SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. ALTERNATIVES r 53 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 5-3 provides a summary of the evaluation of the alternatives compared to the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 5-3,the No Project Alternative would result in the avoidance all of the significant,unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project. Although the No Project Alternative would he considered the environmentally superior alternative,it does not fulfill the .. objectives of the project. In addition,it is reasonable to expect development of the site or project area to occur in the foreseeable future that would also have environmental effects comparable to the Proposed Project. r The other alternatives that were considered and analyzed in this section serve to reduce some of the impacts, and one alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to Hospital �— Creek. However,none of the alternatives considered,other than the No Project Alternative, would reduce all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project. �+ The Alternative 2—Scenario 2 is the only alternative that reduces one of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. If Hospital Creek were to be mined out as proposed in the project under mining option 2,this would permanently remove surface water flows from the reach of Hospital Creek downstream of the proposed mining operations leading to depletion of flows to downstream receiving water bodies,reduction of surface water available for localized infiltration, or elimination of adequate water flow for aquatic r and riparian habitats. However, the proposed project could be approved under mining option 1, which would avoid the significant impacts to Hospital Creek. Therefore,the significant and r unavoidable impact could also be avoided with the proposed project if mining option I is approved rather than mining option 2. In addition, this alternative would result in having to look for another site to mine aggregate sooner than with the Proposed Project because the lifespan of the project would be reduced to 15 to 36 years instead of the 25 to 60 years of the Proposed Project. This might not actually be a more environmentally sensitive alternative because additional land would need to be disturbed elsewhere for a like resource sooner than with the Proposed Project. The Alternative 2—Scenario I would result in similar impacts as the Proposed Project,but to a r lesser extent due to the decrease in the amount of material to be mined on a yearly basis. Transportation and Circulation impacts and noise impacts would be less than the project due to a decrease in the amount of traffic on a daily basis over the life of the project. However,the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not be reduced with this alternative. The Alternative 3—Off-site Alternative would result in similar impacts as the Proposed Project, some to a lesser extent and others to a greater extent than the project. With this alternative site being located closer to the market in Tracy,the traffic impacts and noise associated with traffic ` would be lessened. There are a greater number of residences near the off-site alternative so the impacts to sensitive receptors associated with noise an air quality from the mining and aggregate processing would be increased over those of the project. r r RMC Pacific Vemnlis Quarry Muting and Reclamation Project 5-19 PSA 1203015 Administrative Draft EIR March 2004