SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Transportation and Circulation Under the No Project Alternative, on-site and off-site infrastructure and roadway improvements would not occur. The potential for transportation and circulation impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than those associated with the project, due to less traffic generated by existing agricultural site use. (Draft EIR,p. 5-7.) Noise Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no new noise sources in the vicinity of the project site. Existing agricultural land uses would be maintained and would likely retain ambient noise levels as they currently exist at the site. The noise impacts of the No Project Alternative would be less than those associated with the project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) Air Quality Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no new emissions sources or change in existing emissions sources from agricultural uses at the project site. The air quality impacts of the No Project Alternative would be less than those associated with the project, except to the extent that aggregate for San Joaquin County would be required to be hauled in from more distant sources, in which case, the No Project Alternative could cause greater regional air quality impacts. (Draft EIR,p. 5-7.) Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no immediate impacts to the site geology, topography, or soils. Agricultural cultivation would continue on the site and there would be some soil erosion associated with agricultural activities. However, there would not be issues with slope stability and the potential for excessive soil erosion with this alternative. The geology, soils and seismicity impacts of the No Project Alternative would be less than those associated with the project. (Draft EIR,pp. 5-7 to 5-8.) Hydrology and Water Quality Under the No Project Alternative, existing on-site water wells would continue to be used for residential and agricultural irrigation purposes. Under the project, the on-site water wells would be used for mining processes in addition to silt ponds. The potential to alter groundwater flows, deplete groundwater levels, and contribute to local and regional groundwater overdraft would likely remain the same with the No Project Alternative due to continued agricultural uses. Impacts to water quality would also be similar. Although no impervious surfaces would be created and there would be less likelihood of contaminated runoff entering groundwater through fractured wells, the use and storage of hazardous materials associated with agriculture would continue As noted in Section 4.11,Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, records obtained from the Agricultural Commissioner's Office show that the following pesticides were permitted for use on the site for the years 2000 to 2003: Amino Triazole, Sevin, Furadan, Dicamba, Guthion, Methomyl,Methyl Parathion, Aluminum Phosphate, Strychnine, MCPA, Dimethyla, 2,4-DB, 2,4-D Amine, Paraquat, Supracide, Disyston, Thimet, Goal 2XL, Princep Caliber 90, Glyfos, 45