Executive Summary

ES.1 Introduction
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) assesses the potential environmental impacts of the Bayside Groundwater Project (Proposed Project or project) proposed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD or the District). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, section 21000, et seq. and CEQAs implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), Title 14, California Code of Regulations, sections 15000, et seq. The District is the lead agency for the CEQA process. Inquiries about the project should be directed to: Angela Knight EBMUD Water Supply Improvements Division 375 Eleventh Street - MS 407 Oakland, CA 94609-4240

ES.2 Project Overview

ES.2.1 Need for the Project
In October 1993, EBMUD adopted a Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) that serves as a planning guide for the provision of water to the EBMUD service area through the year 2020. The WSMP demonstrated that EBMUDs existing water supplies are insufficient to meet current and future customer demand during droughts, despite implementation of conservation and water recycling programs and an aggressive dry-year water rationing policy. Without additional near-term water supplies, EBMUD customers will experience potentially severe water shortages during prolonged droughts. These conclusions were later confirmed in the Districts Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which showed that rationing of up to 67 percent may be necessary in the future without additional drought water supplies, resulting in severe regional economic and quality-of-life impacts (EBMUD 2001).

ES.2.2 Project History

In 1997, EBMUD drilled a demonstration well at the Oro Loma Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant at 2600 Grant Avenue in San Lorenzo to investigate the feasibility of using deep aquifers in the South East Bay Plain Basin (SEBPB) to store water for later recovery and use during droughts. More specifically, EBMUD investigated the feasibility of (1) injecting and storing excess potable drinking water collected in wet years into the deep aquifers, and (2) recovering both injected water and native groundwater for use in drought conditions. Studies of the demonstration wells operation verified the feasibility of both of these components.

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In March 2001, EBMUD circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (2001 DEIR) on the Bayside Groundwater Project (SCH No. 2000092044). The 2001 DEIR evaluated the impacts of developing multiple injection wells in the San Lorenzo area with a collective annual capacity of 15 million gallons per day (mgd). The DEIR analyzed a number of well locations, a treatment facility location, and pipeline alternatives. Based on comments received on the DEIR, the District subsequently conducted focused studies that have led to substantial project changes that eliminate potentially significant impacts or reduce to less than significant levels the impacts that remain. Rather than revise and recirculate the 2001 DEIR to analyze the modified project, EBMUD has prepared this new Bayside Groundwater Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2000092044). An overview of the project is set forth in Section ES.2.4 and is fully described in Section 2.0 (Project Description) of this DEIR. The project, as revised, involves the injection of potable drinking water into the SEBPB during wet years for later recovery and use during a drought. As analyzed in this DEIR, the project is proposed in two phases. Phase 1 would be implemented immediately to provide an annual capacity of 1 mgd. Phase 2 is the potential future expansion of groundwater facilities with an annual capacity of between 2 and 10 mgd. EBMUD has made no commitment to implement Phase 2. EBMUD intends to use the information gathered from Phase 1 operations to help inform its future determinations on whether and how to proceed with Phase 2. If EBMUD determines to implement Phase 2, EBMUD would at that time complete a subsequent EIR. However, to the extent EBMUD can analyze the potential impacts of Phase 2 at this time, that analysis is included in Section 4.0 of this DEIR.

ES.2.3 Project Objectives

The Districts overall objectives for the Bayside Groundwater Project are: To reliably provide more water for customer use during drought periods than would be available from current water supplies alone; To make beneficial use of local water resources, and To provide water that complies with state and federal drinking water standards while maintaining or enhancing basin water quality.

Additional project objectives are: To initiate EBMUD groundwater use within the SEBPB to prepare for both near-term (less than five years) and future drought conditions, and To collect data to inform decisionmaking regarding (1) whether it is appropriate to implement Phase 2 a larger-capacity facility and, if so, (2) how to design it.

