Response to Comments of Rudy Swiridoff (Letter I14) The commentor s objection to the project is noted.

Transcription

1

2 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Rudy Swiridoff (I14) Response to Comments of Rudy Swiridoff (Letter I14) I14-1. I14-2. I14-3. I14-4. I14-5. I14-6. The commentor s objection to the project is noted. The draft EIR/EIS fully disclosed the impacts associated with noise, air quality, and health and safety (in Chapters 13, 14, and 15 of the draft EIR/EIS). Please also see the responses to Intake Facility Siting major issues in Chapter 3 of this document. See response to comment I14-3. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-30 March 2004 J&S

3

4 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals George Waegell (I15) Responses to Comments of George Waegell (Letter I15) I15-1. FRWA appreciates the location of your various facilities in the project area. As described in Chapter 2 of the draft EIR/EIS under Environmental Commitments (pages 2-44 through 2-51), and in responses to comment I04, FRWA will coordinate with local agencies and private-property owners regarding specific design and construction details prior to implementation. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-32 March 2004 J&S

5

6 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Jack Lawson (I16) Response to Comments of Jack Lawson (Letter I16) I16-1. I16-2. I16-3. I16-4. I16-5. I16-6. I16-7. I16-8. I16-9. Note that per the environmental commitments and mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR/EIS, construction hours will be limited and dust and noise suppression measures will be implemented. The CEQA Findings and NEPA Record of Decision to be adopted at the time the project is approved and the EIR is certified and the EIS is approved, in combination with the Principles of Agreement being prepared by FRWA and the City of Sacramento, are all legally enforceable. FRWA is also required to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. See also the master response to Intake Facility Issues. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-34 March 2004 J&S

7

8 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Susan Dona (I17) Response to Comments of Susan Dona (Letter I17) I17-1. I17-5. The comment is accurate in stating that the location and construction of the intake facility have been areas of controversy. I17-2. I17-3. I17-4. See the master response to Intake Facility Issues for a detailed description of why the intake facility will be located in the City of Sacramento. Regarding statements made at the public meeting on September 29, 2003, the statements were intended to convey the following information. Numerous alternatives were considered during the alternatives screening process as described in the Alternatives Screening Report (Volume 2, Appendix B of the draft EIR/EIS). Additionally, four specific intake sites were considered during the FRWP development phase as described in Appendix A of this final EIR/EIS. While FRWA had developed sufficient information to determine a reasonable range of alternatives for the draft EIR/EIS, including the information necessary to determine an appropriate location for the intake site, the draft EIR/EIS did not include a full analysis of all four intake sites because three of them were not carried forward into the draft EIR/EIS. Therefore, statements made at the September 29, 2003 public meeting simply meant that a full analysis of all four intake sites was not included in the draft EIR/EIS because three of the four potential intake sites were not elements of the alternatives being analyzed. I17-6. I17-7. I17-8. Growth-related effects associated with the FRWP are limited to the Zone 40 service area in Sacramento County. No growth-related effects will occur in the City of Sacramento as a result of the FRWP. However, construction- and operation-related impacts that could occur in the City of Sacramento are addressed in numerous chapters in the draft EIR/EIS including Chapters 3 through 17. Impact 6-2 has been modified to reflect the potential impact on the Bill Conlin/Freeport Shores recreation complex. Please see response L23-1 associated with comments provided by the City of Sacramento Department of Parks and Recreation. Additionally, because views of the intake facility would be obstructed from most locations along SR 160, the impact is considered less than significant. See the master response to Intake Facility Issues for concerns regarding recreation and local benefits. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-36 March 2004 J&S

9

10 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Denis Ishisaka (I18) Responses to Comments of Denis Ishisaka (Letter I18) I18-1. I18-2. I18-3. I18-4. See the master response to Public Outreach Process. The draft EIR fully disclosed the impacts associated with operations of the project in Chapters Please also see the master responses to Intake Facility Issues. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-38 March 2004 J&S

