SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • • Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page V-4 Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Expansion Project • • 2,290 acres out of a total site area of 4,250 acres (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Facility Permit, • Mesquite Regional Landfill, Permit #13-AA-0026). It is recognized that each specific site • has particular buffer needs and lands not suitable for placement of a landfill, however all have needs for ancillary facilities. • • A landfill expansion also would be able to use existing facilities compared to the need • for new ones at a new landfill. This need for new ancillary facilities could affect financial feasibility of a new landfill under a certain size. For all of these reasons, the • 2013 EIR and this SEIR focus on reduced-project alternatives and expansions of other • existing landfills in the county over a new off-site landfill. It should be noted that the • comment does not identify any potential alternative off-site locations for consideration. • The EIR's range of alternatives is reasonable. • D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15126.6(d), 15126.6(e)) require that an environmentally superior alternative be designated. If the alternative with the least environmental • impact is the No Project Alternative, then one of the other remaining alternatives is to be • designated as the environmentally superior alternative. • The 2013 FEIR concluded that Alternative 2B would be the Environmentally Superior • Alternative. The proposed 2018 Expansion Project would, however be environmentally • superior to Alternative 2B, with a much more limited footprint and shorter extension of • landfill life. The proposed project, as detailed in this SEIR, would reduce most impacts compared with the previously proposed Project. Alternatives 4 and 5 would further reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Of these, Alternative 4 would have • the lowest impact, because it would not result in creek relocation impacts and would not • affect the visual quality of the Southern parcel as viewed from Austin Road. It should be noted that the Forward Inc. landfill is the only landfill in San Joaquin County that accepts Class II wastes, and under Alternatives 4 and 5, those wastes would • need to be disposed of at out-of-county landfills upon the closure of the Forward • Landfill earlier than under the proposed project or Alternative 6. This could result in • greater regional air pollutant emissions than with the project, as well as unknown impacts of expanding landfills elsewhere. Because Alternative 4 would not affect the • composting facility or require creek realignment, it is considered the environmentally • superior alternative. However, long-term benefits of the restored creek and additional • Class 2 landfill capacity would not be gained under that alternative. • • • • • • • • • •