Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.11 LAVWMA EIR I� 030 -3 � AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 27, 1984 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR for LAVWMA Export System Interruptible Flow Project EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Notice of Preparation RECOMMENDATION: 1) Concur with the issues identified \ in the Notice and direct Staff to respond. 2 ) Designate Planning Director as City representative for further contact regarding the EIR. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None i I DESCRIPTION : The Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) has decided to prepare an ' Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the LAVWMA Export System Interruptible Flow Project. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , LAVWMA has issued a Notice of Preparation asking for the City of Dublin ' s views as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The Notice of Preparation also asks the City to designate a representative for further EIR contact . i The Notice of Preparation states that the EIR will focus on the following two issues, although other issues may also be covered in the report. 1) The effects of discharge into San Lorenzo Creek, j. with particular attention given to shellfish beds, recreational use, and water quality. i 2 ) The secondary growth inducing impacts of the I� project. Ii I� Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the issues identified in the Notice of Preparation and direct Staff to respond accordingly, including the name of the Planning Director for further contact regarding the EIR. I i I i i -- ITEM NO. l` COPIES T0: James R. Walker -- "- ?REPARATION City of Dublin Department of Planning I TO: P.O. Box 2340 FROM: Livermore-Amador Valley Dublin, CA 94568 Water Management Agency 200 Bernal Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 i f SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental I_ Impact Report for the LAVWMA Export System Inter- ruptible Flow Project. As Lead Agency the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project described in this Notice of Preparation. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is relevant - to your agency' s statutory responsibilities or special ex- pertise in connection with the proposed project. The project description, a location map, and a discussion of the possible environmental effects of the project are attached. A copy of the Initial Study Environmental Signif- icance Checklist is also attached. In responding please furnish project-specific detail regard- ing the scope and content of the environmental information you wish to see covered in the EIR. Due to time constraints and the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice. ( Please send your response to James R. Walker, Manager, at the address shown above. Include the name of the designated representative in your agency so we may arrange follow-up consultation meetings if they are necessary. Project Title: LAVWMA Export System Interruptible Flow Project 1 Date: July 23 , 1984 Signature: Title: Manager ` - Telephone: 415/847-8008 SFR15/108 FILE �I j Attachment A Notice of Preparation LAVWMA Interruptible Flow Project EIR BACKGROUND A CEQA Initial Study and a proposed Negative Declaration were prepared for the LAVWMA Interruptible Flow Project in April 1984. .-State and local agencies and the general public ( were given an opportunity to review the Initial Study and I. .. submit written comments regarding the need for an EIR to the LAVWMA Board of Directors for their consideration. The Board also held a public hearing on May 30, 1984, to receive tes- timony regarding the environmental effects of the project. Potentially significant environmental issues were identified during this public review process. The LAVWMA Board of Directors determined on the basis of the public ' s comments and the Initial Study that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared for the Interruptible Flow 1 project. This Environmental Impact Report will be prepared and processed in accordance with LAVWMA' s adopted guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The Draft Environmental Impact Report is to focus on these issues: o The effects of discharge into San Lorenzo Creek with particular attention given to shellfish beds , recreational use, and water quality. o The secondary growth inducing impacts of the project. Other potentially significant environmental issues may arise during the Notice of Preparation and consultation process, public review, or the analysis itself. Such issues will also be covered in the report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION �w INTRODUCTION The Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) is responsible for the collection and disposal of treated effluents . from the Livermore wastewater treatment plant and the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) wastewater treatment plant. LAVWMA' s system (see attached figure) carries the treated wastewater from these Livermore-Amador Valley communities west through an export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) pipeline. The EBDA , I 1 A-1 i pipeline carries the wastewater to a discharge point in San Francisco Bay. The existing LAVWMA system has an export capacity of 16 . 62 j million gallons per day (mgd) based on flow over an average day in the maximum flow month (ADMM) . The existing system could reach full capacity in 2 to 3 years. By contract with ; - EBDA, the maximum flow which EBDA will accept from LAVWMA is 19 . 72 mgd ADMM. The proposed project would expand the capa city of the LAVWMA export system from 16. 