Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAir QualityImpact 3.7-3: The proposed Project would result in an incremental contributionto a cumulative effect for several criteria pollutants for which the San FranciscoBay region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient airquality standard.As detailed in this discussion for Impact 3.7-1, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basinis in nonattainment of state and federal ozone, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 standards for severaldifferent averaging times. As detailed in this discussion for Impact 3.7-2, the on-siteoperation of heavy equipment during demolition and construction would generatecombustion emissions and fugitive dust emissions, resulting in a short-termincremental impact. Off-site vehicle emissions (trucks and worker vehicles) wouldalso contribute to a short-term incremental impact in the San Francisco Bay Area AirBasin.These incremental impacts were determined to be less than significant becauseEBMUD shall implement the applicable fugitive dust and particulate matter emissionscontrol measures contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 1999)and listed under Impact 3.7-2. The use of newer, less polluting Tier 1, 2, and 3engines in the majority of construction equipment used on-site is a measure forreducing combustion emissions of NOX, ROC, CO, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 . Although not amitigation measure per se, California ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel with a maximumsulfur content of 15 ppm by weight will be used in all diesel-powered equipmentwhich minimizes sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions. The results of the screeninganalysis for criteria pollutants presented previously show that no exceedence ofambient air quality standards in the Project vicinity would result solely from Projectactivities.These small incremental impacts are not cumulatively considerable because EBMUDwould comply with specific requirements in the BAAQMD’s approved air qualityplans for attainment of ozone and particulate matter. In short, these regional plansaddress the existing and cumulative impact problems.Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.Impact 3.7-4: The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors tosubstantial pollutant concentrations.The Project site is located in a hillside residential area. Residential uses surrounding theProject site consist of single-family dwellings on Estates Drive, Bullard Drive, WoodDrive, Wood Court, McAndrew Drive, Moyer Place, LaSalle Avenue, Bruns Court,Harbord Drive, Johnston Drive, and other streets in the neighborhood. It is not knownwhether some residences in the immediate vicinity (i.e., 1,000 feet or 305 meters) of theProject site might house potentially sensitive persons, but it is probable based on thedemographics of persons commenting at public meetings held on Project alternatives.sb09_001.doc 3-7.18 7/22/2009
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAir QualityThere would be no emissions from long-term storage tank operations to affectsensitive receptors, and minimal emissions from landscape and facilities maintenance.However, as discussed under Impact 3.7-2, demolition and construction activitieswould cause short-term emissions of NOX, ROC, CO, SO 2 , PM 10 , and PM 2.5 fromdiesel-powered equipment and earthmoving (ground disturbance). The results of thescreening analysis contained in the analysis for criteria pollutants show that noexceedence of ambient air quality standards in the Project vicinity would result solelyfrom Project activities. Notwithstanding Project-generated impacts, maximumbackground levels of particulate matter (PM 10 , PM 2.5 ) already exceed state or federalstandards as applicable in the Project vicinity.Diesel particulate matter (DPM) contain substances that are suspected carcinogens,along with pulmonary irritants and hazardous compounds which may affect sensitivereceptors such as young children, senior citizens, or those susceptible to respiratorydisease. Where construction activity occurs in proximity to long-term sensitivereceptors, there could be a potential for unhealthful exposure of those receptors todiesel exhaust, including residential receptors. The results of the screening riskassessment contained in Impact 3.7-2, analyses show that the probability ofcontracting cancer from diesel particulate matter, for the Maximally ExposedIndividual during the construction phase is about 1.2 x 10 -6 , which is less than the 10in one million (1 x 10 -5 ) BAAQMD CEQA threshold and thus not significant.Construction emissions are transient and temporary in nature, and BAAQMD controlmeasures would be implemented as described previously. Impacts on sensitive receptorsare anticipated to be less than significant, and no further mitigation would be required.Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.Impact 3.7-5: The proposed Project would not create objectionable odorsaffecting a substantial number of people.California ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm byweight will be used in all diesel-powered equipment which minimizes emissions ofsulfurous gases (sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and carbonylsulfide). Therefore, no objectionable odors are anticipated from demolition orconstruction activities or normal operation of the Project. The proposed Project wouldhave no significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.Mitigation Measure: None Required.sb09_001.doc 3-7.19 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:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115: Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 126 and 127: 3.6 Traffic and Circulation3.6.1 Ap
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?