DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Application of Wastewater and Its Effect On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER AND ITS EFFECT ON GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Marc A. Sylvester U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4100 Prepared in cooperation with the ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 IT) O I \O O Oon March 1983 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, SECRETARY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information, Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section Water Resources Division Western Distribution Branch U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2235 Box 25425, Federal Center Sacramento, Calif. 95825 Lakewood, Colo. 80225 Telephone: (303) 234-5888 CONTENTS Page Abstract---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------ 3 Background--------------------------------------------------------- 3 Purpose and scope-------------------------------------------------- 3 Well-numbering system---------------------------------------------- 7 Acknowledgments---------------------------------------------------- 7 Location and description of study area---------------------------------- 10 Hydrologic and geologic features----------------------------------- 10 Wastewater application areas--------------------------------------- 11 Live rmo re----------------------------------------------------- 11 Pleasanton---------------------------------------------------- 16 Castlewood---------------------------------------------------- 16 Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation---------- 18 Veterans Administration Hospital------------------------------ 18 Coast Manufacturing Company----------------------------------- 18 Data collection and methods--------------------------------------------- 21 Results and discussion-------------------------------------------------- 24 Areawide assessment------------------------------------------------ 24 Rainfall- ----- - -- ______ ___ __ _ 24 Ground-water movement----------------------------------------- 25 Ground-water quality------------------------------------------ 30 Site-specific assessment------------------------------------------- 37 Areal variations in ground-water quality in wastewater application areas------------------------------------------- 38 Castlewood and Pleasanton wastewater application areas-------------------------------------------------- 38 Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation wastewater application area---------------------------- 39 Veterans Administration Hospital wastewater application area--------------------------------------- 39 Livermore wastewater application areas------------------- 40 Temporal variations in ground-water quality in wastewater application areas------------------------------------------- 41 Castlewood wastewater application area------------------- 41 Pleasanton wastewater application area------------------- 41 Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation wastewater application area---------------------------- 42 Veterans Administration Hospital wastewater application area--------------------------------------- 43 Livermore wastewater application areas------------------- 44 Areas and times of water-quality impairment------------------------ 45 Future sampling programs------------------------------------------------ 47 Summary and conclusions------------------------------------------------- 50 References cited-------------------------------------------------------- 53 III ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates are in pocket] Plate 1. Graphs showing comparison of water quality at selected wells in wastewater application areas: A. Castlewood and Pleasanton B. Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation C. Veterans Administration Hospital D. Livermore Plate 2. Graphs showing changes in water level, specific conductance, pH, dissolved chloride, and dissolved nitrate, water years 1975 through 1980, for selected wells in wastewater application areas: A. Castlewood and Pleasanton B. Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation C. Veterans Administration Hospital D. Livermore Page Figures 1-2. Maps showing: 1. Location of study area------------------------------ 4 2. Generalized geology--------------------------------- 12 3-6. Maps showing wastewater application areas: 3. Livermore------------------------------------------- 14 4. Castlewood and Pleasanton--------------------------- 17 5. Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation--------------------------------------- 19 6. Veterans Administration Hospital-------------------- 20 7. Map showing location of wells where water-quality samples were collected---------------------------------- 22 8. Graph showing annual precipitation at the Livermore County Fire Department for water years 1975-80---------- 24 9-12. Maps showing: 9. Median water levels and general directions of ground-water movement, September and October 1977- 26 10. Median water levels and general directions of ground-water movement, March and April 1979------- 28 11. Median concentrations of dissolved nitrate as N for 1976 water year-------------------------- 32 12. Median concentrations of dissolved nitrate as N for 1980 water year-------------------------- 34 IV TABLES Page Table 1. Information about wells located in or near wastewater application areas-- - ---- - --- -- - - ----- g 2. Comparison of water quality among wastewater application areas - - - 36 3. Quality of effluent from wastewater treatment plants in the Livermore-Amador Valley- - ---- _____ _ _ __ __ 37 4. Maximum contamination levels used for determining areas and times of water-quality impairment 46 5. Wells having water that exceeded maximum contamination levels- 48 6. Summary of major findings from site-specific assessment of ground-water quality in wastewater application areas 52 V CONVERSION FACTORS For readers who may prefer to use International System of Units (SI) rather than inch-pound units, the conversion factors for the terms used in this report are listed below: Multiply To obtain acres 4047 m2 (square meters) ft (feet) 0.3048 m (meters) gal/d (gallons per day) 0.003785 m3 /d (cubic meters per day) inches 25.4 mm (millimeters) Mgal/d (million gallons 3785 m3/d (cubic meters per day) per day) mi (miles) .609 km (kilometers) mi 2 (square miles) .59 km2 (square kilometers) pmho/cm (micromhos per pS (microsiemens per centimeter) centimeter) Other abbreviations used: MCL (maximum contaminant levels) mg/L (milligrams per liter) Degrees Celsius (°C) are converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by using the formula: Temp °F = (temp °C x 1.8) + 32 ALTITUDE DATUM National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929): A geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called mean sea level. DEFINITION OF WATER YEAR Water year is a 12-month period ending September 30 and is designated by the year in which it ends. TRADE NAME DISCLAIMER The use of brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. VI LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER AND ITS EFFECT ON GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Marc A. Sylvester ABSTRACT Ground-water quality, ground-water level, and rainfall data collected from 1975 through the 1980 water year were analyzed to determine the effects of land application of effluent from wastewater treatment plants on ground-water quality in the LivermorerAmador Valley. Annual rainfall varied markedly during the study: 1976 and 1977 water years had less than one-half the normal rainfall; 1978 and 1980 water years had greater than normal rainfall; and 1975 and 1979 water years had nearly normal rainfall. The directions of ground-water movement in the valley are generally the same as the directions of surface-water flow. Median concentrations of dissolved nitrate as N were greater than 10 milligrams per liter in most wells sampled in the Livermore wastewater application area near the Livermore Municipal Airport and in that part of the Pleasanton wastewater application area downgradient from and north of the percolation ponds. Median concentrations of dissolved nitrate as N were less than 8.0 milligrams per liter in most wells in areas not receiving wastewater applications. In the Castlewood, Pleasanton, and Veterans Administration Hospital waste- water application areas and in the upper aquifer in the Livermore wastewater application areas, values of specific conductance, pH, dissolved solids, and dissolved chloride were very similar to those characteristic of effluent from wastewater treatment plants in the Livermore-Amador Valley. In the Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation wastewater application area, values of specific conductance, dissolved solids, and dissolved chloride were about 3 to 4 times those characteristic of effluent from wastewater treatment plants in the Livermore-Amador Valley. An area-by-area assessment of areal and temporal variations in ground-water quality and ground-water levels in wastewater application areas showed that rainfall, soil, and geology appeared to be the main determinants of ground-water quality in the Castlewood wastewater application area and in the Dublin-San Ramon and Camp Parks Military Reservation wastewater application area. Wastewater application appeared
Recommended publications
  • Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish Or Mexican Authorities

