Developed (paved and dirt roads)
Vegetation
Developed roadways consist of concrete or asphalt hardscape and packed dirt roads. Vegetation within these areas is limited to roadside grasses and weeds.
Wildlife
These developed areas provide relatively little habitat value for most wildlife species. Wildlife from adjacent habitats may forage on these roads, and dispersing animals will move along these roads as well.
Intermittent and Ephemeral Drainages
Vegetation
Unnamed intermittent and ephemeral drainages (that may be considered VHP Category 2 streams) occur within the Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 4 areas of the Project site, and Tick Creek would be impacted by access road improvements along Old Monterey Road. Drainages and other hydrologic features are shown in Figure 3.4-1. Vegetation within the intermittent drainages is generally similar to that habitat found in the surrounding upland California annual grassland habitats. The unnamed ephemeral drainages only have water present for brief periods during and immediately after rainstorms and therefore would not be a significant source of seasonal water for native plants and wildlife. Intermittent drainages derive some flow from groundwater as well, so they may flow for a longer duration than ephemeral drainages, but they are typically dry for much of the year.
Wildlife
Ephemeral drainages would not likely provide habitat values in excess of those provided by surrounding upland habitats due to their short hydroperiod. As a result, the animal species utilizing these features would be similar to those using adjacent habitats. Intermittent drainages may receive somewhat greater use by amphibians and waterbirds, but the intermittent Category 2 streams on the Project site would not provide suitable conditions for use by breeding amphibians.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.4.3.3 Regulated and Sensitive Habitats
Regulated Habitats
Some features on the Project site would be regulated by the USACE as “waters of the U.S.,” by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as “waters of the State,” and by the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. A wetland delineation was conducted on the proposed quarry site in fall 2016 (LOA 2016), and a verification site visit was conducted with USACE staff in spring 2017. During the verification site visit, USACE claimed the following as jurisdictional waters: Intermittent Drainage Channels 1 through 4; a small seasonal wetland within Intermittent Drainage 3; Sargent Creek; and Tar Creek (as shown in Figure 3.4-3).
An additional formal wetland delineation survey was conducted for the geotechnical setback areas in summer 2017, but this has not yet been verified by USACE. These delineations were performed according to the pre-2015 USACE regulatory regime incorporating guidance from important court cases such as Rapanos v. United Stated, but prior to the since-superseded 2015 Clean Water Rule or the currently vacated 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule.
The Phases 1 and 2 geotechnical setback areas support hydrologic features that may also be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. These hydrologic features include wetland seeps near Phase 1, a short reach of intermittent channel, a stock pond, and a small seasonal wetland north of Phase 1. No potentially jurisdictional features are present within the Phases 3 and 4 geotechnical setback areas.
All the features that are likely to be considered waters of the U.S. by the USACE would also be considered jurisdictional waters of the State by RWQCB. In addition, if the USACE determines that any ephemeral drainages are not waters of the U.S., these features may be waters of the State.
All streams and drainages on the site would also likely be considered jurisdictional by CDFW, and both CDFW and RWQCB may claim jurisdiction over associated riparian habitat. The jurisdiction of CDFW and RWQCB may extend to the top of the bank or the outer dripline of associated riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Potential jurisdictional waters are shown in Figure 3.4-3.
Other Sensitive Habitats
In addition to the regulated habitats described above, some habitats and plant communities are considered sensitive by virtue of their limited distribution or disproportionate contributions to biodiversity. On the Project site, oak woodlands would be considered sensitive. Numerous state and local agencies have established guidelines, regulations, and ordinances regarding the conservation of oak woodlands (e.g., Oak Woodlands Conservation Act [Fish and Game Code Sections 1360‒ 1372], Senate Bill 1334, and the Santa Clara County Guidelines for Tree Protection and Preservation for Land Use Applications (Santa Clara County 2010). Areas on the Project site mapped as coast live oak forest and woodland meet the definition of oak woodland because of their size, tree density, and connection to adjacent oak woodland off the Project site. 327(17,$/:$7(562)7+(81,7('67$7(6 ),*85(
Tar Creek
629,240 E
4,087,999 N
628,229 E
4,087,099 N
627,712 E
4,085,367 N
Sargent Creek
Erosional Gully 1
305 LF
Erosional Gully 2
371 LF
Isolated
Intermittent Channel 3b
3,123 SF, 1,102 LF
SP4
SP3
SP2
Isolated
Intermittent Channel 3a
81,795 SF, 2,499 LF
Isolated
Seasonal Wetland 1
1,145 SF, 0.03 Ac.
