Bayside Executive Summary

8/6/2019 Bayside Executive Summary

1/10

Executive Summary

ES.1 IntroductionThis Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) assesses the potential environmentalimpacts of the Bayside Groundwater Project (Proposed Project or project) proposed by theEast Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD or the District). This document has beenprepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), PublicResources Code, section 21000, et seq. and CEQAs implementing guidelines (CEQAGuidelines), Title 14, California Code of Regulations, sections 15000, et seq. The District is thelead agency for the CEQA process. Inquiries about the project should be directed to:

Angela Knight

EBMUD Water Supply Improvements Division375 Eleventh Street - MS 407Oakland, CA 94609-4240

ES.2 Project Overview

ES.2.1 Need for the Project

In October 1993, EBMUD adopted a Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) thatserves as a planning guide for the provision of water to the EBMUD service area throughthe year 2020. The WSMP demonstrated that EBMUDs existing water supplies areinsufficient to meet current and future customer demand during droughts, despiteimplementation of conservation and water recycling programs and an aggressive dry-yearwater rationing policy. Without additional near-term water supplies, EBMUD customerswill experience potentially severe water shortages during prolonged droughts. Theseconclusions were later confirmed in the Districts Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP),which showed that rationing of up to 67 percent may be necessary in the future withoutadditional drought water supplies, resulting in severe regional economic and quality-of-lifeimpacts (EBMUD 2001).

ES.2.2 Project History

In 1997, EBMUD drilled a demonstration well at the Oro Loma Sanitary District Wastewater

Treatment Plant at 2600 Grant Avenue in San Lorenzo to investigate the feasibility of usingdeep aquifers in the South East Bay Plain Basin (SEBPB) to store water for later recovery anduse during droughts. More specifically, EBMUD investigated the feasibility of (1) injectingand storing excess potable drinking water collected in wet years into the deep aquifers, and(2) recovering both injected water and native groundwater for use in drought conditions.Studies of the demonstration wells operation verified the feasibility of both of thesecomponents.

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC ES-1


2/10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In March 2001, EBMUD circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (2001 DEIR) on theBayside Groundwater Project (SCH No. 2000092044). The 2001 DEIR evaluated the impactsof developing multiple injection wells in the San Lorenzo area with a collective annualcapacity of 15 million gallons per day (mgd). The DEIR analyzed a number of well locations,a treatment facility location, and pipeline alternatives. Based on comments received on the

DEIR, the District subsequently conducted focused studies that have led to substantialproject changes that eliminate potentially significant impacts or reduce to less thansignificant levels the impacts that remain.

Rather than revise and recirculate the 2001 DEIR to analyze the modified project, EBMUDhas prepared this new Bayside Groundwater Project Draft Environmental Impact Report(SCH No. 2000092044). An overview of the project is set forth in Section ES.2.4 and is fullydescribed in Section 2.0 (Project Description) of this DEIR.

The project, as revised, involves the injection of potable drinking water into the SEBPBduring wet years for later recovery and use during a drought. As analyzed in this DEIR, theproject is proposed in two phases. Phase 1 would be implemented immediately to provide

an annual capacity of 1 mgd. Phase 2 is the potential future expansion of groundwaterfacilities with an annual capacity of between 2 and 10 mgd.

EBMUD has made no commitment to implement Phase 2. EBMUD intends to use theinformation gathered from Phase 1 operations to help inform its future determinations onwhether and how to proceed with Phase 2. If EBMUD determines to implement Phase 2,EBMUD would at that time complete a subsequent EIR. However, to the extent EBMUD cananalyze the potential impacts of Phase 2 at this time, that analysis is included in Section 4.0of this DEIR.

ES.2.3 Project Object ives

The Districts overall objectives for the Bayside Groundwater Project are:

To reliably provide more water for customer use during drought periods than would beavailable from current water supplies alone;

To make beneficial use of local water resources, and

To provide water that complies with state and federal drinking water standards whilemaintaining or enhancing basin water quality.

Additional project objectives are:

To initiate EBMUD groundwater use within the SEBPB to prepare for both near-term(less than five years) and future drought conditions, and

To collect data to inform decisionmaking regarding (1) whether it is appropriate toimplement Phase 2 a larger-capacity facility and, if so, (2) how to design it.

ES-2 SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC


3/10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.2.4 Project Descr iption

The Bayside Groundwater Project involves the injection of local runoff and water conservedin the Mokelumne River in wet years into the SEBPB for later recovery and use during adrought. Phase 1 of the project would be implemented immediately to provide (a) annualcapacity up to 1 mgd, and (b) information to determine whether to proceed with Phase 2,and if so, to guide EBMUD in developing the Phase 2 design and operation features.

