chapter 4 alternatives analysis - acgov.org · alameda county community development agency...

APWRA Repowering Final PEIR 4‐1

October 2014ICF 00323.08

Chapter 4 Alternatives Analysis

AccordingtoSection15126.6oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,anEIRmustdescribeareasonablerangeoffeasiblealternativestotheprojectorprojectlocationthatcouldfeasiblyattainmostofthebasicprojectobjectivesandthatwouldavoidorsubstantiallylessenanyofthesignificantimpactsoftheproposedproject.Accordingly,alternativesthatdonotavoidorsubstantiallylessensignificantimpactsofaprojectdonotneedtobeanalyzedinanEIR.Additionally,theStateCEQAGuidelinesrequireanalysisoftheNo‐ProjectAlternativetoallowdecisionmakerstocomparetheimpactsofprojectapprovalwiththeimpactsofnotapprovingtheproject.TheEIRmustevaluatethecomparativemeritsofthealternatives.TheEIRmustidentifytheenvironmentallysuperioralternativeotherthantheNo‐ProjectAlternative.

AnEIRisnotrequiredtopresentthealternativesanalysisatthesamelevelofdetailastheassessmentoftheproject,anditisnotrequiredtoconsidereveryconceivablealternativetoaproject.Rather,anEIRmustconsiderareasonablerangeofpotentiallyfeasiblealternativesthatwillfosterinformeddecisionmaking.

Thischapterisorganizedintothesectionslistedbelow.

AlternativesScreeningProcessdescribestheprogramandprojectobjectives,significantimpactsoftheproject,andthealternativesconsidered.

AlternativesAnalyzedpresentsaqualitativeanalysiscomparingthealternativesconsideredwiththeproposedproject.

EnvironmentallySuperiorAlternativepresentsthealternativethatwouldresultintheleastamountofenvironmentalimpacts.

4.1 Alternatives Screening Process CEQArequiresthatanEIRdescribeareasonablerangeoffeasiblealternativestotheproject,ortothelocationoftheproject,thatcouldsubstantiallyreduceoneormoreoftheproject’ssignificantenvironmentalimpactswhilemeetingmostoralloftheproject’sobjectives.TheEIRisrequiredtoanalyzethepotentialenvironmentalimpactsofeachofthealternatives,althoughnotatthesamelevelofdetailasthatatwhichtheprojectisanalyzed.Theremustbesufficientdetailtofacilitatecomparingtherespectivemeritsofthealternatives.

KeyprovisionsoftheStateCEQAGuidelines(Section15126.6)pertainingtothealternativesanalysisaresummarizedbelow.

Thediscussionofalternativeswillfocusonalternativestotheprojectoritslocationthatarefeasible,meetmostoralloftheprojectobjectives,andwouldsubstantiallyreduceoneormoreoftheproject’ssignificanteffects.

TherangeofalternativesmustincludetheNo‐Projectalternative.Theno‐projectanalysiswilldiscusstheexistingconditionsatthetimethenoticeofpreparationwaspublished,aswellaswhatwouldbereasonablyexpectedtooccurintheforeseeablefutureiftheprojectwerenotapprovedbasedoncurrentplansandconsistentwithavailableinfrastructureandcommunity

Alameda County Community Development Agency Alternatives Analysis



services.TheNo‐Projectalternativeisnotrequiredtobefeasible,meetanyoftheprojectobjectives,orreducetheproject’sexpectedimpactstoanydegree.

TherangeofalternativesrequiredinanEIRisgovernedbyaruleofreason;therefore,theEIRmustevaluateonlythosealternativesnecessarytopermitareasonedchoice.AnEIRisnotrequiredtoanalyzeeveryconceivablealternativetoaproject.

AnEIRneednotconsideranalternativewhoseeffectscannotbereasonablyascertained,whoseimplementationisremoteandspeculative,orthatwouldnotachievethebasicprojectobjectives.

4.1.1 Screening Criteria

ArangeofpotentialalternativeswassubjectedtoscreeningcriteriatoeliminatethosepotentialalternativesthatdonotqualifyasalternativesunderCEQA.Asdiscussedabove,therewasnoattempttoincludeeveryconceivablealternativeinthisrange.Rather,theCountyselectedanumberofrepresentativealternativestoconsider.Thescreeningcriteriaforthepotentialalternativesarerelativelysimple.

Doesthealternativemeetmostoralloftheprogramandprojectobjectives?

Isthealternativepotentiallyfeasible?

Wouldthealternativesubstantiallyreduceoneormoreofthesignificanteffectsassociatedwiththeprogramorproject?

4.1.2 Project Objectives

AsdescribedinChapter2,ProgramDescription,thetwoprimaryobjectivesoftheprogramaretofacilitateefficientwindenergyproductionthroughrepoweringandtoavoidandminimizeimpactsonterrestrialandavianwildlifecausedbyrepoweredwindturbineconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceintheprogramarea.Thespecificprogramobjectivesarelistedbelow.

AllowforappropriateandcompatiblerepoweringandoperationofwindturbinesconsistentwithexistingrepoweringtimelinerequirementssetforthintheexistingCUPs,relatedagreements,andproject‐specificpowerpurchaseagreements.

Reduceavianmortalitycausedbywindenergygenerationintheprogramareathroughrepowering.

MeettheCounty’sgoalstoprovideenvironmentallysensitive,clean‐renewablewindenergyforthetwenty‐firstcenturyasidentifiedintheECAP(Policies168–175andPrograms73–76).

HelpmeettheGovernor’sExecutiveOrderS‐14‐08inmeetingtheRenewablesPortfolioStandard(RPS)targetthatallretailsellersofelectricityserve33%oftheirloadwithrenewableenergyby2020.

Contributetostateprogresstowardairqualityimprovementandgreenhousegasemissionreductiongoals,assetforthinAssemblyBill32.

Improvehabitatqualityintheprogramareathroughremovalofroadsandexistingwindturbinesandtheirsupportinginfrastructure,resultinginloweroveralloperationalfootprint,andprovidingawiderangeofhabitatbenefitstosensitiveterrestrialandavianspecies.




4.1.3 Feasibility

Feasibleisdefinedas“capableofbeingaccomplishedinasuccessfulmannerwithinareasonableperiodoftime,takingintoaccounteconomic,environmental,legal,social,andtechnologicalfactors”(StateCEQAGuidelinesSection15364).CEQAdoesnotrequirethatanEIRdeterminetheultimatefeasibilityofaselectedalternativebutratherthatitisprobablyfeasible.Accordingly,noeconomicstudieshavebeenpreparedregardingtheeconomicfeasibilityoftheselectedalternatives.

4.1.4 Significant Impacts

Table4‐1liststhesignificantimpactsoftheprogramalternativesidentifiedinChapter3,ImpactAnalysis.

TheimpactsofprogramAlternatives1and2werefoundtobeverysimilar.Becauseturbineswereassumedtobeinstalledinprojectsconsistentwiththesizetypicallyproposed,approximately80MWperproject,constructiononadailyandseasonalbasiswouldbethesame.BecausethenumberofturbinesassociatedwithprogramAlternative2wouldbeamaximumof21morethanthatassociatedwithprogramAlternative1(usingthesmallestnameplatecapacity—1.6MW—underconsideration),theadditionalconstructionperiodwouldnotbemuchlongerthanunderAlternative1.Therefore,impactsrelatedtoconstruction,suchasairemissionsandtraffic,wouldbethesame.

