SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Scenario 2: A reduction in the number of phases to be mined would result in the reduction of land(fewer pits) disturbed at the project site. However, there would still be issues related to seismic safety. These impacts would be similar to those of the project. Mitigation identified for the project would be applicable under this scenario. (Draft E1R,p. 5-12.) Hydrology and Water Quality Scenario 1: A reduction in mining operation would result in less project water use. However, the potential to alter groundwater flows, impact water quality, deplete groundwater levels, and contribute to local and regional groundwater overdraft would be similar to that of the project. The potential for hydrology and water quality impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the project. The significant and unavoidable impact under Mining Plan Option 2 (mining of Hospital Creek) of the project would remain under this alternative. Scenario 2: A reduction in the number of phases to be mined would result in less project water use. The continued agricultural cultivation of a portion of the project site could result in less groundwater use than if those phases were to be mined. However, it is unlikely that eliminating two phases would significantly reduce the impacts to groundwater resources. The potential to alter groundwater flows, impact water quality, deplete groundwater levels, and contribute to local and regional groundwater overdraft would be similar to that of the project. If Phases IV and V, associated with disturbance of Hospital Creek, were to be eliminated, the impacts to the creek would be significantly reduced. There would be no potential mining of the creek bed or construction of a berm to redirect the creek into a constructed retention pond. The potential for significant and unavoidable hydrology and water quality impacts associated with rerouting Hospital Creek would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with this scenario. Leaving the Phases IV and V areas as agricultural land would allow more runoff from those areas into the creek so that flows within the creek would not be impacted as greatly as that of the project. This could help to reduce the impacts of lowering the water table levels downstream of the project site and affecting surface water and groundwater. (Draft EIR,pp. 5-12 to 5-13.) Biological Resources Scenario 1: A reduction in mining operations would not reduce the amount of land disturbed. Therefore, impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be similar to those of the project. Mitigation identified for the project would be applicable under this scenario. Scenario 2: A reduction in the number of phases that would be mined would reduce the amount of land disturbed and leave a portion of the land in active agricultural cultivation. The agricultural land that would remain would continue to provide habitat for biological resources. However, this would not reduce impacts to biological resources in the areas that would continue to be a part of the project. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the project. Mitigation identified for the project would be applicable under this scenario. (Draft EIR,p. 5- 13.) Cultural Resources 50