ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Home Browse Search

realign the pipeline to the east and north of the French Camp Outfall Canal to avoid crossing the drainage canal. At Alignment B,the pipeline alignment would be realigned northeast and away from the drainage canal to avoid dense freshwater marsh habitat. At Alignment C,the City has determined that it is infeasible to modify the collection system alignment. The collection system pipeline alignment south of the WQCF was established considering the location and depth of the influent pump station constructed at the WQCF under the Phase III improvements project. Due to topography and long trunk sewer lengths,there is minimal flexibility in modifying the collection system pipeline route in the vicinity of freshwater marsh habitat north of SR 120 and east of McKinley Avenue without compromising the ability to convey wastewater to the influent pump station by gravity. Because of the congested core of the treatment plant site and the desire to limit construction impacts,the influent pump station was sited along the easterly boundary of the city property. Therefore, it would be infeasible to realign the collection system at Alignment C because it is essentially fixed to allow for connection to a previously constructed stub within the treatment plant core. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Environmental Impacts The environmental analysis for the Modified Pipeline Alignment Alternative focuses on the environmental impacts that would change as a result of the proposed alignment changes. Impacts associated with the project (e.g., facility construction,water quality impacts, fishery impacts)would be the same under this alternative as those described in Chapter 4 of this DEIR. As described above,most impacts to sensitive habitats would be avoided through implementation of this alternative. Where impacts would occur,they would be unavoidable because it would be infeasible to re-align the pipelines while continuing to meet design standards for conveyance of wastewater. Impacts would be less under this alternative because most sensitive habitats would be avoided. Construction-related impacts(air quality,noise, agricultural resources)would be similar,because a similar length of pipeline would be constructed compared to the project. Overall, impacts would be less under this alternative.[Less] 7.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION Three additional alternatives were considered during the planning process but were eliminated from detailed consideration in this EIR because they could not feasibly attain proposed project objectives: ► use of an off-site location, ► site reorientation alternative, and ► offsets alternative. These alternatives are summarized below, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). The environmental impacts of the alternatives eliminated from detailed consideration need not be discussed further in this EIR. 7.4.1 OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE An off-site alternative would require the location of another potentially feasible site for development of uses consistent with those of the project. As directed in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) (2) (A), "the key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location."Because certain significant effects of the project are site-specific (such as the conversion of Important Farmland), it would be conceivable that an alternative EDAW Manteca WQCF and Collection System Master Plans EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7-12 City of Manteca