AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT

Transcription

1 AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY State Clearinghouse No JUNE 206 Lead Agency Madera County

2 AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY State Clearinghouse No JUNE 206 Lead Agency Madera County 200 West 4 th Street, Madera, California Preparer Benchmark Resources 255 East Bidwell Street, Folsom, California 95630

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES- LIST OF TABLES Table ES- Summary of Project s and LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES- Regional Location Map Figure ES-2 Proposed Land Uses and Quarry Excavation Phase Areas Figure ES-3 Reclamation Plan i

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This is an of the Austin Quarry Project (Project) Final Environmental 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 2, 204, to January 5, 205. Comments received are included in Appendix L of the Final EIR and responses to comments are provided in Section 0.0. CEQA Guidelines Section (see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (993) 6 Cal.4th 2, 32; also see 4 CCR 5003(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: ) 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 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 202 Draft EIR, the County determined that revisions to the 202 Draft EIR warranted recirculation of the document prior to preparing a Final EIR. Thus, the County revised the 202 Draft EIR and recirculated it as the 204 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 204 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 ES-

5 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 202 Draft EIR and the 204 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: ) 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 , 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

6 significant impact. Therefore, the addition of the height variance request to the Project description does not warrant recirculation of the EIR. circulation of the 204 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 Study Report (VRPA 206) 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 205a) 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-, 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. ES-3

7 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 ) the mining and processing of a hard rock deposit at a maximum sales rate of 2.5 million tons per year for a 00-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 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) 2000 et seq.) and preparation of an Environmental 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 Report (EIR) for the proposed Project. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment from August 0 through September 25, 202. ES-4

8 SM TUOLUMNE COUNTY STANISLAUS COUNTY MARIPOSA COUNTY MADERA COUNTY MERCED COUNTY Austin Quarry Project Site Fresno Production- Consumption Region FRESNO COUNTY Area Shown KINGS COUNTY

9 AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ES-6

10 Upon consideration of comments received on the 202 Draft EIR, the County Planning Department decided to make revisions to the 202 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 204 Revised Draft EIR for public review from October 2, 204 to January 5, 205. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 4, 5000 et seq.) Section (f)(), 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 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 204 Revised Draft EIR The 204 Revised Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from October 2, 204, to January 5, 205 (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, s, faxes, form letters, and other written submittals) were received, approximately 6 of which were from public agency representatives. Each of these comment letters is included as Appendix M, Comments on 204 Revised Draft EIR. Final EIR Section 0.0, 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 0.0 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 0.0, 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: ES-7

11 AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR Matt Treber C/O Madera County Board of Supervisors 200 West 4 th Street Madera, California Copies of the Draft EIR can be reviewed at the following locations: Madera County Board of Supervisors 200 West 4 th Street Madera, California Madera County Library Headquarters 2 North G Street Madera CA 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 204 REVISED DRAFT EIR Described below are the primary changes made to the 202 Draft EIR in preparing the 204 Revised Draft EIR. (See Section..3. of the Revised Draft EIR for additional discussion of the changes.) Revisions were made to Section.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 Production- Consumption (PC) Region, to add the Applicant s decision, commitment, and timing to construct access intersection and SR 45 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 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

12 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..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..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 67 acres in an unincorporated area of Madera County, approximately 2 miles east of the City of Madera and 8 miles north of the City of Fresno, as shown on Figure ES-. 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. ES-9

13 AUSTIN QUARRY PROJECT FINAL EIR The Madera Canal forms the southern and southwestern boundary of the property and SR 45 delineates the northern boundary. The eastern boundary of the property runs parallel to, and approximately 0. miles west of, SR-4. 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:. 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 00 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 5 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-0

14 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 00 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 67 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 45, and a 0-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. ES-

15 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 00 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 2 a.m. (midnight) and 2 p.m. (noon) during summer months. Material loadout and hotmix asphalt production would typically occur from 4 a.m. to 6 p.m. ES-2

16 SM 420 Native Vegetation and Tree Planting Proposed Power Line 430 Vegetated Visual Screening Berm 430 PHASE Undisturbed Area MADERA CANAL 420 Proposed Site Access Road Northwest Well (Existing) Plant Site Proposed Reroute Pipe Temporary Stockpile Area B PHASE Temporary Stockpile Area A 450 PHASE 6 PHASE 5 PHASE PHASE Vegetated Safety Berm Stormwater Retention/Groundwater Recharge Basin Undisturbed Area Potential Disturbance Area Freshwater Conveyance Facilities