BecauseprogramAlternative2wouldresultintheconstructionofmoreturbines,generatingmorepower,thatalternativewouldhaveagreaterimpactrelatedtobirdandbatmortality,animpactfoundtobesignificantandunavoidableunderallalternativeswiththeexceptionoftheNoProjectalternative.OtherimpactsthatmaybehigherunderprogramAlternative2thanunderprogramAlternative1,suchasimpactsrelatedtoculturalorpaleontologicalresources,visualresources,orimpactsrelatedtoerosion,couldallbereducedtoaless‐than‐significantlevelbythesamemitigationmeasuresasthoseprovidedforprogramAlternative1.Forthesereasons,theimpactspresentedinTable4‐2representtheimpactsofbothprogramAlternative1andprogramAlternative2.

Impactsrelatedtothefollowingtopicswouldremainsignificantwithimplementationofmitigation.

AirQuality:ConstructionemissionsofROGandNOxforprogramAlternatives1and2aregreaterthantheBAAQMDthresholdsafterimplementationofMitigationMeasuresAQ‐1andAQ‐2(Table3.3‐11);accordingly,cumulativeconstructionimpactswouldbesignificantandunavoidable.FortheGoldenHillsandthePattersonPassprojectsindividually,constructionemissionsofNOxwouldbegreaterthantheBAAQMDthresholdsafterimplementationofMitigationMeasuresAQ‐1andAQ‐2(Tables3.3‐16and3.3‐21);accordingly,cumulativeconstructionimpactswouldbesignificantandunavoidable.

BiologicalResources:Operationoftheeitherprogramalternative,aswellastheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsindividually,wouldresultinavianandbatmortalityassociatedwithturbinecollisions,includingeffectsonraptors,otherbirds,andbatsmigratingthroughandwinteringintheprogramarea.Althoughmitigationcanreducetheseimpacts,thelikelihoodofongoingturbine‐relatedmortalitywouldconstituteasignificantandunavoidableimpact.

CumulativeTrafficImpacts:Cumulativeimpactsontrafficoperation,safetyhazards,emergencyaccess,andbicyclefacilitiescouldresultfromprogramandprojectconstructionactivitiesiftheytakeplaceconcurrentlywithconstructionoftheSandHillRepoweringProject,whichhasbeenidentifiedasresultinginasignificantandunavoidabletrafficimpact.




Table 4‐1. Summary of Significant Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures

Impact

SignificancebeforeMitigation Mitigation

SignificanceafterMitigation

Aesthetics

AES‐1:Temporaryvisualimpactscausedbyconstructionactivities

S AES‐1:Limitconstructiontodaylighthours

LTS

AES‐2:Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista

S AES‐2a:Requiresitedevelopmentreview

LTS

AES‐2b:Maintainsitefreeofdebrisandrestoreabandonedroadways

AES‐2c:Screensurpluspartsandmaterials

AES‐3:Substantiallydamagescenicresources,includingbutnotlimitedtotrees,rockoutcroppings,andhistoricbuildingsalongascenichighway


LTS



AES‐3:DonotconstructturbinesontheundevelopedportionoftheGoldenHillsprojectareaalongFlynnRoad

AES‐4:Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurrounding


LTS




AES‐5:Createanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarethatwouldadverselyaffectdaytimeornighttimeviewsinthearea

S AES‐5:Analyzeshadowflickerdistanceandincorporatechangesintoprojectdesigntoaddressshadowflickerifnecessary

LTS

AES‐6:Consistencywithstateandlocalpolicies


LTS






Impact




AES‐5:Analyzeshadowflickerdistanceandincorporatechangesintoprojectdesigntoaddressshadowflickerifnecessary

AgriculturalandForestryResources

AG‐1:ConvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewideImportancetononagriculturaluse

S AG‐1:AvoidconversionofPrimeFarmland

LTS

AG‐5:Involveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentthat,duetotheirlocationornature,couldresultinconversionofFarmlandtononagriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse

S AG‐1:AvoidconversionofPrimeFarmland

LTS

AirQuality

AQ‐2:Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation

S AQ‐2a:Reduceconstruction‐relatedairpollutantemissionsbyimplementingapplicableBAAQMDBasicConstructionMitigationMeasures

SU

AQ‐2b:Reduceconstruction‐relatedairpollutantemissionsbyimplementingmeasuresbasedonBAAQMD’sAdditionalConstructionMitigationMeasures

AQ‐3:Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisanonattainmentareaforanapplicablefederalorstateambientairqualitystandard(includingreleasingemissionsthatexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)


SU


AQ‐4:Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations


LTS




Impact




BiologicalResources

BIO‐1:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsorhabitatoccupiedbyspecial‐statusplants

S BIO‐1a:Conductsurveystodeterminethepresenceorabsenceofspecial‐statusplantspecies

LTS

BIO‐1b:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusspecies

BIO‐1c:Avoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspeciesbyestablishingactivityexclusionzones

BIO‐1d:Compensateforimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspecies

BIO‐1e:Retainabiologicalmonitorduringground‐disturbingactivitiesinenvironmentallysensitiveareas

BIO‐2:Adverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsandnaturalcommunitiesresultingfromtheintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspecies

S BIO‐2:Preventintroduction,spread,andestablishmentofinvasiveplantspecies

LTS

BIO‐3:Potentialmortalityoforlossofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle

S BIO‐1b:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusspecies

LTS


BIO‐3a:Conductpreconstructionsurveysforhabitatforspecial‐statuswildlifespecies

BIO‐3b:Implementmeasurestoavoid,minimize,andmitigateimpactsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle

BIO‐4:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle


LTS





Impact




BIO‐4a:Implementmeasurestoavoidorprotecthabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle

BIO‐4b:Compensatefordirectandindirecteffectsonvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle

BIO‐5:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog


LTS



BIO‐5a:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeeffectsonspecial‐statusamphibians

BIO‐5b:Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusamphibians

BIO‐5c:Restoredisturbedannualgrasslands

BIO‐6:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforwesternpondturtle


LTS



BIO‐6:Conductpreconstructionsurveysforwesternpondturtleandmonitorconstructionactivitiesifturtlesareobserved

BIO‐7:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhip


LTS




Impact






BIO‐7a:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeeffectsonspecial‐statusreptiles

BIO‐7b:Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusreptiles

BIO‐8:Potentialconstruction‐relateddisturbanceormortalityofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds


LTS




BIO‐8a:Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusnestingbirds

BIO‐8b:Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonwesternburrowingowl

BIO‐9:Permanentandtemporarylossofforaginghabitatforwesternburrowingowl,tricoloredblackbird,andotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds

S BIO‐5b:Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusamphibians

LTS


BIO‐9:Compensateforthepermanentlossofforaginghabitatforwesternburrowingowl

BIO‐10:PotentialinjuryormortalityofandlossofhabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger


LTS




Impact






BIO‐10a:ImplementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger

BIO‐10b:CompensateforlossofsuitablehabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger

BIO‐11:Avianmortalityresultingfrominteractionwithwindenergyfacilities

S BIO‐11a:Prepareaproject‐specificavianprotectionplan

SU

BIO‐11b:Siteturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbirds

BIO‐11c:Useturbinedesignsthatreduceavianimpacts

BIO‐11d:Incorporateavian‐safepracticesintodesignofturbine‐relatedinfrastructure

BIO‐11e:Retrofitexistinginfrastructuretominimizerisktoraptors

BIO‐11f:Discouragepreyforraptors

BIO‐11g:Implementpostconstructionavianfatalitymonitoringforallrepoweringprojects

BIO‐11h:Compensateforthelossofraptorsandotheravianspecies,includinggoldeneagles,bycontributingtoconservationefforts