ES-2

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.2.4 Project Description

The Bayside Groundwater Project involves the injection of local runoff and water conserved in the Mokelumne River in wet years into the SEBPB for later recovery and use during a drought. Phase 1 of the project would be implemented immediately to provide (a) annual capacity up to 1 mgd, and (b) information to determine whether to proceed with Phase 2, and if so, to guide EBMUD in developing the Phase 2 design and operation features. This Bayside Groundwater Project DEIR focuses on Phase 1, which is the immediate project EBMUD proposes to build and operate. At this time, EBMUD does not know whether it will pursue Phase 2, or, if it does pursue Phase 2, exactly what facilities would be necessary, where those facilities would be located, or what would be the specific size of those future facilities, which could range from 2 to 10 mgd in average annual capacity. EBMUD plans to use information gained from operation of Phase 1 to help determine whether and how to proceed with Phase 2. Therefore, although this DEIR contains some discussion of potential Phase 2 impacts, in-depth discussion of Phase 2 impacts is deferred until EBMUD proposes what, if any, Phase 2 facilities should be constructed and where. If and when EBMUD proposes Phase 2 facilities in the future, EBMUD will then complete a subsequent EIR. However, to the extent EBMUD can analyze the potential impacts of Phase 2 at this time, that analysis is included in Section 4.0 of this DEIR.

ES.2.5 Project Location

EBMUD has performed extensive studies to determine the viability of groundwater storage and recovery. These studies included hydrogeologic analysis, analysis of water quality and treatment options, demonstration testing of treatment methodologies, construction of test wells, and construction and operation of a full-size injection/extraction demonstration well. The studies have demonstrated that the best site for storage and extraction of groundwater in the local aquifer is in unincorporated San Lorenzo and the City of San Leandro near the San Francisco Bay shore, an area that encompasses the existing demonstration well and test facilities. The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County known as San Lorenzo. Figure ES-1 shows the project location and the boundaries of the groundwater basin and adjacent basins. The SEBPB is located within the western portion of Alameda County. It is bounded on the east by the Hayward Fault and extends beneath San Francisco Bay to the west. The SEBPB thins to insignificance to the north near Berkeley, and its southern boundary is in Hayward near the San Mateo Bridge. Figure ES-2 shows the location of project facilities for Phase 1. Figure ES-1 also shows the area in which facilities for Phase 2 may be located. Table ES-1 lists all project facilities proposed for Phase 1, and to the extent that they can be determined at this time, the potential project facilities for Phase 2.

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC

ES-3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE ES-1

Project Description Summary

Project Feature Project Capacity Phase 1 Average 1mgd extraction (short-term a extraction up to 2 mgd rate) ; 1 mgd injection Several sources, including local runoff and conserved Mokelumne River water One existing Adjacent to Oro Loma plant site in San Lorenzo 2 to 10 mgd Phase 2

Source of Injection Water

Several sources, including local runoff and conserved Mokelumne River water Up to four additional Industrial zone, westerly end of westerly Grant Avenue, or venues within a broader area including San Lorenzo, San Leandro, and southern part of Oakland Not currently identified

Number of Wells Well Locations

Treatment after Extraction

At-the-wellhead chloramination, pH control, fluoridation; iron and manganese removal as needed Treatment at well site Connection to existing 12-diameter main in Grant Avenue; approximately 500 feet Settling followed by dechlorination Filter backwash and well backflush via storm drain system and sanitary sewer, respectively Drought Supply May initiate operation when October reservoir storage is projected to decline below 500,000 AF No Project Alternative Increased Conservation Increased Reclamation Regional Desalination Groundwater Storage in East Contra Costa County

Treatment Plant Location Pipeline Alignment

Well sites or centralized treatment plant; location not known Unknown but in the vicinity of well locations Not currently identified Not currently known

Treatment Prior to Discharge Discharge

Operational Parameters

Drought Supply May initiate operation when October reservoir storage is projected to decline below 500,000 AF No Project Alternative Increased Conservation Increased Reclamation Regional Desalination Groundwater Storage in East Contra Costa County