Tar Creek
Perennial Channel 1
452 SF, 25 LF
Intermittent Channel 2a
54 SF, 33 LF
Culvert
Sargent Creek
Intermittent Channel 1
986 SF, 66 LF
Erosional Gully 3
574 LF
Intermittent Channel 2b
1,927 SF, 627 LF
Culvert
Intermittent Channel 2c
800 SF, 239 LF
SP1
%HWDEHO5RDG
<5RDG
+LJKZD\
IHHW
$SSUR[LPDWH6FDOH
/LYH2DN$VVRFLDWHV,QF
'DWH 3URMHFW )LJXUH
Potential Waters of the U.S.
6DUJHQW5DQFK
6RXUFH
7RSRJUDSKLF%DVHFRXUWHV\6DQWD&ODUD&R/,'$56XUYH\
8QLYHUVDO7UDQVYHUVH0HUFDWRU&RRUGLQDWH6\VWHP=RQH1$'1$9'
/(*(1'Ordinary High Water of Jurisdictional Tributaries - Intermittent Channels 1 & 2 (3,767 SF, 965 LF)
- Perennial Channel 1 (452 SF, 25 LF)
Ordinary High Water of Isolated Channels
- Isolated Intermittent Channel 3 (84,918 SF, 25,102 LF) Other Waters (Not Jurisdictional)
- Isolated Seasonal Wetland (1,145 SF / 0.03 Ac.)
- Erosional Gully (1,281 SF, 1,250 LF)
Other Features
- Project Boundary (Approx. 298 Ac.)
- Sample Points
- Culvert
SP1
Source: Live Oak Associates, Inc., 11/30/2016.
Sargent Hills
Phase 2
Phase 1
Phase 4
Phase 3
SOURCE: Live Oak Associates, Inc., 11/30/2020
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.4-3
Potential Waters of the United States
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-18 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.4.3.4 Special-Status Species
Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under FESA, CESA, or other regulations, and species that are considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. For purposes of this EIR, special-status plants include the following:
• Plants listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.
• Plants listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. • Plants listed by the California Native Plant Society as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.
For purposes of this EIR, special-status animals include the following:
• Animals listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.
• Animals listed under CESA as threatened, endangered or a candidate threatened or endangered species.
• Animals designated by the CDFW as a California species of special concern. • Animals listed in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, or 5515 the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species.
Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that occur in the vicinity of the Project site was collected from several sources and reviewed to develop a list of species that could occur on the Project site. Species observations in the Project area are shown on Figures 3.4-5 and 3.4-6. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special-status species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species that could occur on the site.
Special-Status Plants
Of the special-status plant species that could occur in the region, most are considered absent from the site due to a lack of suitable habitat, such as serpentine grasslands, wetlands, or vernal pools.
The Project site provides suitable habitat for 10 special-status plant species, as shown in Table 3.4-2.
