AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
State Clearinghouse No. 2010071036
JUNE 2016
Lead Agency
Madera County
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
State Clearinghouse No. 2010071036
JUNE 2016
Lead Agency
Madera County
200 West 4th Street, Madera, California 93637
Preparer
Benchmark Resources
2515 East Bidwell Street, Folsom, California 95630
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1
Figure ES-2
Figure ES-3
June 2016
Regional Location Map
Proposed Land Uses and Quarry Excavation Phase Areas
Reclamation Plan
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This is an Executive Summary of the Austin Quarry Project (Project) Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The text of the Final EIR, including this Executive
Summary, shows revisions made to the Revised Draft EIR, including its Executive
Summary, in underline (new text) and strikethrough (deleted text). The Revised Draft
EIR was circulated for public review from October 21, 2014, to January 5, 2015.
Comments received are included in Appendix L of the Final EIR and responses to
comments are provided in Section 10.0.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1132; also see 14 CCR 15003(j).) requires
that an EIR be recirculated prior to certification if significant new information is added
to the EIR after release of the Draft EIR that deprives the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project
or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Examples of “significant new
information” requiring recirculation of a draft EIR include disclosure of the following:
1) new significant impacts from the project or new mitigation measures; 2) a substantial
increase in the severity of a significant impact; 3) a feasible project alternative or
mitigation measure that is considerably different than others previously analyzed
which would clearly reduce significant impacts, but is not adopted; or 4) the draft EIR
was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded. However, Section 15088.5
notes that recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR
merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. In
consideration of comments on the 2012 Draft EIR, the County determined that revisions
to the 2012 Draft EIR warranted recirculation of the document prior to preparing a Final
EIR. Thus, the County revised the 2012 Draft EIR and recirculated it as the 2014
Revised Draft EIR. The County has also considered whether the revisions made in
preparing this Final EIR warrant recirculation, and has determined recirculation is not
required, as explained below.
In many instances, information in comments on the 2014 Revised Draft EIR was
incorporated into this Final EIR to amplify the impact analysis or clarify mitigation
measures. Likewise, slight modifications or clarifications to the Project description
were implemented to reduce environmental impacts and to respond to comments. In
none of these circumstances did the additional information incorporated to this Final
June 2016
ES-1
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
EIR result in identifying a new significant impact or increasing the severity of a
significant impact identified in the Revised Draft EIR. Thus, while revisions have been
made in this Final EIR to amplify and clarify information based on certain comments,
these revisions do not result in a requirement for the County to recirculate the EIR for
public review and comment before certification. Many of the changes in this Final EIR
were made in direct response to commenter input as envisioned by CEQA. For this
Project, the EIR has already been recirculated one time (two circulations consisting of
the 2012 Draft EIR and the 2014 Revised Draft EIR), allowing for abundant public input.
Recirculation is not required because all of the changes made in this Final EIR either
reduce environmental impacts or have no effect on the severity of impacts. The most
notable changes in the Final EIR are the following: 1) elimination of the previously
proposed asphalt plant and concrete recycling facility from the project description; 2)
substituting the previously proposed zone change for a height variance (no change in
the actual height of the aggregate plant has been proposed between the Revised Draft
EIR and the Final EIR); 3) addition of mitigation to offset certain greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions impacts through the purchase of carbon offset credits; 4) addition of
mitigation to offset certain NOx emissions via a voluntary emission reduction
agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD); 5) an updated traffic impact study to account for the reduced trips
resulting from elimination of the previously proposed asphalt and recycle facilities; and
6) an updated water supply assessment accounting for recent drought conditions.
Elimination of the previously proposed asphalt plant and concrete recycling facility
does not result in a need to recirculate the EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5,
because this change to the project description results in the same or in many cases,
reduced, environmental impacts. For example, elimination of the asphalt plant and
concrete recycling plant will result in substantially reduced (i.e., 37 percent) annual
GHG emissions impacts, and reduced traffic impacts as compared to the Project as
defined in the Revised Draft EIR which include the asphalt and recycling facilities.
Elimination of the previously proposed asphalt plant and concrete recycling plant does
not constitute “significant new information” implicating a new significant impact, or an
increase in the severity of a significant impact. Rather, this change represents proper
execution of the CEQA process, in which the County, as the CEQA lead agency and
Applicant have made positive (i.e., impact reducing) changes to the Project after
consideration of public comments. Thus, recirculation is not required.
Addition of the height variance is necessary to accommodate the height of aggregate
equipment in the existing zoning, because the zone change request was withdrawn.
The variance does not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any
ES-2
June 2016
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
significant impact. Therefore, the addition of the height variance request to the Project
description does not warrant recirculation of the EIR.
After circulation of the 2014 Revised Draft EIR, and in consideration of comments on
that document, the County and the Applicant have determined that it would be feasible
and appropriate to mitigate for onsite mobile emissions of NOx and GHG. This will
involve purchase of GHG offset credits and the Applicant’s agreement to enter into a
VERA with the SJVAPCD, if agreed to by the SJVAPCD, for NOx offsets. The additional
mitigation required for GHG and NOx emissions through the purchase of offset credits
and execution of a VERA, respectively, does not create any new significant impacts or
increase the severity of any significant impact. Rather, this change to the Final EIR
would reduce impacts by incorporating additional mitigation that was not provided in
the Revised Draft EIR. The County has determined that these new mitigation
requirements do not require recirculation of the EIR.
The Updated Traffic Impact Study Report (VRPA 2016) incorporated to this Final EIR
updates the traffic analysis to account for the reduced number of Project trips resulting
from the elimination of the previously proposed asphalt and recycle facilities. The
updated traffic analysis does not identify any new significant impacts or an increase in
the severity of significant impacts. Thus, the County has determined that the updated
traffic information does not require recirculation of the EIR.
An Updated Water Supply Assessment (EMKO 2015a) was prepared and incorporated to
this Final EIR. The updated assessment considers the combined Project water supply of
groundwater from the onsite bedrock Northwest Well and from onsite stormwater
collection and considers recent drought conditions, and verifies the adequacy of the
Project’s proposed water supply. The updated assessment does not identify any new
significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts. The Revised
Draft EIR and Final EIR both conclude that prior to mitigation, impacts associated with
hydrology and water supply are less than significant. Thus, the County has determined
that the updated water supply assessment does not require recirculation of the EIR.
CalMat Co., dba Vulcan Materials Company, Western Division Region (Vulcan or
Applicant), proposes to develop a hard rock quarry and associated operations in
Madera County (County), at the location identified on Figure ES-1, “Regional Location
Map.” The proposed Austin Quarry Project (Project) would excavate, process, and
distribute hard rock aggregate material, and would include facilities and operations for
the production and sale of asphalt, the acceptance and processing of recycled asphalt
for use in Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP), and the acceptance and processing of
recycled concrete for use in base products. The Project also includes a reclamation plan
to provide for use of the site following the completion of quarry excavation.
June 2016
ES-3
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
The Applicant is requesting the following entitlements from the County:
•
Zone Change of a total combined area of 348 acres of the quarry and plant sites
from ARE-40 (Agricultural, Rural, Exclusive, Forty Acre District) to QMD
(Quarry, Mining, Drilling).
•
Conditional Use Permit to allow for 1) the mining and processing of a hard rock
deposit at a maximum sales rate of 2.5 million tons per year for a 100-year
timeframe on approximately 348 acres; 2) the production and sale of asphalt;
3) the acceptance and processing of recycled asphalt for use in Recycled Asphalt
Pavement (RAP); and 4) the acceptance and processing of recycled concrete for
use in base rock products.
•
Conditional Use Permit (separate from above) for reclamation of the site
following completion of mining in accordance with a Reclamation Plan that
would establish agriculture and open space for future uses including, but not
limited to, dry land cattle grazing and wildlife habitat.
•
Findings Necessary for Cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts for 207 acres
comprising the plant site, entrance road, and berm area; Phase 1 mining area;
Phase 6 mining area (which includes a freshwater storage stormwater
retention/groundwater recharge basin and a temporary stockpile area (both
located in the Phase 6 quarry area); haul road; and potential disturbance area for
water conveyance facilities.
•
Height Variance for installation of the aggregate processing plant and associated
facilities on land with zoning designation of ARE-40 (Agricultural, Rural,
Exclusive, Forty Acre District).
The requested entitlements require discretionary approvals by the County triggering
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources
Code (PRC) §§21000 et seq.) and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The County, as the CEQA lead agency, carries primary responsibility for preparing the
EIR. Following preparation, public circulation, and certification of the EIR, the decision
makers of the lead agency then approve or deny the Project under consideration.
The County has prepared, and is circulating for public review, a Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Project. A Draft EIR was prepared
and circulated for public review and comment from August 10 through September 25,
2012.
ES-4
June 2016
TUOLUMNE
COUNTY
STANISLAUS
COUNTY
MARIPOSA
COUNTY
MADERA
COUNTY
MERCED
COUNTY
Austin Quarry Project Site
Fresno ProductionConsumption Region
FRESNO
COUNTY
Area Shown
KINGS
COUNTY
SM
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
ES-6
June 2016
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
Upon consideration of comments received on the 2012 Draft EIR, the County Planning
Department decided to make revisions to the 2012 Draft EIR and recirculate the
document as a Revised Draft EIR for public review prior to preparing a Final EIR for the
Project. The County has considered public comments on the Draft EIR in the
preparation of the Revised Draft EIR, and is recirculating the document in its entirety.
The County circulated the 2014 Revised Draft EIR for public review from October 21,
2014 to January 5, 2015.
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, §15000 et seq.) Section 15088.5(f)(1), the
County will not prepare individual responses to comments on the original Draft EIR.
Although part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not require a
written response in the Final EIR. The Final EIR will only respond to those comments
submitted in response to the recirculated Revised Draft EIR. This Executive Summary
provides an overview of the Project, describes alternatives to the Project, and presents a
summary of the environmental impacts identified in the Revised Draft EIR.
