DOCSLIB.ORG

Nutrient Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nutrient Management Plan NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN LIVERMORE VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN July 2015 PREPARED BY: ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 454-5000 PREPARED BY: ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY STAFF Matt Katen, P.G. – Principal Geologist Tom Rooze, P.G. – Associate Geologist Contributors: Jill Duerig, P.E. – General Manager Kurt Arends, P.E. – Assistant General Manager Jarnail Chahal, P.E. – Engineering Manager Colleen Winey, P.G. – Assistant Geologist Table of Contents Page ES Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................i ES 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................i ES 2 Groundwater Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations .............................................................. ii ES 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation...................................................................................................................... ii ES 4 Antidegradation Analysis ........................................................................................................................... iv ES 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies ............................................................................................... v ES 6 Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................. vii 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Management Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Master Water Recycling Permit and Salt Management Plan ...................................................... 3 1.3.2 State Recycled Water Policy ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3.3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) ....................................................................... 4 1.3.4 Zone 7 Wastewater Management Plan ....................................................................................... 4 1.3.5 Groundwater Management Plan and Annual Reports ................................................................ 5 1.4 Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 CEQA Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 6 2 Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations ................................................................................. 9 2.1 Groundwater Basin Overview ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Main and Fringe Basins ............................................................................................................ 11 2.1.3 Aquifer Zones ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Groundwater Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.2.1 Conjunctive Use ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Groundwater Storage ................................................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Groundwater Production .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.4 Groundwater Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 17 Nutrient Management Plan July 2015 I 2.3 Basin Water Quality (Nutrients) ............................................................................................................... 19 2.3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3.2 Nitrate Concentrations .............................................................................................................. 20 2.3.3 Assimilative Capacity ............................................................................................................... 26 2.4 Areas of Concern ...................................................................................................................................... 26 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 35 3.1 Historical Sources of Nitrate .................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.1 Fate and Transport of Nitrate .................................................................................................... 36 3.2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 37 3.3 Nitrogen Loading Calculations ................................................................................................................. 41 3.3.1 Current Nitrogen Loading ........................................................................................................ 41 3.3.2 Future Nitrate Loading ............................................................................................................. 46 3.4 Projected Nitrate Concentrations ............................................................................................................. 51 4 Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis ................................................................................ 55 4.1 Recycled Water Projects ........................................................................................................................... 55 4.2 Stormwater Capture Projects .................................................................................................................... 56 4.3 State Water Board Recycled Water Policy Criteria .................................................................................. 56 4.4 Antidegradation Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 57 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... 59 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 59 5.2 Investigate Areas of Concern .................................................................................................................... 59 5.3 Minimize Nitrogen Loading ...................................................................................................................... 59 5.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 59 5.3.2 Fertilizer Application................................................................................................................ 60 5.3.3 Recycled Water Irrigation ........................................................................................................ 60 5.3.4 Livestock Manure Management ............................................................................................... 60 5.3.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems .................................................................................... 61 5.4 Enhanced Attenuation ............................................................................................................................... 62 6 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 63 6.1 Investigate Boundaries of Areas of Concern ............................................................................................. 63 6.2 Implementation Measures to Minimize Nitrogen Loading ........................................................................ 63 6.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 63 6.2.2 Fertilizer