11

12 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals H. L. Payne (I19) Response to Comments of H. L. Payne (Letter I19) I19-1. I19-2. I19-3. I19-4. I19-5. The commentor s support for the project design is noted. Further geotechnical studies will be conducted and appropriate foundation designs will be developed based on standard modern engineering practices. The architectural style mentioned in the comment letter was considered in the visual analysis in the draft EIR/EIS (Chapter 16). The commentor s support for the project is noted. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-40 March 2004 J&S

13

14 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Jeff Wedge (I20) Responses to Comments of Jeff Wedge (Letter I20) I20-1. I20-2. I20-3. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-42 March 2004 J&S

15

16 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Fred and Vi Kirtlan (I21) Response to Comments of Fred and Vi Kirtlan (Letter I21) I21-1. I21-2. Chapter 3 of the draft EIR/EIS analyzes the hydrologic effects of the FRWP on California s overall water supply system, including the Northern California region. All water year types are considered, including periods of drought. All water user impacts are found to be less than significant. It is accurate that the intake location analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS is the result of long-term discussions and technical analyses (the full range of alternatives considered is documented in Volume 2, Appendix B of the draft EIR/EIS), some of which focused on protection of the lower American River. The analysis of impacts included in the draft EIR/EIS fully analyzed and disclosed potential impacts on all portions of the water supply system, including the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. Impacts on the Delta associated with the FRWP were found to be less than significant. I21-3. As fully disclosed in the draft EIR/EIS, Alternative 6 would not substantially reduce impacts on the environment compared to Alternatives 2 5. Furthermore, implementation of Alternative 6 would not alter the timing of SCWA diversions at the proposed FRWP intake facility. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-44 March 2004 J&S

17

18 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Pamela Herlihy (I22) Response to Comments of Pamela Herlihy (Letter I22) I22-1. I22-2. I22-3. The differentiation between the alternatives mentioned in this comment is the degree to which the alternatives use public rights-of-way. As noted in this comment, all of the alternatives share the intake location and certain pipeline segments. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-46 March 2004 J&S

19

20 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Linda Tutor (I23) Responses to Comments of Linda Tutor (Letter I23) I23-1. I23-2. I23-3. I23-4. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-48 March 2004 J&S

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Robert Lorbeer (I24) Responses to Comments of Robert Lorbeer (Letter I24) I24-7. I24-1. I24-8. I24-2. See the master response to Public Outreach Process. I24-9. I24-3. See the master response to Public Outreach Process. I I24-4. See the master response to Public Outreach Process. I I24-5. I24-6. Please see responses to specific concerns below. During the scoping process for this project, FRWA presented several different intake locations and pipeline alignments. In response to comments received from the public and other sources during the scoping process, the project description presented in the draft EIR/EIS was developed. The project description being presented by FRWA and Reclamation in the draft EIR/EIS is the only project description presented to the public for formal review and comment under CEQA and NEPA. It is accurate to state that FRWA has presented modifications to this project description at public meetings as a result of comments received from the public. However, these were not presented as changes to the project description in the draft EIR/EIS for formal consideration by the public. The changes were presented as possible ways that FRWA and Reclamation could modify the project to address the concerns raised by the public and further minimize potential impacts. It should also be noted that the project was described the same way to each audience. The same materials were used in each presentation. I I I I I I As noted on page 2-47 of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA will develop and implement a fire management plan in consultation with the appropriate fire suppression agencies in the project vicinity. The draft EIR/EIS fully disclosed the impacts associated with noise, air quality, and health and safety (in Chapters 13, 14, and 15 of the draft EIR/EIS). Please also see the master response to Intake Facility Issues. See the master response to Environmental Justice Issues. FRWA identified the Carmichael Water District pump and water treatment plant facility as a local, reasonably similar facility within a residential neighborhood and immediately adjacent to single-family houses. This facility includes water pumps, compressors, air surge tanks, electrical transformer, and chemical storage facilities. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-67 March 2004 J&S