Public Review of the 2014 Revised Draft EIR
The 2014 Revised Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from
October 21, 2014, to January 5, 2015 (76 days as compared to the required minimum
under CEQA of 45 days.) Approximately 300 written comment letters (including hard
copy and electronic submittals of letters, e-mails, faxes, form letters, and other written
submittals) were received, approximately 16 of which were from public agency
representatives. Each of these comment letters is included as Appendix M, “Comments
on 2014 Revised Draft EIR.” Final EIR Section 10.0, “Responses to Comments,”
provides a list of each commenter and references the number assigned to each comment
letter. (The comment letters in Appendix M are numbered in the upper right corner of
each first page). Section 10.0 includes the text of each comment letter and provides the
County’s response to each individual comment. In addition to the individual responses
provided in Section 10.0, Section 9.0 of this Final EIR includes “collective responses”
that address several issues raised in multiple comments. This Final EIR, including the
responses to comments, must be certified as complete and will be considered by County
decision makers when deciding whether to approve the Project. The Revised Draft EIR
will be distributed for a 45-day (minimum) period of review and comment by the
public, responsible agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Comments or
questions about the EIR should be addressed to:
June 2016
ES-7
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Matt Treber
C/O Madera County Board of Supervisors
200 West 4th Street
Madera, California 93637
Copies of the Draft EIR can be reviewed at the following locations:
Madera County
Board of Supervisors
200 West 4th Street
Madera, California 93637
Madera County
Library Headquarters
121 North G Street
Madera CA 93637
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared for consideration by
County decision makers. The Final EIR will include responses to comments received on
the Revised Draft EIR that address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR and
environmental issues relevant to the Project.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE 2014 REVISED DRAFT EIR
Described below are the primary changes made to the 2012 Draft EIR in preparing the
2014 Revised Draft EIR. (See Section 1.1.3.1 of the Revised Draft EIR for additional
discussion of the changes.)
Revisions were made to Section 1.0, “Introduction,” to provide an explanation of the
purpose and use of the Revised Draft EIR, to explain that individual responses to
comments on the original Draft EIR will not be provided, and to explain that to receive
a response from the County, new comments must be submitted on this the Revised
Draft EIR. Section 2.0, “Project Description,” has been revised towas updated to include
information regarding the 50-year demand forecast for the Fresno ProductionConsumption (PC) Region, to add the Applicant’s decision, commitment, and timing to
construct access intersection and SR 145 improvements, and to add the Applicant’s
commitment to develop stormwater collection and groundwater recharge facilities as a
component of the Project. The primary revisions to Section 3.0, “Introduction to Impact
Analysis,” are were included to update the impact analysis based on the modifications
to the Project Description as described above, and to update the air quality/greenhouse
gas emissions, traffic, and noise analyseis to evaluate Project operations at maximum
permitted production rates beginning with the first year of operation. Additional
revisions were also made to address issues raised in comments on the Draft EIR,
ES-8
June 2016
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
including clarification of biological resources and hydrology impacts associated with
the Project.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE FINAL EIR
Summarized below are the primary changes made to the Revised Draft EIR in
preparing the Final EIR. (See Section 1.1.3.2 of the Revised Draft EIR for additional
discussion of the changes.) The changes clarify and amplify the information and
analysis presented in the EIR and do not alter the EIR in a way that deprives the public
of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect
or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. No new significant environmental
effects and no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact are
identified in this Final EIR. As discussed in the Introduction above, the County
considered and determined that the changes made in preparing the Final EIR do not
require recirculation prior to certification of the Final EIR.
The Project Description has been modified to reflect the Applicant’s request to eliminate
the previously proposed asphalt and recycling facilities and zone change from the
Project, and to request a height variance for aggregate facilities. Throughout the
document, revisions were made to address these modifications to the Project. Notably,
the traffic impact study was updated to evaluate the Project because of the reduction in
daily and peak-hour trips caused by the elimination of the asphalt and recycling
facilities. An updated water supply assessment was prepared and is included in the
Final EIR that verifies the adequacy of the Project’s proposed water supply using a
combination of groundwater from an on-site well and stormwater runoff collected onsite and includes consideration of recent drought conditions. Further, the Final EIR
incorporates additional mitigation measures to further reduce potential impacts
associated with aesthetics, NOx and GHG emissions, biological resources, slope
stability, water quality, vibration, and road conditions. See Section 1.1.3.2 for a more
detailed discussion of revisions made in preparing the Final EIR.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Site Location
The Project site is located on 671 acres in an unincorporated area of Madera County,
approximately 12 miles east of the City of Madera and 8 miles north of the City of
Fresno, as shown on Figure ES-1. The Project site is located within three contiguous
parcels, and is comprised of a 348-acre area encompassing the quarry, plant site,
entrance road and berms; and 323 acres of grasslands, natural drainage channels, and
wetlands that would not be disturbed by Project-related activities.
June 2016
ES-9
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
The Madera Canal forms the southern and southwestern boundary of the property and
SR 145 delineates the northern boundary. The eastern boundary of the property runs
parallel to, and approximately 0.1 miles west of, SR-41.
Project Objectives
The availability of, and demand for, aggregate resources in California are issues of
concern and interest to planning and transportation agencies and industries throughout
the State. Aggregate resources provide the construction materials necessary for a wide
range of public works and private-sector projects. Because the cost of aggregate is
largely dependent on the distance the material must be hauled, transportation costs
often exceed the price of the mined product. Thus, local sources of aggregate play a
major role in maintaining reasonable costs to the consumer.
The overall goal of the Project is to develop the maximum known aggregate reserves,
which can feasibly be mined within the current design plan area. Specific Project
objectives include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Location: Secure approvals to mine the reserves on site to provide a reliable and
economic source to meet current and projected demand within the region.
2. Profit: Responsibly operate a profitable aggregate mine and processing facility.
3. Period: Provide for approximately 100 years of approved aggregate extraction in
accordance with availability of known resource reserves, mining and reclamation
plans, and foreseeable market demands. Ensure implementation and monitoring
of final reclamation activities would be completed within 3 years of exhaustion of
reserves or expiration of the permit.
4. Production: Provide for an annual maximum permitted sales level of 2.5 million
tons, with sequencing broken into several mining phases that are dependent on
the economy, geology, terrain, and current technological capabilities.
5. Employment: Provide on-site staffing of between 15 and 40 employees
throughout the production life of the mine.
6. Site Conservation: Avoid sensitive natural resources to the extent feasible and
provide adequate mitigation where avoidance is not feasible; minimize aesthetic
impacts through site design, mining phasing and ultimate site reclamation.
7. Use of PCC Grade Material: Maximize the use of on-site PCC grade aggregate
sources to service the Applicant’s current and future construction industry
clients that require strict adherence to specifications of federal, state, county and
city standards.
8. Operational Flexibility: Secure approvals to allow 24-hour operations to better
serve public and private clients with projects that require early morning and
ES-10
June 2016
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
nighttime deliveries to meet project schedule and traffic mitigation requirements
or respond to public emergencies. Furthermore, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) may, on occasion, require nighttime operations to reduce the
facility’s electricity demand during statewide peak demand periods.
•
Secure approvals to mine the reserves on site to provide a reliable and economic
source to meet current and projected demand within the region.
•
Provide for approximately 100 years of approved aggregate extraction, in
accordance with availability of known resource reserves, mining and reclamation
plans, and foreseeable market demands.
•
Provide for an annual maximum permitted sales level of 2.5 million tons, with
sequencing broken into several mining phases that are dependent on the
economy, geology, terrain, and current technological capabilities.
•
Avoid sensitive natural resources to the extent feasible and provide adequate
mitigation where avoidance is not feasible.
•
Secure approvals to allow 24-hour operations to better serve public and private
clients with projects that require early morning and nighttime deliveries to meet
project schedule and traffic mitigation requirements or respond to public
emergencies.
•
Provide facilities for the production and sale of asphalt, and for the receipt,
processing, and reuse of recycled asphalt and concrete.
Project Overview
Site Plan
Of the Project site’s 671 acres, 348 acres comprise the area containing the quarry site,
plant site and associated facilities. Figure ES-2, “Proposed Land Uses and Quarry
Excavation Phase Areas,” illustrates the locations of the proposed quarry site, plant
site and undisturbed areas.
The quarry site encompasses the approximately 258-acre quarry and includes an
additional 7 acres of perimeter roads serving the quarry, and a vegetated 4-foot-high
safety berm along the eastern, southern, and southwestern perimeter of the quarry
site. The plant site encompasses approximately 83 acres containing the materials
processing facilities area, the paved Project site entrance road connecting with SR
145, and a 10-foot-high vegetated berm along the northwestern and northern quarry
perimeter to provide visual screening. The remaining 323 acres of the Project site
would not be disturbed by Project-related activities and would remain as grasslands,
natural drainage channels, and wetlands.
June 2016
ES-11
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Plant Site
The plant site would include an aggregate processing plant and aggregate stockpile
areas, an asphalt plant and asphalt plant feed stockpile areas, a portable recycle
plant and recycle plant feed stockpile areas, a 0.5-acre process water pond, a
stormwater retention/groundwater recharge basin and surface water runoff pond,
an above-ground clarifier and water tank, load-out facility, with one loadout scales,
a maintenance shop and administrative office(s). The plant site would also include
areas for transport vehicle staging and areas for employee vehicle parking.
Quarry Excavation and Reserves
The quarry would be excavated in six phases, with each phase requiring topsoil and
overburden removal, followed by the extraction, primary crushing, and
transportation of aggregate/hard rock to the processing plant. Due to the hard
granitic rock at the site, aggregate extraction would require blasting to extract
materials of appropriate size for processing. Initially, hard rock extracted from the
quarry would be loaded into pit-trucks and transported to the aggregate processing
plant where the rock would be further crushed, screened, rinsed, and sorted. As
excavation progresses, the Applicant anticipates installing and operating a primary
crusher within the quarry pit area and transporting the material to the processing
facility by conveyor.
The Applicant estimates that hard rock reserves within the quarry site are
approximately 250 million tons. Actual extractable quantities are dependent upon
the quality of reserves encountered during mining and marketability. Based on this
reserves estimate and the proposed maximum sales of 2.5 million tons per year, the
Project would provide for 100 years of quarry operation. It is anticipated that
reclamation would require 3 years to complete following the cessation of operations.
Hours of Operation
Aggregate processing and quarry activities, excluding blasting, would typically
occur between 4 a.m. and 6 p.m. during nonsummer months and between 12 a.m.
(midnight) and 12 p.m. (noon) during summer months. Material loadout and hotmix asphalt production would typically occur from 4 a.m. to 6 p.m.
ES-12
June 2016
Proposed Power Line
Native Vegetation and Tree Planting
430
430
PHASE
1
Vegetated Visual Screening Berm
46
0
Proposed Site
Access Road
0
Northwest Well (Existing)
45
Undisturbed
Area
Temporary
Stockpile
Area B
PHASE
2
PHASE
3
PHASE
5
Plant
Site
A
ER
AD
M
L
NA
CA
42
0
Proposed
Reroute Pipe
Temporary
Stockpile
Area A PHASE
6
450
0
43
0
Vegetated
Safety Berm
46
43
0
420
PHASE
4
44
0
43
0
Stormwater
Retention/Groundwater
Recharge Basin
Undisturbed
Area
42
0
SM
43
0
0
42
Potential Disturbance
Area Freshwater
Conveyance Facilities
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
June 2016
ES-14
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
However, operations at the site would be permitted to occur any time of day, 7 days
per week. Permitting operations with no restrictions on the times of day or the days
of the week that operations could occur would provide operational flexibility to
respond to market conditions and emergency or special circumstances.
