SFPUC approves CEQA findings for Alameda Creek recapture project amid ACWD concerns about steelhead flows

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on June 23 adopted CEQA findings and authorized the general manager to implement the Alameda Creek recapture project (project CUW35201), after a staff presentation and public comment from the Alameda County Water District (ACWD).

Ellen Levin, deputy manager for water, said the project—part of the Water System Upgrade Program (WSUP) and originating in 1997—would recapture a portion of instream flow releases from Calaveras Reservoir and bypasses at the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam to support habitat while maintaining water-supply reliability. "The releases from Calaveras Reservoir, together with the bypasses at the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam, are estimated to average a total of 14,700 acre-feet per year," Levin said, adding that estimated recapture is about 7,200 acre-feet per year (range 4,900–9,200). She described project components including floating pumps, discharge pipelines, a pipeline manifold, a new pipeline connection to the existing pump station, a control building and utility infrastructure.

Levin told commissioners the project relies on natural infiltration to an existing quarry pond on SFPUC lands in the Sonoma Valley, that the pond will operate like a reservoir (filling in winter and pumping late spring through fall), and that maximum pumping capacity would be 19,400,000 gallons per day though permitted pumping depends on how much Calaveras fills in winter. She also said the Planning Commission certified the project's EIR yesterday and that mitigation measures reduced construction and operational impacts to less-than-significant levels. "There are no significant impacts to downstream water users," she said, noting the CEQA analysis considered whether downstream users would need alternative supplies and concluded Alameda County Water District has operational flexibility to accommodate differences.

Robert Shaver, general manager of ACWD, told the Commission ACWD supports the concept but urged delay of approval until additional analyses are completed. "The model SFPUC used for the project is inadequate and flawed," Shaver said, arguing the model was developed for stream flows and does not capture complex groundwater–surface-water interactions. He said planning staff provided three CDs of new information on June 10 and that, based on an expedited review, the data "clearly shows that the number of days that the project causes flows downstream to drop below 25 CFS ... increases significantly," a concern because multiple experts consider 25 CFS the minimum for steelhead migration. Shaver said ACWD also worries about potential injury to its water rights and offered approaches and cost-sharing to perform additional analysis.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about stakeholder comments and quarry operations when pits are mined out. Commissioner Kane asked whether quarried pits would become reservoirs; Levin said converting mined-out pits to storage is a planned future step but other ponds and supplies are for later consideration.

Before the vote the Commission amended a clerical blank in the resolution to insert the Planning Commission motion number "19952." A commissioner moved the amended item and another seconded it. The chair called the voice vote; commissioners answered "aye" and the chair stated "The item carries." The transcript records no roll-call tally or individual vote names.

The action directs the general manager to implement the project consistent with the charter and applicable law and subject to subsequent commission action and Board of Supervisors approval where required. The Commission also recorded that staff representatives, including Josh Milstein from the Bureau of Environmental Management Infrastructure, were present to answer follow-up questions. ACWD said it expects future opportunities to work with SFPUC on additional analysis. No implementation schedule or funding breakdowns were specified in the record.