Special-Status Wildlife
The legal status and likelihood of occurrence of special-status animal species known to occur or that could occur in the Project site are listed in Appendices E.3, E.4, and E.5 of this EIR. Many of the special-status animal species known to occur or that could occur in the broader vicinity of the Project site would not occur on the Project site itself because it lacks suitable habitat or is outside the known distribution of the species. Several special-status animal species are known or expected to breed or roost regularly in the vicinity and may forage on the Project site, but these species would not breed specifically within the Project site due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat (e.g., bald eagle, golden eagle, and peregrine falcon). Table 3.4-3 discusses special-status animals that are known to occur in the region and explains whether or not they would occur on or
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-19 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
near the Project site. Figures 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 depict species observations at Sargent Ranch and CNDDB records of special-status species in the site vicinity, respectively. Expanded discussions of several species and their potential to occur follow.
TABLE 3.4-2
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Name Status Blooming Period Habitat
Congdon’s tarplant CRPR 1B May – November Alkaline soils within the valley and foothill grasslands Bristly leptosiphon CRPR 4.2 April – July Grassy, woodland, and chaparral areas California androsace CRPR 4.2 March – June Chaparral, foothill woodland, norther coastal scrub, and coastal sage scrub areas
Cotula navarretia CRPR 4.2 May – June Chaparral, foothill woodland, valley grassland, and wetland-riparian areas
Gairdner’s yampah CRPR 4.2 June – October Chaparral, valley grassland, mixed evergreen forest, freshwater wetlands, and wetland-riparian areas
Michael’s rein orchid CRPR 4.2 April – August
Foothill woodland, yellow pine forest, northern
coastal scrub, coastal sage scrub, and closed-cone
pine forest areas
Satan’s goldenbush CRPR 4.2 August – October Foothill woodland and wetland-riparian areas Stinkbells CRPR 4.2 March – June Chaparral, valley grassland, foothill woodland, and wetland-riparian areas
Vernal barley CRPR 4.2 March – June Valley grassland, freshwater wetland, and wetlandriparian areas Santa Clara red ribbons CRPR 4.3 May – June Foothill woodland areas NOTES:
CRPR 1B: Plants are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 4: Plants have a limited distribution – a watch list Invertebrates
Bay Checkerspot Butterfly
The federally threatened Bay checkerspot butterfly occurs in serpentine grasslands, primarily along the edges of the Santa Clara Valley. This species is found only where its larval host plants, dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta) and owl’s clover (Castilleja densiflora or Castilleja exserta), are common. Grasslands on soils derived from serpentinite rock are present in a number of areas in central and southern Santa Clara County (Figure 3.4-6). These serpentine grasslands are highly infertile because of their extremely high levels of magnesium, chromium, and nickel; low concentrations of nutrients such as calcium and nitrogen; and low water-holding capacity. A unique group of vascular plant species, which can tolerate the relatively high magnesium to calcium ratio, has evolved in response to these conditions. Many exotic species in California, including the nonnative grasses that have invaded much of the non-serpentine grasslands in the state, have poor ability to tolerate the extremely dry conditions and infertility of serpentine soils. As a result, serpentine grasslands support high-quality native plant communities, including rare plants such as the federally endangered Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, and Tiburon Indian paintbrush. In turn, several invertebrate species, including the federally threatened Bay checkerspot butterfly, depend on serpentine grasslands because their host foodplants are found primarily in these habitats.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-20 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.4-3
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
Species Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Invertebrates
Bay checkerspot
butterfly
FT Native grasslands on serpentine
soils. Larval host plants are
Plantago erecta and/or Castilleja
sp.
Absent. No suitable habitat is present on or
very close to the Project site, which lacks
serpentine grasslands, and no individuals were
observed during site surveys.
Fish
South-Central
California Coast
steelhead
FT Migrates up freshwater rivers or
streams in the spring and spend
the remainder of the time in the
ocean, known to occupy Tar Creek
and the Pajaro River (which are
designated as critical habitat for the
species)
Present. The species occurs in Tar Creek
within the Project site.
Monterey roach CSC Occurs in a variety of streams, and
well adapted to intermittent
watercourses (e.g., tolerant of high
temperatures and low oxygen
levels).
Possible. Tar Creek provides suitable habitat,
and the species could occur there year-round.
