of the project s construction exhaust emissions to determine the project s consistency with the proposed2010 thresholds. In accordance with the draft2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the CARB computer model URBEMIS2007 was used to calculate construction activity exhaust emissions based on the following main assumptions provided in the Chapter 3, Project Description: (1) the proposed project would be constructed from mid 2012 to mid 2014; (2) the anticipated schedule is approximately 27 construction months (24 months of active construction); (3) the temporary bridges across Mission Boulevard and the I 680 northbound diamond on ramp and the subsequent articulated vault construction and pipeline placement, would entail 20 months of activity; and (4) this Zone 7 activity and improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault would occur simultaneously with several other construction phases in several other zones. Table summarizes the assumed equipment fleet for a maximum activity day. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 65 December 2010

196 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , Table is revised as follows to address the project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: TABLE (REVISED) MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN ESTIMATION OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED EMISSIONS 27 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Equipment Zones 1 and 8 Zone 2 Zone 6 Zone 7 BDPL No. 4 Trace A Maximum Total Cranes Backhoes Drill Rig Forklift Generator Set Welder Compactor Loader Water Truck SOURCE: Chapter 3, Project Description, Table 3.1. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph of Impact AQ 1 is revised as follows to reflect applicability of the significance determination related to the adopted 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance and updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Estimated peak daily and annual emissions of criteria pollutants, based on the above assumptions, are summarized and compared to the proposed2010 construction activity BAAQMD CEQA Guideline thresholds (BAAQMD, 2009d2010b) presented in Table This table shows that project related construction emissions would exceed daily thresholds for NOX, an ozone precursor, but not for any of the other criteria pollutants. Project construction is estimated to result in 322.1up to 439 pounds per peak activity day of NOX emissions, which would contribute to the region s nonattainment status for ozone and would exceed the proposed2010 BAAQMD CEQA threshold of 54 pounds per day. When compared to the draft2010 thresholds, the project s construction related emissions would be significant. With reasonably available NOx control measures as calculated by URBEMIS 2007, NOX levels would still be 379 pounds per day and would remain above the BAAQMD s 2010 significance threshold of 54 pounds per day for NOX, requiring additional mitigation. To further reduce NOx emissions, the SFPUC would implement BAAQMD specified exhaust control measures in accordance with Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures.This mitigation measure requires the SFPUC to implement BAAQMD specified exhaust control measures, including the use of grid power in place of diesel generators, implementation of state specified truck idling limitations and requirements for stationary compression ignition engines, and requirements for low emissions tune ups. and use of low sulfur fuels. While Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 66 December 2010

197 Comments and Responses iimplementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b would reduce emissions from construction equipment exhaust, by an additional 30 to 40 percent (to approximately 264 pounds per day) and mitigated NOX levels, presented in Table 5.7 5, would still be pounds per day and would remain above the BAAQMD s proposed significance threshold of 54 pounds per day for NOX, requiring additional mitigation. Iimplementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Control Measures could provide some additional reductions., in accordance with the draft guidelines, could reduce NOX levels by an additional 30 to 40 percent (to approximately 167 to 194 pounds per day). However, the NOx emissions would not be reduced to below the draft2010 BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day even with implementation of the specifiedis mitigation measures. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. CARB has recently indicated that the URBEMIS Model over predicts DPM emissions by a factor of around 3 because of lower load factors, fewer hours of actual use, and newer equipment than assumed in the model (CARB, 2010). While such over prediction could reduce estimated project related NOx emissions by two thirds (to approximately 87 pounds per day), mitigated NOx levels would still exceed the 2010 BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day. On Draft EIR page , Table is revised as follows to address the project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: TABLE (REVISED) PEAK CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 27 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Maximum Emissions (pounds per day) Unmitigated a Maximum Emissions (pounds per day) With Reasonably Available Control Measures Mitigated ab BAAQMD Proposed2010 CEQA Guideline Thresholds (pounds/day) Average Annual Emissions (tons/year) a ,875 58,406 45,875 58, ,982 7,622 a Includes fugitive and equipment exhaust emissions. Fugitive emissions have been added to this PM10 estimate to be consistent with 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, which specify procedures for calculating construction related criteria pollutant emissions. ab Specified mitigated emissions levels are calculated using the URBEMIS model and are based on implementation of reasonably available control measures as calculated by URBEMIS 2007 exhaust control measures specified in Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures. SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 Computer Model (see Appendix C for model output). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 67 December 2010

198 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , an additional paragraph and table are added to the end of Impact AQ 1 as follows to address the project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: If improvements to BDPL No. 4 extended into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4 and construction were extended by two months (29 month construction schedule with active construction occurring over 26 months), receptors would be exposed to slightly lower daily emissions (see Table 5.7 6) because emissions estimates are based on peak day equipment use, and less equipment would be needed on peak days with the longer duration of construction. Under this scenario, project construction is estimated to result in up to 352 pounds per peak activity day of NOX emissions, which would also exceed the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA threshold of 54 pounds per day. Similar to the shorter construction period analyzed above, the project s construction related emissions would be significant when compared to the 2010 thresholds. With reasonably available NOx control measures as calculated by URBEMIS 2007, NOX levels, presented in Table 5.7 6, would still be 304 pounds per day and would remain above the BAAQMD s 2010 significance threshold of 54 pounds per day for NOX, requiring additional mitigation. To further reduce NOx emissions, the SFPUC would implement Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures, which would reduce emissions from construction equipment exhaust by an additional 30 to 40 percent (to approximately 213 pounds per day) and implementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Control Measures could provide some additional reductions. However, the NOx emissions would not be reduced to below the 2010 BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day even with implementation of the specified mitigation measures. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. TABLE PEAK CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 29 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Maximum Emissions (pounds per day) Unmitigated a ,254 Maximum Emissions (pounds per day) With Reasonably Available Control Measures b ,254 BAAQMD Proposed 2010 CEQA Guideline Thresholds (pounds/day) Average Annual Emissions (tons/year) ,167 a Includes fugitive and equipment exhaust emissions. Fugitive emissions have been added to this PM10 estimate to be consistent with 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, which specify procedures for calculating construction related criteria pollutant emissions. b Specified mitigated emissions levels are calculated using the URBEMIS model and are based on implementation of reasonably available control measures as calculated by URBEMIS SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 Computer Model (see Appendix C for model output). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 68 December 2010

199 Comments and Responses The three times over estimation of DPM emissions by the URBEMIS model, noted by CARB as described above, could reduce estimated project related NOx emissions by twothirds (to approximately 70 pounds per day). However, mitigated NOx levels would still exceed the 2010 BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day. On Draft EIR page , the second paragraph of Impact AQ 2 is revised as follows to address adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance and update of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: DPM contains substances that are known carcinogens. Diesel exhaust contains both pulmonary irritants and hazardous compounds that may affect sensitive receptors such as young children, senior citizens, or those susceptible to respiratory disease. The BAAQMD does not have an adopted methodology for estimating impacts from diesel exhaust or determining the significance of a project s contribution. However, uunder both the current1999 and draft2010 guidelines, the BAAQMD considers a risk of 1 in a million to be insignificant and a risk of 10 in a million to be significant. Both sets of guidelines also consider a chronic non cancer hazard index (HI) of 1.0 or greater 6 to be significant. 6 For non cancer health risks, a factor called a hazard index (HI) is used to evaluate risk. The hazard index is the ratio of potential exposure to the substance and the level at which no adverse health effects are expected. An HI of less than one indicates that no adverse health effects are expected from exposure; an HI of more than one indicates that adverse health effects are possible. On Draft EIR pages and , beginning with the third paragraph on page , the remainder of Impact AQ 2 is revised as follows to address the project updates, adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance, and the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: A screening level individual cancer analysis was conducted using the U.S. EPA SCREEN3 computer model to compare the added risk from the project related construction activities to the baseline conditions. For this analysis, peak daily DPM emissions from project activities (included in Table 5.7 5) were conservatively assumed to occur every on 260 workdays during the 24 month active construction period. Receptors were assumed to remain at the same location outdoors during every hour of the construction duration and for every hour of the day for 70 years. The SCREEN3 model results (included in Appendix D) included an estimation of the 1 hour and annual average DPM concentration in projectrelated exhaust emissions and the individual cancer risk and chronic non cancer risk associated with these emissions. The results are presented in Table Using this conservative assessment, the proposed project would result in an estimated pounds per day of DPM emissions during peak construction activity. With extremely conservative assumptions, the screening level excess individual cancer risk would be 4.9 in a million from project construction, while the chronic non cancer hazard index would be However, Note that there is a large degree of conservatism introduced by this assessment because it assumes that a person would remain on their front porch downwind of the construction area for every day/hour of construction Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 69 December 2010

200 Comments and Responses TABLE (REVISED) INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK FROM DPM EXPOSURE 27 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Parameter DPM Exposure from Project Construction Activities 1 Hour (μg/m 3 ) Annual (μg/m 3 ) Year Average (μg/m 3 ) a Cancer Risk (x10 6 ) c Chronic Non cancer Hazard Index DPM = diesel particulate matter μg/m 3 = microgram per cubic meter a b c 260 workdays/365 days/year/70 years Adjusted for 2 years of exposure to project emissions over a receptor s 70 year lifetime exposure rate. assume no fleet improvements for the next 70 years 300 x 10 6 per μg/m 3 (70 year average) SOURCE: U.S. EPA SCREEN3 Computer Model (see Appendix D for model output). activity, and in addition, these risk levels are based on the particulate emissions estimates from URBEMIS Model which CARB indicates over predicts DPM emissions by a factor of around 3, as discussed above. Therefore, potential unmitigated excess cancer risks could be approximately one third of these estimated levels. Nevertheless, for the purpose of worst case analysis, it is assumed that the project would result in an additional 4.9 in a million lifetime excess cancer risk from project construction activities. Because the increase in cancer and chronic non cancer risks would be less than the current1999 and 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million and a hazard index of 1.0, the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial DPM emissions, and impacts related to exposure to DPM emissions would be less than significant under the existing guidelines. More than 90 percent of DPM emissions are comprised of particulates that are less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5; SCAQMD, 2006). Therefore, the project s estimated annual increase in DPM emissions of micrograms per cubic meter would also comprise the project s increase in PM2.5. Because the increase in annual average PM2.5 emissions would exceed the proposed2010 BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, sensitive receptors could be exposed to substantial PM2.5 emissions, a potentially significant impact., although it should be noted that this draft threshold has not yet been adopted by the BAAQMD. However, Tthis impact could would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 2, Use of Soot Filters, which requires the use of soot filters on diesel equipment. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce project emissions by approximately 850 percent, so that mitigated Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 70 December 2010

201 Comments and Responses project emissions (approximately micrograms per cubic meter) would not exceed the 2010 BAAAMD threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter. If improvements to BDPL No. 4 extended into a second shutdown of this pipeline, and construction were extended by two months (26 months of active construction) as noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, receptors would be exposed to slightly lower risks than those presented above in Table because emissions estimates are based on peak day equipment use, and less equipment would be needed on peak days with the longer duration of construction. DPM exposure estimates from 26 months of active project construction activities are presented in Table With extremely conservative assumptions, as discussed above for the shorter construction duration, the screeninglevel excess individual cancer risk would be 4.6 in a million from project construction, while the chronic non cancer hazard index would be Because the increase in cancer and chronic non cancer risks would be less than the 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million and a hazard index of 1.0, the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial DPM emissions, and impacts related to exposure to DPM emissions would be less than significant. TABLE INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK FROM DPM EXPOSURE 29 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Parameter DPM Exposure from Project Construction Activities 1 Hour (μg/m 3 ) 6.98 Annual (μg/m 3 ) Year Average (μg/m 3 ) a Cancer Risk (x10 6 ) c 4.6 Chronic Non cancer Hazard Index 0.14 DPM = diesel particulate matter μg/m 3 = microgram per cubic meter a Adjusted for 2 years of exposure to project emissions over a receptor s 70 year lifetime exposure rate. b assume no fleet improvements for the next 70 years c 300 x 10 6 per μg/m 3 (70 year average) SOURCE: U.S. EPA SCREEN3 Computer Model (see Appendix D for model output). With the extended 29 month construction duration, described in Chapter 3, Project Description (26 months of active construction), the project s estimated annual increase in DPM emissions of micrograms per cubic meter would also comprise the project s increase in PM2.5. Similar to the shorter construction duration, the increase in annual average PM2.5 emissions would exceed the 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, and sensitive receptors could be exposed to increased PM2.5 emissions, a potentially significant impact. As with the shorter construction period, this impact could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 71 December 2010

202 Comments and Responses M AQ 2, Use of Soot Filters, which requires the use of soot filters on diesel equipment. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce project emissions by approximately 85 percent so that mitigated project emissions (approximately 0.10 micrograms per cubic meter) would not exceed the 2010 BAAAMD threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter. However, the draft2010 BAAQMD significance thresholds specify a 1,000 foot radius zone of influence for the analysis of project impacts, in addition to use of the above thresholds. The draft2010 BAAQMD guidelines do not provide guidance on how to apply this zone of influence when assessing a project s construction related impacts. However, if all existing sources within 1,000 feet of the project site were to be considered in the impact assessment (as these thresholds imply), the above BAAQMD proposed thresholds could be exceeded from I 680 and Mission Boulevard alone, and addition of project emissions would further aggravate exceedance of these thresholds (see Chapter 6, Other Topics Required by CEQA, for a discussion of emissions from trucks on I 680 and Mission Boulevard). Due to these uncertainties for applying the proposed 1,000 foot zone of influence to construction related impacts, the project s incremental increase in DPM and PM2.5 emissions is conservatively considered to be potentially significant and unavoidable. On Draft EIR page , the first sentence of Impact AQ 4 is revised as follows to address the project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: Project construction activities are estimated to occur over an approximately 27 to 29 month period (24 to 26 months of active construction), and the resulting exhaust emissions from off road equipment, on road trucking, and construction worker commuting traffic during this period are expected to contribute minimally to long term regional increases in GHGs. On Draft EIR page , the end of the first paragraph of Impact AQ 4 is revised as follows to address the project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: The results of the URBEMIS2007 computer model presented in Table indicate that average annual construction activities could generate 2,9827,622 tons of CO2 emissions in one year. Including other non CO2 GHG emissions, 7 this amount equates to 3,0067,851 short tons (2,7337,122 metric tons) of CO2 E emissions over a 12 month construction period. With the extended 26 month active construction duration and less peak daily equipment use, the project could generate 6,167 tons per year of CO2 emissions, as presented in Table 5.7 6, or 6,352 short tons per year (5,762 metric tons) of CO2 E emissions. 7 When CO2 and non CO2 GHG emissions are considered together, they are referenced as CO2 Equivalents (CO2 E), which add approximately three percent to CO2 emissions from diesel equipment exhaust. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 72 December 2010