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Ver. 1.1): Hydrogeologic Controls and Geochemical Indicators Of
    Prepared in cooperation with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Hayward, and Alameda County Water District Hydrogeologic Controls and Geochemical Indicators of Groundwater Movement in the Niles Cone and Southern East Bay Plain Groundwater Subbasins, Alameda County, California Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5003 Version 1.1, February 2019 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Hydrogeologic Controls and Geochemical Indicators of Groundwater Movement in the Niles Cone and Southern East Bay Plain Groundwater Subbasins, Alameda County, California By Nick Teague, John Izbicki, Jim Borchers, Justin Kulongoski, and Bryant Jurgens Prepared in cooperation with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Hayward, and Alameda County Water District Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5003 Version 1.1, February 2019 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Acting Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Deputy Director exercising the authority of the Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 First release: February 2018 Revised: February 2019 (ver. 1.1) For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish Or Mexican Authorities
    -::, » . .• f Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities Prepared by the Staff of the State Lands Commission ----- -- -·- PREFACE This report was prepared by Cris Perez under direction of Lou Shafer. There were three main reasons for its preparation. First, it provides a convenient reference to patent data used by staff Boundary Officers and others who may find the information helpful. Secondly, this report provides a background for newer members who may be unfamiliar with Spanish and Mexican land grants and the general circumstances surrounding the transfer of land from Mexican to American dominion. Lastly, it provides sources for additional reading for those who may wish to study further. The report has not been reviewed by the Executive Staff of the Commission and has not been approved by the State Lands Commission. If there are any questions regarding this report, direct them to Cris Perez or myself at the Office of the State Lands Commission, 1807 - 13th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. ROY MINNICK, Supervisor Boundary Investigation Unit 0401L VI TABLE OF CONTENlS Preface UI List of Maps x Introduction 1 Private Land Claims in California 2 Missions, Presidios, and Pueblos 7 Explanation of Terms Used in This Report 14 GRANTS OF LAND BY COUNTY AlamE:1da County 15 Amador County 19 Butte County 21 Calaveras County 23 Colusa County 25 Contra Costa County 27 Fresno County 31 Glenn County 33 Kern County 35 Kings County 39 Lake County 41 Los Angeles County 43 Marin County 53 Mariposa County 57 Mendocino County
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 4.15-1 Water Supply Assessment
    Appendix 4.15-1 Water Supply Assessment /lfCWD HLHHEOHCOUAIFYWHFEHO/SFH/CF DIRECTORS 43885 SOUTH GRIMMER BOULEVARD • FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94538 MANAGEMENT (510) 668-4200 • FAX (510) 770-1793 • www.acwd.org ROBERT AZIZ AKBARI SHAVER General Manager JAMES G. GUNTHER KURT ARENDS JUDY C. HUANG Operations and Maintenance PAULSETHY LAURA J. HIDAS JOHN H. WEED Water Resources ED STEVENSON June 24, 2020 Engineering and Technology Services JONATHAN WUNDERLICH Finance VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Carmela Campbell ([email protected]) Economic and Community Development Director City of Union City 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road Union City, CA 94587 Dear Ms. Campbell: Subject: Water Supply Assessment for Station East Project As requested by the City of Union City, Alameda County Water District (ACWD) has prepared a water supply assessment for the Station East Project (enclosed). The water supply assessment was adopted by the ACWD Board of Directors on June 11, 2020 (resolution enclosed). The water supply assessment was prepared pursuant to California Water Code Section §10910 which requires that a water supply assessment be provided to cities or counties for a project that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and which surpasses a threshold for the number of housing units and/or square feet of commercial/industrial buildings. The water supply assessment documents sources of water supply, quantifies water demands, evaluates drought impacts, and provides a comparison of water supply and demand that is the basis for an assessment of water supply sufficiency. The water supply assessment also includes provisions for Water Conservation to be implemented by the Project applicant. As noted in the assessment, these provisions will be a condition of water service to the Project.
    [Show full text]
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4
    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality Enhancement Opportunities at Castlewood Country Club September 2020
    Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality Enhancement Opportunities at Castlewood Country Club september 2020 PREPARED BY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH San Francisco Estuary Institute Alameda County Flood Control and H.T. Harvey & Associates Water Conservation District, Zone 7 FUNDED BY San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund, EPA Region IX A PRODUCT OF PREPARING FOR THE STORM FINAL zone 7 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality Enhancement Opportunities at Castlewood Country Club PREPARED BY San Francisco Estuary Institute H.T. Harvey & Associates PREPARED FOR Castlewood Country Club IN PARTNERSHIP WITH Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 FUNDED BY A grant from the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund, EPA Region IX AUTHORS Stephanie Panlasigui, SFEI Sarah Pearce, SFEI Ryan Hegstad, H.T. Harvey & Associates Matthew Quinn, H.T. Harvey & Associates Alison Whipple, SFEI DESIGN Ruth Askevold, SFEI Ellen Plane, SFEI A PRODUCT OF PREPARING FOR THE STORM FINAL SEPTEMBER 2020 SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE PUBLICATION #1003 SUGGESTED CITATION Panlasigui, S, Pearce, S, Hegstad, R, Quinn, M, Whipple, A 2020. Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality Enhancement Opportunities at Castlewood Country Club. In collaboration with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Quality Improvement Fund. SFEI Publication #1003, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. REPORT AVAILABILITY Report is available on SFEI’s website at http://www.sfei.org/projects/preparing-storm. IMAGE PERMISSION Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the individual or institution credited.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix D Species Accounts
    Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix D Species Accounts Table of Contents San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) ...................................................... 1 Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) ........................................................ 4 Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) .................................................................... 6 Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) ..................................... 8 Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) ....................................... 10 Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) ........................................................ 11 Longhorn Fairy Shrimp ......................................................................................... 12 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ..................................................................................... 15 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly ................................................................................ 18 California Tiger Salamander ................................................................................. 21 California Red-Legged Frog .................................................................................. 25 Foothill yellow-legged frog .................................................................................. 28 Alameda Whipsnake ............................................................................................ 31 Central California Coast Steelhead .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 EVIDENCE THAT ACWD HAS OPERATED the NILES CONE SUB-BASIN 2-09.01 WITHIN ITS SUSTAINABLE YIELD the Alameda County Water Distri
    DRAFT EVIDENCE THAT ACWD HAS OPERATED THE NILES CONE SUB-BASIN 2-09.01 WITHIN ITS SUSTAINABLE YIELD The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) manages the Niles Cone Sub-basin 2-09.01 (Niles Cone) in the Cities of Fremont, Newark, Union City, and southern Hayward (map in Figure 1A and east-west cross-section in Figure 1B). Groundwater comprises approximately 40% of the supply to ACWD’s distribution system. ACWD operates production wells and artificial recharge facilities (also commonly referred to as managed-aquifer-recharge) in the Niles Cone. By integrating recharge and pumping operations, and implementing other vital programs, ACWD has operated the Niles Cone within its sustainable yield over the last five decades, including the most recent 10-year period from 2005 to 2015. To support this analysis, the following is provided: A description of the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin and its sustainable yield. A summary of ACWD programs that ensure that total pumping does not exceed the sustainable yield. Data on basin conditions over the last 10 years. Introduction – Sources of Information ACWD would like to emphasize that this document is based on existing and publically available information, including the Survey Report on Groundwater Conditions (published annually), the Groundwater Monitoring Report (published annually), Bulletins published by the California Department of Water Resources, reports of hydrogeologic investigations conducted by ACWD and financially supported by DWR, ACWD integrated planning and operations reports, and other studies. The Niles Cone Groundwater Basin and its Sustainable Yield The long-term average sustainable pumping yield of the Niles Cone, like any other groundwater basin, is determined by the amount of recharge to productive aquifers less natural (non-pumping) sinks from the aquifers.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality
    Chapter 7: Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality Chapter 7 1 Groundwater Resources and 2 Groundwater Quality 3 7.1 Introduction 4 This chapter describes groundwater resources and groundwater quality in the 5 Study Area, and potential changes that could occur as a result of implementing the 6 alternatives evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 7 Implementation of the alternatives could affect groundwater resources through 8 potential changes in operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State 9 Water Project (SWP) and ecosystem restoration. 10 7.2 Regulatory Environment and Compliance 11 Requirements 12 Potential actions that could be implemented under the alternatives evaluated in 13 this EIS could affect groundwater resources in the areas along the rivers impacted 14 by changes in the operations of CVP or SWP reservoirs and in the vicinity of and 15 lands served by CVP and SWP water supplies. Groundwater basins that may be 16 affected by implementation of the alternatives are in the Trinity River Region, 17 Central Valley Region, San Francisco Bay Area Region, Central Coast Region, 18 and Southern California Region. 