    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
  • 2010 Urban Water Management Plan

    2010 Urban Water Management Plan

    2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN December 15, 2010 Zone 7 Water Agency Livermore, CA 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by: Zone 7 Water Agency 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 454-5000 Version: December 15, 2010 ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY Report Contributors: Kurt Arends, P.E. – Assistant General Manager of Engineering Boni Brewer – Public Information Officer Jarnail Chahal, P.E. – Principal Engineer Jill Duerig, P.E. – General Manager Amparo Flores, P.E. – Associate Engineer JaVia Green – Staff Analyst Matt Katen, P.G. – Principal Engineer Brad Ledesma, P.E. – Associate Engineer Robyn Navarra – Water Conservation Coordinator Sal Segura, P.E. – Associate Engineer Vince Wong, P.E. - Assistant General Manager of Operations Report Contact: Amparo Flores, (925) 454-5019, [email protected] or Brad Ledesma, (925) 454-5038, [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Previous Urban Water Management Plans ........................................................................ 1-1 1.2 The Purpose of the 2010 UWMP ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Plan Contents and Organization......................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Changes from the 2005 UWMP ......................................................................................... 1-2 2. General Service Area ........................................................................................................
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4

    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
  • 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

    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.
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    (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.
  • Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix D Species Accounts

    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 .....................................................................
  • 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

    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.
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey Geologic Map of the Las Positas, Greenville, and Verona Faults, Easte

    United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey Geologic Map of the Las Positas, Greenville, and Verona Faults, Easte

