CITY OF GRASS VALLEY

TrafficTraffic,Air Quality,

Cumulative Effects and

Project Alternatives

for the

Environmental Impact Report on theId h M l d Mi P j tIdaho-Maryland Mine Project

March 12, 2008

Public Workshop Agenda:p g

• Welcome and Introductions

• Purpose of the Informational Outreach Program

• Review EIR analyses of Traffic, Air Quality, Cumulative Effects and Project Alternatives

• Environmental Review Process

• Questions & Answers

• Adjournj

Introductions

•City StaffTom Last – Planning Director, primary contact

•Environmental Consulting Team - ESAJeff Harvey, Ph.D.Jennifer Johnson, J.D.

This Process is Solely Sponsored and y pRun by the City

• City of Grass Valley has sponsored all of these public informational meetings

• Like any other citizens, the Applicant may attend, but has not directed the meeting content or format but as ot d ected t e eet g co te t o o atin any way

• All presentations and discussions are conducted by the City’s staff and consultant team

Purpose of these public outreach meetings:Purpose of these public outreach meetings:

• Increase understanding of the environmental review process d EIR t tand EIR contents

• Clarify the issues to be addressed legal requirements and• Clarify the issues to be addressed, legal requirements, and analytical processes

• Intended to be informal and educational (no formal minutes)

• City does note new issues raised by community

Unique Project and CEQA ProcessUnique Project and CEQA Process

• Large industrial mining project within City limits• Large industrial mining project within City limits

• Historical presence of underground minesHistorical presence of underground mines

• Ceramics Plant utilizing mine rock

• Complicated analyses of multiple issues

• Three phase City environmental review process

Public OutreachProposed Idaho-Maryland Mine Project

• Current Status: Two of three phases of environmental review process complete:

1. Master Environmental Assessment – June 20061. Master Environmental Assessment June 20062. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study – Oct 2007

*Public outreach occurring during all phases

• Schedule for completing the Draft EIR –Late Spring 2008

- Study session, site visit and hearings with the Planning Commission during Draft EIR review period

- 45-day public review period for Draft EIR

Project Sites

Project Location Mapojec oca o ap

Traffic Impact Assessment

Review project generated traffic for compliance andReview project generated traffic for compliance and consistency with adopted criteria, policies and plans:

• City of Grass Valley Policy Adopting Traffic Impact Study Methodology and Evaluation Criteria for Critical IntersectionsCritical Intersections

• City of Grass Valley 2020 General Plan• Circulation Element of the Nevada County GeneralCirculation Element of the Nevada County General

Plan• Caltrans’ “Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact

St di ”Studies”

Traffic Information Sources• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Publication:

Trip Generation (Seventh Edition)p ( )

• City of Grass Valley Traffic Model (adopted in 2008)

• Transportation Research Board (TRB) Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Fourth Edition, 2000 (HCM-2000)y ( )

• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

• Traffic Counts for key intersections, AM, PM, and school Peaks

Traffic Study: Key IntersectionsTraffic Study: Key Intersections

Traffic – Key Issues

T ffi Ch t i ti ti h t k d t bil• Traffic Characterization – routing, heavy trucks and automobiles

• Average Daily Trips (ADT)

• Peak Hour Trip Generation (AM and PM)

• Off-Peak Peaks (per Caltrans – primarily school traffic)

R d i t ti d f ti• Roadway, intersection and ramp functions

• Levels of Service (LOS – A through F)

Traffic Mitigation StrategiesTraffic Mitigation Strategies

Traffic Management Planning carpools shuttles shift timing• Traffic Management Planning – carpools, shuttles, shift timing

• Operational limitations to avoid peak periodsp p p

• Trip routing and designated truck routes

• Local and regional roadway improvements, including signalizationg

• Other project-specific measures (phasing, fair-share contributions)contributions)

Ai Q liAir Quality• Evaluate Project for consistency with State and Federal Clean Air

A t t d dAct standards

• Regional Basin status for attainment or non-attainment for criteria pollutants (PM10; CO2, NOx, SOx, and ROG)