BIO‐11i:Implementanavianadaptivemanagementprogram

BIO‐12:Potentialmortalityordisturbanceofbatsfromroostremovalordisturbance


LTS


BIO‐12a:Conductbatroostsurveys




Impact



BIO‐12b:Avoidremovingordisturbingbatroosts

BIO‐14:Turbine‐relatedfatalitiesofspecial‐statusandotherbats

S BIO‐14a:Siteandselectturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbats

SU

BIO‐14b:Implementpostconstructionbatfatalitymonitoringprogramforallrepoweringprojects

BIO‐14c:Prepareandpublishannualmonitoringreportsonthefindingsofbatuseoftheprojectareaandfatalitymonitoringresults

BIO‐14d:Developandimplementabatadaptivemanagementplan

BIO‐14e:Compensateforexpensesincurredbyrehabilitatinginjuredbats

BIO‐15:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonalkalimeadow

S BIO‐15:Compensateforthelossofalkalimeadowhabitat

LTS

BIO‐16:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonriparianhabitat

S BIO‐16:Compensateforthelossofriparianhabitat

LTS

BIO‐18:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonwetlands

S BIO‐18:Compensateforthelossofwetlands

LTS

BIO‐19:Potentialimpactonthemovementofanynativeresidentormigratorywildlifespeciesorestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,andtheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites


SU









Impact




BIO‐8a:Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusnestingbirds



BIO‐11b:Siteturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbirds

BIO‐11c:Useturbinedesignsthatreduceavianimpacts

BIO‐11d:Incorporateavian‐safepracticesintodesignofturbine‐relatedinfrastructure

BIO‐11e:Retrofitexistinginfrastructuretominimizerisktoraptors

BIO‐11i:Implementanavianadaptivemanagementprogram

BIO‐12a:Conductbatroostsurveys

BIO‐12b:Avoidremovingordisturbingbatroosts

BIO‐14a:Siteandselectturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbats

BIO‐14d:Developandimplementabatadaptivemanagementplan

BIO‐20.Conflictwithlocalplansorpolicies S BIO‐1a:Conductsurveystodeterminethepresenceorabsenceofspecial‐statusspecies

LTS

BIO‐1b:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusspecies

BIO‐1c:Avoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspeciesbyestablishingactivityexclusionzones

BIO‐1d:Compensateforimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspecies




Impact




BIO‐3a:Implementmeasurestoavoid,minimize,andmitigateimpactsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle


BIO‐4b:Compensatefordirectandindirecteffectsonvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle


BIO‐5b:Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusamphibians



BIO‐7b:Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusreptiles

BIO‐8a:Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonspecial‐statusandnon‐special‐statusnestingbirds


BIO‐9:Compensateforthepermanentlossofforaginghabitatforwesternburrowingowl


BIO‐10b:CompensateforlossofsuitablehabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger

BIO‐15:Compensateforthelossofalkalimeadowhabitat




Impact



BIO‐16:Compensateforthelossofriparianhabitat

BIO‐18:Compensateforthelossofwetlands

CulturalResources

CUL‐1:Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresource

S CUL‐1a:Avoidhistoricresources LTS

CUL‐1b:Appropriaterecordationofhistoricresources

CUL‐2:Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresource

S CUL‐2a:Conductapreconstructionculturalfieldsurveyandculturalresourcesinventoryandevaluation

LTS

CUL‐2b:Developatreatmentplanforanyidentifiedsignificantculturalresources

CUL‐2c:Conductworkerawarenesstrainingforarchaeologicalresourcespriortoconstruction

CUL‐2d:Stopworkifculturalresourcesareencounteredduringground‐disturbingactivities

CUL‐3:Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries

S CUL‐3:Stopworkifhumanremainsareencounteredduringground‐disturbingactivities

LTS

GeologyandSoils

GEO‐1:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultofruptureofaknownearthquakefault

S GEO‐1:Conductsite‐specificgeotechnicalinvestigationandimplementdesignrecommendationsinsubsequentgeotechnicalreport

LTS

GEO‐2:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultofstrongseismicgroundshaking


LTS

GEO‐3:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultofseismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includinglandslidingandliquefaction


LTS

GEO‐4:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultoflandsliding


LTS




Impact



GEO‐6:Belocatedonexpansivesoil,creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty


LTS

GEO‐7:Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature


LTS

GreenhouseGasEmissions

GHG‐2:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,policy,orregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases

S GHG‐2a:Implementbestavailablecontroltechnologyforheavy‐dutyvehicles

LTS

GHG‐2b:InstalllowSF6leakratecircuitbreakersandmonitoring

GHG‐2c:Requirenewconstructiontousebuildingmaterialscontainingrecycledcontent

GHG‐2d:Complywithconstructionanddemolitiondebrismanagementordinance

HazardsandHazardousMaterials

HAZ‐4:Locationonahazardousmaterialssite,creatingasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment

S HAZ‐4:PerformaPhaseIEnvironmentalSiteAssessmentpriortoconstructionactivitiesandremediateifnecessary

LTS

HAZ‐5:Locationwithinanairportlanduseplanareaor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,within2milesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,resultinginasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea

S HAZ‐5:CoordinatewiththeContraCostaALUCpriortofinaldesign

LTS

HAZ‐7:Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan

S TRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan

LTS

HydrologyandWaterQuality

WQ‐1:Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirements

S WQ‐1:ComplywithNPDESrequirements

LTS

WQ‐3:Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,inamannerthatwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationonsiteoroffsite


LTS




Impact



WQ‐4:Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffinamannerthatwouldresultinfloodingonsiteoroffsite


LTS

WQ‐5:Createorcontributerunoffwaterthatwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwaterdrainagesystemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff


LTS

WQ‐6:Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality


LTS

WQ‐10:Contributetoinundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow


LTS

Noise

NOI‐1:Exposureofresidencestonoisefromnewwindturbines

S NOI‐1:Performproject‐specificnoisestudiesandimplementmeasurestocomplywithCountynoisestandards

LTS

NOI‐2:Exposureofresidencestonoiseduringdecommissioningandnewturbineconstruction

S NOI‐2:Employnoise‐reducingpracticesduringdecommissioningandnewturbineconstruction

LTS

Transportation/Traffic

TRA‐1:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransitorconflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways


LTS

TRA‐4:Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)duetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic


LTS




Impact



TRA‐5a‐1:Resultininadequateemergencyaccessduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic


LTS

TRA‐6:Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities


LTS

S=significant;LTS=lessthansignificant;SU=significantandunavoidable.

4.1.5 Alternatives Subjected to Screening

Thefollowingalternativeswereconsideredandsubjectedtothescreeningprocessdescribedabove.Allofthesealternativesareprogramalternatives.Alternativestothetwospecificprojectsproposed(GoldenHillsandPattersonPass)werenotspecificallyconsideredforthefollowingreasons:

ProjectsitealternativesforeitherprojectcouldbeeithertheotherprojectsiteoranothersitewithintheProgramArea.ImpactsofconstructionofawindfarmprojectateitheroftheprojectsitesoratotherlocationsintheProgramAreaareconsideredandpresentedinthisEIR.

ThealternativesconsideredfortheProgramwouldalsoapplytotheprojects.Forexample,analternativetotheGoldenHillsorPattersonPassprojectcouldbenorepoweringandreauthorizationoftheexistingturbinesatthoseprojectsites.TheimpactsofsuchanalternativeonacomparativelevelarepresentedinthisEIR.

