Laserfiche WebLink
V. Alternatives to the Project <br /> Noise <br /> Noise impacts associated with the increased vehicular miles traveled to the distant landfill would <br /> also he occur sooner than with the project. The haul routes would be affected. <br /> En r <br /> e QVQv <br /> i Energy consumption related to the increased vehicular miles traveled would increase sooner than <br /> with the project. <br /> Qe loev. Soils. and Seismicity <br /> The Current-Footprint-with-Increased-Elevation Alternative would continue to expand vertically <br /> on the currently permitted landfill area. Impacts on slope stability or other hazards would still <br /> occur,but to a smaller area than the area proposed in the project. Seismic hazards would be <br /> limited to current hazards;few people would be exposed to these hazards due to the limited use <br /> of the site. <br /> Hydrology, dY rology, and Water Quality <br /> Unlike the project,this alternative would have the potential to degrade surface or ground water <br /> quality in the project area because the creek would not he realigned. By not realigning the creek, <br /> the potential of subsurface water migration into the existing landfill waste and of groundwater <br /> and landfill gas into the surface water of Little Johns Creek would remain. This could cause <br /> significant long-term water quality and leachate problems. The amount of leachate produced by <br /> the smaller footprint would most likely be less than that generated by the project. However, <br /> Little Johns Creek would not be lengthened and therefore the flow would not be altered. <br /> Public Health and Safety <br /> Under this alternative,the impacts of worker or public health risk in the project vicinity would be <br /> less than under the project. However,because the landfill would close sooner,these impacts <br /> would be transferred to Foothill Landfill sooner. <br /> V.15 <br />