Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportGreenhouse GasesEncourage other local governments (e.g., City of Oakland) throughout the UnitedStates to adopt a similar resolution.While the resolution does not establish standards of significance, it seeks the cooperationof other government agencies, e.g., EBMUD and the City of Oakland, to participate inthe effort to minimize and reduce emissions of GHG. Thus, the Project is subject to theoverall goals of the resolution.Direct GHG emissions generally result from on-site and off-site combustion of fossilfuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, and natural gas). Indirect GHG emissions are from off-sitesources such as gas-fired power plants generating electricity used to operate pumps andlights. The only source of direct GHG emissions during Estates Reservoir Projectoperation would be associated with periodic inspections and maintenance activities.These emissions would come from motor vehicles used to transport maintenance workersand gas-powered landscape equipment. Such vehicle trips and landscape maintenancewould be relatively infrequent events that would not, by themselves, because long-termpermanent effects on global climate. Since inspections and maintenance activities arecurrently performed on the existing reservoir and the site, there would be a negligiblechange in these emissions; hence, no new impact. Moreover, if the new tanks require lessmaintenance than the existing reservoir, these emissions would actually decrease.Therefore, the impact assessment focuses on GHG emissions that would occur as a resultof Project demolition and construction activities and the potential long-term energyconservation benefit of reduced water losses.Impacts on global climate that could result from implementation of the proposed Projectare described in the following paragraphs. Impacts under CEQA may be direct orindirect.Direct impacts are primary effects that result from Project construction or operation of aparticular feature of the proposed Project (such as demolition of the roof and lining andearthmoving for landscaping), and occur as a direct result of the proposed Project at thesame time and place as the proposed Project.Indirect impacts are those that result indirectly as a secondary effect, such as GHGemissions associated with on-site energy use or off-site truck emissions resulting fromtransporting demolition debris that cannot be recycled on site. Indirect impacts can occurat another time and place from the Project. While the Project occurs at Estates Reservoir,the potential indirect impacts are felt in the Project vicinity.Impacts may be short-term or temporary in nature, such as criteria pollutant emissionsresulting from diesel fuel combustion, or may be long-term due to Project activities thatwould endure for an extended period, such as a permanent stationary source of emissions(which the proposed Project is not).At present, there are no officially promulgated CEQA significance thresholds for GHGemissions in the state or county (CAPCOA 2008). However, CAPCOA has proposedsb09_001.doc 3-8.12 7/22/2009
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportGreenhouse Gasesseveral different means of assessing significance, as summarized in Section 3.13.3.2. Ofthese, Threshold 2 – Quantitative Threshold Based on Market Capture is the mostconveniently quantitative for various types of projects:900 metric tonnes for residential and office projects; and900 metric tonnes for non-office commercial projects and industrial projects.CAPCOA believes that the proposed 900 metric tonnes significance threshold wouldprovide equivalency for different projects in various economic sectors. Since thisthreshold is proposed, not promulgated, there can be no actual conclusion about whethergreenhouse gas impacts from the Project are quantitatively significant, nor can the needfor, or extent of, actual GHG mitigation measures be addressed.Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresImpact 3.8-1: The concern is whether the Estates Reservoir Replacement Project,primarily through construction related emissions, individually would impede thestate’s ability to meet its 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goal.The proposed Project would contribute to climate change primarily through the on-siteuse of diesel powered construction equipment and off-site vehicle traffic. Demolitionand subsequent construction activities would be temporary and would be completed inabout two years. The combustion of diesel fuel in off-road construction equipment andon-road vehicles would emit GHG consisting mainly of carbon dioxide, along with smallamounts of methane and nitrous oxide. Table 3.8-5, Table 3.8-6, and Table 3.8-7 showestimated GHG emissions for the Project based on USEPA and EMFAC emission factorsfor diesel and gasoline fuel internal combustion. See the technical report (ENTRIX2009) for calculations of GHG emissions.TABLE 3.8-5Estimated On-site Greenhouse Gas EmissionsDemolition PhaseConstruction PhaseTotal Project Emissions short tons metric tonnes short tons metric tonnesCarbon Dioxide (GHG - CO 2 ) 169 153 622 564Methane (GHG – CH 4 ) 0.010 0.009 0.036 0.033Nitrous Oxide (GHG - N 2 O) 0.005 0.004 0.017 0.015Carbon Dioxide Equiv. (CO 2 eq) 170 155 628 569Sources Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), Fifth Edition, USEPA, 1995Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, 2008sb09_001.doc 3-8.13 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:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
3.6 Traffic and Circulation3.6.1 Ap
Page 128 and 129: Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 218 and 219: CHAPTER 5Cumulative Impacts, Growth
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?