19 Actions located on public agency lands or implemented, funded, or approved by 20 Federal and state agencies would need to be compliant with appropriate Federal 21 and state agency policies and regulations, as summarized in Chapter 4, Approach 22 to Environmental Analyses. 23 Several of the state policies and regulations described in Chapter 4 have resulted 24 in specific institutional and operational conditions in California groundwater 25 basins, including the basin adjudication process, California Statewide 26 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM), California Sustainable 27 Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and local groundwater management 28 ordinances, as summarized below.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup Minutes of Meeting March 5, 2003 Alameda County Public Works Agency
    Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup Minutes of Meeting March 5, 2003 Alameda County Public Works Agency Attendees Pete Alexander EBRPD Kristine Atkinson DFG Gordon Becker CEMAR Dale Boyer RWQCB Brenda Buxton State Coastal Conservancy Eric Cartwright ACWD Laurel Collins ACFCWCD consultant Chuck Hanson Hanson Environmental Craig Hill ACWD Jim Horen Zone 7 Water Agency Terry Huff NRCS Ralph Johnson ACFCWCD Laura Kilgour ACFCWCD Jeff Miller ACA Josh Milstein SFPUC Stuart Moock PG&E Joe Naras SFPUC Jim Reynolds ACWD Jim Robins Jones and Stokes Anna Roche SFPUC Brian Sak SFPUC Jackie Shick NRCS Janet Sowers William Lettis & Associates Gary Stern NOAA Fisheries Jennifer Stokes SFPUC Announcements The first Steelhead Festival planning meeting was announced for March 6th. The festival is scheduled to occur on May 10th. Updates §1135 Process. Laura Kilgour said that the Corps' Detailed Project Report (DPR) is scheduled to be completed in August 2006, suggesting that project construction is not expected until at least 2008. Dale Boyer noted that lobbying of congresspersons by Workgroup members and agency managers may be beneficial if they urge the Corps' to accelerate its activities. Brenda Buxton re- stated her agency's commitment to help fund steelhead passage projects in Alameda Creek, indicating that the Workgroup should continue to evaluate alternatives to funding via the 1135 Process. With sufficient matching funds, as much as $5 million may be available through the Conservancy. FRW Meeting Minutes: 3.5.2003 1 SFPUC Activities. Josh Milstein told the Workgroup that the SFPUC started the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process for various species of concern occurring on the Alameda Creek watershed properties held by the agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrostratigraphy of the Shallow Aquifer in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Summer 2012 Hydrostratigraphy of the Shallow Aquifer in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Ramon W. Cioco San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Cioco, Ramon W., "Hydrostratigraphy of the Shallow Aquifer in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin" (2012). Master's Theses. 4192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.b6sy-fb6j https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4192 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE SHALLOW AQUIFER IN THE NILES CONE GROUNDWATER BASIN A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Geology San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Ramon W. Cioco August 2012 ©2012 Ramon W. Cioco ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE SHALLOW AQUIFER IN THE NILES CONE GROUNDWATER BASIN by Ramon W. Cioco APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY August 2012 Dr. June A. Oberdorfer Department of Geology Dr. David W. Andersen Department of Geology Mr. Douglas T. Young Alameda County Water District ABSTRACT HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE SHALLOW AQUIFER IN THE NILES CONE GROUNDWATER BASIN by Ramon W. Cioco The Shallow Aquifer in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, southern Alameda County, California, can act as a migration pathway for surface contaminants into the underlying Newark Aquifer, a source of water supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Up Your Creek! the Electronic Newsletter of the Alameda Creek Alliance
    Up Your Creek! The electronic newsletter of the Alameda Creek Alliance Scaled Back Caltrans Niles Canyon Project Draft EIR Released Caltrans has released a draft Environmental Impact Report for the Niles Canyon Safety Improvements Project. The project proposes localized safety improvements on Highway 84 through Niles Canyon and in Sunol. The draft EIR/EA is available here. This project is dramatically scaled back from the original road widening that Caltrans began cutting trees for in 2011, and includes some common sense measures with no environmental impacts, such as installing additional road signs, upgrading guard rails, and installing active warning system, speed feedback signs, and dynamic active warning systems to reduce driver speeds. However, there are still some objectionable elements of the proposed project, particularly the “improvement” and re-engineering of the low speed curve midway through the canyon (which is not particularly an accident hot spot), which would allow increased driver speeds. Caltrans has failed to consider alternative design speeds for the low speed curve, to reduce the amount of rock cuts and retaining walls that will be needed. Caltrans also proposed to install two large mesh drapery screens at areas with potential rockfall – these screens would be a visual blight in the canyon. The project proposes la little more than a mile of shoulder widening - at Sims Park/Quarry Road, the west side of Silver Springs, and Paloma Way - as well as removal of about 40 trees that are next to the roadway. The project also proposes installing two traffic signals at the Pleasanton/Sunol-SR-84 intersection to reduce rush hour backups in Sunol.
    [Show full text]