Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03232004 - D3 CEQA CEQA INITIAL STUDY PROPOSED GAN SHALOM CEMETERY COUNTY FILE # LP022068 Prepared by Community Development Department Contra Costa County November, 2003 Table of Contents Environmental Checklist Form..................................................................................... - 35 APPENDIX A Biologic Letter(LSA,May 28"', 2003)............................................................................Al Biologic Letter (LSA, June 19'', 2002)__....... .............. ............. .......................A3 -A4 Biologic Report(LSA, April I It`) 2002)................................................................A5 - A26 Peer Review (Monk&Assoc., Dec 4h, 2002).....................................................A26 -A33 Peer Review (Monk& Assoc., e-mail, Oct. 15"', 2003).................................................A34 APPENDIX B Traffic Report (Abrams Assoc., March 29', 2002)..................................................B I -B3 APPENDIX C Pump Test Report(ENGEO, June 20`x', 2003).......................................................Cl - C37 Hydrology Discussion of'Groundwater Issues (ENGEO, Feb. 19"', 2003)...........C39 - C47 APPENDIX D Groundwater Monitoring &Mitigation Plan(ENGEO, Sept. 22"d, 2003)...............D1 - 173 Site Plan(ENGEO, Sept., 2003).....................................................................................L 74 APPENDIX.E Review Cornments of Dr. Thrupp (S.S. Papadopulos &Assoc., Sept, 4t', 2003)...El -E16 APPENDIX F Peer Review of ENGEO Pump Test Report...........................................................F1 - F34 (Geoconsultants, Inc., Sept. 30"', 2003) APPENDIX G Response to Comments (ENGEO, Sept. 25`h, 2003)...............................................GI - G7 MTLAI.f STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: LP022068 (Gran Shalom Cemetery) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County, Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4"`Floor, N. Wing, Martinez, CA 94553 1 Contact Person and Phone Number: Darwin Myers (925) 335-1210 4, Project Location: The property is an 83-acre parcel located in the south quadrant of the Bear Creek Road/Hampton Road intersection. Additionally, a small portion of the site is on the northeast side of Bear Creek Road immediately south of the Bampton Road intersection, in the Martinez area(A-2) (ZA:J-9 & K-9) (CT3560.02) (Parcel 365-010-008). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cyan Shalom, Inc., 3315 Stagecoach Drive, Lafayette, CA 94549. 6. General.Plan Designation: The property is outside the urban limit line and is designated Agricultural Land (AL). This land use designation includes most of the privately-owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of these lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for grazing livestock, or dry grain farming. The category also includes non-prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas, such as outside Oakley, which are planted in orchards. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of, and generally used for, the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas, but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural, open space or non-urban uses such as landfills, except as noted below in the descriptions of"Agricultural Core," "Delta Recreation and Resources," "Watershed," "Parks and Recreation," and"Open Space." The maximum allowable density in this category is one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation include all land-dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and relative activities. A cemetery can be allowed in nearly all General Plan land use categories, provided the project is founded to be consistent with the General Plan, and will not interfere with the orderly development and growth in the County. 7, Zoning: The property is designated General Agriculture (A-2). Chapter 84-38 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the ordinance code provisions of this district. The 2 permitted uses include: a) all types of Table I agriculture; b) erection of agriculture-related SUMMARY OF ZONING STANDARDS buildings; c) a stand not exceeding 200 FOR THE A-2 DIS'T'RICT square feet for sale of agriculture products Min.standard Lot Area: s acres grown on the premises; d) a detachedAvp.width(rain..): 250 ft. single-family residence on each parcel and Depth(min.): 200 accessory structures; e) foster home/family Building Height(max): 35 ft care home; and 0 family daycare home, Setback Standards Uses requiring a land use permit are those I Side yard(min.): 20 ft listed in Section 84-3 8.404 of the Ordinance Side yard(Aggregate): so ft Livestock Strootures: 5{3 tt Code. Other provisions of the A-2 District Front yard(rain.): 25 ft are listed in Table 1. Cemeteries can be Rear yard(min.): 15 ft allowed in all zoning districts, (except A-0, Buildin Height 21/2 stories or 35 ft N-B, R-B, C, C-N1, L-1, and H-I), provided the findings can be made(see Table 2). 8. Description of Project: The applicant and owner request approval of a land use permit for the establishment of a cemetery on a 83-acre property. The Preliminary Plans indicate cemetery uses are restricted to approximately 30 acres of the property (the lower and flatter portions of the site). A private open space corridor is proposed along Pinole Creek(100-foot setback from top of creek bank is proposed). Addition- ally, the surrounding hills are to be retained as private open space. The only use anticipated in the hills is the construction of one or more water storage tanks. The cemetery is to be developed in phases, with the Phase I area(7.62 Table located in the southeast onion FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR THE acres p ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEMETERY of the property. Phase l improvements consist of an entry road i' The establishment or maintenance of the cemetery , will not jeopardize or adversely affect the public off of Bear Creek Road, chapel circle health,safety,comfort,or welfare, with a 4,000 square foot+chapel, i 2. The establishment,maintenance,or extension will parking, landscape Screening buffer, not reasonably be expected to be a public nuisance. temporary maintenance area, septic 3. The establishment,maintenance,or extension will field, Water facilities, area for ground not tend to interfere with the free movement of traffic burials and perimeter fencing. It is or with the proper protection of the public through interference with the movement of police, anticipated that Phase I is to be ambulance,or fire equipment and thus interfere with developed in a Series of I-acre burial Ithe convenience of the public or the protection of the areas. It is the expectation of the lives and the property of the public. project proponent that the Phase 1 4. Demonstrate adequate financial ability to establish or maintain the proposed cemetery so as to prevent the area Will accommodate ground burials proposed cemetery from becoming apublic nuisance; . for 25 years (i.e., 2004 to and approximately 2029). The life span of 5. The proposed cemetery is consistent with the General the cemetery.i5 estimated to be 120 plan of the County and will not interfere with the years, orderly development and growth of the County. _J 3 With regard to the actual implementation of the cemetery project, Gan Shalom plans to open burial areas in 1-acre increments. The entire acre will be excavated to a depth of approximately 20 inches in a uniform slope (for drainage); a drainage layer(and water recycling facilities)will be installed; concrete vaults will be placed in the excavation(approximately 1,000 per net acre); gaps between each vault will be filled with drainage material; and then the entire acre will be covered with soil reserved from the excavation. The finished work will raise surface elevations approximately 28 inches, and grading will be balanced on-site. Roads and other improvements will be extended as needed to serve each new 1-acre area. Individual burials will require simply removing and replacing the topsoil above each vault. The applicant anticipates that construction of the initial improvements (e.g., entry road, chapel, landscaping, utilities, maintenance facilities, first acre of burial space) can be completed in less than six months from the date of issuance of construction permits by the Building Inspection Department. Each future 1-acre area will take 2-3 weeks. Gan Shalom estimates that the pace of burials will require a new increment approximately once every five years. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located in the Briones Dills, a hilly upland area that is within the upper watershed area of Pinole Creep. Historically the site and vicinity have served as grazing land for cattle and horses, wildlife habitat, and watershed. The existing uses in the general vicinity of the site include horse stables, cattle grazing, rural ranchettes, an alive orchard, and vineyards. 10 Cather Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required. The agencies with permit- granting authority over the proposed project include the Building Inspection Department (Grading and Building Permit) and Code Enforcement), and the Health Services Department(regulates potable water systems and septic systems). Other permitting agencies that have been identified include the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). State Cemetery Board of California regulates cemeteries. However, as a religious organization, Clan Shalom does not require Cemetery Board approval (see Business &Professional Code, Section 9609(a)). ENVIRO1viNTAL FACTORS POTENTIAL AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality 55 Biological Resources ER Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Sails ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials Q Hydrology./Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 4 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. R I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Darwin Myers, Project P14T Date Reviewed by: Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Community Development Department SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 rine Street 5th Floor-North Wing, Martinez)were consulted: 1. The(Reconsolidated) County General Plan(July 1996) 2. EIR on the General Plan(January 199 1) Contra Costa Resource Mapping System-Briones Valley 7.5-Minute Quad Sheet Panels 4e Zoning Ordinance 5. Agricultural Preserves Map revised 7127194 6. Project Description 7. Site Plan 5 8. Agency Comments 9. Advisory Guidelines for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Publication 4FM-84- 01, issued by the Cal.Dept. of Conservation, Division.of Land Resource Protection. 10, Site Visit-November 8,2002 11, Traffic Safety Evaluation of Gan Shalom Cemetery dated received by CDD on July 25, 2002 prepared by Abrams Associates. 12. Cultural Resources Inventory dated May 6,2002 prepared by William Self-WSA 13. Agricultural Suitability Evaluation, Bear Creek Property,83-Acre Parcel, Contra Costa County, California,prepared by Engeo Inc.,dated December 14, 2001. 14. Prelirnin ry Geotechnical Assessment, Bear Creek Property, 83 Acre Parcel, Contra Costa County, California, dated February 28,2002 by Engeo Inc. 15. Limited Subsurface Exploration and Percolation Test Results dated received by CDD on July 25, 2002 prepared by Engeo Incorporated, 16. Geologic Review Services dated August 13, 2002 prepared by Darwin:Ayers. A follow-up Geologic Review dated October 18, 2002 prepared by Darwin.Myers. 17. Biological Resources Gan Shalom Cemetery- Phase I Natural Resource Impacts dated received by CDD on July 25, 2002 prepared LSA Associates, Inc. Malcolm J. Sproul. Addendum dated received by CDD on October 21, 2002. 18. Arborist Report dated received by CDD on July 25, 2002 prepared by Hortscience. An addendum was dated received by CDD on October 10, 2002. 19. Civil Engineering Report dated received by CDD on October 10 & 16, 2002 prepared by dk Associates. 20. Peer Review by Monk&Associates dated December 4,2002 of LSA Associates,Inc. Biology Reports listed above. 21. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County issued by the Soil Conservation Services, 1977. 22. Mineral Resource Classification of Aggregate Materials,issued by the California.Division of Mines &Geology, Open-File Report 96-03,published in 1996. 23. Groundwater Availability Evaluation prepared by Engeo, dated December 10,200 1. 24. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, Bear Creek Property,prepared by Engeo; dated December 7, 2001, 25. Hydrogeologic Discussion of Groundwater Issues,prepared by Engeo;dated February 19, 2003, 26. Selection of turf,prepared by Rose Associates, dated February 26, 2003. 27. Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis, Letter Report to Frank Winer of Gan Shalom dated June 20,20103 by Engeo Inc. 28. Continents on Groundwater Testing and Analysis, Letter report by Engeo,dated lune 20, 2003, Proposed Cemetery Development,Hampton and Bear Creek Roads, Contra Costa.County, California, dated September 4, 2003 by S.S. Papadopulos &Associates,Inc. 29. Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation,Proposed Gan.Shalom Cemetery,Bear Creek and Hampton Reads, Contra Costa County, Califorrria., dated September 30,2003 by Geoconsultants Inc. 30. proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Program, Gan Shalom.Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California, dated September 22, 2003, prepared by Engeo Inc. 31.. Response to Comments, dated September 25,2003,prepared by Engeo. 6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AES'T'HETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X (Source#1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10) b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? X (Source#1,2, 3,4, 5,6,7,8,9, 10) c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X (Source#1, 2, 3,4, 5,6,7, 8, 9, 10) d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (Source#1, 2, 3,4, 5,6,7, 8, 9, 10) SUMMARY: The site is in the A-2 zoning district and fronts on the southwest side of Bear Creek Road, a designated scenic route in the Transportation and Circulation Element of the County General Plan. Improvement Plans submitted indicate a proposed 10-foot minimum setback of ground burials from Bear Creek Road,Hampton Road and from the Daly property line(located east of the site). The applicant does not propose any standing headstones,instead using grave markers embedded flush with the ground,A limited number of mausoleums are proposed in Phase 2,located in the inner valley along the foot of hillsides,which will be distant from the roads and not readily visible. The only visible improvements will be the entry,fencing along the frontage of Bear Creek Road,a small chapel(located 250 feet from Bear Creek Road)with a parking area,plus access roads and nunor maintenance facilities. Landscaping(using native vegetation)is planned along the road frontages. 'dews of the property will remain predominantly open space,with the tree-studded hills clearly visible beyond. The project is not considered to represent a significant impact on scenic vistas,and will not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. If. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use`? X (Source 41,2, 3,4, 5,6,7, 8, 10, 21) 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im g Incorporation Imyact impact b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? X (Source#9, 21) c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,dote to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? X (Source 1,2,3,4,5, 9, 21) SUMMARY: This.property is vacant agricultural land at present. During staff's field visit no agricultural uses were observed. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County classifies the valley flocs portion of the site Capay clay(CaA). This soil is characterized by slopes of 0 to 2 percent;runoff is very slow and there is no hazard of erosion where bare soil is exposed. It is a prime (Class II) agricultural soil, used mainly for dryland small grain, volunteer pasture, range and home sites. The hilly upland portions of the site are mapped as Millsholm loam(MeG), 50 to 75 percent slopes. This is a non-prime soil used mainly for range, wildlife habitat and watershed. The Conservation Element (pg. 8-27) classifies the property as an"Important Agricultural Area"(primarily grazing). The Important Farmlands Map of Contra Costa County was issued by the State Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, in 1990. The State divides lands into eight categories,based on their agricultural potential..However,these maps do not classify lands in the Briones Hills ©pen Space Area. They appear to consider these lands to be chiefly wildlife habitat and watershed land with localized pockets of rural ranchettes stables and possessing insufficient agricultural land to warrant formal classification. 111. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Cordlict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X (Source#1,2, 3,4,6,7, 8, 10, 11) b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? _ X (Source#1,2, 3,4,6, 7, 8, 10, 11) c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federalor state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X (Source#1,2,4,6,7, 8, 10, 11) S Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No itngact Incorporation impact I-M—Plct d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (Source#1,2, 4,6,7, 8, 10) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X (Source 41,2, 4,6,7, 8, 10) SUM A iY. The proposed cemetery is not expected to have significant air quality impacts, Specifically,the project does not include a crematorium, so the only ennissions anticipated are associated with grading (dust) and vehicle emissions (chiefly automobiles conveying mourners to cemetery services). The grading will be completed l acre at a time, which will be followed by placing approximately 1,000 vaults in.the ground. It is anticipated that a) due to the infrequent grading (once every 5 years, estimate), b)the limited duration of each grading operation(2 to 3 weeks), and c)the relatively low traffic volumes anticipated at the cemetery(Abrams Associates report, July 25, 2002; see Appendix B),the air quality effects of the project are not significant. It should be recognized that BAAQMD and CEQA Guidelines (2003) define thresholds for significant impacts (see Table 3). The BAAQMD significant thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction-related particulates(suspended particulate matter-PMI,,). If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollution emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. For relatively small grading projects of the type proposed by Gan Shalom, the accepted standard is to control dust by use of water. The conditions of approval for projects involving grading routinely include 21' century construction controls, which include dust suppression. Furthermore,a provision of the County Grading Ordinance requires dust control measures. Anyone failing to control dust emissions risks having the project shut down. During construction various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use on the site. Such vehicles and equipment would be a source of exhaust gases such as reactive organic gases (R©G), nitrogen oxides(NON and carbon monoxide(CO). BAAQMD and CEQA Guidelines provide,however, that PM,,,is the pollutant of greatest concernn with respect to construction activity. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers,truckstop)were identified as having the highest associated risk. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identify the following types of facilities as having a potential for exposing sensitive receptors to high levels of diesel exhaust: • truck stop • school with high volume of bus traffic, • warehouse/distribution center; • high volurne arteriaFroadway with high • large retail or industrial facility; level of diesel traffic • high volume transit center; 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ImI3aCt Incorporation LUact Impact Table 3 BAAQMD AND CEQA GUIDELINES(2003) SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR AIR QUALITY • Contribute to carbon monoxide(CO)concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for nine parts per million(ppm)averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour;or • Generate criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQI IM annual or daily thresholds. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases(RGG),Nitrogen Oxides(Nox), or PM,,. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact;or • Create or frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors;or G • Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to sustainable levels of toxic air contaminants or pollutant concentrations;or • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;or • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;or Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an,applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard(including releasing i emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), j Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting the area for a period of perhaps three weeks. Additionally, construction-related sources are mobile and transient in nature and the bulk of the emission occurs within the project site at a substantial distance from nearby receptors, Because of its short duration and distance from receptors, health risks from construction emissions of diesel particulate associated with Gan Shalom would be a less-than-significant impact. With regard to regional air quality effects,the BAAQMD has established a threshold of significance for ozone precursors and PM,Q of 80 pounds per day. Project-related emissions from vehicles are far below these thresholds of significance for all three regional pollutants,so project impacts on regional air quality would be less than significant, IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,polices,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? X (Source 6, 8, 17,20) 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No hn sact Incrsr oration Impact ImRa t b, Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ether sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X (Source 43,6, 8, 17,20) c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally- protected wetlands as defirned by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? X _ (Source#1, 2, 4, 8, 17,20) d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or uildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X (Source 41, 2, 4, 8, 17,20) e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? X (Source#1, 2, 4, 8, 17,20) f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conservation plan? X (Source#1,2, 4, 8, 17,20) SLIyIMMARY: The applicant submitted a Phase i Natural Resource I npacts Report prepared by LSA, received by CDD on July 25, 2002. An addendum report was dated received by CDD on October 21, 2002, and a letter was received from LSA dated May 28, 2003. The July 25th report focused on evaluation of the Phase 1 area. Both of-these reports are presented in Appendix A. The proposed 7.62- acre Phase 1 area is locatedsn the southeast portion of the property. Approximately 6.1 acres of the Parcel 1 area is gently sloping valley bottom land with a vegetative cover of non-native grassland. One valley oak grows within this valley bottom area. Pinole Creek enters the Gan Shalom property after crossing under Bear Creek Road(at the northeast corner of the Phase 1 area), The LSA envirom-nental annalysis may be summarized as follows: The proposed Phase I project will not directly impact any of the natural resource areas of concern. Specifically, the proposed project is deemed by LSI to have avoided all jurisdictional streams and wetlands,preserves all areas ofnative vegetation,anddoes not eliminate any special-status species. Tine October 21,2002 LSA report analyzed biologic resource issues for the remainder of the site. As part of its survey of biological resources assessment, LSA mapped all areas potentially subject to resource agency jurisdiction. The cemetery Site flan avoids all of these areas. As a result the project is not Il Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lMnact Incorporation Itungst subject to the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and dues not require a permit from the California Department of Fish&Game. The California red-legged frog is a federally-listed threatened species which is known to be present in Pinole Creek downstream ofthe project site. LSA identified a single California red-legged frog in Pinole Creek, just below the downstream Bear Creek Road culvert during their February 7, 2002 site visit, There is a potential for the red-legged frog to move upstream onto the project site. However,the project avoids Pinole Creek and establishes a 100 foot setback from the top-of-bank, where no cemetery uses are proposed as a part of the application. The May 28,2003 LSA letter,which is presented in Appendix A, discusses the potential presence of the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) on the site. Briefly summarized, the Gan Shalom property is in the area that formerly was designated critical snake habitatby the United States Fish and.Wildlife Service(USF&WS),before that designation recently was voided by court order. The April 2002 LSA report explaiftied that while there is no suitable scrub habitat on-site, it is possible that snakes might cross through the property(see LSA,p. 17). The May 28,20013 LSA letter-report confirms their earlier conclusion that there is no "core habitat" for the Alameda whipsnake on the property. Nevertheless, LSA cannot rule out the possibility that snakes may travel across the site on occasion. LSA concludes that while snares still could cross the cemetery's turf areas,they are more likely to avoid turfed areas in favor of areas providing better cover. LSA reports that the proposed turf areas would not impact on the snakes because there is adequate opportunity for other travel routes. LSA's letter also recommends use of temporary exclusion fencing to avoid any risk of snakes being harmed during construction. With regard to wetlands on the site,the channel of Pinole Creek is to be retained as undisturbed open space. Additionally, the April 2002 LSA report identified two mall potential seeps (see LSA report, Figure 3 on pg. 9 and pg. 12). One seep is far from the cemetery development,but the other is close to the grading boundary in Phase 4. Peer Review by Monk&Associates Contra Costa County retained Monk.&Associates LLC (M&A)as an independent consultant to review the Biological Resources reports issued by LSA.. M&A has identified several potential project-related impacts and has provided mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset these impacts (see Appendix.A,the M&A peer review follows the LSA.reports mid letters). The following analysis is based upon recommendations presented iia the M&A report. Furthermore,the biologic portion of the Initial Study has been reviewed by M&A to assure consistency with their intent. These mitigation measures would reduce project-related biological resource impacts to a level considered less than significant. The project site contains extensive oak woodland and bay oak forest. These plant coninumities provide significant native plant and wildlife habitat. They provide wildlife with nesting, dennin , and foraging opportunities, as well as a large, unimpeded corridor for local animal migration. One special-status species,the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat(Neotoinafuscipes annectens), has been identified by LSA in the project site's oak woodland. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a California species of special concern. It is also possible that other special-status species such as the Cooper's hawk or rare plants, could reside in these woodlands and forest as well. Under the proposed project,the oak woodland 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact IneoMoration IMMS t Impact and bay oak forest would be retained as private open space. Provided that the project retains this area as open space, it does not pose impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Nevertheless, if changes were proposed to the project that would require intrusion into the woodland habitats, potential impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and other special-status species, would have to be analyzed and mitigation could be required. The proposed Can Shalom Cemetery currently presents no impact to the oak woodland and the bay oak forest on the project site. If the project is approved, cemetery uses would be limited to the valley floor, The upper slopes/hillsides of the site would be retained as private open space. The proposed project has an approximately 120-year buildout. During that period,the project proponents may desire changes to the cemetery that could require infringing on these habitats. These changes would be subject to the requirements of regulatory agencies (.e.g, tree pen-nit, grading permits, land use permits prior to construction or improvements on the upper slopes/hillsides). If in the future there are plans for disturbance to the oak woodland and bay oak forest, the applicant would be required to submit a new application to the County and the proposed impact would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA. L. California Red—Legged Frog Impact: LSA identified a single California red-legged frog in Pinole Creek, just below the downstream Bear Creek Road culvert during their February 7, 2002 site visit. These frogs have been reported in Pinole Creek numerous times, and the reach of creek on the site provides suitable habitat for this species. Hence, project-related impacts to the California red-legged frog are potentially significant. These impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to CEQA. A tigation Measures: The project, as currently proposed, would not impact Pinole Creek. However, in order to avoid impacts to the California red-legged frog and its habitat, LSA has proposed several mitigation measures that could be implemented. For clarification,M&A has recommended modifications to the LSA measures to ensure protection of the California red- legged frog and its habitat. a) A I00 foot setback shall be established from Pinole Creek's top-of-bank-to the edge of project grading. This 100 foot buffer shall be preserved in perpetuity for biological resources. No grading, ground burials,formal landscaping, or other intrusion shall be allowed within this 100 foot wide buffer zone. A Revised Site Plan for the cemetery shall accurately show (and label) the 100 foot setback line. b) The I00 foot buffer zone shall be fenced(permanent fencing), with the fencing plan subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. It is anticipated that the fence will be split-rail or equivalent. The surveyor for the project shall set stakes at the 100 foot setback line. The fence shall be installed on a phase by phase basis. Construction fencing shall be installed along the portion ofsetback line within each area that is about to be improved prior to issuance of the construction or grading permit far that area. The permanent fencing in each area must be installed after completion of site improvements, and immediately after 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant 2vliligation Significant No Impact Incorporation InINMt removal of the construction fencing. Once installed, the permanent,fence shall be maintained over the life of the project. c) Prior to any grading and construction that affects land adjacent to the 100-foot wide buffer zone, a frog exclusion fence shall be installed near the top-of-bank along the entire length o,f" Pinole Creek on the project site. The fence, constructed of?%-inch mesh hardware cloth, shall be keyed into the ground all along its base (to prevent frogs from going under it). It shall be a minimum of four feet high, with the top six inches of the fence bent inward (towards the creek) to prevent frogs from jumping over the fence. This fence shall be maintained in good condition during the duration of all grading and construction-related activities. d) Preconstruction surveys for the California red-legged frog, consisting of one day and one night survey, shall be conducted within three days of any grading or construction-related activities that affect lands adjacent to the 1 DD foot wide buffer zone. The survey results shall be submitted to Contra Costa County. 1f any California red-legged frogs are identified on the project site during the preconstruction surveys, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service shall be contacted by the end of the next business day for directions on how next to proceed, and the contractor shall stop all work. Any California red-legged frog sighting shall be reported to California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database. At the time the US Fish and Wildlife Service determines that adequate avoidance andlor mitigation has been implemented by the applicant, and proof is provided to Contra Costa County via a letter from the US: Fish and Wildlife Service, the project may continue. e) Since a California red legged frog was sighted by LSA in Pinole Creek just outside the project site boundaries, a biologist shall also survey the 100-foot buffer area and immediately adjacent construction areas each morning prior to construction activities during the winter and spring months (times when frogs may be moving) to ensure that no California red legged frogs have moved into either the buffer zone or the work area, During the hot summer and early fall months, the morning surveys shall not be necessary since frogs are not migrating during these periods. 2. Vallev Oak and Coast Live Oak Treks Inngact: The"Preliminary &Final Development Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan" for the project(dated September 2002) shoves three individual oak trees within the lands proposed for cemetery use,labeled "oafs." The arborist's report classifies these trees by species, diameter and condition.. In accordance with the Contra Costa County Protected Tree Ordinance, impacts to native oak trees greater than 6.5 inches in diameter would be a significant adverse impact, and would require a tree permit. it%gation Measure: a) All single oak trees (that is, oaks located in oak savanna or grassland habitat or at the edge of a woodland system) within a phase about to be developed shall be protected during construction by installing orange construction fencing at 1.S times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree. This non-disturbance buffer zone shall be staked 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No 1M2act Incorporation Tmnactiman in the field by a qualified biologist prior to installation of construction fencing to ensure that the contractor has fenced an adequate buffer area. b) After site improvements are completed in the vicinity of the tree, the construction fencing can be removed. However, no surface or subsurface disturbance, no turf or other plantings shall occur within this buffer zone (1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree)for the life of the project. Therefore,permanent fencing shall be installed on the boundary of the buffer zone of a design approved by the Zoning Administrator. The permanent fencing must be installed after completion of site improvements and immediately after removal of the construction fencing. Furthermore, the grading plan shall identify areas to be fenced and the General Notes shall specify no access or earthwork within the fenced area. Any trees proposed for removal shall be shown on the grading plans.. c) Although Gan Shalom's plans do not proposed removal of any of the larger trees; neverthe- less, if removal was proposed in the future, the following mitigation measure would become operative. The tree replacement formula presented below is based on standards of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance Code, Chapter 816-6). IjOt is necessary to remove any native trees on the project site that are 6.5 inches in diameter at breast height or greater, then replacement trees shall be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon tree and one I-gallon seedling for each 6 inches in diameter of the trees removed(i.e., an oak tree 30 inches in diameter 41a feet above ground level would be replaced with five 15-gallon and five .1-gallon trees). Replacement trees shall be the same species as the trees) removed An automatic drip irrigation system shall be installed on all replacement trees. This system shall operate for a minimum two-year period to ensure that the trees are successfully established. Annual mitigation reports documenting tree survivorship, and complete with photos, shall be submitted to Contra Costa County by.December 1 of each year for a three- year period. If survtvorship falls below 85 percent, replacement trees shall be planted and monitored for an additional three-year period. d) To preserve the species composition of the project site's native oak woodland and riparian habitats, the landscaping plan prepared for the project shall consist entirely of tree and shrub species native to the Bear Creek/Alhambra Valley area. No non-native, ornamental trees or shrubs shall be planted. 3. Nestor Raptors and Loggerhead Shrike To prevent a"take"of special status species and their habitat,the following mitigation measures are recommended. IMpact: The oak woodland, bay oak forest, and the riparian woodland on the project site all provide nesting opportunities for raptors (birds of prey) such as the red-tailed hawk(Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperi),sharp-shinned hawk(A.ccipiter striatus), reel shouldered hawk(Buteo lineatus), and white tailed kite(Elanus leucurus). These raptors, their nests, eggs, and young are all protected under California Fish and Game Code(Sec. 3503, 3505, 3800) and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additionally,the Cooper's hawk is a state 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inepnorstion Immat Impact species of special concern, and the white-tailed kite is a"fully protected" species under California Fish and Game Code(Sec 3511). Finally,these plant communities also provide nesting opportunities for the loggerhead shrike(Lanius ludovicianus), a state species of special concern that is also protected under California Fish and Game Code. Any disturbance to raptors or to the loggerhead shrike while they are,nesting which may cause them to abandon their nest,eggs, and/or young,would constitute"take." Mitigation.M`easure: a) Prior to issuance of construction permits for mausoleums, roads, or water tank in the southern valley portion of the site, a spring nesting survey for raptors and the loggerhead shrike shall be conducted in the oak woodland and bay oak forest. This survey shall be conducted between the months of April and June in the year that construction is planned. The surveys should encompass the area on the project site within approximately 114 mile radius of the proposed improvements and follow accepted protocols. If the area to be surveyed extends off-site, and permission for access by the biologic monitor is not allowed, the biologic survey of such areas can be performed by using binoculars at a strategic on-site location as well as other reconnaissance methods. If raptors are nesting on the project site, a minimum.500 foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with construction fencing. A qualified raptor biologist will periodically monitor the nest sites) to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by August 1'. b) If loggerhead shrikes are nesting on the project site, a 150-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest free. This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. No disturbance shall occur within the bujser zone until the young have fledged, typically by July Ig`. 