62 mgd to 21 mgd _ ADMM, an increase of 4.38 mgd. PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the capa- city of the LAVWN'.A export system by optimizing the use of existing facilities and making as few modifications as pos- sible to those facilities. The proposal offers, therefore, a relatively low-cost solution to providing more wastewater export capacity in the near-term. Because of major con- straints in the existing system, however, the project would ' provide a relatively small amount of additional capacity - I i i lasting approximately 6 to 7 years. (Other wastewater export alternatives which could provide for long-term wastewater flows in the Livermore-Amador Valley are now being studied by various agencies. ) OPERATION I The project has been called the "Interruptible Flow" project i because of its operational features . From engineering and cost standpoints, the project is feasible if capacity is increased up to approximately 21 mgd. Over that amount, operational costs soar and the project becomes less feas- ible. Existing institutional arrangements between LAVWMA j and EBDA constrain the export flows to a lower volume, how- ever. According to the "Interruptible Flow" proposal, LAVWMA flows in excess of the 19 . 72 mgd contracted limit would be l discharged to the EBDA system only when extra capacity is available in the EBDA pipe. When all or part of the needed additional capacity is unavailable in the EBDA pipeline, as j may be the case during periods of unusually high wet-weather L flows in the region, all of the excess over the available capacity would bypass the EBDA system and be discharged to the San Lorenzo Creek flood control channel. Storage and pumping facilities would be built as part of -the project to moderate -and vary the export flows to match the available capacity in the EBDA pipeline. LOCATION AND STUDY AREA i The attached figure shows the general location of the LAVWMA facilities and the elements which would be modified by the A-2 I . f proposed project: 1) the LAVWMA export pump station, 2) the LAVWMA regulating reservoir' s and 3) two segments of the export pipeline. The project also includes changes in the operation of the existing emergency relief pipeline which discharges to the San Lorenzo flood control channel. The study area includes the areas directly impacted by con- struction of the flood control channel, the area currently served by the LAVWMA export system and areas which could become part of the LAVWMA service area between now and 1995. IMPROVEMENTS The general locations of the proposed improvements are shown in the attached figure. A description of each follows below. Pipeline The existing 36-inch diameter export pipeline is approxi- mately 15. 6 miles long. Treated effluent is pumped from the LAVWMA equalizing storage reservoirs westward through the pipe to Boehmer Summit, a distance of approximately 3 . 6 miles . From Boehmer Summit, the effluent is piped by gravity 12 miles to the EBDA system. Two sections of the pipeline would be replaced with thicker-walled pipe to accom- modate an increase in pressure that will occur with the increase in flow. These sections are shown in the figure. Pump Station The existing LAVWMA export pump station consists of six, 5-stage, 450 hp pumps . Two stages will be added to each pump and new 600 hp motors will be installed to handle the increased flows . All of these improvements will be made on LAVWMA property. Flow Equalization Reservoirs 'S The two existing reservoirs on the system have a combined storage capacity of 13 . 42 million gallons. To accommodate the increased flow, a third reservoir will be built and the total reservoir capacity will be expanded to 19. 79 million gallons . This new capacity will allow for emergency stor- age, reservoir cleaning and/or draining of the export pipe- IL line, and a safety factor. The new reservoir arrangement will also provide flexibility so the entire system need not be taken out of service for reservoir maintenance. • CONSTRUCTION PERIOD Construction would start on the proposed project in mid-1986 according to the present program. If this schedule is kept, the project would be operating in late 1987. A-3 i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following Environmental Checklist was used only to assist in the initial identification of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The potential effects which are identified in the checklist will be assessed in the EIR to determine if there is or is not substantial evidence of j significant effect. The existing LAVWMA system was analyzed in the Environmental F Impact' Statement (EIS) , Proposed Wastewater Management Program Livermore-Amador Valley, U.S. EPA, August 1976. That EIS analyzed the impacts of constructing and operating a 19 . 72 mgd wastewater export system. For various reasons, the original system was built in 1980 to handle only 15 . 62 mgd and the capacity was subsequently increased (1981) to 16. 62 mgd. The EIR will assess the current proposal which represents an increase of 1 . 28 mgd over the system assessed in 1976 . However, since the perceived environmental impacts of the 19 . 72 mgd proposal contributed in part to the down- sizing of _the project, the EIR will also assess the effects of the proposed increase over actual capacity, i.e. , an increase of 4. 38 mgd from 16. 62 to 21 . 0 mgd. i i SFR15/034 i A-4 i i Oa.�lax �N — * 2200 ft. 10 TO BE ' REPLACED 3300 . I ` BOEHMER 'Aft 3300 � SUMMIT liaKdro TO BE ourRA LIVERMORE REPLACED XPOQT PUMP INIERCEPIOR AIVION f LIVENOVE �� EIEQING EXPOUT HOULATINO PEAKING POND �IATION PIPELINE VEMV01114 COMPS M INIEMPIOR 64 SaK JUNCTION 4MUCTURE ngv;n PUMP Grtr/1[d1[ /tip AIATION r i1 uav t DAR;n INTERCEPTOQ S AM PLI NOr @,vud4M10K LIVERMORE ;TATION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE AVELIEF PIPELINE* *SAN LORENZO 91 FLOOD CONTROL 6 CHANNEL I 0 1 1 1 NOES ,n MArsi I ,M *SYSTEM COMPONENTS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT FIGURE 1 LAVWMA WASTEWATER EXPORT SYSTEM21M SHOWING PROPOSED FACILITIES F 17514.CO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST LAVWMA EXPORT SYSTEM INTERRUPTIBLE FLOW PROJECT Proponent Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVIIDIA) Address and Phone Number 200 Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA 94566 415/847-8008 Name of Project LAVWMA Export System Interruptible Flow Project Environmental Impacts Effect? Significant? Yes Maybe No Yes Ma robe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?_ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ X _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? — X _ X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x A-6 Effect? Significant. IYes May No Yes'Maybe No . g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X f _ mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? — 1 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: ("- a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration � of ambient air quality? — X b. The creation of objectionable odors? — X X F-i c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? — — 3. Water. "Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ — I . b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — X I c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — X — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — X �- e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, Idissolved oxygen or turbidity? X — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? -X L g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? I h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — -X — i. Exposure of people or property to water re- loted hazards such as flooding or tidal waves' A-7 Effect? Significant? Yes Maybe No Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Change in the diversity of species, or t number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic �^ plants)? X — X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — X X c. Introduction of new species of plants into -I an area, or in a barrier to the normal ; replenishment of existing species? — — e — d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X -� b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals. — -� d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X- -M 6. Noise. Will .the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? -x- b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal 'result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned X land use of an area? : 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: } a. Increase in the rate! of use of any natural X resources? — -x- A-8 Effect? Significant? Yes Maybe No Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable I natural resource? — IL- - 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or (_ rodiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — — — _' b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? --��� I_ 12. Hawing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X— 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — �— b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — �-- (' c. Substantial impact upon existing tronspor- tation systems? x-- d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- ( tion or movement of people and/or goods? X — e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air X Ltraffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? x-- — b. Police protection? X Ic. Schools? �— — A-9 Effect? Significant? Yes Maybe No Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? — �— 10. Risk of Upset. III the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — — X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X- 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? -x- - N/-A- 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? IL-- 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — �- c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? �-- d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X — t e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air X traffic? _ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? x--- — b. Police protection? �-- c. Schools? �-- I A-9 Effect? Significant? Yes Maybe No Yes May No b. Wi I I the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or X - historic building, structure, or object? -- c. Does the proposal have the potential to _ cause a physical change which would affect X unique ethnic cultural values? — J d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential irrPoct X (`. area? — - 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance,. :- a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to - achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one 1 which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) — X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- sideroble? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) — -x— — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects (_ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? i A-11 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. —� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect ( I on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case — because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X I- I i July 23 1984 (, ate Si n ure James R. Walker, Manager Livermore-Amador Water For Management Agency i i ! I i i ! A-12 POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The elements of the environment which could be impacted by I the proposed project were initially identified in the attached Environmental Checklist. The items which are checked "yes" or "maybe" under the "Effect" column of the checklist are discussed below. For those impacts checked "no" , an explanation is not given unless the reason for this conclusion appears unclear. For ease of reference , the numbering system used in the checklist is followed below. Missing numbers indicate potential effects which are clearly minimal or nonexistent and therefore not discussed. T 1 . EARTH b. Disruption of Soil Replacement of 5 ,500 linear feet of the LAVWMA export line will require excavation along the existing pipe- line corridor. This will be a temporary excavation and 1 the soils removed will be used as backfill following installation of the new pipe. No permanent change in soils or topography is expected to result. The other project components (reservoir enlargement and pump in- stallation) , will be constructed on sites that have already been graded and used for such uses. Construc- tion of these facilities will require excavation and small quanties of excess soils may be removed to ap- _proved disposal locations. C. Change in Topography See lb, above. e. _Increase in Erosion During construction, exposed soils may be subject to L wind or water erosion. Standard construction procedures will be followed to avoid erosion and minimize the in- advertent transport of soils offsite. L 2 . AIR b. Creation of Objectable Odors The LAVWMA system is designed so that all outside deten- tion facilities contain only treated effluents. The potential for creation of odors is expected to be mini- mal and odor control systems are already incorporated into the design of the facility. I . 