May also occur in lower reaches of Sargent
Creek, downstream from the Project site, when
water is present.
Monterey hitch CSC Warm, lowland, waters including
clear streams, turbid sloughs,
lakes, and reservoirs. Has a high
tolerance for varying stream
conditions and water temperature.
Possible. Tar Creek provides suitable habitat,
and the species could occur there year-round.
May also occur in lower reaches of Sargent
Creek, downstream from the Project site, when
water is present.
Amphibians
California tiger
salamander
FT, CT Breeds in vernal pools and stock
ponds, adults use refugia in
grassland habitats adjacent to the
breeding sites
Present. Four CTS and CRLF larval surveys
have been conducted within potentially suitable
breeding habitats in the vicinity of the proposed
Project site (one by PNWB in 2000-2001 and
three by LOA in 2004, 2005 and 2017). These
surveys detected successful breeding only in
two ponds north of Tar Creek, more than 2000
feet north of the quarry site. The only detection
on the Project site was of larvae in a seasonal
wetland in Phase 1, though the pool did not hold
water long enough for breeding to be
successful. Therefore, the species is not known
to have bred successfully anywhere on the
Project site. The stock pond in the Phase 2
geotechnical setback area and a pond along
Sargent Creek immediately south of the Phase
4 mining area have been sampled, and no CTS
have been detected there, though they could
potentially be used by breeding CTS. Although
the species could use upland habitat anywhere
on the Project site for dispersal and refugia, the
species is apparently very scarce in the Project
site vicinity.
California redlegged frogFT, CSC Rivers, creeks and stock ponds of the Sierra foothills and Bay Area,
preferring pools with overhanging
vegetation
Present. Juveniles were observed within a pond
in the geotechnical setback area above Phase
2, and the species has been documented in
riparian and pond habitats at numerous
locations on Sargent Ranch, including in close
proximity to the proposed conveyor belt
crossing and in the vicinity of the proposed
crossing for the main quarry access road.
Suitable foraging, dispersal, and breeding
habitat is present within the Project site.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-21 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.4-3 (CONTINUED)
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
Species Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Amphibians (cont.)
Foothill yellowlegged frogSE Creeks and rivers in a variety of habitats, usually with cobbly
substrate
Absent. None of the creeks on or adjacent to
the Project site have the cobbly substrate
typically present where this species occurs,
and there are no known occurrences in the
Project vicinity.
Reptiles
Western pond
turtle
CSC Open slow-moving water of rivers
and creeks of central California with
rocks and logs for basking
Possible. Tar Creek and the lower reaches of
Sargent Creek provide suitable aquatic habitat
for this species, and turtles may occur
infrequently in upland areas during movements
between suitable aquatic habitats. It is possible
that western pond turtles could also occur in
the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical
setback area and a pond along Sargent Creek
immediately south of the Phase 4 mining area,
though the species has not been recorded in
these ponds during multiple herpetological
surveys conducted at Sargent Ranch (LOA
2017a, 2017b), so it does not occur there
regularly or in large numbers, if at all. It is
possible that the species could nest in low
numbers on the site.
Birds
Bald eagle SE Nests and roosts near water bodies
with consistent fish supply (eagle’s
main food source), builds nests in
tall trees or on cliffs
Possible. Suitable nesting habitat is absent
from the Project area, but individuals may
occur as foragers.
Bank swallow CT Colonial nester on vertical cliffs and
banks near riparian or coastal
habitats, requires sandy soils to
excavate nest holes
Possible. Suitable foraging habitat is present
on the Project site and the species has been
recorded on the site as a forager, but the
species does not currently nest anywhere in
Santa Clara County or elsewhere in the site
vicinity.
Least Bell’s vireo FE, CE Occurs in southern California during the breeding season in
March, migrates out of the state
July through September, prefers
dense brush, mesquite, or
cottonwood-willow forests in
riparian areas
Unlikely. Suitable habitat is not present within
the Project site, and it is highly unlikely that
this species would occur on the Project site
even as an occasional dispersant or forager
due to the lack of high-quality habitat and the
sporadic nature of this species’ occurrence
anywhere in the region.