• Regional Implementation Plang p

• General Plan policies (City and Nevada County)

• Consultation with Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) for standards and mitigation strategies

Ai Q lit A tAir Quality AssessmentStandardized Models to evaluate and measure impacts

developed by the California Air Resources Boarddeveloped by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

• CARB URBEMIS Model (off-road equipment)• CARB EMFAC2007 (on-road vehicles)• AP 42 Emission Factors (for processing plant fugitive• AP-42 Emission Factors (for processing plant, fugitive

dust sources, blasting, and natural gas) • Health Risk Assessment models (AERMOD – toxics

di i d HARP t i h lth i k )dispersion, and HARP - toxics health risks)• California Climate Action Registry Report Protocol

(2007) (for greenhouse gases associated with ( ) ( g gelectricity usage)

Air Quality - Key IssuesAir Quality Key Issues• Construction Emissions (primarily dust – PM10)

T i Ai C t i t (TAC) f C i P• Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) from Ceramics Process• Operations Emissions:

– All Vehicle TrafficAll Vehicle Traffic– Above ground crushing– Underground Mining Activities - Drilling, Blasting, Crushing

Ore Processing– Ore Processing– Ore Transport and Storage– Ceramics Plant

• Greenhouse Gases

Air Q alit Mitigation StrategiesAir Quality – Mitigation Strategies

S f h A E i f Effi i• State-of-the-Art Equipment for Efficiency

• Electric Power to replace Diesel

• Installation of Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) for criteria and toxic g ( )pollutants

• Off-set Measures and Credits

• Other measures in consultation with NSAQMD

Cumulative Impacts

R i d l i i CEQA• Required analysis in CEQA

• Considers all other reasonably foreseeable past• Considers all other reasonably foreseeable past, present and future projects that may also contribute to impacts on the same resources

• Compiled list of projects in consultation with the City and County

• Complex, and varies by resource topic

Cumulative Impactsp

For example…• Watershed level for surface water quality• Air Basin level for emissions

Local and regional road network for traffic• Local and regional road network for traffic• Local land development for demands on public

services• Regional level for energy demand• State level for contribution to CO2 impacts under

State Climate Change polices

Cumulative ImpactsCumulative Impacts

• Identify other projects that may cause related impacts• Identify other projects that may cause related impacts

• Define geographic scopeg g p p

• …“guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness…”

Develop a list of past present and probable future• Develop a list of past, present and probable future projects with related effects on same geographic area

• Evaluate significance of cumulative impacts

C m lati e ImpactsCumulative Impacts

Alternatives

Identify a range of reasonable alternatives to theIdentify a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project that:

• Feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project, and

• Avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR.

M l i l d h “N P j ” l i d• Must also include the “No Project” alternative, and identify the “environmentally superior” development alternative

Alt tiAlternatives• Developed toward completion of impact analyses when

impacts are defined

C id ti l h it fi ti d• Consider operational changes, site reconfiguration, and inclusion of off-setting mitigation features

• Adjust size, timing, or phases of development, but must always consider attainment of basic project goals and bj tiobjectives

• Also describe alternatives considered and rejected• Also describe alternatives considered and rejected

AlternativesAlternatives

• Early stages of Alternatives DevelopmentEarly stages of Alternatives Development

Primary environmental impacts that need to be considered:

• Air QualityE U• Energy Use

• Traffic generation and routing• Land Use and Housing• Land Use and Housing• Possibly others

WHAT NOW?WHAT NOW?

EIR D l PEIR Development Process

• Assessment for many resource areas nearly completed

• Additional information now being collected and• Additional information now being collected and analyzed for air quality, surface water, traffic, and related topics

• Formulation and evaluation of mitigation measures in consultation with City

• Define and assess alternatives• Define and assess alternatives• Draft EIR for public review expected late Spring

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

• Focus on topics of Traffic, Air Quality, Cumulative Eff t d P j t Alt tiEffects, and Project Alternatives

• For courtesy to others please ask one question at a• For courtesy to others, please ask one question at a time, and refrain from commenting on others’ questions.

• We may not have answers to all of your questions – this is a study in-progress.