Visual Screening
The Project would install a combination of vegetated earthen berms and planting of
trees and vegetation to provide screening of the quarry and project facilities from
views of motorists on SR 145.
Utilities
The Project site would be served by a septic system designed to capacity as required
by the Madera County Code. Electricity would be supplied by PG&E and would be
conveyed to the Project site via an above-ground, wood-pole power line. Water for
operational uses would be pumped from an existing hard-rock well located in the
northwestern area of the plant site to a water storage tank. To minimize overall
water usage, the Project will utilize a closed-loop water recycling system consisting
of a water clarifier, with flocculent to provide enhanced settling of washed out fines,
a 600,000-gallon water storage tank to manage the daily water demand needs, and a
process water pond.
Energy Consumption
Electricity consumption would occur as a result of aggregate and asphalt plant
operations, loadout facilities, office building lighting and equipment operation, and
water supply (well pump operation). The estimated annual electricity usage for the
Project at the maximum permitted sales rate of 2.5 million tons per year is
6,808,9977,503,871 kilowatt-hours. The yearly fuel usage for the Project, including
on-road vehicles and , off-road equipment, is, and the asphalt plant includes
1,161,371 gallons of diesel and, 16,362 gallons of gasoline and 1,380,109 gallons of
propane.
Section 4.5.4 of the Revised Draft EIR discusses energy-efficient Project features and
mitigation measures that would serve to further reduce the Project’s energy
consumption.
Air and Water Pollution Controls
The aggregate processing plant would utilize Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source
Review). A Fugitive Emission Control Plan would be implemented to comply with
SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibition). Pollution control programs
June 2016
ES-15
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
would be implemented during Project construction and operations, including Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for construction and operation of the
Project, a Hazardous Materials Business Plan; a Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan; and Preventative Maintenance and Best Management
Practices.
Reclamation and Financial Assurance
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Madera County Code
(Chapter 19.01) require that mines be reclaimed to a usable condition and be readily
adaptable to a productive alternative post-mining land use. The elimination of
residual danger to public health or safety is a primary goal of SMARA and the
Zoning Code. The Project application includes a Reclamation Plan for the Project
site. Figure ES-3, “Reclamation Plan,” illustrates the Project elements to remain in
place, contours and overburden placement areas for reclamation of the site.
Proposed reclamation and potential end uses include dry land cattle grazing, open
space, and wildlife habitat.
Reclamation of the processing plant site and the quarry site would begin upon
completion of the mining operation and is estimated to be completed within 3 years
thereafter. As a component of the Project, the Applicant would provide the financial
assurance in accordance with the requirements of SMARA, as necessary to bring
interim slopes to final stable contours, should early cessation of operations occur.
Required Approvals
As the local land use authority, Madera County is the public agency with the
greatest responsibility for approving the Project as a whole and is therefore the lead
agency for purposes of environmental review under CEQA. Madera County has
discretionary authority over the following land use entitlements and permits, which
are necessary to carry out the Project:
ES-16
•
Zone change;
•
Conditional Use Permit for mining and operations; ,
•
Conditional Use Permit for Reclamation Plan; , and
•
Williamson Act cancellation determination, and
•
Height variance approval for the aggregate plant and related facilities.
June 2016
Power Line
to Remain
Site Access
Road to Remain
Native Vegetation
Planting to Remain
Vegetated Visual
Screening Berm
to Remain
Perimeter of Permanent Overburden
Placement Upon Completion of Mining.
Overburden to be Revegetated in
Accordance with Revegetation Plan.
Vegetated Safety
Berm to Remain
1:1
(Ty
Slo
p
pic
al)
lope
1:1 Sypical)
Processing
Equipment
Removed
(T
RA
E
AD
M
L
NA
CA
Restored Drainage
Channel/Swale
A
ER
AD
M
AN
C
AL
SM
e
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
There are a number of other agencies that may have permitting or approval
authority over various aspects of the Project. These agencies include the following:
Federal Agencies
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
•
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
•
Mine and Safety Administration
•
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
State Agencies
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
•
State Water Resources Control Board
•
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
•
California Department of Fish and GameWildlife
•
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA)
•
California Highway Patrol
Local Agencies
• Madera County
•
Madera County Road Division
•
Madera County Fire Warden
•
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)
EIR SCOPE AND ISSUES EVALUATED
Issues Evaluated and Issues Eliminated from Further Consideration
As an initial step in the environmental review process, issues identified in the
Environmental Checklist of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were considered to
determine whether the Project would have the potential to result in significant impacts
associated with each issue. Those resource topics that comprise the Appendix G
Environmental Checklist for which one or more issues were determined to have
reliance to adverse impacts of the Project are listed below:
•
Aesthetics
•
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•
Agricultural Resources
•
Hydrology and Water Quality
•
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
•
Land Use and Planning
•
Biological Resources
•
Noise
•
Cultural Resources
•
Traffic and Transportation
June 2016
ES-19
Executive Summary
•
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Geology and Soils
The initial review determined that the Project would not result in significant adverse
impacts associated with the following resource topics and eliminated these issues from
further consideration in the EIR:
•
Mineral Resources
•
Recreation
•
Population and Housing
•
Utilities and Services Systems
•
Public Services
While CEQA does not require preparation of an Initial Study when the lead agency
elects to prepare an EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15060(d)), the County has prepared an
Environmental Checklist Form / CEQA Initial Study to substantiate its scoping process
in evaluating the potential significance of the Project regarding the Appendix G criteria
discussed above. The evaluation regarding the significance of those issues that are not
discussed in detail in the EIR is provided in the Initial Study (included as Appendix C,
“Environmental Checklist Form / CEQA Initial Study,” of the EIR) and discussed
further in Section 3.0 of the EIR.
Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR must describe a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain
the basic project objectives (Guidelines §15126.6). The “no project” alternative, which
considers what impacts would occur if conditions continue, must be considered
(Guidelines §15126.6(e)), and the EIR must also identify the environmentally superior
alternative. If the “no project” alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,
the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other
alternatives (Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2)).
Summary of Alternatives
The alternatives evaluation considered several potential alternatives. Some were
eliminated as they were determined to either not have the potential to feasibly
achieve the Project objectives and/or reduce significant Project impacts. The
following alternatives are defined and impacts associated with these alternatives as
compared to the Project are evaluated in the EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) the County would not approve
a Conditional Use Permit and Reclamation Plan and would not require the
height variance needed for amend the Project site General Plan land use
ES-20
June 2016
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
designation or zoning. The existing site use would continue as agricultural
(cattle grazing). Because the No Project Alternative would not result in
aggregate production at the Project site, aggregate demand within the region
would need to be met through production at other existing or new mining
operations within the region or aggregate would be obtained for the region from
more distant sources. The EIR determines that the No Project Alternative would
not result in many of the impacts that would occur with the Project. However,
due to other existing or new mining operations that would need to operate to
fulfill existing and projected future demand for aggregate in the region, air
pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, and roadway damage
impacts could ultimately occur at equivalent or greater levels under the No
Project Alternative.
Alternative 2: Reduced Operational Life Alternative
The Reduced Operational Life Alternative would limit the permitted operational
period of the Project from 100 years to a lesser period. For the purposes of the
EIR analysis, a period of 50 years is assumed. It is also assumed that this
alternative would not change the permitted annual processing quantities and
daily production and sales volumes could be the same as that of the Project.
Alternative 2 would have the same hours of operation and daily and annual
production limits as the proposed Project. For the duration of operations,
Alternative 2 would result in impacts similar to those of the Project. Ground
disturbance associated with the plant site, access roads, and mined areas of the
quarry would not be expected to change. Visual impacts would be the same as
the Project, but would last for a shorter period of time (50 years, as compared to
100 years). On a daily and annual basis, traffic associated with the alternative,
air pollutant emissions and noise, would occur as described for the Project.
However, due to the reduced operational life, these impacts would occur for a
shorter duration (e.g., 50 years as opposed to 100 years).
Alternative 3: Reduced Annual Production Alternative
The Reduced Annual Production Alternative would reduce the maximum
permitted annual processing rate of the Project from the proposed 2.5 million
tons per year. For the purposes of the EIR analysis, a reduced annual production
rate of 2.0 million tons per year is assumed. A reduction in the maximum annual
production would result in a reduction in total material excavated over the 100year life of the Project Daily maximum production could occur at rates similar to
the Project that would enable this alternative to serve peak-season construction
demand similar to the Project. However, the number of days that maximum
production would occur would likely be less under this alternative as compared
June 2016
ES-21
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
to the Project due to limitations on annual production. Because Alternative 3
would effectively reduce the amount of total material that could be excavated
and processed over the 100-year life of operations, the quarry would be expected
to be reduced in size as compared to the Project. Physical impacts of the quarry
could, therefore, be less than those of the Project. Annual air pollutant,
greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle trips would be less under this alternative.
However, if future demand is greater than local supply, annual air pollutants
could be greater under this Alternative when compared to the Project. Daily
peak air pollutant emissions and vehicle trips would be similar to the Project,
although the number of days that peak emissions and vehicle trips that would
occur would be less.
Alternative 4: Reduced Quarry Footprint Alternative
The Reduced Quarry Footprint Alternative would reduce the surface size of the
mining disturbance area as compared to the proposed Project and would not
increase the permitted depth of the quarry. Annual and daily production under
this alternative would not change as compared to the Project; however, the total
amount of material that could be excavated from the quarry would be reduced.
A key aspect of Alternative 4 would be to reduce and configure the quarry area
in a manner that would avoid direct impacts to sensitive habitats on the Project
quarry site. The EIR identifies two areas that, if eliminated from the quarry
disturbance area, would reduce the amount of swale and vernal pool habitat
directly impacted by the Project. The reduction in total volume of material that
could be extracted from the quarry if the footprint were reduced through if one
or a combination of these footprint reduction areas were included in the Project
has not been determined.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The EIR analysis concludes that Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior
alternative due to the ability of Alternative 3 to reduce the severity of significant and
unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts associated with the Project. Although
Alternative 3 would reduce the magnitude of significant and unavoidable air quality
and traffic impacts associated with the Project, it is expected that these impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 3. The alternatives
analysis and conclusions reached regarding the environmental superior alternative
do not consider factors regarding the ability of Alternative 3 to effectively achieve
the Project objectives or for the ability of Alternative 3 to be an economically viable
and feasible option for the Applicant.
