Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAir QualityImpacts and Mitigation MeasuresThe air quality impact analysis considers construction impacts associated with theproposed Project. Construction emissions are evaluated in accordance with the BayArea Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 1999). Minimaloperational emissions would be associated with the proposed Estates ReservoirReplacement Project storage tanks and landscaped areas; therefore, no operationalimpact analysis is required. Ongoing maintenance of Project facilities and landscapingat the site would be at levels similar to existing conditions.Impact 3.7-1: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct any air qualityplans of the BAAQMD, specifically, the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and OzoneAttainment Plan (BAAQMD 2000).General estimated basin-wide construction-related emissions are included in theBAAQMD emission inventory (which, in part, forms the basis for the air quality planscited above) and are not expected to prevent attainment or maintenance of the ozone,particulate matter, and carbon monoxide standards within the Bay Area. Therefore,construction impacts related to air quality plans for these pollutants from the proposedProject would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required, since theyare presently estimated and accounted for in the emission inventory.Mitigation Measure: None Required.Impact 3.7-2: The Project would have the potential to contribute to the alreadyexisting violation of air quality standards in the Project vicinity for PM 10 andPM 2.5, primarily through fugitive dust emissions of PM 10 during demolition andconstruction, and from PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions from diesel-poweredconstruction equipment.As shown in Table 3.7-5, the significance criteria in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelinesfor Project operations are 80 pounds per day oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and/orparticulate matter as PM 10 or 15 tons per year nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and/or PM 10(BAAQMD 1999). There would be temporary and transient construction emissions.Therefore, a preliminary screening impact analysis has been performed based on theplanned implementation of the proposed Project. Estimated controlled 17 on-siteemissions from demolition and construction activities are summarized in Table 3.7-6.Detailed calculation and modeling templates are in the Air Quality Technical Report(ENTRIX 2009), and are based on conservative assumptions for equipment usage.17 “Controlled” means implementation of BAAQMD required emissions control measures.sb09_001.doc 3-7.12 7/22/2009
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAir QualityTable 3.7-6Estimated On-site and Off-site Total Criteria & GHG* Emissions - ControlledDemolitionPhaseConstructionPhaseTotal ProjectProject Emissions tons lbs/day tons lbs/day tons lbs/dayOxides of Nitrogen (as NO 2 ) 2.1 151 7.7 164 9.8 164Hydrocarbons (ROC as CH 4 ) 0.2 16 0.8 18 1.1 18Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1.3 92 4.6 97 5.8 97Particulates (as PM 10 ) 0.1 10 0.5 10 0.6 10Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.14Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.1 9.3 0.5 10.2 0.6 10.2Fugitive Dust (as PM 10 ) 0.5 9.4 1.3 8.3 1.8 9.4Note: Greenhouse gas emissions are assessed for impacts in Section 3.8 of the EIRSince daily emissions of NO X are over the BAAQMD level of significance, and PM 10and PM 2.5 are in nonattainment, screening dispersion modeling was performed todetermine whether state or federal ambient air quality standards would be exceededsolely due to Project activities against historic maximum background levels. Thescreening air quality impacts are shown in Table 3.7-7 and Table 3.7-8, wheredemolition has the highest mitigated fugitive dust emission rate while construction hasthe highest mitigated NO X and diesel particulate matter emission rate. A screeningrisk evaluation for diesel particulate matter for the longer construction period is shownin Table 3.7-9.TABLE 3.7-7Estimated Demolition Phase Criteria Maximum Impacts - Controlled(Demolition Phase)BackgroundTotalAveraging ModeledCalifornia Standard Federal StandardCriteria Pollutant Period µg/m 3 µg/m 3 µg/m 3 µg/m 3 status µg/m 3 statusNitrogen Dioxide 1-hour max 11.5 201 212 338 Under --- Under(NO 2 ) Annual avg 0.3 36 36 56 Under 100 Under1-hour max 0.1 52 52 655 Under --- UnderSulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )3-hour 0.1 47 47 --- Under 1309 Under24-hour 0.0 21 21 105 Under 367 UnderAnnual avg 0.0 6 6 --- Under 79 Under1-hour max 48.6 4,120 4,169 22,898 Under 40,071 UnderCarbon Monoxide (CO)8-hour 34.1 3,205 3,239 10,304 Under 10,304 UnderParticulates (as PM 10 )24-hour 0.60 74.0 74.6 50 Exceed 150 UnderAnnual avg 0.11 24.7 24.8 20 Exceed --- UnderParticulates (as PM 2.5 )24-hour 0.59 70.0 70.6 --- Under 35 ExceedAnnual avg 0.11 13.1 13.2 12 Exceed 15 Under24-hour 5.06 74.0 79.1 50 Exceed 150 UnderFugitive Dust (as PM 10 ) Annual avg 0.95 24.7 25.7 20 Exceed --- UnderSource: Background reference is San Francisco 2002-07Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meterCombustion emissions maximum impact at 225 m (738 ft), point or volume sourceFugitive dust maximum impact at 85 m (279 ft), area sourcesb09_001.doc 3-7.13 7/22/2009
Page 1:
Estates Reservoir ReplacementDraft
Page 4 and 5:
TABLE OF CONTENTSEstates Reservoir
Page 6 and 7:
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 8 and 9:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSABABAGAPC
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
SUMMARYS.1 IntroductionThis Draft E
Page 14 and 15:
Estates Reservoir Improvements Draf
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2Project Description2.1 Ove
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Chapter 3Environmental Setting, Imp
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
3.5 Cultural Resources3.5.1 Approac
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109: Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 126 and 127: 3.6 Traffic and Circulation3.6.1 Ap
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
CHAPTER 5Cumulative Impacts, Growth
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
CHAPTER 6Report Preparers6.1 Lead A
Page 232 and 233:
APPENDIX APublic InvolvementPublic
Page 234:
APPENDIX BNotice of PreparationAUGU
Page 238 and 239:
Dingee Pressure Zone Improvement Pr
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
FIGURESDingee Pressure Zone Improve
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280:
show all

Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?