ARCHIVED REPORTS_2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V. IMPACT OVERVIEW TABLE V-1 COMPARISON OF THE MITIGATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ALTERNATIVESa Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Impact Proposed Project No Project Reduce-Scale Off-Site F. Hydrology and Water Ouality(continued) 3. The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces and LS —N =LS =LS alter drainage patterns across the site, thereby producing greater surface runoff and rerouting of runoff that could produce flood hazards or impact the regional drainage system. G. Public health and Safetv I. Accidental or inadvertent delivery of household LS —N —LS =LS hazardous waste commingled with nonhazardous refuse could pose health or safety threats to workers at the transfer station or to the environment upon improper disposal. 2. Hazardous materials such as fuels to be stored and used LS —N —LS =LS at the expanded Transfer Station could pose threats to health and safety. 3. Workers at the proposed transfer station may be exposed to LS —N —LS =LS excessive noise levels. Comparisons to Project Comparisons to Setting + Greater impact than that of the proposed project LS Less than significant adverse impact after mitigation Lesser impact than that of the proposed project SU Significant and unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation Same(or similar)impact as that of the proposed project N No impact or negligible impact +/= Approximately the same impact as or potentially greater impact than that of the proposed project * Not applicable —/= Approximately the same impact as or potentially lesser impact than that of the proposed project B Beneficial ? Magnitude of change relative to the project or level of significance cannot be determined a Significance levels for the project and the alternatives reflect the levels of significance after mitigation. Symbols indicate maximum impact during construction and operation, unless otherwise specified. SiocAloti Scavenger Transfer.Suuion Expansion V.12 ESA/990/90