4. See Impact: Immediately adjacent to the Phase 4 area, a seep was identified by LSA(see April 2002 report, Figure 3 on page 9 and page 12). It has potential value to wildlife. The Preliminary and Final Development Plan and Preliminary Grading PIan (dated September, 2002) intentionally avoids the seep near the Phase 4 area. However,there is,no metes-and-bounds(or GPS coordinates)for the seep, and the setback of ground burials in Phase 4 from the seep can not be accurately established duce to the scale of the Development Plan. Mitigation Measure: a) Provide accurate coordinates for the seep adjacent to the Phase 4 area prior to any construction in the Phase 4 area. 16 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Iv70 Incorporation Impact Lmmaet b) Prior to any construction in the Phase 4 area, a qualified biologist shall re-evaluate the seep to accurately establish its limits and set stakes 20 feet from the seep, c) Permanent fencing(split rail or equivalent) shall be installed along the boundary between the ground burial area and the seep at the 20-foot line. Construction fencing shall be installed prior to any earthwork in Phase 4 and the permanent fencing shall be installed immediately after removal of the construction fencing. The permanent fencing, once installed, shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. 5, Mameda Whimake Imp : According to LSA,the Alameda whipsnake is not likely to reside on the site based on the lack of core habitat on or in the vicinity of the property. However, given the known presence of whipsnakes in the Briones Hills/Oursan Ridge area, there is some potential for whipsnakes to travel through the site. Once portions of the cemetery are developed, whipsnakes are expected to go around rather than cross through turf areas. There are alternative routes available in the vicinity, so development of the cemetery is not considered an obstacle to dispersal through the area. Mitieation Measures: According to SSA there is a low probability that whipsnakes would attempt to cross a portion of the site while it is being cleared for cemetery use. Nevertheless there remains some risk of harming whipsnakes during grading and construction, that can be avoided by the following mitigation measures. a) Prior to any grading and construction activity, a qualified biologist shall survey the intended grading area to determine if a temporary snake exclusion fence is required. ff a fence is required, the biologist shall specify the type, height and other details of design and installation. b) The biologist also shall determine if any whipsnake surveys are required in an area for which exclusion fencing has been required,prior to the start of work and/or during work. The biologist shall specify the tinning and procedures of any such surveys,following generally accepted protocols. Survey results shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and to any other agencies as may be warranted by the survey results. 6„ Western Pond Turtle Impact: According to LSA(see April 11, 2002 report in Appendix A),the western pond turtle ('Clemmys marmorata), a California species of concern,has been reported in Pinole Creek, and the section of creek on the site provides suitable habitat. LSA concluded that the turtle is likely to occur on-site. M&A agrees that the turtle may be present in the creek channel, and recommends mitigation to avoid harm. l7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Iprvact Impact Mitigation Measure: The five mitigation measures specified in Section IV 1 above to protect California red legged frog(creek setback,fencing, construction controls and surveys)also will protect the western pond turtle. No additional mitigation is required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? X (Source#1,2, 3, 6,7,8, 12) � b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? X (Source#1, 2,3,6,7,8, 12) c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X (Source#1,2,3,6,7, 8,12) d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x (Source 41,2,3,6,7,8, 12) SUMMARY In response to a memorandum prepared by the California Historical Resources Information Center(CHRIS),the project proponent retained William Self,Associates to perform an archaeologic survey.' The primary conclusion of the report is that there are no known archaeologic or historical resources on the site. Impact: Although no evidence of cultural resources was identified by the archaeologic reconnaissance investigation,there is an unknown(but possibly significant) risk of buried cultural resources. The report prepared by William Self Associates recommends that: a)if artifacts are uncovered during earthwork, grading be stopped until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the find and advise the County; and b)protocol are provided if remains of a Dative American are discovered. Mitigation Measure. a) If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 100 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retainedfor further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and Bone artifacts, concentrations offire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. 'William Self&Associates, 2002. Archaeological,5urvey and Assessment of a 83-Acre Parcel .Located at Hampton.Road and.Bear Creek Road,Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Report dated May 23, 2002. 18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation hUact Impact b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the "find" or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted,per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. c) Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring ref further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. V1. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source 416) X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X (Source:#1, 16) 3, Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X (Source#14, 16 } 4. Landslides? X (Source#14, 16) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X (Source#21) c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? X (Source#14. 16) d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in "fable 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X (Source#14. 21) 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant l4itigation Significant No Impact IrSartsoration Impact Impact e. Have sails incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? _ x (Source 415, 16,21) SL'11!llvlAltY; The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest A-P Zane is along the Hayward fault, approximately 6 miles southwest of the property. According to the Safety Element,the site is in the area of"lowest damage susceptibility"from earthquake ground shaking (pg. 10-23)and "generally moderate to law"liquefaction potential(pg. 10-27). With regard to landslides,a geotechnical report prepared by Engeo, :hnc.,indicates there are no landslides identified in areas proposed for cemetery use. Due to the proximity of slides to areas proposed for cemetery use,including some of the proposed mausoleums, Engeo has reconnmended a detailed study prier to issuance of construction permits. According to the Engeo report,the lands being proposed for cemetery use are not subject to liquefaction or lateral spreading,but the topsoil is considered to be expansive. The site is generally suitable for septic systems. The County Geologist has reviewed the Engeo report and has confirmed that the cemetery project is feasible from geologic/geotechnical perspective,with no significant geologic impacts. It can be anticipated that the geotechnical study recommended by Engeo will be made a condition of approval. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County indicates soils on the valley floor area of the site(whicb. includes all ground burial areas, all mausoleums and the chapel)present a low erasion hazard. Furthermore,the vaults are to be emplaced in I-acre increments+-,so the disturbed area at any one time will be limited to a small portion of the site. Following emplacement of the vaults,the applicant's proposal is to install the irrigation system and seed the disturbed area. It should also be recognized that a I00-foot setback of grading(and ground burials)from the top-of-bank of Pinole Creek will provide an additional buffer to trap sediment and nutrients. VIL. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the project; a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? x (Source#1,2, 3, 4, 5,6,7, 8, 24) b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? x (Source#1,2, 3, 4,5,6, 7,8, 24) c. Emit.hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within tine-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? _ X (Source 41,2,3, 4, 5,6,7,8,24) 20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No imp-act Inncor ration Imnact Tmnact d, Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X (Source#1,2, 3, 4,5,6,7, 8,24) e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been Adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.. X (Source#1) f. For a project within the-vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ---- X (Source#1) g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X (Source#1) h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source#1,2, 3, 4, 5,6,7, 8) S!.JM Y: The project is a request to create a cemetery in an upland valley bottom area. Historically,the upland portion of the property has served as wildlife habitat, grazing land, and watershed. In the late 1940s and until the late 1950s, some of the valley floor land was used for row crops (tomatoes). Since 1959 the only agriculture use has been grazing. The site is not on the Hazardous Waste and Substance(Cortese)List published by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Hence,there is no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination known to the State of California. There is no record of hazardous materials onsite. The project proponent submitted a Phase l Environment Site Assessment.' The scope of work included.: a)review of publicly-available environmental record sources;b)review of historical. resources; c)a reconnaissance of the property;d)interviews with ownersloccupants and government officials;and e)preparation of this report presenting the consultant's findings and conclusions. The investigation found no evidence of hazardous materials on the site. There are no buried tanks witl-in 1/4 mile of the site,and no evidence of off-site sources that might be expected to impact the site. There was no evidence on-site contamination that would impact the subject site. 'Engen, Inc., 2001. Phase I Environmental Sate Assessment, .Bear Creek Property, Contra Costa County. Engeo Job 45405.3.001.01 (report elated December 7, 2001). 21 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Impact Impact The project is consistent with the General Plan Policies 10-84 through 10-91, which are the public protection and disaster policies. The project is not located within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip. The site is located in a high wildfire hazard area,but will be required to comply with recommendation of the County Fire Protection District and California Department of Forestry. These recommendations address water required for fire suppression, access requirements, and fire- resistant design/building materials. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Mould the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X (Source#6, 16, 23, 24,25 and agency responses on project) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X (Source#23, 24,25,26,27,28,29) c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? X (Source#7 and agency responses from Flood -- Control District(9/5/02)and Public Works Dept. (10111/02)) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? X (Source#6,7, 19,20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29,and responses of Flood Control Dist. (9/5/02) and Public Works Dept. (10/11/02).) e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X (Source#6,7, 19, 20,21,23,24, 25,27, 28,29, and responses of Flood Control Hist. (9/5/02),Public Works Dept. (10/11/02), and Health Services(9/16/02). 22 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact In hnpsct impt f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Source#6,7, 19,20,21,23, 24, 25,27, 28,29;and responses of Flood Control Dist. (9/5/02)and Public Works Dept. (10/11/02). g. Place housing within a 100-year flood Hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X (Source#6, 8, 19) h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X (Source: Comment letters from.the Flood V` Control Dist. (9/5/02)and Public Works Dept. (10/11/02) 1. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X (Source 46,8, 19 and comment letters from the Flood Control Dist.(9/5/02)and Public Works Dept. (10/11/02) j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X (Source#6,7, 14, 16) SUMMARY: There is no evidence that the existing surface waters or groundwater is contaminated. The quality of potable water is regulated by the County Health Services Department, and the project will be required to comply with County regulations,as well as those of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are no issues associated with flooding, and no evidence that the project would impact water quality. The applicant proposes to develop the ground burial area by excavating l acre of the site at a time;place a drainage blanket at the base of the excavation;place vaults on the drainage blanket; fill the space between vaults with permeable materials; and then cover the vaults with the native soils. The water table(perched,non-potable groundwater)was found to be at a depth of 15 feet(static water level from the September 21, 2001 water flaw test measured by Pacific Coast Well and Pump at the existing water well on the site). The vaults are to be placed approximately 20 inches below the existing ground elevation. Thus,the vaults will be above the water table and the site will have excellent drainage. The areas proposed for cemetery use will not change the direction of drainage. As vaults are placed in the ground,the 1-acre areas will increase in elevation by an estimated 28 inches,but the direction of drainage will not change. The site will continue to drain by sheetflow to the chaimel of Pinole Creek. Should well water prove to be inadequate for irrigation,the potential exists to collect and recycle irrigation water that reaches the subdrains below the vaults. The portion of the site is subject to inundation by the 100-year flood,but the elevation of the peals water surface is not shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map issued by FEMA. The site is not subject to inundation in the event of darn failure. The official clam failure inundation maps issued by EBMI,'D indicate that failure of Briones Reserve effects San Pablo Reservoir and the El Sobrante 23 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor2orstion ImLact impact Valley area that is downstream from San Pablo Reservoir. Landslide/mudflow risks on the valley floor are negligible. The following discussion is intended to highlight and summarize pertinent regulations,policies and other requirements of regulatory-agencies as they pertain to groundwater resources. 1. State Law. Applicable State laws include the drinking water regulations which require pump tests and water quality testing, and forwarding evidence of compliance to the State law to the Water Quality Control Board. Compliance with these requirements have been incorporated into regulations administered stered by the County Health Services Department(HSD),Environmental Health Division. In 2,001,the State of California,enacted SB610 and 221. This law requires,by year 2006, amendment of the Land Use Elements of all local jurisdictions in the State. Specifically, it requires an inventory of existing groundwater(and other water resources), assessing existing and fixture water needs,and then developing policies and implementation measures to integrate water demand with land use planning. As a major open space area,the new law does not appear applicable to lands outside the urban limit line, such as the Briones Hills, The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)does not contain a definition of significant groundwater resource impact but Section 15064.7 defines Thresholds of Significance, According to this section, each agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance. A threshold of significance is defined as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental.effect. It must be adopted by ordinance, resolution,rule or regulation and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. 3, County General Plan. The Conservation Element contains policies that pertain to protection of water resources. Those that are most applicable to the proposed cemetery are presented in 'fable 4. It is anticipated that a well-designed project will comply with these policies. 4. County Rogplations. On June 26, 1985,Chapter 414-4 of the County Ordinance Code was adopted. It provides specific standards and criteria for potable water wells. These provisions require residential lots to have wells that yield 3 gallons per minute (gpm) (with a bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the State standards for a pure,wholesome and potable water supply). Section 414-4 contains provisions for hydrogeologic evaluation in known or suspected water short areas, Hydro-geologic studies consider bedrock permeability, stratigraphic units,faults, fracture and other rock parameters to analyze the effect of geology on the distribution of ground water. 24 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation impact Impact Section 414-1.216 specifies that the Health Services Department may require yield tests Table 4 of up to 24 hours duration where there is no WATER RESOURCE POLICIES MUST APPLICABLE TO LP022068 historical evidence to document well yield.' General water Resource Policies The reason for long-duration pump tests is g-74 Preserve watersheds and groundwater recharge that it is.not unusual for well yields to areas by avoiding the placement of potential decline through time or for the water table pollution sources in areas with high percolation to experience drawdowrn if it is a confined rates. aquifer with limited recharge.� g 8-75 Preserve and enhance the qualihr of surface and � groundwater resources. In summary,the County Health Services 8-76 Ensure that land uses in rural areas be consistent Department Standards are intended to provide with the availability of groundwater resources. reliable data an: a)flaw much water a well will 8-77 Provide development standards in recharge areas to produce; and b)dependability of production maintain and protect the quality of groundwater over the long terin. Usually this involves supplies, installing a pump and operating it at expected Policies for New Development Along Natural production rates over a certain length of time. watercourses There are adopted standards for a ranchette use 8-89 setback areas shall be provided along natural in the County Code (3 gpm), but no standards creeks and streams in areas planned for urbanization. The setback areas shall be of a width exist for a Cemetery. The intent of the adequate to allow maintenance and to prevent regulation is to ensure that the water source is damage to adjacent structures,the natural channel adequate for the intended use, with a safety and associated riparian vegetation. The setback factor included to account for possible problems area shall be a minimum of 100 feet;50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. with reliability of the well. For example, an average, each person in a household uses 100 8-90 Deeded development rights for lands within established areas along creeks or streams shall be gallons of water per day. To this, water must be sought to assure creek preservation and to protect added for lawn and garden irrigation,livestock adjacent structures and the lass of rivets ro watering, control of dust(if there are horse activity areas)or swimming pools. A well yielding 3 gpm will provide 4,300 gallons in 24 hours of pumping. This amount of water probably corresponds to three times the expected daily use during the summer months for a typical family living on a ranchette. Agricultural uses that could be established on-site under the prevailing zoning include a horse stable. For example, a 50-horse operation requires an estimated 7,500 gallons/day during the summer, including domestic needs of the owners/managers). The property historically was used for tomato cultivation which requires 5,431-6,789 gallons per acre per day; other crops require similar amounts of water(Appendix C, page C7). Wells in the Briones Hills area are producing groundwater from bedrock. It is an area where there are no defined aquifers. Water supplies in such areas are related to the presence of permeable bedrock,including fracture patterns and characteristics (e.g., spacing, continuity, and dilation), faults, presence of clay-free sandstone beds. The applicant submitted a hydrogeology reconnaissance report 'Yield tests provide data on the rate of water discharge and drawdown of the well. 25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Htigation Significant No Ira act Incorporation bua—d Impact prepared by Engeo Inc.' The report notes that dwellings in the Bear Oaks Lane and Garcia Ranch area exhibit significant variability in production of wells, even where wells are relatively closely spaced, and that those wells are several thousand feet front the existing well on.the Gan Shalom site, retaking the potential for connectivity remote. The nearest wells to the site are a well on the parcel across Hampton Road from.the Gann Shalom property and wells at the Poplar and Bottornly Stables, which are directly across Bear Creek Road from the Gan Shalom site. The Gan Shalom well produced 22 gpm in a 4-hour pump test,the well north of Hampton Road produced 33 gpm in a pump test(duration unknown); and the well on the Poplar Stable property produce sufficient water to meet current needs. (According to the owner of the Poplar Stables,the water demands of a 507horse stable is on the order of 7,500 gallons per day during the summer,including domestic use by the owners.) Background In response to the requirements of the County Health Services Department, Gan Shalom issued a letter dated March 17, 2003. That letter agreed to perform a 24-hour pump test that complies with the standards of the Health Department. That letter also responded to an August 20,2002 letter to the Community Development Department front the County Health Services Department, The August 201 letter stated that the Health Services Department would require a public Water Supply Sjrstem if the project has hand washing sinks and if there are at least 25 visitors for at least 60 days per year. The March 171 Gan Shalom letter states that: a)visitor threshold is not anticipated to be reached, and b)in lieu of hand washing sinks in restroo s,the cemetery proposes to use"wet towels". The letter concludes by stating that according to Section 1161280, Conditions for Exclusion of the "California Safe Drinking Water Act' and related laws (dated January 1,2000), Gan Shalom Cemetery should not be required to provide a public water system. Pump Test The Connrramity Development Department retained a California certified hydro-geologist, Geoconsultants,Inc.,to provide peer review of the pump test. Their scope of work included review the proposed parameters for the pump test,confer with the Health Services Department,and on the basis of this review provide input into the details of the pump test;monitor field procedures during the pump test;and provide an evaluation of the resulting report. It should be recognized that the purpose of the aquifer testing program was to determine if there would be any potential hydrogeologic impacts to wells on adjacent properties or other parcels in the vicinity-and establish a sustained yield for the well under proposed operating conditions. The pump test report of Engeo Inc. is presented in Appendix C,and Appenndix D presents Engeo's recommended mitigation and monitoring program for groundwater. Appendix E presents a review- letter prepared by a hydro-geologist representing home property owmrs in the vicinity,collectively identified as the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance(Dr. Gordon Thrmpp, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates,Inc.). Appendix F presents the peer review of the hydro-geologists retained by Contra. 'Engeo Inc., 2003. Hydrologic Discussion of Groundwater Issues. Engeo Job 95405.1.003.01 (dated February 19, 2003). 26 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No I Iaet incoraoraticrn Impact Im act Costa County, Geoconsultants Inc. The following discussion is intended to suminarize and highlight (not supercede)the findings of Geoconsultants. • Hydrogeeologic Settimg. Data from wells drilled on site confirm the presence of saturated siltstone and sandstone below a depth of 50 feet. The intergranular permeability is considered "low"to "very low"by the U.S. Geological Survey,but fractures are commonly present. The hydrology of fractured sandstone and siltstone, combined with stratigraphic discontinuities,limit application of the traditional analyses of aquifer testing programs. • Aquifer Test Procedure. The 24-hour sustained yield test was performed May 29 and 30, 2003 on the existing production well. The objective of tlae test was to determine aquifer properties, evaluate the specific capacity'and sustained yield under operating conditions, and to estimate a maximum radius of influence'from the pumping well during an operating mode. This interpretation of the data was used to answer two questions: 1)what is the sustained yield (controls practical operating cycle for production, and 2)under such conditions,what would the impact be,if any, on water levels in neighboring properties. From the production well on the Gan Shalom property,the nearest parcel boundaries are approximately 900 feet(to east), 1,400- 2,600 feet(to north,across Bear Creek Road)and 1,000 feet(to west). • Radius of Influence. Based on analysis of the data, Engeo calculates the radius of influence around the puanped well for a 24-hour duty period for a sustained yield of 10 gpm to be 308 feet. Geoconsultants independently estimated the radius of influence to be about 224 feet,for a sustained yield of 11 gpm for the 24-hour duty period. Dr. Thrupp's review letter concludes that continuous pumpage for 100 days will cause a decline of water levels of two feet at a distance of 1,500 feet. Geoconsultants consider their findings.on the radius of influence of the well to be consistent with Engeo, and expresses the opinion that Dr. Thrupp's analysis does not acknowledge either the hydrogeologic setting or a realistic operating scenario for the well. • Test Parameters. Geoconsultant's expresses the opinion that the 24-hour test was adequate to gather the technical data needed to analyze the water resource issues;and that extending the test for 5-10 days would not result in any significant data that would improve the reliability/precision of the analysis. • Irrigation Demand. Using sophisticated irrigation teclmology and drought-tolerant turf,the project sponsor estimates irrigation demand for Phase I at approximately 6,000 gallons per day during the irrigation season. Pumping at roughly 10 gpm(or 600 gallons per hour),for 10 Hours would yield 6,000 gallons per day. Geoconsultants consider the best operating practice would be to pump the well for no more than 24 hours at 10 gpm,then allow the well to recover for as long as possible(preferably 72 hours). 'Specific capacity is a measure of the increase in production of groundwater with increasing drawdown in a well,usually measured in gallons,per minute per foot of drawdown(gpm/ft). Radius of influence is the approximate distance from the pumping well where no drawdown will occur in an operating mode. _.... ... 27 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No imp-act Incorporation Impact Itoact • Aquifer Recharge. The site contains 83 acres,with another 64 acres of off-site watershed that is upstream from the production well. The mean seasonal precipitation is 22 inches. The annual precipitation in the upstream watershed is 115.2 acre feet(64 ac. x 1.8 ft). Most of this precipitation will be consumed by evaporation or lost to runoff. If only 10 percent ilnfiltrates and becomes recharge, about 11.5 acre feet per year would be available as recharge to replenish groundwater storage. This conservative estimate of recharge would more than offset the Phase I demand,which is estimated to be 6.7 acre feet per year for irrigation. • Peer Review. Geoconsultants independently analyzed the field data Table 5 gathered during the 24-hour pump test. MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED Their analysis is presented in Appendix E. BY GEOCONSULTANTS .Briefly summarized, Geoconsultants Use of observation wells on-site near the P/L(existing well P- 3 and proposed observation well P-4),along with continued concludes that the full Irrigation for Please use ofthe Thomas well onthe west side of Bampton Road,as I of the proposed cemetery will not impact long as it remains an empty casing, groundwater availability on adjacent • obtain"baseline"data with monthly measurement of i private properties, and that there is groundwater levels in existing observation wells, This is recommended because water levels fluctuate in response to evidence that the existing well Can provide seasonal rainfall(which is highly variable)and other factors. water for irrigation of phase I. Neverthe- In the future the baseline data will be valuable in interpreting less,Geoconsultants recognizes that pump the significance of any post-project fluctuations of i test data and engineering analysis of that groundwater level that may be observed. data is a guide to professional judgment. Daring the first irrigation season,monitor the observation Environmental changes, either naturally wells weekly and monthly thereafter. • Document well production with a flow meter and with records occurring or artificially induced,may cause of power consumption. the quality and/or quantity of water • If a steady choline is observed over a 6-month period produced to change with time. For that (including summer and winter),it could be due to seasonal reason a number of mitigation measures changes in precipitation Therefore,monitoring of observation have been recommended, which are wells should be continued for another 3 years of operation If pumping is inferred to have drawn down the water table, presented in Table 5. Those mitigations hydrogeology re-evaluation is recommended. Irrigation are based in part on the review of a letter demand can be controlled by use of recycled water and other report prepared by Engeo, Inc.,'which is measurer. presented in Appendix.D, immediately following the Pump Test Report. Evaluation of County Health Services Department Based on the groundwater study by Engeo Inc. (including the pump test), with analysis and peer review of Geoconsultants,the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division indicates in a November 4, 2004 memorandum that the data support the conclusion that there is sufficient groundwater available for proposed irrigation uses by Cyan Shalom, and for continued uses at neighborhood locations. The mitigation measures recommended by Geoconsultants and incorporated 'Engeo,Inc., 2003. Proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Program, Gan Shalom Cemetery, Pear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California. Engeo Job 45405.1.004.01 (dated September 22,2003). 28 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IMpact Incorporation Impart Imyact into the Initial Study are anticipated to be adequate to minimize/avoid the potential for groundwater shortages in the area. Changes in weather and other natural conditions may unpredictably alter availability of groundwater. If shortages do occur in the fixture, more stringent mitigation measures shall be imposed,in connection with grading and building permits needed for future phases of the project, 1. Water.Resources Impact: The applicant submitted the results of a 24-hour pump test,which has been peer- reviewed by a certified hydro-geologist retained by Contra Costa County. Analysis of the pump test data indicates there is sufficient groundwater for irrigation of at least the Phase 1 area. Moreover, the upstream watershed is more than adequate to recharge the aquifer. Nevertheless,hydro-geologic analysis and projections of water usage shall be confirmed with actual experience in monitoring water usage and monitoring the pumping well and observation wells. The applicant's proposal is to use groundwater primarily for irrigation purposes. The chapel is to have restrooms but no sinks. Washing of hands will be done with wet towels, and use of bottled water is proposed for drinking water. Low-flush toilets will be served by well water;they are expected to use an average of approximately 50 gallons per day,which has no effect on this analysis, lvlitr atton Measures: All of the following measures are required to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. a) Each future phase of the Gan Shalom cemetery shall require a hydro--geology report that provides data on the experience gained during the preceding phases) and analyzes the water demand for the next phase, establishing that there is an adequate water source. Furthermore, the report shall verify that production of the water for the next phase is consistent with applicable County, Regional, State and federal regulations in effect at that time, and that increased water usage by the next phase will not compromise then-current needs of adjacent/.nearby property owners, .The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Approval of grading and construction permits for each future phase shall be dependent on documentation of an adequate water supply to support the expanded cemetery use, or identification of alternative procedures (e.g., use of recycled water, use of a ground cover requiring less water) as needed to satisfy the requirements of this measure. b) Prior to the issuance of the first permit by the Building Inspection Department, submit "baseline"data on water levels in the production well and monitoring wells to the Zoning Administrator to establish any seasonal fluctuations. c) Establish a new monitoring well approximately 600 feet north of the production well(P4). Continue monitoring wells P3 and P4. Annually submit reports to the Zoning Administrator presenting all data collected on water table levels in observation wells and the production 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact iM act well. During the first year of operation the wells should be monitored weekly and monthly thereafter. The annual report shall also provide flow meter data and records of power consumption. d) If the water table level in observation well P4 is drawn down 10 feet or if P3 is drawn down 6S feet below baseline levels, the Zoning Administrator shall be notified within 72 hours and hydrology re-evaluation shall be performed. These levels of drawdown do not constitute an impact, but are considered an early notice that the situation warrants study. The required report shall evaluate the data to determine the relationship of the water levels to pumping, and provide measures to protect water levels from drawdown considered excessive under the circumstances. The cemetery is not required to cease pumping in the interim, but shall attempt to reduce pumping as much as feasible while continuing to maintain irrigated areas. The cemetery shall implement such additional measures as the Zoning Administrator may require after reviewing the report. e) If the water table level in observation well P4 is drawn down more than 1.5 feet below baseline level, all pumping will be suspended until such time as the water table level in P4 rises to 10 feet below baseline level, at which time pumping may resume subject to the conditions in measure (d). In addition to the preliminary baseline data submitted under measure (b), data shall continue to be collected and submitted to establish a refined baseline using two years of measurement, to more closely reflect seasonal fluctuations. The refined baseline levels for the production well and monitoring wells to be used for future monitoring shall be agreed upon by the Community Development Department and Health Services Department using the two years of measurements IX: LAND USE AND PLAN-NTNG-Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? X (Source#l,4, 5) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X (Source#l,2) c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X (Source#l, 2) SUMMARY: The site is adjacent to watershed land of l BMUD, The nearby parcels in the Briones Hills have undergone minor subdivision in recent years and land use permits have been issued for stables. The result is up-scale rural ranchettes along with stables, some vineyards and horse set-ups. The John Muir Heritage Trust strives to protect the Briones Hills area as a major open space region 30 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impactfact where uses are largely restricted to wildlife habitat,watershed and agriculture. The only Land Use Element policy for the Briones Hills is a follows: Policy_3.155 This plan strongly supports the intent of the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area compact that was signed by the County and the cities of tV.lartinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Orinda, .Richmond, Pinole, and Hercules in 1988. The compact states that the jurisdictions voluntary agree not to annex any lands within the 64 square mile area for the purposes of allowing urban development(see:Figure 3-4). This rural area includes large properties owned by either the East Bay Municipal Utility District or the East Bay Regional Park District,which are designated"Watershed"and"Parks and Recreation"on the General Plan land use map. The remaining properties are used primarily for grazing cattle and are designated "Agricultural Lands." This plan anticipates that the area will remain in public and agricultural use during the planning period. In summary,the eight adjacent cities agreed in 1988 not to annex properties in this area, and the County agreed that agricultural operations and uses are appropriate in this area(not urban uses). In the past 15 years the uses allowed by the County have been rural ranche.ttes and horse stables. There have been no extensions of urban services to this area, and no road improvements have been made that increase capacity of the local road system. The Briones Hills compact does not specifically address cemetery uses,but a cemetery use appears to be consistent with the overall intent of the compact, which is to preserve open forms of land use and protect natural terrain features (e.g., creeks and ridges) and preserve the area as watershed land and wildlife habitat. The cemetery is not a significant traffic source, does not require extension of urban services, and protects the creek channel and wooded hillsides. Y. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X (Source#1, 2) b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X (Source#1, 2) �— SUNLMMAR.Y: The California Department of Conservation has issued a report that classifies the mineral resource potential of lands in the San.Francisco Bay Region(DMG Open File Report 96-03). According to this map,no mineral resources are identified in the Briones Hills. The Conservation Element of the General Plan designates mineral resource areas within the County. The nearest such area is the TXI Pacific Materials Quarry, located east of fort Costa(approximately 41/a miles north of the site). 31 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation Tmpaet Impact Xl. NOISE-Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X (Source#1,2, 4) b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X (Source#1, 2, 4) c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X (Source#1,2, 4) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X (Source#1,2, 4) e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? _ X (Source#1,2,) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? -- X (Source#1,2) SIJMMAR."Y: The project will involve use of earthmoving equipment, and power tools during construction of the chapel and mausoleum. Over the long-term,the only new sources of noise is that associated with traffic, which is chiefly confined to the period 10 a.m.to 4 p.m. The grading and installation of vaults and subdrains is to be done in l-acre increments. The work is expected to take 2 to 3 weep and occur once very five years. Because of the short duration ofthe construction period and the low traffic volumes,these effects are not significant. The Noise Element of the County General Plan identifies Bear Creek.Road as a significant noise sources in the project vicinity,but a cemetery is not a sensitive receptor. There are no nearby airports or landing strips. Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a. induce substantial population growth in an area.,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X (Source#1,2, 4,S) __ __. 32 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation impact Impact b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X, (Source#l,2, 4,5) c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X (Source#1,2, 4, 5) SUMMARY: This proposed project is a cemetery. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. (Source#1, 2,4,5): 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? ®� X 4. Parks? X 5. Other Public facilities? X (Source#1,2,4, 12) SUMMARY: This project will not have a significant impact on services. This project is regulated by codes,regulations and ordinances administered by Contra.Costa County Fire Protection District and the California Department of Forestry. The applicant has indicated that they shall comply with standards of these agencies. This includes adequate water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gpm; and access roadways with all-weathered driving surfaces of not less than.20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance,to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16 percent grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus. The project is not expected to create any special law enforcement problems, does not effect school enrollment, and there are no planned hiking or equestrian trails of the East Bay Regional Park District on the site, Hence the project does not effect any park or recreation opporturdties. =. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the _ _ _. 33 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact impact facility would occur or be accelerated? X (Source#1, 2, 3, 4, 5) b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X (Source#1, 2,3,4, 5, 8) - SUMMARY. This proposed project is for a cemetery. The grave stones are to lay flat, so the facility will be seen as a turf area with planting of drought-tolerant native species on its perimeter. The chapel is a relatively small structure(less than 4,000 square feet)which is to be set back approximately 250 feet from Bear Creek Road. In the hillside portions of,the Gan Shalom property, the oak-bay woodland vegetative is to be retained as private open space. Similarly,the channel of Pinole Creek and the lands within 100 feet of the top-of-bank will be retained in its existing state. XV.TR.ANSPOR.TATIONlTRAFFIC -Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase,in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X (Source#1, 2, 3,4, 5,6, 8, 11) b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X (Source#1, 2,3 8, 11) c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X (Source 41, 2, 3 8, 11) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? X (Source 41,2, 3,8, 11) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X (Source#1, 2,4,8, 11) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (source#1, 2, 4, 8, 11) 34 Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mtigation Significant No Impact Incorporation m Impact g. Conflict with adopted policies,plans;or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? X (Source#1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11) -- SUMMARY: The project proponent has submitted a traffic study prepared by Abrams Associates,' transportation engineers. The report,which is presented in Appendix B, concludes that the traffic associated with the cemetery use will normally occur during midday. Approximately 25 percent of the services will have cars arriving in processions;the remainder will have cars arriving separately rather than simultaneously in a procession. The study concludes that there are no significant traffic impacts. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X (Source#1,2, 8) -- b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? X (Source#1,2,3, 8) c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X (Source#1, 2,3, 8) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources,or are new or expanded entitlement needed? X (Source#1, 2, 3, 8) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider existing commitments? X (Source#1) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project solid waste disposal needs? X (Source#1) g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes 'Abrams Associates, 2042. Traffic Safety Evaluation of Gan Shalom (dated March 29, 2002). 35 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact and regulations related to solid waste? X (Source#1, 2, 4, 8) SUNBIARY: The project will have a water well,a septic tank, and a leach Meld. No new off-site water or sewer facilities will be required. XVII. NCANDAT ORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x b. Does the project have impacts that are individ- ually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X SUMMARY: Without mitigation measures there can be significant impacts. The stated mitigations reduce-lie potential impacts to a less than significant level. 4CAWINDOWSUampomyIntenet die\Contest,IMOPWISNAF I.P022068CEQA-DotO3(,).wpd - __ - _ __ 3�t�Z,CII (LSA} ........................ ........................................ ......................................................................................................... ............................... Off 79 of ATASS Ink do ............ ................................................. _.. _ _ ................ _ LSA BERKELEY ASSOCIATES, TELINC. BERTEB OFFICI;B: . I37 PARK PLACE 5Ia.236.6910 TEL RZVEYEIDS PT RICAM024D, CALIFORNIA 94601 510.236.34$0 FAX IRVINE ROCKLIN i May 28, 2003 t Mr. Edward Shaffer Archer Norris P.O.Box 8035 Walnut Creels, CA 945953728 Subject: Project Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake Gan Shalom Cemetery Dear Ed: LSA prepared a report on the biological resources present on and in the vicinity of the proposed Gan Shalom cemetery in Contra Costa County(LSA,2002). In that report we addressed the potential presence of the Alameda.whipsnake(Masticophis lateralis euryxarnthus) on the site. We noted that, based on a lack of core whipsnake habitat on and in the vicinity of the site,that the species is not likely to be resident. Due to the known presence of whipsnakes in the Briones Dills/Oursan Ridge area we could not eliminate the possibility that dispersing whipsnakes could travel across this site. The Gan Shalom cemetery project will convert the existing valley bottom grassland/pasture to managed turf. This will incrementally reduce the ability of whipsnakes to travel across this area. The existing grassland/pasture provides some vegetative cover and rodent burrows for escape. Managed turf has little cover and essentially no escape burrows. The occasional dispersing whipsnake would more likely go around rather than across the areas where turf has been installed due to a lack of cover. This would cause there to alter their direction of movement but would not prevent their dispersal through this area. Due to the very low probability that a whipsnake would be attempting to move across a portion of the site when it is being cleared for cemetery use no significant effects on whipsnakes are likely to occlrr. To prevent the possibility of tape of an individual animal the area to be disturbed,by phase, should be enclosed with exclusion fencing to act as a barrier to moving snakes. This will prevent individual whipsnakes from entering the work area while grading/construction is underway. Please let me know if you need additional information. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. Malcolm J: Sproul . Principal 512$103(P:\GAN230�Ed5hafferLtr.wpd) P LAN 9134 ENVIRONMEN?AL SCIENCES DESIGN Al _ _ A2 / 157 A6$OCIIA'I'E3, INC, SERNE OFFICES: j{y`„M.kj atS7 PARK rx.ac�E 520.�.36.5820 TEL aEa.xax^aY a.Ivaxsxna PT. RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94.801 5io.236.3480 FAX IRVINE ROCKLIN r� z June 19, 2002 Y. Jack Chapman Can Shalom 2 Valley Court Jrinda, CA 34563 Subject: Phase 1 Natural Resource Impacts Fran.Shalom Ceetary Dear Mr.Chapman: LSA previously conducted a biological reconnaissance survey of the.83 acre Can Shalom cemetary site and presented the results of that survey in a report elated April 11,2002, The reconnaissance survey described existing biological resources and identified potential natural resource constraints. This letter evaluates the natural resource impacts which could occur from development of the proposed Phase 1 cemetary plan. The proposed 6.1 acre Phase 1 area is located in the southeast portion of the property. The entire 6.1 acres is gently sloping valley bottom with a vegetative cover of non-native grassland, One valley crab grows within this valley bottom area. Pinole Creek enters the Cyan Shalom property after crossing under Bear Creek Road at the northeast corner of the Phase 1 area, The Phase 1 cemetary project will not directly impact any of the natural resource areas of concern found on the project site. It avoids all jurisdictional streams and wetlands,preserves all areas of native vegetation,and does not impact any special status species habitat. Two resources are present which will require implementing setbacks to avoid impacts. These are the single valley oak tree and Pinole Creek where it enters the site, We recommend the following measures be implemented to avoid impacts to these and associated resources: • In order to preserve the valley oak,an undisturbed and non-irrigated buffer with a radius of 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree should be established. No surface or subsurface disturbance should occur within this buffer. • Temporary construction fencing should be installed around the buffer edge to protect this area during the construction process and not removed until all improvements are installed. • Establish a 100 foot setback from the top of bank of Pinole Creek and the edge of developed cemetary use. 6f19/0'>(P:\GAN230\ChapmanL..tr.wpd) PLANNING # BNVIR0XMaNT4L SCIENCES l7FSI CiN A3 LSA ASSOCIATFSy INC. • Install a barrier to red-legged frog movement along the edge of the creek setback. The barrier should consist ofa silt fence keyed into the ground at its base and orange plastic construction. fencing. • Conduct a pre-construction survey no more than three days before the start of construction for red-legged frogs. The survey should consist of one day and one night survey. Please call me if you need additional information. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. Malcolm J. Sproul Principal 5/19/02(r AGAN230\ChapmanLtr.wpd) 2 A4 1 i r$ t� ,�4'a�,r+,,'�✓�r�r r lPx tit"*' �'w.r-`` "`7`'�� t �sem)x ! > .* � f �, f ��' u4a'§`� r,,.,��`"c? s �km�r`-��`"`� �Gr`'k�"��.�'s•'�-�cf��. � - � t S k � } +-''- Jii: 1#str."''-rtrx. '"� �',..��✓�F- fy�hP .�. A - < IIor s t. + a -'r �, � +sir-4.fj%,�, IIII t x' �' ,ra im� �7 !" a c �'' 4�'a"• `+rte ,, '�g ��c : r �",14 x..bi��:.'t� +t+�-� ��t T.,a..l���'' {-•tS hr. u y. . ,_2.AST y h�;it *" ''(f t+ '`�.-,.�41.^ti X&v-'Y 'f�{lq���'3V`�`��^'^��'t'ixY^� +• t s `.� k} �,j a�3s''f"�;rA -'k x�'i+;,r�,-1� �yy,t"�5.�. tJ - v f�"9pY^; FT x�7'4�'y�`s Cd���s-�+�i�t'YF•cL �,tv �''L x} 5?..�� .7;'� '� �;'��; `r `�"_ "`��� j� a }9 a s' ,{ * �� �' S':s r-�r�.�'+�F4��r rr r t-`•'a��"�� �jdx+`�t� �A �- -' X "� 3 2$ ,� iii -.f {2�{ `u',c s,���x r C/i �"'„LLyCt - }�, P ts, � g s f Y r! as.v` .+,4r�`f* r S�✓`�Y s�' f��r - - c.,yX _ ��'"4.'�'� c � "?- � .fr � � xPy45��'�' k xz'"`t„ys�"" °e�•�' `�t �'�* �,,�v''�, t �+c � #, r S -3rS x 1�+.3 �` $�r� -- X�*, � �`� �.� � s�� - - or�"'•�*`� �*�r khs�'�7'" � �� �m`�. � ,r '�: .t "• r y {���-'� ��� �-�`� ,y�-*v',�'"�k�r art,"`�����' -:. i f �� }✓� � s ° *?-, L,�y�4i�r � "y``x n zk st�,� ss� �'���.�k�� . �' { � ' '.' �` y r r-y<1 �. ";,+.zv N ��i ar '4'1^�k ry���.�vyi2�"�•'.e"�,���`q` +,� �,xt _D I - � � ,,a 1{ 5x� t 3 t` � syz a't",r•s _�„.ia"t,'�'N'. ,�'ti `q �� +4' ,�-.. - �.:44.4r�, _.._... _..... . __.. _ ......... I..''., _ ... . .... ........ ......... .......__. ........................... ........... . _. _. ...... ... ........... _. TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CALIFORNZA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CLEAN WATER ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY AND WATERBODY REGULATORY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OTHER STATUTES,CODES,AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 7 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 WILDLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ANT DRAINAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 WETLANDS AND OTHER.WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE . 18 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 PA(3kN239\BioRapart.wpd(4/4/02) 11 A6 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2: Property Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3: Vegetation Communities and Biological Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 TABLES Table A: Special-status Plant Species in the Pinole/Martinez Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table B: Special-status Wildlife Species in the Pinole/Martinez Vicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 P:\GAN,230\SioReport.wpd(4/4/02) f 111 A7 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This report presents the results of a reconnaissance-level biological survey conducted by LSA Associates, Inc (LSA) on the 83-acre Gan Shalom Cemetery property in Contra Costa County. The survey was conducted to determine the presence/absence of sensitive plant conununities/habitats,to evaluate the potential for occurrence of special-status plant and animal species,to determine if potential U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)/California Department of Fish&Marne(CDFG) jurisdictional areas are present, and to assess potential impacts of development on biological resources on the site. The report will: (1) describe pertinent regulations(2) describe survey methods, (3)describe existing biological resources observed on the site,(4) discuss potentially occurring special-status species,(5) discuss potential constraints to cemetery use presented by existing biological resources,and(6)make recommendations,including whether additional biological resource surveys are necessary prior to development. PROJECT LOCATION The Gan Shalom Cemetery property is located about 3.3 miles southeast of the City of Pinole and 4.5 miles north of the town of Crinda in Contra Costa County,California(USGS Briones Valley 7.5 minute quadrangle,Unsectioned lands of Rancho la Boca De la Canada del Pinole,Township IN, Range 3W). The nearly triangular shaped site is bordered to the west by Hampton Road and a residential lot, to the east by Bear Creek Road and undeveloped land, and to the south by undeveloped land. Figures 1 and 2 shove the regional location and site boundaries,respectively. PAGAN230\BioReport.wpd{4/4/02} 1 X18 11 11 ...... ... ..._... .... ..... ...... _ __ ....... ........ ......_.. ........._.. .................... .. ... _._. ......... E Napa ` Mai-in `�� County l County or 1 so .Solano County ban i } sad � 4 ``---� Project Location Francis County tad 24 ead sao 3 4 . .tot ago Contra Costa County s90 84 594 Sana Mateo Sao County _ Alameda County l} 85 297 i } Sad Santa 17 Santa Cruz tdt Clara County \ County s L S A FIGURE l Gan Shalom cemetery Regional Location a to MILES P:1GAN230',g1Rc;Loc.cdr(C2/18102) A9 `F \t �,,,� r=. LeJ ! i�i \ �• � l��'4' t !�J� �•(ky!({ f � L f ••sd r�3,-Y t S t� 1 � tP i t,�'�\,�~��'`� -� L �t, �� � � I ��� � �Ift ��'�; .�.� 1,,.. ,u�--•. � �.��.�....- �J i �L�'3� ; i, ;,;J:(•�•y � '\� ,v�• \.J:;: ,-'r�l,+`� �� ' �!'• 1��� t i \ r'ry +��' .^�mlr'�i�#' P!� '� r ��. ` 'L`.`,,,,$. "`,-,`.t LL�� "� �' *� to i .•j d �✓S'�',sii+7 �i 1310(� r l{��..•'JI, l• e� �`.4.`�` �.l 1C��#y L`'_�iW'�"'nf'' ,+3� � � � k+..-,r tll���((r `•� •r,4 ( ,-�` �1�„t`���r ���� �'�.,,��r^ /'1 t �•>-f��t�i�. S�t'��lf''� 1 '""�� ;� Q� �,51� , �f r,,,"�s � i'L`i1`1\`1�tt J! '��,�-:•}}o \L�t•�� �}� �i n.r���`�rin'^`� ;f`"'/ii;gti-, «�i' '' i`-'}"�a�s��•:--,.,?�y��ti,a� ;y!` �,`�t .`�. �,1�".,�� .� ,. •..5i� .,w��� „L`'-'';.�.fw� ^t, r f��{3�1f /i( °�{F� � �jJ.•. r ,,�r i y�,p,�•::*'� x"'"�°.'`t �F'' r'( �tV �t�;�'•• � "� ��• �. �, --� ��.���1'�/' i�.l� I"1 L ,� �'� t� •.- c/,� qtr -..�•S' .: �' f J ��,.r; f .,�:. � s �'' �i •-• (�� '.���.� r.���l s) lf�ti �"I r+��.`.-..��,�,�'� r,,.i I� � ,��.. Y�i� `t\r""=,��.,,�.�...,v� !� ril \. r- � ter? �\ `.. r �t 7 �( � • (S( ��l,✓ � , �.r"'�n�Jj„4,S '4 � 4io, (r, ,.-�,;.� .; y„�.:�'-� t-�•�� ``` ,. )y r(j���11 r� (+y� . l 1' ���((tl,,�` , r'. jf i�.�.•-•� '�� I§ 1yCt\l r�,t 1�'K•`l�`` �.�` ��,+ a4� �.•• ar. e f� �`�r�:� fry 1S,w ''�I n, f �j •'t}, r• � \��.� kt,.,,�i: � �\ _�1��' `r ...�� . �� vi �`?'B E� •. ��`-�•. �r„ �,���,,� �tJi4��.,1J��„,'�/,.��r$t��,,,# �i#,�• %„ •_..—�.'.�� ������r�-.�.:` f l I-i;•,� �\��' _ .. - _. .. ^.,•��r'� � ���"�t(t A�� �� 1��Vii` �,� { �. FrJ I,w .:i'"' � ( � .k= C� ��• �� ...'� .� ,.-^� '�..~ � �t ti4; \ 1+1 4.,�'t,� t rrf r ��-�.: � .,ti P.. •• �_ �i J t t ,., •........"ti...aJ •!t•5, 'r l; \arse L 7 y],,..! r yr`nrJ',»'`-?�' C�� U t'�y" �-���t'•� �'L.✓' ,,,,.,��--'..•e `�.��`"� �� �f it/1��""z.,x�----"' "1`��,''�' t` � � � \ r ,�- !ti � �! J (�,..,, � k � �#.1�'�`�' �'.. �Vii;. ` '�•'`C-•'�.,``� + �y�j �^ �\`\).'yj(""�-,.,.� ` Ca � � ��,."r G,. �!,`� �L.+..., � fjfjj))t `i 'e.,,�\ � ��t ''� 591..x-,wj�r, '' y�••-(:-.� t \#�' �' < II4` \ Z ��,!�ry _ "3�t."'1y �.,�.ay}� � ,.J`.te.���. 'i. t" ..•..-,'``, /✓ jf/j(/�j•'��. l �,,,„,�.,, �`•�4 �\.�j/If i i wYj�f.•'.... � �'.i� t i �\tX�"""'�.`•w 4.v--....�' Y4.- L.� i•�'�.J �ir J.�I' ` � '.l�!"�Y,..,-•z Lt X17 R f >-' rrtr3r+ ,6- • � ,_ :� \ �rrf� ,/fir' � !i�' '���' •�' l 14 '{ t4, dl /""`_"' }� 'L P''�'4 la., �; fit;; � `�--•` 4 t,�:, l' •�"1�`� ,�t i��j�,5 a�"��,� -� ,/}�� .�'� %;ra"�"'/",.��: �"... +vif"tti��� 4���3 � t.;�,/Y j n �~� ^t�` •,'w.`' ��ft;' ,,,-sP 7/ <7 '•^"J��f •''/• {" �,,+""" � f Site Location r:J f�""•: �(�„..��{'"✓``=��.+� �C v /' �*✓ Y��- ��. ,�. `:�+„_ ."t. /y4 J�J"•i✓ L.l !�' � �,v'� +J' # �✓.JL..,T`� �. �)`,-'f )t/"'p / �� f �j _�� r xT j `�, �,`'-"' {�t{1, 'Y/`""',/'f Jr-•.t� �S�•n {1"� ,� � ���'.�• '` �„s.,..�1�4Y' r'•-` "'gam-��..: w'){j�trt t f ,�•�!l� �L�.� �"'�� l f li {�y!t{ } i � ��.t .. ..-^.�.z`.Jl r .--,+^"''-."' ..�..✓``- NX `t,.'y,)�) k`L' � L„" '^ 4 ' �.� 14.n lr'•'` f y✓ 4: ..-b�. `"1..'\ .H /'/ ea ''�.A�v..... { + ( t• ` t:'`•i`° �,,`�`���;��,.� l�" � 4��4� ``'' )�4 i� +`'� � '���� �t,( ki* � .�1 r ..a qtr j`„ �...- �.• ��t�� ^��. �:.,`�.�� '� � ;. �.. C k '1..���.1 ���m_� k ,l �.. t � ,/, j. - '"x "'71 .""f )t,•»;;...• ti � `'j`w�` �+"r^� a� � S� „) ifr•C`^+-•. �}'- t ,�. . , ,iv i..,. i'T��:+•:..�r� } },• ,,, � .=/ � •�fJ��i ���, '`•� ��":- � �...`fit'" � �t ��``^„�`'"",�t•j `yt. � J �:.;'���7 J j�t4 � �t i��� t�. / 1.:��i{ �"'�`"'., h�� ! t \ y� 1 7� t� tt/� �� �•y f / �--" � �.fftt j1L3� $� .'.�,c"`'.'' {f � S i�( ,}�'!t .��.,, �� �•._r -�ll ,3'Y�1� �'.w i "� f !'� -t' ������a �� ��ti � -,,` �a� ��tZtilk >•_�,�� �J�'f1{. . 4a1��/ � 'J.1 f?i�,.,�.-�'y"�g,;,'t �,rl r..-J`�,�.j�,. ��`.•�l�� �.,�C�r,,,-.f ..`� hi`�45 -.: ����i�, � "��,��,�- �CL f r.it' r 9 t.�_.�"' ���1.�� '"�f.. J���,?•,. �r'��""'"�'.}.}~�"'",SJ� .,..••.'��' jji`s `""' ylt�h� ,S � e r ,V� � \�n' V•.'���� :�.,.'\�, `L' �f f�.;r,J �r' �l a, L S A FIGURE 2 Gan Shalom Cemetery Project Location PEE7 SOURCE:USGS 7.5'QUAD-BRIONES VALLEY,CALIF. 1959(Pit 1969) �� y P:\CiAN2 ilig\ProjLoc.cdr{Q2118IC2) A 10 _111.1__. ......... ......... ..._....._. ._._...1.11....1 . .. ..... .. .. ......... ..._..... .........1111 .. ........ ........ ....... ......... ........ ....... ........ ..._ ........ ......... ......... .......... REGLTATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)protects listed species from harm or"take"which is broadly defined as to harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,kill,trap,capture,collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be defined as a"take"even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed . plant species are legally protected from take under FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a wetland fill permit. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has jurisdiction over federally-listed threatened and endangered species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains a list of`proposed' species and candidate species that are not legally protected under the FESA,but which may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project. Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA,an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction roust determine whether any federally-listed threatened or endangered species maybe present in the project area and determine whether the proposed project could impact such species. Any activities that could result in the take of a federally-listed species will require consultation with the USFWS under either Section 7 or Section 10 of FESA before project activities commence. CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The California Endangered Species Act (CESA)prohibits the take of any plant or animal Misted or Proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)has jurisdiction over state-listed species (California Fish and Game Code 2070). Additionally,the CDFG maintains lists of"species of special concern" that are defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations,limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed or proposed endangered or threatened species may be present in the project area and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Section 15380(7)of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a PAGA,N1230\BioRepert.wpd(4/4/02) �— W All LSA ASSOCIATES. 3130. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APRIL 2002 CAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a project's potential impacts,if it finds that the species meets the criteria of a threatened or endangered species. CLEAN WATER ACT Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps) is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.). Waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the U.S. are termed"isolated wetlands"and, depending on the circumstances,may also be subject to Corps jurisdiction. In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of the U.S. The type of permit depends on the acreage involved and the purpose of the proposed fill. Minor amounts of fill can be covered by a Nationwide Permit. An Individual Permit is required for projects that result in more than a "minimal" impact on jurisdictional areas. Individual Permits require evidence that jurisdictional fill has been avoided to the extent possible and a review of the project by the public. CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY AND WATERBODY REGULATORY PROGRAMS Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act and the state's Porter-Cologne Act,projects that are regulated by the Corps must obtain water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). This certification ensures that the project will uphold state water quality standards. The RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the Corps does not. The CDFG also exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of watercourses and waterbodies according to provisions of Section 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody. OTHER STATUTES, CODES, AND POLICIES The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(16 U.S.C., Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989)prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds,parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Most native bird species on the project site are covered by this Act. The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits persons within the United States(or places subject to L.S.S.jurisdiction) from"possessing, selling,purchasing,offering to sell, transporting, exporting or importing any bald eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead,or any part, nest, or egg thereof." Additionally, birds of prey(hawks, eagles, falcons, and owls) are protected in California under the State Fish and Came Code, Section 3503.5). Section 3503.5 states that it is P AGAN23nsioReport.wpd(4/4/62) 5 Al2 ......... ......... ....__.....1.11...1 . _ _ ................ ................ ........ ........ ... _.... .11.1....1 ..11.11.... _ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BI OLOGI CAL RES OURCES APRIL 2002 CAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY "unlawful to take.,possess,or destroy any lairds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes(birds of prey)or to take,possess,or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is'considered "taking"by the CDFC and would be considered a significant impact. The California Native Plant Society(CNTPS), a non-governmental conservation organization,has developed lists of special-status plant species of concern in California(Tibor 2001). Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows: List 1A Plants considered extinct. List 1B Plants rare,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere, List 2 Plants rare,threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list. List 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list. Although the CLAPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory protection,plants appearing on List 1B or List 2 are,in general, considered to meet CEQA's Section 15380 criteria and adverse effects to these species are considered"significant". The Contra Costa County Code Title 8: Zoning Chapters 816-4 and 816-6 set out standards and protections for trees in unincorporated portions of the county. Chapter 816-4 describes Heritage Trees as trees greater than 72 inches in diameter that has significant historical or ecological value, and as being an outstanding specimen of its species due to location,size, age, shape,rarity,or health. Heritage trees must be nominated by a member of the community, approved by the planning commission, and designated by a vote of the county hoard of Supervisors. Chapter 816-6, the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance mandates that a project proponent receive a permit from the Community Development Department prior to grading,trenching,or filling any area within the dripline of a tree greater than 6.5 inches diameter at 4.5 feet above grade. This standard also applies to removal or destruction of qualifying trees. PAGAN2301BioRepon.wpd(4/4/02) 6 All METHODS Prior to conducting field work LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB) (CDFG 2001) and the CAIPS Electronic Inventory(200 1)to locate records of special-status species and sensitive communities/habitats in the general region of the Gan Shalom property. Using information from these databases, available literature,and LSA°s knowledge of plants and wildlife in Contra Costa County, a list of potentially occurring special-status species and sensitive habitats was developed. LSA botanist Sarah McGuire and LSA wildlife biologist David Muth visited the Gan Shalom property on February 12, 2002. The LSA team walked throughout the site to locate areas of biological interest and sensitive plant communities/habitats, evidence of special-status species, and/or habitats that could support such species. Plants and animals observed during the survey were recorded in field notes. Plant communities/habitats, and potentially jurisdictional wetlands and drainages were mapped on a topographic map at a scale of 1 inch= 100 feet. PAGAh'230\$ioReport.wpd(414/02) 7 A14 1RESULTS PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION Elevations on the Fran Shalom Cemetery project site range from about 409 feet in the southeast corner of the site to about 782 feet in the northwest corner. The steep hills that form the western and the southeastern portions of the site are split by a valley approximately 300 feet wide. The valley drains to the north opening onto the flat portion of the site that is bounded by Hampton Road to the west,Bear Creek Road and Pinole Creek to the north and east, and private property to the east. The site drains northwest to Pinole Creek. Two PG&E transmission lines cross the property. A well is located at the head of the valley. Pinole Creek enters the site from a culvert under Bear Creek Road and falls immediately into a concrete lined plunge pool. The creek then runs parallel to the road on the project site for about 1200 feet before it enters a culvert to again flow off site on the north side of Bear Creek Road. Two additional channels were observed on the property one channel runs about 150 feet along the foot of the west hill where the valley opens into the flat area. Another channel conveys water downhill under thick tree cover in the extreme southwest corner of the property. Site vegetation is a mosaic of oak woodland,bay forest, grassland, and riparian woodland. The site is currently used for livestock grazing. VEGETATION Six(6)natural plant communities, some of which intergrade, are present on the property: oak woodland/savanna;bay forest;nonnative grassland;native grassland; riparian woodland; and wetland vegetation. Figure 3 shows the extent of plant communities on the property. Oak Wood]and/Savanna Oak woodland and oak savanna are dominated by oaks,but other tree species are also present. The absolute tree canopy cover in an oak woodland is commonly estimated at 30 percent,and greater;the canopy cover in oak savanna ranges from 10 to 30 percent. Oak wood]and/savanna are the predominant plant communities on the steep hillsides of the Gan Shalom property. galley oak(Quercus lobata)and coast live oak(Q. agrif`glia)are the dominant species,but black oak(Q. kellogit),bay(Umbellularia californica), California buckeye(Aesculus californica), and elderberry(Sambucus mexicana) are present in varying densities throughout the woodland/savanna. The shrub understory appears to be relatively sparse,most likely the result of past and ongoing grazing,but coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), gooseberry(Ribes sp.),poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and bush monkeyflower(Mimulus aurantiacus) occur singly or in stands throughout the property. The grasses that dominate the herbaceous understory vegetation were largely immature and unidentifiable, but forb and subshrub species which could be identified included clover(Trifoliuni sp.), bur clover (Medicago polymo7pha),mugwort(Artemesia drug-lasiana),mule's ears (Wyethia angustifolia),soap plant(Chlorogaluin ponzeridiarn),Yarrow (Achiilea nidlefolium),blue eyed grass(Sisyrinchium bellum),yellow star thistle(Centaurea ?-1GAN230\BioReport.wpd(414102) 8 Al ♦ Y Y h�'b�fr '\t e S � � -rT MW na.`� ;�� \ �,tilt�l��} ri r '�' � � � ���•'y VMS` .;aF °Mq �`. ��f�"'' r`'it`%�+j 9j` r u41,111 All y , � Ma`+N� M >tr yyt}¢;tVi� ""' .y tdd NSfIt��+ffj)� 1AF t� �tit /° `�� .i- .P,{LM/F '` 'Vy'�Fr27t.Y MI, � xw p � ffi t��� i r ('r ll�f�t� �� � !r i! � y dh r �i�`� 3� �� s• i qn�E 1N,�����i /.�a J-� t�. d ��3�'.�$ +� 'dai rr t ,� � '� ``X a ✓-.,:-�+�1i1�6. j w s I ` � R LSA ASSOCIAT,ES. INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APRIL 3001 CAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY solstitialis), lupine(Lupinus sp.),bedstraw(Gallium sp.), filaree (Erodium sp.),buttercup (Ranunculus sp.),bellardia (Bellardia trixago),sanicle (Sanicula sp.),miner's lettuce (Claytonia peifoliata), and cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland is typically composed of a dense cover of annual grasses and ruderal (weedy) (orbs(broadleaved plants)adapted to colonizing and persisting in disturbed upland areas. This plant community is dominated by non-native species; however,native grasses and wildflowers are commonly present in varying densities. Distinct combinations of species occur at the site on the flat area and on the hillsides among the trees. Non-native grass-species predominate on the open grasslands of the flat northeastern portion of the - property. The dominant species observed during the February survey was dogtail grass(Cynoserus echinatus), a grass that has identifiable old seed beads persisting in winter. Other grasses observed include bare barley(Hordeuni murinum), Italian wildrye(Loliuns multij7orum),ripgut brorne(Bromus diandrus), and soft chess(B. hordeaceus); additional species are likely to be identifiable in the spring. Native and non-native fortis identifiable during the February surveys include bur clover, spiny cocklebur(Xanthiuni spinosum), filaree,milk thistle(Silybum marianum),cutleaf geranium, rose clover (Trifnlium hirtum), vetch(Vicia sp.),yellow star thistle, and clovers. Clumps of native spreading rush(Juncus effusus)occur throughout the flat graslands. A coast live oak and two valley oaks are present in the grassland near Pinole Creek,and two elderberries, a buckeye,and a valley oak were found near the head of the valley. All of these trees were greater than 6.5 inches in diameter. The hillside grassland areas contain non-native grasses and ruderal species similar to those found on the flat portion of the site,but the hills have a greater proportion of native fortis and subsbrubs including mugwort,soap plant,yarrow,blue eyed grass,buttercups,bellardia,sanicle,lupine, buckwheat(Eriogonum sp.), and pea (Lathyrus sp.). In addition,clumps of coyote brush,osoberry (Olemaria cerasiforrnis),poison oak, and gooseberry occurred sporadically throughout the hillside grasslands. Native Grassland A stand of native bunchgrasses composed of purple needlegrass(Nassella pulchra)and blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus) are intermixed with the non-native species on the northwest facing hillside on the west side of the site. Native wildflowers and shrubs grow among the native grasses. The species include: California poppy(Eschscholtzia californica), creeping wildrye(Leymus triticoides), stinging nettle(Urtica dioica), elegant clarkia (Clarkin unguiculata),mules ears (Wyethia sp.), Chinese houses(Collinsia heterophylla), a lily(Dichelostoma sp. or Brodiaea sp.), osoberry and clumps of poison oak,monkey flower, coyote brush and ocean spray(Holodiscus discolor). Patches of native species including bunch grasses are also likely to occur in other portions of the hillside grasslands. PAGAN2301AioReport.wpd(4/4/02) 10 A17 _...._. ......... ......... ......... ......... ._... _.... __ ........ ........ ........_.... ._........_........_.. ............... ...-_._......._......_. ......_.. ......... ...............__. . ......... ......... LOA ASSOCIATES,INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APRIL 2002 CAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROFERTY CONTRA COSTA OOUNTY Bay Oak Forest California bay forest occurred along the southern boundary and on the east side of the site. These forest areas had 70 to more than 90 percent canopy cover that is dominated by California bay trees with associate species valley,black, and coast live oaks as well as madrone,buckeye,and elderberry. The species associations varied from thick patches of medium sized bays that provide almost 190 percent cover with no understory plants to more open areas with large bay,oak,and madrone trees in the canopy and an impenatrable shrub understory of ocean spray,poison oak, osoberry,and monkeyflower. The vines California manroot(March fabaceus) and hairy honeysuckle(Lonicera hispidula)were also present. Riparian Woodland Riparian woodland occurs along Pinole Creek on the east side of the property. Coast live oaks and bays dominated the mid and upper slopes of the creels bank,while large yellow willow trees (Salix lucida spp. lasiandra) and buckeyes occurred near the stream channel. Shrub species present along the watercourse include Himalaya berry(Rubes discolor),California rose (Rosa californica), and poison oak. Where light reached the ground,the herbaceous understory was well developed,consisting of mostly unidentifiable grasses,rushes, and forbs. Wetland (Hydrophytic Vegetation) Wetland vegetation occurs in areas where soils remain ponded and/or saturated for an extended period of time. Such soils support plant species that are adapted to various degrees of anaerobicity (oxygen-depleted soils). The property contained two sites,totaling less than 9.03 acre,that support potential wetland seep vegetation. Most of the grasses and forbs were too immature to be identified,but poison hemlock (Conium niaculatutn,FACW)and stinging nettle(Urtica dioca)were found in the potential seeps. WILDLIFE Wildlife found on the Gan Shalom property are species that inhabit the three types of wildlife communities present. Grasslands. In California,many wildlife species are adapted to the conditions that occur in grassland areas, Most grassland areas are suffused with burrows as the result of the activity of pocket gophers(Yhornomys bottae),California vole (Microlus californica),western harvest mouse (.Reithrodontomys megalotis)and other rodents. Most grassland species use these burrows as escape cover from predators and as resting/nest sites. Several species of reptiles such as gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus),racer(Coluber constrictor), and western fence lizard (Scell porus occidentalis)also use these burrows. Numerous raptors such as red-tailed hawk(Buteojarnaicensis) and American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), and carnivores like the coyote (Canis latrans)forage in grasslands feeding on the rodents and reptiles that hide there. P:1GAN230V3soReport.wpd(4/4/42) 1 A18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APRIL 2002 GAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Woodlands. Woodland areas support wildlife species such as mule deer(Odocoileus hemionus), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), California quail (Callipepla cal fornica), and Steller's jays (Cyanocitta stelleri)that require hiding cover as well as species such as ensatina salamanders (Ensatina eschscholtzii), and California newt(Taricha torosa), that require the lower temperatures and higher moisture levels provided by the tree shading. The trees in woodlands are the home of numerous mammal species such as fox squirrel (Sciurus) and many bird species such as dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis)and white breasted nuthatch(Sitta carolinensis)that use trees for nesting and feeding. Creeks. Several species of fish,including three-spine stickleback(Oasterosteus aculeatus), California roach(Lavinia symmetricus), Sacramento sucker(Catostomus occidentalis) and steelhead (Ozchorynchus nzykiss irideus),as well as aquatic invertebrates such as dragonfly larvae and water boatman (Corixidae) occur in the open freshwater habitats of upper Pinole Creek Other species, such as western pond turtle (Cleinnzys marmorata) and waterfowl,like the mallard(Arras platyrhynchos),include the creek as part of their habitat. Red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonh) and central coast garter snakes(71amnophis atratus)live and hide in the vegetation at waters edge. Racoons(Procyon lotor) and wading birds hunt for fish, frogs, and invertebrates. POTENTIALLY JURISDIC'T'IONAL WETLANDS AND DRAINAGES Perennial Streams Pinole Creek is fed by groundwater as well as runoff including runoff from developed properties to the east, so the creek retains pools of water,with at least trickle flows between them,throughout the summer. Intermittent Ephemeral Drainages Two intermittent or ephemeral drainages were found on the site. One is located in the flat area at the base of the west hill. The other carries water down the hill in the southwest corner of the site. Wetlands Two areas exhibiting;potential wetland hydrology and supporting a small amount of wetland vegetation totaling less than 0.03 acre were found on the site. One potential seep is located near the toe of the slope of the west hill on its north side. The potential wetland area is about IS feet long and extends as much as 20 feet up the hill and 10 feet down into the grassy flat. The other potential seep occurs at the head of the valley along the property line. This potential wetland extends about 10 feet below the fenceline and about 20 feet along the fenceline. Poison hemlock and stinging nettle were observed in this potential seep,but other vegetation was too immature to be identified. P:\GAN230\BioReport.wpd(414,02) 12 AIQ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APRIL 7002 CAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Special-Status Plant Species Table A lists 18 special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the property and which could occur in some of the vegetation communities on the project site. The table also presents the status,habitat requirements, and blooming period of each species,and an evaluation of whether suitable habitat for the species or community is present. One of the species is on List 2 indicating that it is considered rare,threatened, or endangered in California but is common elsewhere. The rest of the species are on List 1B (CLAPS 2041) indicating that the species are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Three plants are federally- listed as endangered or threatened and three species are State-listed as endangered. No special-status plants were observed during the reconnaissance survey, and we believe it is _- unlikely any of the 18 special-status plants included in Table A are likely to occur in the portion of the property proposed for cemetery use. 