Laserfiche WebLink
4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES <br /> This section discusses viable alternatives to the proposed project. Only those <br /> alternatives that are considered reasonable and address the needs and goals of the County <br /> and surrounding communities have been addressed in this section. These alternatives <br /> avoid one or more significant environmental impacts imposed by the project, based on <br /> issues identified during scoping and during the preparation of the DEIR. The <br /> alternatives addressed in this section are: <br /> - No Project <br /> - No New River Crossing <br /> - Reduced Depth of Excavation <br /> - Alternative Quarry Site <br /> 4.1 No Proiect <br /> This alternative would leave the project site in its current condition and would <br /> not affect the riparian corridor or fisheries along the Mokelumne River that could result <br /> from construction of an access road and relocation of the existing bridge. The impacts <br /> identified for the proposed action in this document would not occur. <br /> Land at the quarry site could remain in agricultural use. However, the No <br /> Project alternative would not utilize the aggregate resource on site, and would not take <br /> full advantage of the diminishing aggregate reserves in the Stockton-Lodi P-C region. <br /> This could have a long term negative impact on the available aggregate resource supply <br /> for the area. If the land remained in agricultural use, the reserves could potentially be <br /> extracted at a later date, but this may not be a effective utilization of resources. The <br /> aggregate resource that is currently supplying the processing facility is expected to be <br /> exhausted by mid-1990. Without aggregate from the proposed quarry, the processing <br /> facility would likely be dismantled and the area reclaimed. Later extraction from the <br /> proposed quarry area would then require either construction of a new processing facility <br /> or expensive transportation of raw aggregate to an existing processing facility. <br /> The No Project alternative would also result in a loss of 14 jobs to the immediate <br /> area of San Joaquin County. This loss of jobs would occur under the proposed project, <br /> but 10 years later than with the No Project Alternative. <br /> 106 <br />