No Project—No Repowering,Reauthorization of Existing CUPs

UndertheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternative,therewouldbenodecommissioningoftheexistingturbines.Theexistingfirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswouldcontinuetooperateandnonewrepoweredturbineswouldbeinstalled.ThisalternativewouldrequirethatnewCUPsbeauthorized.

No Repowering, Full Decommissioning

UndertheNoRepowering,FullDecommissioningalternative,norepoweringwouldoccurandthewindturbinesintheprogramareawouldbedecommissionedattheexpirationoftheexistingCUPs.TheexistingwindfarmswouldcontinueoperatingusingtheexistingfacilitiesuntiltheCUPsfromtheCountyexpire.DecommissioningeffortswouldbeginwiththeexpirationofthefirstCUP.FollowingexpirationofallCUPsanddecommissioningoftheexistingwindturbines,theprogramareawouldberestoredtopre‐permitconditions.

Fewer New Turbines

Underthisalternative,therewouldbefewernewturbinesandasmallernameplatecapacitythanundertheproposedprogram.Theprogramareaboundarieswouldbethesameasundertheproposedprogram,andallexistingfirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswouldbedecommissioned.




Reduced Footprint

UndertheReducedFootprintalternative,thesamenumberofnewturbineswouldbeinstalledasundertheproposedprogramwithinareducedprogramareaboundary.Becausetherewouldbethesamenumberofturbinesinasmallerarea,turbinedensitywouldbegreaterunderthisalternativethanundertheproposedprogram.

Avoid Specific Biologically Sensitive / Constrained Areas

Thisalternativewouldprescribeaturbinelayoutthatwouldavoidplacingnewturbinesinareasthatwouldnecessitatetheconstructionofnewroadstraversingbiologicallysensitiveorconstrainedareas.Thisalternative’sperimeterandthetotalmaximumnumberofwindturbineswouldbethesameasundertheproposedprogram.

No New Roads

Thisalternativewouldentailthesamenumberofturbinesinthesameprogramareaastheproposedprogram.However,noroadimprovementswouldbemade.Althoughnewroadsarenotrequiredforthedecommissioningofexistingturbines,largerandlongertrucksandcraneswouldberequiredfortransportandinstallationofrepoweredturbinecomponents.Becausetheexistingroadswouldnotaccommodatethetrucksrequiredforconstructionoftherepoweredwindturbines,helicopterswouldbeusedtotransportlargeequipmentandturbinecomponentstoprojectsitesforconstruction.

Shrouded (Smaller) Turbines

Underthisalternative,theexistingfirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswouldbereplacedwithshroudedturbines.Theshroudedturbineswouldbesmallerandshorterthantheturbinesproposedundertheprogram.Experimentaltechnologiesarebeingdevelopedinvolvingsuchturbines.Theturbineswouldhavenameplatecapacitiesofapproximately100kVandwouldbemountedonfree‐standingsmoothexteriorfinishedtowers.Theseturbineswouldhaveanapproximatehubheightof120feet,rotor/shrouddiameterof66feet,andtotaltowerheightof153feet.Atestprojecttoinstall40shroudedturbinesandevaluatetheireffectivenessatreducingavianmortalityonthreesitesintheAPWRAisthesubjectofaseparateEIR(SandHillWindProject,SCHno.2013032016),andanadditional300suchturbinesmaybeinstalledinthefuturedependingontheevaluationofthefirstphase.

Airborne Wind Turbines

Underthisalternative,theexistingfirst‐andsecond‐generationwindturbineswouldbereplacedwithairbornewindturbines(AWTs).AconceptualAWThasbeenproposed,operationasatetheredairfoilwithawingspanofapproximately28meters(91.9feet)andagenerationcapacityof600kW.Thewingwouldlaunchandlandbyhoveringlikeahelicopter.TheAWToperatesinverticalloopsfromitstether,likethetipofaconventionalwindturbineblade,completingeachrotationinabout1–2minutes.ThealtitudeoftheAWTduringoperationrangesfrom459to1,067feet.




4.1.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

Alternatives that Do Not Meet the Program Objectives

AlternativesthatdonotavoidorsubstantiallylessensignificantimpactsoftheprojectorthatdonotmeettheprojectobjectivesdonotneedtobeanalyzedinanEIR.Mostofthealternativesscreened,otherthantheno‐projectalternatives,wouldmeettheprogramobjectivesbecauseeachalternativewouldrepowertheexistingwindturbineswithcurrent‐generationturbines,withtheintentofreducingavianmortalityandcreatingcleanandrenewableenergyconsistentwiththeCounty’sgoalsforwindenergyandtheGovernor’sRenewablePortfolioStandardtarget.However,atthistimethereisnoevidenceorinformationindicatingthatshroudedturbinesortheAWTswouldreduceavianmortality.Accordingly,becausetheShrouded(Smaller)TurbinealternativeandtheAirborneWindTurbinealternativewouldnotmeetalltheprogramobjectives;thesealternativesarenotconsideredfurtherinthisPEIR.

Infeasible Alternatives

InfeasiblealternativesarenotrequiredtobeconsideredintheEIR.TheReducedFootprintalternativewouldnotbefeasible.AlamedaCountyhasdevelopedanupdatedlistofturbinesetbackrequirements,basedonmultiplesofthetotalheightofthewindturbine,includingtheblade(i.e.,thetallertheturbine,thelargerthesetback).Setbackrequirements,inconjunctionwithtechnologicalconsiderations(e.g.,distancebetweenturbinestopreventturbulenceeffects),wouldnotallowthesamenumberofwindturbinesinasmallerarea.Therefore,thisalternativeisconsideredinfeasibleandisnotconsideredfurtherinthisPEIR.

4.2 Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR Oftheeightalternativesconsideredinalternativescreening,threewerescreenedout,asdescribedabove.ThefollowingfivealternativeswereevaluatedincomparisontotheproposedprograminthisPEIR.

NoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPs

NoRepowering,FullDecommissioning

FewerNewTurbines

AvoidSpecificBiologicallySensitive/ConstrainedAreas

NoNewRoads

Inseveralcases,theseverityoftheimpactmaybethesameunderthealternativesasmeasuredagainsttheCEQAsignificancethresholds(e.g.,boththeprogramandagivenalternativewouldresultinaless‐than‐significantimpact).However,theactualmagnitudeoftheimpactmaybeslightlydifferent,providingthebasisforaconclusionofgreaterorlesserimpacts,eventhoughbothareconsideredlessthansignificant.Table4‐2presentsasummarymatrixoftheprogramimpactsincomparisonwiththefivealternatives.