'This area has previously been disced and planted for hay and is now heavily grazed. This disturbance has removed the native plant cover and the proposed project area supports almost entirely weedy,herbaceous species. Special-Statins Wildlife Species Table D presents a total of 11 special-status wildlife species known from or considered to potentially occur in the Gan Shalom project vicinity based on the habitat types present. Suitable or marginal habitat is present on the Gan Shalom property for these special-status wildlife species. Information regarding the potential for occurrence of each of these species- steelhead, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog,western pond turtle,Alameda whipsnake, golden eagle, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk,western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat -as well as nesting raptors, at the project site are discussed in greater detail below. Steelhead are known from Pinole Creek and have been reported from the Pinole Valley Road and Hampton Road area. The section of Pinole Creek on the site has been severely down-cut and incised and the cobble bottomed riffle/pool habitat preferred by trout is currently not present on the site. However, steelhead could move through the section of Pinole Creek on the Gan Shalom project site if no barriers to movement are present downstream. Foothill yellow-legged frogs live in permanent flowing streams and are often associated with habitat suitable for steelhead. Historically,the species was common in the creeks of Contra Costa County but no recent reliable records for the species in the County currently exist. The cause of this disappearance is unknown. The general topography of Pinole Creek is similar to other creeks in Contra Costa County where this species historically occurred. However, the section of Pinole Creek on the site has been severely down-cut and incised and the cobble bottomed riffle/pool habitat necessary for foothill yellow-legged frog is not present. Foothill yellow-legged frog is not expected to occur on the Gan Shalom project site. P:\GAN23G\B?oReport.wpd{4/4/62} 13 A20 LSA ASS003ATES.INC. CAN SHALOM CEMETERY APRIL 2002 - RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY Table A: Special Status Plant Species in the Pinole/Martinez'Vicinity Species Status Habitat Notes Habitat on Habitat (Federal/ Property within State/ Project CNPS) Area Arctostaphylos pallida FTSE/List Dry stony ridges in chaparral; No No Pallid manzanita 1B blooms Januar -March Blepharizonia pluniosa ssp,plurnQsa ---/—/List 113 Dry Hills and plains in Yes Yes Big tarplant annual grassland; blooms July-October Calochortus pulchellus —/—/List 1B Openings in chaparral, Yes No Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern coastal scrub, and associated grasslands;blooms April- June Centrornadia parryi ssp. congdonii --/--/List 1B Alkaline soils sometime No No Congdon's tarplant described as heavy white clay;blooms June - I November Dirca occidentalis —/—/List1B Occur's in variety of forest � Yes No Western leatherwood and woodland habitats; blooms January-April p'ritillaria liliacea --/--/List IB Heavy soil, often on j Yes No Fragrant fritillary I serpentine,in grasslands, northern coastal scrub, redwood forest;blooms Februa -A ril Helianthella castanea j --/--!List 1B Thin,rocky soil, grassy s Yes No Diablo helianthella hillsides, 500-4,000 feet; I foothill woodland, chaparral; blooms April--May Hesperolinon breweri j --/--/List IB On serpentine soil, Chaparral Yes No Brewer's dwarf flax and Oak Woodland;blooms Ma -Jul Holocarpha inacradenia FTSE/List Sandy clay soils in Coastal i Yes No Santa Cruz tarplant IB Prairie and Non-native } Grassland; blooms June- October Horkelia cun.eata ssp sericea --/--/List IB Coniferous forests and No No Kellogg's horkellia coastal scrub; blooms April- September P:IGA,v230\NorthContraCostaPlants.wpd(4/9102) 14 A'3 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. !NO. CAN SHALOM CEMETERY APRIL 2002 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY Species Status Habitat Notes Habitat on Habitat (Federal/ Property I within State/ Project CLAPS) Area Juglans hindsii —/—/List 1B Riparian forest,riparian Yes { No Northern California black walnut woodland;bloomsA ril-Ma I .Lasthenia conjugens FE/--/List Vernal pools;blooms April- No No Contra Costa goldfields 1B May Monardella villosa ssp globosa —1—/List 1B Openings in chaparral, Yes No Robust monardella crustal scrub, and associated asslands: blooms June-Jul Plagiobothrys diffusus —/SE/List Grassy slopes with marine No No San Francisco popcornflower 1B influence; blooms March- June Senicio aphanactis --/—/List 2 Drying alkaline flats, 'No No Rayless ragwort cismontane woodlands and coastal scrub;blooms January-April Streptanthus albidus ssp.perainoenus —/--/List 113 Chaparral and grassland on No No Most beautiful jewel-flower serpentine;blooms April- June T'rifoliunt annoenuns FE/--/List Low,rich fields and swales; Yes No Showy Indian clover 1B blooms April-June Tropidocarpuni capparideum --/--/List lA Alkaline-clay soils in Yes No Caper-fruited tropidocarpum grassland, oak woodland; blooms March-,April *Status: SE=State listed as endangered; FE=federally-listed as endangered; ST=State threatened FT=federally listed as threatened SR=State rare List 113=California Native Plant Society(CLAPS): Plants rare,threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere; List 2= CNPS:Plants rare,threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. P:\GAN230\NorthContraCostaP(ants.wpd(4/9/02) 1 A22 LSA ASSOCIATES.INC. GAN SHALOM CEMETERY APRIL 2002 RECONNAISSANCE SI:RVEY Table B: Special-status Wildlife Species in the Pinole/Martinez Vicinity Species Status Habitat requirements Suitable State/Fed Habitat on site Onchorhynchus inykiss irideus FE/-- Creeks and rivers with a direct Yes Steelhead trout connection to oceans .Rana aurora draytvnii FT/CSC Ponds and streams Yes Red-legged fro .Rana boylei --/CSC Perennial creeks and streams usually No Foothill yellow-legged frog with cobble bottoms Clernniys niannorata --/CSC Ponds and streams Yes Western pond turtle Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus FT/ST Scrub and associated grasslands Yes Alameda whi snake Aquila chlysaetos --/CSC Large trees for nesting; open Yes Golden eaglegrassland and woodland for foraging Accipiter striatus (nesting) --/CSC Nests in trees in woodlands, forages Yes Sharp-shinned Hawk over avariety of habitats Acciptier cooperi(nesting) __/CSC Nests in dense woodlands and Yes Coopers Hawk forests, fora es in same Lanius ludovicianus --/CSC Open country for foraging; dense Yes Loggerhead shrike shrubs for nesting Speotyto cunicularia hypugea --/CSC Grassland/pastureland;nest in No Western burrowing owl ground squirrel dens ground- squirrel dens observed ,[Neotoma fuscipes annectens --/CSC Riparian, woodland, and upland Yes _San FranciRco dus4- fipated m=drat I scmb Status* FE=federally listed as endangered FT=federally listed as threatened SE=California State listed as endangered ST=California State listed as threatened BEGPA=Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act CSC= California species of special concern CFP=California fully protected P:1GAN2301NorthConrraCostawildlifs.wpd(4/4/02) 16 A72 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APRIL 2002 CAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY California red-legged frogs and western pond turtle have been reported from Pinole Creek numerous times. The creek provides suitable pools for both species and the section of the creek on the project site, although severely down-cut and incised still provides suitable habitat for these two species. A single California red-legged frog was observed in Pinole Creek in the pool just below the downstream Bear Creek Road culvert during the February 7 site visit. California red-legged frog and western pond turtle are likely to occur on the Gan Shalom project site. The Alameda whipsnake occurs in scrub type habitats in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and in grassland and woodland habitats adjacent to these scrub type habitats. The species has been recorded from the east side of the Pinole Valley, approximately 1.4 miles to the north of the site and from the northern side of Briones Regional Park, approximately 2.8 miles to the east. The project site is located within Critical Habitat Unit 1, the Tilden-Briones Unit designated by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service for this species. There is no scrub habitat on the Gan Shalom project site suitable to support this species and none in its immediate vicinity. Alameda whipsnakes are not expected to be - resident here,but it is possible that the snakes could move across the site. The trees and taller shrubs on the Gan Shalom project site provide suitable nesting locations for loggerhead shrike, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, and other species of raptors. At least one potential raptor nest was observed in the woodlands during the reconnaissance level survey and others may be present. One or more raptor species which could include a special-status species are likely to nest in wooded areas on the Can Shalom project site outside of the proposed development area. Western burrowing owls nest in abandoned ground squirrel burrows and other similar structures, such as small culverts and pipes. No ground squirrel burrows or other suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owls was observed during our site visit. Their presence is unlikely due to the absence of suitable burrow habitat. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats form nests of sticks in dense stands of trees and thickets. Several woodrat nests were observed in the woodland communities on the project site. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats are present in the wooded areas on the Gari Shalom project site. P.\GAN2301BioReporL.wpd(4/4102) — 17 A?4 __ . PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed project on the Gan Shalom property consists of the development of an irrigated turf cemetery and associated roadways on the grassy flat and valley portions of the site. The hillside areas will be preserved as will the reach of Pinole Creek on the project site. Project utilization of the hillside areas and/or Pinole Creek would cause greater impacts to biological resources on the site, which are not dealt with in this report. Based on LSA's assessment of the natural resources on.the Gan Shalom property,the following should be addressed during site planning: • Potential wetlands -avoid and provide buffers • Pinole Creek-provide 100-foot setback • California Red-legged Frog-provide construction barrier and preconstruction survey • Large oak trees-avoid and provide non-irrigated setback. WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE U.S.; WATERS OF THE STATE The design of the proposed project should avoid fill or alteration of the two small wetlands and Pinole Creek and incorporate buffers. LSA recommends 100-foot wide vegetated buffers between the top of bank of Pinole Creek and the edge of developed cemetery use. The final site plans should avoid the two small wetlands identified in this report. If the wetlands are avoided,then no jurisdictional delineation wilLbe necessary. If wetlands cannot be avoided,then a formal,jurisdictional delineation,verified by the Corps, should be performed. Due to their small size fill of the wetlands would likely qualify for a non-reporting Nationwide Corps permit. In addition, the Regional Water Quality Control Board would need to be notified about any wetland fill. The Regional Board would require mitigation based on the concept of no net lass of wetland habitat value or acreage. The Regional Board generally requires a mitigation acreage ratio of 2:1 created to impacted. SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES A preconstruction survey for California red-legged frogs will need to be conducted. The survey would consist of one day and one night survey conducted no more than three days prior to construction. If California red-legged frogs are observed within the work area, the USFWS would need to be notified regarding the appropriate course of action, and the contractor will be required to stop all work in the area. The pre-construction survey is to ensure that take of California red-legged frogs does not occur during construction. PAGAN230\BioRepon.wpd(4/4/02) 1$ A75 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APR-SL 2002 GAN SHALOM CEMETERY PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY We recommend that a barrier to movement of California red-legged frogs be installed between the construction area and the buffer along Pinole Creek so that no frogs can move into the construction area and no construction activities occur within the creek buffer. The barrier would be composed of silt fencing that is keyed into the ground at its base and orange construction fencing. Large Trees The plans show that development will avoid impacts to all hillside woodlands and riparian vegetation. Several large trees occur in the valley bottom portion of the site. Development should be planned to avoid large trees and provide undisturbed buffers around them wherever possible, Two valley oaks and one coast live oak are located in the northeast portion of the site. These species are adapted to California's wet winters and dry summers, and turf irrigation near their trunks during the summer months is likely to kill them within a few years. In addition, disturbance of their root systems during construction would cause stress and potentially death to the trees. In order to preserve the oak trees, an undisturbed and unirrigated buffer with a radius of 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree should be designated around each oak tree. The three other trees present on the valley floor will tolerate irrigation. These trees should have ungraded buffers with a radius equaling the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline. Protection measures, such as installing temporary construction fencing around the buffer areas of the trees,should be implemented as outlined in the Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance. PAGAN2301BioRepon.wpd(4/4/02) 19 A26 O & ASSOCIATES LLI I nvironmental Consultants December 4, 2002 02 CLEC 5 j 66P 3- 54 Contra Costa County ?..:? "' Y f, r'r Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,N. Ting--4-"Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Ms.Rose Marie Pietras RE: Proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery LP022068 Dear Ms. Pietras: 1. INTRODUCTION On behalf of Contra.Costa County,Monk&Associates LLC (M&A)has reviewed the biology reports that LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA)has prepared for the proposed Cyan Shalom Cemetery. Specifically,we have reviewed the April 11,2002 Biological Resources report,the June 19, 2002 Phase I Natural Resource Impacts letter-report, and the October 3,2002 letter-report.These reports provide information on the project site's plant communities,wildlife habitats,special- status species issues, and waters of the United States.From these reports we were able to determine that several significant biological resources are present on the project site. LSA states that the project would avoid impacts to all significant biological resources and has provided mitigation measures that, when implemented,would offset any indirect impacts the project may have on these significant biological resources. M&A has also identified several other potential project-related impacts and has provided mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset these impacts.A discussion of the impacts and mitigation measures is provided below. 2. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS 2.1 California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonit) 2.1.1 WPACT The California red-legged frog is a federal listed threatened species and a state species of special concern. According to LSA,Pinole Creek enters the project site from a culvert under Bear Creek Road and falls immediately into a concrete lined plunge pool. The creek then runs parallel to the road on the project site for about 1,200 feet before it enters a culvert to againn flow off site on the north side of Bear Creek Road. California red-legged frogs have been reported from Pinole Creek numerous times, and the reach of Pinole Creek on the project site provides suitable habitat for this species. LSA identified a single California red-legged frog in Pinole Creek in the pool gust below the downstream Bear Creek Goad culvert during their February 7, 2002 site visit. Hence,project-related impacts to the California red-legged frog are potentially significant.These impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to CBQA. 1136 Saranap Ave.,Suite Q t Walnut Creek. ♦ California ♦ 94595 (925)947-4867 ♦ FAX (925)947-1165 A 1-x MONY. & ASSOCIATES LLC Biological Resources Impacts L-.a Mitigations Gan Shalom,Cemetery Page 2 2.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURE According to LSA,the project as currently proposed would not impact Pinole Creek. However, in order to avoid impacts to the California red-legged frog and its habitat,LSA has proposed several mitigation measures that could be implemented.M&A provide these measures below with minor modifications as we see necessary to ensure that these measures protect the California red-legged frog and its habitat. • A 100-foot setback shall be established from Pinole Creek's top-of bank to the edge of project grading. A perpetual deed restriction in favor of Contra Costa County shall be* established along this 100-foot setback stating that this 100-foot buffer would be preserved in perpetuity for biological resources. No grading or other construction-related activities shall be allowed within this 100-foot buffer zone. • The outside edge of the 100-foot buffer zone shall be fenced with orange construction fencing during the duration of onsite grading and construction work. • Prior to grading and construction, a frog exclusion fence shall be installed near the top- of-bank op- of bank along the entire length of Pinole Creek on the project site.M&A does not recommend the use of silt fencing for the exclusion fence since silt fencing can sag in between the posts, allowing frogs to jump over it, and it is not durable enough to withstand winter weather conditions. M&A recommend that 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth be used as the frog exclusion fencing material. Hardware cloth is sold in rolls at most hardware stores and at Home Depot. This fence shall be keyed into the ground all along its base(to prevent frogs from going under it). This fence shall be a minimum of four feet high,with the top six inches of the fence bent inward(towards the creek)to prevent frogs from jumping over the fence.This fence shall be in place during the duration of all grading and construction-related activities. Preconstruction surveys for the California red-legged frog, consisting of one day and one night survey, shall be conducted within three days of any grading or construction-related activities. The survey results shall be submitted to Contra Costa County. If any California red-legged frogs are identified on the project site during the preconstruction surveys, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be contacted immediately for directions on how next to proceed and the contractor shall stop all work. Any California red-legged frog sighting shall be reported to California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database. At the time the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service determines that adequate avoidance and/or mitigation has been implemented by the applicant, and proof is provided to Contra Costa County via a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the project may continue. Since a California red-legged frog was sighted by LSA in Pinole Creek just outside the project site boundaries, a biologist shall also survey the 100-foot buffer area and immediately adjacent construction areas each_morning_prior to construction activities c A28 MONK & ASSOCIATES LLC Biological Resources Impacts as mitigations Gan Shalom Cemetery Page 3 during the winter and spring months (times when frogs may be moving)to ensure that no California red-legged frogs have moved into either the buffer zone or the work area. During the hot summer and early fall months,the morning surveys shall not be necessary since frogs are not migrating during these periods. The above mitigation measures shall be conditions of project approval. Contra Costa County shall not issue a grading permit until the frog exclusion fencing and 100-foot buffer fencing (orange construction fencing)is in place. Contra Costa County should also receive a copy of the preconstmetion survey report. Grading/construction on the project site shall not commence until the fences are in place and Contra Costa County has received a preconstruction survey report. -If the above measures are implemented,potential impacts to California red-legged frogs from the proposed project could be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to CFQA. This mitigation measure would also protect the westernpond turtle (Clemmys marmarata), a California species of special concern,which may also be present in the creek channel. 2.2 "Valley Oak and Coast Live Oak Trees 2.2.1 IWACT The July 2002 "Preliminary&Final Development Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan"for the project shows a number of individual oak trees-v�rtliin the proposed development area. This plan labels the trees as"oaks," and does not specify whether or not they are valley oaks, coast live oaks,or other species of oak. In accordance with the Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance, impacts to native oak trees greater than 6.5 inches in diameter would be a significant adverse impact. This impact could be reduced to levels considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA. 2.2.2 NtnGAI ioN MEASURE In order to protect individual oak trees on the project site from impacts, LSA has provided mitigation recommendations that M&A believe are acceptable to protect these trees.M&A has also expanded on the mitigation recommendations to include replanting, if necessary.These mitigations are provided below. • All single oak trees (that is, oaks located in oak savanna or grassland habitat or at the edge of a woodland system)within the project area shall be protected during construction by installing orange construction fencing at 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree. This non-disturbance buffer zone shall be staked in the field by a qualified biologist prior to installation of fencing to ensure that the contractor has fenced an adequate buffer area. • After all site improvements are completed, the construction fencing can be removed. However,no surface or subsurface disturbance, no turf or other plantings shall occur within this buffer zone(1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree) for the life of the project. A la MONK & ASSOCIATES LLC Biological Resources Impacts and f tigations Cyan Shalom Cemetery Page 4 • If it is necessary to remove any native trees on the project site that are 6.5 inches in diameter at breast height or greater, then replacement trees shall be planted at a 3:1 ratio (that is, three trees shall be planted for each tree removed). Replacement trees shall be the same species as the ones removed. All replacement trees shall be 24-inch box.size. An automatic drip irrigation system shall be installed on all replacement trees. This system shall operate for a minimum two-year period to ensure that the trees are successfully established. Annual mitigation reports documenting tree survivorship, and complete with photos, shall be submitted to Centra Costa.County by December 1 of each year for a three-year period. If survivorship falls below 85%, replacement planting shall be necessary and the replacement trees monitored for an additional three-year period. • To preserve the species composition of the project site's native oak woodland and riparian habitats, any landscaping plan prepared for the project site shall consist entirely of tree and shrub species native to the Bear Creek/Alhambra Valley area(for example, California buckeye,valley oak, coast live oak, California bay, elderberry are all native to the site).No non-native,ornamental trees or shrubs shall be planted. This mitigation measure shall be a condition of project approval. A grading permit shall not be issued by the County until all oaks to be protected are fenced at an area determined to be 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree,and until it is determined how many trees will be removed(if any) and how many replacement trees will be planted. All trees to be removed(if any) shall be shown on all project plans. This mitigation measure will reduce impacts to native trees to a level considered less th=significant pursuant to CEQA. 2.3 Nesting Raptors and.Loggerhead Shrine 2.3.1 DaACT The oak woodland,bay oak forest, and the riparian woodland on the project site all provide nesting opportunities for raptors(birds of prey)such as the red-tailed hawk (Buten jamaicensis), Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooper i), sharp-shinned hawk(Accipiter striatus),red shouldered hawk Outer lineatus), and white tailed kite(E/anus leucur us). These raptors, their nests, eggs, and young are all protected under California.Fish and.Game Code (§3503, 3505, 3800) and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additionally,the Cooper's hawk is a stare species of special concern, and the white-tailed kite is a"fully protected" species under California Fish and Game Code(§3511).Finally,these plant communities also provide nesting opportunities for the loggerhead shrike(Lcanius ludovicianus), a state species of special concern that is also protected under California Fish and Game Code. Any disturbance to raptors or to the loggerhead shrike while they are nesting which may cause them to abandon their nest, eggs, and/or young,would. constitute"take."In order to prevent a take of these species,the following mitigation is recommended. This mitigation measure would reduce project-related impacts to nesting raptors and the loggerhead shrike to a level considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA. Ain CONK & ASSOCIATES LLC Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigations Gan Shalom Cemetery Page 5 2.3.2 NhTiGAnoN'.l'VIEAsuRE • frier to construction of the mausoleums,roads,or water tank in the southern portion of the project site, a spring nestingsurvey for raptors and the loggerhead shrike shall be conducted in the oak woodland and bay oak forest. This survey shall be conducted between the months of April and June the year construction is planned. • Since the bay and oak woodlands on the project site are extensive, surveys shall focus on those portions of the woodlands that are within a sphere of influence of project grading/ construction. That is, surveys should be conducted in these habitats within an approximate quarter mile radius of the proposed project. • If raptors are nesting on the project site, a minimum 500-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced withh orange construction fencing. A qualified raptor biologist will periodically monitor the nest site(s) to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment.No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 300-foot buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones,typically by August 1". • If loggerhead shrikes are nesting on the project site, a 150-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing.No disturbance shall occur within the buffer zone until the young have fledged,typically by July lit. Raptor and loggerhead shrike nesting surveys shall be a condition of project approval. A grading permit shall not be issued until a raptor and loggerhead shrike nesting survey report is provided to the County and all necessary buffer zones,if any, are fenced. Implementation of the above mitigation measure should reduce project-related impacts to nesting raptors and the loggerhead shrike to a level considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA. 2.4 San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat(Neotoma fuscipes annectens) The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a California species of special concern. LSA identified this species' nests in the project site's woodlands.Under the currently proposed project,there are no plans to impact the oak woodland and bay oak forest. Thus,under the currently proposed project,impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat are considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA. (If changes were proposed to the project that would require impacting th6 woodland habitats,potential impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat would have to be considered and mitigation would be required). { h 2'i MONK ASSOCIATES UC Biological Resources Impacts ana Mitigations Cyan Shalom Cemetery Page b 2.5 Oak Woodland,Bay Oak Forest 2.5.1 N2ACT The oak woodland and bay oak forest on the project site provide significant native plant and wildlife habitat. These plant communities provide wildlife with nesting, denning, and foraging opportunities, as well as a large,unimpeded corridor for local animal migration. One special- status species, the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat,has been identified in the project site's oak woodland, and it is possible that other special-status species such as the Cooper's hawk or rare plants, could reside in these woodlands and forests as well. Linder the current project design, there are no plans to impact the oak woodland and the bay oak forest on the project site. However,the proposed project has an approximately 125-year build- out. In that 125 year-period,there could be changes to the project design that could require infringing on these habitats. Hence, impacts to the oak woodland and the bay oak forest at this time must be considered potentially significant. These impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels pursuant to CEQA. 2.5.2 MITIGAIg0N MEASURE The easiest approach to protect the oak woodland and the bay oak forest is to establish a perpetual deed restriction in favor of Contra Costa County stating that the project site's oak woodlands and bay oak forest would be preserved in perpetuity. This would ensure that these habitats are not impacted by future project development and that special-status species, such as the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and possibly the Cooper's hawk, are protected. In lieu of the above mitigation,the applicant may implement the following mitigation. If in the future there are plans to impact the oak woodland and bay oak forest,the applicant would have to submit a new application to the County and the proposed impact would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA. At that time, mitigation would be developed for significant adverse impacts. Either of the above mitigation alternatives would reduce impacts to the oakk woodland and bay oak forest to a less than significant level pursuant to CEQA. A32 MONK ASSOCIA'ITS LLC Biological Resources Impacts anaMitigations Gan Slalom Cemetery Page 7 3. CONCLUSION The proposed project would result in potential significant adverse impacts to the California red- legged frog,western pond turtle, oak trees, nesting raptors, and the loggerhead shrike. Additionally, any future proposal to develop the oak woodland and bay oak forest could result in potential significant adverse impacts to these plant communities and to the San Francisco dusky- footed woodrat and nesting raptors. Mitigation measures could be implemented that would reduce impacts to these species to a level considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA. These mitigation measures are prescribed in the sections above. This concludes my analysis of biological impacts that would result from implementation of the Cyan Shalom Cemetery. Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(925) 947-4567, ext. 2013. Sincerely, Sarah Lynch Senior Associate Biologist A'I I Page I of I darwinm �r From: "Sarah Lynch"<sarah,�mi@msn.com> To: <darwinm@pacbell.net> Cc: "geoff' <geoff monkassociates.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:22 AM Subject: Gan Shalom Bello Darwin, I have reviewed LSA's letter and your revised initial study. I believe that LSA's assessment of the whipsnake impacts are accurate and no further consideration for the whipsnake is necessary. However, I believe that the language you added to the biology section about erecting whipsnake exclusion fencing at the perimeter of the impact area should also be stated as a mitigation similar to how you have addressed the California red-legged frog and other special-status species. By including this language as a mitigation the public cannot overlook the fact that the Alameda whipsnake was addressed. Also, in your list of documents that you reviewed in order to complete the biology section of the IS you need to list LSA's May 28, 2003 letter. I believe the biology section looks complete otherwise. Let me know if you have any questions, Sarah A34 10115/03 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC REIPORT (Abrams Assocli . ....... .. .. ........................ ISO "QQ2A MINA vow 0: OR WO TWO::Oyo� 7107 MOVE oll, Abrams Associates March 29, 2002 A0+10AA Transportation •Traffic • Engineering • Pianning Mr. Shalom Eliahu Gan Shalom Cemetery 3315 Stage Coach Drive Lafayette, CA 94549 Re: Traffic Safety Evaluation of Gan Shalom Cemetery Dear Mr. Eliahu: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the traffic impacts and traffic safet issues that are related to the development of the Gan Shalom Cemetery on Bear Creek Road in Contra Costa County. Project description. The project is planned to be located south of Bear Creek Road on the east side of Hampton Road in Centra Costa.County. The proposed site comprises two parcels with a total area of 83 acres with approximately 40 acres developed for the cemetary. The location of the parcel and the approximate area to be used for the cemetery are shown on Figure 1. The project would include a small chapel with an administrative office at the site. All access and roadway connections would be from driveways onto Dear Creek Road. To Richmond eft d��r 4•� -f To Martinez/ J e�� Pleasant Hili Figure 1 Project Location. � GAN SHALOM CEMENTERY PROJECT R,y LOCATION FW�w To Orindat Lafayette Trip Generation. The standard ITE guidelines' do not provide any information when calculating the trip generation characteristics for a land use such as a religious nc n- Trip Generation Manual,Institute of Transportation Engineers,Washington,D.C.,2000 2815 Mitchell Drive, Suite 120 • Walnut Creek, A 94598 • (925) 945-0201 • Fax (925) 945-7966 Page 2 Abrams Associates Gan Shalorn Cemetery Traffic Impact Study Transaortai;on•Traffic•Engineering•Planning profit cemetery. Such a situation must be established based on it's own individual characteristics. First of all,there is very little recurrent traffic for such a use. On a typical day,there would be two to three workers on the site, and perhaps one administrative staff member. There would also be visitors to the site and some trips by various service providers. With about three employees on the site and other activities, it can be estimated that on an average weekday,there would be about thirty vehicle trips per day (15 inbound and 15 outbound). When considering the traffic impacts,this would equate to a maximum of four vehicle trips during the highest hours,two trips in and two trips out,or one vehicle every 15 minutes, This is about the same traffic that would be generated by three single-family homes. The most significant traffic event would occur on days when funeral services are being conducted at the site. Based on experience at other cemeteries, these services would have approximately 35 to 75 people in attendance, with approximately 15 to 25 cars at each service. The chapel staff estimate that there could be up to 150 services per year, or an average of three services per week. used on experience at other cemeteries, about 25 percent of the services would have vehicles arriving in procession. The remainder of the services would have cars arriving randomly rather than simultaneously as a part of a procession. These services would normally occur during the middle of the day,probably between„ 10:00 am and 2:00 pm, Traffic Impacts. The total amount of new traffic generated by the project, even during the times that services would be conducted, is not an issue, since these numbers are well below the threshold where traffic capacity impacts could be measured. Figure 2 shows the existing traffic volumes on Alhambra Valley Road,Hampton Road and Bear Creek Road based on traffic counts taken in March 2002. Figure 2 Pg-?Lk our Tra.#fic Volumes xx Exlstlag Traffic �rh (xx)m firaff3c Added By Project +°, fid. .117+anibrn :EE w {1}16 Sear CreekPoad !T4 All ({)31� �4_2{(}} PM Peak Hour 4.30-5.30 PM Page Abrams Associates Sail Shalom Cemetery Traffic Impact Study Transportation•Traffic•Engineering a Planning Site Access. All access would occur on Bear Creek Road, which is a two-lane rural roadway that connects from Alhambra Valley Road to 4rinda and Lafayette. Bear Creek Road is 24 feet in width, and generally has shoulders along the travel way. It currently carries about 1,000 vehicle trips per day in this area. Hampton Road is 14 to 18 feet wide with limited shoulders that currently serves as access to about four residences, as well as a staging area for trails within the EBMUD watershed. It currently has an ADT of about 50 vehicles per day. Further to the north, Bear Creek Road intersects with Alhambra Valley Road, a two-lane rural road that extends from Martinez on the east to Pinole and Richmond on the west. It is expected that the majority of the traffic will use Bear Creek Road for access to the cemetery. Traffic and Safety Issues. Bear Creek Road has a substandard cross-section in this area,but the number of trips produced by a cemetery is very small, and this new traffic can be readily accommodated. There is good sight distance in the area of Bear Creek Road where the cemetery access will be located. No changes are required on Bear Creek Road. Hampton Road has a stop sign at Bear Creek Road. There are no changes required at this intersection, but it would be helpful to install an improved street name sign, and to refresh the pavement markings on Bear Creek Road. At Alhambra Valley Road, there are stop signs for Bear Creek Road and also for Pereira Road. This is all that is needed;no further signing or markings are required. The traffic volumes do not cone close to the warrants for a traffic signal. Conclusion - The cemetery land use generates very little new traffic, and will not cause any significant traffic impacts. More detailed traffic studies are not required. It is well below that threshold of traffic that would trigger the need for a CCTA traffic study. With the exception of some minor signing and pavement marking improvements,no further traffic mitigations are required. Sincerely yours e�" 621�CdOLA Charles Abrams cc: Bob Duchi,DK Associates Robert Tavenier, County Traffic Engineer Pat Roach, Contra Costa County F1.3 PtNDIXC I� EO TU ,.. ' ESQ` POR t GEOTTECI-MCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS I N C d R P C R A T E D MATERIALS TESTING Project No. 5405.1.004.01 June 20,2003 Mr.Frank Winer Gan Shalom 3315 Stage Coach Drive , Lafayette, CA 94549 Subject: Gan Shalom.. Cemetery Bear Creek and Hampton Roads Coma Costa County, California -< GROUNDWATER AQUIFER TESTING AND ANALYSIS Dear Mr.Winer: At your request, ENGEO Incorporated has performed aquifer testing and analysis at the subject site. The purpose of the study was to respond to agency and public concerns regarding potential groundwater impacts to water supply wells on nearby properties. An existing groundwater supply well,GSW-1,is located at the southeastern•end of the property at an elevation of approximately 510 feet alcove msl. The location of the Well GSW-1 is presented on Figure 1. Both pumping and recovery tests were performed on this well. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located south of the intersection of Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road in Contra Costa County (Figure 1). The majority of the proposed development area is relatively level, with elevations rising from. approximately 410 feet above mean sea level(rust) at the northwestern comer of the property to approximately 440 feet above msl toward the northeastern part of the site. A prominent Swale, gently dipping to the north, is situated in the middle at the southern part of the ` property. The swaleds bounded on the east and west by ridges with maximum elevations of 760 feet ' and 720 feet above insl, respectively. Most of the approximately 83-acre site is covered with native grasses at the low-lying elevations,with trees growing along the foothills and ridges of the property. The subject property is bounded on the northeast by Pinole Creek, which is set in a predominant b southeast- to northwest-trending valley(Figure 1). Pinole Creek is primary water shed with several F annual and seasonal tributaries flowing to the creek:. 1 2401 Crow Canyon Road-Suite 200-San Ramon,CA 94583-2545 - (925)838-1600•Fax(925)838-7425 E-mail:engstaftengeo.com-www.engeo.com C1 i_ Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads June 20, 2003 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER TESTING AND ANALYSIS Page 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The bedrock formations underlying the site and vicinity are mapped as marine sediments ofMiocene age (Graymer 1996, Wagner 1967, and Crane 1988) with the Monterey Formation and San Pablo Group. The bedrock in the site vicinity has conformable contacts that generally trend northwesterly, f and have been folded such that the bedrock layers (bedding) are inclined at angles of 30 to 35 degrees northeastward from the horizontal. As depicted by Crane (1988), the Monterey t Fon-nation, in the sitevicinity, consists of the following members: Tice Shale, Hambre Sandstone, t and the Rodeo Shale, listed from oldest to youngest with conformable contacts. I The Tice Shale member consists of"crudely bedded shale" (Bowen 1951). The Hambre Sandstone member consists of "massive, well-sorted, fine-grained, feldspathic sandstones [with interbedded] ! dense yellow limestone [and] interbedded massive claystone" (Wagner 1967). The Rodeo Shale member consists of "shale beds that are locally silicieous [interbedded with] fine feldspathic sandstones and dense yellow limestone (Wagner 1967). The San Pablo Group in the site 'vicinity rests confomiably on the Monterey Formation. The Briones Formation overlies the Hambre and underlies the Cierbo Formation. The Briones and Cierbo.Formations are similar and generally consist of fine- to coarse-grained sandstones, interbedded with shale and conglomerate (Wagner 1957). It is likely that the Rodeo Shale acts as a groundwater barrier from water-bearing strata on the north and south sides of the Rodeo Shale unit. The Hambre Sandstone unit is shown as laterally continuous and trending to the northwest to form the ridges south of Pinole Creek. However,it is our opinion that the groundwater aquifers are not continuous laterally, given localized fracturing and interbedded mudstone units within. the Hambre Sandstone. Therefore, based on'the geologic conditions of the site vicinity, we do not anticipate that the projected groundwater use at the subject site would adversely affect nearby groundwater supply wells. PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION AND DEVELOPMENT Three piezometers,P1, P2, and,P3, were drilled in May 2003 at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. Piezometer P1 is 50 feet away from the pumping well and P2 is 100 feet away. P3 is located approximately 1,2.00 feet southeast of the existing well near the southeastern corner of the property. The two Piezometers P1 and P2 were positioned along the geologic orientation of the bedrock at a bearing of approximately 45 degrees northwest, The logs of Piezometers P 1,P2 and P3 are presented.on Figure 2, Appendix A. The stratigraphy in the area of the existing wells P 1 and P2 is presented on Figure 3. The placement of the observation wells was coordinated with Contra Costa Costa Planning Department and the wells were drilled with the approval of the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Service. C2 Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery,Bear Creek and Hampton Roads June 20,2003 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER TESTING AND ANALYSIS Page 3 Drilling services were provided by Pacific Coast Drilling. The drilling activities consisted of advancing an 8-inch-diameter auger using air-rotary drilling methods to a depth of 125 feet at the r three observation well (piezometers) locations. This depth is consistent with the completed depth of the existing supply well GSW-1. An ENGEO geologist logged the borings using Unified Sail Classification System and Munsell Soil Color Charts. The logs of the borings are presented as Figure 2, Appendix A. Piezometer P-1 was constructed using 5-inch inner-diameter casing screened with 0.032-inch slot size from 65 to 125 feet below ground surface(bgs), with solid casing from 4 feet above ground surface (ags) to 65 feet bgs. Piezometers P-2 and P-3 were constructed using 2-inch in casing, screened with ' 0.032-inch slot size from 65 to 125 feet bgs, with solid casing from 4 feet ags to 65 feet bgs. � For each piezometer, a filter pack, consisting of r/a- to I/4-inch gravel, was placed around the casing from the bottom of the boring (125 feet deep) to 50 feet bgs. The upper 50 feet of the piezometer was sealed using a bentonite slurry seal in accordance with County requirements. Following construction, the casing of each piezometer was cleaned of dirt and sand for optimal performance. Well development consisted of lowering a galvanized pipe inside the casing to the 1 bottom of the piezometer and injecting large volumes of air. The air lifted water, dirt, and sand out of the top of the casing. OFF-SITE MONITORING WELL, The groundwater level was also monitored in the off-site Well W-1 at the location shown on Figure 1. This well, No. 811749.as reported by Pacific Coast Drilling Co. and presented in the, ENGEO Inc. report of December 10, 2001, is 2,20 feet deep and was completed in bedrock. The well is reportedly constructed with a perforated pipe and gravel pack extending from about 50 feet'below the ground surface to the bottom of the well. PUMPING TEST A 24-hour pump test was initiated on the morning of May 29, 2003, beginning at least 48 hours following the final piezometer development. The static water level had fully recovered in each piezometer. Prior to the initiation of the pump test, the groundwater level was manually recorded in the existing on-site supply well, the three piezometers, Pl, P2, P3 and the off-site Well W-1. The water levels were also recorded using submersible pressure transducers. Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery,Bear Creep and Lampton Roads June 20,2003 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER.TESTING AND ANALYSIS Page 4 The pump test consisted of installing a 4-inch submersible pump into the existing groundwater supply well GSWl. A flow rate meter and volume discharge meter was attached to the pump. A gas-powered generator was used to run the pump. The flow rate was maintained at ' 10.3 gallons/minute. The flow rate was regularly verified by filling 5-gallon buckets and recording the volume and time. Once the pump test began, the depth to groundwater was recorded as follows: # For the Pumping Well GSW-1 and Piezometers P1 and P2: * Every minute for the first 10 minutes. * Every 2 minutes from 10 to 30 minutes. * Every 5 minutes from 30 to 120 minutes. * Every 30 minutes from 120 to 360 minutes. * Every 120 minutes from 360 minutes through the duration of the test. r For the on-site Piezometer P3 and offsite Observation Well W1 (ETW-1) 1 * Every 120.minutes from 360 minutes through the duration of the test. 1 After 24 hours of continuous pumping, a recovery test began immediately following the shut down of the pump. At the conclusion of the pumping, the depth to groundwater was recorded on the existing groundwater supply well at the following intervals: * Every minute for the first 10 minutes. * Every 10 minutes from. 10 to 120 minutes. 24 hours after initiation of the recovery test. The field recorded measurements of the drawdown and recovery are presented in Appendix.B. AQUIFER.ANALYSIS Using the pumping and recovery test records, we analyzed the aquifer characteristics, specifically, the Transmissivity (T) and the Storage Coefficient (S). We have assumed in our analysis, based on the boring logs of Piezometer Pland P2, that the aquifer is confined and the thicluiess of the aquifer extends from about 50 feet bgs to the bottom of the well for a total thickness of 75 feet(Figure 3). The drawdown data obtained from the pumping test was used to analyze the aquifer using both the Jacob's and Theis' methods to determine the Storage Coefficient and Transmissivity. In addition,the Transmissivity was analyzed using data from the recovery test. C4 Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads Tune 20,2003 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER TESTNG AND ANALYSIS Page 5 The Storage Coefficient (S) of a confined aquifer is the volume of water released from or taken into storage per unit surface area per unit change of the hydraulic head. In a free aquifer, S is a function of the size and number of inter-connected voids and represents the actual water drained from the aquifer by lowering the water table. The Storage Coefficient can express the water-yielding capacity of a confined aquifer. In most confined aquifers, like the subject site, the value of S falls in the range of 0.00005 and 0.005. The average S value of the tested aquifer is 0.00114, and the highest and lowest values are 1.41E-03 and 1.27E-04, respectively indicative of a reasonable storage capacity calculation. Transmissivity(T) is the hydraulic conductivity of the full thickness of the aquifer. The values of T obtained from different methods of analysis are nearly uniform except for the anomalous value of 1.22 ft2/min(13140 gpd/ft) obtained from the Jacob's method of analysis using the draw down recorded in well P2. Excluding this test, the average value of T is 5.52E-02 ft2/min (595 gpd/ft), and the highest and lowest values are 7.75E-02 ft2/min (835 gp&ft) and 3.46E-02 ftz/min (373 gpd/ft) respectively. These calculated values are characteristic for the type of materials # encountered such as the interbedded sandstone and siltstone. E The following table presents the results of our analysis: ► TABLE I 1 TRANSMISSIVITY STORAGE METHOD OF ANALYSIS T COEFFICIENT f�/min. a2d± S Jacob's Method 5.33E-02 574 1.27E-04 P1, 50 ft from well 1 Jacob's Method P2, 100 ft from well 1.22 13140 2.87E-03 Theis Method 3.46E-02 373 1.89E-04 P1, 50 ft from well Theis Method 1 P2, 100 ft from well 5.55E-02 598 1.41E-03 Recovery Pumping Well 7.75E-02 835 --- GSW-1 The computer output data.for T and S are presented in Appendix B. 1 Based on a review of the pumping/recovery test data.,the aquifer at Gan Shalom can yield at least 10 gallons per minute or 14,400 gallons per day. Review of the drawdo'Nm curves for piezometers PI and P2 indicates that during the latter part of the test the gradient of the drawdown did not change. 1 1 t C:5 Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gari Shalom Cemetery,Bear Creek and Hampton Roads dune 20,2003 GR.OLNDWATER.AQUIFER TESTING AND ANALYSIS Page 6 Using a conservative value of transmissivity of 373 gpolft with the Cooper--Jacob modification of the Theis equation, a theoretical radius of influence of 308 feet was calculated for Well GSW-1 (Appendix Q. The water levels in the off-site Well Wl and in Piezometer P3 were also recorded during and after the pumping test. As shown in Table 1, the water level in W1 did not change during 24 hours of pumping. The water level in P3 dropped by about 1/2 inch,which is insignificant, and well within the accuracy of measurement. We conclude from these measurements that the existing well in the proposed cemetery is confined to the aquifer within the cemetery property. Pumping from the existing well has no impact on the groundwater of adjacent properties in the neighborhood of the proposed cemetery. Vaster Cons=tion The projected irrigation program for the proposed cemetery requires watering at a ,rate of # 12,000 gallons per acre per week during summer months, as presented in the Civil Engineer's report of October 16, 2001 This irrigation program will be substantially reduced during the winter months. The m.axilmum area to be irrigated for the first phase of the project is approximately 5 acres. The completion time for the first phase of the project is approximately 25 years. Estimated total water required for phase one of the project, is calculated by multiplying 5 acres by 12,000 gallons per week per acre, equates to 60,000 gallons per week for the 5 acres. } In an effort to reduce the water consumption, the applicant has subcontracted landscaping and irrigation consultants to design irrigation systems that will significantly reduce water consumption. A weather-related irrigation application system can potentially reduce water consumption by 30 to ► 50 percent. This system utilizes an on-site weather station that is able to adjust irrigation cycles on a daily basis. The system monitors evapotranspiration and applies the appropriate volume of irrigation water. The system is also designed to manage the flow of water in the entire system and immediately react to problems such as broken sprinklers and/or water lines or other problems that result in the loss of water. With controlled irrigation, the water requirements may be reduced by 30 to 50 percent, and the water needs can be reduced to 30,000 to 42,000 gallons per week. The water need for the cemetery is as follows: 60,000 x 0.7 =42,000 gallons per week for the entire 5 acres at build out or 6,000 gallons per day for the entire 5 acres or 1.200ag llons Rer day per acre. 1 C6 j Gan Shalom. 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery, bear Creek and Hampton Roads June 20, 2003 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER TESTING AND ANALYSIS Page 7 In addition, a recycling system is proposed. The irrigation recycling system is designed to recover and reuse water from irrigation that has infiltrated through the upper 22 inches of ground cover. The system consists of a series of subterranean irrigation collection systems that drain to a designated sump location. The water collected in the sump is pumped to a separate holding tank for reuse. Since the entire property is designated as agricultural land, it is appropriate to compare the water needs for different agricultural use. A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment prepared by our office .and dated December 7, 2001, found that the site was used for the cultivation of tomatoes, as viewed on the 1953 aerial photograph. For comparison purposes the following Table II presents the water consumption for a variety of agricultural uses. TABLE II Agricultural Use Water Units Consumption - Irrigated Pasture 6759 Gallons per day per acre Vineyard 5521 Gallons per(hy pqr acre Alfalfa 3901 Gallons per!Lay per acre Tomatoes,dri irri ation with CRdISG 5431 Gallons per day per acre Tomatoes,furrow irrigated 6789 Gallonser day per acre Horse Boarding 1920* Gallons per da Gan Shalom Cenittely 1200 Gallons per day per acre *Water consumption per horse is 24 gallons per day per horse,and assuming a total of 80 horses at the property. This table indicates that the anticipated water consurnption for the cemetery is between 18 to 32 percent of the consumption of these other agricultural uses with the exception of the horse boarding. i 1 GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY Review of the punipingfrecovery test data and aquifer analysis indicates that the aquifer at Gan Shalom Cemetery has capacity in excess of the predicted irrigation demands for the proposed project. Review of the drawdown curves for Piezometers P1 and P2 indicates steady-state flow was achieved during the pumping test. The yield of the existing well is at least 10 gallons per minute, or 14,400 gallons per day. The measurements indicate that the groundwater levels outside the Gan Shalom property limits and at the periphery of the property did not change. This indicates that pumping from the existing well at Gan Shalom does not impact the groundwater supply of adjacent properties. ` The water needs at the Gan.Shalom Cemetery for 5 acres of use at complete build-up is 6,000 gallons per day,which is approximately 42 percent of the conservative well yield of 1.4,400 gallons per day. 1 Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 ` Gan Shalom Cemetery,Bear Creep and Hampton Roads June 20, 2003 E GROUNDWATER AQUIFER TESTING AND ANALYSIS Page 8 r 4 DISCUSSION t ► The calculation provided in Appendix C indicates a theoretical maximum radius of influence of 308 feet for GSW-1, at a pumping rate of 10 gpm. In other words,the water level beyond a radius of 308 feet is not impacted by continuous pumping at 10 gpm. This finding is also evident from the measurements made in Observation Well P3 and the off-site Well W-1 both located in excess of i 308 feet from the production well. The recorded water levels in these two wells did not change as a } result of 24 hours of continuous pumping. These analyses clearly show that pumping from the existing well at the Gan Shalom property at the rate of 10 gpm, does not have an impact on the regional groundwater level. Impacts to the } groundwater levels appear to be limited to the area within the proposed cemetery. After 24 hours of continuous pumping at the rate of 10 gpm, the water level in the well dropped 27 feet to a depth of 41 feet below the existing ground surface. This amount of drawdown leaves at least 24 feet of additional drawdown to the top of the screen in the cased well. The drawdown- measurement rawdownmeasurement shows that the well at the Gan Shalom property has additional capacity available before a"Safe Field" is exceeded, "safe yield''being defined as the amount of available drawdown of the pumping level to the top of the first screen. CONCLUSIONS • The demand of 6,000 gallons per day or 4 gallons per minute is easily met by the existing production well. The anticipated drawdown of the water table should be less than measured during the test. The 24-hour pumping test data indicates that the aquifer at the Fran Shalom property has adequate transmissivity and reasonable storage capacity. • The low T values. for the bedrock hydrogeologic environment result in a localized radius of influence as confirmed by the test. The maximum radius of influence does not exceed 308 feet from the pumping well. This confirms the findings of the ENGEO report of February 19, 2003, which concludes "..It is our opinion, given the geological conditions within the site vicinity, the estimated water requirements, and groundwater availability, that full irrigation for phase one of the proposed cemetery from the existing groundwater supply well at the subject property will not impact groundwater availability for existing groundwater wells on adjacent and/or nearby properties. The effect of pumping groundwater from domestic wells in shallow surface aquifers or from compartmented bedrock aquifers is limited in lateral extent". C8 � t Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery,Bear Creel{and Hampton Roads June 20,2003 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER TESTING AND ANALYSIS Page 9 • The existing water supply well can yield a minimum of ±14,400 gallons per day or approximately 10 gallons per minute without exceeding its"safe yield"(as defined above). • The conservative yield of the existing well is nearly 2% times the expected demand for the 5 acres of cemetery at complete build out. P • After 24 hours of continuous pumping, the groundwater at an adj acent property measured in W-1 k and in P3 did not change. This clearly y indicates that pumping from the existing well at Gan Shalom does not impact adjacent properties. t Very truly yours, ENGEO INCORPORATED � � t. MU 0. Revie y: No.HCS ata " — CERTIFIED • N D EOLOGIST ��wn Munger A CHG " ` Brun Flaherty, CHG, CEG sm/jd:pump 0fi CA�-� 1 . Attachments: Selected References Appendix A- Figures Appendix.13— Water Level Measurements, Pump Test Data Entry Forms, Theis- Jacob Analyses Appendix C— Maximum Radius of Influence Calculated 1 M 1 1 r� - - - ENGEO INCORPORATED SELECTED REFERENCES Bowen, O. E. Jr., 1951 Highways and Byways of Particular Geologic Interests, Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties,Division of Mines Bulletin 154,Page 341. California Department of Conservation, 1996, California Fault Parameters, Division of Mimes and Geology, Open File Report 96-08, Contra Costa County Agricultural Extension "Crop Current„ ► ► Crane, R., 1995x, Geology of the Mount Diablo Region, in Geology of the Mount Diablo Region Guidebook,Northern California Geological Society. i ► Brownlee Davison"Irrigation Principles and Practices" h Extension Service Natural Resource Advisor Alfred E. Gray, "Sprinkler Irrigation Handbook" Graymer, R. W. et al., 1994,Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Fonnations in Contra Costa County:United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 94-622. Todd,D,Keith,Groundwater Hydrology,Wiley 2'd edition 1980 1 U, S,Department of Interior,Water Resources Technical Publication, Groundwater Manual 1977. Wagner, J.R., 1967, Late Cenozoic History of the Coast Ranges East of San Francisco Bay, Dissertation to the University of California,Berkeley. WGEP 1999, Earthquake Probabilities in San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030-A Summary of Findings,Open-File Report 99-517. 1 5405.1.004.01 June 20,2003 C10 ! 1 _ ' 1 1 1 R C77 — _ NGEO INCORPORATED "PENDIX A Figures I 1 r r 5405A.O04.01 June 20,2003 C12 ,xl \ w3 (fyri\/j F 1 �mm a xt. � t aR �` � a a ca g P-1 (Located 50 feet southeast of existing well E 0-6 -StIV Clay, CHvenydark gray,very stiff. H 6-22 Sit Cla_y with Sand,CH-CL,yellowish brown 22-30 Sandstone/Siltstone, yellowish brawn, weak to friable, fine grained sandstone v 30-56 Cla stoneyellowish brown friable a { 56-125 Sandstone/Siltstone, light grayish brown to bluish brown, friable to F s moderately strap ,fine graffied sandstone Ile the area oxi;aate P-2 (Located 100 feet southeast of existin well 1 0-10 Silty Clay, CH,M dark_gray,vea stiff 10-35 Silty, sandClay,CL, ellowish brov�Ti,verystiff 35-40 Sandstone/Siltstone,yellowish brown, friable, fine grwined sandstone m 40-55 Cla stone/Siltstone,brawn,moderately strong SS-80 Sandstone/Siltstone, yellowish brawn, moderately strong, fine grained sandstone 1 80-125 Sandstone/Siltstone, bluish gray to light grayish brown, moderately strong to friable, fine grained sandstone Depths are a roximate P-3 (Locate d at the northeastern part of the Property) 0-12 Silty Clay, CH, vqq dark a ,vM stiff 12-18 Silty Clay,CH, dark gray, stiff, 18-25 S'il Cla ,CL-CH,dark brown, stiff Groundwater encountered from 18 to 25 feet 25-30 Silty Clay, CL-CH, dark brawn mottled with grayish brown brownish stiff 2 30-40 Cla stone/Siltstone,light a to light brown, friable to weak 40-65 Cla stone,Eay, weak W 55-67 Shale, very dark brown,friable 67-82 Cla stone/Shale,veEy dark brawn,weak 82-90 Siltstone,brown, friable to moderately strong 90-92 Shale, verdark brown,friable to moderatelystrop 92-100 Siltstone, brawn,friable to moderatelystrop 100-104 ; Shale, veLy dark brawn, friable to moderately strong , 104-125 Siltstone/Shale, brown to ve dark brown, friable to moderately strong W a Depths areimate n � m M d a ENGIE (..'N BORING LOGS PROSECT No.:5405.L004.01 FIGURE, NO. I N C o P o A T € GAIN SHALOM DATE: JULY 2003 =CxUZzvr s.Wrvjm snv=zgpz CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALI;ORNZ& DRAYN BY: SRP CHECKED BY; C14 z 1 W o r vi c� I a f � tzi [oma N I t> N Ir) © N uj z DD R i I i. ex z y. j ! €.., kJ L) z �► z _ C M CV0 Ln 11•Y cip- z ell z XM ATI HLdZU r m a 8 n G: UrvFtfig\Oft f?1tJ63\_Dwq 5AU5 ODA\5Ad5tDU401- -Draw4ownafierF�rnp-fiD3.dwq Fa-05-03 t2:3�.32 P1� C15 C16 ___ _ __ ,� `, . '' .Y',1 ' � _ I � - _ . . ; � � _ � � r c�� F t ENGEO INCORPORATED I ► APPENDIX B I Water Level Measurements Pump Test Data Entry Forms ► Theis-Jacob Analyses 1 t i 1 5405.1,004.01 p June 20, 2003 i C18 4y. i NGEO #NCORPORA i EC WATER LEVELS.Lv EA.SUREMENTS FIELD RECORDS Elapsed Estimated Time P-1 P-2 P-3 GSW-1 -1 Time Time Minutes Time days 50-feet 100-feet NE Corner Onsite Offsite DATE } 0 '8:05 .0 14.00 16.90 4.60 13.95 8,25 5/29/2003 p 1 8:05 6.94444E 14.251 15.90 15.45 5/2912003 2 8:07 1.0.001388 1 14.65 16.90 15,90 5/29/2003 i 3 8:08 0.002083 15,00 16.90 16;20 5/29/2003 i 4 L 8:09 0.002777 15,35 16.90 16,50 5/29/2003 5 8:10 0.003472 15.70 16.90 16.80 5/29/2003 6 8:11 0.004166 16,15 16.90 17.00 5/29/2003 i 7 8:12 0.004861 1 16.25 16,90 17.20 5/29/2003 8 8.13 0,005555 L 15.35 16.90 17.40 5/29/2003 9 8:14 0.00625 16.55 16.90 17.50 5/29/2003 10 8:15 0.006944 16.70 16.90 16.70 5/29/2003 12 8:17 0.008333 17,05 16.90 18.00 5/2912003 14 8:19 0.009722 17.35 16.90 18.25 5/29/2003 16 8:21 0.011111 17,60 16.90 18.45 5/29/2003 # 18 8:23 1 0.0125 1 17.85 16,95 18.70 .5/29/2003 20 8:25 0.013888 18.05 16.95 18,95 5129/2003 22 8:27 0,015277 18.30 16.95 19.10 5129/2003 24 8:29 0.016666 18.55 17.00 19.30 5/2912003 26 8:31 0.018055 18.75 17.00 19.50 5/29/2003 28 8:33 0.019444 18.90 17.00 19.65 5/29/20703 36 8:35 0.020833 19.05 17.05 19.80 5/29/2003 35 8:40 0,024305 19.50 17.05 20.20 5129/2003 40 8:45 0.027777 19,85 17.10 20.60 5/29/2003 45 8:50 0.03125 20,20 17.15 20.90 5/29/2003 50 8:55 0.034722 20A5 17.20 21.20 5/29/2003 55 9:00 0.038194 20.80 17.20 21,50 F 5/29/2003 60 9:05 0,041566 -21.10 17.30 21.80 5/29/2003 65 9:10 0.045138 21.35 1735 22.05 5/29/2003 70 .... 9:15- 0.048611 21.607 37.40 22.30 5/29/2003 75 . 9:20 0,052083 21.90 17,45 22,55 5/2912003 80 9:25 0,055555 22.10 17.50 22.80 5/29/2003 85 9:30 0.059027 22,30 17.50 23,00 5/2912003 90 9:35 0.0625 22.55 17,60 23.20 5/29/2003 95 9:40 0,065972 22.75 17,60 23.40 5/29/2003 100 9:45 0.069444 22.95 17.65 23.60 5/29/2003 105 9:50 0.0729.16 23.15 17.75 23.80 5/29/2003 110 E�l :55 0.076388 23.35 17,80 24,00 5129/2003 115 0:00 0,079861 23,50 17,85 24.20 5129/2003 120 0: 0.083333 23,70 17.90 .4.60 24,35 8.25 5/29/2003 5405.1.004.01 June 20, 2003 CIO 1 E/YGEO INCORPORATED Elapsed Estated Time P-�1 P-2 Tim; Time P-3 GSW-1 Vv'-1 Minutes Time days. 50-feet 100-feet NE Comer Onsite Offsite DATE 150 10:35 0.104166 24.75 18.25 25.40 5/29/2003 180 11:05 0.125 25.60 18.50 26.20 5/29/2003 210 11:35 0.145833 26.30 18.80 27.00 5/29/2003 240 12:05 0.166666 27.10 19.10 27.70 5/29/2003 270 12:35 0.1875 27.75 19.40 28.40 5/29/2003 300 13:05 0.208333 28.35 19.70 ► 29.00 5/29/2003 330 13:35 0.229166 28.90 19.95 4.60 29.60 8.25 5/29/2003 360 14:05 0.25 29.40 20.20 4.60 30.10 8.25 5/29/2003 480 16:05 0.333333 31.50 21.25 4.64 32.10 8.25 5129/2003 600 18:05 0.416666 33.10 22.20 4.60 33.75 8.25 5/29/2003 720 20:05 0.5 34.55 23.15 4.60 35.25 8.25 5/29/2003 840 22:05 0.583333 35.85 24.05 4.65 36.50 8.25 5/29/2003 960 0:05 0.666666 36.95 24.85 4.65 37.55 8.25 5/30/2003 1080 2:05 0.75 38.00 25.60 3 4.65 38,60 8.25 5/30/2003 1200 4:05 0.833333 39.05 26.30 4.65 39.70 8.25 5/30/2003 1320 6:05 0.916666 40.05 27.00 4.65 40.70 8.25 5/30/2003 1440 8:05 1 41.05 27.70 4.65 41.70 8.25 5/30/2003 1 1 5405.1.004.01 June 20,2003 Ei C`7fl PUMP TEST DATA ENTRY FORM Client Name: Gan Shalom Inc. Well Number: P2 Test Type: Pump Test_ Project No.: 3405.1,004.01 Topo,Elev.: Weather: Project Name: Gan Shalom Cemetery Analysis By: SM Done By: BF/BJ Date Started: 5/2912003 Notes: BASIC TEST DATA Measurement Us(1-6): 2 0.00. ...............I.--.- .......... ................ Unconfined 1)'Conflned(2): 2 Well Depth-TOC(feet): 125 5.00-- ....... ...... ................................- ................ Static .W/L-Depth(feet): 16.9 10.00 ........................................................................................................... Riser Pipe Diameter(feet): 0.42 Initial Test Depth Value(ft.): 16.9 15.00........ TOC Elevation(feet): 100 II Aquifer to Well Intake Top(ft) 2-0 -'*11. stet*............_............_...... ......... .... Aquifer to Piez.Intake Top(ft): 0.00 + Aq.to Piez,Intake Bottom(ft): 0.00 25.00--.-....... .... .. .................. ........................................ Thickness of Aquifer(feet): 75 Intake/Pack Diameter(feet): 0.67 30,00 Intake/Pack Length(feet): 50 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Saturat. Col.Thickness(ft.): 75 Time Distance to Pumping Well(ft.): 100 uniping Rate(ftA3,LmLm): 1.37 AQUITIR TIME/DRAWDOWN DATA Time(min) qepth(ft.) Time(min) Depth(ft, Time(min) Pep Time(min) D th(ft.) 1 16,90 th �p 2 16.90 3 16.90 4 16.90 5 16,90 6 16.90 7 16.90 8 16.90 9 16.90 10 16.90 12 16.90 14 16.90 16 16.90 18 16.95 20 16.95 22 16.95 24 17.00 26, 17.00 28 17.00 30 17.05 35 17.05 40 17.10 45 17.15 50 17.20 55 17.20 60 17.30 70 17.40 so 17.50 90 17.60, J- Your Company Name Page I C?1 e!w% ..Me TEST DATA ENTRY FORM Client Name: Gan Shalom Inc. Well Number: P2 Test Type:?urn2 Test ProjectNo.: 54051,004,01 Topo.Elev.:_ Weather: Project Name: Gan Shalom Cemetery Analysis By: SM Done By: BFIA- Date Started: 5/29/2003 Notes: BASIC TEST DATA measurement Untts(1-9j: 2 0.00....... .. ........... Unconfined(l)/Confihed2): 2 Well Depth-TOC(feet): 123 .............. ... .... Static WIL-Depth(feet): 16-9 Riser Pipe Diameter(feet): 0.42 '10.00............ ..........- ...... Initial Test Depth Value(ft.): 16.9 TO C Elevation(feet): 15,00 T­­­ ....... ...... .......... 100 Aquifer to Well Intake Top(ft): 0,00 0 20.00 - .............. ....... ............ ....... Aquifer to Piez.Intake Top(ft): y 0,00 Aq.to Piez. Intake Bottom(ft): 0,00 25,00 -— ........ ............ .......... Thickness of Aquifer(feet): —75 + Intaket?ack Diameter(feet): 0,57 30.00 Intake/Pack Length(feet): so 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Saturat. Col.Thickness(ft.): 75 Time Distance to Pumping Well(ft,): 10()= PuMgi:ng_Rate(#A3/min): 1.37J AQUIFE R TME/DRAWDOWN DATA Time min Pepth ft. Time(21L) Depth(ft.) Time min Depth(ft.) TimeP�p (ft-)mi(n nth -) ._ 100 17.65 110 17,80 120 17.90 150 19,25 180— 18.50 `210 18.80 240 1,0,10 270 '19.40 .300 19.70 330 19.95 360 20.20 480 21.25 600-- 22.20 720 23.15 .840 24.05 960 24.85 1080 250 1200 26.30 1320 27.00 1440 27.701 ------- Your Company Name Page 2 C22 Theis' Method for Calculating Storage and Transmissivity Project Name: Can Shalom Cemetery Project No.: 5405.1.004.01 Client Name: Clan Shalom Inc. Run Date: Analysis By: SM' Identification: 100 0.01 - Distance(r): 100 feet Quantity(Q):. 1.37 ft"3/min O,OQOO(A�O '-......:_::•..::... ..e .:.::.....:::.:::- Starting Level: 16.9 feet 1 E-10 =:..:.:_:--- -- Unconf Correct.: N Y or 1 1 -14 ...j............. ........v. Output units: 2 1 to 9 1E-18 ....._.:. :......: :.._...,_... Line Fit Start No.: 2 Min 1 to 1 r=-22 T --- ..._-._..- Line Fit End No.: 34 Max 49 1 E-26 ............ :r_....:':�F:: ----------- Transmissivity: 5.55E-02 ft"2/min. 1E-3d Storage: 1.41E-03 t�r2 Error of Fit:: 0.0315 Meas. Time Field Meas. Drawdown,- V? Predicted Drawdown Weight minutes feet feet feet Factor 1 1.00 16.90 0.00 1.00E-04 0.00 0 2 2.00 16.90 0.00 2.40E-04 0.00 1 3 3.00 16.90 0.00 3.00E-04 0.00 1 4) 4.00 16.90 0.00 4.00E-04 0.00 1 5 5.00 16.90 0.00 5.00E-04 0.00 1 6 6.00 16.10 0.00 6.00E-04 0.00 1 7 7.00 16.90 0.00 7.00E-04 0.00 1 8) 8.00 16.90 0.00 8.00E-04 0.00 1 9)" 9.00 16.90 0.00 9.00E,-04 0.00 1 P10 10.00 16.94 0.00 1.00E-03 0.00 1 11 12.00 16.90 0.00 1.20E-03 0.00 1 1 12 14.00 16.90 0.00 1.40E-03 0.00 1 13 16.00 16.90 0.00 1.60E-03 0.01 1 14 18.00 16.95 0.05 1.80E-03 0.01 1 15 20.00 16.95 0.05 2.00E-03 0.02 1 16) 22.00 16.95 0.05 2.20E-03 0.03 1 17 24..00 17.00 0.10 2.40E-03 0.04 1 18) . 26.00 17.00 0.10 2.60E-03 0.05 1 19 28.00 17.00 0.10 2.80E-03 0.07 1 20 30.00 17.05 0.15 3.00E-03 0.08 1 21 35.00 17.05 0.15 3.50E-03 0.12 1 22 40.00 17.10 0.20 4.00E-03 0.17 1 23) 45.00 17.15 0.25 4.50E-03 0.22 1 24) 50.00 17.20 0.30 5.00E-03 0.28 1 25 55.00 17.20 0.30 5.50E-03 0.33 1 26) 60.00 17.30 0.40 6.00E-03 0.39 1 27). 70.00 17.40 0.50 .7.00E-03 0.50 1 r 28 80.00 17.50 0.60 8.00E-03 0.62 1 29) 90.00 17.60 0.70 9.OflE-03 0.73 1 30 100.00 17.65 0.75 lOO&O2 '0.83 1 31 110.00 .17.80 0.90 1.10E-02 0.93 1 32 120.00 17.90 1.00 1.20E-02 1.03 1 Bear Creek P-2 Page 1 C23 Er E33) 150.00 18.25 1.35 1.50E-02 1.31 1 33 180.00 18.50 1.60 . 1.80E-02 1.55 1 35 210.00 18.80 1.90 2.10E-02 1.77 1 36 240.00 19.10 2.20 2.40E-02 1.96 1 37 270.00 19.40 .2.50 2.70E-02 2.15 1 P40 300.00 19.70 2.80 3.00E,-02 2.31 1 330.00 19.95 105 3.30E-02 2.46 1 360.00 20.20 3.30 3.50E-02 2.61 1 480.00 21.25 4.35 4,80E-02 3.09 1 500.00 22.20 5.30 6.00E-02 3.48 1 43) 720.00 23.15 6.25 7.20E-02 3.81 1 44) 840.00 24.05 7.15 8.40E-02 4.09 1 45 960.00 24.85 7.95 9.60E-02 4.33 1 46) 1080.00 25.60 8.70 1 1.08E-01 4.55 1 47} 1200.00 26.30 9.40 1.20E-01 4.74 1 48) 1320.00 27.00 10.10_ 1,32E.-01 4.92 1 491 1440.00 .27.70 10.80 1.44E-01 5,08 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bear Creek P-2 Page 2 C24 r i i J-acWs Method for Calculating Storage and Transmissivity Project Name: Gan Shalom Cemetery Project No.. 5405.t.004.01 Client Name: Gan Shalom Inc. Run Date: Analysis By: SM Identification: P2 ;l i Radius(r). 100 feet 2 Starting Level: 16.9 feet 4 '' '. Pump Rate: 1.37 ftn 3/min Partial al Pene#aticon: N 'Sy.or N _1-1--1._ . "i Specify Output Units: 2 Ito 9 -- Unconfined Correct.: N YorNit Line Fit start N0. 8 Min 1 to � Line Fit End No.. 19 Max 49 12 Transmissivity: 1.22E+00 ft''2/rein. 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Storage: 2.87E-03 Time .Error of Fit 0.0045 Tze1 Mets 13tzaw p clatect 73rwcicr�un LT Vue 04, 1)1 1.00 15.90 0.00 -0.21 0.05 2)1 2.00 16.90 0.00 -0.15 Min.T for U<0.05: 3)1 3.00 16.90 0.00 -0.11 117.87 4)1 4.00 16.90 0.00 -0.09 minutes 5) 5.00 16.90 0.00 -0.07 6 6.00 16.90 0.00 -0.05 7 7.00 16.90 0.00 -0.04 8 8.00 16.90 0.00 -0.02 9 9.00 16.90 0.00 -0.01 10 10.00 16.90 0.00 0.00 11 12.00 16.90 0.00 0.01 12 14.010 15.90 0.00 0.03 13) 16.00 16.90 0.00 0.04 14 18.00 16:95 0.05 0.05 15 20.00 16.95 0.05 0.06 1§)- 22.00 16.95 0.05 17) 24.00 17.00 0.10 0.07 18 25.00 17.00 0.10 0.08 19 28.00 17.00 0.10 0.09 20 . 30.0.0 17.05' 0.15 0.09 21 35.00 17.05 0.15 0.11 22). 40.00 17.10 0.20 0.12 23) 45.00 17.15 0.25 0.13 24 50.00 17.20 0.30 0.14 25 55.00 17.20 07.30 0.15 26 60.00 17.30 0.40 0.16 27 70.00 17.40 0.50 0.17 28 80.00 17.50 0.60 0.18 29 90.00 17.60 0.70 0.19 30) 100.00 17.65 0.75 0.20 31) 110.00 17.80 0.90 0.21 R32 1207.00 17.90 1.00 0.22 33) 150.00 18.25 1.35 0.24 34) 180.00 18.50 1.60 0.25 35 210.00 18.80 1..90 0.27 Bear Creek P-2 Page 1 C'25 36 240.00 19.10 2.20 0.28 7) 270.00--- 19.40 2.50 0.29 38 300.00 19.70 2.80 0.30 39 330.00 1995 3.05 0.31 40) 360.00 20.20 3.30 0.32 41 480.00 21.25 4.35 0.34 42 600.00 22.20 5.30 0.36 43) 720.00 23.15 6.25 0.38 44 840.00 24.05 7.15 0.39 45) 960.00 24:85 7.95 0.40 46 1080.00 25.60 8.70 0.41 47 1200.00 25.30 9.40 0.42 48 1320.00 27.00 10.10 0.43 49) 1440.00 27.70 10.80 0.44 Bear Creek P-2 Patze 2 p W ........... PUMP TEST DATA ENTRY FORM Client Name: Gan Shalom Inc. Well Number` PI Test Type: Pump Test Project No.: 5405.1.004,01 Topo.Elev.: Weather-, Project Name: Gan Shalom Cemetery Analysis By: SM Done By: BF/B3 Date Started: 5129/2003 Notes: BASIC TEST DATA Measurement Units(1-95: 1 0.00 ......................._.............................. ............... ....... Unconfined(l)/ConfinedL2): 2 SM ........... ... ......... .................. Well Depth-TUC(feet): 125 10.00 .......... ......... Static WIL-Depth(feet): 14 Riser Pipe Diameter(feet): 0-42 15.00 - .......................... ........... Initial Test Depth Value(ft.): 14 b 20,00- ... .......... ..... ..... .... .. ....... . .............. TOC Elevation(feet): 100 25.00 ........................ Aquifer to Well Intake Top(ft): 0.00 30.00..........__..s.�** .....+................................._.............................. Aquifer to Piez. Intake Top(ft): 0.00 35.00 .. ................ . . Aq.to Piez.Intake Bottom(ft): 0.00 *. .............................. ...... ........ Thickness of Aquifer(feet): 75 40.00 ................. Intake/Pack Diameter(feet): 0.15 45.00 Intake/Pack Length(feet): so 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Saturat. Col. Thickness(ft.): 75 Time Distance to Pumping Well(ft.), 50 Pum'ing-Rate(*'13/mi.�� : 1.37 AQUEFER TRYIE/DRAWDOWN DATA Time min _Pepth(ft-) Time(min) Depth(ft.L- Time(min) _Depth ft. Time(rain De th ft. 1 14.25 2 14.65 3 15.00 4 15.35 5 15.70 6 16.15 7 16'.25 8 16.35 9 16.55 10 16.70 12 17.05 14 17.35 16 17,60 18 17.85 20 18.05 -22 18,30 24 18.55 26 18.75 28 18.90 30 19.05 35 19.5 .40 19.95 45 20.2 50 20.45 55 20.8 60 21.35 70 21.6 so 22.1 90 22.55 Your Company Name Page I C27 P°L'`W TEST DATA ENTRY FORM Client Name: CanShalom.Inc. melt Number: P I Test Type: Pump Test Project No.: 5405.1.004.01 Topo.Elev.: Weather: Project Name: Can Shalom Cemetery Analysis By: 'SM Done By: BP/1K Date Started: 5/29/2003 Notes: BASIC TEST DATA easurement ME(1-6): l 0. ..................................................................._.........__................................. .� Unconfined 1 Confined 2 : 2 5.00 ..........:..................................................:..................................._....._...........� Well Dept o TOC(feet): 125 10.00 Static WILD th.(feet). 14 Riser Pipe Diameter(feet): 0.42 15.00• ............_...................................................................... ..:........ , Initial Test Depth Value(ft.): 14 b 20.00 ,�................._..........................., ..............._.......... r TUC Elevation(feet): 100 m 25.00 +*t...................................................._......_.. ................ .................... R Aquifer to Well lntake'To 0.00 o ..........*S......................................f.... ........_........ .................... ............. _.! P�)� 30.00 I Aquifer to Piez.Intake Top(ft): 0.00 ` + 35.00 . .......................................+..............!.............._._..............:,....................... b Aq.to Piet.Intake Bottom(ft): 0.00 + + + ! Thickness of Aquifer/feet): 7.5 40.00 ......................................... �..........+...+....*..... Intake/Pack Diameter(feet): 0.15 45.00 ! Intake/Pack Length(feet): 50 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Saturat. Cot. Thickness(ft.): 75 DistaPumping nce to wdll(ft.): 50 Time PuMmg Rate(ft'3/min): 1.37 1 AQUI FER TME/DRkWDOWN DATA Time min Depth ft. Time(min) Depth(ft.) Time(min) Depth ftTime(min De th ft. 100 22.95 110 23.35 120 23.7 I50 24.75 180 25.6 210 26.3 249 27.1 270 27.75 300 28.35 330 28.9 360 29.4 480 31.5 600 33.1 720 34.55 840 35.85 960 36.95 1080 38 1200 39.05 /320 40.05 1440 41.05 Your"Company Name Page 2 Theb" Method for Calculating Storage and Transmis ivity Project Name: Gan Shalom Cemetery Project No.: 5405:1.004.01 Cl,ient..Name. Gran.Shalom.Inc. 12xin_L te:. Analysis By: SM Identification: 00 = _ - ._... 