Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportNoise and Vibrationperceptible and could temporarily annoy the closest residential receptors during Projectconstruction.Measure 3.9-3: To prevent cosmetic or structural damage to adjacent or nearbystructures, EBMUD will incorporate into contract specifications restrictions onconstruction whereby surface vibration will be limited to no more than 0.5 in/secPPV, measured at the nearest residential or other sensitive structure.Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.Operational ImpactsImpact 3.9-4: Noise increases during facility operations.Long-term operation of the Replacement Estates Reservoirs and refurbished MontclairPumping Plant will not result in noise increases, over the levels currently experienced forthe existing facilities. In fact, burying the replacement tanks and replacing old pumpsand electrical equipment with new equipment is expected to reduce operating noise levelsbelow what is currently experienced. There is no record of complaints associated withoperational noise at the Estates Reservoir site. Replacement pipeline would be locatedunderground and would not generate noise. Therefore, no further discussion ofoperational noise associated with pipelines, the replacement reservoirs or the refurbishedpumping plant is provided.Mitigation Measure: None Required.ReferencesCity of Oakland Noise Ordinance, Oakland Planning Code sections 17.120.050, and8.18, 1996.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental NoiseRequisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety((Condensed Version), Washington D.C. (EPA/ONOC 550/9-74-004), 1974.Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2007 (updated 2009).Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Based on Measurement Data and Field Observations FromVarious Locations in California, EBMUD Claremont Corridor SeismicImprovements Project: Construction Vibration Impact Analysis, Draft TechnicalReport, 2003, as cited in the EBMUD Water Treatment and TransmissionImprovement Program Draft EIR, June 2006.Environmental Sciences Associates, San Francisco Recycle Water Master Plan andGroundwater Master Plan, Final EIR, August 1997, as cited in the EBMUD WaterTreatment and Transmission Improvement Program Draft EIR, June 2006.sb09_001.doc 3-9.20 7/22/2009
Chapter 4Analysis of Alternatives4.1 Introduction and ApproachThis chapter summarizes the alternatives analysis and screening process, describes andanalyzes the No Project Alternative, compares the environmental impacts of the EstatesReservoir Replacement Alternatives, and identifies the environmentally superioralternative.4.1.1 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives AnalysisThe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require EnvironmentalImpact Reports (EIR) to describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to aproject, or to the location of a project, which could feasibly attain most of the basicproject objectives and avoid or substantially lessen significant project impacts. TheCEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, set forth the following criteria for alternatives:Identifying Alternatives. The range of alternatives is limited to those that wouldavoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, arefeasible, and would attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. Factors thatmay be considered when addressing the feasibility of an alternative include sitesuitability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans orregulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, economic viability, and whetherthe proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to analternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose impact cannot bereasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Thespecific alternative of “no project” must also be evaluated along with its impact.Range of Alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative, butmust consider a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decisionmakingand public participation. The “rule of reason” governs the selection andconsideration of EIR alternatives, requiring that an EIR set forth only thosealternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The lead agency (EBMUD) isresponsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and mustpublicly disclose its reasons for selecting those alternatives.Evaluation of Alternatives. EIRs are required to include sufficient informationabout each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparisonwith the Project. Matrices may be used to display the major characteristics of eachalternative and environmental effects of each alternative. If an alternative wouldcause one or more significant effects not caused by the Project as proposed, thesb09_001.doc 4-1 7/23/2009
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:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155: Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 218 and 219: CHAPTER 5Cumulative Impacts, Growth
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 254 and 255:
Dingee Pressure Zone Improvement Pr
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?