17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ES-4

18 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 45. 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 6,808,9977,503,87 kilowatt-hours. The yearly fuel usage for the Project, including on-road vehicles and, off-road equipment, is, and the asphalt plant includes,6,37 gallons of diesel and, 6,362 gallons of gasoline and,380,09 gallons of propane. Section 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 220 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review). A Fugitive Emission Control Plan would be implemented to comply with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM0 Prohibition). Pollution control programs ES-5

19 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 9.0) 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: 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. ES-6

20 SM Native Vegetation Planting to Remain Site Access Road to Remain Power Line 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. : Slope (Typical) Vegetated Safety Berm to Remain Processing Equipment Removed : Slope (Typical) MADERA CANAL Restored Drainage Channel/Swale MADERA CANAL

21

22 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 Agricultural Resources Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Biological Resources Cultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Noise Traffic and Transportation ES-9

23 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 Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Utilities and Services Systems While CEQA does not require preparation of an Initial Study when the lead agency elects to prepare an EIR (CEQA Guidelines 5060(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 526.6). The no project alternative, which considers what impacts would occur if conditions continue, must be considered (Guidelines 526.6(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 526.6(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 : No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative (Alternative ) 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

24 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 00 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 00 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 00 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 00- year 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 ES-2

25 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 00-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

26 Summary of s and Table ES-, Summary of Project s and, 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. 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: 3.3-: 3.3-2: 3.3-4: 3.0-4: 3.-: 3.-3: Project Operation Would Emit Criteria Air Pollutants, Including ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM0, and PM2.5 and Could Result in Adverse Health Effects; Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Could Cause or Contribute to Exceedances of Ambient Air Quality Standards; Plant Construction and Operation would Result in Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Single-Event Noise from Project Truck Trips Could Cause Sleep Disturbance; Project Traffic Would Worsen Traffic Operations Levels of Service; and Project Truck Traffic Could Accelerate Damage to Off-Site Roadways. (SR 45 and SR 4 segments.) ES-23

27 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 4-: Cumulative 4-2: Cumulative 4-3: Cumulative 4-4: Cumulative 4-5: Cumulative 4-6: Cumulatively considerable contribution to emissions of NOx and PM0 and related health effects; Increase in air pollutant emissions above those considered in County General Plan and regional air quality plans; Cumulatively considerable contribution to emissions of GHGs; Cumulatively considerable contribution to singleevent noise from Project truck trips potential to cause sleep disturbance; Cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic and unacceptable levels of service; and Cumulatively considerable potential for accelerated damage to off-site roadways. (SR 45 and SR 4 segments.) ES-24

28 TABLE ES- AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES 3.-: Project Activities and Facilities Would Detract from the Visual Quality of the Project Site S Measure 3.-: Implement a Landscape Plan that Incorporates Tree Clusters Sufficient to Soften Views Limit Visibility of the Project from SR 4 and SR 45 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 4 and SR 45. The plan shall:. 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 LS ES-25

29 3.-2: The Project would Create the Potential for Light and Glare AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-: Conversion of Grazing Land to a Non-Agricultural Use 3.2-2: Consistency with Madera County General Plan Policies Pertaining to Agricultural Resources and with the Zoning of the Project Properties 3.2-3: Consistency with Williamson Act Contract(s) AIR QUALITY 3.3-: Project Operation Would Emit Criteria Air Pollutants, Including ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM0, and PM2.5 and Could Result in Adverse Health Effects TABLE ES- (CONTINUED) screening of plant facilities sufficient to reduce the visual visibility of the Project facilities as viewed from SR 4 and SR 45. S Measure 3.-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. LS : None Required LS LS : None Required LS LS : None Required LS S Measure 3.3-(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:. Within 5 years of operation, replace all non-tier 4 diesel engines LS SU ES-26

30 TABLE ES- (CONTINUED) with those meeting EPA Tier 4 emissions standards. 2.. 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 205 (or newer) and shall meet state and federal Tier 4 standards. All on-site service and maintenance trucks shall be model year 204 (or newer) 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 Minimize vehicle and equipment emissions through measures including: 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 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 ES-27

31 TABLE ES- (CONTINUED) 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. Measure 3.3-(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 year. In the event that diesel generators are used during the first year of operations, the Project shall:. 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 ES-28