Table 4‐2. Comparison of Program Alternatives to the Program

EnvironmentalTopicArea

LevelofProgramImpact

ImpactComparedtoProposedProgram



FewerNewTurbines

AvoidSpecificBiologicallySensitive/ConstrainedAreas NoNewRoads

Aesthetics Lessthansignificantwithmitigation

Less Less Similarbutslightlyless

Similar Greater

AgriculturalandForestryResources

Lessthansignificantwithmitigation

Less Less Similar Similar Similar

AirQuality Significantandunavoidable

Less Similarbutslightlyless

Similar Similar Similarbutslightlygreater

BiologicalResources Significantandunavoidable

Greater Less Less Similarbutslightlyless Similarbutslightlyless

CulturalResources LessthanSignificantwithmitigation


Similarbutslightlyless

Similar Similarbutslightlyless

Geology,Soils,MineralResources,andPaleontology



Similar Similar Similar

GreenhouseGasEmissions


Less Greater Similarbutslightlygreater

Similar Greater

HazardsandHazardousMaterials



Similarbutslightlyless

Similar Similar

HydrologyandWaterQuality


Less Less Similarbutslightlyless

Similar Similarbutslightlyless

LandUseandPlanning Lessthansignificant Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar

Noise(Short‐term) Lessthansignificantwithmitigation


Similar Similar Similarbutslightlygreater

Noise(Long‐term) Lessthansignificantwithmitigation

Similarbutslightlygreater

Less Less Similar Similar




EnvironmentalTopicArea

LevelofProgramImpact

ImpactComparedtoProposedProgram



FewerNewTurbines

AvoidSpecificBiologicallySensitive/ConstrainedAreas NoNewRoads

PopulationandHousing Lessthansignificant Less Less Similarbutslightlyless

Similar Similar

PublicServices Lessthansignificant Less Similarbutslightlyless


Recreation Noimpact Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar

Traffic/Transportation Lessthansignificantwithmitigation


Similar Similar Similarbutslightlyless

UtilitiesandServiceSystems

Lessthansignificant Less Similarbutslightlyless


Note:Althoughthealternativesmayresultinlesserorgreaterimpactscomparedwiththeproposedprogram,thedifferencemaybeincrementalandwouldnotchangethesignificanceconclusionorrequirementformitigation.




4.2.1 No Project—No Repowering,Reauthorization of Existing CUPs

Aesthetics

UndertheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternative,therewouldbeneitheratemporarynoranypermanentchangetocurrentviews,visualcharacter,daytimeglareornighttimelighting.Therefore,impactsonvisual/aestheticswouldbelessunderthisalternativethanundertheproposedprogram.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

AsdescribedinSection3.2,AgriculturalandForestryResources,thereare24.21acresofPrimeFarmlandand0.36acreofFarmlandofStatewideImportanceintheprogramarea.Becausetherewouldbenoconstructionorchangeinlanduse,therewouldbenopotentialconversionofPrimeFarmlandorFarmlandofStatewideImportancetoanonagriculturaluseundertheNoRepowering—ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternative.Therefore,theimpactsonAgriculturalandForestryResourcesunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.

Air Quality

TheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldnotgenerateshort‐termconstruction‐relatedemissionsthatwouldresultfromconstructionoftheproposedprogram.Therefore,thisalternativewouldavoidthesignificantandunavoidableimpactsrelatedtoconstructionemissions,andimpactsonairqualitywouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.

Biological Resources

BecausetheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldnotentailground‐disturbingactivities,theeffectsonterrestrialbiologicalresourceswouldbelessthanundertheprogram.However,becauseakeyobjectiveoftheprogram(whichcouldbeaccomplishedbythereplacementofolderwindturbineswithnewerdesigns)isthereductionofavianfatalities,avianfatalitieswouldlikelybegreaterunderthisalternativethanundertheprogram.

Cultural Resources

Severalculturalresourcesarepresentintheprogramarea.Thepotentialdisruptiontohistoricandarchaeologicalresourcesassociatedwiththeprogramwouldnotoccurunderthisalternativebecausetherewouldbenogrounddisturbance.Therefore,theimpactsonculturalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheprogram.

Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources

TheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldnotresultinanyofthegeologic/soilsimpactsassociatedwithconstructionandoperationofnewturbines.MitigationmeasuresareidentifiedinthisEIRthatwouldreducepotentialgeologyandsoilsimpactstoaless‐than‐significantlevel.Thisalternativewouldhavenoneedforsuchmitigation.Therefore,




theimpactsongeology,soils,mineralresources,andpaleontologicalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheprogram.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

TheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldnotgenerateanyshort‐termconstruction‐relatedGHGemissions.However,thefullannualGHGemissionsreductionofapproximately97,000metrictonsofCO2eassociatedwiththeproposedprogramwouldnotoccurunderthisalternative,althoughwindenergywouldstillbegeneratedandGHGemissionswouldbereducedconcomitantwiththeamountofwindenergygeneratedbythoseturbines.ThisalternativewouldhavenosignificantimpactonGHGemissions.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

BecausetheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldentailnonewconstructionactivities,constructionworkerswouldnotbeexposedtopotentiallyhazardousmaterialsassociatedwithconstructionmaterials,grounddisturbance,ordecommissioningolderturbines.Operationalimpactsassociatedwithhazardsandhazardousmaterialswouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram,withtheexceptionofpotentialbladethrowhazards.Thepotentialbladethrowhazardwouldbegreater,becausetheexistingold‐generationturbinesaresubjecttohigherratesofstructuralfailurethanarenew‐generationturbines.Consequently,impactsrelatedtohazardsandhazardousmaterialsunderthisalternativewouldbegreaterthanundertheproposedprogram.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Underthisalternative,therewouldbenopollutedrunofforchangestowaterqualitybecausetherewouldbenoconstruction.Therewouldbenochangestotheimpermeablesurfaces,andtheexistingdrainagepatternwouldremainunchanged.Consequently,impactsrelatedtohydrologyandwaterqualityunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.

Land Use and Planning

TheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldresultinthecontinuationoftheexistingusesintheprogramarea.Theeffectsofthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogramasbothareconsistentwiththeexistinglanduseplans,policies,andregulations.

Noise

UndertheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativeitispossiblethatsubstantialdegradationofawindturbineorgroupofwindturbinescouldleadtoanincreaseofnoiselevelsabovetheexistingoperatingnoiselevelsasaresultofagingoralackofmaintenanceoftheexistingturbines.Additionally,thenewturbinesthatwouldbeinstalledundertheproposedprogramareexpectedtobequieterthantheexistingturbines.Althoughconstructionnoisewouldnotoccur,operationalnoisewouldbehigherthanundertheproposedprogram.Underthisalternative,impactsrelatedtonoisewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogramintheshortterm,andsimilarbutslightlygreaterinthelongterm.




Population and Housing

TheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldhavenoeffectonthelocallaborpoolandtherewouldbenoindirecteffectonpopulationorhousing.Therefore,theimpactsonpopulationandhousingunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.

Public Services

Underthisalternative,therewouldbenochangesindemandonserviceprovidersand,therefore,noimpacts.Therefore,impactsonpublicservicesunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanimpactsundertheproposedprogram.

Recreation

Liketheprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinanincreaseintheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksandwouldnotincluderecreationalfacilities.Therefore,impactsonrecreationunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Traffic/Transportation

TheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldnotgenerateconstruction‐relatedtrucktraffic.Therefore,theimpactsontrafficandtransportationunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.

Utilities and Service Systems

TheNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldnotresultinanychangeinwaterconsumption,wastewatergeneration,stormwaterdrainage,orsolidwasteduringconstructionoroperation.Therefore,theimpactsonutilitiesandservicesystemsunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.

4.2.2 No Repowering, Full Decommissioning

Aesthetics

Thetemporaryimpactsonaestheticsassociatedwithdecommissioningtheexistingwindfarmfacilitieswouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.Oncealltheturbinesareremoved,theprogramareawouldbereturnedtopre‐permitconditionsandwouldnotcontainanydevelopment.Therefore,theimpactsonaestheticsunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheprogrambecausetheprogramareawouldbereturnedtopre‐projectconditions.


Asdescribedpreviously,thereare24.21acresofPrimeFarmlandand0.36acreofFarmlandofStatewideImportanceintheProgramarea.Underthisalternative,therewouldbenoconversionofPrimeFarmlandorFarmlandofStatewideImportancetoanonagriculturaluse.Therefore,theimpactsonagriculturalandforestryresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.