ES-22
June 2016
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1, “Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” provides a
summary of the Project impacts identified and evaluated in the EIR, presents mitigation
measures identified in the EIR, and lists the impact significance both without and with
mitigation applied. As shown in the table, several impacts are found to be less than
significant and do not require mitigation. All but six of the remaining impacts would
be significant or potentially significant prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures, but would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation applied. The
analysis concludes that six impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, even
with implementation of all feasible mitigation. Mitigation measures have been added
or expanded during preparation of this Final EIR that would further reduce impacts
associated with significant and unavoidable impacts including those associated with
NOx emissions, GHG emissions, and road damage. In addition, Project reductions
eliminating the previously proposed asphalt and recycling facilities would further
reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the Project, would reduce the
potential for truck pass-by sleep disturbance from Project-related trucks, and would
reduce Project-related traffic impacts by reducing the number of truck trips associated
with the Project. Although the additional mitigation requirements and Project
reductions reduce the severity of impacts, the impacts are still considered significant
and unavoidable for the purposes of the County’s CEQA review.
The following six Project impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable, as
feasible mitigation is either unavailable or would not effectively reduce the severity of
the impact to less than significant:
Impact 3.3-1:
Project Operation Would Emit Criteria Air Pollutants, Including
ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 and Could Result in Adverse
Health Effects;
Impact 3.3-2:
Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Could Cause or Contribute
to Exceedances of Ambient Air Quality Standards;
Impact 3.3-4:
Plant Construction and Operation would Result in Greenhouse Gas
Emissions;
Impact 3.10-4:
Single-Event Noise from Project Truck Trips Could Cause Sleep
Disturbance;
Impact 3.11-1:
Project Traffic Would Worsen Traffic Operations Levels of
Service; and
Impact 3.11-3:
Project Truck Traffic Could Accelerate Damage to Off-Site
Roadways. (SR 145 and SR 41 segments.)
June 2016
ES-23
Executive Summary
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
In addition evaluating Project-specific impacts, an EIR must also evaluate cumulative
impacts. Cumulative impacts are those that would result from Project impacts when
combined with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects. The
analysis also determined that the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts would
result in considerable contributions to the following cumulative impacts:
Cumulative Impact 4-1:
Cumulatively considerable contribution to emissions of
NOx and PM10 and related health effects;
Cumulative Impact 4-2:
Increase in air pollutant emissions above those
considered in County General Plan and regional air
quality plans;
Cumulative Impact 4-3:
Cumulatively considerable contribution to emissions
of GHGs;
Cumulative Impact 4-4:
Cumulatively considerable contribution to singleevent noise from Project truck trips potential to cause
sleep disturbance;
Cumulative Impact 4-5:
Cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic and
unacceptable levels of service; and
Cumulative Impact 4-6:
Cumulatively considerable potential for accelerated
damage to off-site roadways. (SR 145 and SR 41
segments.)
ES-24
June 2016
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.1-1:
Project Activities and Facilities Would Detract from the
Visual Quality of the Project Site
Significance
Before
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1:
Implement a Landscape Plan that Incorporates Tree Clusters
Sufficient to Soften Views Limit Visibility of the Project from SR 41
and SR 145
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the plant, the Applicant
shall prepare, submit and implement a landscape plan that
incorporates harmonious clusters of tall native, non-invasive tree
species of varying types (e.g., oaks, California peppers) along the
northern and southeastern perimeter of the processing plant site
sufficient to soften views of the plantprocessing facilities from SR 41
and SR 145. The plan shall:
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
1. be prepared by a landscape architect licensed in the state of
California;
2. include detail regarding specific tree species and other vegetation
to be planted;
3. include measures to ensure survival (or replacement) of tree
plantings and shall specify landscape maintenance requirements;
4. define planting densities, anticipated growth rates, and
coverage/screening to be provided during growth and at
maturity of plantings; and
5. establish vegetation in locations and at densities to obscure and
reduce the dominance of processing plant facilities as viewed
from public roads adjacent to the site.
Prior to approval of the final landscaping plan and issuance of a
building permit for the Project, the County shall review and approve
the plan to ensure that tree clusters are sufficient to provide partial
June 2016
ES-25
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.1-2:
The Project would Create the Potential for Light and
Glare
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1:
Conversion of Grazing Land to a Non-Agricultural Use
Impact 3.2-2:
Consistency with Madera County General Plan Policies
Pertaining to Agricultural Resources and with the
Zoning of the Project Properties
Impact 3.2-3:
Consistency with Williamson Act Contract(s)
AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1:
Project Operation Would Emit Criteria Air Pollutants,
Including ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 and
Could Result in Adverse Health Effects
Significance
Before
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
screening of plant facilities sufficient to reduce the visual visibility of
the Project facilities as viewed from SR 41 and SR 145.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2:
Use IDA-Approved (or Similar) Light Fixtures and Design Lighting
to Confine Illumination
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the plant, the Applicant
shall demonstrate use of International Dark Sky Association (IDA)
approved (or similar) fixtures for any required nighttime lighting of the
operations and such fixtures shall be required for use on an on-going
basis. Lighting shall be designed to confine illumination to the Project
site, and/or to areas that do not include light-sensitive uses.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1(a):
Implement NOx Emission Reduction Measures and Propose a
Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the
SJVAPCD
The Applicant shall implement the following to reduce and otherwise
mitigate Project NOx emissions:
SU
S
1. Within 15 years of operation, replace all non-Tier 4 diesel engines
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-26
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Mitigation Measures
with those meeting EPA Tier 4 emissions standards.
2.1.
The asphalt plant shall meet BACT, including meeting any
more stringent requirement of the SJVAPCD’s Rules and
Regulations, including achieving the lowest achievable emission
rate for propane-fueled asphalt plants of a similar BTU rating.All
off-road diesel vehicles and equipment operated at the Project site
and owned by the Applicant shall be model year 2015 (or newer)
and shall meet state and federal Tier 4 standards. All on-site
service and maintenance trucks shall be model year 2014 (or
newer).
3.2.
Maintain all Project vehicles in accordance with the
manufacturers’ recommendations, and shall maintain all
stationary equipment in compliance with emissions limitations
established by Project permits issued by the SJVAPCD.
4.3.
Minimize vehicle
measures including:
and
equipment
emissions
through
a. Use alternative-fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel equipment
to the extent operationally feasible.
b. Minimize idling time of all vehicles and equipment to the
extent feasible; idling for periods of greater than 5 minutes
shall be prohibited; and signage shall be posted on-site
advising that idling time shall not exceed 5 minutes per idling
location.
5.4.
The Applicant shall enter into a Voluntary Emission
Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution District (SJVAPCD), if the SJVAPCD is agreeable to
enter into a VERA with the Applicant. The terms of the VERA
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-27
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
shall require the Applicant to offset NOx emissions created by
on-site mobile equipment. This measure does not require that the
Applicant offset or otherwise mitigate any other NOx emissions
(except to the extent already accomplished by the other EIR
mitigation measures or Conditions adopted at the time of Project
approval). This mitigation measure shall be deemed satisfied
once the Applicant proposes a VERA and agrees to pay
SJVAPCD’s established cost per ton required to mitigate NOx
impacts as that amount is enforced basin-wide at the time of
Project approval. The Applicant shall pay the cost of the offset
within five years of the first sale of material from the Project site.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1(b):
Reduce Production in the Event of Diesel Generator Use
In the event that diesel generators are necessary to operate the Project
on opening day and for up to upon initial operations, such generators
shall not be used for a period of more than 1 year. In the event that
diesel generators are used during the first year of operations, the
Project shall:
1. Use only diesel generators equipped with CARB Tier-4 Interim,
or newer, engines.
2. Limit aggregate product production and sales during the first six
months of operation to a maximum of 0.87 million tons, and
a. In the event that the diesel generators are used during the
second six months of operation, limit aggregate production
and sales during the second six month period to a maximum
of 0.87 million tons, or
b. In the event that utility electric service is provided by the end
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-28
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.3-2:
Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Could Cause or
Contribute to Exceedances of Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Significance
Before
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
of the first six month and no diesel generators are used during
the second six months, limit aggregate production and sales
during the second six month period to a maximum of 1.25 million
tons.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2:
Implement PM10 Reduction Measures
The Applicant shall implement the following to reduce Project PM10
emissions:
Significance
After
Mitigation1
SU
1. The Applicant shall comply with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII
(Fugitive PM10 Prohibition).
2. Install and maintain a fabric filter in the asphalt batch plant to
control PM10 emissions and meet BACT requirements of the
SJVAPCD.
3. Install and maintain a pollution control system that controls
fugitive emissions from the silos on the asphalt batch plant
during silo filling operations.
4.2.
Stabilize soils to reduce dust emissions from all disturbed
areas, including storage piles not being actively utilized for
mining or processing purposes.
Stabilization shall be
accomplished using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, tarp
coverings and/or other suitable cover, or vegetative ground
cover.
5.3.
Stabilize the surfaces of all on-site unpaved roads to suppress
fugitive
dust
emissions
using
water
or
chemical
stabilizer/suppressant.
6.4.
Stabilize soils in all land clearing, grubbing, scraping,
excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill areas/activities to
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-29
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
suppress fugitive dust emissions using application of water or by
presoaking.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
7.5.
To the extent feasible, all material transported off-site shall be
covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and
at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container
shall be maintained.
8.6.
Limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or
dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The
use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where
preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible
dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly prohibited.
9.7.
Outdoor storage piles shall be effectively stabilized of
fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical
stabilizer/suppressant following the addition of materials to, or
the removal of materials from, the surfaces.
10.8. Maximum traffic speeds on unpaved roads within the Project
site shall be limited to 15 mph.
11.9. Install erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to
public roadways from areas with a slope greater than one
percent.
Impact 3.3-3:
Plant Construction Activities would Result in
Temporary Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Impact 3.3-4:
The Project would Result in Greenhouse Gas
1
LS
S
12.10. Comply with the 20 percent opacity limitation of SJVAPCD
Regulation VIII at all times regardless of wind speed.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Mitigation Measures 3.3-4: None Available Purchase CO2E Offset
Credits for On-Site Mobile Source Emissions
LS
SU
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-30
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Impact 3.3-5:
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Project
Operation Would Increase Cancer and Non-Cancer
Health Risks
Impact 3.3-6:
Odors from the Asphalt Batch PlantProject Could be
Objectionable to Residents
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1:
The Project Would Result in Loss of California Annual
Grasslands Providing Habitat for Special-Status
Wildlife Species
LS
Mitigation Measures
The Applicant shall offset Project GHG emissions created by on-site
mobile sources over the operational life of the Project through
acquisition of verifiable CO2E offset credits from a reputable CO2E
credit source. The purchase of offset credits shall be undertaken within
5 years of the first sale of material from the Project site and evidence of
the acquisition shall be submitted to the County.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Impact 3.4-2:
The Project Would Result in Loss of Federally
Protected Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.
S
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1:
Preserve California Annual Grassland Habitat at the Adjacent
Fenston Mitigation Area
Prior to the initiation of disturbance on the site associated with Project
development, Tthe Applicant shall permanently preserve 579 acres of
California annual grassland habitat at the adjacent Fenston Mitigation
Area.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2:
Permanently Preserve Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S
Prior to the initiation of disturbance on the site associated with Project
development, Tthe
Applicant shall
permanently
preserve
approximately 11.97 acres of bed and bank, 158.98 acres of seasonal
swale, and 14.81 acres of vernal pools on the adjacent Fenston
Mitigation Area.