1 � A-13 3. WATER a. Changes in the Currents or the Course or Direction of Water Movements in Esther, Marine or Fresh Waters The project would discharge treated effluent into the San Lorenzo flood control channel at times when the flow in the channel (wet weather conditions) would be approximately 1100 cfs (700 mgd) . The maximum discharge would be 1 . 28 mgd. The stream segment into which the discharge would be made is tidally influenced and during °- high tide or increased natural stream flows, the dis- charge would be less than 0. 18 percent of total stream flow. This increase should not adversely affect the stream or channel characteristics. C. Alterations to the Flow or Course of Flood Waters See -3a, 'above. l d. Change in Amount of Surface Water in Any Water f Body See 3a, above. e. Discharge into Surface Waters or in any Alteration of Surface Water Quality The proposed project would discharge a maximum of 1 . 28 mgd a into the San Lorenzo flood control channel. The quality of this effluent will meet all State and Federal water quality standards applicable to such discharges . Because of the high quality of the effluent, overall stream water quality should not be affected. Currently, the water quality of the LAVWMA effluent is superior to the water quality in the channel. Even if the water in the channel is improved relative to the quality of the effluent in the future, given the small quantity and high quality of the discharge, overall stream quality should not be � . degraded. 4. PLANT LIFE a. Change in Aquatic Species As described in item 3e above, the proposed discharge should not degrade water quality. The project is there- fore not expected to adversly affect aquatic species in the San Lorenzo Flood Control channel or San Francisco Bay. A-14 b. Rare and Endangered Species Project construction will disrupt an area within the LAVWMA plant boundaries and 5 ,500 lineal feet of right- of-way along East Castro Valley Boulevard and Frontage Road. These areas have been disturbed by construction - often. They should not contain rare or endangered plant species. (( 5 . ANIMAL LIFE I` a. Change in Diversity of Species or Numbers of any Species of Animals ' C See 4a and b, above. d. Deterioration to Existing Habitat See .3 and 4 , above. 6 . NOISE a. Increase in Existing Noise Levels There will be temporary increases in noise levels during construction. Construction related noise levels are not completely avoidable. However, restricting con- struction activities to normal working hours will serve to minimize conflicts with nearby receptors. The oper- ation of the expanded facilities is not expected to generate noticeable noise levels. 7 . LIGHT AND GLARE a. .-New Light or Glare Construction will not occur at night so construction lighting will not be necessary. Little or no new light- (_ ing will be needed for the completed facilities since the site is already well lighted for the existing opera- tions. New lighting will be oriented and shielded to L reduce glare in nearby areas. I., 8. • LAND USE `- a. Substantial Alteration of Planned Land Use I- Construction of the facilities at the locations shown in the figure will be consistent with the land use plans for these sites. L l A-15 i 9. NATURAL RESOURCES j a. Increase in the Rate of Use of Any Natural Resource The amount of materials used in construction such as fuels , steel, lime , etc. , will be relatively insignifi- cant. The use of energy for pump operation will increase (see Item 15) . Chlorine is seldom added in the LAVWMA system today because the treated wastewater from DSRSD and Livermore has been adequately disinfected. Future inflows will also be chlorinated at the treatment plants. 11 . POPULATION a. Alteration of the Growth Rate ' By expanding the capacity of the LAVWMA system, the project will remove a potential public service con- straint to future growth and development within the LAVWMA service area. While development could proceed in some sectors of the service area when this constraint is removed, the expansion of capacity would not in it- self cause this development to occur, especially in light of the many other physical, economic, and institutional conditions which must also be favorable for development to proceed. Decisions about future development are based primarily upon the planning pol- icies and development review procedures of the four cities and two counties in the service area. This proj- ect could affect the ways in which these policies and regulations are carried out, especially if a potential near-term shortage of wastewater export . capacity is seen as a limiting factor to development or, if on the other hand, the project provides wastewater export capa- city that is substantially in excess of the capacity needed to accommodate the growth as it has been planned in the communities being served. L_ For the purpose of assessing the growth inducing effects ! of the proposed project, currently sanctioned levels of i growth in the LAVWMA service area were compared to the growth which would be possible if: (1) wastewater capa- city is the only constraint to growth and, (2) the limit 1 to growth is the level of capacity provided by the pro- ject. The following discussion describes this relation- ship between the wastewater capacity provided by the proposed project and the planned growth from now to the year 1995 in four Analysis Areas within the LAVWMA service area. A-16 The analysis is ,based on the information provided in Tables 1 , 2A, and 2B. Table 1 shows the projected population and employment levels for 1995 in each of four Analysis Areas. (For purposes of the analysis, the general plan areas for the cities San Ramon, .Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore generally correspond _ to the Analysis Areas. ) The population and employment 1 projections reflect the current or developing general plan policies of the appropriate planning agency. Table 2 shows the projected wastewater flows which are a product of the population and employment projections in Table 1 and specified flow coefficients. H Table 1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RESIDENT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT 1980 1995 Analysis Resident Resident Area Population Employment Population Employment San Ramon 11 , 540 1,580 13, 900 2, 000 i_ Dublin 14 , 000 6 ,000 22, 400a 15 , 400a Livermore 51 ,950 18,690 69,900 29 ,900 Pleasanton 36 , 040 10 ,580 48 ,500 31 , 800 Subtotal: 113 , 530 36 , 850 154 ,700 79 , 100 Proposed Major -- -- Projects 23 , 200 7 , 400 TOTAL: 113, 530 36 , 850 177, 900 86 , 500 l_ aPopulation and employment forecasts for the Camp Parks Reserve Training Area and the Santa Rita Correctional Facility are not included because the populations of these installations will fluctuate greatly from time-to-time. The wastewater flow projections for these developments have been estimated from historical flow data and are in- cluded in Table 2A, Current ,and Projected wastewater Flows, as part of the Dublin Analysis Area data. A-17 ATable 2A NALYSIS AM AND TOTAL IAVWMA EXPORT SYSTEM CAPACITY/ALLOCASIOMS AND PROJECTED MASTEWATER FLOWS (mgd, AD1411a'b YEAR AND PROTECTED TIAMS ANALYSIS AREA 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 San Ramon 1.40d 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.43 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.45 1.45 tf6281111111111111aaa221afaa111aa1a11t11111a111t� n Is 1.35 1.85 Dublinc 2.04d 2.14 2.23 2.33 3.01 3.11 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.78 3.88 asIIIM1e/aIsI all IaIII I-�1aa212a8a221a118/882a8111t1�m So m m=all 2.3 r✓Z:6z� Livermore 4.61 5.02 5.42 5.83 6.23 6.63 7.03 7.43 7.84 8.24 6.64 9.04 9.44 9.85 fa1111121a1111111a1a111a1a1a112111a1 1I11a11aaat1t1111aaa1a2a. m as a. s 7.OZ 8.48 Pleasantonf 4.27 4.60 4.92 5.25 5.57 5.90 6.22 6.55 6.87 7.20 7.52 7.85 8.18 8.49 11111111 9 11111 go 1111114 11tals1engines 11111 ft aa� 8891 8821■ p ,5.63 7.09 SERVICE AREA 12.32 13.16 13.71 14.83 16.23 17.06 17.87 18.71 19.54 20.37 21.19 22.02 22.85 23.67 LAVWf4A Service f1188at818tIa1a18t118a18t811�� 100 m a�a� a�■ Area Excluding 16.62 21.00 Las Positas) PROPOSED PROJECT IS OPERATIONAL AT 21 MGD Table 2B LAS POSITAS AND TOTAL LAVWMA. EXPORT SYSTEM CAPACITY/ALLOCATIONS AND PROJECTED WASTAKATER FLAWS (mgd, ADMM) YEAR AND PROJECTED FLAWS 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19a9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 LAS POSITAS 0.26 0.54 0.81 1.09 1.37 1.65 1.92 2.20 2.48 2.75 3.03 Propose Major Project) SERVICE AREA 12.32 13.16 13.71 15.09 16.77 17.87 16.96 20.08 21.19 22.29 23.39 24.50 25.60 26.70 (LAVWMA Service m m m m m=1101 as afM fa\8811■ Area Including D .096► Las Positas) 16.62 21.00 PROPOSED PROJECT Legend IS OPERATIONAL E21 MGDD p Existing LAVWMA allocation is exhausted ,odla. LAVWMA allocation provided by the proposed project is exhausted a NO CAPACITY - GROWTH IS LIMITED 121111 CAPACITY - PLANNED GROWTH CAN BE ACCOMMODATED ag NO CAPACITY WITHOUT FURTHER EXPANSION OF TAE LAVWMA SYSTEM - I MOTES a. The projected wastewater flows are the product of the populating and employment projections shown in Table 1 and the flow coefficients derived in Appendix C. Factors to convert Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) to ADMM from LAVWMA Wastewater Evaluation Re ort, CH2M HILL, February 1984. The ADWF-ADMM conversion factors are: RSD an Ramon and Dublin), 1.15; Livermore, 1.28; Pleasanton, 1.39 (e.g.. 1 mgd ADWF - 1.15 agd ADMM in Dublin). b. For this analysis it was assumed that each of the three wastewater service areas would be allocated 1/3 of the total L.AvWMA capacity increase pzo�vided by the pro- posed project. C. Includes flows for Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and Camp Parks Training Center beginning in 1986. d. San Ramon and Dublin share in the DSRSD LAVWMA allocation. The 1982 shares were calculated from 1960 resident population and employment data which indicate that 40.7 percent of the DSRSD service area population and employment is in San Ramon and 59.3 percent is in Dublin. V. The assumed 1987 DSRSD allocation with the project would be S.433 m9d, ADMM (the p6( existing allocation plus 1/3 of the increase provided). For this analysis, this allocation was divided between San Ramon and Lublin according to their relative shares of the projected 1987 DSRSD flow (34 percent for San Ramon and 66 percent for Dublin). f. Pleasanton anticipates the development of high-volume industrial water use in the near future. Forecast levels of development would cause Pleasanton flows to in- crease rapidly as soon as 1985 and possibly rise to over 12 oqd in 1995 resulting ZM in valleywide flows over 30 mqd. ii HILL A-18 The population and employment projections shown in Table 1 reflect the level of development which is consistent with the adopted or evolving general plans for the four cities in the study area up to 1995. Two large developments have been proposed in Contra Costa County--Gumpert Ranch and Shappell. These devel- opments are not expected to be substantially underway until after 1995 and are therefore not included in the population and employment data used in this analysis. A third development which, if approved, could be par- ; tially constructed before 1995 is the Las Positas development. This project is not consistent with the _ current Alameda County General Plan, however, if the General Plan is amended and the project is approved, the LAVWMA system would serve the new project. The Alameda County and Contra Costa County 1995 growth projections for other areas within the study area, but outside the Analysis Areas , are very low. These areas are not included in the projections in Table 1 because I the scattered development in these areas would have little if any effect on future wastewater demands. San Ramon Analysis Area The General Plan for the newly incorporated City of San Ramon is in the early stages of preparation. A general plan boundary and a sphere of influence have not yet been defined. The population and employment projections shown in Table 1 are for the developed area within the new city, small pockets of infill development, and the developable vacant lands adjacent to the City which are not currently served by Central Costa County Sanitary District. I_ Table 2A shows the current and projected wastewater flows in San Ramon. The current LAVWMA allocation to DSRSD is 3 . 