Air Quality

AsshowninSection3.3,AirQuality,Table3.3‐5,theamountofROGandNOxemissionsfromdecommissioningandfoundationremovalwouldexceedtheBAAQMDsignificancethresholds.ImplementationofmitigationidentifiedinChapter3wouldreduceemissionsofROGduringthedecommissioningandfoundationremovalphase,butemissionsofNOxwouldstillexceedtheBAAQMDthreshold,resultinginasignificantandunavoidableimpact.Therefore,impactsonairqualityunderthisalternativewouldbesimilarto,butslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Decommissioningactivitiesassociatedwiththisalternativewouldresultinthesameimpactsonterrestrialresourcesasthoseassociatedwiththeproposedprogram;however,therewouldbenodisturbanceassociatedwithnewconstruction.Moreover,becausenonewturbineswouldbeinstalled,therewouldbeacompleteeliminationofturbine‐relatedavianandbatfatalities.Theimpactsonbiologicalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.

Cultural Resources

Decommissioningtheexistingwindturbinesunderthisalternativecouldresultindisruptionofknownorunknownarchaeologicalresourcesorhumanremains,butwouldlikelynotaffecthistoricresources.Becausenonewwindturbineswouldbeinstalled,therewouldbenopotentialdisruptiontoculturalresourcesduringinstallation.Consequently,theimpactsonculturalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilarto,butslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativecouldresultinsoilerosionorimpactsonpaleontologicalresourcesduringdecommissioningoftheexistingwindturbines.However,becausetherewouldbenoinstallationofnewturbines,therewouldbenoimpactsrelatedtothepotentialplacementofturbinesnearactivefaultsorinareaswithpotentialtoexperiencestronggroundshaking,seismic‐relatedgroundfailure,orplacementonexpansivesoils.Therefore,impactsrelatedtogeology,soils,mineralresources,andpaleontologicalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Emissionsassociatedwithdecommissioningtheexistingwindfarmwouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.However,theannualGHGemissionsreductionofapproximately97,000metrictonsofCO2ewouldnotoccurunderthisalternative.Accordingly,thisalternativewouldhavegreaterimpactsthantheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,constructionworkerswouldnotbeexposedtoanyhazardousmaterialsoncedecommissioningiscomplete.Onceallwindturbinesaredecommissioned,operationalimpactsunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogrambecausetherewouldbenowindturbinesintheprogramareaandtherewouldbenoO&Mworkers.Consequently,impacts




relatedtohazardsandhazardousmaterialsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutlessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,decommissioningactivitiescouldresultinincreasederosionanddischargeofsedimenttosurfacewaters,similartosuchimpactsundertheproposedprogram.Onceallturbinesaredecommissioned,therewouldbeadecreaseinimpermeablesurfaces,therebyimprovingtheexistingdrainagepatterns.Therefore,impactsrelatedtohydrologyandwaterqualityunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


TheimpactsundertheNoRepowering,FullDecommissioningalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogrambecausebothalternativesinvolveusesthatareconsistentwiththeexistinglanduseplans,policies,andregulations.

Noise

TheNoRepowering,FullDecommissioningalternativewouldresultinshort‐termnoiseimpactsduringdecommissioningthatwouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.Therewouldbenoconstruction‐relatednoiseandnooperationalnoise.Therefore,impactsrelatedtonoiseintheshorttermwouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram;long‐termnoiseimpactswouldbesubstantiallylessthanundertheproposedprogram.


TheNoRepowering,FullDecommissioningalternativewouldrequireconstructionworkerstodecommissiontheexistingturbines,butwouldrequirenoconstructionworkersforinstallationofrepoweredturbinesorassociatedfacilities.Thisalternativewouldnotrequireanyoperationsandmaintenanceworkers.Therefore,theimpactsonpopulationandhousingunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.

Public Services

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinsubstantialincreasesindemandforanypublicservicesduringdecommissioningactivities.Thisalternativecouldresultinadecreaseddemandforpoliceorfireservicesoncealltheturbinesaredecommissioned.Accordingly,impactsonpublicservicesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.

Recreation

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinanincreaseintheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksandwouldnotincluderecreationalfacilities.Therefore,recreationimpactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.





Underthisalternative,constructiontrafficfromdecommissioningtheexistingturbineswouldbesimilartothatundertheproposedprogram,buttherewouldbenotrafficassociatedwithinstallationofnewturbines.TherewouldbenooperationaltrafficbecausetherewouldnolongerbeO&Mactivities.Becausethisalternativewouldinvolvetrucktrafficrelatedtodecommissioningtheexistingwindturbines,theimpactsontrafficandtransportationunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutsubstantiallylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,decommissioningactivitiescouldresultinimpactsonwaterconsumption,wastewatergeneration,stormwaterdrainage,andsolidwastesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.TherewouldbenooperationalimpactonutilitiesbecausetherewouldnolongerbeO&Mactivities.Accordingly,theimpactsonutilitiesandservicesystemsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.

4.2.3 Fewer New Turbines

Aesthetics

Thisalternativewouldhaveshort‐termconstructionimpactssimilartothoseoftheproposedprogram.Underthisalternative,thetypeofturbinewouldbethesameasundertheproposedprogram,buttherewouldbefewerturbinesdistributedacrossthelandscape.Consequently,therewouldbefewerturbinesdetractingfromthenaturallandscapeintheprogramarea.Therefore,impactsonaestheticsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Thisalternativewouldentailfewernewturbinesintheprogramarea.Althoughtherewouldbefewernewturbinesthanundertheproposedprogram,therewouldbepotentialforthenewturbinestobelocatedonPrimeFarmlandorFarmlandofStatewideImportance,therebyconvertingthelandtoanonagriculturaluse.Consequently,thisalternativewouldrequirethesamemitigationmeasurethatwouldberequiredfortheproposedprogram,andimpactsrelatedtoagriculturalandforestryresourceswouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Air Quality

Thisalternativewouldincludethedecommissioningoftheexistingwindturbines,butwouldentailfewernewturbines.AsshowninTable3.3‐5inSection3.3,AirQuality,ROGandNOxemissionsduringprogramconstructionexceedtheBAAQMDsignificancethresholds.Thisalternativewouldresultinthesameemissionsastheproposedprogramduringthedecommissioningandfoundationremovalphase.However,emissionsassociatedwithconstructionofroadsandturbinefoundations,batchplantoperations,andtruckandworkertripscouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.Installingfewerturbinescouldavoidthesignificantandunavoidableimpactrelatedtoshort‐termconstruction‐relatedROGemissions.However,regardlessofthenumberofturbinesinstalled,NOxemissionsassociatedwithdecommissioningactivitieswouldstillexceedtheBAAQMDthreshold.




Thisalternativewouldresultinasignificantandunavoidableimpact;impactsonairqualityunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Surfacedisturbanceunderthisalternativewouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.Similarly,thereducednumberofturbineswouldresultinfeweravianandbatfatalities.Consequently,thisalternativewouldhavelesssevereimpactsonbiologicalresourcesthantheproposedprogram.

Cultural Resources

Underthisalternative,thelikelihoodofencounteringaculturalresourceduringinstallationactivitiesisslightlylessthanundertheproposedprogram.Therefore,theimpactsonculturalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanundertheproposedprogram.


