(Ver. 1.1): Hydrogeologic Controls and Geochemical Indicators Of

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

(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. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Teague, Nick, Izbicki, John, Borchers, Jim, Kulongoski, Justin, and Jurgens, Bryant, 2018, Hydrogeologic controls and geochemical indicators of groundwater movement in the Niles Cone and southern East Bay Plain groundwater subbasins, Alameda County, California (ver 1.1, February 2019): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5003, 62 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185003. ISSN 2328-0328 (online) iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2 Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................2 Hydrogeology................................................................................................................................4 The Upper Aquifer System ................................................................................................5 Deep Aquifer ........................................................................................................................5 Recharge and Discharge ...................................................................................................6 Groundwater Management ........................................................................................................6 Methods...........................................................................................................................................................7 Groundwater-Level Measurement .....................................................................................................7 InSAR Data Processing .......................................................................................................................8 Streamflow Gains and Losses Estimation ........................................................................................8 Water Sample Collection and Analysis ...........................................................................................10 Collection and Analysis of Core and Cuttings Material ................................................................10 Hydrogeology................................................................................................................................................11 Groundwater Movement ...................................................................................................................11 Local Short-Term Land-Surface Displacement .............................................................................11 Streamflow Gains and Losses in Alameda Creek .........................................................................15 Geochemistry................................................................................................................................................18 Chemistry of Groundwater ................................................................................................................18 Physical Properties and Chemical Characteristics of Groundwater ................................18 Major-Ion Composition .............................................................................................................21 Chloride-to-Iodide Ratios .........................................................................................................21 Geochemical Indicators of Groundwater Movement ..........................................................23 Noble-Gas and Tritium Analysis .......................................................................................................23 Tritium and Helium .....................................................................................................................25 Tritium-Helium-3 Ages ...............................................................................................................25 Helium-4 Ages ............................................................................................................................26 Isotopic Composition of Groundwater ............................................................................................27 Oxygen-18 and Deuterium ........................................................................................................27 Carbon-14 and Carbon-13 .........................................................................................................29 Interpretation of Carbon-14 Data ...................................................................................30 Limitations of Carbon-14 Interpretations ......................................................................33 Summary........................................................................................................................................................34 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................35 Appendix 1. Location and Construction Data and Water-Level Measurements Collected by the U.S. Geological Survey During 2002 for Wells Drilled in the Niles Cone and Southern East Bay Plain Groundwater Subbasins .............................................................................................41 Appendix 2. U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Laboratory Analytical Methods and Reporting Levels for Analysis of Groundwater and Surface-Water Samples ..............45 References Cited.................................................................................................................................45 iv Contents—Continued Appendix 3. Aquifer Mineralogy, Niles Cone Groundwater Subbasin, Alameda County, California ..........................................................................................................................................47 References Cited.................................................................................................................................47 Appendix 4. Streamflow Data Collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during April 2002 ..........51 Appendix 5. Physical Property, Major-Ion, Trace-Element, and Isotopic Data for Groundwater, Stream-Water, and Precipitation Samples Collected and Analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey...............................................................................................................................................53 Appendix 6. Noble Gas and Tritium Data for Groundwater Samples Collected and Analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey ...........................................................................................................59 Appendix 7. Measured and Interpreted Carbon-13 and Carbon-14 Data for Groundwater Samples Collected and Analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey ..........................................61 Figures 1. Map showing location of the Niles Cone and southern East Bay Plain groundwater subbasins and municipal wells, including aquifer reclamation program wells, Alameda County, California .........................................................................................................3 2. Graph showing generalized A–A’ cross section showing groundwater aquifers of Niles Cone and southern East Bay Plain groundwater subbasins and well location and well construction for wells sampled