This Bayside Groundwater Project DEIR focuses on Phase 1, which is the immediate projectEBMUD proposes to build and operate. At this time, EBMUD does not know whether it willpursue Phase 2, or, if it does pursue Phase 2, exactly what facilities would be necessary,where those facilities would be located, or what would be the specific size of those futurefacilities, which could range from 2 to 10 mgd in average annual capacity. EBMUD plans touse information gained from operation of Phase 1 to help determine whether and how toproceed with Phase 2. Therefore, although this DEIR contains some discussion of potentialPhase 2 impacts, in-depth discussion of Phase 2 impacts is deferred until EBMUD proposeswhat, if any, Phase 2 facilities should be constructed and where. If and when EBMUD

proposes Phase 2 facilities in the future, EBMUD will then complete a subsequent EIR.However, to the extent EBMUD can analyze the potential impacts of Phase 2 at this time,that analysis is included in Section 4.0 of this DEIR.

ES.2.5 Project Location

EBMUD has performed extensive studies to determine the viability of groundwater storageand recovery. These studies included hydrogeologic analysis, analysis of water quality andtreatment options, demonstration testing of treatment methodologies, construction of testwells, and construction and operation of a full-size injection/extraction demonstration well.The studies have demonstrated that the best site for storage and extraction of groundwaterin the local aquifer is in unincorporated San Lorenzo and the City of San Leandro near the

San Francisco Bay shore, an area that encompasses the existing demonstration well and testfacilities.

The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County known as SanLorenzo. Figure ES-1 shows the project location and the boundaries of the groundwaterbasin and adjacent basins. The SEBPB is located within the western portion of AlamedaCounty. It is bounded on the east by the Hayward Fault and extends beneath San FranciscoBay to the west. The SEBPB thins to insignificance to the north near Berkeley, and itssouthern boundary is in Hayward near the San Mateo Bridge. Figure ES-2 shows thelocation of project facilities for Phase 1. Figure ES-1 also shows the area in which facilitiesfor Phase 2 may be located. Table ES-1 lists all project facilities proposed for Phase 1, and tothe extent that they can be determined at this time, the potential project facilities for Phase 2.



4/10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE ES-1

Project Description Summary

Project Feature Phase 1 Phase 2

Project Capacity Average 1mgd extraction (short-termextraction up to 2 mgd rate)

a; 1 mgd

injection

2 to 10 mgd

Source of Injection Water Several sources, including local runoffand conserved Mokelumne Riverwater

Several sources, including local runoffand conserved Mokelumne Riverwater

Number of Wells One existing Up to four additional

Well Locations Adjacent to Oro Loma plant site in SanLorenzo

Industrial zone, westerly end ofwesterly Grant Avenue, or venueswithin a broader area including SanLorenzo, San Leandro, and southernpart of Oakland

Treatment after Extraction At-the-wellhead chloramination, pH

control, fluoridation; iron andmanganese removal as needed

Not currently identified

Treatment Plant Location Treatment at well site Well sites or centralized treatmentplant; location not known

Pipeline Alignment Connection to existing 12-diametermain in Grant Avenue; approximately500 feet

Unknown but in the vicinity of welllocations

Treatment Prior toDischarge

Settling followed by dechlorination Not currently identified

Discharge Filter backwash and well backflush viastorm drain system and sanitarysewer, respectively

Not currently known

Operational Parameters Drought Supply May initiateoperation when October reservoirstorage is projected to decline below500,000 AF

Drought Supply May initiateoperation when October reservoirstorage is projected to decline below500,000 AF

Alternatives - No Project Alternative

- Increased Conservation

- Increased Reclamation

- Regional Desalination

- Groundwater Storage in EastContra Costa County

- No Project Alternative

- Increased Conservation

- Increased Reclamation

- Regional Desalination

- Groundwater Storage in EastContra Costa County

Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of ground surfaceelevation change (subsidence), waterquality, groundwater levels, and modelverification

Not currently known; anticipated to besimilar to Phase 1; possibly expandedversion of Phase 1 monitoring

aShort-term extraction rate could be up to 2 mgd; however, the annual average extraction would not exceed 1

mgd.



5/10

!(

San FranciscoBay

Bayside GroundwaterProject Phase 1 Location

Niles Cone GroundwaterBasin Boundary

ACWD Recharge Ponds(Forebay Area)

CA Department of Water Resources

East Bay Plain GroundwaterBasin Boundary

I

%&t(

%&p(

?