Tricolored
blackbird
CE Breeds near fresh water in dense
emergent vegetation
Possible. The species has not been recorded
in the Project site; however, it has been
recorded on the larger Sargent Ranch, and
suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present
on the Project site. A stock pond in the
geotechnical setback area of Phase 2, a pond
adjacent to the Phase 4 mining area, and a
seep within the setback area of Phase 1
provide suitable nesting habitat.
White-tailed kite CP Open grasslands and agricultural
areas throughout central California
Possible. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat is present on the Project site.
Peregrine falcon CP Requires cliffs for nesting and
forages in a variety of habitats
Possible. Nesting habitat is not present on the
Project site; however, suitable foraging habitat
is present, and the species has been observed
over Sargent Ranch.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-22 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.4-3 (CONTINUED)
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
Species Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Birds (cont.)
Golden eagle CP Typically frequents rolling foothills,
mountain areas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert
Possible. Woodlands on the Project site
provide marginal nesting habitat for this
species. Golden eagles have been observed
foraging over Sargent Ranch and are
presumed to forage on the Project site on a
regular basis, though they are unlikely to nest
in the Project site due to the absence of highquality nest sites.
Northern harrier CSC Frequents meadows, grasslands,
open rangelands, freshwater
emergent wetlands, uncommon in
wooded habitats
Present. This species has been observed
foraging over grasslands on the Project site,
and potential nesting habitat occurs adjacent
to Sargent Creek.
Short-eared owl CSC Occurs in wide open spaces
including marshes, open shrublands,
grassland, prairie, and agricultural
field habitats, and need dense
ground cover to conceal nests
Possible. The Project site supports suitable
foraging habitat for this species, though this
species is not known to nest anywhere in the
Project site vicinity.
Long-eared owl CSC Found throughout California mainly
in open woodlands, and riparian
areas with adjacent grasslands for
foraging.
Possible. The Project site supports suitable
foraging habitat for this species, though no
high-quality nesting habitat is present in the
Project site.
Burrowing owl CSC Found in open, dry grasslands,
deserts, and ruderal areas.
Requires suitable burrows
associated with California ground
squirrels
Possible. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat
is present on the Project site, and owls have
been observed nesting on the greater Sargent
Ranch property in the past. However, the
species is not currently known to breed in the
South County. The majority of the Project site is
likely used primarily, or solely, by wintering owls.
Grasshopper
sparrow
CSC Forages in open grasslands, builds
a nest of grasses on the ground
Possible. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat is present on the Project site, and the
species has been observed breeding on the
greater Sargent Ranch property.
Bryant’s
savannah
sparrow
CSC Breeds and forages in grasslands
and other open habitats
Possible. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat is present on the Project site, and the
species has been observed breeding in foothill
grasslands in western Santa Clara County.
Yellow warbler CSC Forages and nests in riparian
woodland habitats
Possible. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat is present on the Project site.
Loggerhead
shrike
CSC Nests in tall shrubs and dense
trees, forages in grasslands,
marshes, and ruderal habitats
Possible. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat is present on the Project site.
Mammals
Mountain lion CC Occurs in a variety of habitats,
denning in areas of dense cover
Possible. The species has not been recorded
on the Project area, but it has been recorded
on the larger Sargent Ranch and likely occurs
on the Project site, either while foraging or
during dispersal.
Western red bat CSC Roosts primarily in trees in a wide variety of habitats, prefers a mosaic
of habitats including open areas for
foraging
Possible. The species does not breed in the
Project site vicinity; however, trees on the site
provide potential roosting habitat and the
species may forage over the Project site.