Emissions
1
S
LS
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-31
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance
Significance
Before
After
Impact
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation1
Impact 3.4-3:
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3:
S
LS
The Project Would Result in the Direct and Indirect
Prepare and Implement Plans for Permanent Preservation of Vernal
Impacts to Vernal Pools, Which Would Reduce Habitat
Pools on the Adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area
for Special-Status Vernal Pool Species
Prior to the initiation of disturbance on the site associated with Project
development, Tthe Applicant shall prepare and implement plans for
the permanent preservation of vernal pools within the Fenston
Mitigation Area to provide habitat for the vernal pool species that
could be impacted by the Project. The plans shall consist of the
following:
1. Preserve approximately 14.81 acres of vernal pools in perpetuity on
the adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area.
Impact 3.4-4:
The Project Would Result in Loss of Rock Outcrop
Habitat Providing Potential Roosting Habitat for Pallid
Bat
1
PS
2. The Applicant shall prepare a detailed Preserve Management Plan
(PMP) for the long-term management of the preserved vernal pools
and surrounding preserved uplands which shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the USFWS and CDFW prior to initiation of
mining activities on the Project site. This plan shall address the
following: Goals for Preserve Management; Responsible Parties;
Preserve Characteristics; Preserve Management; Budgets and
Funding; and Monitoring and Reporting. The PMP shall include a
description of funding for management in perpetuity, and the
Applicant shall provide long-term funding for the preserve
management through establishment of an endowment.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4:
Survey Rock Outcrops, Avoid Maternal Colonies, and Exclude Bats
from Non-Breeding Hibernacula
The Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-activity
survey in rock outcrop for roosting bats within 30 days prior to any
grading, excavation or removal of rock outcrops. If no active roosts are
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-32
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.4-5:
The Project Could Impact Nesting Birds, Including
Migratory Birds, Raptors, and Other Special-Status
Bird Species
1
Significance
Before
Mitigation
PS
Mitigation Measures
found, then no further action is required. If a maternity roost is
detected, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of constructionfree protective zones around the active nursery. The zone shall be
adequate to ensure that construction activities do not adversely affect
active nurseries. This zone shall remain in place until the qualified
biologist has determined the nursery is no longer active. If nonbreeding hibernacula are found in rock outcrops within the disturbance
footprint, the individuals shall be safely evicted under the direction of a
qualified biologist, by installation of one-way doors or other means
determined appropriate by the qualified biologist.
Grading,
excavation, or other disturbance of the rock outcrops shall not
commence until the qualified biologist has determined that the bats
have been safely evicted.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5:
Avoid Disturbance to Nesting Birds During Nesting Season
To the extent feasible, habitat dDisturbance that would potentially
disturb of occupied nests of migratory birds, raptors, or other specialstatus bird species within the buffer areas defined below shall should
be avoided during the nesting season for local avian species (typically
March 1 through August 31). If all such activities occur outside the
breeding season, no further action is necessary. If any such activity
occurs during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall survey the
disturbance area no more than 30 days prior to habitat disturbance, to
determine whether active nests of special-status bird species, raptors, or
other bird species protected under the MBTA are present within 100
feet 0.5 mile of such activity. If active nests are located during the
preconstruction survey, construction activities shall be restricted as
necessary, and determined by the qualified biologist, to avoid
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-33
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Impact 3.4-6:
The Project Would Result in the Loss of Nesting
Habitat Suitable for Tricolored Blackbird
PS
Impact 3.4-7:
The Project Could Impact Breeding or Wintering
Western Burrowing Owls
PS
1
Mitigation Measures
disturbance of the nest until young have fledged and the qualified
biologist has determined that there is no further risk of injury to birds
or nests from Project-related activities. At a minimum, a no-disturbance
buffer of 250 feet shall be established around active nests of unlisted
non-raptor bird species, a no-disturbance buffer of 500 feet shall be
established around active nests of unlisted raptors, and a nodisturbance buffer of 0.5 mile shall be established around active nests of
listed species (including Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird),
until the breeding season has ended or earlier if a qualified biologist
determines that the young birds have fledged and are no longer reliant
upon the nest or parental care of survival.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-6:
Preserve Fresh Emergent Vegetation Suitable for Supporting Nesting
Tricolored Blackbirds at the Adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area
Prior to the initiation of disturbance on the site associated with Project
development, Tthe Applicant shall permanently preserve fresh
emergent vegetation, which mitigation is satisfied by permanently
preserving habitat on the adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area as required
by Mitigation Measures 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-7:
Prepare and Implement a Western Burrowing Owl Plan that Specifies
Avoidance, Relocation and Habitat Preservation Activities
The Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for
avoiding burrowing owls during nesting season and relocating them
out of construction/disturbance areas to an appropriate mitigation site.
The plan shall be prepared in accordance with CDFW guidelines and
shall be applicable during the Project life for any Project activities
resulting in ground disturbance of existing habitats. California annual
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-34
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
grasslands preserved as required pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.4-1
will be suitable for this purpose. The Western burrowing owl plan
shall include the following elements:
Significance
After
Mitigation1
a. To the extent feasible, oOccupied burrows shall not be disturbed
during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless,
after consultation with the CDFW, a qualified biologist verifies that
either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or
(2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging
independently and capable of independent survival.
b. If destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing
unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of
debris) or created (by installation of artificial burrows) at a ratio of
2:1 foraging habitat in the northwestern and/or eastern areas of the
Project site that would be undisturbed by Project activitieswithin
protected foraging habitat area described in item “d” below.
Impact 3.4-8
The Project Could Destroy or Disturb Suitable
California Tiger Salamander Breeding and Aestivation
Habitat and Could Result in Injury or Death of
California Tiger Salamander Individuals
1
S
c. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive
relocation techniques should be used rather than trapping. At least
1 week should be allowed to accomplish this and allow the owls to
acclimate to alternate burrows.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-8(a):
Preserve CTS Breeding Habitat and Surrounding Matrix of
Aestivation Habitat at the Adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area
Prior to the initiation of disturbance on the site associated with Project
development,
Tthe
Applicant
shall
permanently
preserve
approximately 14.81 acres of California Tiger Salamander (CTS)
breeding habitat (vernal pools) and a surrounding matrix of
approximately 579 acres of aestivation habitat (annual grasslands) at
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-35
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.4-9:
Project Construction and Operation Could Result
Disturbance of Surrounding Habitat Outside the
Project Footprint
Significance
Before
Mitigation
PS
Mitigation Measures
the adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-8(b):
Retain Qualified Biologist to Conduct Pre-disturbance Surveys,
Relocate Salamanders and/or Install Exclusion Fencing
Prior to the initiation of grading, excavation, or ground disturbing
activities and with authorization by the USFWS and CDFW, the
Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-disturbance
surveys and to trap and relocate adult and juvenile salamanders or
install passive exclusion around the active mine pit and processing
plant using a fence-and-ramp system or similar approach to prevent
salamanders from re-entering these areas.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-9:
Implement a Construction and Operation Impact Avoidance Program
The Applicant shall implement a construction and operation related
impact avoidance program consisting of the following elements:
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
1. Install and maintain through the life of the Project exclusionary
fencing around the perimeter of the plant site and actively mined
areas of the quarry site designed to prohibit Project workers,
equipment and vehicles from inadvertently entering sensitive
habitat areas.
2. Prior to and during fence installation, the boundaries of the
disturbance area shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked and a
qualified biologist shall monitor all on-site Project-related activities
to ensure that no habitat disturbance occurs outside the Project
boundaries.
3. Fueling of equipment within 250 feet of a vernal pool, wetland, or
other Waters of the U.S. shall be prohibited.
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-36
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.4-10:
Potential Preservation of Off-Site Habitat and
Restoration and Enhancement of Off-Site Wetlands
Could Result in Additional Impacts
Impact 3.4-11:
The Project Would Affect Flows in Downstream
Drainages and Could Create the Potential for Adverse
Effects on Habitat
Impact 3.4-12:
The Project Would Result in the Loss of Foraging
Habitat Suitable for Swainson’s Hawk
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5-1:
Ground Disturbance, Excavation and Other Activities
Associated with the Project Would Create the Potential
for Damage or Destruction of Known Cultural
Resource Sites
1
Significance
Before
Mitigation
PS
Mitigation Measures
4. A spill response plan shall be in place prior to Project initiation,
including procedures to immediately remediate any unlikely spills
in adjacent habitat areas.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10:
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-2(a), 3.5-4 and 3.7-1(a) through 3.71(e) for Activities on the Fenston Mitigation Area.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
PS
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐12: Preserve Suitable Foraging Habitat for
Swainson’s Hawk at the Adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area
Prior to the initiation of disturbance on the site associated with Project
development, the Applicant shall permanently preserve 338.5 acres of
suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawk by permanently
preserving habitat on the adjacent Fenston Mitigation Area as required
by Mitigation Measures 3.4‐1, 3.4‐2, and 3.4‐3.
LS
PS
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1:
Prepare and Implement a Cultural Resources Avoidance and
Monitoring Program
The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to
prepare a cultural resources avoidance and monitoring program which
provides measures to delineate and avoid the three previously
identified cultural resources sites contained within the Project
properties: CA-MAD-2423/H, CA-MAD-2424 and CA-MAD-2427 as
recorded in Cultural Resources Survey for the Austin Quarry, Madera
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-37
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
County, California prepared by Applied EarthWorks and dated
September 2009.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
The program shall map and delineate a buffer area around each of the
three sites, within which no ground disturbance or debris or other
materials placement shall occur. The buffer area shall extend a
sufficient distance from the previously identified boundary of each site
to provide for avoidance of elements of sites that may not have been
fully realized during previously conducted surveys due to vegetation
cover. Fencing, signage and/or other visible avoidance mechanisms
shall be installed at a known cultural resource site only in the event that
the qualified professional archaeologist determines that such avoidance
mechanism is appropriate under the circumstances of each site.
The program shall require that, in the event ground disturbance or
other Project activities are required within close proximity to any of the
sites, any such ground disturbance or Project activities shall be
monitored by a qualified professional archaeologist and Native
American monitor.