Alternatives

Monitoring

Ongoing monitoring of ground surface elevation change (subsidence), water quality, groundwater levels, and model verification

Not currently known; anticipated to be similar to Phase 1; possibly expanded version of Phase 1 monitoring

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

ES-4

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC

Legend

! (

Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1 Location

Roads Creeks EBMUD Service Area ACWD Service Area Groundwater Basins Boundary Phase 2 Study Area

( n & %

Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1 Location

! (

CA Department of Water Resources East Bay Plain Groundwater Basin Boundary

San Francisco Bay

? ( t & %

Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Boundary

ACWD Recharge Ponds (Forebay Area)

I ?

2 1 0

( j & %

2 Miles

FIGURE ES-1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP

( p & %

Scale: 1:230,000

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT BAYSIDE GROUNDWATER PROJECT DRAFT EIR

( t & %

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

LEGEND

! .

Phase 1 Well Site and Wellhead Treatment Connection to Existing Distribution Pipeline

Ba y

t fr o n

Exstensometer Field

io n Un

Via

an rm e

Pa ic cif RR

an Gr

v ta

e.

n Sa

en or

zo

e Cr

ek

! .
Bayside Well No.1

Bockman Canal

San Francisco Bay

375 Scale: 1:9,000

750 Feet

FIGURE ES-2 PHASE 1 FACILITY LOCATIONS

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT BAYSIDE GROUNDWATER PROJECT DRAFT EIR

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.3 Organization of this DEIR

This DEIR contains each of the elements required by CEQA for an EIR. Section 1, Introduction, describes the background and the need for the project, its relationship to other related projects, the purpose and the use of this DEIR, and the EIR process. Section 2, Project Description, includes detailed information about Phases 1 and 2 of the project, including required facilities, operating parameters, construction methods, subsidence, groundwater and water quality monitoring program, alternatives, the anticipated schedule, and the required approvals for the project. Section 3 describes the existing setting, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for Phase 1. Section 4 presents a similar analysis for Phase 2 to the extent information is available. The potentially affected resource areas analyzed in Sections 3 and 4 were based on the Initial Study Checklist prepared for the Notice of Preparation for this DEIR (see Appendix A). On the basis of the Checklist, EBMUD determined that implementation of Phase 1 would not have an impact on the following resource areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. Although EBMUD has not committed to implementing Phase 2, and as such specific locations and facilities have not been identified, it is assumed that the same resource areas would not be affected, with the exception of Land Use and Visual Resources/Aesthetics, which could be affected, depending on the location of facilities. Growth-inducing impacts are addressed in Section 5, cumulative impacts are addressed in Section 6, and the alternatives analysis for the project is in Section 7.

ES.4 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This DEIR concludes that Phase 1 of the project, as mitigated, would have no significant impact. Specifically, this DEIR concludes that, for the following resource areas, implementation of Phase 1 would have no impact, a less than significant impact with no mitigation required, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of effective and feasible mitigation measures: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) groundwater hydrology and quality; water, quality, treatment and distribution; surface water hydrology and quality; biological resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; air quality; hazards; traffic and transportation; noise; utilities; cultural resources; growth inducing impacts; and cumulative impacts.

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC

ES-9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This DEIR concludes that some of the effects of Phase 2 are presently knowable, and some are presently unknowable. For the presently knowable effects of Phase 2, this DEIR concludes that development of Phase 2 facilities would also have no impact, a less than significant impact with no mitigation required, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of effective and feasible mitigation measures. If and when EBMUD determines to implement Phase 2, a subsequent EIR will be prepared. Table ES-2A presented at the end of this chapter summarizes the environmental effects of Phase 1 of the project after mitigation, and Table ES-2B summarizes the environmental effects of Phase 2 of the project after mitigation. Sections 3 and 4 (Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures), Section 5 (Growth-Inducement Potential), and Section 6 (Cumulative Impacts) each provide a description of the criteria used in making the above significance determinations.

