SU0007861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-S Forward Landfill Expansion i.. Biological Resources The no-project alternative would not result in any significant impacts to biological resources and would avoid the placement of fill into 3000 linear feet of creek and 1.25 acres of wetlands. The no-project alternative would avoid any potential for take of �. Swainson s hawk, Chinook salmon, steelhead, giant garter snake, western pond turtle, or special-status bird species, as well as any potential for effects of increased night lighting and increased use of rodenticides on migrating birds and nocturnal wildlife. The existing project area does not currently provide significant values as wildlife habitat due to its active use as a cultivated agricultural field and the level of human activity in the project vicinity. Similarly, given the ephemeral nature the surface flows, lack of pools and riffles, and limited riparian habitat,the South Branch of the South Fork of Littlejohn's Creek provides limited values to wildlife. Impacts to the South Branch of the South Fork of Littlejohn's Creek resulting from the proposed, although significant, are considered temporary as the creek channel and riparian habitat would be reconstructed. In fact, the proposed project, with its realignment of the creek, would result in a net increase in the structural diversity of available riparian habitats on the site. Therefore,the no-project alternative is not necessarily environmentally superior compared with the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would have less than significant impacts on police and fire protection and wastewater treatment. This alternative also would not affect schools, parks, other public facilities, or storm water drainage. a Cultural Resources The potential cultural impacts of this alternative, which could be mitigated to a less than significant level, could be reduced compared with those of the proposed project because the expansion areas would not be landfilled. Visualuali Q ty The No Project Alternative would result in two smaller,less massive hills compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the visual impacts of this alternative would be less than the proposed project. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Description There are several possible options with respect to a reduced-project alternative. In order to maximize the difference between this alternative and the proposed project,it has been ficonfigured to include: • A 50110 reduction in coverage in the expansion parcel compared with the proposed project (resulting in approximately a 50+7o reduction in the total fill increase);