97 mgd ADMM. The portion of that 3. 97 mgd assumed to be allocated to San Ramon is 1. 62 mgd ADMM which is 40. 7 percent of the total DSRSD allocation. (Allocation made according to the method explained in Table 2 , footnote d. ) Based on the projected flows, the current allocation to ( San Ramon should be sufficient to serve the slow growth of the City through 1995 . The relatively low growth rates in San Ramon and the corresponding low wastewater Iflow projections result from the limited amount of l - developable land within the Analysis Area. A-19 Implementation of the proposed project would provide an assumed allocation to San Ramon of 1 . 85 mgd in 1987 (Table 2 , Footnote e) . This represents an available Ar capacity of approximately 0. 43 mgd over the projected wastewater flows in 1987. Because of the slow growth rates in San Ramon, only a small amount of this avail- able capacity would be consumed by 1995. At that time, the assumed allocated capacity would exceed projected wastewater flows by approximately 0 . 40 mgd. Thus, growth in San Ramon would be accommodated through the year 1995 because the rate of growth will be very low. Dublin Analysis Area The projected population and employment levels shown in Table 1 and the wastewater flows shown in Table 2A are ' for the areas included in the Dublin planning area. The City' s first General Plan is currently being devel- oped. ; The `current allocation of wastewater export capacity to Dublin is assumed to be 2. 35 mgd ADMM or 59. 3 percent of the current allocation to DSRSD (allocation made according to method explained in Table 2, footnote d) . Based on projected wastewater flows in Dublin, this allocation will be consumed by approximately 1985 or 1986. Since the proposed project would not increase the existing wastewater export capacity until 1987 , approximately one to two years of planned growth could be delayed or foregone. This could affect Dublin' s rate of growth after 1987 although this potential af- fect is not accounted for in Table 2A, which assumes a �.4.5 1995tant rate of increase in flows between 1982 and 11r When the proposed project is -operational, a total allo- cation of 3. 58 mgd .ADMM would be provided to Dublin in 1987 (See Table 2, Footnote e) . As shown in Table 2A, projected flows in Dublin at that time would be approxi- mately 3. 11 mgd. The project, therefore, would provide an additional capacity of approximately 0. 50 mgd in Dublin in 1987. Given the planned rate growth in the area, this capacity would provide for development in j the area until approximately 1992. Thereafter, the capacity would be depleted. Livermore Analysis Area The City of Livermore projections indicate the resident population will be 69, 900 and the employment level will be 29 ,900 in 1995. Table 2A shows these population and employment projections in terms of wastewater flow. A-20 Currently, LAVWMA allows the City of Livermore to dis- charge 7. 02 mgd, ADMM into the LAVWMA export system. Based on projected wastewater flows in Livermore, this current allocation will be consumed by approximately 1988 . At that time additional wastewater export capa- city will be necessary to service the city' s projected growth. When the proposed project is constructed, a total allo- cation of 8. 48 mgd would be provided to Livermore in 1987 (project completion date) . As shown in Table 2A, Livermore ' s projected flows at that time would be 6. 63 mgd. This additional 1 . 86-mgd capacity would provide for planned growth in the Livermore area until approxi- mately 1991-1992. At that time, the additional capacity I provided by the proposed project would be consumed. Thus, the proposed project would serve Livermore' s• pro- jected demand for wastewater capacity through approxi- mately 1991 in accordance with the City' s plans for growth. Further growth would not occur beyond that time unless more export capacity is found. Pleasanton Analysis Area The Pleasanton resident population projections shown in Table 1 are based on the city' s adopted 2 percent growth rate. The projections for employment are based on the planning department' s estimate of future commer- cial and industrial development within the area. These projections , in equivalent wastewater flows, are shown in Table 2. Currently, Pleasanton is allocated 5. 63 mgd ADMM, by LAVWMA. Based on the projected wastewater flows in Pleasanton, this allocation will be consumed by approxi- mately 1986 or 1987 . At that time, additional waste- water capacity will be necessary to service planned growth. Since the proposed project would not provide new wastewater export capacity until 1987 , growth which is planned for the 1986-1987 period could be delayed a year. l_ When the proposed project is constructed, a total allo- cation of 7. 09 mgd would be provided to Pleasanton in 1987 (according to an assumed division at the new allo- cation, see below) at the time of project completion. As shown in Table 2A, projected flows in Pleasanton at that time would be approximately 5. 90 mgd. The project, therefore, would provide an additional useable capacity of approximately 1. 19 mgd in Pleasanton in 1987. Given the planned rate of growth in the area, this capacity { would provide for development until approximately 1990 or 1991 when the allocation would be exhausted.* I A-21 Thus , the proposed project would serve the growth now planned in Pleasanton through approximately 1990. Longer-term capacity for the continuation of Pleasanton' s growth plans would not be provided without a further expansion in capacity. CN The Livermore-Amador Valley The findings of the preceeding analysis are based on the equal division of the project' s additional LAVWMA export capacity between the three member agencies. This allocation is assumed for the purpose of this analysis since the actual allocation of capacity has not been made. The analysis was designed to measure the potential for each allocation to reach or fall short of the projec- ted demands in each of the Analysis Areas as determined . by the plans for those areas. If a different allocation of wastewater capacity is eventually adopted, the conclu- sions of this analysis would change accordingly. Tables 2A and 2B show the relationship of Analysis Area and valleywide flows to the capacities provided by the LAVWMA system. Given the rate of growth in the valley as projected from the general plans and the predictions of the planning agencies, the existing LAVWMA capacity would be exhausted in approximately 1986. The proposed project would increase the capacity by approximately 4. 