50 feet . 10 Quantity(Q: 1.37 ft^3/min H_....:..... ::.::.:. z x..-..._....: Starting Level: 14feet ° Unconl Correct.: 2+i Y or N e:�-- - ....... = -' -------- Output Units: 2 1 t09 ` n 1 to ....... ................. ...:........... Line Fit Start No 2 M - ------------- --- ----------- Line Fit End No.: 34 Max 49 0.01 Transrnissivity: 3.46E-02 ft^21min, 0.0001 0,001 0.01 01 Storage: 1:S9E.04 �,rr Error of Fit: 0.3397 fleas. Tim-, Field Deas. Drawdown t/r, Predicted Drawdown Weight minutes feet feet feet Factor 1 1.00 14.25 0.25 4.00E-04 0.02 0 2 2.00 14.65 0.65 8.00E-04 0.23 1 3 3.00 15.00 1.00 1.20E-03 0.55 1 4)1 4.00 15.35 1.35 1.60E-03 0-89 I 5 5.00 15.70 1.70 2.00E-03 -1.22 1 6 6.00 16.15 2.15 2.40E-03 1.52 i 7)1 7.00 16.25 2.2.5 2.80E-03 1.81 1 1 8 8.00 16,35 2.35 3.20E-03 2.08 1 9) 9.00 16.55 2.55 3,60E-03 2.32 1 IO 10.00 16.70 2.70 4.00E-03 2.56 1 I1 12.00 17.05 3.05 4.80E-03 2.98 1 12) 14.00 17.35 335 5.60E-03 3.35 1 13 16.00 17.60 3.50 6.40E-03 3.68 1 14) 18.00 17.85 . 3.85 7.20E-03 3.99 1 15) 20.00 18.05 4.05 1 8.00E.-03 4.27 1 16 22.00 18.30 4.30 8.80E-03 4.52 1 17 24.00 18.55 4.55 9.60E-03 4.76 1 I8 26.00 18.75 .4.75 1.04E-02 4.99 1 19) 28:00 18.90 4.90 1.12E-02 5..18 1 20 _ 30,00 19.05 5.05 1.20E-02 5.38 1 21 35.00 19.50 5.50 1 1.40E-02 5.81 1 22)1 40.00 19.85 5.85 1 1.60E-02 6.20 1 23 45.00 20.20 6.20' 1.80E-02 6.54 1 24 50.00 20.45 6.45 2.00E-02 6.85 1 25 55.00 .- 20.80 6.80 2.20E-02 7.13 1 26) 60.00 21.35 7.35 2.40E-02 7.39 i 2 70.00 21.60 7.60 2.80E-02 7.85 1 28) 80.00 22.10 8.10 3.20E-02 . 8.25 1 ! 29) 90.00 22.55 8.55 3 kOE-02 8.61 1 301 100,00 22.95 8.95 4.00E-02 8.93 1 311 110.00 23.35 9,35 4.40E-02 9.22 1 32 120.00 23.70 9-70 4,80E-02 9.49 1 } Your Company Name rage.1 } 33 150.00 24.75 10.75 5.00E-02 10.17 1 1 341 180.00 25.60 11.50 7.20E-02 10.73 1 __351 210.00 25.30 12.30 8.40E-02 11.21 1 36 240.00 27.10 13.10 9.50E-02 11.53 1 37 270.00 27.75 13,75 1.08E-01 11.99 1 L_�3Lgj 300.00 . 28.35 14.35 1.20E-01 12.32 1 3 330.00 28.90 14.90 1.32E-01 12.52 1 4 350.00 29.40 15.40 1.44E-01 12.89 1 40j1)- 480.00 31.50 17.50 1.92E-01 13.79 1 421 600.00 33.10 19.10 2.40E-01 14.49 1 431 720.00 34.55 20.55 2.88E-01 15.06 1 44 840.00 35.85 21.85 3.36E-01 15.54 1 45) 950,00 35.95 22.95 3.84E-01 15.95 . 1 46 1080.00 38.00 24.00 4.32E-01 15.33 1 47 1200.00 39.05 25.05 4.80E-01 15.65 1 48 1320.00 40.05 26.05 5.28E-01 15.95 1 491 1440.00 41.05 27.05 5.75E-01 17.24 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 b y 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 . 1 1 1 Your Company Name Page 2 Jacob"s Method for Calculating Storage and'�-ransmissivity Project Name- Gan Shalom Cemetery Project No.: 5405.1,004.01 Client Name: Cyan. Shalom Inc. Run Date: Analysis By: SM Identification. P 1 0 ,.,, _ Radius(r). 50 feet .1,+ cam} 1 - `: rt9F -•t•F-'',"t. 1tt Starting Level: 14 feet Pump Rate: 1.37 ft^3/min 10 Parc a1 s�'v*i4`'vfatiit^ri'�: `i Or 14 Specify C7utput Units: 1 to 9 f Unconfined Correct.: N Y or N 20 - ..* .}.._ Line Fit Start No.: 8 iviin 1 to Line Fit End No.: 19 Max 49 30 1 1 :14 Transrnissivity: 5.33E-02 ft^2/min. 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Storage: 1.27E-04 Time Error of Fit: 0.0481 Meas. Time Field Meas. Drawdown Calculated Drawdown Specify U Value 9 minutes feet feet feet for min.. time 1) 1.00 14.25 0.25 -1.99 0.05 2) 2.00 14.65 0.65 -0.58 Min, T for U<0.05: 3 3.00 15.00 1,00 0:25 29.83 4 4.00 15.35 1.35 0.84 minutes 5) 5.00 15.70 1.70 1.30 6) 6.00 16.15 2.15 1.67 7), 7.00 16.25 2.25 1.98 8- 8.00 16.35 2.35 2.26 9) 9,00 16,55 2.55 2.50 10) 10,00 16.70 2.70 2.71 11 12.00 17.05 3.05 3.09 12) 14.00 - 17.35 3.35 3.40 13 16.00 17.60 3.60 3.68 14) 18.00 17.85 3.85 3.92 15) 20.00 18.Q5 4.05 4.13 16 22.00 18.30 4.30 4.33 17 24.00 18.55 4.55 4.50 18 26.00 18.75 4.75 4.67 19 28.00 18.90• 4.90 4.82 20 30.00 19.05 -5.05 4..96 21 35.00 19.50- 5.50 5.28 22) 40.00 19.85 _ 5.85 5.55 23 45.00 20.20 6.20 5.79 24 50.00 20.45 6.45 6.00, 25)1 55.00 20.80 6.80 6.20 s 26 60.00 21.35 7.35 6.38 27 70.00' 21.60 7.60 6.69 28 80.00 22.10 8.10 6.97 29 90.00 22.55 8:55 7.21 30 100.00 22.95 8.95 7.42 } 31 110.00 23.35 9.35 7,62 R 32 120.00 23.70 9.70 7,80 s 33 150.00 24.75 10.75 8.25 34) 180.00 25.60 11.60 8.62 35) 210.00 26.30 12.30 8.94 Your Company Name Here Page 1 1 36 240.00 27.10 13.10 9.21 37) 270.00 27.75 13.75 9.45 38 300.00 28.35 14.35 9:67 39) 330.00 28:90 14.90 9:96 40), 360.00 29.40 15.40 10.04 41 480,00 31.50 17,50 10.63 42 600.00 33.10 19.10 11.09 43) 720.00 34,55 20.55 11.46 44 840.00 35.85 21.85 11.77 45 .960.00 36.95 22.95 12.05 46 1080.00 38.00 24.00 12.29 47 1200,00 39.05 25.05 12.50 48 1320.00 40.05 26.05 12.70 49), 1440,00 41.05 27.05 12.88 i LO t i 1 "Your Company Nacre Dere page 2 A- AQUIFER RECOVERY TEST DATA ENTRY FORTNI Client Name: Gan Shalom Inc Well Number: GSW-1 Test Type: Recovery Test Prnjact NO - Topn F.lev- Weather- Project'Name: -Analysis By: SM Date Started: 5/30/2003 BASIC TEST DATA Nleasurement Units % 0.00 ........... ................. Unconfined(l',YConfined(2).- 2 5.00 .............................. ........... ............... WellDepth-TOC(feet): 125 14.4a ..............................................................._......._.............+.........__...._.__......_ 13.955 00....................... .... ... ............... Riser Pipe Diameter(feet): 0.42 a 20.00 .......... .......... .......... ................. Initial Depth Value(feet): 41.75 25.00--.-... ............................................. .............. C,V,e a-Ui o n et, vv u 30.00 ........................... .............. . ..... .... ... ....... Intake/Pack Diameter(feet): 4.67 35.00 ..................... Depth to Top of Pack(feet): 50 00 ............... ......... Pac1w-'L.nta11,-e Length 75 40. Saturated Aqu.Thickness(ft.): 75, 45.00 Distance to Pumping Well(ft.): 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 P Time ,ate AMA 13�7 tit 311in-dr0y Pum in Duration min.): 1440 AQUEFER RECOVERY DATA Time shin Dep6(ft.)_ Time(t*) _De th_( Time min Depth, _(ft.) Time{min De th(ft.) 1 40.30 2 39.80 3 39.45 4 39.20 5 39.95 6 38.80 38.65 8 38..50 9 38.35 10 38.20 12 39.05 14 37.95 16 37.70 18 37.55 20 37.45 22 37.35 24 37.20 26 37.10 28 37,00 30 36.90 35 36.70 40 36.50 45 36.30 50 36.15 55 35.95 60 35.80 65 35.60 701 35.45 i 751 _35.301__ Your Company Name Page 1 AQUIFER RECOVERY TEST DATA ENTRY FORM Client Name: Gan Shalom Inc Well Number: GSW-l— Test Type:jec:�very Fest . prn p.&No Tann Rev- Weather Prosect Name: Analysis BY: SM Date Started: 5/30/2003 BASIC TEST DATA '1 0.00-- ........... lMeasureme.—a-Units k -6): ....... Unconfined(l)/Cqg,n (2): —2 5.00 -- ....... ...................- Well Depth-TOC(feet): 125 10.00 - ...... S'—dc A L-Dep4d' 13. 5 15,00 ................... ............ ...............- Kiser Pipe Diameter(feet): 0,42 20.00 - -.-........... .. . ................. Initial Depth Value(feet): 41.7 — 25.00 . ............. ............ ................ TOC Elevedon k111ev1vj-. I^ I VO---- 30.00 ......................... .......... .......... Intake/Pack Diameter(feet): 0.67 35.00 ....... ..... Depth to Top of Pack(feet), 50 P -1-IT T 'f 40,00 al.All Intake Lenvh 11,eet)- 7 51 ... ....... Saturated Aqu. Thickness(ft.): 75 45.00 Distance to Pumping Well(ft.): 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Pumping Rate(.ft— min\. I Ti." 1.3'17 PHMpm Duration(mug. : 1440 AQUITER RECOVERY DATA Time(rnin) DTjh_(ft.) Dqth_(ft,)' Time nein De th ft. Time(min De th(fl so 35.20 95 35,05 90 34.90 95 34.90 100 34.65 105 34.55 .110 34.45 115 34.35 120 34.20 1440 24,35 It Your Company Name Page 2 9-371�— _ 1111 _ --_ ,,�. .,, . . p .. 1 ., ,_ r . • y -.. . } 1 I .. - - fV NGEO INCORPORATED "PENDIX C Maximum Radius of Influence Calculated P t 1 M 5405.1.004.01 June 20, 2003 M M �r EEO INCORPORATED MAMMUVI RADIUS OF INFLUENCE We have calculated the theoretical maxinjum radius of influence from the pumping of Well GWS-1, using Cooper and Jacob modification of the Theis equation as follows _ 2640' 0.3T"t S log r 2 a 0 where s is equal to the maximum avaliable drawdown in feet, Q is equal to the discharge in gpm, T is equal to the transrnissivity in gpolft, t is equal to the time in days, r• is equal to the radius from the well in feet, and S is equal to the storativity which is dimensionless. By rewriting the equation to solve for r, and assuming a neglible "s" value of 0.1 feet, then an approximation of the distance from Well GSW-1 where no drawdown will occur at a pumping rate of 10 gpm for a realistic period of 24 hours (one day) can be calculated as follows: 0.3Tt Slog-1 -sr -- 1264Q] Using a conservative value of T of 373 gpdift and an average value of S of 0.00114 as presented in Table I. 1 r-- (0.3)(373)(1) 308 ft 0.00141og" 1 (.l)(373) (264)(10) Therefore, the pumping of GSW-1 at the `safe" yield of 10 gpnn for a period of 24 hours will cause measurable drawdown only in neighboring wells located within a 308-foot radius. 5405.1.004.01 June 20, 2003 _ r�� CIR 9x EO x GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS NCO R P O RATED MATERIALS TESTING Project No. 5405.1.003.01 February 19,2003 Mr. Shalom Eliahu Gan Shalom 3315 Mage Coach Drive Lafayette,CA 94549 Subject: Gan Shalom Cemetery 83-Acre Parcel -Bear Creek&Hampton Roads Contra Costa County,California HYDROGEOLOGIC DISCUSSION OF GROUNDWATER ISSUES Reference: dk Associates;Civil Engineering Report,Gan Shalom,Contra Costa County, California; October 16,2002. Dear Mr.Eliahu: We have prepared this letter to respond to agency and public concerns relating to potential groundwater impacts to nearby groundwater supply wells from the use of the groundwater for the proposed cemetery project. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located south of the intersection of Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road in Contra Costa County (.Figure 1). The majority of the proposed development area is relatively level, with elevations rising from approximately 410 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the northwestern corner of the property to approximately 440 feet above msl towards the northeastern part of the property. A prominent Swale, gently dipping northerly, is positioned in the middle at the southern part of the property. The swale is bounded on the east and west by ridges with maximum elevations of 760 feet and 720 feet above msl, respectively. An existing groundwater well is located at the southem end of the Swale at an elevation of approximately 510 feet above msl. Most of the approximately. 83-acre site is covered with native grasses on the low-lying elevations, with trees present along the .foothills and ridges of the property. PROTECTED WATER.REQUIREMENTS The projected irrigation program for the proposed cemetery requires watering twice a week at a rate of 12,000 gallons per acre per weep during summer months, as presented in the Civil Engineer's report of October 16, 2002. This irrigation program will be substantially reduced during the winter months. 2401 Croce Canyon Road•Suite 200•San.Ramon,CA 94583-1545 • (925)838-1600•Pax(925)838-7425 t+,-171 qT�'P»aQta��R(�P»ban^nm s tnrs.V2nT r3»t*on rnrn Gan Shalom 5405.1.003.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery February 19,2003 HYDROGEOLOGIC DISCUSSION OF GROUNDWATER ISSUES Page 2 The maximum area to be irrigated for the first phase of the project is approximately 5 acres. The completion time for the first phase of the project is approximately 25 years. Estimated total water required for phase one of the project, as calculated by multiplying 5 acres by 12,000 gallons per week per acre, equates to 60,000 gallons per week for the 5 acres. With controlled irrigation, this requirement may be reduced by 30 to 50 %, and the water needs can be reduced to 30,000 to 4.2,000 gallons per week. GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY /according to the pump test performed by Pacific West Well and Pump Co., attached, the production of the water flow was reported at 22.5 gallons per minute, equating to 227,000 gallons per week. The calculated water availability, derived from the 4-hour pump test, is more than 3.5 times the total water required per week for the entire phase one of the project. PRESENT CONCERNS The present concerns focus on potential reductions in groundwater availability to existing groundwater wells on adjacent and nearby properties from.the use of the groundwater supply well at the subject property. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS In response to the present concerns, the applicant has subcontracted landscaping and irrigation consultants to design irrigation systems that will significantly reduce water consumption. To date, two methods of water conservation are being sought after by the applicant. The methods in water use reduction are a weather-related water application system and the construction of an irrigation recycling system. Water Application System A weather-related irrigation application system can potentially reduce water consumption by 30 to 50 percent. This system utilizes an onsite weather station that is able to adjust irrigation cycles on a daily basis, The system monitors the evapotranspiration and applies the precise amount of irrigation. The system is also designed to manage the flow of water in the entire system and immediately react to problems such as broken sprinklers and/or water lines or other problems that result in the loss of water. • Irrigation.recycling System The irrigation recycling system, is designed to recover and reuse water from irrigation that has infiltrated the upper 18 inches of ground cover. The system consists of a series of subterranean irrigation collection systems that drain to designated sump locations. The water collected in the sump locations is pumped to a separate holding tank for reuse. C"40 Gan Shalom 5405.1.003.01 Cann Shalom Cemetery February 19,2003 HYDROGEOLOGIC DISCUSSION OF GROUNDWATER ISSUES Page 3 SURFACE WATERSHEDS The subject property is bounded on the north by Pinole Creek, which is set in a predominant valley trending southeast to northwest(Figure 1). Pinole Creek is a primary water shed with several annual and seasonal tributaries flowing to the creek. A secondary valley, trending approximately northward with a tributary to Pinole Creek, bounds the western part of the property. The property contains an approximately northerly trending swale containing a seasonally flowing tributary to Pinole Creek. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The bedrock formations underlying the site vicinity are mapped as marine sediments of Miocene age (Graymer, 1996,Wagner 1967, and Crane 19 88)with the Monterey Formation and San Pablo Group. The rocks in the site vicinity have conformable contacts, generally trend northwesterly, and have been folded such that the bedrock layers (bedding) are generally inclined at angles of 30 to 35 degrees northeastward from the horizontal. As depicted by Crane (1988), the Monterey Formation, in the site vicinity, consists of the following members: Tice Shale, Hambre Sandstone, and the Rodeo Shale, listed from oldest to youngest with conformable contacts as shown on Figure 3B. The Tice Shale member consists of "crudely bedded shale" (Bowen 1951). The Hambre Sandstone member consists of "massive, well-sorted, fine-grained, feldspathic sandstones [with interbedded] dense yellow limestones [and] interbedded massive claystones" (Wagner 1967). The Rodeo Shale member consists of "shale beds that are locally silicieous...[interbedded with] fine feldspathic sandstones and dense yellow limestone(Wagner 1967). The San Pablo Group in the site vicinity rests conformably on the Monterey Formation. The Hriones Formation overlies the Hambre and underlies the Cierbo Formation. The Briones and Cierbo Fon-nations are similar and generally consist of fine to coarse-grained sandstones, interbedded with shale and conglomerate (Wagner 1967). It is likely that the Rodeo Shale acts as a groundwater barrier from water-bearing strata on the north and south sides of the Rodeo Shale unit. Although the Hambre Sandstone unit is shown laterally continuous, trending northwest, forming the ridges south of Pinole Creek, it is our opinion that given localized fracturing and interbedded mudstone units within the Hambre Sandstone, that groundwater aquifers are not continuous laterally. Therefore, we do not anticipate, based on the geologic conditions of the site vicinity that the projected groundwater usage at the subject site to adversely affect nearby groundwater supply wells. GROUNDWATER Groundwater in the site vicinity is likely contained within shallow unconsolidated stream deposits and in the pores and fractures of bedrock aquifers. From discussions with well drillers, property owners, and county personnel, we have been informed that successful groundwater supply wells are rare within the site vicinity, and seldom achieved without laborious efforts. Given this information, it is likely that the bedrock aquifers probably consist of very complex and internally compartmented systems of fractures separated by impermeable zones. The impermeable zones are likely formed by C41 Gan Shalom 5405.1.003.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery February 19,2003 H'Y'DROGEOLOGIC DISCUSSION OF GROUNDWATER.ISSUES Page 4 faults or clay-rich beds that impede horizontal and vertical groundwater movement, as illustrated on Cross-Section A-A'. We have attempted to access groundwater supply well records from county and state personnel for wells located on nearby properties to compare groundwater conditions and underlying strata to the subject property. Due to the lack of existing records and confidentiality issues, we were unable to review other well data. However, experience with groundwater explorations for domestic wells in the greater project area has shown that shallow groundwater is commonly residing in "perched," localized aquifers and movement between aquifers is typically very slow due to the low permeabilities. Although we have not reviewed details of nearby water supply wells,it is likely that nearby wells are tapped into aquifers in unconsolidated stream sediments or in shallow, compartmented bedrock aquifers. This may be the reason why some property owners complain of reduced capacity of the wells during a drought year;it could be they are tapping in a small compartment of bedrock aquifer. CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion, given the geological conditions within the site vicinity, the estimated water requirements, and groundwater availability, that full irrigation for phase one of the proposed cemetery from the existing groundwater supply well at the subject property will not impact groundwater availability for existing groundwater wells on adjacent and/or nearby properties. The effect of pumping groundwater from domestic wells in shallow surface aquifers or from compartmented bedrock aquifers is limited in lateral extent as illustrated on Cross-Section A-A'. The conclusion is based on standard interpretations of publicly available geologic maps and on an understanding of basic geologic and hydrogeologic concepts as generally applied by geoseientists practicing in the Bay Area. We are pleased to be of service to you on this project and will continue to consult with you and your design team as project planning progresses. Very truly yours, ENGEO INCORPORATED Reviewed by: Bill Fagundes,Geologist Shawn Munger, CHG pjsikc:gmdwtr Attachments: Selected References Figures C42 _. EAGEO INCORPORATED SELECTED REFERENCES Bowen, O..E. Jr., 1951 Highways and Byways of Particular Geologic Interests, Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties,Division of Dines Bulletin 154,Page 341. Califon-.a Department of Conservation, 1996, California Fault Parameters, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-08. Crane, R., 1995x, Geology of the Mount Diablo Region, in Geology of the Mount Diablo Region Guidebook,Northern California Geological Society, Graymer,R. W. et al., 1994,Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County:United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 94--622, Wagner, J.R., 1967, Late Cenozoic History of the Coast Ranges East of San Francisco Bay, Dissertation to the University of California,Berkeley. V6'GEP 1999, Earthquake Probabilities in San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030-A Sumnraiy of Findings, Open-File Report 99-517. 5405.1.003.01 February 19,2003 4 , �*� WFA a , ll 1 fraym LIMJp k! rr +�"+""', tt /` `F� ltca # 4 rwY �N d l r"J �•� ,�%�R�h,}�ti�}�`� rrrfL �k`�''F� f w ..j.��� r ♦ "a 'tF'J & W, MCI �� Fes. f 'i IIIc c4r wJ►� iSS. 't1�171f �aES�( fr1 �1 b f111 1 ee MI I SUE VICINrrY MAP FROJECT NO.:5Q5.1.003.01 MOVEMAP-1 BEAR CREEK PROPERTY D- 1! CONTRA iSTA COLWTY,CALIFORIMA 1 t SITE Ae ,s ... �' I � �.i.. s raj sf.: ,�... r"lJ...^..r-�i"•'��r� 9 : . m M, ._.�,•+ .SS s�.. �} �� fir, •^ •�! •.f � ?+8[w.Y.-. �2.w i't + M�i s's}1 t� fA � �V ✓ t .YI 4 �r e n .,. �>t .•'.it 4'i42t� 5 W a ti ---- BEDROCK CONTACT-DASHED WHERE TFC; UPPER MIOCENE GRADATIONAL OR APPROXIMATELY LOCATED Z TC CIERBO FORMATION -_-.. FAULT-DASHED WHERE INFERRED, DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED, QUERIED TB BRIONES FORMATION WHERE EXISTENCE IS DOUBTFUL DOUBLE ARROWS INDICATE Th HOMBRE SANDS AND SILTS o STRIKE-SLIP MOVEMENT u UPTHROWN SIDE Tc TICE SHALE CD DOWNTHROWN SIDE RELATIVELY STRIIM AiVD DIP OF STRATA AXIS OF FOLD ,Y INCLINED VERTICAL „�" OVERTURNED x -— -— ANTICLINE + - + - SYNCLINE 0 a w BASE MAP SOURCE CRANE, 1988 a CRASS SECTION LOCATIONSPROJECT NO.:5405.1.003.01 FIGURE NO, EN E 3 N Ro A t DBEAR CREEK PROPERTY DATE; MRUAR`Y 2003 =CZUZNT MoTrIcz sixes 197.1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA. DRkV 3 BY; SRP imcm By .2— ¥#g . ! ) $ \ � om.� ° o� ) ° 9 \ � . Fd 2 \ \ § \ ( -u ® \) � { . � » _ 2 � k\ § 3 . R � . # �a ®— . I O � _ 6 biro L• m 0 b d w me Y ' t mug I !. r yr. C") ZLEVATfON.N FEE,, O �4R I-.. ..... ..::. .11.11 _ _ _ _ ..... ...__ ............ .......... ...... ....... ....... .... . ....... .... 1.11.1 . 11.11 1 1,1 APPEND 11 �r 1..- . i .:I ,. , --, - , _ 11 .. ......... ._...._.. .. 1 1.11 . ._. _... __.. . . _. ...... . ENGEO GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS I N C 0 R R O R A T E D MATERIALS TESTING Project No. 5405.1.004.01 September 22, 2003 Mr. Frank Winer Gan Shalom 3315 Stage Coach Drive Lafayette, CA 94549 Subject: Gan Shalom Cemetery Bear Creek and Hampton Roads Contra Costa County, California PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND MITIGATION PROGRAM References: ENIGEO Inc.; Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis; Gan Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California; June 20, 2003: Project No. 5405.1.004.01. S.S. Papadopulos & Associates; Comments on Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis; September 4,2003. ENGEO Inc.; Response to SSP&A Comments; Gan Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California; September 25, 2003: Project No. 5405.1.004.01. Dear Mr. Winer: ENGEO Incorporated is pleased to provide this letter outlining a proposed groundwater monitoring and mitigation program for the subject site. The purpose of the monitoring and mitigation program is to address the concerns presented by the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance (BHPA). The BHPA and their hydrogeologic consultant, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates (SSP&A), expressed concerns regarding proposed groundwater pumping at the subject site and the potential impact to off-site wells. They also questioned if there would be enough water from the pumping well to support cemetery irrigation needs. INTRODUCTION The projected irrigation program for the proposed cemetery requires watering at a rate of 12,000 gallons per acre per week during summer months, as presented in the Civil Engineer's report of October 16, 2002, before reduction through use of the weather-monitoring system described below. This irrigation program will be substantially reduced during the winter months, 2461 Crow Canyon Road*Suite 200*San Ramon,CA 94583-1545 • (925)838-1600+Pax(925)838-7425 E-mail:engstaftengeo.com a www.engeo.com n� Clan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery September 22, 2003 PROPOSED.GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND MITIGATION Page 2 PROGRAM Estimated total water required for phase one of the project, is calculated by multiplying 5 acres by 12,000 gallons per week per acre, equates to a worst-case demand of 60,000 gallons per week for the full 5 acres. Actual water need will start much lower and increase gradually as the first phase is developed. We understand the first phase will require 25 years for buildout. A weather-related irrigation application system is planned for the site. This system can reduce water consumption by 30 to 50 percent. This system utilizes an on-site weather station that is able to adjust irrigation cycles on a daily basis. The system monitors evapotranspiration and applies the appropriate volume of irrigation water. The system is also designed to manage the flow of water in the entire system and immediately react to problems such as broken sprinklers and/or water lines or other problems that result in the loss of water. Such a system is currently in operation at the Roddy Ranch golf course development in Antioch, California. With controlled irrigation, the water requirements will be reduced by 30 to 50 percent, and the water needs can be reduced to 6,000-8,400 gallons per week per acre (only 30,000-42,000 gallons per week at full buildout of the five acres). A groundwater pumping evaluation was conducted by ENGEO in May 2003. The evaluation included a 24-hour pump test of existing well GSW-1, with measurement of drawdown at distances of 50 and 100 feet. Results of the evaluation indicate the underlying aquifer can sustain a rate of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) without excessive drawdown. This indicates an available yield in excess of 100,000 gallons per week, which is 2 to 3 times the expected demand of the first phase of the project. Calculations provided in the referenced June 2003 report indicate a theoretical maximum radius of influence of 308 feet for GSW-1, at a pumping rate of 10 gpm. In ether words, the water level beyond a radius of 308 feet would not be impacted by continuous pumping at 10 gpm. However, SSP&A questions this conclusion, and BHPA asks for assurance that no neighboring wells will be adversely affected by the cemetery's pumping. MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLAN We propose a monitoring and mitigation plan that will provide a"sentry" approach to evaluating potential overdraft of the local aquifer. The program includes the fallowing components: Well Monitoring One monitoring well currently exists at a distance of 1200 feet (P3) from the pumping well GSW-1. An additional monitoring well (P4) is proposed to be constructed approximately 1000 feet north of GSW-1, between GSW-1 and the properties across Bear Creek Road. Wells P3 and P4 will be monitored monthly to record fluctuations in water levels. Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery September 22, 2003 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER.MONITORLNTG AND MITIGATION Page 3 PROGRAM Flow Control Based on the evaluation of monitoring well levels, a determination will be made to verify if pumping of GSW-1 has resulted in a significant decrease (greater than 10 feet over a six month period) in water level at P3 and P4. If such a decrease in the groundwater elevations is noted, pumping rates will then be reduced until wells P3 and P4 show a static response. Recycling During construction of the cemetery, a gravel drain blanket system will be placed below the concrete burial vaults to allow for the collection and reuse of irrigation water. The system will consist of the gravel drain blankets and a series of"sump" wells which will be fitted with water pumps to convey captured water to site storage tanks. ENGEO estimates that 20 to 30 percent of the irrigation water vol-tune can be reclaimed in this manner,reducing actual pumping demand to 24,000 to 35,000 gallons per week when the recycling system is operated. Importing Water As a final measure, the cemetery can bring in water by truck for irrigation, to account for shortfalls if pumping must be reduced during draught conditions. If required to import water, we anticipate one to two water trucks per day would be necessary to service the entire 5 acres of the first project phase. CONCLUSIONS Cemetery irrigation would require 60,000 gallons per week for the full first phase five acres. The weather-sensitive system should reduce demand to 30,000-42,000 gallons per week. The recycling system can capture and reuse enough water to reduce demand for pumping to 24,000 to 35,000 gallons per week(3.5 gallons per minute). As indicated in the referenced June 2003 ENGEO report, the results of the pump test and data analysis indicate the site aquifer is capable of sustaining up to 10 gpm. (100,000 gallons per week) without overdrafting. This volume is more than 2 1l2 times the expected flow rates necessary for the first phase project irrigation demand. While it is highly unlikely any of these mitigation measures will be necessary, the proposed monitoring and mitigation plan provides an added factor of safety to address potential unforeseen overdraft of groundwater. D3 ....................... ...........11.1'..,..''.., 1 1., . . ..................................................................... .. .. .... . ....... . .... .. ............ ........................... Fx t •� {y t �,�. j��uf. L fi" Y� n � •eCC ""A � a to c5 r All v ,�s��"x r"�'� � -4e`' � 3 ,x. �a �. `� ,� K �,. •K` $ ,:� 2 �H�,�r�4" � � V out c � � MW 0 ". `�° `. 1 �. it, pit T .' 'm �" s kw�" src .S•'4 001' 1.1 SPIN fIQ, "w.'9a s ;r# ' -.•� .+t lr� a ;s�.� 5 $ - t s ' "� �s. �� �`�,x� d '.' � s �,lrr t 5�•� `� z� c� t � �. t�j;, �' X '" �,,r Wiz+f.E�� z �$ � '� ,�i •' R it r• r� � s^- a rri�r> �.. x,^} �"�3E-"+� � c• �...'" civ �s'�� } 6 � d� - ��.�, > ��r� x +i �� —.�,�.,�...�L.,''� �^ .s��j� ��.x ,�•�,�?��`. ,. .:., xs���"�.�,a} •'�' s;.9' w, "G r � Y4 . �,�-a � : � a t,'; �.'�y,Y hr' a�,� rh+�^w j•� �.•s,z- ,t•,+r �r.�, rte'e •rhe t�+ ? �e' `ts �- :� }s � r e {' r a.iia b�7ti+r%a, . s o-�, � �+;,:"S`'�'S -"� k�Lr`��§�'�,,x �� ;-t,'�L<} v� � ,•�'+hc�h^ �,- �'�, _ �: 5! Ms � bTs'*�*s„fifis :t`•. w,�, y. 'h�•��? y .�� ,}rim �. "`c` # -: �r a 5 ",}^� .Lv �„ x�2`�' �z. ;-$"� ,,.,L .�'4�' �sk3k.°..r�f'a ""�' �.1. � 7�'��`a,�4t � r.. "'2�'• �{�� v - t �'� k� � ���Sr�?x�}" �` �x"'��r+'"Y�" f.�'.'•��„'` � d� •`�`po-��"�'a�J �'�'�';. �i'�.'"�'� ��.•,•. �� �<A� i -: �4 y�L �. p,F r.,•,�R ,��y S ` ,+ � �R.P.en^`;`mt C t 'art ..'._ ka ����`�4� rte} r4 .,.r:; '�'��Ty{",��"��€�� }. • ems:;t x::; �z°s°� } ti,���s�2:-�� '�u�, .��•,s�.r' ca�` +�'i'�3��y• s'�� 1 F, A ............................ ... .... .... ........................................... ................................................................................I........... Awn ITS v ASM N R UNTSOF 1 S k S. S. PAPADOP`t LOS &ASSOCUTES,INC. Environmental&Water Resource Consultants September 4,2003 Darwin Meyers Darwin Meyers Associates 1308 Pine Street Martinez, CA-94553 Subject; Comments on Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis Letter Report by ENGEO Dated June 20,2003 Proposed Cemetery Development Hampton and Bear Creek Roads Briones Hills Preserve Contra Costa County,California Tear Thr.Meyers, On behalf of the Briones hills Preserve Alliance(BITPA), S.S. Papadopulos&Associates(SSP&A)has reviewed the letter report by ENGEO dated June 20,2003 and titled.Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis. The�1GEO report presents data and analysis of an aquifer pumping test that was conducted to further evaluate groundwater production.potential of well GSW-1 on the proposed cemetery property, and potential impact to wells on nearby properties. The ENGEO report contains fundamental misrepresentations or flawed interpretations of-the data and unsubstantiated conclusions. Overview of the test,presentation and discussion of the data and analyses follows a summary of main points below: + Reported that data from observation.wells P1 and P2 indicate that steady-state flow conditions were achieved during the 24-day pumping test, but steady state flow conditions were not achieved. • Reported that insignificant water level change in observation wells P3 and Thomas Well W-1 during the 24-hour pumping test indicate that pumping from the existing well does not impact regional groundwater levels and wells on adjacent properties. However, the duration of the pumping test was inadequate to demonstrate this. Moreover, using the same standard aquifer solution equation used by ENGEO, and hydraulic properties of the aquifer estimated by ENGE0, we calculate a drop in groundwater level of severalfeet in 100 days at a distance of 1500 feet f-om GSW-1. + ENGEO calculated a"theoretical"radius of influence(ROI) of 308 feet for pumping GSW-1 at l0 gpm for 24-hours. The method used to calculate the IZOIis inappropriate because steady state conditions were not achieved. A ,Theis type-curve using the sameproperties shows that at a distance of 308 feet,drawdown is nearly 2 feet after 1-day cif pumping at 10 gpm, and nearly 10 fact after 20 days ofpumping. 217 CHURCH STREET, SAN FRANCISCO,-CA 94474-1390 TEL'. (495) 701-0300 FAX: (415) 701-0305 www.sspa.com e-mail: sanfranclsco@sspa.com i S. S.PAPADOr ULOS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Darwin.Meyers September 4, 2003 Page 2 Reported that the existing well (GSW-1) can yield at least 10 gpm. However, Lased on the data, continued pumping at 10;gpm would result in a 717-foot drop in water level in GSW--1 in only 10 days.. Tie data indicate that GSW-1 cannot sustain even several days of pumping at 10 gpm. Observation Wells Three observation wells were installed in May 2003. Although these are designated as piezometers they are actually observation(or monitoring)wells..A piezometer is a pipe installed in the ground that has an open bottom, or with a short perforated interval or screen, an open top,and is sealed-along its length(e.g. Freeze and Cherry, 1979). A piezometer provides a measure hydraulic head at a point within the aquifer (the bottom of the pipe, or short section of screen). P1,P2 and P3 all have screened intervals that are 60 feet long,65 to 125 feet below ground surface(ft bgs),which is the same as the pumping well, GSW-1. Water levels measured in these observation wells represent an average hydraulic head for a 60-foot thickness of the fractured claystone-siltstone-sandstone aquifer. P1 is 50 feet southeast from GSW-1,P2 is 100 feet southeast from GSW-1,and P3 is 1200 feet northwest of GSW-1. P2 and P3 have 2-inch-diameter casing and well-screen,which is typical for observation wells,but P3 has 5-inch casing like GSW-1. Apparently,P3 was designed so it could also be used as production.well. Water levels were also monitored at the'Thomas Well W-1, approximately 2400 ft to NTE of GSW-1. The report states that this well is likely perforated from 50 to 220 ft bgs. The .Fest The 24-hr test began May 29, 2003. `Nater levels were recorded-manually and with pressure transducers and data loggers. An average pumping rate of 10.3 gpm was reported. Plow rate measurement data should by provided. ENGE0 reported that recovery of water levels was monitored upon shutdown of pumping. However, recovery data are only provided for the pumping well(GSW-1). Were recovery data also recorded in PI and P.2? Presentation and Discussion of`.Results GSW-1 Water level in GSW-1 dropped nearly 28 feet as a result of pumping at 10 gpm for 24 hrs. An additional 24 feet of available drawdown remained between water level and the top of well screen. .ENGEO defines"safe yield"as pumping that maintains water level above the top of screen. However, this definition of safe yield is an operational issue for the well, but includes nothing about sustainable yield of the aquifer. In a report to the Water Forum of Sacramento and California Department of Water resources amore appropriate and typical de5nition of safe yield is "the amount of groundwater that can be safely.pumped r+� OP S.S. PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr. Darwin Meyers September 4, 2003 Page 3 om the groundwater basin over a long period of`titre while maintaining acceptable groundwater elevations and avoiding undesirable effects such as increased primping costs; accelerated movement of underground pollutants, etc." (Califomia Center for Public Dispute Resolution,2002). Figure 1 shows two graphs of drop in waterr level (drawdown.)recorded in GSW-1 versus elapsed time since the start of pumping. The graphs also show the recovery data recorded after pumping stopped. The upper graph has arithmetic scales for both axes, and the lower graph has logarithmic scales for both axes. The log-log fortnat facilitates comparison of the data to type-curves and evaluation of aquifer properties and potential boundaries. The graphs illustrate that water level in GSW-1 was still dropping at the end of 24 hours of pumping at 10 gpm.. The straight-line trend of-the data on the log-log plot suggests depletion of water stored in a localized fracture network reservoir close to the pumping well.. Clearly,the water level has not equilibrated. Extrapolation of the drawdown trend suggests that continued pumping at 10 gpm for 10 days would result in a 70-foot drop in water level. .Also,note that 24 hours after pumping was stopped,the water level in GSW-1 is still approximately 10 feet lower than the level prior to pumping(static level). In other wards, only 65 percent recovery occurred in 24 hours. This also is consistent with depletion of water from a local fracture network,which is not readily replenished. P1 and P2 Water levels in P1 (50 feet away) and P2(100 feet away) dropped approximately 27 and 11 feet, respectively,in response to 24 hours of pumping from GWS-1. Figure 2 shows graphs of drop in water level(drawdown)recorded in PI and P2 versus elapsed time since the start of pumping at GSW-1 The tipper graph has arithmetic scales for both axes, and the lower graph has logarithmic scales for both axes. The log 4og format facilitates comparison of the data to type-curves and evaluation of aquifer properties and potential boundaries. The log-log graph also shows the Theis confined aquifer type-carve solutions (Theis., 1935)used by ENGEO for analysis of the data. The type carves shown were calculated using values for aquifer parameters,transrnissivity(1) and storage(S),reported by ENGEO. The graphs illustrate that coater level in both P1 and P2 was still dropping at the end of 24-hours and did not reach an equilibrium response to pumping at GSW-1. A surprising result is that the drop of water level at P1,which is 50 feet from the pumping well,is nearly the same as occurred at the pumping well. This suggests that P 1 is hydraulically connected to the same localized fracture network reservoir,which was depleted by pumping at GSW-1.Adding the drawdown response recorded in GSW-1 on the same graph(Figure 3) shows that the response to pumping is neatly -identical in GSW-1 and P1. P3 and W1 A drop in water level of 0.05 feet(0.6 inches)was recorded in P3 (1200 feet away), and no measurable drop in water level was recorded in W-1 (2400 feet away). The response recorded at P3 is also shown on the graphs presented in Figure 2. ENGEO report that the 0.6 inch response recorded in P3 is "insignificant"and within the accuracy of measurement. However,readily available transducers have much better accuracy and resolution than this and likely would have provided usefiil data. Typical accuracy and resolution of readilyavailable transducers is 3 mm and<1rnm,respectively. Example S. S.PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers September 4,2003 Wage 4 transducer specifications are included in Attachment 1. Higher resolution transducers should have been used in the distant observation wells. In addition,the duration of pumping was inadequate to produce sufficient response in these distant monitoring wells. Analysis and Estimation of Aquifer Properties ENGEO used the Theis(193 5)and Jacob(Cooper and Jacob, 1946)methods to analyze the pumping test data and estimate Trans ssivity(T) and Storage Coefficient(S). The Theis (1935) equation describes water-level displacement with time in a coed aquifer in response to pumping. The Theis solution incorporates the following assumptions: • aquifer is confined and of infinite areal extent • aquifer is homogeneous,isotropic and of uniform thickness • flow to pumping well is horizontal when pumping well is fully penetrating • water is released ins'tantaneously from storage with decline of hydraulic head • diameter of pumping well is very small so that storage in the well can be neglected The Theis well-function solution provides an excellent approximation of drawdown for many aquifers. However,particularly when the Theis type-curve does not closely fit the data, a hydrogeologist should address the influence of deviation of the actual conditions from the ideal assumptions on which the solution is founded.. Inappropn—e use of Jacob Method The Jacob method is an approximation of the Theis solution,which is only appropriate for certain conditions. The Jacob method is widely used because it can be more convenient,although with modern computers and readily available software there is no longer an advantage to using this method. For an appropriate aquifer,the Theis solu`don applies at all times and locations,but the Jacob method should only be used when steady-state conditions prevail(e.g.Heath, 1980, The time theoretically,necessary to achieve steady state conditions for an aquifer at a given distance from the pumping wells can be estimated using the equation below: T,=7200 rz SIT, Where r is radial distance from the pumping well, S is storage coefficient, and"T is transmissitirity. Figure 4 is a graph showing time to achieve steady state drawdown as a function of distance from the pumping well for values of ac uifer parameters consistent with those reported by ENGEO: Transmissivity 75 ftVday, S=0.001 to 0.0001. Steady-state conditions are attained more quickly for smaller storage values. These calculations indicate,that for storage of IxIO ,pumping for 100 day is needed before steady-state conditions are reached in a well 100 feet from the lrxmpin.g well. In addition,this indicates that at distances exceeding 10 feet from the pumping well,steady-state conditions would not be achieved after pumping for 1 day in a confined aquifer and use of the Jacob method is inappropriate. S.S. PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES,INC. Lar.Darwin.Meyers September 4, 2003 Page 5 ucorrect and Misleading Calculation of Radius of hfluence The ENGEO report states that for a"conservative value oftransmissivity of 373 gpd/ft with the Cooper--- Jacob modification of the'l heis equation, a theoretical radius of influence of 308 was calculated for Well GSW-l". This calculation is presented in Appendix.C,which is titled"Maximum Radius of Influence", and the conclusions state that the "maximum radius of influence does not exceed 308 feet from the pumping well". These statements about radius of influence are incorrect and misleading.For this calculation with the Jacob equation to provide reasonable results(as for Jacob method to provide good estimates of T and from the Tramping test data),near steady-state conditions must be achieved. In other words,the Jacob equation only provides a reasonable approximation of the Theis solution for large values of time, or small values of distance(see Figure 4). The calculation in Appendix C uses what ENGEO call"a realistic period of 24 hours" [what does this mean?],however for duration of pumping of only 24 hours the Jacob equation does not provide reasonable results except for distance less than a few feet from the pumping well(Figure 4). Append C concludes by stating that pumping at 10 gpm for 24 hours will cause measurable drawdown only at wells wi'iin a distance of 308 feet from the the pumping well. However,in the Conclusions Section of the letter,there is no longer any mention.of 24 hours associated with the statement that the"maximum radius of influence Moes not exceed 308 feet from the pumping well."This is incorrect and misleading, and the method used for the calculation was applied inappropriately. Using the Theis solution and the same values used by ENGEO for Transmissivity and Storage,we have calculated drawdown with time at a distance of 308 feet(Figure 5). The calculated Theis type-carve for drawdown of water level at an observation well 308 feet from.a 10 gpm pumping well shows nearly 2 feet of drawdown in 24 hours, and 10 feet of drawdown in approximately 20 days. Inappropriate use of the Jacob method by ENGEO.gave a result of 0.l foot of drawdown for 24 hours of pumping. Poor fit of TheisTie Curves to the Data Based on fitted Theis type-turves to the data recorded at P1 and P2,ENCrEO reports respective estimates of I`=ansmissivity(T) of 373 and 598 gpd/ft(50 and 80 ft?