Laserfiche WebLink
5.2 Alternatives Evaluated in This EIR <br /> The potential for significant and unavoidable hydrology and water quality impacts associated <br /> with rerouting Hospital Creek would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with this scenario. <br /> If Phases V and VI, associated with disturbance of Hospital Creek, were to be eliminated,the <br /> impacts to the creek would be significantly reduced. There would be no potential mining of the <br /> creek bed or construction of a berm to redirect the creek into a constructed retention pond. <br /> Leaving the Phases V and VI areas as agricultural land would allow more runoff from those areas <br /> ` into the creek so that flows within the creek would not be impacted as greatly as that of the <br /> project.The significant and unavoidable impact associated with the option of redirecting Hospital <br /> Creek and all flows of the creek into the active mining area would be eliminated. Leaving Phases <br /> ` V and VI as agricultural land would reduce the impacts to creek flows and streambed function. <br /> This could help to reduce the impacts of lowering the water table levels downstream of the <br /> project site and affecting surface water and groundwater. <br /> Biological Resources <br /> _ Scenario 1: A reduction in mining operations would not reduce the amount of land disturbed. <br /> Therefore, impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be similar to those of the <br /> project. Mitigation identified for the project would be applicable under this scenario. <br /> Scenario 2: A reduction in the number of phases that would be mined would reduce the amount <br /> of land disturbed and leave a portion of the land in active agricultural cultivation. The agricultural <br /> land that would remain would continue to provide habitat for biological resources. However,this <br /> would not reduce impacts to biological resources in the areas that would continue to be a part of <br /> the project. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the project. Mitigation <br /> identified for the project would be applicable under this scenario. <br /> Cultural Resources <br /> Scenario 1: Cultural resources were not identified on the project site. A reduction in mining <br /> operation would not reduce the amount of land disturbed and the potential for disturbance of <br /> ` unknown resource. Therefore,potential impacts under this alternative would be similar to those <br /> of the project. Mitigation identified for the project would be applicable under this scenario. <br /> Scenario 2: Cultural resources were not identified on the project site. A reduction in the number <br /> of phases that would be mined would reduce the amount of land disturbed and the potential for <br /> disturbance of unknown resources. However,this would not reduce impacts to cultural resources <br /> in the areas that would continue to be a part of the project. Impacts under this alternative would <br /> be similar to those of the project. Mitigation identified for the project would be applicable under <br /> this scenario. <br /> Hazards and Hazardous Materials <br /> ` Scenario 1: A reduction in the mining operation would not result in a significant reduction in the <br /> amount of hazardous materials stored and used at the site for the mining processes. Excavation, <br /> grading and construction activities would still occur at the site, during which hazardous materials <br /> would be brought onto the site. The silt ponds and mining pits would still have the potential to <br /> RMC Pacific Vernalis Quarry Mining and Reclamation Project 5-13 ESA/203015 <br /> Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2006 <br />