203 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the second paragraph of Impact AQ 4 is revised as follows to address the project updates described in Section 3, Project Updates: The 2004 statewide annual GHG inventory is estimated at 500 million metric tons of CO2 E emissions, while the 2007 Bay Area inventory is estimated at approximately million metric tons. Emissions associated with project construction would represent approximately x ( ) percent of the statewide total and approximately x 10 3 ( ) percent of the Bay Area inventory. With the extended 26 month active construction duration, project emissions would represent approximately 1.2 x 10 3 (0.0012) percent of the statewide total and approximately 5.6 x 10 3 (0.0056) percent of the Bay Area inventory. On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the third paragraph of Impact AQ 4 is revised as follows to address adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance and the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Neither the current1999 or draft2010 BAAQMD guidelines specify a quantitative threshold for construction GHG emissions). However, the contribution of GHG emissions from the proposed project (under either construction duration scenario) would be extremely small in terms of both the statewide and Bay Area GHG emissions. On Draft EIR page , the first sentence of the second paragraph is revised as follows to address the adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance and the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Given the small amount of GHGs that would be emitted from the project during construction and operation, the proposed project, under either construction duration scenario, would not conflict with the state s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, nor would it conflict with San Francisco s Climate Action Plan s goal of reducing GHG emissions established by the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance. On Draft EIR pages and , the BAAQMD basic, enhanced, and optional control measures under Mitigation Measure M AQ 1a, BAAQMD Dust Control Measures, are deleted and replaced with the BAAQMD recommended measures for dust control contained in the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Mitigation Measure M AQ 1a: BAAQMD Dust Control Measures To reduce particulate emissions associated with project construction, the SFPUC or its contractor will implement the following BAAQMD specified dust controls for the duration of construction activities: 1. BAAQMD Basic Control Measures All active construction areas (including parking areas, soil piles, staging areas, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered at least twice daily. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 73 December 2010

204 Comments and Responses All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris will be covered or will be required to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard on public roads. All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites will either be paved or watered three times daily, or be will have nontoxic soil stabilizers applied. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites will be swept daily (wet power vacuum street cleaners). All visible mud or dirt track out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street cleaners at least once per day. 2. BAAQMD Enhanced Control Measures All inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more) will be hydroseeded or nontoxic soil stabilizers will be applied. Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) will be enclosed, covered, and watered, or nontoxic soil binders will be applied. As feasible, traffic speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 miles per hour. Sandbags or other erosion control measures will be employed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Disturbed vegetation areas will be replanted as quickly as possible. 3. BAAQMD Optional Control Measures. These measures may be altered, supplemented or deleted during the BAAQMDʹs review process. Wheel washers will be installed for all exiting trucks, or all trucks and equipment leaving the site will be washed off. Excavation and grading activity will be suspended when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Post a publically visible sign with a telephone number and person to contact at the SFPUC about dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the BAAQMD will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 74 December 2010

205 Comments and Responses All visible mud or dirt track out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency (or its designee) regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action, as necessary, within 48 hours. The Air District s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. On Draft EIR pages and , Mitigation Measures M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures, is revised as follows to reflect the BAAQMD recommended exhaust control measures contained in the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b: BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures. To limit exhaust emissions associated with the project, the SFPUC will implement the following BAAQMD specified exhaust controls: Where feasible, grid power will be used rather than diesel generators to connect to grid power. Contract specifications will include CCR Title 13, Sections 2480 and 2485, which limit the idling of all diesel fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds, both California and non California based trucks) to 30 seconds at a school and five minutes at any other location. In addition, the use of diesel auxiliary Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 75 December 2010

206 Comments and Responses power systems and main engines will be limited to five minutes when within 100 feet of homes or schools while the driver is resting Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure, CCR Title 13, Section Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7 Idling is limited to 5 minutes in Title 13, Section 2485, but the limit has been reduced to 2 minutes as recommended in the BAAQMD s supplemental control measures for projects with construction emissions above the threshold. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate matter reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after treatment products, add on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and particulate matter and all contractors shall use equipment that meets CARB s most recent certification standard for off road heavy duty diesel engines. This shall include, as applicable: - The SFPUC will implement additional mitigation measures to reduce exhaust emissions of NOX from construction activities. The SFPUC will ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that on road diesel trucks used to transport spoils consist of 2004 or newer model year trucks with factory built engines. All on road diesel trucks will be required to have emission control labels as specified in CCR Title 13, Section 2183(c). The construction contract specifications will require that the contractor submit to the SFPUC a comprehensive inventory of all on road trucks used to haul spoils. The inventory will include each vehicle s license plate number, the engine production year, and a notation of whether the truck is in possession of an emission control label as defined in CCR Title 13. The contractor will update the inventory and submit it monthly to the SFPUC throughout the duration of the project. - The SFPUC will ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off road terrestrial diesel construction equipment (with the possible exception of certain types of very specialized construction equipment for which controls are not commercially available), is equipped with Tier 2 or 3 diesel engines as defined in CCR Title 13, Section 2485 and Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 76 December 2010

207 Comments and Responses are equipped with Level 3 Diesel Emission Control Strategies as defined in CCR Title 13, Sections 2700 to The construction contract specifications will require the contractor to submit a comprehensive inventory of all offroad construction equipment that will be used an aggregate of 8 hours or more during any portion of project construction. The inventory will include each vehicle s license plate number, horsepower rating, engine production year, and projected hours of use or fuel throughput for each piece of equipment. The contractor will update the inventory and submit it monthly to the SFPUC throughout the duration of the project. Contract specifications will include CCR Title 17, Section 93115, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines, which specifies fuel and fuel additive requirements; emission standards for operation of any stationary, diesel fueled, or compression ignition engine; and operation restrictions within 500 feet of school grounds when school is in session. A schedule of low emissions tune ups will be developed, and such tune ups will be performed on all equipment, particularly for haul and delivery trucks. A log of required tune ups will be maintained, and a copy of the log will be submitted to the SFPUC on a monthly basis for review. Low sulfur fuels will be used in all stationary and mobile equipment. On Draft EIR page , Mitigation Measure M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Control Measures, is revised as follows to include those measures that were specified in Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures, of the Draft EIR, but are not included in the updated guidelines: Mitigation Measure M AQ 1c: Additional Exhaust Control Measures. To limit exhaust emissions associated with the project, tthe SFPUC will implement the following BAAQMD specified exhaust controls in addition to those controls specified in Mitigation Measure M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures, to reduce exhaust emissions associated with the project: The SFPUC will implement additional mitigation measures to reduce exhaust emissions of NOX from construction activities. The SFPUC will ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that on road diesel trucks used to transport spoils consist of 2004 or newer model year trucks with factory built engines. All on road diesel trucks will be required to have emission control labels as specified in 13 CCR 2183(c). The construction contract specifications will require that the contractor submit to the SFPUC a comprehensive inventory of all on road trucks used to haul spoils. The inventory will include each vehicle s license plate number, the engine production year, and a notation of whether the truck is in possession of an emission control label as defined in 13 CCR. The contractor will update the inventory and submit it monthly to the SFPUC throughout the duration of the project. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 77 December 2010

208 Comments and Responses The SFPUC will ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off road terrestrial diesel construction equipment (with the possible exception of certain types of very specialized construction equipment for which controls are not commercially available), is equipped with Tier 2 or 3 diesel engines as defined in 13 CCR 2485 and are equipped with Level 3 Diesel Emission Control Strategies as defined in 13 CCR The construction contract specifications will require the contractor to submit a comprehensive inventory of all off road construction equipment that will be used an aggregate of 8 hours or more during any portion of project construction. The inventory will include each vehicle s license plate number, horsepower rating, engine production year, and projected hours of use or fuel throughput for each piece of equipment. The contractor will update the inventory and submit it monthly to the SFPUC throughout the duration of the project. Where feasible, grid power will be used rather than diesel generators. Low sulfur fuels will be used in all stationary and mobile equipment. On Draft EIR page , two references are revised as follows to address adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance and update of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Environmental Quality Act, Final Draft Air Quality Guidelines, available online at _BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_November_12_2009.ashx QMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_June% ashx, as of November 22, 2009c June 2, 2010a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update, Proposed Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance, available online at 20Research/CEQA/Proposed%20BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Air%20Quality%20Thres holds Nov% ashx pted%20thresholds%20table_6_2_10.ashx, as of November 2, 2009dJune 2, 2010b. On Draft EIR page , a reference has been added as a result of CARB s recent changes in modeling assumptions for construction equipment: California Air Resources Board (CARB), Workshops on Information Regarding the Off Road, Truck and Bus and Drayage Truck Regulations, available online at tion_full_10_09_03.pdf, as of September 3, On Draft EIR page 5.8 9, the third bullet is revised as follows in response to comment [U2]: The SFPUC and ACWD are currently exploring options to eliminate facility conflicts with Tthe 12 inch and a 30 inch water supply distribution pipelines owned by ACWD would be relocated in Zone 7. One option is to temporarily Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 78 December 2010

209 Comments and Responses relocate the existing water lines that conflict with the proposed alignment around the articulated vault during construction, install new water lines in the Mission Boulevard median and over the articulated vault and pipelines after construction, and then remove the temporary water lines. Another option includes constructing new permanent pipelines around the articulated vault and connecting them to existing water lines on either side of the SFPUC ROW, then removing the existing 30 inch and 12 inch water lines that conflict with the proposed alignmentthe replacement pipelines would connect to the existing water lines on either side of the BDPL No. 3 and 4 ROW. On Draft EIR page , the first sentence of the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.7, Fill Placement, the estimated cut and fill quantities for the entire project would be up to approximately 41,60042,400 cubic yards and 13,300 13,700 cubic yards, respectively. resulting in Up to approximately 28,30029,100 cubic yards of soil would requireing offsite reuse or disposal. On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the second paragraph of Impact UT 3 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The CIWMB found that Fremont achieved the State of California s 50 percent solid waste diversion goal between 1999 and (CIWMB, 2009b). Project construction would result in the generation of an estimated 28,30029,100 cubic yards of soil requiring offsite reuse or disposal. 2 Diversion rates for 2007 and 2008 are not available as of July 1, On Draft EIR page , Mitigation Measure M UT 1c, Advance Notification, is revised as follows in response to comment [U5]: Two to four days pprior to construction, the SFPUC or its contractor(s) wouldwill coordinate with the owner of the affected utility to provide advance notification to residents and businesses that could be affected by a potential utility service disruption. The SFPUC will provide the affected utility owner with a schedule of anticipated shutdowns and will work with the utility owner on timing and distribution requirements for public notification. The notification will provide information about the timing and duration of the potential service disruption. Draft EIR page 5.9 3, Figure 5.9 1, Habitat and Vegetation Within the Project Area, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is on page C&R 5 81 of this document. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 79 December 2010

210 Comments and Responses Draft EIR page , Table 5.9 3, Special Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity is revised as follows in response to comment [B3] and to correct an editorial error. TABLE (REVISED) SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Federal/State/ CDFG Habitat Potential to Occur in Project Area WILDLIFE SPECIES LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING (The rows above are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Amphibians California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) California red legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) T/TCE/SSC T/ /SSC Needs underground refuges, such as mammal burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources Permanent source of deep water with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation None; CNDDB closest occurrence within 31.7 miles of thefrom project area; however, development and I 680 block access to project area; no breeding habitat present Low (transient only); nearest CNDDB record is approximately 50 feet east on Agua Caliente Creek; Agua Fria Creek not connected to Agua Caliente Creek; no suitable breeding habitat within project area (The rows below are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) On page , the second paragraph is revised as follows in response to comment [B3] and to correct an editorial error: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). California tiger salamander is federally listed as threatened, and is a candidate for listing as endangered state listed as threatened under CESA, and is designated as a California species of special concern (CDFG, 2008a, 2009, 2010). When not breeding, adults live and forage in upland small mammal burrows or cracks in soil. Breeding occurs in a vernal pool or similar ephemeral water body, including stock ponds, where no bullfrogs (predators of California tiger salamander eggs and larvae) are present, and where pools contain standing water continuously for at least 10 weeks, extending into April (USFWS, 2003). California tiger salamanders do not breed in streams or other flowing water. There is no suitable breeding habitat within the project area because Agua Fria Creek has flowing water, and the freshwater seep within Staging Area 4 is a sloped feature that drains through a swale to Agua Caliente Creek, has no standing water, and is not a pool or pond. When not breeding, adults live and forage in upland small mammal burrows or cracks in soil that are within 1.24 miles of suitable breeding habitat (the greatest distance that California tiger salamanders have been known to travel) (USFWS, 2003). Based on site visits conducted in 2007 and 2008, the ruderal habitat of Staging Area 4 and annual grasslands that cover much of the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW as well as Staging Areas 1, 2, and 3 have no small mammal burrows or cracks in the soil. Furthermore, the project area is Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 80 December 2010

211 ruderal (0.7 acres) Tissiack Way Indian Hill Pl. Non-native Annual Grasslands (0.8 acres) Paseo Padre Pkwy. partially paved (0.2 acres) Freshwater Seep/Emergent Vegetation (0.3 acres) ruderal (0.4 acres) partially paved (1.1 acres) ruderal (12.5 acres) Extended Stay Hotel Agua Fria Creek Crystalline Dr. I-680 Central Coast Riparian Scrub (0.4 acres) Crawford St. Mission Blvd. Freshwater Seep (0.7 acres) Non-native Annual Grasslands ruderal Non-native Annual Grasslands (0.6 acres) (0.5 acres) Omega Dr. Non-native Annual Grasslands (1.3 acres) Non-native Annual Grasslands (1.2 acres) partially paved (0.1 acres) Non-native Annual Grasslands (1.7 acres) partially paved (4.7 acres) CNDDB OCC. # 210 Non-native Annual Grasslands (1.6 acres) Staging Area 1 partially paved (0.1 acres) Zone 7 Zone 6 Zone 5 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 2 Zone 1 Non-native Annual Grasslands (0.5 acres) Mission Blvd. Agua Caliente Creek Mary Beth Ct. Agua Fria Creek Zone 8 sound wall Total Project Area 29.3 acres project area Non-Native Annual Grasslands 8.3 ac. Central Coast Riparian Scrub 0.4 acres Freshwater Seep/Emergent vegetation 0.3 acres Partially Paved 6.2 ac. Ruderal 14.1 ac. Agua Caliente Creek - channel Agua Caliente Creek - culvert Agua Fria Creek - channel Agua Fria Creek - culvert Hayward Fault trace Environmentally Sensitive Areas Feet California red-legged frog occurrences (occ. no.) Staging Area 1 Staging Area 2 Staging Area 3 Staging Area 4 1) Fieldwork by Darnell Shaw LLC on January 22 and 30, ) Orthorectified aerial photograph base map taken May 2005 (FSA NAIP Digital Ortho Photo Imagery for California) 3) GIS map by Harry Spanglet, March 1, Feet SOURCE: ESA Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure (Revised) Habitat and Vegetation within the Project Area

212 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

213 Comments and Responses at least 1.7 linear miles northwest of the closest CNDDB record for breeding California tiger salamander. Moreover, as discussed on pages and 5.9 8, there are no suitable migration corridors that could be used by California tiger salamanders to move to the project area. Because the project area does not contain suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander, the upland areas have no small mammal burrows or cracks in the soil, and the upland areas are inaccessible from suitable breeding habitat, there is no potential for this species to occur within the project area. This conclusion is consistent with that reached during the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species consultation for the I 680 Sunol Grade Northbound High Occupancy Vehicle Widening project in 2005, the project area of which completely encompasses the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 project area (USFWS, 2005). The closest California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record for California tiger salamander is from 1998, in an artificial pond within the upper watershed of Agua Fria Creek, approximately one linear mile upstream of the project area. There is no suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders in the project area due to the urban and ruderal nature of the area, and the lack of small seasonal water sources (such as small ponds); in addition, there is no suitable upland habitat for adults in the project area, as the ruderal habitat and annual grasslands have no small mammal burrows or cracks in the soil, which the species uses as refugia. Based on the lack of suitable habitat, there is no potential for this species to occur within the project area. Draft EIR page , Table 5.9 5, Summary of Impacts Biological Resources, is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: TABLE (REVISED) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact Significance Determination Before Mitigation Significance Determination After Mitigation (The rows above are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) Impact BI 43: Conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. S LS (The rows above are omitted from the Comments and Responses document for brevity. Omitted rows have no text revisions.) On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the first full paragraph is revised as follows for clarification regarding the inclusion of two approaches for construction of the southern point of connection and clearing of the entire 80 foot ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction as presented in the response to comment [B1]: Potential Impacts on Agua Fria Creek and Riparian Habitat using Trenchless Construction (Approach 1). For trenchless construction of the new BDPL 3X beneath Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 83 December 2010