Thisalternativeinvolvesnochangesthatwouldreducethepotentialimpactsongeologyandsoilsthanwouldbeassociatedwiththeproposedprogram.Therefore,impactsrelatedtogeology,soils,mineralresources,andpaleontologicalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,GHGemissionsresultingfromdecommissioningtheexistingwindfarmfacilitieswouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.However,becausetherewouldbefewernewturbines,theannualGHGemissionsreductionwouldbelessthanundertheproposedprogram.Accordingly,thisalternativewouldhaveanimpactsimilartobutslightlygreaterthanthatundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,theareaofgrounddisturbanceduringinstallationwouldbelessandtherewouldbefewerturbineswiththepotentialforbladethrowhazard.However,constructionworkersandO&Mworkerswouldbeexposedtothesametypesofhazardsandhazardousmaterialsasundertheproposedprogram.Consequently,impactsassociatedwithhazardsandhazardousmaterialsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,thepotentialforconstructionactivitiestoresultinincreasederosionanddischargeofsedimenttosurfacewaterswouldbereduced,aswouldthelikelihoodofthenewturbinesbeingplacedinareasthatwouldimpedeexistingdrainagepatterns.Consequently,theimpactsonhydrologyandwaterqualityunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.





Impactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogrambecausebothinvolveusesthatareconsistentwiththeexistinglanduseplans,policies,andregulations.

Noise

Underthisalternative,short‐termnoiseimpactsduringconstructionwouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.Becausetherewouldbefewerwindturbines,thisalternativewouldgeneratelesslong‐termoperationalnoise.Accordingly,short‐termimpactsrelatedtonoisewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogramandlong‐termimpactsrelatedtonoisewouldbelessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


TheFewerNewTurbinesalternativewouldrequirethesamenumberofconstructionworkerstodecommissiontheexistingfacilities,butwouldrequirefewerworkersfornewconstructionandfewerO&Mworkersbecausetherewouldbefewerturbines.Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotcreatenewjobsandwouldthereforenotinducepopulationgrowthoranincreaseddemandforhousing.Alsoliketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotinvolvethedemolitionordisplacementofanyexistinghousing.Therefore,impactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.

Public Services

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinsubstantialincreasesindemandforanypublicservice.Therefore,publicservicesimpactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Recreation

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinanincreaseintheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksandwouldnotincluderecreationalfacilities.Therefore,recreationimpactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,thereductioninthenumberofnewturbinescouldslightlyreduceoveralltrucktraffic.Consequently,impactsrelatedtotrafficandtransportationunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartoorslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Thisalternativewouldresultindecommissioning,construction,andO&Mactivitiessimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.Consequently,impactsonwaterconsumption,wastewatergeneration,stormwaterdrainage,andsolidwasteunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.




4.2.4 Avoid Specific Biologically Sensitive / Constrained Areas

Aesthetics

Thisalternativewouldresultinthesamedecommissioningofexistingturbinesandinstallationofthesamenumberofturbinesastheproposedprogram.Therefore,aestheticimpactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Thisalternativewouldentailnewturbinesintheprogramarea,withthepotentialtobelocatedinareasofPrimeFarmlandorFarmlandofStatewideImportance,therebyconvertingthelandusetoanonagriculturaluse.Consequently,thisalternativewouldrequirethesamemitigationmeasurethatwouldberequiredfortheproposedprogram,andimpactsrelatedtoagriculturalandforestryresourceswouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Air Quality

Thisalternativewouldresultinthesameconstructionandoperationalairqualityemissionsastheproposedprogram.Accordingly,impactsrelatedtoairqualityunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Becausethisalternativewouldavoidbiologicallysensitiveareas,theimpactsonterrestrialbiologicalresourceswouldlikelybelessthanundertheproposedprogram.Becausethenumberandsizeofwindturbineswouldbethesame,avianandbatmortalitywouldlikelybethesameunderthisalternativeasundertheproposedprogram.

Cultural Resources

Thisalternativeinvolvesnochangesthatwouldreducethepotentialimpactsonculturalresourcescomparedwiththeproposedprogram.Therefore,impactsrelatedtoculturalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Thisalternativeinvolvesnochangesthatwouldreducethepotentialimpactsongeologyandsoilscomparedwiththeproposedprogram.Consequently,impactsrelatedtogeology,soils,mineralresources,andpaleontologicalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


ThisalternativewouldresultinthesameconstructionandoperationalGHGemissionsastheproposedprogram.Consequently,impactsrelatedtoGHGemissionsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.





Underthisalternative,constructionandO&Mworkerswouldbeexposedtothesametypesofhazardsandhazardousmaterialsasundertheproposedprogram.Consequently,impactsonhazardsandhazardousmaterialsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Thisalternativeinvolvesnochangesthatwouldreducethepotentialimpactsonhydrologyandwaterqualitycomparedwiththeproposedprogram.Consequently,impactsrelatedtohydrologyandwaterqualityunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Impactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogrambecausebothinvolvelandusesthatareconsistentwiththeexistinglanduseplans,policies,andregulations.

Noise

Thisalternativeinvolvesnochangesthatwouldreducethepotentialimpactsonnoisecomparedwiththeproposedprogram.Therefore,impactsrelatedtonoiseunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


ThisalternativewouldrequirethesamenumberofconstructionworkersfordecommissioningandinstallationandthesamenumberofO&Mworkersbecauseitwouldentailthesamenumberofturbinesastheproposedprogram.Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotcreatenewjobsandwouldthereforenotinducepopulationgrowthoranincreaseddemandforhousing.Alsoliketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotinvolvethedemolitionordisplacementofanyexistinghousing.Consequently,impactsonpopulationandhousingunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Public Services

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinsubstantialincreasesindemandforanypublicservices.Accordingly,impactsrelatedtopublicservicesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Recreation

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinanincreaseintheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksandwouldnotincluderecreationalfacilities.Consequently,impactsrelatedtorecreationunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.





Thisalternativeinvolvesnochangesthatwouldreducethepotentialimpactsontrafficandtransportationcomparedwiththeproposedprogram.Therefore,impactsrelatedtotrafficandtransportationunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


DecommissioningandconstructionactivitiesandO&Mactivitiesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.Consequently,impactsonwaterconsumption,wastewatergeneration,stormwaterdrainage,andsolidwasteunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

4.2.5 No New Roads

Aesthetics

TheNoNewRoadsalternativewouldinvolvetheuseofhelicopterstotransportlargeequipmentandturbinecomponentstoprojectsitesforconstruction.Thehighlysensitiveviewersintheprogramarea(i.e.,residentsandrecreationists)couldperceivethepresenceofhelicoptersasagreatervisualimpactthanwouldoccurundertheproposedprogram.Therefore,duringconstruction,impactsonaestheticsunderthisalternativewouldbegreaterthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.Operationalimpactswouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram,unlesshelicopterswerealsorequiredformaintenanceactivities,inwhichcaseimpactswouldbegreater.


Becausethisalternativewouldinvolveinstallationofnewturbinesintheprogramarea,therewouldbepotentialforthenewturbinestobelocatedPrimeFarmlandorFarmlandofStatewideImportance,therebyconvertingthelandusetoanonagriculturaluse.Accordingly,thisalternativewouldrequirethesamemitigationmeasurethatwouldberequiredfortheproposedprogram,andimpactsrelatedtoagriculturalandforestryresourceswouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Air Quality

Airqualityemissionsassociatedwithdecommissioningactivitiesunderthisalternativewouldbethesameasundertheproposedprogram.Becausetherewouldbenonewroads,therewouldbenoemissionsfromroadconstruction.Aspreviouslydescribed,becausethenewturbinetowersandbladeswouldbesignificantlylongerthantheexistingturbinecomponents,largerandlongertrucksandcraneswouldberequiredfortransportandinstallation.However,becauseexistingroadswouldnotaccommodatethetrucksrequiredforconstructionoftherepoweredwindturbines,helicopterswouldbeusedtotransportlargeequipmentandturbinecomponentstotheprogramsitesforconstruction.Emissionsfromhelicopterusewouldbesubstantiallyhigherthanemissionsfromroadconstructionandtrucktrips.Becauseconstructionemissionsaresignificantandunavoidableundertheproposedprogram,impactsrelatedtoairqualityunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutgreaterthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.