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Revised Plates
    DRAFT BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II SANTA CLARA EXTENSION PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL MEMORANDUM P REPARED FOR: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Federal Transit Administration P REPARED BY: Company Name: PARIKH Consultants, Inc. Address: 2630 Qume Drive, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95131 February 2014 PARIKH Consultants, Inc. 2014. BART Silicon Valley Phase II Santa Clara Extension Project Geotechnical Memorandum. Draft. February. San Jose, CA. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Jose, CA, and the Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. This Geotechnical Memorandum was prepared in 2014 to identify mitigation strategies for the early alternatives and station plans being considered at that time. However, the mitigation measures identified in this memorandum are relevant to the current proposed project and have been incorporated into the SEIS/SEIR as appropriate. Contents Page Chapter 1 Project Description ..................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Alignment and Station Features by City ........................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 City of San Jose................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 City of Santa Clara ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 VTA's Transit-Oriented Development (CEQA Only).............................................. 1-1 Chapter 2 Previous Studies Conducted ...................................................................................2-1
    [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]
  • Structural Superposition in Fault Systems Bounding Santa Clara Valley, California
    A New Three-Dimensional Look at the Geology, Geophysics, and Hydrology of the Santa Clara (“Silicon”) Valley themed issue Structural superposition bounding Santa Clara Valley Structural superposition in fault systems bounding Santa Clara Valley, California R.W. Graymer, R.G. Stanley, D.A. Ponce, R.C. Jachens, R.W. Simpson, and C.M. Wentworth U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefi eld Road, MS 973, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA ABSTRACT We use the term “structural superposition” to and/or reverse-oblique faults, including the emphasize that younger structural features are Silver Creek Thrust1 (Fig. 3). The reverse and/or Santa Clara Valley is bounded on the on top of older structural features as a result of reverse-oblique faults are generated by a com- southwest and northeast by active strike-slip later tectonic deformation, such that they now bination of regional fault-normal compression and reverse-oblique faults of the San Andreas conceal or obscure the older features. We use the (Page, 1982; Page and Engebretson, 1984) fault system. On both sides of the valley, these term in contrast to structural reactivation, where combined with the restraining left-step transfer faults are superposed on older normal and/or pre existing structures accommodate additional of slip between the central Calaveras fault and right-lateral normal oblique faults. The older deformation, commonly in a different sense the southern Hayward fault (Aydin and Page, faults comprised early components of the San from the original deformation (e.g., a normal 1984; Andrews et al., 1993; Kelson et al., 1993). Andreas fault system as it formed in the wake fault reactivated as a reverse fault), and in con- Approximately two-thirds of present-day right- of the northward passage of the Mendocino trast to structural overprinting, where preexisting lateral slip on the southern part of the Calaveras Triple Junction.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf/13/2/269/1000918/269.Pdf 269 by Guest on 24 September 2021 Research Paper
    Research Paper THEMED ISSUE: A New Three-Dimensional Look at the Geology, Geophysics, and Hydrology of the Santa Clara (“Silicon”) Valley GEOSPHERE The Evergreen basin and the role of the Silver Creek fault in the San Andreas fault system, San Francisco Bay region, California GEOSPHERE; v. 13, no. 2 R.C. Jachens1, C.M. Wentworth1, R.W. Graymer1, R.A. Williams2, D.A. Ponce1, E.A. Mankinen1, W.J. Stephenson2, and V.E. Langenheim1 doi:10.1130/GES01385.1 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, 1711 Illinois St., Golden, Colorado 80401, USA 9 figures CORRESPONDENCE: zulanger@ usgs .gov ABSTRACT Silver Creek fault has had minor ongoing slip over the past few hundred thou- sand years. Two earthquakes with ~M6 occurred in A.D. 1903 in the vicinity of CITATION: Jachens, R.C., Wentworth, C.M., Gray- The Evergreen basin is a 40-km-long, 8-km-wide Cenozoic sedimentary the Silver Creek fault, but the available information is not sufficient to reliably mer, R.W., Williams, R.A., Ponce, D.A., Mankinen, E.A., Stephenson, W.J., and Langenheim, V.E., 2017, basin that lies mostly concealed beneath the northeastern margin of the identify them as Silver Creek fault events. The Evergreen basin and the role of the Silver Creek Santa Clara Valley near the south end of San Francisco Bay (California, USA). fault in the San Andreas fault system, San Francisco The basin is bounded on the northeast by the strike-slip Hayward fault and Bay region, California: Geosphere, v.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Project Title: Assessment of Late Quaternary
    FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Project Title: Assessment of late Quaternary deformation, eastern Santa Clara Valley, San Francisco Bay region Recipient: William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 262 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (925) 256-6070 Principal Investigators: Christopher S. Hitchcock William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 1777 Botelho Dr., Suite 262, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (phone: 925-256-6070; email: [email protected]) Charles M. Brankman William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 1777 Botelho Dr., Suite 262, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (phone: 925-256-6070; email: [email protected]) Program Elements: I and II U. S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Award Number 01HQGR0034 July 2002 Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS award number 01HQGR0034. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. ABSTRACT A series of northwest-trending reverse faults that bound the eastern margin of Santa Clara Valley are aligned with the southern termination of the Hayward fault, and have been interpreted as structures that may transfer slip from the San Andreas and Calaveras faults to the Hayward fault. Uplift of the East Bay structural domain east of Santa Clara Valley is accommodated by this thrust fault system, which includes the east-dipping Piercy, Coyote Creek, Evergreen, Quimby, Berryessa, Crosley, and Warm Springs faults. Our study provides an evaluation of the near-surface geometry and late Quaternary surficial deformation related to reverse faulting in the eastern Santa Clara Valley.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources This Section Describes the Environmental and Regulatory Setting for Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
    Environmental Impact Analysis City of Union City Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for geology, soils, and paleontological resources. It also describes impacts on geology, soils, and paleontological resources that would result from implementation of the project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. No comments regarding geology, soils, and paleontological resources were received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). 4.5.1 Existing Conditions 4.5.1.1 Environmental Setting Physiography Union City is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, a relatively geologically young and seismically active region on the western margin of the North American plate. The ranges and valley trend northwest, sub-parallel to the San Andreas fault. The Coast Ranges are composed of thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary strata. The northern and southern ranges are separated by a depression containing the San Francisco Bay. The project site is located west of the northwest- trending Hayward fault, which divides the low-lying, gently sloping, and nearly level alluvial and estuarine landforms that surround San Francisco Bay from the strongly sloping and steel upland forms of the northwest-trending East Bay hills. West of the Hayward fault, the land is urbanized, whereas east of the fault, development is sparser. Subsurface Conditions The approximately 26.5-acre project site is within the 105-acre Station East subarea of the Decoto Industrial Park Study Area Specific Plan (DIPSA Specific Plan). The project site is occupied by existing and vacant industrial uses, surface parking, and an agricultural field.
    [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]
  • State of California Department of Water Resources Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Alternative Assessment Staff Report
    State of California Department of Water Resources Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Alternative Assessment Staff Report Groundwater Basin Name: Santa Clara Valley– Niles Cone (Basin No. 3-002.01) Submitting Agency: Alameda County Water District Recommendation: Approve Date Issued: July 17, 2019 I. Summary Alameda County Water District (District) submitted an alternative (Niles Cone Subbasin Alternative or Alternative) to the Department of Water Resources (Department) for evaluation and assessment as provided by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).1 The District submitted an existing plan2 and relies on numerous reports and supporting documents. After reviewing the Alternative and considering public comments, Department staff find the Niles Cone Subbasin Alternative satisfies the objectives of SGMA and recommends approval of the Alternative. Alameda County Water District was formed under the County Water District Act in 1914 to protect the groundwater Subbasin, conserve water in the Alameda Creek watershed, and develop supplemental water supplies. Additional authority for groundwater management in the Niles Cone Subbasin, as explained in the Alternative, was provided to the District under the Replenishment Assessment Act of 1961. The Replenishment Assessment Act was passed in response to deteriorating groundwater conditions from seawater intrusion in the Newark Aquifer caused by overdraft in the Subbasin below the Hayward Fault. Subsequent efforts to restore groundwater elevations above sea level included importing surface water from the State Water Project and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Hetch-Hetchy Project to reduce demand on groundwater and recharge the aquifers. These efforts appear successful, and on-going management has been focused on improving managed aquifer recharge operations, banking groundwater outside the Subbasin, and mitigating legacy water quality issues related to sea water intrusion in the deeper aquifers.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems This Section Describes the Environmental and Regulatory Setting for Utilities and Service Systems
    Environmental Impact Analysis City of Union City Utilities and Service Systems 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for utilities and service systems. It also describes impacts on utilities and service systems that would result from implementation of the project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. This section is based, in part, on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the project by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) (Appendix 4.15-1).1 No comments regarding utilities and service systems were received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). 4.15.1 Existing Conditions 4.15.1.1 Environmental Setting Water Alameda County Water District Facilities and Sources The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) ACWD manages 900 miles of water pipelines and manages 13 reservoirs and tanks.2 The average daily production in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 was approximately 37 million gallons per day (mgd) and the maximum daily production was approximately 55.66 mgd. Water is provided to ACWD from three sources: local supplies, the State Water Project (SWP), and San Francisco’s Regional Water System. Local supplies include fresh groundwater from the Niles Cone Subbasin, desalinated brackish groundwater from portions of the groundwater basin previously impacted by saltwater intrusion, and surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir. Approximately 40 percent of ACWD’s current supply comes from the SWP, 20 percent from the San Francisco Regional Water System, and 40 percent from local supplies.3 The SWP and San Francisco Regional Water Supplies are imported into the ACWD service area through the South Bay Aqueduct and Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, respectively.
    [Show full text]