214 Comments and Responses Agua Fria Creek under Approach 1, the drive pit would be dug on the south side of the creek just north of the shutoff vault, and the receiving pit would be dug on the north side of the creek adjacent to the freeway soundwall. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the driving pit for trenchless construction would extend approximately 30 feet into the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek on the south side of the creek, and the receiving pit would extend approximately 10 feet into the riparian corridor on the north side., requiring the removal of approximately five red willows. Construction of these pits would result in a permanent loss of 0.08 acre of riparian habitat because, The entire 80 foot SFPUC ROW would be cleared and grubbed where it crosses Agua Fria Creek to provide adequate access to aboveground pipeline structures, in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007) prohibiting willows within the ROW and specifying that other trees must be farther than 15 or 25 feet from the pipelines (see Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, Section ),. In all, approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat would be cleared. Approximately 26 trees would be removed, including 13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree, all of which are native to California and are located in the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW. tthe removed trees removed for excavation of the drive pit and receiving pit would not be replaced within the ROW, but would be replaced in a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location (see Impact BI 4 and Mitigation Measure M BI 5a). Avoidance of this habitat is not feasible because of the limited space between the south shutoff vault (where the new BDPL No. 3X would be connected to the existing BDPL No. 3) and the riparian corridor on the south, and between the freeway soundwall and the riparian corridor on the north. This option for crossing Agua Fria Creek would minimize result in the loss of 0.4 acre of riparian habitat, the same as to 0.08 acre compared to crossing the creek with open cut excavation (described below)., which would involve the permanent loss of 0.4 acre of riparian habitat. On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the last paragraph is revised to address clearing of the entire SFPUC ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction as addressed in the response to comment [B1]: Because of the permanent removal of riparian habitat where the drive and receiving pits would be constructed, and potential temporary effects on Agua Fria Creek during construction, impacts related to the loss of jurisdictional waters, aquatic resources, and riparian habitat would be significant. On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the first full paragraph is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Potential Impacts on Agua Fria Creek and Riparian Habitat using Open Cut Construction (Approach 1). For open cut construction of the new BDPL No. 3X under Approach 1, a 10 foot wide trench would be excavated across the creek and adjacent riparian corridor. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 84 December 2010

215 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the first paragraph is revised as follows in response to comment [B2]: Because of the permanent removal of riparian habitat within the ROW, temporary loss of other waters of the United States within the streambed of Agua Fria Creek, and potential temporary effects on Agua Fria Creek and its aquatic resources during construction, impacts related to the loss of jurisdictional waters, aquatic resources, and riparian habitat would be significant. Impacts on riparian habitat and other waters of the United States would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat. This measure requires the SFPUC to provide protection for riparian habitat adjacent to the ROW, compensate for the permanent loss of riparian habitat, restore temporarily disturbed habitat to the extent that is consistent with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, and restore the Agua Fria Creek channel to its preconstruction topographycondition. Additional impacts related to water quality and aquatic resources (including erosion, sedimentation, and potential releases of hazardous materials) and associated mitigation measures would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices (see Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality). In addition, the stream crossing would be completed in accordance with a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 404 permit from the Corps, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge from the RWQCB. On Draft EIR page , the following text is added after the first paragraph to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Potential Impacts on Agua Fria Creek and Riparian Habitat (Approach 2). Under Approach 2, the southern point of connection for the new BDPL No. 3X would be immediately south of the soundwall along the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp. Using this approach, it would not be necessary to construct the new pipeline beneath Agua Fria Creek. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, a 60 by 28 foot area would be excavated for the installation of the new wye and valves. Approximately 6 square feet of this excavation would occur within Agua Fria Creek, and approximately 950 square feet would occur within riparian habitat. The entire 80 foot wide SFPUC ROW would be cleared and grubbed to provide construction crew and vehicular access to the excavation area. The banks of Agua Fria Creek would be excavated or filled, as necessary, to construct a temporary creek crossing that would span the creek to provide vehicular access. Excavation to a depth of 1.5 feet would be required on the north bank, and to a depth of 3 feet on the south bank. Approximately 225 square feet of this excavation would occur within the creek, and approximately 1,035 square feet would occur within riparian habitat. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 85 December 2010

216 Comments and Responses If construction occurs when there is flow in the creek, Agua Fria Creek would be dewatered via a temporary dewatering system that would be built to create a dry work area during construction. This system would likely entail constructing a sandbag cofferdam around the worksite together with a flume pipe to sustain downstream flow at all times. Control measures would be implemented to prevent downstream pollution and sedimentation and to maintain the natural flow and temperature of the stream downstream of the construction area. After construction is complete, the excavation would be backfilled; the soil would be compacted to near its former density and natural contours of bank and streambed; and the cofferdams would be removed. For future operations and maintenance of the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 and the new BDPL No. 3X, the ROW would be permanently kept clear of woody vegetation. Implementation of Approach 2 would result in the permanent loss of 0.4 acre of Central Coast riparian scrub. The trees within the riparian habitat (13 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnuts, and 1 blue elderberry) would be removed from the ROW and would not be replaced in this location in accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, which prohibits the presence of willows and black walnut trees within the ROW (see Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, Section ) and specifies that other trees must be farther than 15 or 25 feet from the pipelines. Twenty one of these trees that meet the City of Fremont size and species criteria for protection would be replaced at a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location (see Impact BI 4 and Mitigation Measure M BI 5a). Avoidance of the riparian habitat is not feasible because it lies within the area necessary for access to the southern point of connection. Implementation of Approach 2 would also result in the temporary loss of approximately 0.07 acre of other waters of the United States (the streambed of Agua Fria Creek within the ROW) while the streamflow is diverted around the ROW. Other activities could also affect aquatic resources in Agua Fria Creek, including the removal of vegetation (although most vegetation is the non native giant reed), potentially resulting in increased erosion and sedimentation as well as spills of fuel and lubricants during construction. All of these activities could cause temporary disturbance of aquatic plant and animal communities, loss of wildlife habitat value, and disruption of natural hydrology. On Draft EIR page , the first paragraph of Impact BI 3, pipeline and trench dewatering effects on riparian habitat and/or aquatic resources, is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: During construction, water would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek as the result of dewatering of construction trenches and draining and disinfection of pipelines following completion of construction activities. Groundwater produced during construction dewatering of trenches would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek and Agua Caliente Creek either directly or via the storm sewer system. Prior to construction work on these pipelines, both BDPL No. 3 and BDPL No. 4 would require draining. In addition, these Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 86 December 2010

217 Comments and Responses pipelines and the new BDPL No. 3X would require disinfection prior to being put into use. As discussed in Section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality (see Impact HY 4), the volume of groundwater produced during dewatering would be minimal, but a total of up to approximately million gallons of water from pipeline draining and disinfection would be discharged to Agua Fria Creek. Draft EIR page , Figure 5.9 2, Trees to be Removed, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page , the last two paragraphs are revised as follows to address comment [B10] and to address clearing of the entire SFPUC ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction, as described in the response to comment [B1]: Depending on the method of construction used to cross Agua Fria Creek (trenchless or open trench excavation), uup to 21 trees that meet Fremont s tree protection ordinance 8 criteria would be removed from the Agua Fria Creek riparian corridor where it crosses the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW, including 8 red willows, 9 arroyo willows, 3 Northern California black walnut trees, and 1 blue elderberry tree. In accordance with the SFPUC s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy prohibiting willows and black walnut trees within the ROW (see in Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, Section ), these trees would not be replaced within the ROW. However, the trees would be replaced at a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location, or the SFPUC would provide compensation for tree removal, in accordance with Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Replacement/Compensation. The SFPUC would also implement mitigation measures for the removal and protection of the remaining trees in the project area. These measures include Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Replacement/Compensation, which requires replacement of or compensation for protected trees that are removed, and Mitigation Measure M BI 4b, Tree Protection Measures, which requires the contractor to implement measures that would protect the remaining trees in the project area by establishing a Tree Protection Zone, marked by orange construction fencing, and implementing other measures to protect tree roots and limbs during construction. These mitigation measures meet the intent of the protection measures afforded to trees by the Fremont tree ordinance. Although replacement trees would not be placed within 25 feet of BDPL Nos. 3, 3X, or 4 in accordance with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (described in Chapter 4, Plans and Policies, and Section , Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy), trees removed from within the ROW would be replaced in an appropriate location outside of the ROW in the same general vicinity, if a location can be identified. If replanting trees in the same general vicinity is not feasible, the SFPUC will find a suitable alternative location acceptable to CDFG. If the SFPUC provides compensation for tree removal in lieu of replacement, the tree ordinance Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 87 December 2010

218 Staging Area 4 Agua Caliente Creek Culvert Northbound Diamond On-Ramp B Slip-Joint Vault Mary Beth Ct Staging Area 3 Mission Blvd Staging Area 2 Northbound Diamond Off-Ramp Agua Fria Creek 680 Southbound Loop Off-Ramp Staging Area 1 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward F F Location of Survey Southbound Diamond On-Ramp Agua Fria Creek Coast Live Oak Red/Arroyo Willow Tree to be Removed Peruvian/California Pepper Tree Lombardy Poplar Holly Oak Northern California Black Walnut Blue Elderberry Project Area Boundary SFPUC Right-of-Way Feet SOURCE: ESA+Orion Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure (Revised) Trees to be Removed

219 Comments and Responses specifies that the funds would be use to plant or upgrade street trees throughout the City, beautify or enhance public spaces by planting trees, or to fund administrative activities related to implementation of the ordinance. With implementation of Mitigation Measures M BI 4a and M BI 4b, impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant. 8 Although there were 26 trees surveyed within the ROW, only 21 of these trees meet the Fremont tree protection ordinance criteria based on their diameter. On Draft EIR page , the first two paragraphs of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat, are revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The SFPUC will implement measures to restore other waters of the United States that would temporarily be lost if open cut excavation is used to cross Agua Fria Creek (Approach 1) or if the connection point for BDPL No. 3X is moved to the I 680 soundwall (Approach 2), and will implement measures to protect existing riparian habitat on either side of the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW and compensate for permanent loss of riparian habitat at Agua Fria Creek. To restore other waters of the United States if open cut construction is used to cross Agua Fria Creek, the SFPUC will divert all upstream flow around the construction area in a manner, such as use of a temporary pipeline, that maintains natural flow in the creek downstream of the construction area, avoids downstream erosion, and supports aquatic life. On Draft EIR page , the beginning of the last paragraph is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: It will not be possible to restore Central Coast riparian scrub on site within the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW because establishment of riparian trees is not consistent with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007). The SFPUC will restore temporarily disturbed habitat to the extent that is feasible and consistent with the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. At the completion of construction, all temporary fences, barriers, and flagging will be removed, and the excavated area will be revegetated with native riparian plant species that are consistent the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. On Draft EIR page , the second and third paragraphs are revised as follows to provide clarification about the applicability of Mitigation Measure M BI 1, Protection and Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat, and to address clearing of the entire SFPUC ROW where it crosses Agua Fria Creek for trenchless construction, as described in the response to comment [B1]: To mitigate for permanent loss of approximately 0.4 acre of riparian habitat (0.08 acre for trenchless construction or 0.4 acre for open cut construction), the SFPUC will compensate Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 89 December 2010

220 Comments and Responses for the loss at a minimum ratio of 1:1. Compensation could take the form of purchasing credits at a mitigation bank approved by the CDFG or restoring Central Coast riparian scrub habitat at a suitable location acceptable to the CDFG. The compensation plan for the restoration will address site selection, legal arrangements and instruments for longterm site protection, compensation ratios, a mitigation work plan for the compensation project, a maintenance plan, success criteria, a monitoring plan to determine if the compensation project is meeting performance criteria, long term management requirements, and an adaptive management plan to address unforeseen changes. If the SFPUC purchase credits at a mitigation bank, its obligation will be fully met. If the SFPUC fulfills the requirement for compensation through habitat restoration, the land will be preserved in perpetuity with a commitment that the land not be used for any purpose that conflicts with the primary purpose of maintaining wildlife and riparian habitat. The success criteria and monitoring schedulecompensation plan will be developed by a qualified restoration specialist and will require approval from the CDFG. An annual monitoring report will be submitted to the CDFG. If the site meets success criteria within the schedule agreed to with the CDFG, the mitigation site will be determined to be self sustaining, and no further monitoring or reporting will be required. If the site does not meet the success criteria, then SFPUC will consult with the CDFG to determine and implement appropriate steps to facilitate the site as self sustaining. On Draft EIR page , the last bullet is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: Fall Surveys. If surveys must be conducted between September 1 and November 30 (which is outside of the timeframes specified above), a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for burrows and burrowing owls no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity. If necessary, resident owls will be passively relocated from occupied burrows, as described above. On Draft EIR page , the following bullet is added to the end of Mitigation Measure M BI 2d, Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Burrowing Owl, in response to comment [B5]: Repeat Surveys. If initial disturbance from construction activity is followed by periods of 30 days or more of inactivity, a survey must be conducted no more than 30 days prior to reinitiating ground disturbing activity. On Draft EIR page , the following bullet is added to the end of Mitigation Measure M BI 2d, Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Burrowing Owl, in response to comment [B6]: If occupied burrowing owl burrows are found and the owls must be relocated, or if suitable habitat is destroyed prior to adequate burrowing owl surveys and habitat is permanently impacted by the construction of a project facility, the SFPUC will offset the permanent loss of foraging and burrow habitat in the project area by either acquiring mitigation credits or permanently protecting a minimum of Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 90 December 2010

221 Comments and Responses 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per each pair or unpaired resident bird that is passively relocated from an occupied burrow,(per 1995 CDFG guidance). The protected lands will be located adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and must provide equal or superior habitat value compared to the affected lands. The location of the protected lands will be determined in coordination with the CDFG. The SFPUC will provide habitat enhancement as necessary to ensure the required habitat value of the protected lands and will also prepare a monitoring plan and provide long term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The mitigation land will be protected in perpetuity, and the area will be managed as a conservation easement. The monitoring plan will specify success criteria, identify remedial measures, and require an annual report to be submitted to the CDFG for a minimum of five years. Draft EIR page , Mitigation Measure M BI 4b, Tree Replacement/Compensation, is revised as follows in response to comment [B10] and to correct an editorial error in numbering of the mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure M BI 4ab: Tree Replacement/Compensation. For each removed tree protected by the City of Fremont and located outside of the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek, the SFPUC will plant a 24 inch box size replacement tree of similar species or of a native species. Removed trees that are located within the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW will be replaced outside the ROW, but in the same general vicinity. If replanting trees on the same site is not feasible, the SFPUC would find a suitable alternative location, or the SFPUC will pay the City of Fremont a fee in lieu of onsite replacement, for each tree that is not replaced onsite. In order to ensure success of the replacement trees, a qualified professional will monitor the planted trees annually for five years following planting. If the monitoring indicates that a tree has not survived, or is not being maintained in a healthy condition, corrective actions such as additional plantings will be initiated. If a fee in lieu of onsite replacement is paid to the City of Fremont, the SFPUC will not be required to monitor trees. Native trees to be removed that are located within the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW along or adjacent to Agua Fria Creek (in Zone 1) will be replaced at a nearby location or at a suitable offsite location determined by the SFPUC and acceptable to the CDFG, or the SFPUC will pay the City of Fremont a fee in lieu of replacement. On Draft EIR page , the numbering of Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Protection Measures, is revised as follows to correct an editorial error: Mitigation Measure M BI 4ba: Tree Protection Measures Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 91 December 2010