Pallid bat CSC Most common on dry, open
habitats with rocks for roosting,
may also use large hollows of trees
in addition to caves for roosting
Possible. The Project site offers suitable
foraging habitat for this species and roosting
habitat may be available in woodlands that
support large, cavernous hollows.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-23 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.4-3 (CONTINUED)
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
Species Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Mammals (cont.)
California mastiff
bat
CSC Forages over many habitats,
requires tall cliffs or buildings for
roosting
Unlikely. Suitable foraging habitat occurs on
the Project site, but roosting habitat is absent.
Townsend’s bigeared bat CSC Requires caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human-made
structures for roosting, may use
separate sites for night, day,
hibernation, or maternity roosts
Unlikely. Suitable roosting habitat is absent
from the Project site; however, this species
may forage over the site.
San Francisco
dusky-footed
woodrat
CSC Found in hardwood forests, oak
riparian, and shrub habitats
Possible. Suitable habitat is present on the
Project site and the species’ nests have been
observed in the vicinity of the proposed Tar
Creek crossing.
American badger CSC Occurs in grasslands, and open
areas of scrubland and forests with
uncultivated soils
Possible. Suitable habitat is present on the
Project site and the species has been observed
on the greater Sargent Ranch property.
NOTES:
FT: Federally threatened
FE: Federally endangered
CT: California threatened
CE: California endangered
CC: California candidate for listing
CP: California fully protected
CSC: California species of special concern
No suitable habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly is present on or very close to the Project site, which lacks serpentine grasslands, and no individuals were observed during site surveys.
However, suitable habitat (including areas designated as critical habitat by the USFWS) is present on both sides of the Santa Clara Valley to the north, between the San Martin/Morgan Hill area and southern San Jose. The conservation of critical habitat is considered essential for the conservation of a federally listed species. Critical habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly occurs on nutrient-poor serpentine or serpentine-like grasslands that support at least two of the three butterfly’s larval native host plants. Non-native grasses have been reported to increase in these habitats, crowding out the native forbs needed by the Bay checkerspot butterfly, primarily due to increased nitrogen deposition from human sources (primarily vehicle trips).
Fish
South-Central California Coast Steelhead
Adult steelhead typically enter streams from the ocean with the winter rains and ascend the stream to a suitable site where they pair up and dig a nest. Females lay from 200 to 12,000 eggs, which are fertilized by males. The eggs hatch after approximately two months. Juvenile fish remain in stream habitats for one to four years, before undergoing a physiological change that allows them to enter the ocean where they spend one to four years feeding. The steelhead then return to their natal streams to spawn and repeat the life cycle. The species is federally threatened due to an eighty-five percent (85%) decline in fish stocks between 1960 and 1997. These declines are presumed to be associated with negative effects caused by water development projects, predation, modification of spawning streams, and overfishing. 63(&,(62%6(59$7,216$76$5*(175$1&+ ),*85( Highway 101 Overburden
Stockpile Processing
Plant
Stockpile
Tar Creek
Sycamore Creek
Tick Creek
Sargent Creek
CRLF
CTS
ETS
WPT
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CTS
CRLF Fish
CRLF CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
BF Fish
CTS CRLF
CRLF
BF
BF
Fish
101
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
IHHW
+DELWDWV
$SSUR[LPDWH6FDOH
/LYH2DN$VVRFLDWHV,QF
U.S.G.S. Blueline Drainages 'DWH 3URMHFW )LJXUH
Pacific North Western Special Status Species
Findings from 2000-2001 Surveys
Sources:
Santa Clara County HCP Land Cover
Santa Clara County LIDAR Topographic Survey
Pacific North Western Biological Resources Consultants, Inc. 2001.
Biological Resources Assessment for the
Proposed Sargent Ranch Conservation Bank Agreement
Drainages with defined bed and bank
/(*(1'
+\GURORJ\
2QVLWH6SHFLHV2EVHUYDWLRQV
California Tiger Salamander
California Red-legged Frog
Bullfrog
Eastern Tiger Salamander
Western Pond Turtle
Fish
CTS
CRLF
BF
ETS
WPT
Fish
6DUJHQW5DQFK4XDUU\%(
Sargent Ranch Property Boundary
Quarry Project Boundaries
Geotechnical Setback Boundaries
Source: Live Oak Associates, Inc., 7/25/2017.