/day), and Storage Coefficient(S) of 1.89 x 104 and 1.41 x 10-3. As can be seen on the lower graph of Figure 2,which shows the recorded drawdown data and the'Theis type-curbes for ENGP-O's solutions,the fit of the type-curves to the early-and late-time data is poor. This indicates that the aquifer conditions are substantially different to the ideal confined aquifer conceptual model represented by the Theis Solution. In such cases,the Theis solution is still a useful tool to evaluate aquifer properties,but the approach and Limitations should be discussed. The straight--line drawdown response of earlq time data on the log4og graphs exhibited by GST -1 and P1, suggests depletion of a localized fracture network reservoir in the vicinity of the GSW-1 and P1. The character of this drawdown response is poorly suited for analysis by the Theis confined solution. Incomplete recovery-of GSW-1 after 24 hours of pumping(only 65 percent recovery in 24 hours), suggests that replenishment of this local fracture network is slow and may vary with seasonal water level. The recorded water level data at PI and T'2 show more drawdown for later time data than the Theis type- curve. This suggests possible influence in the later part of the pumping test of impermeable or very low permeability boundaries. Possibly this reflects limits to the extent of a localized fracture network, or it could be influence of boundaries unrelated to a possible local fracture network reservoir. Longer S.S. PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers September 4, 2003 Page 6 pumping might shout a more typical confined or leaky aquifer response beyond the early time apparent reservoir depletion effect. Normally when extra drawdown for later time data suggest possible low permeability boundaries, analysis of the earlier time data---prior to the beginning of boundary influences,would provide the best. estimate of aquifer properties. However,in this case analysis of the early time drawdown is also complicated by the apparent fracture reservoir depletion phenomenon. It is not inappropriate to use the Theis solution as a tool to estimate aquifer properties from this data,but it is inappropriate not to address the poor fit between the data and the Theis type curve. The analysis should include discussion of complications of the data. possible localized fracture network depletion disturbs early-time data and possible boundary effects influence latex-time data. And consequently,the estimates of aquifer properties are subjectto high levels of uncertainty. Pumping for a minimum of several days would be necessary to evaluate whether the estimates of aquifer properties are reliable. Influence of p=ing at wells at neighboring property based on EINTEC?estimates ofproperkies Although the Theis model does not accurately represent the response to pumping at GSW-1,it is useful as a tool to assess potential influence of groundwater pumping at the proposed cemetery on neighboring properties. We used the Theis solution to calculate drawdown with time at distance of 1500 feet from the pumping well operated at 10 g m.(Figure 6). This solution uses average values estimated by ENGEO from Pi and P2 data(T=65 ft/d and S 4 S x 10.4). The result shows significant drawdown,which suggests that the pumping could impact wells at neighboring properties: 5 feet of drawdown in 100 days, and 100 feet of drawdown in 800 clays. Also,note that the late-tune data recorded at Pl and 1'2 exhibit more drawdown with time compared to the Theis solution (lower graph of Figure 2),which suggests that the actual drawdown may be more. Conclusions and Recommendations A 24-hour, 10 gpm pumping test conducted at GSW-1 was of inadequate duration to provide significant drawdown response at distant observation.wells. Steady-state conditions were not achieved at any of the observation wells(including the pumping well) during th.e 24-hour test. Only 65 percent recovery of water level in GSW-1 occurred in 24Fours after pumping was stopped. Recovery should have been monitored until 90 percent recovery was achieved. Straight-line trend of early time data recorded at GSW-1 and 1?l suggest depletion of a localized fracture network reservoir in the vicinity of GSW-1 and P1. This complicates analysis of aquifer properties using standard type-curves. Substantially more drawdown of later tine data in comparison to Theis solution,suggests presence of possiblo low-permeability boundaries to the aquifer. This also complicates analysis of aquifer properties using standard type-curves. Duration of pumping was inadequate to resolve influence of early-tame complications and possible later-time boundary influences. If low-permeability boundaries do exist,the extent of inEuence of pumping maybe limited in some directions. Such boundaries may also substantially lessen the sustainable production potential of the aquifer. .. _.... S. S. PAPADOPULQS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers September 4, 2003 Page 7 As a result of poor match b etween data and type-curves, and inadequate duration of pumping,the estimates of aquifer transmissivity are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. ENGEM claims that GSW-1 can yield at least 10 gpm and that the data indicate pumping from GSW-�1 well does not impact regional groundwater levels and wells on adjacent properties. Both clam are technically flawed and misleading. Based on the water level data recorded in GSW-1, continued pumping at 10 gpm would result in a 70-foot drop in water level in GSW-1 in only 10 days. The data indicate that GSW-1 cannot sustain even several days of pumping at 10 gpm. This renews concerns that the groundwater production potential;may be inadequate at the proposed cemetery development to sustain in-igationofthe proposed lawns. Using the Theis solution,which ENGEO used to analyze the data, and using values of transmissivity and storage reported by ENGI O based on their analyses of the test.data,we calculate 5 feet of drawdown in 100 days, and 100 feet of drawdown in 800 days at a distance of 1500 feet from GSW-1 pumping at 10 gpm- This supports concerns of many BIPA members and other local residents that groundwater pumping at the proposed cemetery development could impact neighboring wells. Moreover,the test was conducted in May,which is at the end of the rainy season when groundwater levels are highest— production ighestproduction potential.of GSW-1 would likely be even less at the end of the summer. In a letter dated April 30"',2003,regarding recommendations for evaluation of groundwater production potential, SSP&A recommended duration for the aquifer test of 5 days. Because of the deviations from standard confined aquifer type curves exhibited by the data, a longer test may be needed. To properly evaluate longterm production capability of GSW-1 and potential impact to wells on neighboring properties, SSP&A recommends an aquifer test with a duration of at least 5 days,and possibly as long as 10 days. After five days, and each day thereafter,the data should be evaluated to determine if the duration is adequate. Pimping rate should be measured and documented regularly,higher resolution transducers should be used in P3 and W1, and recovery data should be collected at the pumping well and all observation wells until 90 percent recovery is achieved. Please contact me if you have questions or wish to discuss the data or planks for a longer-term test. Sincerely, S. S.PAPADOPLJL-OS &ASSOCIATES,INC. Gordon Thrupp,Ph.D., C.HG. Associate Attachments: Reference List, Six Figures,Example Transducer Specifications, cc: Allan C.Moore;Attorney Adam Nathanson,Brio-nes I-Ells Preserve Alliance S. S. PAPADCPULOS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers September 4,2003 Wage 8 References California Center for Public Dispute Resolution,February 2002,Report to the Water Forum Successor Effort and the California Resources of Water esources Concerning Stakeholder Interviews and Process Recommendations Relating to a Collaborative Process Addressing Groundwater Management in Central Sacramento County,27 pgs. (h-tp://www.waterforum..orgICSCQVJF, ET1�1.PDF) Cooper,H.H. and C.E.Jacob, 1946. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history,Am. Geophys.Union Trans.,vol. 27,pp. 526-534. Driscoll,F.G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells,published by Johnson Filtration Systems Inc., St.Paul,W 55112, 1089 pgs. DuEeld, G.M.,2000,AQTESOLVTM for Windows,version 3.01: HydroSOLVE Inc.,Reston,Virginia. ENGEO Inc., 2001,Groundwater Availabilty Evaluation,Letter Report to Margot Jacob of Gan Shalom, December 10, 2001. ENGEO Inc.,2002,Limited Subsurface Exploration and Percolation.Test Results,Letter to Shalom Ehahu of Can Shalom, June 19, 2001 ENGEO Inc.,2003,Hydrogeologic Discussion of Groundwater Issues,Letter to Shalom Eliahu of Gan Shalom,February 19,2003. ENGEO Inc.,2003, Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis,Letter Report to Frank Winer of Gan Shalom, June 20,2003. Freeze and Cheery, 1979, Groundwater,Prentice-Hall,Inc.,Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey, 604 pgs. Hantush,M.S. and C.E.Jacob, 1955.Non-steady, radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer,Am. Geophys. Union Trans.,vol.36,pp. 95-100. Heatdi., C.R., 1989,Basic Ground-Water Hydrology,US Geological Survey'mater Supply Paper 2220, 84 p 9s. Krwornan,.G.P. and de Ridder,N.A., 1990,Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data: 2nd ed., International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement,Publication.No. 47, Wagen-ingen, The Netherlands,p. 377. Theis,C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage,Am Geophys.Union Trans.,vol. 16,pp. 519- 524. i 40 35 1 30 25 ! 20 � I S 15 10 0 � I 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ! Ei 'rime{dahs) { I 100 extrapolated trend i 10 i i a • i i 1 , 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 S d7ime(daVs) Nates: i 1.Graphs of drop in water level (drawdown)recorded in GSW-1 versus elapsed time since the start of pumping. Recovery data frecorded after pumping stopped is also shown. y 2.The upper graph has arithmetic scales for both axes, and the lower graph has logarithmic scales for both axes. The log-log format facilitates comparison of the data to type-curves and evaluation of aquifer properties and potential boundaries. The graphs illustrate that water level in GSW-1 was stilt dropping at the end of 24-hours of pumping at 10 gpm. 3.Also note that 24 hours after pumping was stopped,the water level in GSW-1 is stili approximately 10 feet lower than the levet prior to pumping(static level). In other words, only 65 percent recovery occurred in 24 hours. 4.dearly,the water level has not equilibrated. Extrapolation of the drawdown trend suggests that continued pumping at 10 gpm for 10 days would result in a 70-foot drop in water level. ; ; Water Levei Drawdown Recorded at GSW®1 � 820 . Comments on ENGEO Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis S.S.Papssin Chu E,Stree atas,Inc. Proposed Cemetery Deveiopment 21�Church Street San Francisco CA 94114 Briones Hills Preserve, Contra Costa County, California i 30 25 1 A J 20 j i f mA. 1.5 I LA' ,QA, 1 a � to 5 I a #AP1 UP2 LP3 0 ' Al AI 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Elapsed Time(days) i i I E � E i I 100 i 1{3 1 P1 w i 1 _ 1 P2 P3 0.1 i 0.0001 0,001 0.01 0.1 1 10 I Elapsed Time{days) 3 Motes: 1. graphs of drop in water level(drawdown)recorded in P1,P2 and P3 versus elapsed time since the start of pumping at GSW-1. 2.The upper graph has arithmetic scales for bath axes,and the lower graph has logarithmic scales for both axes. The log-log format facilitates comparison of the data to type-curves and evaluation of aquifer properties and potential boundaries. 3.The type curves shown on the log-log plot(the lower graph)were calculated using values for aquifer parameters,transmissivity(T) ana storage(S), reported by ENGEO and illustrate the poor fit of the Theis solution to the data. I PI Solution:T=373.gpolft=50 ft2/d; S= 1.9 x 10-4; P2:T=599 gpd(ft= 80 ft2ld;S=1.4 x 10`3 4.The graphs illustrate that water level in both P1 and P2 was still dropping at the end of 24-hours and did not reach an equilibrium response to pumping at GSW-1. Water Level Drawdown Recorded at Observation Wells i 820 P1, P2, and P3 Comments on ENGEO Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis p 1 S.S. ap217 Church &Atreetates,Inc. proposed Cemetery Development 2 I X17 Church Strut San Francisco CA 94114 Briones Mills Preserve, Contra Costa County, California ! ! Figure i 025c130 - 25 - 3, 10 Residual Drawdown i oGSVV 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 Elapsed Time(da s) i 100 { 10tD I 9GSW1 1E1 ■P2 0.01 - 0.0001 .01 0.0001 0.001 0,01 0.1 1 10 EIapsed Time(days) k Notes: 1. Graphs of drop in water level{drawdown}recorded in GSW-1, P1, P2 versus elapsed time since the start of pumping at GSW-1. 2.The upper graph has arithmetic scales for both axes,and the lower graph has logarithmic scales for both axes. The log-log format facilitates comparison of the data to type-curves and evaluation of aquifer properties and potential boundaries. 3.Note that the drop of water level at P1,which is 50 feet from the pumping well(GSW-1), is nearly the same as occurred at the pumping well. I Water Level Drawdown Recorded at CSW-1 , P1 , and P2 820 Project Comments on ENGEO Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis S.S.Papa17 Church street rpulos P Associates,Inc. 2i7 ChurProposed Cemetery Development San Francisco CA 94114 Briones Hilts Preserve, Contra Costa County, California Figure 'i I i I I f 1000000 - 100000 000000 100000 , I CO 10000 I >1 I 1000 100 I 10 1 I � 10 100 1000 10000 C Distance from pumping Well (ft) ' . - --A S=0.001 —a—s-o.00 � fNotes: # Tc=72001 r2 S1T where Tc is tine to achieve steady state drawdown, r is radial distance from the pumping well, S is the estimated storage coefficient, and T is estimated transmissivity. Curves depicted on the graph are for Transmissivity= 75 ft2lday and S=0,001, and S=0.0001 based on values reported by ENGEM. i Time to Achieve Steady State Drawdown in a —T8201 °F Confined Aquifer �'rci ect j Comments an ENCEt7 Groundwater Aquifer.Testing and Analysis I I S.S,Psp�dopu;as d Assnciates,Inc. Comments Cemetery Development L� 217 Church Strea' San=rancisco CA 94114 $riones Huls Preserve, Contra Costa County, California 1 Figure I i , i i I i li 1 100 ; 10 ' Theis Type-Curve ■ CO , ez 0.1 i "Negligible"Drawdown of 0.1 ft calculated by ENGEO using Jacob � - equation Inappropriately 0.01 0.1 1 10 1001 Elapsed Time (days) I I E Notes: l Aquifer Properties Transmissivity {'T'}m 373 gpolft= 50 ft2/d Storage (S) = 0,0011 i Calculated Drawdown 808 feet from 10 gpm i 820 Pumping Well Comments on ENGEO Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis S.S. spadcp hurlas h StestAss=ails,Inc. Proposed Cemetery Development 217 Church Street p ry p San Francisco CA 94114 Briones Hills Preserve, Contra Costa County, California. c: ., ! 1 � I 10 i E Q was i ! i 1 i L was Theis Type-Curve calculated for location 1500 feet from 10 gpm ! > pumping well. � l � IJ-L —Ulil i E i Assigned Aquifer Properties(based on ENGEO analysis): 2 j , T=55 ft`Id (455 gpolft) I = - S =8x10-4 i (x.01 # 10 100 1000 Elapsed Time (days) , E ! Calculated Drawdown 1500 feet from 10 gpm 7820 Pumping Well Project Commentson ENGEO Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis l S.S.Papadc pulcs&Asscclatss,Inc. Proposed Cemetery Development 6 i 217 Church Street San'rrancisco CA 94114 Briones Hills Preserve, Contra Costa County, California Figure ...... _ _ _ _.......................................... _ _ .......... _._......... ___. ifnAWSItU A . AM MW mini OLL LEWL - TEMPERA" URIE • DATA LOGGING t ......:::::::::.:::::::::::: #r€frcdMlg the leading instrument for water monitoring Powerful, dependable, versatile,, easy-to-use and small. The miniTROLL has become the Instrument of choice for water `Y professionals who need accurate, reliable data for water level and temperature Y M monitoring applications. :- kt hLL3�5rEt!J�rl41EAJx Qh►�Yfl `�: 8.3I1ilj avatt krtt�n , €a 1nehfs5rnman tie mn�fare........... eta�eem+ parel The miniTRt7LL pads a pressursJtevel sensor,tempera- : :tare se al;dafe€ogge, t to BMs t�f metnot r M ,f €#data points),real time crystal clock,and internal power all into an etloc,err�tesrt wrre rm�n�c;;; ;,: #rid! ( h u nq l It t i of tet€y 72°(18.3mm).sound extremV We think so. aWOO. ....... . . . ...<: r} € h aq icrrrirfh!b,,installation is easy.Just place it in water and have it collect d #edy }ttrintul#i Wisiiu et�t#warra€Csyoir� l the steps so you tan start getting data fest and it`s included term�persdon. r8 �vt g , rtsre ur _. tlSthy lfxngs car r a a and fi froduae ouraty i€rto your test by using a separate barometer for compensation? "' € cab€t},#heni fLL �tEdmatlyates for barometric pressure so you don't have to.We also offer surttt(a3, ure when using theunitswithout cable. WIRE SUSPENSIOM tt E rabd a r i err aiok s�nrect,oablak .a M. . detad6ta ar �v eailabie in FEP(Teflon equivalent),Polyurethane,or Polyethal- svtt tsa t n iC1 without F rfus application,we offer low-cost Tatlons-coated stainless steel riiemtt r rens r �v€rB#tet sus to r thouE €B es ws�l as i5ir.�t-4€ead eab€as for programming rx t a Pam gahw: Pass rtr i y € s d €f of s# i tp to th6#t$ki when you can take the Pocket PC in your pocket?Our ' Vit€ rofiiptPlpsUt syr s,a hard c sa wdh atertlght connections to make it extremely simple and reliableto [ p1sps�t .:: use drsdt£t ( 3 the poovaer al bnly%r� s trr S�t�t sstt�aa�tett��e'ctr�thr�ei� i�'�t>��t����'�`` t o tt k€d r niTi E3TAMD%Mt d;us>r�NI Tyra 'h`is standa�s and compensated for temperature across the entire range. tat 6 Acatlbrat�on re o is app ru€t w y t. Bring e�€fra assurance that your equipment meets or exceeds thB rigid iitoar�geuaus.. ....:n(: ^uraqu€rethen#s�sdlfisd by�agbrtcles s� 4A #l1>K o lb t#erresa t s€rrspla i lac..yo..... ries virtually anywhere on Barth.No need to send the instru- rfyack fo fhefaotr nrnrst,no Head to throi ttw BY . ......:.:CAUI-80"46-7488-1-,307-742-8213-EXPERIERICE THE MOLL s S !dKim— mWITHOLL sanaut,Sec1t3 #inn•a YfftSWCiS. Netwatidog Depth,L vgle Principle lntegratsd silicon straln-gaugs pressure smear Multiple unit installations are a Snap using Prassum, Sensor Type I Rangs . T Eat xas or t]uer!9oxes,Create raetvtra ft5 Barometric 13epth/Pressure 3.5,11,21,`0,210,351 m 0 0 0 a 00 of up to 32 TROLL 9-M Saves- 4- (115,35,63,231.592.11ss ry 5,i5,sa ion,:toe,50o pilI Barometric 30 psia{usable range Is 18.5 pst) ea 0 0 rs O 0 Sensor venting options Vented(gauged) cr o tis e► as "+ti Nun-vented(absolute)" ct 0 a r it �, Extreme powr Accuracy x.05 at 15'C!t-9.1 a across entire pressure and temparature range Need more power?Try a long-lastlng externa( ,, (3.5m 111.5 ft 5 psi sensor providest3mrn(0.01 ft)accuracy) battery peck Up to 7 years of operation } Resolution I6-bit convarter.l mm(0.00531%E'3)for a 21 m(30 psi)sensor Pressure rating?.x range/3x burst(11 urs=3x range/5%burst) #arAparatura Principle Silicon temperkurs sensor ab tom. C>' 0* es" a Range •5-C to 50-C 23°P to 122' Nary available g ( F) {pressure reasngs are tamperatvre compensated} .,>. Accuracy wlfh optional _ ResoEtution ±0.0014C SDI-12 Dutput Hardware Speamcat#ane Connects to pppu(ax r Data togging Number d programmable tests 1 16 1. ,f 2 16 Party data tuggers Logging Modes:Brea,f0:5 sec.minimum),linear average,true iogaritt:mic or rivent Memory Up to iktB 1 Data points: 30K 220K 30K 30K a3K 220K Reefsy WEif :. ...,.. Power Internal:2 intsmat ussr•repiaceshle AA batteries ilvGlts and tamps :{; Estimated battery lifer 990K data points at a i-sec`intenrai or 1.5 years at a 20-min interval External 6VDC Reels are ava#labia .. it three sizes In h, !M11-1V2 communleattitens(optional with Spl-12 Adapter} 4991 or ABS plesHo DlntansEflne Internal Power 18.8 mm(0.72 in)01),295.9 mm(11.85 In)long Well Docks make ryt� External Power:12.3 mm(0.72 In)OD,#97.4 mm(7.77 IN long well I tstaliattons a weight Internal Power 0.31 kg(8.68 lb)with batteries(includes backshe8) snap.Areal assetl :.:.... .....:.:. ; External Power:0-22 kg(0.46 lb){includes baoksheti) wafted materials 316 stainless at*VftonS FEP`"polyurethane or polyethylene(cable),both modals Man-vented ibacirsha ff `Tisa tatsgsarattae sansw Is used in cantperrsate pmsnne but b madhga are not tkaosyed Use the miniTROLL with or without vented •5 a 15 pyla(absduia)aenaora nod ava9ebie cable by attaching a stainless steel baokaheil. Snap dng frit Uffra Ragpd Packe-SfW Qnfr k C rrac t Cables Snap ling kltfor pori Say goodbye to that expensive and Vented Qtdck•Conttec#collas aril a vented mini CRC!�s and heavy handheld unit and say hello mailable In Potyuretttans or P+t' F $aroTHOLL.Handy when to new Poeicet Sku running on the for contaminated sRes.Versed changingbeseres :: .....:: Pocket PC View and download cable allows for automatic atmo-f " dale real Oros,Startp sp p end etc baric pressure r rrectioni ............... logging operations or take voi^s APoiyethalyneoon-vented besfcratt#s notes manage your schedule (direct nal)cable is also High humid fy? i ry acave Mvrlta t ar6 roar.- MAXUM high-capacity ' sggedarsd tater l#ghtrasa ks desiccant Screws right vp1lahTit j :;;•` g ........ onto the cable! SaWad 6at*wds wftir wfre spetre%s Cables i Since the minsTROLL contains everyihittg -: Vented or rico vented ..... s needed to monitor,st cant also be su andad Qulck-Connadff calices. using low-costTeflon-coated wire and sealetf ! Available in polyathile ie, iRai using a backs tell An externa!SaroTRCl�I, polyurethane or {Tefion�} * r tstkirrtt cesrbe used to recordbarometric puessure for easy eorrectlon. ......... ........................ ..... .. r " ..:...... InjwSituinc. NEW EM InIon am is subprnduwdavatapmanL rots inlotma5atis aublac3 to crenae wNoattt notice. Tar'Mefry CapydgM CUM by In-ssu ft.JU Dena 7Eye Standard for Water Quality Levelx systs In-Shu,m1r9RMvan-stw, dark callphonsl Pcdtar-Slkt,DViat p.o.and 03,tdt-Ownact 214 Scrota Third Street•.Laramis,M 82070 LGA, } (patens perAnp)so itademarks or rayiatore© modam,radio and trauma Y,a of krsktrit,,tvhtdows and Telephom 307742 8213 • Fax 807 7217-598 1-307- ++� '?�{+� �J + 890- j'� fL ��"` j satellite#sleet E-1*41 regia-d MW'Matk1'Of lit rMd / ri l !•#L s3 I IDV Lid i■6i arad atryoptions ale owpaearks on.f endn!d n aro reyfawd r : : . tradema k�n4 E.Capons de Namom and Co. ...available with solar Won Is a res;Mvedtradamatk of DuPont bow (International and domestic calls) (toll tree in US and Canada) or line}power. t Elastomers, 'pEP fWar natod Iftylene propyian)is toe W'Vit'{I#�w�lt�'�- irtu.+IC:o genaacaqu;vetenioiDuPontTeaan. ._ u2eoe ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...._.... ....__. .. ...._ ............_....................._...... ......... ....._... .._..._... ......... .._...... ......... ......... ......... ......... CONTRA -O r R REVIEW OF PUMPING TEST AND AQUIFER EVALUATION PROPOSED CAN SHALOM CEMETERY BEAR CREEK AND HAMPTON ROADS 'CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA For: Centra Costa County Community Development Department Septembeir 2003 GEOCONSUL.TANTSs INC. ,vdr0ge010gy. Ground-Water Ex,0113>B017& Davalownent Ground-ftfar Resources M,6178g8Ment• 1450 K.oll Chole, Stite 114, San Jose, call€crnia 951.12-4612 Phone: (40 8) 453-2541 Fax.(408) 455-2543 www.goo-conquitants.com September 303 2003 Project G1374.01 Dr. Darwin Myers Contra Costa County Community Planning Department 651 Fine Street, North Wing, 2"d Floor Martinez, CA 94553 RE: REVIEW OF PUMPING TEST AND AQUIFER EVALUATION GAN SHALOM CEMETERY BEAR CREEK AND HAMPTON ROADS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,.CALIFORNIA (Contract No. 048351) RERERENCE: Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis, Coln Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California; report prepared by ENGEC,-Inc. for Air. Frank Winer, Gan Shalom, Project No. 6405.1.004.01, dated .dune 20, 2003 Dear Dr. Myers: As authorized in accordance with the above contract with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, we have completed our review of the referenced report. The results of the review are contained in our attached report, to which you are referred for a complete discussion of our findings. If you have any questions concerning our analysis and review, please contact us at your convenience. It hes been a pleasure providing this service for you. Sincerely, GECNSULTANTS, INC. . - K , Pr HydrogeaFIG ist, -93 Copies: Addressee (4) 'S $ Y . IRE ......... ......... _........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....._... ......... ......... ......_._.............. .._..__... .......... _......._.. ......._.................................. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Title Page r Letter of Transmittal ii Table of Contents iv INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Scope of Work 2 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 3 AQUIFER TEST PROCEDURE 4 General 4 Table A— Known Well Construction Information 4 24 tour Constant Mate Test 5 DISCUSSION 6 General 6 Trensmissivity and Storativity 6 Radius of Influence 7 c6NCLUSI'ONS Aquifer Tasting 3 Available Supply 9 . Project Demand 10 Mitigations.and Monitoring 10 Impacts 11 LIMITATIONS 12 SEL'ECTE'D REFERENCES 13 ......... ......... ......... _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._. ........__...__......_.__........... ........ ....................... ............................. TABLE OF CONTENTS, CON'`T. Page No. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1s FIGURE 1 -- SITE PLAN APPENDIX A--AQUIFER TEST EVALUATION AQUIFER PROP'ERTI'ES A-1 Transmissivity 'A-1 Storativity A-2 WELL CAPACITY AND ANALYSIS A-3 Specific Capacity A-3 Maximum 24-Hour Yield A-3 Maximum Radius of Influence A-4 FIGURE A-1 —24-Hour Pumping Test FIGURE A-2-- Drawdown Well No. CSW-1 FIGURE A-3 i Recovery Well No. GSW-1 FIGURE A-4— Drawdown Well No. P-1 FIGURE A- — Drawdown Well No. P-2 __ . _._...... ......._. ......... ......... ......... ......... .......................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._.. ._......_ _.._._... ...__.... _...._._..._._.....__. _........ REVIEW OF PUMPING TEST AND AQUIFER EVALUATION PROPOSED GAN SHALOM CEMETERY BEAR CREEK AND HAMPTON ROODS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION General In accordance with our revised proposal P-4270 of May 14, 2003, and under the terms of Contract 048351 with the Centra Costa County Community Development Department, as approved on June 26, 2003, this report presents our review of the pumping test and aquifer evaluation at the subject site recently completed by ENGEM Incorporated (ENGEM). The results of their evaluation are contained in a report to-Mr. Frank Winer of Gan Shalom entitled "Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis, Gan Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Centra Costa County, California", Project No. 5405.1.004.01, dated June 20, 2003. The project proponent proposes to use an existing small-diameter well on the property as a source of irrigation water for Phase 1 of the proposed Gari Shalom Cemetery. Some property owners in the region are concerned that the ground-water resource will be adversely impacted 'or possibly depleted by this pumping. Therefore, the purpose of the aquifer testing program was to determine if there would be any potential hydrogeologic impacts to wells on adjacent properties or other parcels in the vicinity from the pumping, and establish a sustained yield for the welt under proposed operating conditions. Scope of Work Our scope of work included a review of previous reports on geologic and ground-water conditions at the property prepared prior to the present study (ENGE4 Incorporated, 2001; 2003a). Other pertinent hydrogeologic data for the area were also reviewed. The most significant of those publications include regional geologic mapping of the U.S. Geological Survey (Dibblee, 1980) and pertinent engineering geologic data also published by the U.S. Geological Survey(Ellen and Wentworth, 1995). We have completed ground-water investigations on several.adjacent properties in the past, and reports resulting from this work were also consulted (Geoconsultants, Inc., 1997; 2002). We also met with ENGEM staff to discuss the procedures to be incorporated in the test program, and confirmed the proposed locations of the observation wells in the field with them before the wells were drilled. During the progress of the test, we observed the operations with respect to measurement of drawdown and recovery of water levels in the wells. The fieldwork was coordinated with Mr. Les Miyashiro of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department to assure that the work was being done in accordance with their well testing practices. Subsequent to completion of the aquifer test and transmittal of the ENGEO report to the Contra Costa County Community Planning Department, comments on their report were prepared by Dr. Gordon Thrupp on behalf of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance and submitted to the County (S.S. Papadopolus &Associates, 2003). We have reviewed this report, with particular respect to their concerns on the results of the aquifer testing program and potential hydrogeologic impacts of well pumping on the adjacent area. 2 Our primary task was to evaluate the ENGEO report and prepare this peer review report presenting our conclusions and impact assessment, beginning with an independent analysis of the pumping test basic data generated by ENGEO as described below. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING The general hydrogeologic environment of the site is described in previous reports (ENGEO Incorporated, 2001; 2002) but certain features are emphasized here to provide background in the interpretation of the aquifer testing program. The property is underlain by mudstone, shale, and siltstone with minor interbedded sandstone bedrock of Miocene age (Dibblee, 1900). Bedding planes in the bedrock sequence are inclined and dip moderately to the north and northeast. These- bedrock materials, where porous and fractured, store and transmit ground water to wells. Ellen and Wentworth (1995) note that the intergranular or inherent permeability of the sandstone and associated siltstone is low to veer low. However, they note that fractures are commonly present, with close to wide spacing. Ground water is recharged through rainfall entering the bedrock primarily through these fractures. Porous zones may also be developed along bedding planes. Data from the production and observation wells drilled on the site confirm the presence of saturated siltstone and sandstone bedrock in the subsurface below a depth of 50 feet(see Figure 3 of the referenced ENGEO report). The hydrology of fractured sandstone and siltstone bedrock combined with stratigraphic discontinuities limit the application of the traditional analyses of aquifer testing programs. The Theis and other related "theoretical" formulas for aquifer test analysis 3 as described in the following section cannot be applied in a rigorous way, since "ideal" conditions of aquifer homogeneity and radial flow conditions that the formulas normally apply to, do not exist in this fractured bedrock environment. AQUIFER TEST PROCEDURE General A 24-hour sustained yield test was performed May 29 and 30, 2003 on the existing production well, GSW-1. In order to monitor the effects of pumping GSW-1, three observation wells (P-1, P-2, and F'µ3) were constructed at selected locations on the property as shown on the Site Flan, Figure 1.Additionally an off-site well (W- 1)just west of Hampton road was utilized. The known well construction information is summarized in the following Table A. TABLE A KNOWN WELL CONSTRUCTION'INFORMATION well Total Depth Diameter Screened interval Static water Level No. Feet inches Feet Feet GSW-1 125 5 65-125 13.95- P-1 125 5 65-125 14.00 P-2 125 2 65- 125 16.90 P-3 125 2 65- 125 4.60 W-1 215 5 115-215 8.25 The purpose of the sustained yield test was to determine such aquifer properties as transmissivity (T) and st©rativity (S), evaluate the specific capacity and sustained yield under operating conditions for the production well, and to estimate a maximum radius of influence from the pumping well during an operating mode. For definition of the terms "screened interval" and "static water level" as shown in Table 4 A, and "trans missivity" and "storativity" refer to the Glossary of Terms at the end of this report. 24-Hour Constant Rate Test On May 29, 2003, a sustained yield test was performed for 24 hours by ENGEO. The basic water-level measurements resulting from the test are contained in Appendix B of their report, and are also tabulated, along with our independent analysis in Appendix A of this report. During the test, the discharge was maintained at an average constant rate of 1025 gallons per minute (gpm). Water level measurements, using submersible pressure transducers, were made at selected intervals in the pumping well and observation wells P-1, P-2, P-3, and off-site well W-1. Following the pump shut off, water levels during the recovery period in GSW-1 were measured for two hours. An additional water-level measurement was obtained 24 hours after pump shutdown. The depth to water in GSW-1 at the start of the test was 13.95 feet below the ground surface. During the remainder of the test, the water level declined to a depth of 41.70 feet or 27.75 feet of drawdown (Figure A-2). The water level in GSW-1 recovered to a depth of 34.20 feet by 120 minutes after shutdown, roughly 27 percent recovery (Figure A-3). After 24 hours, the level had recovered to 24.35 feet, a roughly 63 percent recovery. Depth to the static water level in observation wells P-1 and P-2 was 14.00 and 16.90 feet, respectively. At the end of the 24-hour test, the depth to water was 41.05 feet in observation well P-1 and 27.70 feet in observation well P-2. The depth to water in observation well P-3 was 4.60 feet at the beginning of the test and was 5 4.65 feet at the end of the test, which basically reflected no change, considering the accuracy of the electric sounder used for the measurements. The depth to water in off-site well W-1 was measured at 4.60 feet both at the beginning and end of the test. DISCUSSION r General As noted previously, the purpose of the aquifer test program was to assist in answering two questions: (1)what is the sustained yield of the well which would dictate a practical operating cycle for production, and (2) under such conditions, what would the impact be (if any) on water levels in wells in neighboring properties? As shown on Figure 1, from well GSW-1 the nearest developed property boundaries are about 900 feet to the east, 1,400 to 2,600 feet along Bear Creek road to the i north, and 1,004 feet to the west. Transmissivity and Storativity To answer the above questions, first step is to determine the aquifer properties of transmissivity and storativity (see Glossary of Terms]from the test results. On Table 1 on Page 5 of the ENGEO report, transmissivity (T) and storativity (S) values are derived using both the Theis formula ("curve matching„) and the Jacob modification ("straight line") methods of analyzing the pumping test data. The data used in their analysis are from the earlier portion of the drawdown 6 curves for each of the observation wells, and result in higher T values than shown by our calculations in Appendix A. Their average T value is 595 gpd/ft, whereas our calculated average T value, using the Jacob modification ("straight line") method and analyzing data from the later portion of the test, is 153 gpolft. In our opinion, for the practical purpose of determining the radius of influence during pumping, this difference is not very significant. Both the calculated T values are very low, indicative of a very local, and steep "cone of depression" developed around the pumping well. This is characteristic of bedrock materials having low to very low mass permeability. The storage coefficients (S) calculated by ENGE© (average 0.00114) and from our analysis (average 0.0009) are in reasonable agreement, and are indicative of confined aquifer conditions. Radius of Influence Using their aquifer parameters of T and S and the Cooper-Jacob modification of the Theis equation, ENGEtO calculated that the radius of influence around the pumped well for a 24-hour duty period at a sustained "safe" yield of 10 gpm would be about 308 feet, using their lowest and most conservative T value of 373 gpd/ft. As described above, using the same methodology but substituting our T and S values, we determine a radius of influence to be about 224 feet with a slightly higher sustained yield of 11 gpm for the 24-hour duty period. Therefore, for the practical purpose of determining potential pumping impacts, we consider both calculations to be in substantial agreement. ®r. Thrupp, in his analysis of aquifer properties and radius of influence (S.S. Papadopulos &Associates, Inc., 2003) quoting from Heath (1983) asserts that the 7 Jacob modification of the Theis equation should only be used when'the "cone of depression" around the pumping well does not expand further and "steady state" or "equilibrium" conditions prevail (ie. when recharge equals discharge from the well). He furthermore draws the conclusion that this in tum has led ENGEO to an. erroneous analysis of the effects of pumping. However, Heath (1988, p. 38) also states that the Jacob method can also be used to analyze "steady-shape" conditions which prevail in earlier portions of the test where the "cone of depression" assumes a relatively consistent shape (and thus consistent T and S values) as it expands outward from the pumping well. This is the concept that is used in both ENGEO'S and our analysis, as in our opinion true "steady state"or"equilibrium" may never be achieved because of boundary conditions in this bedrock environment that distort the "cane of depression" and recharge primarily resulting from seasonal precipitation in the surrounding watershed. For these reasons, Dr. Thrupp's conclusions on the effects of pumping continuously for 100 days causing a decline of water levels of two feet at a distance of 1,500 feet, in our opinion, do not acknowledge either the hydrogeologic setting or a realistic operating scenario for the well as discussed later in this report. CONCLUSIONS Aquifer Testing Based on our review of the aquifer testing program described in the ENGEO report, and our independent analysis of the basic data as previously discusssed, we conclude that aquifer properties needed to determine potential impacts that might occur from pumping for irrigation have been adequately evaluated. 