Impact 3.5-2:
Ground Disturbance, Excavation and Other Activities
Associated with the Project Would Create the Potential
for Damage or Destruction of Previously Unidentified
Cultural Resources
1
PS
Should it be necessary for disturbance to occur within 100 feet of a
known cultural resource, a field check of the archaeological sites shall
be completed by an archaeologist to ensure that known cultural
resources are not affected.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2(a):
Evaluate Materials and Implement Appropriate Treatment Methods
In the event that any buried archaeological materials are uncovered
during Project-related construction or other activities, all ground
disturbing and excavation activities shall cease within 100 feet of the
find. For the purposes of this mitigation measure, archaeological
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-38
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
materials include but are not limited to the following:
Significance
After
Mitigation1
• Obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools;
• Bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups;
• Ground stone implements (grinding slabs, mortars and pestles) and
locally darkened Midden soils containing some of the previously
listed items plus fragments of bone and fire affected stones;
• Fragments of glass, ceramic and metal objects;
• Milled and split lumber;
• Structure and feature remains such as building foundations, privy
pits, wells and dumps; and
• Old trails.
The construction contractor or Operator shall notify the County
Planning Department within one business day of the discovery and a
professional archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the find and
recommend appropriate treatment measures consistent with generally
accepted practices. Project-related activities shall not resume within
100 feet of the find until all approved mitigation measures have been
completed and are deemed to have appropriately treated (through
avoidance, site recordation or other means) any archaeological material
determined to have cultural significance.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2(b):
Retain Native American Cultural Resources Monitor to be Present
During Surface Disturbance
All grading and topsoil/overburden removal at the Project site to a
depth of six feet shall be monitored by a cultural resources monitor
who shall be a member of a local Native American tribe deemed
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-39
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.5-3:
Ground Disturbance, Excavation and Other Activities
Associated with the Project Would Create the Potential
for Disturbance or Destruction of Significant
Paleontological Resources
Significance
Before
Mitigation
PS
Mitigation Measures
qualified to identify materials having potential cultural significance. In
areas where the depth of topsoil/overburden is less than 6 feet or where
no topsoil/overburden is present and rock outcroppings are exposed at
the surface, the cultural resources monitor shall inspect the surface of
exposed rock prior to its excavation or blasting. The Applicant shall
hire and fully fund the cost of the cultural resources monitor. The
cultural resources monitor shall assist in determining whether items, if
any, discovered during grading have qualities that indicate the item(s)
may represent a significant cultural resource. In such instance, the
processes defined in Mitigation Measure 3.5-2(a) shall be followed to
ensure appropriate treatment methods are determined. While on the
Project site, the cultural resources monitor shall be required to comply
with all applicable mine safety regulations and policies.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3:
Prepare and Implement a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and
Treatment Program
The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist to
prepare a paleontological resources monitoring and treatment program
that provides measures to delineate areas within the Project site having
moderate to high potential for yielding paleontological resources
during Project excavation and mining activities, and to provide
education regarding recognition of paleontological resources for
personnel prior to excavation or other disturbance of such delineated
areas.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
The program shall map and delineate those areas within the site which
contain Modesto Formation, Riverbank Formation, and Turlock Lake
Formation sedimentary rock and North Merced Gravel. In the event of
the discovery of any paleontological resource during excavation,
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-40
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.5-4:
Ground Disturbance, Excavation and Other Activities
Associated with the Project Would Create the Potential
for Discovery of Human Remains
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 3.6-1:
The Project Could Expose People or Structures to
Strong Ground Shaking During a Seismic Event
Impact 3.6-2:
Potential to Expose Structures and Workers to Geologic
Hazards
1
Significance
Before
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
excavation activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease and the
site manager shall notify the County Planning Department. Excavation
of the discovered material shall be undertaken by a qualified
paleontologist and the find shall be appropriately documented,
recorded and provided to an appropriate regional repository.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4:
Cease Activities and Immediately Notify Madera County Coroner
In the event that a human grave or human remains are discovered
within theduring Project activities properties, activities within 50 feet of
the discovery shall cease and the Madera County Coroner shall be
notified immediately. A professional archaeologist shall be retained to
evaluate the find, upon approval of the Coroner. If human remains are
of Native American origin, the Madera County Coroner must notify the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this
determination. Project activities shall not proceed within the area of
the discovery until such time as the Coroner has authorized the
resumption of activities.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
PS
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2:
Inspect Slope Conditions After Seismic Events and Remove Loose
Blocks
In the event that a seismic event exceeding 6.5 on the Richter scale
within 100 miles of the Project site causes ground shaking at the Project
site, quarry operations shall immediately cease and Project personnel
shall be prohibited from the quarry. A County-approved geotechnical
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-41
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.6-3:
Quarry Excavation Would Create Risk of Injury Result
from Slope Failure
Significance
Before
Mitigation
PS
Mitigation Measures
engineer, at the Applicant’s sole cost, shall be retained to inspect slope
conditions for potential loose blocks or other unsafe or unstable
conditions. Loose blocks, if any, shall be removed and conditions shall
be remedied based on the recommendations the geotechnical
engineering prior to reinitiating normal excavation activities in the
quarry. These recommendations shall achieve a minimum static factor
of safety of 1.5 minimum and a pseudostatic factor of safety greater
than 1.0 using a seismic coefficient of 0.1.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3:
Periodically Inspect Quarry Slopes and Implement Stability and
Safety Measures
The quarry slopes shall be inspected every 57 years and along
proposed quarry slopes prior to the advancement of any slope within
200 feet of the property boundary, at the Applicant’s sole cost, by a
County-approved qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical
engineer experienced in evaluating the stability of hard rock slopes.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
Inspections shall summarize the rock types observed, provide detailed
rock mass descriptions and measured discontinuity orientations,
observed seepage conditions, and compare the observed conditions
relative to those identified in CDM 2009. If the conditions vary from
CDM’s (2009) characterization, the engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer shall evaluate whether the changes have an
adverse impact on slope stability, and, if so, provide recommendations
to mitigate the slope stability concerns to achieve a minimum static
factor of safety of 1.5 and a pseudostatic factor of safety greater than 1.0
using a seismic coefficient of 0.1.
Recommendations shall be
implemented within 6 months by the operator upon approval by the
County.
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-42
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance
Significance
Before
After
Impact
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation1
Impact 3.6-4:
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4:
PS
LS
Excavation within Turlock Lake Formation Sediments
Conduct Additional Geotechnical Evaluation of Turlock Lake
Could Increase Risk of Slope Failure
Formation and Lay Back Slopes if Necessary
Prior to excavation within Phase 6 of the mining plan, the Operator
shall prepare and submit to Madera County a plan for evaluating the
stability of the excavation slopes within the Turlock Lake Formation.
The plan shall address the proposed timing of the stability evaluation,
the proposed data needs, and the type of engineering investigations
and analyses to be performed as part of the study. At a minimum, the
stability evaluation shall be completed prior to the advancement of the
crest of the excavation slopes to within 600 feet of the Project site
boundary adjacent to the Phase 6 quarry area in order to provide
sufficient opportunity to lay the slope back if needed. The stability
evaluation shall assess the groundwater conditions, material types and
shear strengths for the Turlock Lake Formation, and determine the final
slope inclination necessary to achieve a minimum static factor of safety
of 1.5. In addition, the proposed final slopes shall have a minimum
pseudostatic factor of safety greater than 1.0 using a seismic coefficient
of 0.1. Layback recommendations in the study shall be sufficient to
avoid off-site migration of slopes and the creation of potential risk of
damage to adjacent facilities, including the Madera Canal.
Impact 3.6-5:
Mitigation Measure 3.6-5:
PS
LS
Ground Disturbance and Vegetation Removal Could
Implement Soil Stabilization and Erosion Control Measures
Increase Soil Erosion
1. All on-site grading and mining activities shall be performed in
accordance with all grading and other applicable mining codes of
Madera County.
2. The following preventative measures shall be implemented to
minimize wind and water erosion on-site:
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-43
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
a.
Mitigation Measures
Surface disturbance shall be kept to the minimum that is
required to construct and operate the Project.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
b. The Project shall be designed and constructed with erosion
control features (e.g., berms, retention ponds, and vegetation
cover) to minimize runoff and to protect on-site areas
susceptible to erosion from surface flow or wind and to
protect off-site receiving waters from being affected by
pollutants.
c.
Areas of exposed soils resulting from excavation and grading
work shall be weatherized by covering (e.g., rocks,
vegetation, asphalt, or concrete), using of soil stabilization
chemicals, watering, or other means to withstand and avoid
erosion.
d. Drainage control structures shall be used where necessary to
direct surface drainage away from disturbance areas and to
minimize runoff and sediment disposition down-slope from
all disturbed areas. These structures shall include culverts,
ditches, water bars (berms and cross ditches), and/or
sediment traps. Drainage from disturbed on-site areas shall
not discharge to off-site areas.
e.
1
All personnel shall be trained before they enter the worksite
regarding environmental concerns, pertinent laws and
regulations, and elements of the erosion control plan and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
This
information shall be provided in a multi-hour environmental
training for project management and general foreman, and a
short environmental training class for other on-site
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-44
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
personnel.
3.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.7-1:
The Project Could Create a Hazard to the Public,
Workers, and the Environment through Improper
Handling or Accidental Release of Fuels or Other
Hazardous Materials
PS
The Project ProponentApplicant shall prepare and implement a
SWPPP for construction activities and a SWPPP for Project
operation. The SWPPPs shall be prepared as required by and
consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board
requirements.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(a):
Above-Ground Storage Tanks
For storage of any petroleum products or other regulated substances,
the Applicant shall only use above-ground storage tanks that have been
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. All aboveground tanks shall be double-walled and meet all ballistic and flame
impingement requirements in California Fire Code (CFC) Article 79, or
must adhere to more stringent design requirements in place at the time
of installation. The containment structures for such tanks shall not be
equipped with any valves or drains. The Applicant shall comply with
the APSA which requires owners or operators of aboveground
petroleum storage tanks greater than 1,320 gallons to file a tank facility
statement, to develop and implement a Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) plan, and to pay an annual fee.
LS
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(b):
Proper Management and Disposal
Vehicles, equipment, materials and debris shall be properly managed
and disposed, including:
1. Project equipment, vehicles and servicing materials shall be
maintained in an orderly manner to aid in accounting for and
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-45
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
detecting potential sources of contamination;
Significance
After
Mitigation1
2. Non-functional equipment, scrap metal, construction debris, used
batteries and tires, and similar objects shall be removed from the
site on a regular basis and disposed of at appropriately licensed
facilities;
3. Spare equipment such as heavy equipment parts, conveyor belts,
tires and other replacement or extra equipment pieces, shall be
stored indoors or on impermeable surfaces that do not drain offsite whenever feasible to avoid surface water contamination. Spare
parts containing petroleum products (i.e., lubricants, hydraulic oil,
etc.) shall be stored using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
prevent contamination of soil or storm water runoff; and
4. Storage areas shall be inspected by the Operator monthly. Any
petroleum leaks shall be documented and cleaned up using
appropriate cleaning and debris disposal techniques. Leaking
equipment shall be repaired. Inspection and monitoring
documentation shall be prepared for each inspection, shall be
retained for a minimum of 5 years, and shall be available to County
staff during site inspections.