Becausenonewroadswouldbeconstructedunderthisalternative,theextentofground‐disturbingactivitieswouldbesubstantiallyreducedcomparedwiththeactivitiesconductedundertheproposedprogram.However,thelevelofavianandbatmortalitywouldbethesameasundertheproposedprogram.

Cultural Resources

Becausenonewroadswouldbeconstructedunderthisalternative,theextentofground‐disturbingactivitieswouldbesubstantiallyreduced;consequently,thelikelihoodofencounteringculturalresourceswouldalsobeless.Accordingly,impactsrelatedtoculturalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutlessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Thisalternativeinvolvesnochangesthatwouldreducethepotentialimpactsongeologyandsoilscomparedwiththoseundertheproposedprogram.Becausenonewroadswouldbeconstructed,impactsonpaleontologicalresourcescouldbelessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.Overall,impactsrelatedtogeology,soils,mineralresources,andpaleontologicalresourcesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutslightlylessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


GHGemissionsassociatedwithdecommissioningactivitiesunderthisalternativewouldbethesameasundertheproposedprogram.Becausetherewouldbenonewroads,therewouldbenoemissionsassociatedwithroadconstruction.GHGemissionsfromhelicoptersusedtotransportcomponentsandequipmentwouldbesubstantiallyhigherthanemissionsfromroadconstructionandtrucktrips.ThisalternativewouldresultinthesamereductioninannualGHGemissionsastheproposedprogram,butGHGemissionsassociatedwithconstructionwouldbemuchgreater.Therefore,impactsrelatedtoGHGemissionsunderthisalternativewouldbegreaterthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,constructionworkersandO&Mworkerswouldbeexposedtothesametypesofhazardsandhazardousmaterialsasundertheproposedprogram.Therefore,impactsonhazardsandhazardousmaterialsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.However,becausenewroadswouldnotbeconstructed,publicservicesuppliers,particularlyemergencyvehicles,couldhavereducedaccesstotheprogramarea.Accordingly,thisalternativewouldresultinagreaterimpactonsafetypertainingtofirehazardsorothersituationsrequiringfirstrespondersthanwouldtheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,nonewroadswouldbeconstructedandconstructionactivitieswouldbelesslikelytoimpedewaterqualityordrainage.Therefore,impactsrelatedtohydrologyandwaterqualityunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutlessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.





Impactsunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogrambecausebothinvolvelandusesthatareconsistentwiththeexistinglanduseplans,policies,andregulations.

Noise

Underthisalternative,becausenonewroadswouldbeconstructed,thenewturbineswouldbetransportedtotheprogramareausinghelicopters.Noisegeneratedbyhelicoptersisgenerallylouderthannoisegeneratedbytrucks.However,themitigationmeasuresrequiredfortheproposedprogramconstructionwouldapplytothisalternative,andwouldreduceimpactsfromhelicopternoisetoaless‐than‐significantlevel.Thisalternativewouldalsoreducetheamountofnoiseassociatedwithoff‐sitetrucktrafficbecausetherewouldbefewertrucksdrivingtoandfromtheprogramarea.Operationalimpactsofthisalternativewouldbethesameasthoseoftheproposedprogram.Therefore,short‐termimpactsrelatedtonoisewouldbesimilartobutslightlygreaterthanthoseundertheproposedprogram,andlong‐termimpactsonnoisewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


TheNoNewRoadsalternativewouldrequirethesamenumberofconstructionworkersfordecommissioningandinstallationactivitiesandthesamenumberofO&Mworkersbecausetherewouldbesamenumberofturbines.However,noworkerswouldbeneededforroadinfrastructureimprovementsbecausenonewroadswouldbeconstructed.Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotcreatenewjobsandwouldthereforenotinducepopulationgrowthoranincreaseddemandforhousing.Alsoliketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotinvolvethedemolitionordisplacementofanyexistinghousing.Accordingly,impactsonpopulationandhousingunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Public Services

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinsubstantialincreasesindemandforanypublicservice.Therefore,impactsonpublicservicesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

Recreation

Liketheproposedprogram,thisalternativewouldnotresultinanincreaseintheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksandwouldnotincluderecreationalfacilities.Therefore,impactsonrecreationunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.


Underthisalternative,thelargerpiecesofturbineequipmentwouldbetransportedtotheprogramareabyhelicopterandtherewouldbefewertrucktripsduringconstruction.However,someofthesmallertrucksrequiredforconstructionwouldstillaccesstheprogramarea.Accordingly,theimpactsontrafficandtransportationunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartobutlessthanthoseundertheproposedprogram.





Decommissioning,construction,andO&Mactivitiesunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.Impactsonwaterconsumption,wastewatergeneration,stormwaterdrainage,andsolidwasteunderthisalternativewouldbesimilartothoseundertheproposedprogram.

4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative TheStateCEQAGuidelinesrequirethatanenvironmentallysuperioralternativebeidentified.Theenvironmentallysuperioralternativeisthealternativethatwouldavoidorsubstantiallylessen,tothegreatestextent,theenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeprojectwhilefeasiblyattainingmostofthemajorprojectobjectives.Ifthealternativewiththeleastenvironmentalimpactisdeterminedtobethenoprojectalternative,theEIRshallalsoidentifyanenvironmentallysuperioralternativeamongtheotheralternatives.

Theidentificationoftheenvironmentallysuperioralternativeresultsfromacomparisonoftheimpactsassociatedwitheachalternativetothoseoftheproposedprogram,asshowninTable4‐2.Nofeasiblealternativeswouldreducethesignificantandunavoidableimpactsoftheprojecttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.Ofallofthealternativesevaluated,theNoProject—NoRepowering,ReauthorizationofExistingCUPsalternativewouldhavegreaterimpactsonbirdsandbats,asoldermodelsofturbineswouldnotbereplacedwithmodelsthatreducebirdandbatmortality.TheFewerNewTurbinesalternativewouldreduceoverallimpactsslightly,withtheexceptionofGHGemissions.GHGimpactswouldbegreater,asthebenefitsoffullrepoweringwouldbereduced.TheNoNewRoadsalternativewouldreduceimpactsassociatedwithgradingandroadconstructionbutwouldsubstantiallyincreaseimpactsrelatedtoairpollutantandGHGemissions,ashelicopterswouldbeusedforconstruction.TheAvoidSpecificBiologicallySensitive/ConstrainedAreasalternativewouldhavethesameimpactsofeitheroftheprogramalternatives,andcouldbeimplementedateitherthe417MWor450MWlevel,butwouldreducethesignificantimpactsassociatedwithdisturbanceofbiologicalresourcesatspecificgeographiclocations.Theseimpactsarenotsignificantandunavoidable,astheycanbereducedtoaless‐than‐significantlevelbyfeasiblemitigationmeasuresidentifiedinthisEIR,buttheimpactswouldbeavoidedundertheAvoidSpecificBiologicallySensitive/ConstrainedAreasalternative.

AsshowninTable4‐2,theNoRepowering,FullDecommissioningalternativewouldhavetheleastenvironmentalimpactsofallthealternativesanalyzed.Forthisreason,itwouldbetheenvironmentallysuperioralternative.

chapter 4 alternatives analysis - acgov.org · alameda county community development agency...

Documents