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LAS POSITAS, GREENVILLE, AND VERONA FAULTS, EASTERN ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By DARRELL G, HERD Open-file report 77-689 INTRODUCTION Livermore Valley, a large east-trending valley in eastern Alameda County, California, approximately 50 kn east of San Francisco, is unique in the central Coast Ranges, where all other major valleys trend northwest* Bounded on the west and east by two major right-lateral strike-slip fault zones the Calaveras-Sunol and the Greenville, Liverraore Valley was originally believed to be crossed by other northwest-trending faults, inferred from ground-water level differences and geophysical anomalies (California Dept. Water Resources, 1963, 1966, 1974; Wight, 1974). Recent mapping in Liverraore Valley and surrounding areas (Herd, 1975) has revealed the existence of the Las Positas fault zone, a high-angle, northeast- trending fault zone that forms the southern limit of the valley and extends from La Costa Valley, east of the Calaveras-Sunol fault zone, northeastward to the Greenville fault zone. The Las Positas fault zone is the first reported northeast-trending fault zone in the central Coast Ranges of California with a history of Quaternary movement. Purpose of map This map depicts the geologic setting of the Las Positas and Greenville fault zones, which bound Livermore Valley on the south and east, and the Verona fault, which lies southwest of Liverraore Valley. The map presents a new interpretation of the geology of Livermore Valley and adjoining areas, and contains new subdivisions of the Quaternary stratigraphy. The recency and recurrence of displacements along the three faults is assessed and an interpretation of the tectonic setting of Livermore Valley proposed.
  • AT Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment

    AT Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment

    DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT Board of Directors NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING TIME: 6 p.m. DATE: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 PLACE: Regular Meeting Place 7051 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, CA AGENDA Our mission is to provide reliable and sustainable water, recycled water, and wastewater services in a safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible manner. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL – Members: Duarte, Halket, Howard, Misheloff, Vonheeder-Leopold 4. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS/ACTIVITIES 5. PUBLIC COMMENT (MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) At this time those in the audience are encouraged to address the Board on any item of interest that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board and not already included on tonight’s agenda. Comments should not exceed five minutes. Speakers’ cards are available from the District Secretary and should be completed and returned to the Secretary prior to addressing the Board. The President of the Board will recognize each speaker, at which time the speaker should proceed to the lectern, introduce him/herself, and then proceed with his/her comment. 6. REPORTS 6.A. Reports by General Manager and Staff Event Calendar Correspondence to and from the Board 6.B. Joint Powers Authority and Committee Reports 6.C. Agenda Management (consider order of items) 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.A. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2018 Recommended Action: Approve by Motion 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters listed under this item are considered routine and will be enacted by one Motion, in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Member of the Board of Directors or the public prior to the time the Board votes on the Motion to adopt.
  • MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Tesla Road

    MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Tesla Road

    Draft INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Tesla Road Winery ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Alameda County CDA Planning Division Prepared by: Denise Duffy & Associates Contact: Denise Duffy 947 Cass St. Suite 5 Monterey, California 93940 July 31, 2015 This page left intentionally blank. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project: Tesla Road Winery Lead Agency: Alameda County PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), supported by the attached Initial Study (IS), evaluates the environmental effects of a proposed multi‐use wine facility at the northeast corner of the Greenville Road and Tesla Road intersection outside of Livermore, within unincorporated Alameda County, California. The applicant, RAO Company, is proposing the construction of a new 19,944 square foot (sq. ft.) building on the the property. The building’s primary function would be to provide space for wine tasting, tours, and special events, and administrative offices for employees. The building would provide a dedicated space to process wine, serve customers, and hold events. Alameda County is the lead agency for this project and has prepared this MND. FINDINGS An IS has been prepared to assess the projects potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented. This conclusion is supported by the following findings: 1. The proposed project would have no impact related to greenhouse gas emissions, aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards/hazardous materials, land use/planning mineral resources, population/housing, public services, and recreation.
  • Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed

    Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed

    I 580 Si San Francisco Bay Stonybrook Cr. n ba d C r Arroyo Mocho Vallecitos Cr. Canyon San Antonio Reservoir Lake Del Valle I 680 Pirate Cr. I 880 Welch Cr. Alameda Diversion Valpe Cr. Tunnel Calaveras Reservoir Plate 1 - Alameda Creek Watershed Alameda Creek Watershed An Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed prepared for the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup by Andrew J. Gunther Jeffrey Hagar Paul Salop Applied Marine Sciences, Inc. 4749 Bennett Dr., Suite L Livermore, CA 94550 www.amarine.com Hagar Environmental Science 6523 Claremont Ave, Suite B Richmond, CA 94805 February 7, 2000 Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup 2/7/00 Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup 2/7/00 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................iii Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 A. Background......................................................................................................... 5 B. Decision Process for preparation of this report .................................................. 7 II. The Alameda Creek Watershed .............................................................................
  • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan

    Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan

    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda Albany PUBLIC RELEASE Berkeley Dublin DRAFT Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency October 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 7 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 7 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 7 2.3.1 San Francisco