My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
25C - AGMT - OCWD CENTENNIAL PARK
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2016
>
06/21/2016
>
25C - AGMT - OCWD CENTENNIAL PARK
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2016 9:59:52 AM
Creation date
6/16/2016 3:53:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Parks, Recreation, & Community Services
Item #
25C
Date
6/21/2016
Destruction Year
2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
406
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Section 5 <br />Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative <br />Under Alternative 3, one less injection well would be developed. An additional 9 <br />MGD of groundwater recharge capacity would be provided to the Orange County <br />Groundwater Basin, Compared to the Proposed Project, there would be a <br />decreased amount of groundwater recharge capacity, <br />Under Alternative 3, MBI-2 would not be implemented. Without the operation of <br />M131-2, the flow path from MBI-2 would narrow and the travel' time to wells, IRWD- <br />17 would increase. Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 3 would provide <br />the required primary and secondary buffer area. Additionally, with one less <br />injection well there would be reduced groundwater mounding. Similar to the <br />condition of the Proposed Project, no existing contaminated plumes have been <br />identified in the project area. Therefore, there would be no concern that <br />groundwater mounding from the injection wells would cause existing <br />contaminated plumes to migrate. <br />Alternative 4: Pipeline Design Alternative <br />Under Alternative 4, an alternative pipeline alignment would be constructed. <br />Potential increases in ground water supplies would be the same as the Proposed <br />Project. Because Alternative 4 would have the same amount of wells and in the <br />same locations as the Proposed Project, there would be no conflicts in meeting <br />the 3-month primary buffer area and the 4 -month secondary buffer requirement. <br />No existing contaminated plumes have been identified in the project area. Similar <br />to the Proposed Project there would be no concern that the groundwater <br />mounding from the injection wells would Cause existing contaminated plumes to <br />migrate. <br />Mitigation Measures <br />No mitigation measures required <br />Level of Impact after Mitigation <br />Alternative 1: No adverse impact <br />Alternative 2. Beneficial impact <br />Alternative 3: Beneficial impact <br />Alternative 4: Beneficial impact <br />IMPACT HWQ 1 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage <br />pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of <br />a stream or river, in a manner which, would result in flooding on or offsite? <br />Mid Basin Centennial Park �j 6anj bProject Final EIR 5-124 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.