8 In our opinion, a pumping test of longer duration than 24 hours would not significantly change the T and S values used in determining the radius of influence, as discussed above. Driscoll (1986, p. 223) concurs with the 24-hour test period to gather data for a time--drawdown curve in the hydrogeologic setting of a confined aquifer. If the 24-hour test results do not follow the theoretical calculations because of the influence of fractures or stratigraphic discontinuities, in our opinion extending the test for 5 days or even 10 days is not going to result in any significant data that would improve the reliability/precision of the analysis, because of the effects of non- homogeneous and/or boundary conditions in this bedrock environment. Available Supply Based on our review of the aquifer test performed by ENGEM, it is our opinion that Well No. GSW-1 is capable of producing 11 gpm for a period of 24 hours as described in Appendix A, which is slightly greater than the 10 gpm used in the ENGEO calculations. Long-term available supply from the well will be controlled by the amount of recharge from rainfall. The site contains 83 acres, with another 64 acres off-site in the watershed "upstream" from the' production well. With 22 inches or 1.8 feet of average annual rainfall (Rantz, 197 1) over just the watershed recharge area above the well, and neglecting any infiltration on the site itself, the gross amount of recharge to the site would be 115.2 acre-feet (64 x 1.8). Most of this precipitation is consumed by evaporation or lost to runoff. If only 10 percent infiltrates and. becomes recharge, about 11.5 acre-feet per year would be avIailable to replenish ground-waster storage. This conservative estimate of recharge would more than offset the demand of 6.7 acre-feet per year for irrigation, as noted below. 9 Project Demand The proposed irrigation demand as outlined in the ENGEO report is about. 6,000 gallons per day, or about 4 gpm during the irrigation season. This means that at roughly 10 gpm or 600 gallons per hour, the well would need to pump for an estimated 10 hours per day, and with adequate storage capacity, could be pumped at a lesser rate for a longer period of time. Because of the lbw transmissivity, recovery is slow as exhibited by only 63 percent recovery after 24 hours. Therefore, we conclude that the best operating practice would be to pump the well for no more than 24 hours at the rate of 10 gpm, and then allow it to recover for as long as possible (preferably 72 hours, assuming sufficient interim storage capacity) before the next duty cycle begins. Mitigations and Monitoring Some mitigating.measures to reduce the amount of applied water for irrigation were noted in the referenced ENGEO report and include an application} system that is controlled by weather sensors, and a recycling system, both of which can be incorporated in design of the irrigation system. These mitigating measures are further described in the most recent letter report concerning the proposed ground-water monitoring and mitigation program (ENGEO Incorporated, 2003b). We concur with retaining observation well R-3 on the northeast side of the property, about 1200 feet from the pumping well. Monitoring of water levels should begin.before commencement of irrigation, to provide "baseline" data, with monthly measurements when the project is in operation. Another observation well (P-4) is 10 proposed to be constructed about 1000 feet north of the production well (ENGEO Incorporated, 2003b), and should be measured monthly. if available, the Thomas well on the west side of Hampton Road should be retained and monitored as long as it remains an empty casing and is not placed in service. Well production should be monitored by a flow meter and records of power consumption. During the irrigation season, weekly measurements should be taken for the first year of project operation to monitor the effects of pumping and then monthly during non-irrigation (winter) months. If a steady decline is noted in water levels in the observation wells over a 6-month period including-summer and winter seasons, it could be due to seasonal changes in precipitation or effects from pumping. In this case monitoring should be continued for another three years of operations. Based on the data gathered, the hydrogeologist may recommend changes in irrigation practices, which may include increased capture and use of recycled water, irrigating the area in small "blocks" similar to vineyard practice, or curtailing well production. Impacts From the results of the aquifer testing program, we concur with the statement in the referenced ENGEO report under Conclusions (Page 8) that "it is our opinion, given the geological conditions within the site vicinity, the estimated water requirements, and groundwater availability, that full irrigation for Phase 1 of the proposed cemetery from the existing groundwater supply well at the subject property will not impact groundwater availability for existing groundwater wells on adjacent and/or nearby properties. The effect of pumping groundwater from domestic wells in 11 shallow surface aquifers or from compartmented bedrock aquifers is limited in lateral extent." In summary, the data gathered and the hydrogeologic analysis of that data support the conclusion that there are no foreseeable risks of adverse impacts to wells of neighboring properties from pumping of the well, considering the proposed duty of water for irrigation for Phase 1 of the project as presently envisioned. LIMITATIONS Geoconsultants, Inc. provides its findings, recommendations, specifications, and professional advice after preparing such information in a manner consistent with that level of care and shill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the field.of hydrogeology. This acknowledgment is in lieu of all warranties either express or implied. Environmental changes, either naturally occurring or artificially induced, may cause the quality and/or quantity of water produced to change with time. Therefore, we do not guarantee continued production or consistent mineral quality of ground water from any well in the future. 12 SELECTED REFERENCES Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1980, Preliminary geologic map of the Briones Valley quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California; U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-539, scale 1:24,000. Driscoll, F.G.; Ph.D., 1988, Groundwater and wells: St. Paul, Minnesota, Johnson Division, 1,059 p. Ellen, S.D. and Wentworth, C.M., 1995, Hillside materials and slopes of the San Francisco Bay region, California; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1357, p. 119-124. ENGEO Inc., 2001, Groundwater availability evaluation, Bear Creep property, 83-acre parcel, Contra Costa County, California: unpublished report for Gan Shalom,, Project No. 5405,3.001.01, 6 p. ENGEO Inc., 2002, Preliminary geotechnical assessment, Bear Creek property, 83-acre parcel, Centra Costa County, California; unpublished report for Gan Shalom, Project No. 5405.3.001.01, 7 p. ENGEO Inc., 2003a,.Hydrogeologic discussion of groundwater issues, Gan Shalom Cemetery, 83-acre parcel, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa 13 SELECTED REFERENCES (Continued). County, California: unpublished report for Gan Shalom, Project No. 5405.1.003.01, 4 p. E14GEO Inc, 2603b, Proposed groundwater monitoring and mitigation program, Gars Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Reads, Centra Costa County, California; unpublished report for Gan Shalom, Project No. 5405.1.004.01, 4 p. Geoconsultants, Inc., 1997, Geological and geophysical study for water well location, 1190 Bear Creek road, Contra Costa County, California; unpublished report to Mr. Alvin Saraiva, Project No. GI 134-01, 6 P. Geoconsultants, Inc,, 2002, Geological and geophysical survey for water well location, Pereira Ranch, Centra Costa County, California; unpublished report to Braddock & Logan, Project No. G1351-01, 7 p. Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology; U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper 2220, 84 p. 14 SELECTED REFERENCES (Continued) Rantz, S.E., 1971, Precipitation depth-duration-frequency relations for the San Francisco Bay region, California, with isohyetal map of the San Francisco Bay region, California, showing mean annual precipitation; Basic Data r Contribution 25, San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. S.S. Papadopulos &Associates, Inc., 2003, Comments on groundwater aquifer testing and analysis, letter report by ENGEO dated June 20, 2003, proposed cemetery development, Hampton and Bear Greek Roads, Briones Mills Preserve, Contra Costa County, California; unpublished letter to Darwin Myers, Darwin Meyers Associates, dated September 4, 2003, 8 p. Tadd, D.K., 1980, groundwater hydrology: John Wiley and Sons, New York, 535 p. 15 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Aquifer A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is water bearing and transmits ground water in sufficient quantity to supply pumping wells. Confined Aquifer Ground water under pressure whose upper surface is at the bottom on an impermeable bed or a bed of distinctly lower permeability than the material in which the confined water occurs. Confined groundwater moves under the control of the difference in head between the intake and discharge areas of the water body. Screened interval Openings (commonly horizontal) in a well casing, to allow entrance of ground water into a well. Specific capacity A measure of the increase in production of ground water with increasing drawdown in a well ; usually measured in gallons per minute per foot of drawdown (gpm/ft). Static water level The undisturbed water level in a well before pumping. StorAtivity or coefficient of storage The storage coefficient of a confined aquifer is the volume of water released from storage per unit surface area of aquifer per unit change in head. This storage is related to the compressibility of water and of the aquifer fabric. Transmissivity The rate at which water can pass through the thickness of saturated aquifer of unit width under a`unit hydraulic gradient. Usually considered as a summation of the permeabilities of unit thicknesses through the aquifer section. Unconfined aquifer Ground water that has a free water table and is not confined under pressure beneath relatively impermeable materials. 16 rn-s i � � .. � �, � � � � . �� � � � � �. � .- � � � '� �, � ;� � �° � fl ° � � o �' «� �� � .t .w.r r�M, U -�.... �, t, '- �� � � + ? �c ww� �' "'� �� o. � �, �� � � � '�,� ��� f � �� x �� �� � ����������� ,�' �. •. � s.. • � d �� My� `f (� . ��� ,�+� � 1 � p � ,�. ��Y���i �� APPENDIX A AQUIFER-TEST EVALUATION AQUIFER PROPERTIES General This Appendix contains our independent evaluation of the aquifer pumping test performed,by ENGEO, using the basic data presented in their report, which for ease of reference is tabulated on Figure A-1. The drawdown and recovery for the pumped well GSW-1 are plotted on Figures A-2 and A-3, and the drawdown for observation wells P-1 and P-2 are plotted on Figures A-4 and A-5. Values of transmissivity (T) and storativity (S) are calculated from the drawdown data of observation wells P-1 and P-2, using the Jacob modification of the Theis equation. Transmissivity The coefficient of transmissivity (T) was calculated from the drawdown curves from P-1 and P-2 (Figures A-4 and A-5) by means of the following formula: T_ 2640 . As ' where Q is the pumping rate (gpm), and As is the change in drawdown in feet per .log cycle in the straight-line portion of the drawdown or recovery curves. As shown below, the transmissivity of the formation was calculated to be 135 gallons per day per foot of saturated section (gpd/ft) and 171 gpd/ft, respectively. r 11 n T (264)(10.25 rgpm) �135 gpolft from drawdown in P-1; 20.0 ft T='(264)(10.25 gpm) 171 gpolft from drawdown in P-2; 15.8 ft For purposes of our analysis, a T value of 153 gpolft (the average between T values for P-1 and P-2) was assigned to the formation. Sto nativity Storativity was calculated from the drawdown curves from P-1 (Figure A-4) and P-2 (Figure A-5) by means of the following formula: S p.3Tt;O . where T is the transmissivity (gpolft), to is the intercept of the straight-line portion of the recovery curve at zero drawdown (days), and r is the distance from the pumping well to the monitoring well (feet). The storativity for the formation as calculated from P-1 and P-2 was 0.0006 and 0.0011, respectively. S_ (0,3)(135 gpolft)0.039 days} =0.000fi from P-1; (60 ft) A-2 r (0.3)(171gpdfft)(0.208 days) 00 ft) 0.0011 from P-2; (1 For purposes of our analysis, a value for S of 0.0009 (the average of 0.0006 from P- 1 and 0.001 1from P-2 )was assigned to the formation. WELL CAOACITY AND ANALYSIS Specific�Capacity The specific capacity of the well (see Glossary of Terms) was obtained by dividing the discharge by the total drawdown: Specific Capacity=Pumping Rate(gpm) r Q , Drawdown(feet) s ' where Q is the discharge (gpm) and s is the total drawdown (feet). Therefore, the specific capacity for the Well GSW-1 was as follows Q ` 10.25 gpm 0.37 S r 27.75 ft gpm/ft Maximum 24-hour Yield The maximum available drawdown is defined as the distance between the static water level and the top of the first screen, in this case 65 feet. Therefore, the A-3 rnr total available drawdown is equal to 51.05 feet. A 24-hour maximum sustained yield was determined by multiplying the available drawdown by the specific capacity: Q=(61.05 ft)(0.37 gpm/ft)=19.99 gpm Additionally, we further assumed that the well would only exhibit 60 percent efficiency, which is a commonly applied factor particularly for small-diameter wells, thereby decreasing the maximum sustained yield over 24 hours to 11 gpm. Maximum Radius of influence In order to calculate the theoretical maximum radius of influence from the pumping of Well GSW-1, the Cooper-Jacob modification of the Theis equation is applied as follows: 264Q 0.3Tt S -log T r5 where s is equal to the maximum available drawdown in feet, Q is equal to the discharge in gpm,.T is equal to the transmissivity in gpd/ft, t is equal to the time in days, r is equal to the radius of the well in feet, and S is equal to the storativity or storage coefficient which is dimensionless. If the equation is rewritten to solve for r, and using a negligible "s" value of 0.1 feet (which for all intents and purposes is °zero" drawdown), then an approximation of the distance from Well GSW-1 where A-4 no drawdown will occur at a pumping.rate of 11 gprn for continuous pumping for 24 hours can be calculated as follows: r� 0.3 T t S log "1 s T 264 Q or,. r = (0.3) (1§3)(1) -224 beet (0.0009) lag "1 (0.1) (153) L(264) (11) _ Accordingly, based on our analysis the pumping of GSW-1 at the sustained yield of 11 gpm for a period of 24 hours will cause measurable drawdown only in wells located within a 224-foot radius of the pumped well. A-5 24-HOUR PUMPING TEST GAN SHALOM WELL GSW-1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA May 29-30,2003 GUM QS1N-1 ow-1 P•1 P-1 P''$ 7.2 ELAPSED LFEWE-FCOVEMY RATIO P'UMPWO DEPTH TO TOTAL DEPTH TO TOTAL OEM TO TOTAL TIME E (ELAPSED13ME RATE WATER DRAWDOWN WATER DRAWDOWN WATER DRAWDOWN 'ES 12!M2VERYTIM Pm P F P 8:05 0 1035 13.95 0.04 14.D0 0.00 15.90 0.00 8:06 - 1 10.25 15.45 150 1425 0.25 1$.90 0.00 8:07 2 1035 15.90 1.95 14.65 0.85 18.90 CIAO 8:08 3 1025 18.20 225 15.00 1.00 16.90 0.070 6.79 4 10.25 1815D -2-55 15.35 1.35 18.901 0.00 8:10 5 10.25 18.80 2.85 15.70 1.70 15.90 0.00 8:11 6 10.25 17.D0 3.05 18.15 2.15 '18.90 0.00 8:12 7 10.25 1730 835 16.25 2.25 18,90 0.00 6:13 8 1035 17.40 3.45 1025 2.35 16.90 0.00 8:14 9 10.25 1750 335 1655 2.55 i69D 000 8:15 10 1025 16.70 2.75 16.70 2.70 16:90 0.00 8:1'7 12 1025 18.00 4.05 17.05 3.05 18.90 D.00 6:19 14 10.25 1825 4.30 17.35 3.35 MOD 0.00 821 i8 1015 IBA5 450 . 17.80 3.80 16.001 0.00 823 18 1025 18.70 4.75 17.68 3.85 iusl 0.05 825 20 1025 18.95 5.00 18.05 4.05 16.95 0.05 827 22 1035 19.10 5.15 18.30 4.30 16.95 0.05 829 24 1025 19.30 6.35 18,55 4.55 17.00 0.10 8:31 28 10.25 19.50 5.55 178.75 4.75 17.0D 0.10 5:33 28 •1025 1 19.85 5.70 18.90 4,90 17.00 O.iD 8:35 30 1035 19,80 5.85 18.05 5.05 17.05 0.15 SAO 35 10.25 2030 6.25 19.50 5.50 17.05 0.15 BAS 40 10.25 2DAD 6165 19.85 8.85 17.10 0.20 8:50 45 1025 20.906.95 2020 6,20 17.15 0.25 8:55 5D 1025 2120 735 20.45 6.45 1720 0.30 9:00 55 10.2.5 2150 7M 20.80 6.80 1730 0.30 9:05 5D 10.25 21.60 7.85 21.10 7.10 17.30 0.40 9:1085 1025 32.05 8.10 21.35 735 17.25 0.45 9:15 70 10.25 22.30 8.35 21.60 7.60 17.40 0.50 9'30 75 10.25 2255 8.60 21.90 7,90 17.46 0,55 925 80 10.25 22.80 8.85 2210 8.10 175D 0.80 Sm 85 - 10.25 23.00 0.05 22.30 8.30 1750 Q.80 9:35 90 1035 2320 9.25 22.55 SAS 17.60 0.70 9:40 95 10.25 23.40 9.46 22.75 8.75 17.80 0.70 9:45 100 1025 23.80 9.05 2295 8.95 17.651 0.75 9.50 105 .10.25 23.80 9.85 23.15 9.15 17.75 0.85 8:55 110 1025 24.OD 10.05 23.35 9.35 17.80 0.90 1000 113 1025 24.20 1025 23.50 9.50 17.85 0.95 1,41'15 120 10.25 2435 10.40 23.70 9.70 17.90 1.00 14:35 150 1025 25,40 11.45 24.75 '10,75 1825 1.35 11:05 180 1025 282D 12.25 25.80 11.80 18.50 1,6D 1135 210 10.25 27.00 13.05 28.30 1220 18.80 1.90 12:05 240 1025 27.70 13.75 27.10 13.10 19.10 2.20 12:35 270 1035 26.40 14.45 27.75 13.75 19AD 2.50 13:05 300 10.25 MOD 15.05 28.35 14.35 19.70 2.90 13:35 330 1025 29.50 15.65 28.90 14.90 . 19.85 3.05 14:05 380 10.25 30.10 18.15 29.40 15.40 2020 3.30 18:05 490 1023 32.10 18.15 31.50 17.50 2125 4.35 18:05 BOD 10.25 33.75 19.80 33.10 19.10 22.20 5.30 20:05 720 10261 3535 21.30 34.55 20.55 23.15 8.28 22:05 640 1025 36.50 22.55 35.85 21.65 24M 7.15 0:05 960 1025 37.55 23.80 36.95 22.95 24.85 7.95 L4-W 108010.25 38.50 24.65 38.00 24.00 25.80 -8.70 1200 1035 39.70 25.75 39.05 25.05 28.50 9.40 132D 1025 40.70 28.7540.0526.05 27.00 10.10 1440 10.25 41.70 27.78 41.05 27.05 27,70 10.80 E3FEDCONBU'LTANITS, INC. G1 374-01 09103 FIGURE A-1 24-HOUR PUMPING TEST GAN SHALOM WELL CSW-1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA May 29-30,2003 o9w.1 3BW4 P-1 PP-1 P-2 P-2 EJlP3E0 RECO\/Eg2Y 1h4TK3 PtIMT' 6EM TO TOTAL DEPTH TO TOTAL DEPTH TO TOTAL. TIME TIME {ELAPSED T1ME RATi WATER DRAWDOWN WATER DRAWDOWN WATER DRAWDOWN TIME IMNUTM (AMNUTES) TO RECOVERY TIM QPM F (FEEM 6.09 '1441.00 1.00 1441,00 4030 2935 61.07 144.2.00 2.00 72100 39.60 25.66 131.00 1443.00 3.00 461.00 39.43 2650 6:08 144400 4.00 361.00 3920 2525 6:10 1445.00 5.00 269.00 30.251 25.00 6:11 1446.00 9.00 VIM 85.60 24.65 5:12 1447.00 7.00 205.71 36.x5 24.70 8:13 1448.008.00 191.00 36.50 24.85 8:14 1449.00 B.DD 181.00 36.35 24.40 9:16 _1450.00 10.00 146.00 3820 24.26 6:17 1452 0D 12.OD 12t00 36.05 24.10 8*19 1464.00 14.00 103.89 37.85 23.80 821 1455.00 19.00 91.00 37.70 23.75 . 823 .1458.00 16.00 51.00 3755 23.80 825 1450.00 20.00 73.00 37.49 23.50 8:27 14a2.00 22.00 99.45 37.35 23.40 829 1454.00 24.00 &LOD 37.20 23.25 '8:31 1469.00 _ 26MO 59.38 37.10 23.15 8:33 14a8.O0 .26.00 W-43 37.60 23.06 .. als 1470.00 30.00 49.00 36.90 22.85 840 1476.00 35.00 42.14 30.70 22.75 8:45 1450,00 40.00 37.00 3650 22.55 6:50 1485.00 45.00 3340 35.30 22.35 6:55 1480.00 60.00 29.00 35.15 2220 9:00 1495,130 55.00 27.18 35.95 22.00 91.05 15©0.00 60.00 25.00 36.80 2125 9:10 1505.00 65.00 23.15 $5.80 21:65 . 9:15 1610.00 70.00 21.67 35.45 21.50 9:20 1515.01 75.00 2020 35.30 21.35 _ 925 11M.00 80.00 19.00 35.20 21.25 9:30 1525.00 95.00 17:94 35.05 21.10 2:35 1530.00 90.06 17.00 34.90 20.95 BAD 1536.00 95.00 16.19 34.80 20.85 0.45 1540.00 100.00 15.40 34.65 20.70 9:50 1645.00 105.00 14.71 3445 20.110 9:55 1550.00 110.00 14.09 34.45 20:50 i0.00 1535.00 115.00 13.52 3425 20.40 10105 1550.90 120.00 13.00 34.20 2025 i 905 2850.00 1440.0II 2.00 24-Ml 10AD QrSOCONSULTANTS, INC. G 1374-01 09/03 FIGURE A-1 ED C to !I } z { { 0 ' f L Z � c� cn zCD3: { ♦ { �- W Z r 0 E. 0 S too t ti ii ii c' 0 u c� yrs 0 ui 04 04 r� c) `r (,43 31 NMOGMV"d(3 a Cr) Cr`? z ' < ui D 9 LD z co pug J E L E 0 1 u o W c w , Z 0 U- Z ; 4 w 0 ! I cr Z a uuj ;;) �- 0LUJL) U Ul CL w E 3: A _ 0 7 6 � Nv .04 C! ca o C! C! ui N N cm Eft LO (133:1) rannOc M"C'mC1im U�� C') Y 0 C) V U- 2 co �. � J 04 C> E zett co M d W CDLU u—I ILI to 1�: m CL .. 0 ,X Z 2 o o � �. - 0 w II at tl t i10d g �. Cl � CD uj CL CL Z ' D CL t3 0 CL 4 CD N to M C14 z .. D I d c N cn ' N it It If F hh I-- CDCJ C70 0 C1 [? O 0 C7 C� C C7 CD d 0 0 O 0 O C� C.7 Cj !Ca r N N M M 'fid' CY 0 (1330 NmoamvNa a ce) to LL go !! J CIS , V- co a CO) 04 c; c C f �' 0 z J � � SO CL uj J � zcl � M 451?CL z r— Cwt i:: AJ z It !I If U l W0 z CL Z a D a 0 tm N _ 0 -.. �- CY M N • r ! i G iri N cv� (133.4) NMOaMVHO Y-w A ..- .- ...1.1111. 1111 . _ ___ % s � om 11.11 __ _ _ _.. ....... .__ _ __ EO GEOTEC'FINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS I t V C 0 R P G R A T E D MATERIALS TESTING Project Number 5405.1.004,01 September 25, 2003 Mr. Frank Winer Gan Shalom 3315 Stage Coach Drive Lafayette, CA 94549 Subject: Gan Shalom Cemetery Bear Creek and Hampton Roads Contra Costa County, California RESPONSE TO CONLMENTS References: 1. ENGEO Inc.; Hydrogeologic Discussion of Groundwater Issues; Gan Shalom. Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California; February 19, 2003. 2. ENGEO Inc.; Work Plan For Piezonrleter Construction and Groundwater Pumping Test; Gan Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California,May 1,2003. 3. ENGEM}Inc.; Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis; Gari.Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County,California;June 20,2003. 4. S.S. Papadopulos & Associates; Comments on Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis; September 4, 2003. Dear Mr. WL-ler: ENGEO Incorporated is pleased to provide this response to the referenced continents letter prepared by S.S. Papadopulos & Associates (SSP&A) regarding our June 2003 Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis report. The SSP&A review letter was prepared on behalf of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance(BHPA). The SSP&A review letter provided the following summary of three main points. ENGEO's response follows each of the itezn.s: SSP&A Comment: .Reported that data from Observation Wells PI ana P.2 indicate that steady-state flow conditions were achieved during the .24-hour pumping test, but steady state flaw conditions were not achieved. 2441 Crow Canyon Road•Suite 20€3•San Ramon,CA 94383-1545•(925)838-1600*Fax(925)838-7425 E-mail:engstaff0engeo.com•www.eiigeo.com Can Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Can Shalom Cemetery September 25,2003 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Page 2 ENCEO P.eMonse: The SSP&A statement that "steady-state" had not been achieved is incorrect. Steady state flaw is an equilibrium condition where inflow is roughly equal to outflow. A plot of the drawdown rate vs. time for P1 and P2 shows asymptotic or steady behavior at 24 hours; therefore, little additional drawdown would be expected at the given pumping rate. SSP&A Comment: Reported that insignificant water level change in Observation Fells P3 and Thomas Well 1 during- the 24-hour pumping test indicate that pumping from the existing well does not impact regional groundwater levels and wells on adjacent properties. However, the duration of the pumping test was inadequate to demonstrate this. Moreover, using the same standard aquifer solution equation used by E.YGE0, and hydraulic properties of the aquifer estimated by ENG O, we calculate a drop in groundwater level of several feet in 100 clays at a distance of 150 0 feet from GSW-1, ENCEO Resonse. Measurement of the Thomas Well and Well P3 was performed for background data and is not intended to be used in association with aquifer evaluation and parameter calculations. Wells P1 and P2 at 50 feet and 100 feet, respectively, were used to determine aquifer parameters and radius of influence calculations. The 24-hour time .frame is typical for aquifers with moderate permeability.' A ccording t o D riscoll,x "For a nconfined a quifers, o bsery ation w ells s hould be placed no further than 100 to 300 feet from the pumped well." In addition, SSP&A assumes that GSW-1 will be pumped for 100 continuous days, 24 hours per day. This is an incorrect assumption. Once storage tanks have reached capacity, the well will pump only intermittently to maintain storage levels. Based on the results our pump test data, we would not expect any drop in water level at a distance of 1500 feet. SSP&A-Comment: ENGEO calculated a "theoretical" radius of influence (lCli of 308 feet for pumping GSW-1, at 10 gpm for 24 hours, The method used to calculate the R0I is inappropriate because steady state conditions were not achieved, A Theis type-curve using the s acne p roperties shows that at a distance c�,f 308 feet, drawdown is nearly 2 feet after 1 day of pumping at .10 gpm, and nearly I Q feet after 20 days o f pumping. t US Deparbnent of the Interior,Ground water Manual, 1981, 7 Driscoll,Fletcher D.,Ph.D.,Groundwater and wells, Second Edition, 1987. Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery September 25, 2003 RESPONSE TO COWvIENTS Page 3 ENGEO Response: Again, as indicated above, a plot of the drawdown rate vs. time for GSW-1, Pl, and P2 shows asymptotic behavior at 24 hours; therefore, steady state flow has been achieved. Since steady state conditions were found to exist from the pump test,use of the Cooper-Jacob modification of the Theis equation is appropriate. The ROI calculation is considered to be a reasonable estimation of the maximum zone of drawdown influence. SSP&A Comment: .Reported that the existing well (GSW-1) can yield at lust .ltd gpm. However, bused on the data, gpm pumping at 10 gpwould result in a 70-foot drop in water level in GSW-1 in only Ill days. The data indicate that GSW-1 cannot sustain even several clays of pumping at 10 gpm. ENGEO Response: The SSP&A calculation is incorrect. Review of drawdown data, calculation of aquifer parameters, and ROI calculation indicates a limited zone of influence and stable drawdown at 10 gpm. SSP&A suggests that a 70--foot drop in water level would occur after 10 days. It appears that SSP&.A extrapolated this drawdown.based on an assumed consistent rate of 0.3 feet/hour. This is an incorrect and flawed analysis on the part of SSP&A. Based on the pump test data, the drawdown rate at 24 hours was 0.5 feet per hour decreasing with time. Therefore, the drawdown rate would continue to decrease to rates well below 0.3 feet/hour,which would result in far less than 70 feet of drawdown at 10 days continuous pumping 24 hours per day. As previously indicated,the pumping well will operate only intermittently to maintain water tank storage levels. The well will not ever be pumped for 10 days continuously,24 hours per day. The SSP&A letter also provides the following conclusions and recommendations regarding the June 2003 ENGEO report: SSP&A Comment: A .24-hour, 10 gpm pumping test conducted at GSW-1 was of inadequate duration to provide significant drawdown response at distant observation wells. ENGEO Response: The length of the pumping test was intended to allow derivation of aquifer parameters at Observation Wells P1 and P2 at a distance of 50 and 100 feet respectively. The 24-hour time frame for pump tests is typical for aquifers with moderate permeability as recommended by the U.S. Department of the Interior.3 According to Driscoll,` "For unconfined aquifers, observation wells should be placed no further than 100 to 300 feet from the pumped well". 3 US Department of the Interior..Ground water Manual, 1981. 4 Driscoll,Fletcher D.,Ph.D.,Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition, 1987. Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery September 25, 2003 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Page 4 SSP&A Comment: Steady-state conditions were not achieved at any of the observation wells (including thepumping well) during the 24-hour test. ENGE0 onse: The SSMA statement that "steady-state" had not been achieved is incorrect. A plot of the drawdown rate vs. time for GSW-1,P1, and P2 shows asymptotic or steady behavior at 24 hours; therefore, little additional drawdown would be expected at the given pumping rate. According to Fetter,5 'Tor an artesian or leaky artesian aquifer, the test may last 24 hours or less. This is often sufficient to delineate values for the formation constants and to determine whether there are any recharge or barrier boundaries." The underlying aquifer at the Gan Shalom site would likely be considered a leaky artesian aquifer. SSP&A Comment: Only 65 percent recovery of water level in GSW-1 occurred in 24 hours after pumping was stopped. Recovery should have been monitored until 90 percent recovery was achieved ENGE0 Re§gonse: Typical recovery tests use an 80 to 95 percent recovery to static water level, or steady rate of recovery, as the criteria for determining an adequate duration. In the case of Well GSW-1, a stable recovery rate was achieved at two hours duration. Recovery to 90 percent of static.water level was not necessary for the GSW-1 recovery test since a stable recovery rate had been achieved. Furthermore, the hydraulic parameter (Transmissivity) derived from the recovery test was within the same magnitude as the value calculated from the pump test, verifying the adequacy of the recovery test. SSP&A Comment: Straight-line trend of early time data recorded at GSW4 and PI suggest depletion of a localized fracture network reservoir in the vicinity of GSW-1 and PL This complicates analysis of aquifer properties usingstandard type-curves, ENGEM Response: Based on our review of lithologic logs from the site wells and published geologic information, ENGEO agrees that the groundwater produced by GSW-1 is likely associated within fracture porosity within the Harnbre Sandstone. SSP&A's observation that the early time data suggests C.W.Fetter,Jr.,Applied Hydrogeology Gan Shalom 5405,1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery September 25,2003 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Page 5 aquifer depletion is flawed since later-time data shows steady state response in drawdown. Extrapolation of straight-line trend data at early time is inappropriate. Although the early time drawdown response could complicate analysis of aquifer properties using standard type curve, the later-time drawdown data does allow adequate type-curve matching. SSP&A Comment: Substantially more drawdown of later-time data in comparison to Theis solution, suggests presence of possible low permeability boundaries to the aquifer. This also complicates analysis of aquifer properties using standard type-curves. Duration of pumping was inadequate to resolve influence of early-time complications and possible later-time boundary in, If low permeability boundaries do exist, the extent of influence of pumping may be limited in some directions. Such boundaries may also substantially lessen the sustainable production potential of the aquifer. ENGEO Response: According to Fetter,6 'Tor an artesian or leaky artesian aquifer, the test may last 24 hours or less. This is often sufficient to delineate values for the formation constants and to determine whether there are any recharge or barrier boundaries." "Later-time" data depicts asymptotic behavior in drawdown rates. The drawdown data is not indicative of potential boundary conditions. Had a localized aquifer boundary been present, the rate of drawdown would be expected to increase toward the later portion of the pump test. SSP&A Comment: As a result of poor match between data and type-curves, and inadequate duration of pumping, the estimates of aquifer Transmissivity are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. ENGEO Response: Review of the data and type-curve matches generated by the software shows adequate curve fit at later-time data. As previously indicated, the 24 hour pump duration is appropriate given the moderate permeability of the site aquifer.' With any aquifer evaluation, there will be a degree of uncertainty in the calculation of aquifer parameters. The Transmissivity values generated from Theis method calculations and presented in our pump test report, were within one order of magnitude, indicating a reasonable degree of certainty in the values. 6 C.W.Fetter,Jr...Applied Hydrogeology Gan Shalom. 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery September 25,2003 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wage 6 SSP&A Comment: EIVGEO claims that GSW I can yield at least 10 gprn and that the data indicate pumping,from GSW-1 well does not impact regional groundwater levels and wells on adjacent properties. Berth claims are flawed and technically misleading. ENGEO Response: As indicated in previous responses, based on the projected volume requirements for the project and estimation of hydraulic properties associated with the aquifer,use of G W-1 will not impact nearby water wells. The author's statement that "Both claims are flawed and technically misleading"is SSP&A's opinion and is not supported in fact. SSP&A Comment: Based on the water level data recorded in GSW-1, continued pumping at 10 gpm would result in a 70 foot drop in water level in only 10 days. The data indicate that GSW-1 cannot sustain even several days of pumping at 10 gpm. This renews concerns that the groundwater production potential maybe inadequate at the proposed cemetery development to sustain irrigation ofthe"the proposed lawns. ENGEO R.eg aponse: The SSP&A calculation is incorrect. Review of drawdown data, calculation of aquifer parameters, and ROI calculation indicates a limited zone of influence and stable drawdown at 10 gpm. SSP&A suggest that a 70-foot drop in water level would occur after 10 days. It appears that SSP&A extrapolated this drawdown based on an assumed consistent rate of 0.3 feet/hour. This is an incorrect and flawed analysis on the part of SSP&A. Based on the pump test data, the drawdown rate at 24 hours was 0.5 feet per hour decreasing with time. Therefore, the drawdown rate would continue to decrease to rates well below 0.3 feet/hour, which would result in far less than 70 feet of drawdown at 10 days continuous pumping, 24 hours per day. As previously indicated, the pumping well will operate only intermittently to maintain water tank storage levels. It is unlikely the well would ever be pumped for 10 days continuously,24 hours per day ,SSP&A Comment: Using the Theis solution, which ENGEO used to analyze the data, and using values of transmissivity and storage reported by E?VGE0 based on their analyses of the test data, we calculate 5,feet of'drawdown in 100 days, and 100 feet of drawdown in 800 days at a distance of I500,feet from GSW-1 pumping-at 10 gpm. This supports concerns of many BHPA members and other local residents that groundwater pumping at the proposed cemetery development could impact neighboring wells. Moreover, the test was conducted in .tlffay, which is at the end o,f"the rainy season when groundwater levels are highest — production potential of`GSW-I would likely be even less at the end of summer. r�. Gan Shalom 5405.1.004.01 Gan Shalom Cemetery September 25,2003 RESPONSE TO CON04-ENTS Page 7 ENGEM Response: This is an incorrect and flawed analysis on the part of SSP&.A. SSP&A extrapolated the drawdown values based on the assumption of continuous pumping for up to 800 days, 24 hours per day. As previously indicated, the pumping well will operate only intermittently to maintain water tank storage levels. Based on the expected project irrigation requirements, it would never be necessary to pump the well continuously With regard to seasonal fluctuations in groundw=ater levels, the pumping test conducted by Pacific Coast Well&Pump in September 2001 found the static water level for GSW-1 at 15 feet. Given the 13.95-foot elevation recorded in May 2003, this indicates a negligible difference in water elevation between.the Spring and.Sun neer. SSP&A Comment: In a l etter d ated A pril 3 Ot", 2 003, regarding r ecornmendations f or evaluation o f g roundwater production potential, SSP&.A recommended duration for the aquifer test of 5 days. Because of the deviation from the standard confined aquifer type curves exhibited by the data, a longer test may be needed. To properly evaluate long-terra production capability of GSW-1 and potential impact to wells on neighboring properties, SSP&A recommends an aquifer test with a duration of at least S days, and possibly as long as 10 days. Afterfive days, and each day thereafter, the data should be evaluated to determine if the duration is adequate. Pumping rate should be measured and documented regularly, higher resolution transducers should be used in P3 and W1, and recovery data should be collected at the pumping well and all observation wells until 90 percent recovery is achieved. ENGEO Response: The length of the pumping test was intended to allow development of steady--state conditions at observation wells P1 and P2 (50 and 100 feet respectively). The 24-hour time frame is typical for aquifers w ith m oderate permeability. T he r exults o f t he M ay pumping t est are v slid and h ave verified the capability of GSW-1 to sustain the projected irrigation demand of the proposed project. We are pleased to be of continued service to you with regard to this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact us. Very truly yours, ENGEO INCORPORATED Reviewed.by: Shawn. un er Bri Mahe g rty CHG 413 CE 255 PL sm/kc:resp e--7 _