Laserfiche WebLink
M m <br /> x p <br /> > Table 2-2 <br /> Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures <br /> CD <br /> Cn Significance Significance <br /> C <br /> 3 Impacts Before Mitigation Measures After <br /> Mitigation Mitigation <br /> project would not result in significant EC water quality impacts. <br /> Therefore,the project's near-field EC impacts would be less <br /> than significant. <br /> 4.9-8: Effects of Proposed Project Discharges on Ammonia LTS No mitigation is necessary. LTS <br /> (as Nitrogen)Concentrations in Receiving Waters.The near- <br /> field modeling analysis indicates that projected,median <br /> ammonia concentrations in the San Joaquin River would be <br /> below the more stringent U.S.EPA ambient water quality <br /> criteria for ammonia. Concentrations would be lower than the <br /> chronic criterion of 0.62 mg/l during the June through <br /> September time period and substantially lower than the acute <br /> criterion of 5.62 mg/l during the October through May time <br /> period.Therefore,the project's near-field ammonia impacts <br /> would be less than significant. <br /> 4.9-9: Effects of Proposed Project Discharges on Arsenic LTS No mitigation is necessary. LTS <br /> (Dissolved)Concentrations in Receiving Waters.The project <br /> would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES <br /> permit effluent limits for dissolved arsenic and projected <br /> dissolved arsenic concentrations would be substantially below <br /> adopted water quality objectives.Therefore,the project's near- <br /> CD <br /> field arsenic concentrations would be less than significant. <br /> p4.9-10:Effects of Proposed Project Discharges on Copper LTS No mitigation is necessary. LTS <br /> � (Dissolved)Concentrations in Receiving Waters.The project <br /> would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES <br /> 0 permit effluent limits for dissolved copper and would result in <br /> o downstream dissolved copper concentrations that are substantially <br /> CD below adopted water quality objectives.Therefore,the project's <br /> near-field copper impacts would be less than significant. <br /> 4.9-11: Effects of Proposed Project Discharges on Cyanide LTS No mitigation is necessary. LTS <br /> D (Total)Concentrations in Receiving Waters.The project <br /> would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES <br /> m permit effluent limits for total cyanide and would result in <br /> �; downstream cyanide concentrations that are substantially below <br /> v adopted water quality objectives. Therefore,the project's near- <br /> Cn <br /> m field cyanide impacts would be less than significant. <br /> v Ai <br /> LTS=Less than Significant S=Significant PS=Potentially Significant SU=Significant and Unavoidable <br />