ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Home Browse Search

proposed 27 mgd ADWF capacity. The wastewater treatment process upgrades associated with the project, including nitrification-denitrification,tertiary filtration and ultraviolet(UV)disinfection facilities,would result in a discharge that is very high-quality. The project and particularly the Schedule D improvements have been designed to reliably reduce pollutant concentrations to typical tertiary treatment levels for BOD,total suspended solids,turbidity, ammonia, and nitrogen. These tertiary treatment goals are consistent with NPDES permit limitations. Overall,water quality impacts would be similar to the project.[Similar] Public Services and Utilities The No Project Alternative would not include any new development. Therefore,this alternative would not generate increased demand for fire,police, solid waste disposal services, or utilities (i.e.,gas, electric, and water), and it would not potentially obstruct access by emergency vehicles because of construction activities. By comparison,the project would slightly increase staffing requirements(addition of 14 staff) at the WQCF. These staffing requirements would not result in substantial increased demand for public services and utilities. Because the project would not result in significant public services and utilities impacts,the No Project Alternative would not avoid significant impacts related to the provision of adequate public services and utilities. Overall impacts would be similar to the project.[Similar] Transportation and Circulation The No Project Alternative would not include any new development and thus would not generate any new traffic- related impacts. By comparison,the project is estimated to generate approximately 40 daily round trips and potentially significant construction-related roadway hazards would increase. With mitigation,potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Because the project would not result in significant transportation and circulation impacts,the No Project Alternative would not avoid significant impacts. Regardless,the No Project Alternative would avoid increases in construction and operation vehicle trips and potential roadway hazards during construction. Therefore,traffic impacts would be less under this alternative. [Less] Cultural Resources The No Project Alternative would not require any construction activities,thereby avoiding impacts related to the disturbance, destruction, and physical or visual alteration of any previously undiscovered/unrecorded cultural resource sites. Under the project, ground disturbance and development of new structures would occur,resulting in potentially significant impacts related to the potential disturbance of undiscovered/unrecorded subsurface archaeological sites and human remains. These impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels after mitigation. However,because the No Project Alternative does not include any new development or ground disturbance, it has a lesser potential to result in the disturbance of previously undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources and/or human remains. Therefore,cultural resources impacts would be slightly less under this alternative.[Less] Fisheries and Aquatic Resources For fisheries and aquatic resources,the No Project Alternative would result in slightly less surface water quality impacts compared to the project. Implementation of the project would increase treated effluent flows from 9.87 mgd ADWF to 27 mgd ADWF, and treated effluent pollutant concentrations would also increase slightly. However,the quality of the treated effluent would remain high. In fact,near-and far-field pollutants are expected to exhibit only minor increases in concentration in the San Joaquin River at well-mixed conditions downstream of the effluent discharge at the proposed 27 mgd ADWF capacity. The wastewater treatment process upgrades associated with the project,including nitrification-denitrification,tertiary filtration and ultraviolet(UV) disinfection facilities,would result in a discharge that is very high-quality. The project and particularly the Schedule D improvements have been designed to reliably reduce pollutant concentrations to typical tertiary treatment levels for BOD,total suspended solids,turbidity, ammonia, and nitrogen. These tertiary treatment goals Manteca WQCF and Collection System Master Plans EIR EDAW City of Manteca 7-5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project