ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Home Browse Search

be exposed to existing or new sources of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous substances by the WQCF would continue;however, it is assumed that existing storage,transportation, and disposal regulations would continue to be followed. By comparison,the project would also result in increased storage,use, and transport of hazardous materials during construction and operation of project facilities. There would be increased potential for construction workers and residents to be exposed to hazardous materials at existing and new contaminated areas on the project site. However, all these effects are considered less than significant through adherence to applicable regulations.Because no significant impacts related to hazardous materials and public health were identified for the project,the Increased Land Disposal Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to this issue area and similar impacts would occur.[Similar] Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Similar to the project the Increased Land Disposal Alternative would include the construction of new facilities at the WQCF and would install new pipeline along area roadways and through undeveloped properties. Geology, soils, and seismiscity impacts would be similar to the project.[Similar] Paleontological Resources The Increased Land Disposal Alternative would require construction activities that could result in the disturbance, destruction, and physical or visual alteration of any previously undiscovered fossils. Under the project, ground disturbance and development of new structures would occur,resulting in potentially significant impacts related to the potential disturbance of undiscovered fossils. This impact would be reduced to less-than-significant levels after mitigation. Because the Increased Land Disposal Alternative includes new development and ground disturbance, it has a similar potential to result in the disturbance of previously undiscovered fossils. Therefore, paleontological resources impacts would be similar under this alternative.[Similar] Hydrology and Water Quality The impacts of this alternative on surface water quality would be slightly less than the proposed project. Because this alternative would maintain WQCF effluent pollutant loading in the San Joaquin River at the currently permitted 9.87 mgd ADWF level as the WQCF discharge capacity increases,treated effluent pollutant concentrations would not increase,the quality of the treated effluent would remain high, and near- and far-field pollutant concentrations would not increase. However,the project's water quality impacts were determined to be less than significant because the effluent discharged at WQCF buildout(27 mgd)would comply with all adopted water quality standards. Therefore,this alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant water quality impacts. Overall,this alternative would result in similar surface water quality impacts as the project.[Similar] This alternative would increase the volume of effluent discharged to land and that could ultimately percolate to groundwater. Because the effluent would comply with RWQCB requirement for land disposal,impacts to the groundwater quality would be less-than-significant and would not be substantially different from existing land disposal impacts at the WQCF. Therefore,this alternative would result in similar groundwater quality impacts as the project.[Similar] Public Services and Utilities The Increased Land Disposal Alternative would not result in any substantial staff increases compared to the project,nor would utility demands (e.g., gas, electricity) substantially increase compared to the project. This alternative would result in the treatment of the same volume of wastewater as the project(i.e.,27 mgd). Overall, public services and utilities impacts would be similar to the project.[Similar] EDAW Manteca WQCF and Collection System Master Plans EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7-8 City of Manteca