SU0004149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Environmentally Superior Project Alternative Alternatives 1 and 2 would have relatively similar environmental effects. The additional disturbance of land under Alternative 2 due to the construction of a new roadway, however, would make Alternative 1 superior to Alternative 2. The significant and unavoidable noise impact associated with Alternative 3 would make that alternative the least environmentally preferable of the project alternatives. Therefore Alternative 1 (Proposed Project) would be considered the environmentally superior project alternative. Discussion Each of the other alternatives (1, 2, and 3) evaluated in this EiR would result in the excavation and reclamation of the 142-acre project site. The proposed mining and reclamation plans are essentially identical for each alternative; they vary only in the location of the proposed processing facilities (which would be relocated to the southwestern corner of the project site under Alternative 3). In addition to the processing plant location, the other primary difference among the Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is the proposed access to the project site. Truck traffic and corresponding effects on noise and air quality is considered one of the more substantial effects of the proposed project, and therefore variations on the access to the project site were identified and evaluated to determine which would have the least environmental effect. (For a complete description j of the alternatives, including graphic representation, refer to Section 3.5.) Access to and from the project site under Alternative 1 (Proposed Project) would be accomplished using existing roadways, including Koster Road. This alternative would require improvements to existing roadways in some locations, however, the construction of new facilities off of the project site would not be necessary. Traffic-related impacts under this alternative were determined to be mitigable. Alternative 2 (Proposed Project with Alternate Northern Access Road) proposes the construction and operation of a new access road north of the project site, west of the Delta Mendota Canal, connecting to Bleweft Road. The project effects would be similar for alternatives 1 and 2. However, construction of this new roadway would increase the amount of land disturbed, and have the potential to impact prime farmland, wildlife habitat, and currently unknown cultural resources. The new roadway would also generate noise and dust during construction. This alternative would therefore appear to be slightly less' acceptable from an environmental perspective. Alternative 3 (Proposed Protect with Alternate Southern Access Road to New Interchange) proposes the construction of a new access road south of the project site which would connect a new interchange (Vernalis Interchange) along Interstate 5, proposed by another mining operator (Granite Construction Company). Access to and from the project site in this location would result in additional land disturbance as compared to Alternative 1. In addition, the truck traffic along this proposed access road would generate a significant and unavoidable noise impact at an adjacent sensitive receptor (i.e., residence). Therefore, Alternative 3 would be the favorable of the project alternatives. Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-4 ER-96-3