222 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the following references are added to Section 5.9.6, References: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), New and Proposed Regulations, Accessed on September 10, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Formal Endangered Species Consultation and Conference Opinion on the I 680 Sunol Grade Northbound High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Widening Project in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California, Draft EIR page , Figure , Site Geology, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on the following page. On Draft EIR page , the second sentence of Impact GE 2 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The receiving pit for the trenchless crossing of Agua Fria Creek (if the southern point of connection is located immediately north of the South Shutoff Station) or access pit for construction of the southern point of connection (if the southern point of connection is constructed between the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek) would be constructed near this zone and would involve excavation to a maximum depth of 30 feet. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Improvements to the existing BDPL No. 4 would be made to minimize the potential for failure of the pipeline in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward fault, prevent damage to the new BDPL No. 3X should BDPL No. 4 fail, and reduce the potential environmental, life safety, and property damage effects of the rupture. Improvements at Trace A of the Hayward fault would include constructing one or two slip joints on the pipeline on either side of the fault crossing and strengthening or sliplining the pipeline where it crosses the fault trace. These iimprovements at Trace B would include encasing the pipeline outside of the existing slip joint vault to ensure that breakage at Trace B of the Hayward fault would occur within the vault; potential construction of a new slip joint in the vault; and construction of improvements to divert water from the breakage point to existing surface water features, including a drain to Agua Caliente Creek, perforation of the existing BDPL No. 3 once it has been abandoned, blowoff panels to direct excess flows into surface water drainage, and potential modifications to the Fremont storm sewer system in the vicinity of the vault. BDPL No. 4 would also be Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 92 December 2010

223 Qf Project Qf Location Qf Interstate 680 br br br Geologic Explanation Qa Qa - Latest Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium, undifferentiated This unit is mapped in small valleys where separate fan, basin, and terrace units could not be delineated at the scale of this mapping, Qaand where deposits might be of either latest Pleistocene or Holocene age. The unit includes flat, relatively undissected fan, terrace, and basin deposits, and small active stream channels. Mission Blvd. Qf Qf - Latest Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial fan deposits BDPL Pipeline Alignment Agua Fria Creek br Agua Caliente Creek Qa Mission Blvd. br This unit is mapped on gently sloping, fan-shaped, relatively undissected alluvial surfaces where the age of deposits is not known (either latest Pleistocene or Holocene in age) or where the deposits consist of thin patches of Holocene sediment overlying latest Pleistocene alluvial fan sediment. Fan sediment includes sand, gravel, silt, and clay, and is moderately to poorly sorted, and moderately to poorly bedded. [...] This unit includes active stream channels that are too narrow to show at the scale that data is presened in this map. br br - Pre-Quaternary Deposits 0 1,500 Feet 10 meter contours br Qa br br Primarily Jurassic to Pliocene sedimentary, metamorphic, volcanic and plutonic rocks, and poorly consolidated Tertiary sediment. Includes some Pliocene to Pleistocene sedimentary units, and in the vacinity of this project, is composed of Pleistocene Irvington Gravels. The unit also includes landslides, talus, other bodies of colluvium, and small stream channel deposits in bedrock that could not be delineated at the scales used in this map. NOTE! This map was adapted from USGS Open File Report and was produced at a scale of 1:24,000, but is shown here at a scale of 1:17,000. Geologic! contacts may not be accurate at the scale that this map is presented. SOURCE: NAIP 2005; USGS 2006; ESA + Orion, 2009 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure (Revised) Site Geology

224 Comments and Responses sliplined or replaced at the Trace C crossing to avoid pipe breakage at this crossing. Although these improvements would not prevent breakage of the existing BDPL No. 4, they would control the location of any failure and reduce potential environmental, life safety, and property damage effects of the rupture. On Draft EIR page , the last sentence of Impact GE 6 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Because the potential for liquefaction is low and the new BDPL No. 3X pipeline and improvements to BDPL No. 4 areis designed in accordance with the General Seismic Design Requirements, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page , the second sentence of Impact GE 7 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The receiving pit for the trenchless crossing of Agua Fria Creek (if the southern point of connection is located immediately north of the South Shutoff Station) or access pit for construction of the southern point of connection (if the southern point of connection is constructed between the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek) would be located near this zone. Draft EIR page , Figure , Area Creeks and Drainages, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line. The revised figure is shown on the following page. Draft EIR page , Figure , Creek and Well Locations, is revised to show the updated project boundary that includes areas where sidewalk improvements could be constructed and additional work areas for the removal and relocation of the USD sanitary sewer line, and to incorporate information in response to comment [H9]. The revised figure is shown on page C&R 5 96 of this document. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised as follows to address location of the project within the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron, in response to comment [H11]: Within Niles Cone basin, the Hayward fault acts as a barrier to groundwater flow and separates the basin into the Below Hayward Fault and Above Hayward Fault subbasins. The project area is close to the boundary of these two subbasins, but within the Below Hayward Fault subbasin. The sources of water that feed the basin are runoff and precipitation from the Alameda Creek watershed, and applied water obtained from the State Water Project and the SFPUC (ACWD, 2009) (which is introduced through percolation ponds). The shallowest aquifer 1 west of the Hayward fault is the Newark Aquifer, which consists primarily of thick gravel and sand layers. The aquifer is found between 40 and 140 feet below ground surface. Low permeability silts and clays, referred to as the Newark Aquiclude, overlie most of the aquifer (with the exception of areas just Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 94 December 2010

225 i S A N F R A N C I S C O B AY C o y o t e C r e e k L a g u n a C r e e k Line F 880 FREMONT Line F 10 Western/Southern Pacific Railroads 20 Sabre Cat Cree k C o o y C r e e k t e Line B Line C Line B-1 Line D FREMONT Line C Line D Line D-1 SFPUC Right of Way 680 r e e k 30 A g u a C a l i e n 70 t e C r e e k 100 C a n a d a Del A l s o 880 SAN JOSE Line A Line B-2 Line A-1 To r o g e s C r e e k F A g u a r i a C Limit of Construction Disturbance Zone 6 Map Sheet Boundary Drainage Network Open Channel Closed Conduit Concrete Channel Earthen Channel Note: Adapted from Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Improvement Index Map, Zone 6, Sheet 21, revised August Areas outside of Zone 6 boundary from Sowers et. al (1999) Miles 10 Meter contours SOURCE: NAIP, 2005; DSE, 2009 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault. Figure (revised) Area Creeks and Drainages

226 Mojave Dr. Agua Caliente Creek Agua Fria Creek Mission Blvd. INTERSTATE 680 Freshwater Seep Paseo Padre Pkwy. Extended Stay America Hotel Crystalline Dr Omega Drive B-7 +U B-6 Crawford St. +U UB-8 +U +U B-4 +U UB-5 B-3 UB-2 +U +U!(!( +U B-1 ACWD and Briar Court Cathodic Protection Wells (Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7) Mission Blvd. Former Agricultural Well No. 5S/1S-13G001 (approx. located) Curtner Rd. Limit of Construction Disturbance SFPUC Right of Way +U +U WIP (2004) Piezometer Locations (approx.) URS (2008b) Piezometer Locations (approx.)!( Other Wells Open Creek Engineered channel Underground culvert or storm drain Feet SOURCE: Sowers, 1999; URS, 2008b; WIP, 2004; ACWD, 2009 Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault Figure (Revised) Creek and Well Locations

227 Comments and Responses west of the Hayward fault), allowing for direct recharge of the aquifer. The project area is located in this unconfined area. The unconfined area consists of very thick alluvial deposits that act to recharge the Newark Aquifer as well as the deeper aquifers referred to as the Centerville, Fremont, and Deep Aquifers that make up the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron on the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. The aquifers in the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron are thin and fine grained, with limited recharge, and well logs indicate that the upper 100 feet of the aquifer material contains less than 17 to 24 percent gravel (ACWD, 2009). The ACWD reports that groundwater in the alluvial apron flows to the west, but flow is limited due to low permeability deposits. 1 A stratum of earth or porous rock that contains water. On Draft EIR page , the third paragraph is revised in response to comment [H9]: Figure identifies existing wells within the project area, as identified by The ACWD (2009) well records and a DWR (1960) groundwater bulletin. conducted a review of wells located within a five mile radius of the project area and identified three Eight 100 foot deep groundwater piezometers 2 were installed by the SFPUC consultants to obtain information needed to for the design of the proposed project. The ppiezometers B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7 were installed to depths of 42 to 70 feet as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2003 (WIP, 2004). These piezometers may have been previously abandoned, but the SFPUC does not have record of their abandonment. Piezometers (UB 2, UB 5, and UB 8 were installed to a depth of 100 feet as part of a geotechnical investigation in 2008 (URS, 2008b) and are currently used to monitor groundwater levels in the project area. All of these piezometers) are located within the pipeline ROW (see Figure ). The review also identified a 2 Piezometers are groundwater monitoring wells used to monitor water levels; they do not involve the extraction of groundwater. There is also a cluster of three ACWD cathodic protection wells (No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7) 3 that are 12 feet deep and two Briar Court Association cathodic protection wells (No. 1 and No. 2) that are 150 feet deep near the intersection of Curtner Road and Mission Boulevard (see Figure ). According to ACWD (2009) well records and a DWR (1960) groundwater bulletin, there may also be a former agricultural well about 400 feet deep in the vicinity of Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road, near the project boundary. The well has not been accurately located; however, the approximate location of the well is shown on Figure No other wells were identified within or in the vicinity of the project area, although the information available on a number of domestic and agricultural wells was insufficient to determine the well locations. The lack of information on these wells suggests that they were This well was initially installed when the region was used for agricultural purposes (mainly orchards) prior to the construction of I 680, and the well is located in an area that was covered with artificial fill during the construction of I 680 in 1969 (WIP, 2004). The developed areas surrounding the project area are now primarily residential and lie within the ACWD water supply service area, where drinking water is not generally obtained from private wells. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 97 December 2010

228 Comments and Responses 3 Cathodic protection wells are used to prevent the corrosion of metal in underground pipelines. These wells use a sacrificial metallic anode that is designed to corrode in place of the pipeline. These types of wells do not involve the extraction of groundwater. On Draft EIR page , the second full paragraph is revised as follows in response to comment [H10]: Destruction or abandonment of wells is required to adhere to the standards specified in the California Water Well Standards that have been produced by the DWR (1981), as well as ACWD requirements for well abandonment. These DWR standards for well abandonment include: Wells must be inspected and all obstructions within the well must be cleared. The wells must be completely filled with appropriate materials (sealing materials shall comprise a minimum of the upper 20 feet). Sealing materials can include neat cement, sand cement grout, concrete, and bentonite clay. Filling materials can include clay, silt, sand, gravel, crushed stone, native soils, or mixtures thereof. Neat cement must be placed in one continuous operation. For some wells, the removal of all or part of the well casing may be required. ACWD is the enforcing agency for the City of Fremont Well Ordinance (City of Fremont Ordinance No. 950, June 26, 1973, as amended by Ordinance No. 963 on October 16, 1973), which largely incorporates DWR well standards by reference, with a number of specific provisions addressing the local groundwater concerns, such as co mingling of groundwater between aquifers and saline intrusion. As part of its responsibility to enforce well standards, ACWD has developed a well destruction program in cooperation with the cities (ACWD, 2001). For well abandonment, the ACWD specifically requires the removal of all well materials, including the well casing, screen, filter pack, and annular seal, by drilling to the full depth and diameter of the original borehole for all PVC wells. Following removal of all well materials, the ACWD requires that the borehole be backfilled from the bottom to top with neat cement, consistent with the DWR well standards and Fremont Well Ordinance. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Alter drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation or in flooding on or off the site. After construction is complete, the proposed project would not result in a significant change to existing drainage patterns. The only proposed aboveground improvements are: modifications to the existing slip joint vault that protrudes approximately 3 feet above grade in the vicinity of the northbound loop on ramp to I 680; and construction of six access manholes, approximately 6 feet in diameter, that would protrude about 2.5 feet above grade; construction of one or two vaults over the slip Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 98 December 2010

229 Comments and Responses joints at Trace A of the Hayward fault that would be approximately 20 feet long by 15 feet wide and would protrude 2.5 feet above ground surface; and construction of two access structures on the articulated concrete box (one approximately 7 feet wide by 13 feet long and one approximately 20 feet wide by 22 feet long) that would protrude about 2.5 feet above ground surface. Otherwise, all proposed permanent improvements would be constructed below ground and would not affect drainage patterns. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in permanent impervious surfaces or changes in topography that would affect drainage, and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation or cause flooding on or off the site. On Draft EIR page , the first two sentences of the last paragraph are revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: In addition, the project includes drainage improvements to accommodate flows from a potential rupture of BDPL No. 4 and reduce damage from a release of water. These improvements, described in Chapter 3, Project Description (see Section , BDPL No. 4 Upgrades), include installing a 24 inch drain in the modified vault to direct some of the flow to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert, utilizing a portion of the abandoned BDPL No. 3 to direct some of the flow to Agua Fria Creek and the Aqua Caliente Creek culvert, installing panels on the slip joint vault to direct flows, and improving the Mission Boulevard stormwater collection system. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph and subsequent paragraph are revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: In Zone 1, excavation wouldcould be required within Agua Fria Creek if the cut and cover construction method is used to cross the creek (Approach 1) and would also be required if Approach 2 is selected. Under Approach 2, excavated soil, materials, and equipment would also be stockpiled above the high water mark of the creek and on the service road adjacent to the I 680 soundwall, if there is room. This work would be subject to a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG (described in Section 5.9, Biological Resources). If construction occurs when there is flow in the creek, Agua Fria Creek would be dewatered via a temporary dewatering system that would be built to create a dry work area during construction as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. This system would likely entail constructing a sandbag coffer dam around the worksite together with a flume pipe to sustain downstream flow at all times. Control measures would be implemented to prevent downstream pollution and sedimentation, and maintain the natural flow and temperature of the stream downstream of the construction area. In the absence of proper controls, construction activities in all construction zones could result in substantial erosion of and sedimentation in Agua Fria and Agua Caliente Creeks, particularly if construction were to occur during the rainy season. Sedimentation in the creeks would degrade water quality and could increase channel siltation, reduce the flood carrying capacity of the creeks, and affect aquatic species and habitats (see Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R 5 99 December 2010

230 Comments and Responses Section 5.9, Biological Resources, for a discussion of impacts on aquatic species and associated habitats). In addition, the temporary storage of excavated soil, materials, and equipment above the high water mark of Agua Fria Creek and on the service road adjacent to the I 680 freeway soundwall; the temporary storage of diesel and chemicals in the staging areas; and the use of construction equipment throughout the project area could result in accidental releases to the local storm drain system or Agua Fria Creek and could degrade water quality. Substantial erosion, sedimentation or hazardous materials releases would result in a significant impact. On Draft EIR page , the text of the last paragraph is revised as follows in response to comment [H2] and to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: In addition to implementing Mitigation Measure M HY 1, the SFPUC or its contractor(s) would be subject to the following permit requirements in Zone 1 where direct disturbance of the creek would occur under either approach to installation of the southern point of connectionpipe installation would cross Agua Fria Creek: Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404); RWQCB (Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge); and CDFG (Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement). These permits are briefly described in Section , Regulatory Framework, and are discussed in Section 5.9, Biological Resources. Work within Agua Fria Creek would also be subject to the encroachment permitting requirements of the ACFCWCD, in accordance with the Alameda County Flood Control Ordinance described in Section On Draft EIR page , the text of Impact HY 2, Depletion of groundwater resources, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates, and in response to comment [H11]: Temporary dewatering of excavated trenches during construction of the proposed project could be required in Zones 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 (see Chapter 3, Project Description, for a discussion of zones) in order to maintain a relatively dry excavation area during pipeline installation. In Zone 1, under Approach 1, a 150 foot long trench would be excavated to a depth of 30 feet. Stabilized groundwater levels within this zone are deeper than 41 feet below the ground surface (URS, 2009), but this analysis conservatively assumes that some dewatering could be required over the approximately three month period that construction would take place in this zone. Under Approach 2, an access pit 30 feet deep would be excavated on the north side of Agua Fria Creek for construction of the southern point of connection on BDPL No. 3, and temporary groundwater dewatering may likewise be required during construction. In Zone 5, a 75 foot long trench would be excavated to a depth of 18 feet, and a pit up to 30 feet deep would be excavated along BDPL No. 4 to accommodate either a slip joint vault or a receiving pit (depending on the option chosen for improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault).; and i In Zone 8, a 970 foot long trench would be excavated to a depth of 13 to 27 feet. The groundwater table in these zones is expected to be close to the bottom of the excavations Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