5. The Applicant shall comply with the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) regulations pertaining to hazardous
waste storage and disposal. Applicant must obtain a California
EPA-ID number before shipping hazardous waste to a recycler or
disposal facility.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(c):
Comply with Regulations for Transport of Hazardous Materials
All delivery, maintenance, and repair trucks containing petroleum
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-46
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
products shall be required to comply with Title 13 of California Code of
Regulations, Division 2, Chapter 6, and federal hazardous material
safety regulations at Title 49 CFR, Parts 171 through 180. Those
regulations include requirements that all trucks carrying petroleum
products be equipped with quick-connect couplings and automatic
shut-off valves to prevent spills, and shall carry appropriate absorbent
materials to contain and recover spillage.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(d):
Hazardous Materials Business Plan/Response Plan
A Hazardous Materials Business Plan/Response Plan shall be
developed for the Project site to address the potential hazards to the
public and environment associated with the transport, use or storage of
fuels or other hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Business
Plan/Response Plan shall comply with the requirements of Cal. Health
& Safety Code §25504 and 19 Cal. Code Regs. §2620 et seq., and shall be
prepared by the Applicant and, as required by law (Assembly Bill
2286), shall submit business information electronically through the
California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) prior to the
commencement of surface disturbing activities. The plan shall include
a Hazardous Materials Inventory, a facility site map, emergency spill
response and containment plan, contingency plan, and any other
required elements. Daily inspection logs of fuel and chemical storage
areas and equipment maintenance areas shall be prepared by the
Operator and maintained on-site for inspection.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(e):
Proper Removal and Disposal
Upon cessation of the Project and as an initial component of the Project
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-47
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Reclamation Plan, all hazardous materials and above-ground storage
tanks shall be removed from the Project site and properly disposed at a
licensed facility.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(f):
Obtain NPDES Coverage and Comply with Permit Requirements
The Applicant shall obtain coverage, and shall submit evidence of such
coverage to the County, for the Project under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000001
for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity, Water
Quality Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ (Industrial General Permit).
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(g):
Submit Report of Waste Discharge and Comply with WDRs
The Applicant shall submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and shall comply with
any resulting order of Waste Discharge Requirements and monitoring
and reporting ordered by the Regional Board. A copy of the Report of
Waste Discharge submitted to the Regional Board shall be submitted to
the County.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1(h):
Implement Measures to Minimize the Potential for Water Quality
Impacts from Blasting Agents
1. The Applicant shall implement and follow the Best Practices for
Blasting developed by the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME).
The Best Practices include training of explosives users, selection of
the appropriate explosives for site-specific conditions, proper
explosives loading and handling techniques, and attention to
technical matters. A copy of the IME Best Practices is included in
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-48
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Final EIR Appendix H-8, “Institute of Makers of Explosives Blasting; Best Practices.”
Significance
After
Mitigation1
2. The Applicant shall only use qualified and licensed explosives
experts. Records demonstrating the qualifications and licenses of
all explosives experts working on the Project site, and a summary
of work practices that comply with the IME Best Practices, shall be
provided to the County prior to conducting any blasting at the site.
As explosives experts are changed at any time during the Project,
documentation for the new explosives experts shall be provided to
the County prior to the new explosives experts conducting any
blasting at the site.
3. Only water-resistant explosive materials shall be used during
conditions when explosives could be exposed to wet conditions.
4. The duration of exposure to wet conditions shall be limited to the
extent feasible and as necessary to avoid their introduction to
surface or groundwater. Explosives shall be detonated as soon as is
safe and practicable after placement in the field.
Impact 3.7-2:
The Project Could Increase Wildland Fire Potential and
Associated Risk to Life and Property
1
PS
5. Prevention of surface spillage and other measures shall be
implemented to prevent incomplete detonation of explosives. Any
water that comes into contact with explosives shall be contained
and either treated, used in subsequent blast holes, or shipped offsite for proper disposal.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2(a):
Develop a Fire Safety Plan
The Applicant shall coordinate with the Madera County Fire Marshal’s
Office
and
the
Madera
County
Environmental
Health
DepartmentDivision, as appropriate, to develop a fire safety plan
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-49
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
which shall describe fire prevention measures including access and
defensible space clearing requirements; potential fire scenarios; and
action plans for each potential scenario which include notification,
suppression and evacuation measures, in the event of a fire within the
Project site or within adjacent grassland areas.
Construction
contractors and the Project oOperator shall be required to comply with
all applicable elements of the fire safety plan.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2(b):
Install Fire Access and Water Distribution Systems
Fire access and water distribution systems shall be installed as required
by applicable State and County fire code and shall be completed in
their entirety prior to the issuance of permits for the construction of
structures within the Project site.
Impact 3.7-3:
Blasting Associated with Quarry Excavation Could
Create Hazards Associated with the Transport, Storage
and Use of Blasting Materials
HYDROLOGY
Impact 3.8-1:
Certain Project Activities Could Result in Impacts to
Groundwater Quality
1
LS
PS
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2(c):
Emergency and Wildland Firefighting Vehicle Access
Vehicle access shall be available to the Project retained open space areas
for emergency and wildland firefighting purposes.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Mitigation Measure:
To prevent degradation of groundwater quality, Implement Mitigation
Measure 3.7-1 shall be implemented as discussed in Section 3.7.
LS
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-50
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.8-2:
The Project Could Result in Impacts Involving
Groundwater Supplies and/or Recharge
Impact 3.8-3:
Changes to On-Site Drainage Patterns Could Result in
Erosion or Siltation Impacts
Impact 3.8-4:
Changes to On-Site Drainage Patterns Could Result in
Flooding Impacts
Impact 3.8-5:
Runoff Water Could Result in Stormwater Capacity or
Flooding Impacts
Impact 3.8-6:
Potential Impacts of Levee or Dam Failure
Impact 3.8-7:
Potential Impacts from Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 3.9-1:
Consistency with the Madera County General Plan
Impact 3.9-2:
Consistency with the Proposed Zoning of the Project
Site
NOISE
Impact 3.10-1:
Project Operation Could Expose Noise-Sensitive Land
Use or Individuals to Excessive Noise Levels
1
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
PS
Mitigation Measure 3.10-1:
Construct a Noise Barrier Between the Quarry and Receiver 5 or
Provide Acoustic Testing Evidence that Barrier is Not Required
An 8-foot-tall noise berm/barrier shall be constructed along the eastern
boundary of the Phase 4 mining area prior to excavation within 4,000
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-51
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.10-2:
Project Blasting would Generate Noise and Vibration
that Could Adversely Affect Adjacent Receptors
Significance
Before
Mitigation
LS
Mitigation Measures
feet of Receiver 5. The noise barrier shall be maintained until
excavation equipment reaches 10 feet below existing grade or is no
longer visible from Receiver 5, whichever is greater.
If the Applicant conducts subsequent acoustic testing and provides
sufficient evidence to the County that specific equipment to be used for
excavation would not exceed the significance thresholds specified
herein at Receiver 5 without a barrier in place, construction of a noise
barrier shall not be required.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2(a):
Blasting Shall Be Conducted During Daylight Hours on Regular
Business Days Only and Shall Not Be Conducted on Weekends or
Federal Holidays
Blasting shall be conducted during daylight hours on regular business
days only and shall not be conducted on weekends or federal holidays.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2(b):
Conduct Inspections and Vibration Monitoring, and Repair or
Replace Madera Canal Facilities Damaged by Project Blasting
Vibration
The Applicant shall implement the following measures to further
reduce the less-than-significant blasting-related impacts to the Madera
Canal:
1. The Applicant shall retain a County-approved California-licensed
Professional Engineer with experience in structural vibration
analysis to perform an inspection of the segment of the Madera
Canal adjacent to the Project site prior to any blasting at the Project
site. As part of the inspection, the canal embankment, structures,
and facilities shall be digitally photographed to document then1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-52
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
existing conditions, including any existing damage, for a
comparison to future conditions with blasting. The results of the
pre-blasting inspection shall be documented in a stamped and
signed report and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the
County, with copies of the report provided to the Madera Irrigation
District, the Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power Authority, and
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
2. The Applicant shall retain a County-approved California-licensed
Professional Engineer with experience in blasting and vibration
analysis, monitoring, and control to conduct a blasting vibration
and site attenuation study during initial blasting associated with
Project mining operations. The site attenuation study shall develop
a site-specific attenuation formula and site-specific blasting criteria
based on on‐site data collected from the detonation of explosives in
the initial (northern) phases of the Project (Phases 1 and/or 2). The
site attenuation study shall be performed utilizing several
seismographs running from the blast area toward the Madera
Canal, and shall assess and document consideration associated
with variable strata types and depth between blasting areas and the
Madera Canal. The results of the site attenuation study shall be
documented in a report with a copy of such report submitted to,
and approved by, the County within five years of initial blasting
and prior to any blasting activities in Phases 3, 4, and 6. Following
submittal and County approval of the initial site attenuation study
report, the report shall be reviewed and verified or updated if
necessary to update recommendations every five years in
consideration of data collected from ongoing monitoring. Evidence
of verification, or the updated report, shall be submitted to, and
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-53
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
approved by, the County. If necessary based on the results of the
site attenuation study(ies), the Applicant shall modify the blasting
plan to ensure that the peak particle velocity (PPV) of ground
vibrations do not exceed 3.25 inches per second at the crest of the
Madera Canal northern embankment closest to the nearest blasting
location.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
3. Explosives shall not be placed or detonated within 363 feet of the
Madera Canal.
4. The Applicant shall monitor ground vibration during all onsite
blasting with a digital seismograph on the crest of the Madera
Canal northern embankment at the closest point to the blasting to
determine the actual vibration levels from the blasts. The PPV for
blasting activities shall not exceed 3.25 inches per second at the
crest of the Madera Canal northern embankment. Monitoring data
shall be maintained by the Applicant and submitted annually to the
County, with copies of the report subject to the Madera Irrigation
District, the Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power Authority, and
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
5. In the event that monitoring indicates PPV in excess of 3.25 inches
per second at the monitoring location, blasting shall be temporarily
ceased and the Applicant shall notify the County, the Madera
Irrigation District, the Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power
Authority, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation of the exceedance.
