SU0007861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-7 Forward Landfill Expansion Effects on operations at the study intersections would be less than the proposed. Effects on operations at the study intersections would continue to 2017, in contrast to the proposed project, which would operate until 2034,but this effect would not be significant, except as a contribution to cumulative traffic volumes. Noise The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed Forward Landfill consolidation and expansion project would not be implemented. Thus, the No Project Alternative scenario would be the same as the baseline (Environmental Setting) used in this EIR. No additional truck traffic associated with the proposed project would occur and there would be no proposed lateral expansion and associated change in location of the disposal equipment. In addition, upon the facility's closure in 2017, noise from the facility would cease. Therefore,there would be no noise impacts under the No Project Alternative. Air Quality and Odors The No Project Alternative would accommodate a smaller volume of refuse, and therefore, over the life of the landfills, generate less vehicle emissions and landfill gas than the proposed project. Thus, the No Project Alternative would have reduced air quality impacts than the proposed project. Health Risks The potential health risks on nearby sensitive receptors for the No Project Alternative would be lower than for the Proposed Project because of the lower volume of refuse, and thus, lower truck volumes and landfill gas generation. Hydrology and Water Quality Because this alternative would result in less waste disposal there would be less potential for surface water contamination and associated surface water impacts that relate to surface water contact with refuse. Potential leachate generation would be less at the existing Forward/Austin Landfill operations because substantially less refuse would be placed on those areas than under the proposed expansion project. As with the proposed project, these impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Soils and Geology Less soil loss would occur under the No Project Alternative because the currently agricultural—designated so for the larger expansion area would not be stripped and the up to 2.2 million cubic yards of soil that would need to be imported for the life of the extended landfill operations would not be needed- The soil in the wedge area would be preserved and less borrow material would be required due to approximately 6.6 million cubic yards less soil (4.4 mcy available on site) for use as landfill daily cover material, etc., under the No Project Alternative. No change in the potential geologic hazards impacts such as seismic-related impacts would result from the No Project Alternative because the proposed combined landfill would not create any more seismic risk as such. As with the proposed project, these impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level.