231 Comments and Responses at a depth of 13 to 26 feet (URS, 2008; URS, 2009), necessitating only limited dewatering over a period of approximately one month in Zone 5 and three months in Zone 8. In Zone 7, a 400 foot trench would be excavated to a maximum depth of 30 feet, and groundwater could be encountered at a depth of 15 feet during wet weather (URS, 2010). Excavation in this zone would require approximately 14 months, and groundwater dewatering could be required during wet weather. In Zone 3, a 60 foot long trench would be excavated to a depth of 35 feet and a pit 35 feet deep would be excavated along BDPL No. 4 to accommodate a slip joint vault (under either option for improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A of the Hayward fault), and the geotechnical report for the project concluded that groundwater would likely be encountered. Groundwater dewatering could be required over the approximately one month period when construction would occur in this zone. Dewatering from the pipeline trenches and pits during the construction period would be limited because the subsurface materials consist of hard to stiff clays of the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron that generally have low permeability. The dewatering could temporarily affect groundwater levels in the shallow groundwater zone, but this effect would be limited to the immediate area of excavation because of the low permeability of the aquifer materials of the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron which does not provide substantial recharge to the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin as described in Section , Setting. The ACWD manages and protects groundwater resources in the project area, and groundwater is one of its major water supply sources. However, as discussed in Section , Setting, no groundwater producing wells have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project area. There are no ACWD production wells within five miles of the project site (and even if they did exist, such wells would not be affected by dewatering activities because they draw water from deeper aquifers outside of the Warm Springs Alluvial Apron). Based on the limited extent of excavation requiring dewatering (approximately 1,300 1,800 linear feet of pipeline trench); the low permeability of the subsurface materials; the temporary nature of the dewatering activities (approximately 16 eight months in total, assuming that dewatering would only be required for 6 months in Zone 7); and the absence of any identified groundwater production wells nearby, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or cause other adverse effects such as subsidence; therefore, the potential impact on groundwater resources would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page , the first sentence of Impact HY 3 is modified as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Water (predominantly groundwater) collected during the dewatering of excavated trenches and pits in Zones 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and rainwater collected within the pipeline Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

232 Comments and Responses trenches would be discharged directly via the local storm drain system to Agua Fria Creek and Agua Caliente Creek. On Draft EIR page , the text of Impact HY 4 is modified as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The proposed project would require emptying discharging chloramine treated drinking water from the existing BDPL No. 3 between the North and South Shutoff Stations prior to the installation of new wyes and valves, as well as emptying discharging the chloramine treated drinking water from the existing BDPL No. 4 for construction of the slip joint(s) and pipeline improvements at Trace A, concrete encasements at Trace B, and sliplining or pipeline replacement at Trace C. Approximately 992, ,000 gallons of water would be discharged from BDPL No. 3 over a period of approximately five three days (twice), and 1,503, ,000 gallons of water would be discharged from BDPL No. 4 over a period of approximately five four days (once). The new BDPL No. 3X would also be dewatered once after hydrostatic testing, resulting in the discharge of approximately 650,120 gallons of chloraminated water. If construction of improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A extend into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, then BDPL No. 4 could require draining again, resulting in the discharge of an additional 1,503,200 gallons of treated water. BothAll discharges would be made to Agua Fria Creek after being dechlorinated. In addition, both BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 would also require a one time disinfection prior to being brought back online, consistent with current operating procedures. This disinfection would require an additional discharge of 8,560,00 gallons and 12,965,000 gallons, respectively. and tthe new BDPL No. 3X would require a one time disinfection prior to being put into service (2,292,320 gallons of chloraminated water). BDPL No. 4 could require disinfection a second time if construction activities extend into a second shutdown of that pipeline. Disinfection of the pipelines would involve flushing the pipelines with highly chlorinated water. Following disinfection, the pipelines would be flushed with clean SFPUC system water. The total amount of water discharged for this process would be approximately 8,560,0002 million gallons for BDPL Nos. 3 and 3X over a period of 14three days. The volume of water discharged for disinfection of the new BDPL No. 3X would be approximately 2,292,380 gallons over a period of 14 days., and aabout 12,965, million gallons would be discharged from BDPL No. 4 over a period of approximately 14four days. If construction of improvements to BDPL No. 4 at Trace A extend into a second shutdown of BDPL No. 4, then BDPL No. 4 could require disinfection again, resulting in the discharge of an additional 12,965,000 gallons of treated water. AllBoth discharges would be made to Agua Fria Creek after being dechlorinated. On Draft EIR page , the text of Impact HY 5 is modified as follows in response to comment [H9]: As described in Section , Setting, threeeight project related 100 foot deep piezometers are located within the ROW, five of which may have been previously Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

233 Comments and Responses abandoned. and In addition, one former agricultural well and five 12 foot and 150 footdeep cathodic protection wells are located within the project area near the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Curtner Road. Because these wells are located in an area where the Newark Aquifer is present and in direct communication with the underlying production aquifer, damage to these wells during construction could create a potential conduit for contaminants, such as sediments, discharge water, and hazardous materials, to enter the underlying groundwater aquifer. Prior to construction, the SFPUC would conduct hand excavation to locate the five piezometers that may have been previously abandoned (B 1, B 3, B 4, B 6, and B 7). These piezometers (if found to be intact) and the existing piezometers (UB 2, UB 5, and UB 8) would be abandoned in accordance with the DWR and ACWD well abandonment requirements, described in Section , Groundwater Management, which require the wells to be cleared, drilled out, and sealed with impermeable materials such asfilled with neat cement, and therefore the wells would not provide a conduit for groundwater contamination. The cathodic protection wells are located in a portion of the project area where excavation and construction staging would not occur. The former agricultural well, installed prior to 1960, is also located near the intersection of Mission Boulevard and I 680, but in an area that was filled during the construction of I 680 in Therefore, it is unlikely that the location of this well is evident at the ground surface. Further, the well is located near the project boundary, outside of the excavation area, and would not be disrupted during excavation. Therefore, damage to this well during construction is unlikely. The locations of these wells would be demarked during construction, and construction activities would be prohibited in the vicinity of these wells, as described in Section , Groundwater Piezometers and Cathodic Protection Wells. In the unlikely event that one of them is damaged or the surface seal is damaged as a result of construction activities, the ACWD would be notified immediately. On Draft EIR page , the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates (see response to comment [G2]): Following completion of proposed improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4, pipeline maintenance and operations procedures would be consistent with existing procedures. While project facilities would be monitored regularly in accordance with the SFPUC s standard inspection schedule (see Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.6, Operations and Maintenance), the frequency of monitoring or maintenance activities would not change substantially from current conditions. As described in Chapter 3 (see Section , Zone 7 Cut and Cover Excavation, and Section , Zone 6 Modifications to Slip Joint Vault and Upgrades to BDPL No. 4), both the modified slip joint vault for BDPL No. 4 and the proposed articulated vault for BDPL No. 3X would be equipped with a 4 inch drains line connected to the Agua Caliente Creek culvert beneath I 680 and Mission Boulevard. The drain These drains would collect groundwater accumulated in the vault, Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

234 Comments and Responses vaults. and the discharge would be on the order of 6 gpm, or 0.01 cfs during wet weather (URS, 2010)., as well as incidental Under normal operations, there would be no leakage of system water from the slip jointjoints and ball valvesjoints within the vaultvaults. After a seismic event on the Hayward fault, each of these joints could leak on the order of 100 gpm until repaired (a total of 300 gpm, or 0.7 cfs).under normal conditions, these discharges would be very small, on the order of 100 gpm. Therefore, due to the small size of the discharge line and low volume of the discharge, the project would not result in any long term effects on water quality or groundwater resources. On Draft EIR page , Mitigation Measure M HY 3, Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont, is revised as follows in response to comment [H4]: Mitigation Measure M HY 3: Coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Fremont. The SFPUC or its contractor will contact the ACFCWCD and the City of Fremont prior to beginning the discharge of water produced during trench dewatering or water drained from BDPL Nos. 3, 3X, or 4 to verify with the appropriate ACFCWCD staff that the flow rate can be accommodated by the existing storm drain system, and will obtain the necessary permits from the ACFCWCD for the discharge. The flow rate will be managed in coordination with these agencies to avoid downstream flooding. Draft EIR page , Section , References, is revised to include the following references and make edits to one reference: Alameda County Water District (ACWD), Groundwater Management Policy, adopted January 26, 1989, Amended March 22, Alameda County Water District (ACWD), Groundwater Monitoring Report, 2009, February 4, Department of Water Resources (DWR), Intrusion of Salt Water into Groundwater Basins of Southern Alameda County, DWR Bulletin No. 81, Plate 2, December Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Water Well Standards: State of California, Bulletin ,(Supplement to Bulletin 74 81), June 1991December URS Corporation, Seepage Evaluation of BDPL #3X Hayward Fault Crossing, March 5, Water Infrastructure Partners (WIP), Geotechnical Investigation, Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at the Hayward Fault Zone Crossing, Fremont, California, prepared for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Figure 2, May Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

235 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page , the section titled Interference with Groundwater Remediations is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Limited groundwater dewatering would be required (for up to three months) for trenchless or open trench construction in Zone 1 at the southern end of the project area if the southern point of connection is located immediately north of the South Shutoff Station (Approach 1). Limited groundwater monitoring could also be required for the excavation of the access pit if the southern point of connection is constructed between the I 680 southbound diamond on ramp and Agua Fria Creek (Approach 2). Although there are two active environmental cases within 1/8 mile to the southwest (downgradient) of the project area where groundwater contamination has occurred (at Mission Boulevard and Mohave Drive, as described in Section , Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials in Soil and Groundwater), dewatering in this zone would not likely affect groundwater flow patterns at these sites based on their distance from the project area and the limited groundwater dewatering that would be required. Dewatering in Zones 3, 5, 7, and 8 would be conducted farther away from these groundwater contamination sites and would also have a low potential to affect groundwater flow patterns at these sites. Therefore, impacts related to the potential to interfere with ongoing site remediations would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page , the second paragraph is revised as follows to update this impact analysis with updated risk information from Section 5.7, Air Quality: Only one school is located within 1/4 mile of the project area: Kiddoland Learning Center, a privately owned daycare center licensed for 64 children (toddlers through 6th graders). The school is located in a private home approximately 600 feet to the east of the project area, across Mission Boulevard and the I 680 northbound diamond off ramp and northbound loop on ramp (see Section 5.2, Land Use and Land Use Planning). Project activities would be conducted within 1/4 mile of this school, and construction activities would result in the emission of DPM, a toxic air contaminant. However, based on a conservative screeninglevel analysis (as discussed in Section 5.7, Air Quality, Impact AQ 2, exposure to diesel particulate matter during construction), construction emissions of DPM would result in an increased individual cancer risk of 24.6 or 4.9 in a million as compared to existing conditions, which is less than the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million and would be considered a less than significant impact. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous air emissions and the use of extremely hazardous materials within 1/4 mile of a school are less than significant. Draft EIR page , Mitigation Measure M HZ 1b, Perform Soil Sampling, is revised as follows for clarification: Based on the outcome of Mitigation Measure M HZ 1a, tthe SFPUC will retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct soil sampling to: (1) assess concentrations of metals for which California has established hazardous waste criteria (Title 22 metals) in soil and (2) evaluate soil and/or groundwater quality in the vicinity of any sites identified by the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

236 Comments and Responses updated environmental database review required by Mitigation Measure M HZ 1a as having the potential to affect soil or groundwater quality where excavation or dewatering would occur. The environmental professional would prepare a report documenting the sampling performed, summarizing the results, and making recommendations for appropriate handling and disposal of soil and groundwater during construction. On Draft EIR page 6 4, the second paragraph of Section 6.2.2, Projects Considered in Cumulative Analysis, is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Table 6.1 identifies and describes the projects that are considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The table also lists the resource areas where the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts. Two factors limit the potential for the proposed project to contribute to cumulative impacts. The primary factor is that the proposed project activities are limited in geographic scope and would occur primarily in the vicinity of the Interstate 680 (I 680) and Mission Boulevard interchange in Fremont, and therefore the impacts related to project implementation would generally be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project area. In addition, the impacts of the project would primarily occur during construction, which would last for approximately 27 to 29 months, anticipated to occur between 2012 and On Draft EIR page 6 13, the third paragraph is revised as follows to address the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: As discussed under the heading Air Quality, under existing both the 1999 and 2010 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, implementation of BAAQMD recommended dust control measures (Mitigation Measures M AQ 1a) would ensure that the project s contribution to the air quality impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Therefore, cumulative land use impacts associated with dust emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 13, the section titled Displacement of Existing Land Uses during Construction is revised as follows to reflect that Staging Area 3 is not partially located on private property: Although the proposed project would use private property in Staging Areas 3 and 4, and Caltrans easements for Staging Areas 1, 2, and 3, these properties are currently undeveloped and the SFPUC would obtain temporary construction easements for their use. With acquisition of these easements, and because no existing land uses would be displaced, project impacts related to displacement of land uses would be less than significant and there would be no cumulative impact related to displacement of existing land uses as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

237 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 6 14, the third paragraph is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Without project level mitigation, the project s contribution to this impact could be cumulatively considerable. However, cumulative impacts on visual resources would be temporary in nature (restricted to the approximately 27 to 29 month construction period). In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure M HY 1, Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices, requiring the SFPUC to preserve existing vegetation in areas where no construction activity is planned or where construction activity would occur at a later date, and to revegetate disturbed areas following construction, would ensure that the visual character of the construction area is restored following completion of each construction component and that permanent effect on scenic vistas, scenic resources, and the visual character of the area do not occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable with project level mitigation and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 15, the second paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: However, the project would require nighttime lighting only approximately times over 11 months, and prior to construction, the SFPUC or contractor would prepare a construction lighting plan that includes locations and methods to minimize light spillover to adjacent residential areas. Because of the temporary nature of nighttime lighting under the proposed project, and because light spillover to adjacent residential areas would be minimized, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 15, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: However, removal of trees within the project area would have a negligible eaffect on the views in the project area. The only new structures constructed under the proposed project would be six new manholes, the modified slip joint vault, up to two slip joint vaults, sidewalk improvements, and access structures for the new articulated vault, and these structures would protrude a maximum of approximately 2.5 feet above ground. These structures would be only be briefly visible from passing vehicles and would not substantially affect views from nearby residences. Therefore, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 17, the section titled Impacts on Paleontological Resources is revised as follows as a clarification: The Irvington Gravels and undivided surficial deposits in the project vicinity are considered to have a high potential to yield fossil resources (see Impact CP 3). With the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