ES.5 Project Alternatives

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or to the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or lessen significant project impacts. Chapter 7 of this DEIR describes the extensive alternatives analysis conducted for the Bayside Groundwater Project. That analysis resulted in the identification of three project alternatives that could potentially meet the Bayside Groundwater Project objectives: Increased Conservation and Recycling Bay Area Regional Desalination East Contra Costa County Groundwater Project

The alternatives analysis included in Section 7 of this DEIR compares the impacts of these three alternatives with the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative. The analysis concluded the following:

ES.5.1 Alternative 1 No Project Alternative

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

ES.5.2 Alternative 2 Increased Conservation and Recycling

Under Alternative 2, conservation and recycling activities would provide a local water supply during drought periods but would not satisfy the additional project objective being completed in the near term, as described in Section 7.3. The impacts of Alternative 2 are generally dependent on the site selection for recycling facilities but would likely result in impacts similar to those of the project, with the exception of impacts for Groundwater

ES-10

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

ES.5.3 Alternative 3 Bay Area Regional Desalination

Desalination meets the objectives for developing a supplemental water supply and a local water resource, and meets water quality objectives; however, this alternative is not implementable in the near term. Biological Resources and Surface Water Hydrology and Quality impacts resulting from Alternative 3 are unknown and could be greater or less than those of the Proposed Project, depending on whether an acceptable brine solution disposal option is developed in conjunction with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, as described in Section 7.3, desalination would require a substantial amount of energy. It is anticipated that this energy requirement would be greater than that of the project.

ES.5.4 Alternative 4 - East Contra Costa Groundwater Development

East Contra Costa Groundwater Development would meet the need for a supplemental water supply, would develop a local resource, and would meet water quality objectives, but it is unlikely to be accomplished in the near term because of the institutional complexity of its implementation. Agreements with local partners and groundwater users are also needed to further develop this alternative. To date, attempts to create such agreements have been unsuccessful. Implementation of Alternative 4 would likely result in similar impacts as those of the project, except for Traffic and Transportation and Land Use impacts, which may be greater than for the project.

ES.5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)2, Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the project, states, If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. For this project, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, is environmentally superior to the others for the reasons stated in Section 7.3; therefore, the next environmentally superior alternative is discussed below. Conservation and Recycling would likely have less environmental impact than the project and the other alternatives. Alternative 2 is, therefore, the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 does not meet one of the project objectives: near-term implementation. EBMUD is therefore proceeding with Phase 1 of the project.

ES.6 Project Schedule

The following schedule milestones are effective at the time this DEIR is released for public comment. Dates following the release of the DEIR for public comment are subject to change. Opening of 45-day public comment period for DEIR, March 2005 Closing of public comment period, April 2005 Certification of EIR and approval of Phase 1 by District Board of Directors, August 2005 Completion of final design, March 2006

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC

ES-11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Award of construction contract, October 2006 Completion of construction, October 2007 Duration of startup operation, September 2007 to September 2008 Project in service, October 2008

ES.7 Topics of Controversy

Numerous comments were received from members of the public and potentially affected agencies on the 2001 project DEIR. The comments received primarily expressed concerns regarding potential subsidence, air quality, water quality, and groundwater supply and movement. EBMUD has responded to these comments by significantly revising the project. Some of the concerns expressed about the original project have been eliminated by changing it to a smaller, two-phased project. This DEIR would permit development of Phase 1 only. A subsequent EIR will be required if and when EBMUD decides to proceed with Phase 2. Phase 1, with the mitigation measures recommended in this DEIR, reduces all potential impacts to less than significant levels. The comments received on the 2001 EIR are summarized in Table B-1 in Appendix B. Table B-1 also describes how and where the comments on the 2001 DEIR are addressed in this DEIR.

ES.8 References Executive Summary

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

ES-12

SFO\SEC_ES_EXECSUM.DOC