38 mgd for a total capacity of approximately 21 mgd. Given the projected rate of growth, this increased ca- pacity would be consumed by approximately 1992. The excess wastewater export capacity provided to the valley for the 4 to 5 years between project implementa- tion and capacity depletion should not significantly alter the cumulative growth rate as currently planned and projected. The relative rates of growth among the different Analysis Areas could vary, however, depending on the allocation of capacity. *The City of Pleasanton anticipates a significant proportion of high-volume water use, industrial development in the near future (J. Walker, March, April 1984) . This analysis does not take such development into account. High volume water users could generate from 100 ,000-150,000 gpd/acre on parcels averaging 10 acres in size. Current forecasts indicate 30 or more acres may be set aside for these industries before 1995 . Under this scenario, substantial volumes of wastewater would be generated in excess of the amounts analyzed in this study. A-22 In summary, while each city within the study area will grow at varying rates for varying lengths of time, each according to its own adopted plan for growth, the aggregate effect will be to provide growth capacity in the valley for a 4- to 5-year period after the project is built. I ' 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION C. Impact on Existing Transportation Systems Replacement of two segments of the existing LAVWMA ex- port line could cause temporary disruption to traffic within the construction area. Construction will occur along 2, 200 lineal feet of the Frontage Road right-of- way near Boehmer Summit and along 3,300 lineal feet of the East Castro Valley Boulevard right-of-way between Eden Canyon Road and the I-580/East Castro Valley Bou- levard overpass. These disruptions will be temporary and detours and construction area barriers will be designed to minimize the inherent inconvenience and Ihazard. 15 . ENERGY l a. Increased Energy Consumption The increased energy consumption from the proposed pro- f ject would be approximately 5. 33 MWh annually when the system is operated at its full 21-mgd capacity; an in- crease of approximately 66 . 5 percent over today' s level of consumption. This relatively high ratio of increased energy use to the increased flow (a 26-percent increase) is due to the exponential rise in the energy demand needed to pump higher volumes over the summit. Other (. components of the project (reservoir expansion and pipe- line replacement) will not increase energy consumption. L. 16 . UTILITIES d. Changes or Alterations of Sewer System I- The proposal will have a direct impact on the LAVWMA export system. The proposal will increase the capacity of the LAVWMA wastewater export system by modifying and " replacing wastewater pumps, and enlarging the LAVWMA storage reservoirs. i I A-23 17. HUMAN HEALTH b. Exposure of People to Potential Health Hazards A point of potential contact between the public and the project is the San Lorenzo flood control channel dis- charge. The quality of the discharge will meet appli- cable water quality standards for such discharges and is therefore should not be a health hazard. 18 . AESTHETICS a. Obstruction of Views; Creation of Offensive Views The LAVWMA reservoirs will be expanded within the exist- ing boundaries of the LAVWMA property. Views of the facilities will not be significantly different than they are now. The effluent to be discharged into the San Lorenzo flood control channel will be discharged through an existing outfall. The project will not change the appearance of the existing structure. Currently, the structure is visible during low tide and is submerged during high tide or high stream flows. Because the proposed dis- charge would occur during wet weather conditions, the discharge should not be visible. 20 . CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 a. Alteration or Destruction of Cultural Resources Expansion of the LAVWMA reservoir will occur within an already significantly altered area. Replacement of 5, 500 feet of the existing export pipeline will occur within the existing export pipeline corridor and along the rights-of-way for Frontage Road and East Castro Valley Boulevard. These areas have been disturbed many times by man and are not expected to contain cultural resources. 21 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the Project Have the Potential to Degrade the Quality of the Environment? The construction and operation impacts of the proposal should not degrade environmental quality. The proposal involves a small amount of new construction primarily in areas which have been often and significantly dis- turbed. These areas are not considered to be sensitive environments and standard construction techniques can A-24 be employed to minimize potential short term construc- tion-related impacts. Operation of the project involves the potential dis- charge of treated effluent into the last 3,000 feet of the San Lorenzo flood control channel. The effluent will meet applicable water quality standards and should not adversely affect the quality of the water in the channel. The proposed project will remove a near-term constraint ( to growth in the Livermore-Amador Valley and serve growth over a 3 to 4-year period (see Table 2) . As specific developments are proposed during this period of time, they will be analyzed for their environmental effects under the California Environmental Quality Act and their consistency with applicable general plans and the en- vironmental protection principles which are embodied in F those plans. Until specific developments are proposed and evaluated, only