238 Comments and Responses exception of Project 10 (I 680 Portland Cement Concrete and Asphalt Concrete Rehabilitation), all of the projects listed in Table 6.1 would likely involve earthwork and excavation activities within these highly sensitive geologic units and could encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources during construction, a potentially significant cumulative impact. Without project level mitigation, the project s contribution to this impact could be cumulatively considerable. However, project related impacts on paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures M CP 3a, Paleontological Resources Worker Training, and M CP 3b, Paleontological Resources Monitoring, which require that workers are trained to recognize areas likely to yield fossils, that a trained paleontologist monitors excavation activities in formations most likely to yield fossils, and that accidentally discovered fossils be appropriately assessed for their significance and salvaged, if deemed necessary. Implementation of this measure would ensure that any paleontological resources encountered during construction would be recovered and appropriately managed. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the proposed project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 22, the first two paragraphs are revised as follows to address the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: As described in Section 5.7, Air Quality, construction activities under the proposed project and other projects in the region, including those listed in Table 6.1 could result in temporary impacts from project related criteria pollutant emissions, including suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone precursors (see Impact AQ 1), a significant cumulative impact. However, under existingthe 1999 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, implementation of BAAQMD recommended dust and exhaust control measures (Mitigation Measures M AQ 1a and M AQ 1b) would ensure that the project s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Under proposedthe 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project s incremental contribution to suspended particulate emissions would be reduced to a less thansignificant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M AQ 1a, BAAQMD Dust Control Measures, and the project s residual contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. However, proposed the 2010 BAAQMD guidelines specify quantitative thresholds for construction related combustion emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures, and M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Controls, construction combustion emissions would still exceed the BAAQMD s daily thresholds for nitrogen oxide (NOX), an ozone precursor. None of the other criteria pollutants would be exceeded. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

239 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 6 22, the analysis of the significance determination under the 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines are revised as follows to address the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Significance Determination under Existing (1999) BAAQMD Guidelines. The existing 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines specify a significance threshold of 10 in one million for a new source or receptor, but does not include a threshold for cumulative DPM emissions. When risks from project related DPM emissions of 4.6 or 4.9 in a million are compared to the existing BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million, the project s contribution would not exceed the threshold, and therefore, would not be cumulatively considerable (less than significant) under the existing 1999 BAAQMD guidelines. Significance Determination under Draftthe 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. Under the draft 2010 BAAQMD significance thresholds, the cumulative local community risk and hazard impacts on residential receptors would be significant if the cancer risk for all sources within a 1,000 foot zone of influence exceeds 100 in a million; the chronic non cancer risk exceeds a Hazard Index (HI) of 1.0; or ambient annual average PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (BAAQMD, 2009). The draft 2010 thresholds, unlike existing thresholds, consider all sources within the 1,000 foot zone of influence. The draft2010 thresholds do not specify a threshold for determining the significance of a project specific contribution when a cumulative threshold is exceeded. For the purposes of this analysis, any contribution of TAC emissions is conservatively assumed to be cumulatively considerable if a cumulative threshold would be exceeded when all TAC sources within 1,000 feet of where the project would emit construction emissions are considered (DPM in this case). On Draft EIR page 6 23, the second and third full paragraphs are revised as follows to address the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: A screening level individual cancer analysis was conducted using the U.S. EPA SCREEN3 computer model to compare the added risk from the project related construction activities to the baseline conditions of DPM exposure to local traffic sources. For this analysis, peak daily DPM emissions from project activities (included in Table 6.3) were conservatively 2 assumed to occur on 260every workdays over two years24 and 26 months of construction. The SCREEN3 model results (included in Appendix D) were converted to an individual cancer risk, included in Table Receptors were conservatively assumed to remain at the same location outdoors during every hour of the construction duration and for every hour of the day for 70 years for the freeway exposure calculation. Using this conservative assessment, the proposed project would result in an estimated pounds per day of DPM emissions during peak construction activity. With these extremely conservative assumptions, Table 6.3 shows that the screening level individual cancer risk would be an additional 4.6 or 4.9 in a million from project construction and the Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

240 Comments and Responses chronic non cancer HI would be an additional or 0.16, depending on the duration of construction. As discussed in Section 5.6, Air Quality, there is a large degree of conservatism built into the screening level evaluation. Nevertheless, for the purpose of worst case analysis, it is assumed that the project would result in an additional 4.6 or 4.9 in a million lifetime cancer risk from project construction activities. On Draft EIR page 6 24, Table 6.3 is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: TABLE 6.3 (REVISED) INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK FROM DPM EXPOSURE Parameter DPM Exposure from Project Construction Activities DPM Exposure from Other Major Sources a 1 Hour (μg/m 3 ) / Annual (μg/m 3 ) / Year Average (μg/m 3 ) /0.016 b c Cancer Risk (x10 6 ) d / Non cancer Risk (HI) / DPM = diesel particulate matter μg/m 3 = microgram per cubic meter a Other major sources of DPM within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site are limited to truck traffic on I 680 and Mission Boulevard. b 260 workdays/365 days/year/70 years c assume no fleet improvements and no truck volume increases for the next 70 years from the 2007 baseline (worst case) d 300 x 10 6 per μg/m 3 (70 year average) SOURCE: U.S. EPA SCREEN3 Computer Model (see Appendix D for model output). On Draft EIR page 6 24, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Sensitive receptors within this 1,000 foot radius are residences located on both sides of the project area. The cancer risk associated with the I 680 freeway and Mission Boulevard is estimated to be currently at 82 in a million and when the project is added, the total cancer risk is 8687 in a million. This worst case cumulative health risk impact, assuming no reduction in baseline risk levels, would be less than the proposed 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 100 in a million. The chronic non cancer HI associated with the I 680 freeway and Mission Boulevard is estimated at 0.05 and when the project is added, the total HI is or 0.21 depending on the duration of construction, less than the proposed 2010 BAAQMD threshold of 1.0. As indicated in Table 6.3, combined annual concentrations of PM2.5 are estimated at or μg/m 3 depending on the duration of construction, which would exceed the BAAQMD s threshold for ambient annual average PM2.5 concentration of 0.8 μg/m 3. However, implementation of projectlevel Mitigation Measures M AQ 1b, BAAQMD Exhaust Control Measures, M AQ 1c, Additional Exhaust Control Measures, and Mitigation Measure M AQ 2, Use of Soot Filters, would reduce project emissions by approximately percent, so that mitigated Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

241 Comments and Responses project emissions (approximately or 0.12 μg/m 3 ) in combination with other major sources (0.274 μg/m 3 ) would not exceed the BAAAMD cumulative TAC threshold of 0.8 μg/m 3. Therefore, the project s contribution to cumulative DPM emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 25, the first full paragraph is revised as follows to address the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for global climate change, a term that is used interchangeably with global warming and the greenhouse effect. Construction of the project in combination with other projects in the region, including those listed in Table 6.1, would contribute to regionwide cumulative increases in emissions of GHGs, a significant cumulative impact. However, the project s GHG emissions associated with construction related traffic and construction equipment would represent approximately 5.5 x 10 4 ( )1.2 x 10 3 (0.0012) or 1.4 x 10 3 (0.0014) percent of the statewide total of GHG emissions and approximately 2.7 x 10 3 (0.0027)5.6 x 10 3 (0.0056) or 6.9 x 10 3 (0.0069) percent of the Bay Area inventory, depending on the duration of construction. Both the 1999 and 2010Current and proposed BAAQMD guidelines do not specify a quantitative threshold for construction GHG emissions. On Draft EIR page 6 28, the section titled Conflicts with Local Policies and Ordinances is revised as follows to address comment [B10]: The proposed project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources because project construction would require the removal of up to 44 trees that meet the City of Fremont size and species criteria for protection (see Impact BI 4). Although it is likely that several projects listed in Table 6.1 would also remove protected trees, the majority of these projects would be required to adhere to the City of Fremont s (or other jurisdiction, as appropriate) criteria for tree removal permits, which stipulate that protected trees be replaced with trees of similar type and size, and there would be no cumulative impact related to conflicts with local plans and ordinances. Further, the proposed project s impacts related to tree removal would be less than significant with replacement or compensation for the protected trees, as prescribed in Mitigation Measure M BI 4a, Tree Replacement/Compensation. Therefore, with project level mitigation, the project s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 30, the section titled Depletion of Groundwater Resources, is revised as follows to address the magnitude and effects of construction dewatering: The proposed project and the cumulative projects in Table 6.1 have the potential to deplete groundwater resources if the projects were to involve significant long term or permanent groundwater dewatering. Although details regarding the projects in Table 6.1 are somewhat limited, it is possible that certain projects (such as Projects 2 and 3, which are assumed to involve extensive belowground construction for new BART facilities) Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

242 Comments and Responses would involve long term groundwater dewatering. Therefore, the proposed project and the cumulative projects could result in significant cumulative impacts on depletion of groundwater resources. However, the proposed project s impacts on groundwater resources would be minimal and less than significant because only temporary groundwater dewatering from the shallow aquifer would be required during construction and groundwater supply wells draw from deeper aquifers which would not be affected by project related dewatering (see Impact HY 2)., and Further, adverse effects on the shallow aquifer are predominantly determined by rainfall and recharge conditions rather than by temporary construction dewatering. Limited dewatering of the articulated vault could be required in the long term during times of wet weather. However, the discharge would be a maximum of 6 gpm from the shallow aquifer and would not discernibly affect regional groundwater levels or storage volumes. Based on the limited and temporary nature of groundwater dewatering under the proposed project, the project s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. On Draft EIR page 6 33, Mitigation Measure M C TR, is revised as follows to delete reference to a table in the EIR: As required in Mitigation Measure TR 1, Traffic Control Plan, the construction contractor will be required to submit a traffic control plan to the SFPUC. Under this measure, the SFPUC construction coordinator will coordinate development of this traffic control plan with Caltrans, the City of Fremont, and county agencies responsible for reviewing and/or approving the construction of other identified private and public development projects (as listed in Table 6.1) so as to minimize traffic impacts on regional roadways and local access roads, particularly local streets where sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, residences, or hospitals) are located. On Draft EIR page 7 6, the first bullet is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Land Use and Land Use Planning: Significant and unavoidable impacts on the existing land use character of the project vicinity related to noise from increased traffic on detour routes, daytime construction and haul and delivery truck noise during the 27 to 29 month construction period, and nighttime noise and vibration from construction on approximately 1720 nights over 11 months. On Draft EIR page 7 6, the sixth bullet is revised as follows to address adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Air Quality: Violation of air quality standards and emissions of fugitive dust. Significant and unavoidable impacts related to combustion emissions during construction and construction related emissions of diesel particulate matter under the draft Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Guidelines (see Section 5.7, Air Quality, for a discussion of these guidelines). Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

243 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 7 6, the last bullet is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Hydrology and Water Quality: Potential water quality impacts related to erosion or a release of hazardous materials during construction, water quality effects from discharges of groundwater produced during dewatering, and potential flooding effects from discharges of groundwater and approximately million gallons of treated water during construction. On Draft EIR page 7 7, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Mitigation measures would reduce construction noise adjacent to receptors, but noise levels would exceed the speech interference criterion at houses within 50 feet of construction activities even after implementation of mitigation measures, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise and land use disruption (Impacts LU 1 and NO 1). Further, nighttime noise levels could exceed the sleep interference criterion at nearby residences. Impacts related to compliance with the Fremont Municipal Code are significant because some construction activities would take place at night (approximately times over 11 months during installation and removal of the temporary ACWD water lines, installation of the new permanent ACWD water lines, and installation and removal of the temporary bridges on Mission Boulevard and the I 680 on ramps), and construction would occasionally occur on Sundays, a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact NO 2). Noise from haul and truck traffic would increase noise levels above ambient noise at nearby receptors, and noise from nighttime deliveries and increased traffic along detour routes during the nighttime hours in residential neighborhoods would exceed the sleep interference criterion. However, the feasibility of mitigation measures to reduce haul and delivery truck noise impacts is uncertain and there is no feasible alternative detour route that would avoid residential neighborhoods, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise and land use disruption (Impacts LU 1 and NO 3). Mitigation measures would require the SFPUC and its contractor to restrict vibrations at nearby residences, but these measures do not guarantee that nighttime vibration levels would remain below the annoyance threshold at night (Impact NO 4), resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce emissions from construction equipment exhaust. However, mitigated nitrogen oxide (NOX) levels would still remain above the Bay Area Air Quality Management District s (BAAQMD s) draft significance threshold for NOX, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact AQ 1). Depending on the final BAAQMD guidelines, construction related Impacts related to emissions of diesel particulate matter may (Impact AQ 2) would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts (Impact AQ 2) because the project related emissions would aggravate exceedance of BAAQMD thresholds by truck traffic on I 680. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

244 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 7 9, the beginning of the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: However, in the probable event of a major earthquake resulting in pipeline failure in the next 30 years, temporary impacts on the existing character of the vicinity and disruption of existing land uses would occur during construction of emergency repairs to the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 and surrounding infrastructure due to traffic, air quality, and noise effects. These effects would likely occur only in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline rupture. Although the extent of the construction corridor is unknown, repairs are estimated to include construction over a 0.5 mile segment of the right of way (ROW), and over a shorter construction period (8 months vs. 27 to 29 months). However, the effects would likely be more intense because emergency repairs would require 24 hour construction, including traffic and noise effects during the nighttime over the entire 6 to 8 month construction period, as opposed to the approximately times that nighttime construction would be required over 11 months under the project as proposed. Overall, impacts on disruption of land use would be greater than under the proposed project if the pipelines ruptured because of the traffic and noise effects related to 24 hour construction over the 6 to 8 month construction period. On Draft EIR page 7 10, Table 7 2 is revised to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates, as shown on the following pages. On Draft EIR page 7 15, the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: This alternative would not directly result in any changes to the existing visual environment because no new facilities would be constructed, nor would any improvements to the existing facilities be implemented. However, in the event of a pipeline rupture as well as during emergency repairs, impacts on the visual character of the surroundings could result from localized flooding, erosion, possible damage to Mission Boulevard and I 680 (designated scenic routes), and damage to trees and vegetation that would not occur under the proposed project. In addition, 24 hour construction could require the use of lighting within the ROW over the entire 8 month construction period as opposed to the times that nighttime construction would be required over 11 months under the project as proposed. Overall, impacts on visual resources would be more severe relative to those of the proposed project because of the extent of damage that could occur in the event of a pipeline rupture and because nighttime lighting throughout the construction period could create a new source of light and glare adjacent to residences. On Draft EIR page 7 15, the third paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: In the absence of a pipeline failure, this alternative would not result in any increases in traffic in the project area compared to existing conditions. However, if the existing BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 were damaged during a seismic event, they would likely rupture at Trace B Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

245 Comments and Responses TABLE 7.2 (REVISED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Parameter Proposed Project Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Alternate Location South Alignment Alternative 3: Alternate Design New 48 inch BDPL No. 3X and Improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Construction Character Length of construction corridor 0.5 mile Similar Unknown (depends on severity of break) Increased 1.5 miles Same 0.5 mile Construction duration 27 to 29 months Decreased Land Use and Land Use Planning 6 to 8 months Increased 36 months Similar 27 to 29 months Disruption of residential land uses 0.5 mile Increased Unknown, but in the event of an emergency, would result in greater impacts due to nighttime construction Decreased Less nighttime construction and detours Increased 1.2 miles of residential land uses Decreased Same construction area, but less nighttime construction and detours Aesthetics Effects on visual character Temporary effects on visual character during construction Increased Rupture would cause flooding, erosion, and damage to scenic roadways, which would have adverse effects on the visual character of the vicinity 24 hour construction could require lighting within the ROW over the entire 8 month construction period Similar Temporary effects on visual character during construction Similar Construction would be similar in nature to the proposed project and would utilize the same project area Cultural Resources Effects on cultural resources Disruption of one documented archaeological site likely containing archaeological resources in addition to potential disruption of previously unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources Increased Rupture of both pipelines and construction of emergency repairs could adversely affect documented archaeological site, potentially destroying archaeological and paleontological resources that would otherwise be recovered Decreased Could avoid documented archaeological site, but within area of high archeological and paleontological sensitivity Similar Construction would occur within the same area, with similar impacts to the documented archaeological site and would also have the potential to disrupt previously unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