40 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Robert Lorbeer (I24) I I I I Figure 2-1 in the final EIR/EIS shows the general location of the proposed intake facility in relation to residences. Figure 2-1 provides a layout of the relative positions and sizes of the different components of the project that are related to the intake facility. A more detailed description of these components has been added to the revised project description included in Chapter 2 of the final EIR/EIS. I I I I I I I See the master response to Environmental Justice Issues. See the master response to Environmental Justice Issues. I Please see response to I24-6, above. I I See the master response to Public Outreach Process. I I I I See the master response to Public Outreach Process. See the master response to Public Outreach Process. The project s notice of preparation/notice of intent indicated that population and housing may be affected by the proposed project, as did the notice of completion. The subject was then analyzed in Chapter 10 of the draft EIR/EIS. I I Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia and is commonly used for treatment of drinking water. However, since publication of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA has committed to using only sodium hypochlorite at the intake facility. The decision to use sodium hypochlorite does not result in any new impacts. I See the master response to Public Outreach Process. I I I I A hazardous materials management plan (HMMP) will be developed before beginning construction, as required Freeport Regional Water Project 8-68 March 2004 J&S

41 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Robert Lorbeer (I24) I I I I I by state law. HMMPs are not required to be included in the EIR. Please note that the potential for significant impacts is not a violation of CEQA. Conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding significance of impacts were conservative, and were also based on an overall evaluation of project facilities. As noted on page 14-34, because ambient noise levels in some areas could be as low as dba Ldn, each of these facilities would be capable of generating noise levels that could be 5 db greater than existing noise levels. As shown in Table 14-2, ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the intake site are substantially louder than that, ranging from 43 to 52 dba. Detailed evaluation of possible design measures for the intake site determined that it would be possible to incorporate noise control measures so that noise generated by the facility will not be at levels above existing ambient noise at the exterior of nearby homes thereby reducing the impact to less than significant. Given the geographic location of the proposed intake site and its distance from known geologic faults, substantial seismic activity is unlikely. The potential for liquefaction, which is the result of saturated soil and simultaneous seismic activity, is even less likely. However, the intake facility and all related components I I I I will be designed to meet relevant geotechnical and seismic safety standards. The intake structure itself will be constructed on a series of deeply driven piles capable of withstanding potential seismic activity. The other related facilities, including the surge tanks, air compressors, and chemical storage facility, are not substantial in size or weight and will be constructed to meet seismic safety standards. While variations in soil type and quality have been identified at the site in previous studies, these soil types are common throughout the Central Valley and can adequately support the proposed project, assuming standard engineering practices are employed. See response to I Please see response to I24-6, above. Chapters 3 and 4 of the draft EIR/EIS fully disclose the potential impacts of the FRWP on hydrology and water quality. This includes the sources of surface water available to and used by the City of Sacramento. Overall, the FRWP was found to have relatively minor environmental consequences. Additionally, the City of Sacramento has more senior water rights than the FRWA member agencies, thereby further minimizing any potential impact that the FRWP could possibly have on the City of Sacramento s water supply. The Water Forum Agreement further solidifies protection of the City s water supply. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-69 March 2004 J&S

42 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Robert Lorbeer (I24) I I I I Impact 6-2 has been modified to reflect the potential impact on the Bill Conlin/Freeport Shores recreation complex. Please see response L23-1 associated with comments provided by the City of Sacramento Department of Parks and Recreation. Additionally, because views of the intake facility would be obstructed from most locations along SR 160, the impact is considered less than significant. A detailed description of the change in views of the intake facility site that will occur is given in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIR/EIS. In addition, see the response to Intake Facility Issues major issue in Chapter 3 of this document for more information. I I I I See the response to I Figure 2-1 provides a layout of the relative positions and sizes of the different components of the project that are related to the intake facility. A more detailed description of these components has been added to the revised project description included in Chapter 2 of the final EIR/EIS. See response to I24-6. Figure 2-1 provides a layout of the relative positions and sizes of the different components of the project that are related to the intake facility. A more detailed description of these components has been added to the revised project description included in Chapter 2 of the draft EIR/EIS. I I I Potential impacts on species of special concern, including burrowing owls and Swainson s hawks, are fully addressed in Chapter 8, Wildlife, of the draft EIR/EIS. Appropriate mitigation measures are identified where needed. As described in Chapter 8, reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted for purposes of preparing the draft EIR/EIS. Additional surveys, as required by state and federal resource agencies, will be conducted prior to construction. This applies to all project components, including the intake facility. See the response to I I It is appropriate for a project proponent to develop reasonable criteria to guide development of a project and ensure that the project meets its intended purpose and need. With regard to water quality at the intake site, FRWA s technical team set a target criterion of finding a site where treated wastewater would reach the site on no more than 20% of the occasions when reverse flow occurs. This would allow the FRWA member agencies to operate the intake facility in a manner that would still meet their purpose and need while not breaching their duty to protect the public s health or be forbidden by regulatory agencies such as the Department of Health Services. Computer modeling revealed that this distance is at least 3,500 feet upstream. Therefore, the 3,500 feet of river closest to and upstream of the SRCSD outfall Freeport Regional Water Project 8-70 March 2004 J&S