In such event, the Applicant shall assess of the cause and
magnitude of the exceedance and the potential for canal damage
due to the higher than anticipated vibration level. Blasting shall
not be reinitiated until such time as the County determines that
appropriate measures have been implemented to avoid future
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-54
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
exceedances and that no increase in the potential for future damage
to the canal exists.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
6. During any year in which blasting occurs, the Applicant shall
retain a County-approved California-licensed Professional
Engineer with experience in structural vibration analysis to
perform an inspection of the segment of the Madera Canal adjacent
to the Project site. As part of the inspection, the canal embankment,
structures, and facilities shall be digitally photographed to
document conditions and shall be compared to the prior inspection
report for identification of any damage attributable to Projectrelated vibration. Additionally, in the event that the owner or
operator of the Madera Canal notifies the Applicant and County
that damage to the Madera Canal potentially attributable the
Project has been observed, the Applicant shall retain a Countyapproved California Licensed Professional Engineer with
experience in structural vibration analysis to perform an inspection
of the reported damage within two weeks of such notification. The
results of the annual inspection and of any inspection required
based on damage reported by the Madera Irrigation District, the
Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power Authority, and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation shall be documented in a stamped and
signed report and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the
County and to the Madera Irrigation District, the MaderaChowchilla Water and Power Authority, and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. In the event that damage is observed and is deemed
by the County-approved engineer to be attributable to the Project,
blasting shall be temporarily ceased or relocated farther from the
canal in accordance with the County-approved engineer’s findings
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-55
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Impact 3.10-3:
Vehicle Trips Associated with the Project Would
Increase Traffic Noise on Area Roadways
Impact 3.10-4: Single-Event Noise from Project Truck
Trips Could Cause Sleep Disturbance
Impact 3.10-5: Project Construction Activities Would
Generate Temporary Construction Noise
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Impact 3.11-1:
Project Traffic Would Worsen Traffic Operations
Levels of Service
1
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
Mitigation Measures
and recommendations. The Applicant shall notify the County, the
Madera Irrigation District, the Madera-Chowchilla Water and
Power Authority, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation of the
damage, and the Applicant shall repair or replace, or pay for such
repair or replacement, of any Madera Canal embankment or
appurtenant structure(s) damaged as a result of the vibration
caused by blasting activities at the Project site. If damage to the
canal attributable to the Project has occurred, the County, the
Applicant, and the Madera Canal owner and operators, shall confer
to confirm that the damage has been repaired or is in the process of
being repaired and measures have been or will be implemented to
reduce or avoid the potential for damage in the future. Thereafter,
blasting may resume in all approved areas of the site.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
PS
Mitigation Measures: None Available
SU
LS
Mitigation Measures: None Required
LS
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1:
The Applicant shall contribute the Project’s proportional share of the
cost of construction of the following regional roadway improvements
through 1) payment of the County Road Impact Fee for improvements
listed below that are included in the County Road Impact Fee Program;
2) payment of fees in addition to the County Road Impact Fee Program
for the Project’s proportional share of the improvements listed below
SU
S
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-56
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
that are not included in the County Road Impact Fee Program; and 23)
payment of Caltrans’ fee for SR 41 improvements at Friant Road.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Within 6 months of Project approval and prior to the sale of material
from the Project, Tthe Applicant shall enter into traffic mitigation
agreements with the County and with Caltrans that specify
requirements for the Project’s contribution for proportional share
funding for the improvements listed below. The traffic mitigation
agreements shall establish the payment amounts and thresholds that
define the timing of the required payments. The agreements shall
specify the timing of payments for each set of improvements. Timing
of payments shall be scheduled or conditioned to occur such that the
Applicant’s payment for each set of improvements is required to be
submitted within three months of the request for payment from
Caltrans or the County due to the agency’s imminent plans to proceed
with the improvements.
SR 145/Tozer Street Intersection
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left-turn lane, 3 through
lanes, and 1 right-turn lane (adding 1 through lane).
• Widen the southbound approach to 2 left-turn lanes, 2 through
lanes, and 1 right-turn lanes (adding 1 left turn lane and 1 right
turn lane).
• Widen the eastbound approach to 2 left-turn lanes, 1 through lane,
and 1 right-turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane).
• Widen the westbound approach to 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane,
and 2 right-turn lanes (adding 2 right turn lanes).
SR 145 Road 29 Intersection
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-57
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
• Install traffic signal.
SR 41/Road 209 Intersection
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left-turn lane and 2 through
lanes (adding 1 through lane).
• Widen the southbound approach to 2 through lanes with a shared
right-turn lane (adding 1 through lane).
SR 41/SR 145 Intersection
Construct Caltrans Type L-9 Interchange
• Northbound Off-Ramp at SR 145 - Signalized
−
Northbound approach: 1 left turn lane and 3 right turn lanes
−
Eastbound approach: 3 through lanes
−
Westbound approach: 4 through lanes
• Southbound Off-Ramp at SR 145 - Signalized
−
Southbound approach: 1 left turn lane and 1 right turn lane
−
Eastbound approach: 2 through lanes
−
Westbound approach: 2 through lanes
SR 41/Avenue 15 Intersection
Construct Caltrans Type L-9 Interchange
• Northbound Off-Ramp at Avenue 15 - Signalized
−
Northbound approach: 1 left turn lane and 3 right turn lanes
−
Eastbound approach: 3 through lanes
−
Westbound approach: 4 through lanes
• Southbound Off-Ramp at Avenue 15 - Signalized
−
1
Southbound approach: 1 left turn lane and 1 right turn lane
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-58
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
−
Mitigation Measures
Eastbound approach: 2 through lanes
−
Westbound approach: 2 through lanes
Significance
After
Mitigation1
SR 41/Avenue 12 Intersection
Construct Caltrans Type L-9 Interchange
• Northbound Off-Ramp at Avenue 12 - Signalized
−
Northbound approach: 3 left turn lanes and 2 right turn lanes
−
Eastbound approach: 3 through lanes
−
Westbound approach: 4 through lanes
• Southbound Off-Ramp at Avenue 12 - Signalized
−
Southbound approach: 2 left turn lanes and 2 right turn lanes
−
Eastbound approach: 3 through lanes
−
Westbound approach: 3 through lanes
SR 41 Northbound On-Ramp/Children’s Boulevard Intersection
• Widen the northbound approach to 3 left turn lanes, 3 through
lanes, and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane and 2 through
lanes). The inside lane for the northbound left approach shall be a
dedicated HOV lane.
• Widen the southbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 4 through
lanes, and 1 right turn lane (adding 3 through lanes and 1 right
turn lane).
SR 41 Southbound Ramps/Children’s Boulevard Intersection
• Widen the southbound approach to 1 left-turn lane and 3 right-turn
lanes (adding 2 right turn lanes).
• Widen the eastbound approach to 4 through lanes and 2 right-turn
lanes (adding 2 through lanes and 1 right turn lane).
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-59
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
• Widen the westbound approach to 4 through lanes (adding 1
through lane).
Significance
After
Mitigation1
SR 41/Friant Road Intersection
• Friant Road SR 41 Undercrossing: Two additional lanes.
• SR 41 NB On-Ramp from WB Friant Road: Additional ramp lane
and 300-meter auxiliary lane.
• SR 41 SB Off-Ramp to Friant Road: Additional ramp lane and 400meter auxiliary lane.
SR 145 from Tozer Street to Road 29
• Widen the eastbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
• Widen the westbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
SR 145 from Road 29 to Road 36
• Widen the eastbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
• Widen the westbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
SR 145 from Road 36 to Project Driveway
• Widen the eastbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
• Widen the westbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
SR 145 from Project Driveway to SR 41
• Widen the eastbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
• Widen the westbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-60
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
lane)
SR 41 from Road 209 to SR 145
• Widen the northbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
• Widen the southbound segment to 2 travel lanes (adding 1 travel
lane)
SR 41 from SR 145 to Avenue 15
• Widen the northbound segment to 3 travel lanes (adding 2 travel
lanes)
• Widen the southbound segment to 3 travel lanes (adding 2 travel
lanes)
SR 41 from Avenue 15 to Avenue 12
• Widen the northbound segment to 4 travel lanes (adding 3 travel
lanes)
• Widen the southbound segment to 4 travel lanes (adding 3 travel
lanes)
SR 41 from Avenue 12 to Children’s Boulevard
• Widen the northbound segment to 4 travel lanes (adding 3 travel
lanes)
• Widen the southbound segment to 4 travel lanes (adding 2 travel
lanes)
SR 41 from Children’s Boulevard to Friant Road
• Widen the northbound segment to 4 travel lanes (adding 2 travel
lanes)
• Widen the southbound segment to 4 travel lanes (adding 2 travel
lanes)
The Applicant shall pay a fee of $102,661 to Caltrans for the SR 41
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-61
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
improvements at the SR 41/Friant Road interchange listed below prior
to the initial sale of material from the Project:
Significance
After
Mitigation1
• Friant Road SR 41 Undercrossing: Two additional lanes;
• SR 41 NB On-Ramp from WB Friant Road: Additional ramp lane
and 300-meter auxiliary lane; and
• SR 41 SB Off-Ramp to Friant Road: Additional ramp lane and 400meter auxiliary lane.
Impact 3.11-2:
LS
Project Access to and from SR 145 Could Increase
Hazards or Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
Impact 3.11-3:
S
Project Truck Traffic Could Accelerate Damage to Off- (SR 145 and
Site Roadways
SR 41
segments)
Mitigation Measure: None Required
LS
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3(a):
SU
Negotiate Road Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans
(SR 145 and
Prior to an increase in Traffic Index Rating of 1.0, the Applicant shall
SR 41
coordinate with Caltrans and, if required based on that coordination, segments)
shall enter into a road maintenance agreement with Caltrans to provide
funding or direct maintenance of the segments of SR 41 from SR 145 to
Avenue 15 and from Avenue 15 to Friant Road and for the segment of
SR 145 between Road 36 and SR 41 in a manner proportionate to the
Project’s contribution to the maintenance requirements of the roadway
segments.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3(b):
Pay Per Ton Fee for County Road Maintenance
The Operator shall pay the County a fee per ton of material sold from
the Project site. For the purpose of this mitigation measure, “material”
includes aggregate and any overburden or topsoil that may be sold
from the Project. The funds provided by this fee will be used by the
County for activities related to maintenance of County-maintained
1
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-62
AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
OTHER CEQA TOPICS
Impact 4.5-1:
The Project Would Consume Energy
1
Significance
Before
Mitigation
LS
Mitigation Measures
roads. The fees shall be paid by July 1 each year based on material
sales during the preceding calendar year. With each annual payment,
the Operator shall submit a written record of material sold from the
Project site during each month of the preceding year. The initial fee for
the first five-year operational period shall be $0.10 (10 cents) per ton of
material sold. The fee shall be increased every five years in accordance
with the Producer Price Index.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1:
The Project shall install and utilize an electrical conveyor as the
primary method of transporting material from the quarry pit to the onsite processing facilities prior to or concurrent with the initiation of
hard rock mining in Phase 2. The primary power supply for the
electrical conveyor shall be from PG&E, or another electricity supplier,
which operates in compliance with California’s Renewable Portfolio
Standard.
Significance
After
Mitigation1
LS
LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
June 2016
ES-63
2515 East Bidwell Street
Folsom, California 95630
P: 916.983.9193 | F: 916.983.9194
www.benchmarkresources.net