246 Comments and Responses TABLE 7.2 (Continued) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Parameter Proposed Project Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Alternate Location South Alignment Alternative 3: Alternate Design New 48 inch BDPL No. 3X and Improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Transportation and Circulation Roadway conflicts Temporary and intermittent disruption/closure of Mission Boulevard and I 680 on ramps on approximately nights over approximately 11 months Increased Disruption of Mission Boulevard due to construction of emergency pipeline over roadway Potential damage to I 680 and Mission Boulevard as a result of pipeline rupture Increased use of local streets over a longer period of time if Mission Boulevard is impassible Decreased Avoids conflicts with I 680 and Mission Boulevard Increased Use of both lanes of traffic by construction vehicles in one direction on Paseo Padre Parkway and East Warren Avenue along the segment undergoing construction Decreased Fewer nighttime detours required Increased Traffic would be disrupted on Mission Boulevard daily for 12 weeks Traffic would utilize alternative access to northbound I 680 for up to 15 weeks Noise Noise conflicts Air Quality Disruption to sensitive receptors along 0.5 mile residential corridor; noise levels in excess of speech interference criterion at residences for more than two weeks Intermittent and short term nighttime construction activities conflict with local noise ordinance Increased Higher noise levels in the absence of noise controls In the event of emergency repairs, 24 hour construction likely required over 6 to 8 month construction period, including weekends Increased traffic on local streets over a longer period of time if Mission Boulevard is impassible in the event of emergency repairs Decreased Reduced nighttime construction No nighttime detours Increased Disruption to sensitive receptors along longer (1.2 miles) residential corridor Decreased Reduced nighttime construction Fewer nighttime detours Similar Disruption to sensitive receptors along 0.5 mile residential corridor Air pollutant emissions Emissions along 0.5 mile corridor over a 27 to 29 month construction period Decreased Emissions along less than 0.5 mile corridor, over a 6 to 8 month construction period Increased Emissions along 1.5 mile corridor over a 36 month construction period Similar Emissions along 0.5 mile corridor over a 27 to 29 month construction period Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

247 Comments and Responses TABLE 7.2 (Continued) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Parameter Proposed Project Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Alternate Location South Alignment Alternative 3: Alternate Design New 48 inch BDPL No. 3X and Improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Utilities and Service Systems Disruption of utilities Potential disruption along 0.5 mile corridor Increased Increased potential for accidental damage to utilities due to pipeline rupture and therefore, increased potential for disruption of utility service Similar Potential disruption along 1.5 mile corridor Similar Potential disruption along the same 0.5 mile corridor Generation of constructionrelated waste Approximately 28,50029,100 cubic yards of soil would require offsite reuse or disposal Increased Unknown, but potentially greater if both pipelines were to rupture and because damage would occur to larger area Increased More than 3 times greater volume than project. Would include asphalt from location along a street alignment Decreased This alternative would generate less spoils because a smaller vault would be constructed, and construction of the new pipeline would utilize all three corrugated metal pipe segments rather than just two Biological Resources Creek crossings and riparian habitat disruption One creek crossing where the creek is contained in its natural bed Construction in riparian habitat along Agua Fria Creek Decreased Rupture of the pipelines would not likely affect riparian habitat along Agua Fria Creek in the project area. Unknown Decreased Two creek crossings where the creeks are contained in culverts beneath the street Similar As for the proposed project, the new pipeline could cross Agua Fria Creek, using either trenchless or open cut excavation methods Pipeline rupture could impact riparian habitat along Agua Fria Creek and Agua Caliente Creek from flooding downstream of the project area. Impacts on riparian habitat and aquatic resources from discharges of chloraminated water Discharges of approximately million gallons of dechlorinated water to Agua Fria Creek where it is contained in its natural channel Similar Approximate volume unknown, but would likely be similar to the proposed project. Discharge location would be the same Decreased Approximately 3 times greater volume than project, but discharge could be made to a culverted section of creek. One time discharge from abandoned pipelines would also be needed Similar Approximately the same length of pipelines would require discharges for pipeline draining and disinfection and the discharge location would be the same Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

248 Comments and Responses TABLE 7.2 (Continued) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Parameter Proposed Project Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Alternate Location South Alignment Alternative 3: Alternate Design New 48 inch BDPL No. 3X and Improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Biological Resources (cont.) Special status species Special status species affected in the riparian corridor of Agua Fria Creek, as well as in other portions of the project area Decreased If pipeline rupture avoids Agua Fria Creek, special status species in the riparian corridor would be avoided Decreased Special status species in the riparian corridor would be avoided Similar Construction would be similar in nature to the proposed project and would utilize the same project area Tree removal Up to 44 trees subject to the Fremont Tree Ordinance removed Similar Unknown, but likely fewer trees would be removed Similar Unknown, but impacts would be similar and trees would be replaced in accordance with City of Fremont requirements Similar Construction would utilize the same project area and would likely include removal and replacement of a similar number of trees Geology and Soils Soil erosion and loss of topsoil Soil disturbance throughout the 29 acre project area Similar In the event of emergency repairs, soil disturbance would occur throughout the project area Similar Although soil disturbance would occur in a larger area, the pipeline corridor would be in the street (paved) Similar Soil disturbance throughout the project area and the size of the project area would be the same Hydrology and Water Quality Construction related erosion and release of hazardous materials Excavation along a 0.5 mile unpaved corridor. Soil disturbance throughout the project area and soil stockpiling could result in erosion related water quality impacts Increased Unknown, but erosion would occur during the emergency repair period and as a result of pipeline rupture Increased Excavation along a 1.5 mile street corridor and soil stockpiling could result in erosion related water quality impacts Similar Construction would be similar in nature to the proposed project and would utilize the same project area Discharge of chloraminated water due to pipeline breakage Discharge of up to 10 million gallons Increased Potential for discharge of up to 18 million gallons Unknown Amount of discharge is unknown although project design would try to minimize impact using design features to withstand rupture at the fault traces Unknown Amount of discharge is unknown although project design would try to minimize impact using design features to withstand rupture at the fault traces Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

249 Comments and Responses TABLE 7.2 (Continued) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Parameter Proposed Project Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Alternate Location South Alignment Alternative 3: Alternate Design New 48 inch BDPL No. 3X and Improvements to BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.) One time discharges of treated chloraminated water for draining and disinfection of pipelines Discharge of approximately million gallons of dechlorinated water to receiving water Unknown Approximate volume unknown, but would likely be less than proposed project Increased Approximately 3 times greater volume than project. Abandoned pipelines would also need draining Similar Approximately the same length of pipelines would require discharges for pipeline draining and disinfection Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil or groundwater Low potential to encounter hazardous materials because pipeline route is adjacent to residential areas Similar Emergency repairs would be constructed in similar area as proposed project Similar Pipeline route would be adjacent to residential uses only and follow a street corridor Similar Construction would be similar in nature to the proposed project and would utilize the same project area Potential to disrupt emergency response Emergency response could be disrupted during intermittent and temporary closure of Mission Boulevard and I 680 on ramps for approximately 1718 nights over approximately 11 months Increased Emergency response would be disrupted longer if rupture of the pipeline(s) damaged Mission Boulevard or I 680. Damage to these roadways could also interfere with delivery of emergency response services needed as a result of the earthquake that caused the damage Similar Emergency response partially disrupted by use of both traffic lanes in one direction at the segment undergoing construction on Paseo Padre Parkway and East Warren Avenue. Although traffic flow would be maintained on other side of medium, disruption would occur for longer than under the proposed project (daily for 36 months vs 17 evenings over 11 months). Increased Emergency response could be disrupted on Mission Boulevard daily for 12 weeks Emergency response vehicles would utilize the alternative left turn access to northbound I 680 provided under this alternative for up to 15 weeks Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

250 Comments and Responses of the Hayward fault in the vicinity of Mission Boulevard, requiring placement of an aboveground pipeline over Mission Boulevard for up to eight months and potentially disrupting traffic on this busy roadway. Increased traffic congestion and hazards could also result from localized flooding in the vicinity of Mission Boulevard and I 680 and possible damage to these roadways. The complete extent of damage that would occur if the pipelines ruptured is not certain. However, such damage would occur suddenly upon rupture of the pipelines, and could completely close one or both roadways or on ramps for an indefinite period, resulting in long term detours to neighborhood streets for 24 hours per day. The sudden nature of the damage would not allow for the orderly management of traffic on Mission Boulevard and the I 680 northbound on ramps that would occur under the proposed project approximately times over 11 months when the temporary ACWD water lines are installed and removed, the new permanent ACWD water lines are installed, and the temporary bridges are being installed and removed. These potential effects would represent an overall increase in traffic and circulation impacts under the No Project Alternative relative to those of the proposed project. On Draft EIR page 7 16, the first paragraph of the section titled Noise is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: In the absence of a pipeline failure, this alternative would not result in any changes in the existing noise environment. However, emergency repairs in the event of a pipeline failure could require up to eight months. Although the construction period for emergency repairs is shorter than that for the proposed project (6 to 8 months vs. 27 to 29 months), emergency repairs would likely require 24 hour construction throughout the duration of construction activities to restore water service, resulting in impacts related to conflicts with local ordinance time limits. Further, nighttime and weekend construction could occur for longer periods than under the proposed project, representing greater impacts than those of the proposed project. Due to the immediate need for the repairs, emergency repairs would not include the same noise controls specified for the proposed project and could result in greater noise impacts to sensitive receptors. On Draft EIR page 7 16, the section titled Air Quality is revised as follows to reflect adoption of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: In the absence of a pipeline failure, this alternative would not result in increases in criteria pollutants, diesel particulate matter, or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over current levels. In the event that emergency repairs are required, they would be conducted over a shorter period than improvements under the proposed project (6 to 8 months vs. 27 to 29 months). Although the intensity of construction would be greater under the No Project Alternative because of the 24 hour construction, overall there would be fewer emissions of these pollutants. Potential impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions would be less relative to those of the proposed project, although impacts related to construction related combustion emissions and diesel particulate matter could Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

251 Comments and Responses remain significant and unavoidable if the construction related emissions are above BAAQMD thresholds when adopted (see Section 5.7, Air Quality, for a discussion of proposed BAAQMD thresholds). On Draft EIR page 7 19, the fourth paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Both I 680 and Mission Boulevard could be damaged from a pipeline rupture, resulting in interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The complete extent of damage that would occur if the pipelines ruptured is not certain. However, such damage would occur suddenly upon rupture of the pipelines, and could completely close one or both roadways or on ramps for an indefinite period, resulting in long term detours to neighborhood streets for 24 hours per day. The sudden nature of the damage would not allow for the orderly management of traffic on Mission Boulevard and the I 680 northbound on ramps that would occur under the proposed project approximately 1720 times during the 11 months that the temporary ACWD lines are installed and removed, the new permanent ACWD water lines are installed, and the temporary bridges are installed and removed on Mission Boulevard and the I 680 on ramps. Because emergency services, and potentially emergency evacuation, could be necessary in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward fault, and the No Project Alternative could result in indefinite closure of I 680 and/or Mission Boulevard, this impact would be much greater than that of the proposed project. On Draft EIR page 7 21, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Potential impacts on land use under the Alternate Location South Alignment alternative would be longer in duration than that of the proposed project, and approximately 1.2 miles of the construction corridor would be within roadways bordered by residential land uses compared to 0.5 mile under the proposed project. Although this alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable land use impacts that would occur under the proposed project related to construction equipment noise and noise from haul and delivery trucks, noise from nighttime construction and deliveries (approximately 1720 times over 11 months), noise from increased nighttime traffic on detour routes in residential areas (nine times over 11 months), and annoyance from temporary nighttime vibration (approximately 1720 times over 11 months), impacts associated with the temporary disruption of land uses and changes to the character of the project vicinity would be greater under this alternative than those of the proposed project because of the greater number of residences that would be affected during construction. Thus, land use impacts during construction would be greater than those of the proposed project and remain significant and unavoidable. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

252 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 7 22, the last two paragraphs are revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The Alternate Location South Alignment alternative would avoid conflicts with use of the I 680 on ramps and Mission Boulevard and the associated detours that would occur approximately 1718 times over 11 months when the temporary ACWD water lines would be installed and removed, the new permanent ACWD water lines would be installed, and the temporary bridges would be installed and removed on these roadways. Construction activities would require temporary lane closures of both lanes of traffic in one direction along the sections under construction on Paseo Padre Parkway and East Warren Avenue for a three year construction period, which would result in a greater traffic impact than under the proposed project since under the proposed project, lane closures along Mission Boulevard and full closures of this roadway and the I 680 on ramps would occur infrequently over 11 months when the temporary bridges are installed or removed on this roadway. As with the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in construction related vehicle trips; however, the increase in traffic volumes would not likely be significant. Overall, the potential impacts on traffic and circulation would be similar to those of the proposed project because although temporary lane closures (possibly two lanes at a time) would be required along sections of 1.5 miles of local roadways for a three year period under this alternative, the affected roadways carry less traffic than Mission Boulevard and the I 680 on ramps which would be affected approximately 1720 times during 11 months for construction and removal of temporary bridges, the proposed project would not cause a reduction of roadway capacity. On Draft EIR page 7 23, the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: The significant and unavoidable noise impacts of the proposed project resulting from nighttime construction activities and deliveries (approximately 1720 times over 11 months), and temporary disturbances from construction related vibration at night (approximately 1720 times over 11 months) could be reduced (approximately 10 nights compared to approximately 1720 nights under the proposed project) and no nighttime detours would be required. However, significant and unavoidable noise impacts associated with the use of heavy equipment and haul and delivery truck traffic during the day could also occur under this alternative due to the proximity of residences to the construction area and concentrated construction activities at the fault crossings or the new vaults located within the BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 ROW at East Warren Avenue and Paseo Padre Parkway. Further, a greater number of residences would be affected by noise increases and constructionrelated vibration because there are residences located adjacent to 1.2 miles of this 1.5 mile long pipeline alignment. Overall, noise impacts associated with this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because more residences would be affected by construction related noise and vibration. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

253 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 7 29, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Like the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in construction related vehicle trips; however, the increase in traffic volumes would not likely be significant. Aside from traffic detours that would only occur approximately times during 11 months for installation and removal of the temporary ACWD water lines, installation of the new permanent ACWD water lines, and installationconstruction and removal of temporary bridges on the I 680 on ramps and Mission Boulevard, the proposed project would not result in a reduction of roadway capacity. Overall, the potential impacts of this alternative on traffic and circulation would be greater than those of the proposed project because traffic diversions and lane closures on Mission Boulevard would be required for 12 weeks, and traffic diversions on the northbound I 680 loop on ramp would be required for 15 weeks. On Draft EIR page 7 31, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Construction activities would require diversion of traffic on the I 680 northbound loop on ramp for approximately 15 weeks, and traffic diversions for all four lanes of Mission Boulevard for 12 weeks. Although at least two lanes of Mission Boulevard would be open at all times, this reduction in lanes would decrease the capacity of Mission Boulevard by about 50 percent and could interfere with emergency response. Compared to the proposed project, which would include traffic detours approximately times during 11 months for installation and removal of the temporary ACWD water lines, installation of the new permanent ACWD water lines, and installationconstruction and removal of temporary bridges on the I 680 on ramps and Mission Boulevard, this alternative would have a potentially greater impact related to interference with emergency response. On Draft EIR page 7 32, the last paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Table 7.2 presents a comparison of the environmental impacts of each alternative with those of the proposed project. With the exception of noise and land use impacts related to daytime use of heavy equipment, haul and delivery truck traffic, nighttime construction and deliveries (approximately 1720 times over 11 months), increased nighttime traffic on detour streets in residential neighborhoods (approximately nine times over 11 months), temporary disturbance due to construction related vibration at night (approximately 1720 times over 11 months), and noncompliance with local ordinance time limits associated with nighttime and Sunday construction, as well as air quality impacts associated with construction related combustion emissions, all other identified significant and potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project could be mitigated to a less thansignificant level with the mitigation measures included in this EIR. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

