Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAnalysis of AlternativesPressure Zone Planning Program (PZPP)This alternative is not recommended because it entails the demolition and construction ofnew facilities at multiple sites, i.e. the Piedmont and Estates Reservoir sites. Thisalternative will generate a longer construction schedule as well as a greater impact to keyenvironmental factors compared to the proposed Project due to construction work at tworeservoir sites.Alternative 1 - Rehabilitate Estates and Dingee ReservoirsRehabilitating Estates and Dingee reservoir is not recommended because it does not meetthe Project requirement of reducing excess pressure zone storage and does notpermanently resolve dam embankment concerns of the Division of Safety of Dams(DSOD) for the Estates Reservoir site. This alternative will also generate a longerconstruction schedule and greater environmental impact compared to the proposedProject due to construction on the embankments at both reservoir sites.Alternative 2 (Proposed Project) - Two new tanks at Estates ReservoirConstruction of two replacement water storage tanks at the Estates Reservoir site (theproposed Project) was ultimately selected as the preferred Project because it wouldresolve the problem of excess storage in the Dingee Pressure Zone, meet operationalneeds at a competitive cost, and resolve seismic concerns raised by the DSOD byremoving the Estates Dam permanently from DSOD jurisdiction.Alternative 3 - Two new tanks at Dingee ReservoirConstruction of replacement reservoirs at the Dingee Reservoir site would generategreater impacts as identified for the Estates Reservoir (excluding Cultural Resources) anda longer construction period resulting from limited space for construction staging andstockpiling activities. Dingee is a 2 acre site versus the 6.9 acre Estates Reservoir site.Over 42,000 cubic yards of excavated material would have to be disposed off site and30,000 cubic yards of this material returned for backfill purposes. Approximately 16,000truck round trips would be required for the combined off-hauling and importing of theexcavated material. Additional environmental impacts would include construction(noise, air quality and traffic) impacts associated with installing 2,000 feet of pipeline inresidential streets. Finally, EBMUD would incur a potential risk of damaging adjacentresidential homes and landscaping trees due to required excavation abutting to the Northand east side property line. One 42-inch diameter Redwood tree located seven feet fromthe east-side property line would likely be damaged during construction.sb09_001.doc 4-6 7/23/2009
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAnalysis of AlternativesAlternative 4 - New tanks at Dingee, Estates, and Piedmont Reservoir sitesThis alternative is not recommended because it entails the demolition and construction ofnew facilities at three sites, i.e., the Dingee, Estates and Piedmont Reservoir sites. As aresult, this alternative will generate the longest construction duration and greatestenvironmental impacts compared to the proposed Project.Environmental AssessmentPotential impacts associated with the Proposed Project (including the demolition of theexisting Estates Reservoir and roof/features and construction of the replacement buriedtanks) are similar to but less than that for the other project alternatives with regard totraffic and circulation, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases (GHG), visual quality, andseismicity, with one exception. Demolition of the Estates roof and features constitutes apermanent loss of facilities which constitutes a Significant and Unavoidable impact toCultural Resources (even with mitigation). The other project alternatives also involveconstruction at more than one site and for a longer duration. All of the other projectalternatives were eliminated from consideration based on the inability to meet theProject’s basic objectives and further reduce the potential for environmental impacts.4.3 Alternatives of the Proposed ProjectDescriptionCommunity input from a series of public meetings, resulted in the development of fiveconcept design alternatives for the replacement Project at the Estates Reservoir site.Details of the process are contained in the Estates Reservoir Final Concept DesignProcess and Recommendations Report, 2008 (updated 2009), prepared by Royston,Hanamoto, Alley and Abey (RHAA) and summarized in Appendix A, PublicInvolvement. The five concept design alternatives were modeled around three generaldesign categories (or themes), also shown in graphically in Figure 4-1.A. Preservation - To sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of the existingsite and features. The form remains the same, retaining its distinctive materials,features, spaces and spatial relationships. There was one alternative in thepreservation category (i.e., Option 1).Option 1 preserves the existing roof and fountain structures with the new tanksbeing constructed beneath; seismic upgrades would be required for both the roofand fountain structures. This option does not address the water quality and excessstorage problems in the Dingee Pressure Zone, or the issue of aging infrastructure.sb09_001.doc 4-7 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:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161: 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 260 and 261:
Dingee Pressure Zone Improvement Pr
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?