those impacts generally associated with growth can be identified and assessed. Such assessments of growth were mandated and conducted during the development of the adopted city and county general plans in the Valley. Growth and related environmental analyses are also an integral element in the general plan development proces- ses now underway in San Ramon and Dublin. Since the proposed project has been formulated on the basis of these existing and evolving general plans, the potential growth effects of the project have been, or will be, a key consideration in the planning process. b. Does the Project Have the Potential to Achieve Short-Term, to the Disadvantage of Long-Term Environmental Goals? The improvement and maintenance of water quality is both a short- and long-term environmental goal which the project will satisfy. Direct construction and operational effects are minimal in both the short and L long terms. The long-term secondary effects of the project should also be insignificant (See Items 21a and 21c) . C. Does the Project Have Impacts which are Individually Limited but Cumulatively Considerable? The proposed project will remove a constraint to future development in the Livermore-Amador Valley by increas- ing the capacity of the regional wastewater export sys- tem (see Table 2) . A-25 • I I I ' t As individual developments are proposed within the Val- ley, they will be analyzed for their potential environ- mental effects and their consistency with local general plans . The level of growth that would be allowed by the proposed project was developed on the basis of the general plans for Pleasanton and Livermore. In these areas , therefore, the proposal would allow growth to proceed only within levels already identified and analyzed in the adopted general plans for the two cities. In the new cities of Dublin and San Ramon, the level of development allowed by the project may be greater or Ij less than the development contemplated in the county general plans now in effect for those areas. , The actual allocation of wastewater capacity will rest largely on the outcome of the planning process now underway in �. those two cities. Valley-wide, the cumulative effect of the proposal would be to provide wastewater export capacity sufficient to serve projected development between 1987 (project com- pletion date) and 1991 , when the additional capacity provided would be depleted. Providing additional waste- water capacity over this 3- to 4-year period should not alter the overall Valley growth rates. The relative rates of growth of areas within the Valley could vary, however, depending on the manner in which each city implements its general plan. I i SFR17/083 A-26 DISTRIBUTION LIST Notice of Preparation Iof a Draft Environmental Impact Report LAVWMA Export System Interruptible Flow Project LOCAL AGENCIES: Alameda County Planning Dept. ( Alameda County Dept. of Public Health Attn: Adolph Martinelli 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94644 (17 Alameda County Flood Control I & Water Conservation District 399 Elmhurst Street r Hayward, CA 94644 Alameda County LAFCO 1221 Oak Street Oakland, CA 94612 Alameda County Water District 38050 Fremont Blvd. Fremont, CA 94536 Association of Bay Area Governments Clearinghouse Claremont Hotel Berkeley, CA 94705 I- Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 East Bay Dischargers Authority Iy 14150 Neptune Drive San Leandro, CA 94577 City of Dublin (- Department of Planning P.O. Box 2340 I Dublin, CA 94568 L L I A-27 City of Livermore Attn: Robert Brown, Director of Planning 1052 S. Livermore Livermore, CA 94550 City of Pleasanton Attn: Robert Harris , Planning Director 200 Bernal Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566-1395 City of San Ramon - Attn: Richard Bottarini, i Planning Director 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Contra Costa County Planning Department Attn: Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning P.O. Box 951 Martinez , CA 94553 Contra Costa County LAFCO Attn: Dewey Mansfield, Executive Officer LAFCO Administration Building 8th Floor Martinez , CA 94553 Dublin-San Ramon Services District Attn: Miles Ferris, Director of Public Works 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 1 East Bay Municipal Utility District Attn: John Fashing P.O. Box 24055 Oakland, CA 94623 I. East Bay Regional Parks District Attn: Tom Lindenmeyer, Environmental Coordinator 11500 Skyline Boulevard Oakland, CA 94619 A-28 1 1 I Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction Division Attn: Jay McCoy, Division Manager 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez , CA 97553 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District f Planning Division Attn: Jim Kelly, Division Manager 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez , CA 97553 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Planning Department Attn: Jeff Georgevich 101 8th Street I Oakland, CA 94607 ( STATE AGENCIES: Air Resources Board Attn: Steve Demello 1102 Q Street Sacramento, CA 95814 IDepartment of Conservation Land Resources Protection Unit Attn: Dennis O'Bryant (A 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1354 I Sacramento, CA 95814 Energy Commission L Attn: Sheri McFarland 1516 Ninth Street, Room 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Fish and Game Attn: B. Hunter, r Regional Manager I Yountville Facility, Bldg C Yountville, CA 94599 I_. Department of Health Services Attn: Harvey Collins 714 P Street, Room 430 Sacramento, CA 95814 I A-29 i State Lands Commission Attn: Ted Fukushima 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Parks & Recreation Attn: James M. Doyle P.O. Box 2390 Sacramento, CA 95811 i Department of Transportation District 4 Attn: Mara Malandry P.O. Box 3366 , Rincon Annex San Francisco, CA 94119 I ± San Francisco Bay Conservation* & Development Commission Attn: Robert Batha 30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board 1111 Jackson Street, Room 6040 Oakland, CA 94607 State Water Resources Control Board I, Division of Water Quality Attn: Joan Jurancich P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research I_ 1400 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ! SFR15/109 A-30