43 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Robert Lorbeer (I24) I I I I I I I I I I was excluded from further analysis. Furthermore, the published data referred to in the comment letter do not necessarily reflect conditions during a low-flow, reverseflow event, which is the type of event that could carry waste discharges upstream and is of most concern to FRWA. Despite the fact that the water ultimately will be treated, the FRWA member agencies have a long history of securing, using, and protecting their highquality sources of water. It is their intent to continue this practice, consistent with state and federal law and the applicable polices of their agencies (Volume 2, Appendix B, page 5-3 of the draft EIR/EIS). See response to I I I I I I I The pipeline will be designed and constructed according to industry standards to meet all applicable codes and regulations. Furthermore, the pipeline will be buried and operated at a relatively low pressure. The likelihood of a catastrophic failure is extremely remote and is sufficiently addressed through conservative design measures. With regard to water being continually pumped into a damaged pipeline, the intake pumps will be equipped with control devices to cease operation if there is a sudden loss of discharge pressure or sudden increase in flow. It is accurate that the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Public Law ) requires every public water system that serves a population of more than 3,300 persons to conduct a Vulnerability Assessment. However, neither CEQA nor NEPA requires that this information be included or analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS. The spirit and intent of both CEQA and NEPA are full disclosure to decision makers and to the public. The FRWP is a large, regional project that warrants a great deal of detail to adequately analyze and present potential impacts on the environment. While CEQA and NEPA suggest page limits, they are solely recommendations as evidenced by the language should normally. The draft EIR/EIS is presented in three volumes so that Freeport Regional Water Project 8-71 March 2004 J&S

44 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Robert Lorbeer (I24) I I I reviewers are provided with varying levels of detail. Volume 1 is likely sufficient for most reviewers. Volumes 2 and 3 provide additional detail for those interested in a higher level of detail. Covering the different components of the FRWP in separate draft EIR/EISs would be considered piecemealing and, therefore, would not comply with CEQA or NEPA requirements. FRWA has committed to involve the City of Sacramento and the community in an architectural design process. While the City of Sacramento s Design Review Board does not have jurisdiction over the project, it would be at the City s discretion to involve the Board in the design process. All aspects of the Principles of Agreement that need to be disclosed in the draft EIR/EIS have been included. Recirculation of the draft EIR/EIS is not required. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section ) clearly define when recirculation of a draft EIR is necessary. According to the guidelines, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. As noted in the guidelines, new information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project s proponents have declined to implement. Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include disclosure that: A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project but the project s proponents decline to adopt it; and The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. While several minor revisions have been incorporated into the project since publication of the draft EIR/EIS, these minor changes are generally in response to comments received on the draft EIR/EIS and do not create any new significant environmental effects. Similarly, no information has been identified that would indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact already disclosed. In fact, additional mitigation measures have been identified that would decrease previously identified significant environmental effects. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-72 March 2004 J&S

45 Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Chapter 8. Responses to Comments from Individuals Robert Lorbeer (I24) More than 100 project alternatives and numerous variations of many alternatives were examined in preparing the draft EIR/EIS. No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project have been identified during the public review process. While several minor variations of the project have been proposed that would make the project more consistent with public desires, they would not clearly lessen the environmental impact of the project as proposed. In addition, FRWA has identified additional mitigation measures that it proposes to adopt to reduce previously identified significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Finally, the draft EIR/EIS contains substantial information, and the conclusions regarding environmental effects of the proposed project and alternatives are fully supported by the information contained in the draft EIR/EIS. Freeport Regional Water Project 8-73 March 2004 J&S