?

%&t(

%&n(

%&j(

?

CA Department of Water Resources

East Bay Plain GroundwaterBasin Boundary

FIGURE ES-1PROJECT LOCATION MAP2 0 21

Miles

Legend

!(Bayside Groundwater ProjectPhase 1 LocationRoads

Creeks

EBMUD Service Area

ACWD Service Area

Groundwater Basins Boundary

Phase 2 Study Area

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTBAYSIDE GROUNDWATER PROJECTDRAFT EIR

SFO \\MERLOT\PROJ\EBMUD\169710_IGSM_MODEL\GIS\MXDS\ARC9\PROJECT_LOCATION_MAP_ES_1.MXDPROJECT_LOCATION_MAP_ES-1.PDF 2/23/2005 15:37:08

1:230,000Scale:


6/10

!.

SanLo

renz

oCr

eek

BockmanCanal

Granta

ve.

ViaHe

rmana

Unio

nPacific

RR

Bayfron

t

SanFrancisco

Bay

Bayside Well No.1

FIGURE ES-2PHASE 1 FACILITY LOCATIONS0 750375

Feet

LEGEND

!.Phase 1 Well Site and WellheadTreatmentConnection to ExistingDistribution PipelineExstensometer Field

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTBAYSIDE GROUNDWATER PROJECTDRAFT EIR

SFO \\MERLOT\PROJ\EBMUD\169710_IGSM_MODEL\GIS\MXDS\ARC9\PHASE1_FACILITY_LOCATIONS_ES-2.MXDPHASE1_FACILITY_LOCATIONS_ES-2.PDF 2/24/2005 09:37:19

1:9,000Scale:


7/10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.3 Organization of this DEIR

This DEIR contains each of the elements required by CEQA for an EIR. Section 1,Introduction, describes the background and the need for the project, its relationship to otherrelated projects, the purpose and the use of this DEIR, and the EIR process. Section 2, Project

Description, includes detailed information about Phases 1 and 2 of the project, includingrequired facilities, operating parameters, construction methods, subsidence, groundwaterand water quality monitoring program, alternatives, the anticipated schedule, and therequired approvals for the project. Section 3 describes the existing setting, potential impacts,and mitigation measures for Phase 1. Section 4 presents a similar analysis for Phase 2 to theextent information is available.

The potentially affected resource areas analyzed in Sections 3 and 4 were based on the InitialStudy Checklist prepared for the Notice of Preparation for this DEIR (see Appendix A). Onthe basis of the Checklist, EBMUD determined that implementation of Phase 1 would nothave an impact on the following resource areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Land

Use, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. AlthoughEBMUD has not committed to implementing Phase 2, and as such specific locations andfacilities have not been identified, it is assumed that the same resource areas would not beaffected, with the exception of Land Use and Visual Resources/Aesthetics, which could beaffected, depending on the location of facilities.

Growth-inducing impacts are addressed in Section 5, cumulative impacts are addressed inSection 6, and the alternatives analysis for the project is in Section 7.

ES.4 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This DEIR concludes that Phase 1 of the project, as mitigated, would have no significantimpact. Specifically, this DEIR concludes that, for the following resource areas,implementation of Phase 1 would have no impact, a less than significant impact with nomitigation required, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of effectiveand feasible mitigation measures:

(a) groundwater hydrology and quality;(b) water, quality, treatment and distribution;(c) surface water hydrology and quality;(d) biological resources;(e) geology, soils, and seismicity;(f) air quality;

(g) hazards;(h) traffic and transportation;(i) noise;(j) utilities;(k) cultural resources;(l) growth inducing impacts; and(m) cumulative impacts.



8/10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This DEIR concludes that some of the effects of Phase 2 are presently knowable, and someare presently unknowable. For the presently knowable effects of Phase 2, this DEIRconcludes that development of Phase 2 facilities would also have no impact, a less thansignificant impact with no mitigation required, or a less than significant impact with theimplementation of effective and feasible mitigation measures. If and when EBMUD

determines to implement Phase 2, a subsequent EIR will be prepared.Table ES-2A presented at the end of this chapter summarizes the environmental effects ofPhase 1 of the project after mitigation, and Table ES-2B summarizes the environmentaleffects of Phase 2 of the project after mitigation.

Sections 3 and 4 (Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures), Section 5(Growth-Inducement Potential), and Section 6 (Cumulative Impacts) each provide adescription of the criteria used in making the above significance determinations.

