My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
Y
>
YOSEMITE
>
2450
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506303
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2020 5:02:58 PM
Creation date
7/23/2020 4:33:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RECORD_ID
PR0506303
PE
2965
FACILITY_ID
FA0001086
FACILITY_NAME
MANTECA PUBLIC WORKS
STREET_NUMBER
2450
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
YOSEMITE
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336
APN
24130050
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
2450 W YOSEMITE AVE
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
736
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
associated with Important Farmland and generation of substantial odors. Because the No Project Alternative <br /> would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, it is the environmentally superior alternative and it is <br /> superior to all other alternatives considered. However,this alternative would not meet any project objectives. <br /> Further, it would not resolve existing non-compliance issues associated with the temperature of the effluent. Most <br /> importantly,this alternative would not result in the expansion of the WQCF to meet buildout demands associated <br /> with the City's General Plan(2023). As such,this alternative may result in the curtailment of growth within the <br /> City until an alternate plan for wastewater disposal could be developed. <br /> Table 2-1 <br /> Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives with Those of the Proposed Project <br /> Alternative <br /> Environmental Issues No Project(9.87 Increased Land Advanced Wastewater Modified Pipeline <br /> mgd) Disposal Treatment Alignment <br /> Land Use and Agricultural Resources Less Similar or Greater Similar Similar <br /> Visual Resources Less Similar Similar Similar <br /> Air Quality Less Similar Similar Similar <br /> Noise Less Similar Similar Similar <br /> Terrestrial Biological Resources Less Greater Similar Less <br /> Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Similar or Greater Similar <br /> Geology,Soils,and Seismicity Similar Similar Similar Similar <br /> Paleontological Resources Less Similar Similar Similar <br /> Hydrology and Water Quality Similar Similar Less Similar <br /> Public Services and Utilities Similar Similar Similar Similar <br /> Transportation and Circulation Less Greater Similar Similar <br /> Cultural Resources Less Similar Similar Similar <br /> Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Similar Greater Less* Similar* <br /> 'Assumes construction of a treated effluent cooling tower to reduce thermal impacts. <br /> Source:EDAW 2007 <br /> The Increased Land Disposal Alternative would not be environmentally superior to the project because it would <br /> not avoid any of the project significant and unavoidable impacts related to Important Farmland and generation of <br /> odors and it would result in greater environmental impacts in four resource areas including greater impacts to <br /> Important Farmland, sensitive habitats and species, construction-related traffic impacts, and fishery impacts. <br /> While this alternative may achieve most project objectives,because of the substantial expense involved with <br /> securing additional land for effluent disposal, it may not be able to meet the project objective of providing for the <br /> "cost-effective"expansion of City WQCF facilities. <br /> The Advanced Wastewater Treatment alternative would result in environmental tradeoffs compared to the <br /> proposed project. While impacts to water quality and fisheries would be reduced compared to the proposed <br /> project as a result of greater constituent removal efficiencies,this alternative could result in greater hazardous <br /> material impacts as a result of the brine that is produced as a by-product of the MF/RO process. This alternative <br /> would not reduce or eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts (e.g.,Important Farmland and <br /> odors). While this alternative may achieve most project objectives,because of the substantial expense involved <br /> with constructing and operating MF/RO facilities, it may not be able to meet the project objective of providing for <br /> the"cost-effective"expansion of City WQCF facilities. However, from a water quality perspective,the Advanced <br /> Manteca WQCF and Collection System Master Plans EIR EDAW <br /> City of Manteca 2-5 Executive Summary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.