254 Comments and Responses On Draft EIR page 7 34, the beginning of the first paragraph is revised as follows to address an editorial error: The alternate location alternative would likely reduce discharges of chloraminated water to Agua Fria or Agua Caliente Creeks from a pipeline rupture at the fault traces, but potential impacts on water quality would be greater than under the proposed project because of the larger construction area and the increased quantity of water that would be produced to disinfect the longer pipelines. On Draft EIR page 7 35, the first paragraph is revised as follows to address the changes described in Section 3, Project Updates: Significant and unavoidable land use and noise impacts associated with nighttime construction and trucks, increased nighttime traffic on detour streets in residential neighborhoods, and temporary disturbance from construction related vibration at night would be reduced, but not avoided entirely. However, under the proposed project, nighttime construction would occur only approximately 1720 times over 11 months, and detours on residential streets would occur only 9 times over 11 months. Under this alternative, traffic would be disrupted on Mission Boulevard for the entire 12 weeks of construction within this roadway, and on the I 680 northbound loop on ramp for the entire 15 weeks of construction within this roadway, potentially resulting in greater impacts related to traffic delays, impaired pedestrian and bicycle traffic, increased traffic hazards, and impeded emergency access and response. Overall, the impacts related to traffic disruption and impeded emergency access are considered greater than the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project because they would be much longer in duration. Draft EIR Appendix B, Transportation and Circulation Technical Backup Documentation, is revised to include backup for traffic analysis for the revised 27 month construction period. Draft EIR Appendix C, Urbemis 2007 Model Output; and Appendix D, Screen 3 Model Output, are revised to include the model output related to the project updates. The revised appendices begin on the next page of this document. Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R December 2010

255 TRIP GENERATION TABLE WITH INCLUSION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BDPL NO. 4 AT TRACE A Calculation of On-site Truck Trips Calculation of Off-site Truck Trips Other Trips Average Daily Trips [42] Start Date: 4/9/2012 (Mon) Excavation Backfill Excavation Backfill Estimated Workers Truck Deliveries Internal External WBS Tasks Task Lead Start End Duration (Days) Working Days # of Truc ck Loads # of Truc ck Trips # of Truc ck Loads # of Truc ck Trips # of Truc ck Loads # of Truc ck Trips # of Truc ck Loads # of Truc ck Trips # of Tota al Workers # of Veh hicle Trips # of Deliv iveries # of Deliv ivery Trips Trucks On-site Trucks Off-site Worker Autos B-28 1 Construction 4/09/12 2/06/ Mobilization 4/09/12 5/11/ Temporary Bridges & 5/14/12 4/18/ Articulated Vault 2.1 Zone 7 5/14/12 4/18/ Excavate & remove CMP1 12/06/12 3/27/ Backfill 9/25/13 12/18/ Modification to (E) Slip Joint Vault 7/10/12 8/10/ Zone 6 7/10/12 8/10/ Temporary Bridges & 8/13/12 12/10/ Cut-and-cover 4.1 Zone 6 8/13/12 12/10/ Excavation 10/05/12 10/10/ Backfill 11/23/12 11/27/ Open Trench (Open Cut) 1/10/13 11/25/ Zone 3 1/10/13 2/15/ Excavate Trench 1/15/13 1/21/13 / Backfill 2/11/13 2/15/ Zone 5 2/19/13 5/20/ Excavate Trench 2/25/13 3/29/ Backfill 4/09/13 5/20/ Zone 8 5/21/13 11/25/ Excavate Trench 5/29/13 7/17/ Backfill 10/03/13 11/25/ Install Valve and Tee 10/22/12 1/09/ Zone 1 10/22/12 1/09/ Expose Southern POC 10/26/12 11/06/ Backfill 12/26/12 1/09/ Zone 8 10/22/12 12/27/ Expose Northern POC 10/26/12 11/06/ Backfill 12/11/12 12/21/ /15/2010

256 Calculation of On-site Truck Trips Calculation of Off-site Truck Trips Other Trips Average Daily Trips [42] Start Date: 4/9/2012 (Mon) Excavation Backfill Excavation Backfill Estimated Workers Truck Deliveries Internal External WBS Tasks Task Lead Start End Duration (D Days) Working Da ays # of Truck Loads # of Truck Trips # of Truck Loads # of Truck Trips # of Truck Loads # of Truck Trips # of Truck Loads # of Truck Trips # of Total Workers # of Vehicle e Trips ries # of Deliver ry Trips # of Deliver -site Trucks On- -site Trucks Off- tos Worker Aut 7 CMP (Trenchless) 12/11/12 9/01/ Zone 2 12/11/12 3/03/ Excavate Pits 12/11/12 12/16/ Boring 12/17/12 1/21/ Backfill 2/18/13 3/03/ Zone 4 1/16/13 9/01/ Excavate Pits 1/16/13 2/19/ Boring 2/20/13 6/22/ Backfill 6/29/13 7/24/ Jack and Bore 7/25/13 11/15/ Zone 1 7/25/13 11/15/ Excavate Jacking Pit 8/02/13 8/06/ B Excavate Receiving Pit 8/19/13 8/23/ Boring 8/24/13 10/06/ Backfill Pits 11/01/13 11/15/ Repairs to BDPL#4 1/02/13 4/05/ a Trace C 1/02/13 3/07/ aExcavate 9.1.1a 1/07/13 1/11/ a Backfill 3/06/13 3/10/ Trace B 3/08/13 4/05/ Excavate 3/15/13 3/18/ Backfill 4/04/13 4/05/ Upgrade of 11/19/12 5/08/ BDPL #4 11/20/12 4/19/ Excavate 12/12/12 12/14/ Backfill? /29/13 4/04/ Miscellaneous Items 9/25/13 12/06/ Demobilization 1/31/14 2/06/ /15/2010

257 Comments and Responses APPENDIX C (Revised) URBEMIS 2007 Model Output Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C 1 December 2010

258 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-2

259 Appendix C (Revised) URBEMIS 2007 Model Output Peak Activity Day Emissions 24 Month Construction Period C-3

260 Page: 1 8/31/2010 3:25:28 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Sara Gerrick\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\BDPL\BDPL New Equipment.urb924 Project Name: BDPL 24 Project Location: Alameda County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 C-4 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) , Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

261 Page: 2 8/31/2010 3:25:28 PM Time Slice 1/2/ /31/2012 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/2013 Time Slice 1/1/ /31/2013 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/ , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , , , Mass Grading Dust C-5 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/ /31/ Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 6.8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.7 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1560 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Bore/Drill Rigs (291 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day 10 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 9 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 10 Generator Sets (549 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day

262 Page: 3 8/31/2010 3:25:28 PM 4 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 7 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 12 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated C-6 Time Slice 1/2/ /31/2012 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/2013 Time Slice 1/1/ /31/2013 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/2013 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips ,685.35

263 Page: 4 8/31/2010 3:25:28 PM C-7 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/ /31/ Default Fine Site Grading Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Cranes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Cranes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Forklifts, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by:

264 C-8 Page: 5 8/31/2010 3:25:28 PM PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Forklifts, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Welders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Welders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15%

265 Appendix C (Revised) URBEMIS 2007 Model Output Peak Activity Day Emissions 26 Month Construction Period C-9

266 Page: 1 8/31/2010 3:17:41 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Sara Gerrick\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\BDPL\BDPL Old Equipment.urb924 Project Name: BDPL 26 Project Location: Alameda County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 C-10 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) , Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

267 Page: 2 8/31/2010 3:17:41 PM C-11 Time Slice 1/2/ /31/2012 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/2014 Time Slice 1/1/ /31/2013 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/2014 Time Slice 1/1/2014-2/28/2014 Active Days: 43 Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/2012-2/28/ Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 5.2 Phase Assumptions

268 C-12 Page: 3 8/31/2010 3:17:41 PM Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.3 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): Off-Road Equipment: 2 Bore/Drill Rigs (291 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day 8 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 7 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 8 Generator Sets (549 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 5 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 9 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Time Slice 1/2/ /31/2012 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips ,327.09

269 Page: 4 8/31/2010 3:17:41 PM Time Slice 1/1/ /31/2013 Active Days: 261 Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/2014 Time Slice 1/1/2014-2/28/2014 Active Days: 43 Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/ , , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , , , Mass Grading Dust C-13 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel , Mass Grading Worker Trips , Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/2012-2/28/ Default Fine Site Grading Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55%

270 C-14 Page: 5 8/31/2010 3:17:41 PM For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Cranes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Cranes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Forklifts, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Forklifts, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Welders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Welders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85%

271 Page: 6 8/31/2010 3:17:41 PM For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% C-15

272 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-16

273 Appendix C (Revised) URBEMIS 2007 Model Output Annual Average Emissions 24 Month Construction Period C-17

274 Page: 1 8/31/2010 3:25:52 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Sara Gerrick\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\BDPL\BDPL New Equipment.urb924 Project Name: BDPL 24 Project Location: Alameda County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 C-18 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) , TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) , Percent Reduction TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) , TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) , Percent Reduction Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

275 Page: 2 8/31/2010 3:25:52 PM , Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/ , Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/ , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , C-19 Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/ /31/ Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 6.8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.7 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1560 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Bore/Drill Rigs (291 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day 10 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 9 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 10 Generator Sets (549 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day

276 Page: 3 8/31/2010 3:25:52 PM 7 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 12 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , C-20 Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/ , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips , Mass Grading 01/01/ /31/ , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/ /31/ Default Fine Site Grading Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by:

277 C-21 Page: 4 8/31/2010 3:25:52 PM PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Cranes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Cranes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Forklifts, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Forklifts, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by:

278 C-22 Page: 5 8/31/2010 3:25:52 PM PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Welders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Welders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15%

279 Appendix C (Revised) URBEMIS 2007 Model Output Annual Average Emissions 26 Month Construction Period C-23

280 Page: 1 8/31/2010 3:18:05 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Sara Gerrick\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\BDPL\BDPL Old Equipment.urb924 Project Name: BDPL 26 Project Location: Alameda County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 C-24 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) , TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) , Percent Reduction TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) , TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) , Percent Reduction TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) , TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) , Percent Reduction

281 Page: 2 8/31/2010 3:18:05 PM Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated C-25 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/ , Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/ , Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/ , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips

282 Page: 3 8/31/2010 3:18:05 PM C-26 Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/2012-2/28/ Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 5.2 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.3 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): Off-Road Equipment: 2 Bore/Drill Rigs (291 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day 8 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 7 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 8 Generator Sets (549 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 5 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 9 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

283 Page: 4 8/31/2010 3:18:05 PM , Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/ , Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/ , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel , C-27 Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips , Mass Grading 01/01/ /28/ , Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/2012-2/28/ Default Fine Site Grading Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:

284 C-28 Page: 5 8/31/2010 3:18:06 PM PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Water Trucks, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Cranes, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Cranes, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Forklifts, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Forklifts, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Generator Sets, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by:

285 Page: 6 8/31/2010 3:18:06 PM NOX: 15% For Welders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Welders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 1st Tier mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 85% PM25: 85% For Plate Compactors, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 15% mitigation reduces emissions by: NOX: 15% C-29

286

287 Comments and Responses APPENDIX D (Revised) SCREEN3 Model Output Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault D 1 December 2010

288 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK D-2

289 Appendix D (Revised) SCREEN3 Model Output Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Activities 24 Month Construction Period D-3

290 *** SCREEN3 MODEL RUN *** *** VERSION DATED *** BDPL24 BDPL24 10/01/10 13:56:01 SIMPLE TERRAIN INPUTS: SOURCE TYPE = AREA EMISSION RATE (G/(S-M**2)) = E-05 SOURCE HEIGHT (M) = LENGTH OF LARGER SIDE (M) = LENGTH OF SMALLER SIDE (M) = RECEPTOR HEIGHT (M) = URBAN/RURAL OPTION = URBAN THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) MIXING HEIGHT OPTION WAS SELECTED. THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) ANEMOMETER HEIGHT OF 10.0 METERS WAS ENTERED. MODEL ESTIMATES DIRECTION TO MAX CONCENTRATION BUOY. FLUX =.000 M**4/S**3; MOM. FLUX =.000 M**4/S**2. *** STABILITY CLASS 4 ONLY *** *** ANEMOMETER HEIGHT WIND SPEED OF 3.00 M/S ONLY *** ********************************** *** SCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES *** ********************************** *** TERRAIN HEIGHT OF 0. M ABOVE STACK BASE USED FOR FOLLOWING DISTANCES *** DIST CONC U10M USTK MIX HT PLUME MAX DIR (M) (UG/M**3) STAB (M/S) (M/S) (M) HT (M) (DEG) MAXIMUM 1-HR CONCENTRATION AT OR BEYOND 1. M: *************************************** *** SUMMARY OF SCREEN MODEL RESULTS *** *************************************** CALCULATION MAX CONC DIST TO TERRAIN PROCEDURE (UG/M**3) MAX (M) HT (M) SIMPLE TERRAIN *************************************************** ** REMEMBER TO INCLUDE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS ** *************************************************** Page 1 D-4

291 Appendix D (Revised) SCREEN3 Model Output Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Activities 26 Month Construction Period D-5

292 *** SCREEN3 MODEL RUN *** *** VERSION DATED *** BDPL26 BDPL26 10/01/10 13:48:44 SIMPLE TERRAIN INPUTS: SOURCE TYPE = AREA EMISSION RATE (G/(S-M**2)) = E-05 SOURCE HEIGHT (M) = LENGTH OF LARGER SIDE (M) = LENGTH OF SMALLER SIDE (M) = RECEPTOR HEIGHT (M) = URBAN/RURAL OPTION = URBAN THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) MIXING HEIGHT OPTION WAS SELECTED. THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) ANEMOMETER HEIGHT OF 10.0 METERS WAS ENTERED. MODEL ESTIMATES DIRECTION TO MAX CONCENTRATION BUOY. FLUX =.000 M**4/S**3; MOM. FLUX =.000 M**4/S**2. *** STABILITY CLASS 4 ONLY *** *** ANEMOMETER HEIGHT WIND SPEED OF 3.00 M/S ONLY *** ********************************** *** SCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES *** ********************************** *** TERRAIN HEIGHT OF 0. M ABOVE STACK BASE USED FOR FOLLOWING DISTANCES *** DIST CONC U10M USTK MIX HT PLUME MAX DIR (M) (UG/M**3) STAB (M/S) (M/S) (M) HT (M) (DEG) MAXIMUM 1-HR CONCENTRATION AT OR BEYOND 1. M: *************************************** *** SUMMARY OF SCREEN MODEL RESULTS *** *************************************** CALCULATION MAX CONC DIST TO TERRAIN PROCEDURE (UG/M**3) MAX (M) HT (M) SIMPLE TERRAIN *************************************************** ** REMEMBER TO INCLUDE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS ** *************************************************** Page 1 D-6

293 Appendix D (Revised) SCREEN3 Model Output Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions from I 680 Truck Traffic D-7

294 D-8

295 D-9

296

297 Comments and Responses APPENDIX A Comment Letters Seismic Upgrade of BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault C&R A 1 December 2010

298 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C&R A-2

299 C&R A-3 A_PUBWKS

300 C&R A-4 A_PUBWKS

301 C&R A-5 A_PUBWKS

302 C&R A-6 A_PUBWKS