ES.5 Project Alternatives

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR evaluate a range of reasonablealternatives to a project, or to the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most ofthe basic project objectives and avoid or lessen significant project impacts. Chapter 7 of thisDEIR describes the extensive alternatives analysis conducted for the Bayside GroundwaterProject. That analysis resulted in the identification of three project alternatives that couldpotentially meet the Bayside Groundwater Project objectives:

Increased Conservation and Recycling

Bay Area Regional Desalination

East Contra Costa County Groundwater Project

The alternatives analysis included in Section 7 of this DEIR compares the impacts of these

three alternatives with the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative. The analysisconcluded the following:

ES.5.1 Alternative 1 No Project Alternative

The No Project Alternative would not meet the need for the project, nor would it satisfy theprimary project objectives, as described in Section 7.3. As described in Table 7-4, the NoProject Alternative would result in fewer overall environmental impacts than the project inmost resource area categories. An exception is Public Services and Utilities, where severewater rationing would impact the ability of service providers and utilities to meet customerdemand.

ES.5.2 Alternative 2 Increased Conservation and RecyclingUnder Alternative 2, conservation and recycling activities would provide a local watersupply during drought periods but would not satisfy the additional project objective beingcompleted in the near term, as described in Section 7.3. The impacts of Alternative 2 aregenerally dependent on the site selection for recycling facilities but would likely result inimpacts similar to those of the project, with the exception of impacts for Groundwater



9/10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hydrology and Quality, Surface Water Hydrology and Quality, and Hazards, for whichoverall impacts would likely be less than under the project.

ES.5.3 Alternative 3 Bay Area Regional Desalination

Desalination meets the objectives for developing a supplemental water supply and a local

water resource, and meets water quality objectives; however, this alternative is notimplementable in the near term. Biological Resources and Surface Water Hydrology andQuality impacts resulting from Alternative 3 are unknown and could be greater or less thanthose of the Proposed Project, depending on whether an acceptable brine solution disposaloption is developed in conjunction with the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). In addition, as described in Section 7.3, desalination would require a substantialamount of energy. It is anticipated that this energy requirement would be greater than thatof the project.

ES.5.4 Alternative 4 - East Contra Costa Groundwater Development

East Contra Costa Groundwater Development would meet the need for a supplemental

water supply, would develop a local resource, and would meet water quality objectives, butit is unlikely to be accomplished in the near term because of the institutional complexity ofits implementation. Agreements with local partners and groundwater users are also neededto further develop this alternative. To date, attempts to create such agreements have beenunsuccessful. Implementation of Alternative 4 would likely result in similar impacts asthose of the project, except for Traffic and Transportation and Land Use impacts, which maybe greater than for the project.

ES.5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)2, Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the project,states, If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR

shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.For this project, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, is environmentally superior to theothers for the reasons stated in Section 7.3; therefore, the next environmentally superioralternative is discussed below.

Conservation and Recycling would likely have less environmental impact than the projectand the other alternatives. Alternative 2 is, therefore, the environmentally superioralternative. However, Alternative 2 does not meet one of the project objectives: near-termimplementation. EBMUD is therefore proceeding with Phase 1 of the project.

ES.6 Project Schedule

The following schedule milestones are effective at the time this DEIR is released for publiccomment. Dates following the release of the DEIR for public comment are subject to change.

Opening of 45-day public comment period for DEIR, March 2005

Closing of public comment period, April 2005

Certification of EIR and approval of Phase 1 by District Board of Directors, August 2005

Completion of final design, March 2006



10/10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Award of construction contract, October 2006

Completion of construction, October 2007

Duration of startup operation, September 2007 to September 2008

Project in service, October 2008

ES.7 Topics of ControversyNumerous comments were received from members of the public and potentially affectedagencies on the 2001 project DEIR. The comments received primarily expressed concernsregarding potential subsidence, air quality, water quality, and groundwater supply andmovement. EBMUD has responded to these comments by significantly revising the project.Some of the concerns expressed about the original project have been eliminated by changingit to a smaller, two-phased project. This DEIR would permit development of Phase 1 only. Asubsequent EIR will be required if and when EBMUD decides to proceed with Phase 2.Phase 1, with the mitigation measures recommended in this DEIR, reduces all potentialimpacts to less than significant levels. The comments received on the 2001 EIR are

summarized in Table B-1 in Appendix B. Table B-1 also describes how and where thecomments on the 2001 DEIR are addressed in this DEIR.

ES.8 References Executive Summary

EBMUD. 2001. Urban Water Management Plan 2000. Water Resources Projects Division.February.

Documents

Bayside Executive Summary