Figure 3.4-4
Species Observations in the Project Site and Vicinity
SOURCE: Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2021 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Five Kilometer (3.1 mile) radius
Project
Site
2 miles 2 miles
approximate scale
0 Live Oak Associates, Inc.
Sargent Ranch Quarry
Date Project # Figure #
3/18/2021 662-08 5
Special-status Species
Sources:
California Dep. of Fish & Wildlife Natural Diversity Database U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
LEGEND
U.S.F.W.S. Critical Habitat
Pink creamsacs
American badger
California Alkali grass
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
(Polygon extents can reflect location uncertainty)
Special-status Species Observations Saline clover
Steelhead
Tricolored blackbird
Western pond turtle
Hoover's button-celery
Monterey hitch
Bank swallow
Burrowing owl
Fragrant fritillary
Least Bell's vireo
Most beautiful jewelflower
Steelhead
Santa Clara Co.
Santa Cruz Co.
Santa Clara Co.
Santa Cruz Co.
SOURCE: Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2021
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.4-5
CNDDB Special-Status Species Occurrences
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
± 0LOHV
Legend
Proposed Sargent Quarry
Project Facilities
VHP Mapped Serpentine
Communities
Santa Clara County
Boundary
Figure 3.4-4. Mapped Serpentine Communities in Santa Clara County Sargent Quarry (QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW(3909-03)
-XQH 2021
Figure 3.4-6
Mapped Serpentine Communities in Santa Clara County
SOURCE: H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2021 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-27 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Steelhead are present in Tar Creek and the Pajaro River. The Project site occurs in an area considered a high priority for conservation for the species, and Tar Creek and the Pajaro River have been designated as critical habitat for steelhead.
Monterey Roach and Monterey Hitch
The Monterey roach is a California species of special concern, and one of several subspecies of the widespread California roach. It is a small, stout-bodied minnow with a deeply forked tail that rarely grows any bigger than 100 millimeters in length. This species is most abundant in warm streams, where it grazes on filamentous algae, but it also feeds on invertebrates. Roach are well adapted to intermittent watercourses, as they are tolerant of high temperatures and low oxygen levels. Spawning typically occurs in March through early July in small rock substrates, where females lay their eggs, which are then immediately fertilized. Eggs hatch after 2–3 days, after which the larvae remain in gravel beds, and also dense aquatic vegetation, where they develop before being able to swim and disperse. The species as a whole is a habitat generalist, much like other California roach subspecies; it may occur in a wide variety of aquatic habitats and is tolerant of human-altered streams.
The Monterey hitch is also a California species of special concern. Monterey hitch occur in a wide variety of waterbodies, including clear streams, turbid sloughs, lakes, and reservoirs. The species has a high tolerance for varying stream conditions and water temperature, being able to withstand water temperatures higher than those tolerated by many other native fish.
Both the Monterey roach and Monterey hitch occur in the Pajaro River watershed, and they likely occur in the on-site reach of Tar Creek. These species could also occur in the lower reaches of Sargent Creek (downstream from the Project site) when that stream contains water; however, the reaches of Sargent Creek adjacent to the Project site are intermittent, and fish would not occur in this creek upstream as far as the Project site.
Amphibians
California Tiger Salamander (CTS)
The CTS is an endemic member of the California grassland community. Its preferred breeding habitat consists of temporary (minimum of three to four months), ponded environments surrounded by uplands that support small mammal burrows. Ponds provide breeding and larval habitat, while burrows of small mammals, such as California ground squirrels, in upland habitats provide refugia for juvenile and adult CTS during the dry season. After autumn rains commence, the salamanders emerge from aestivation and begin nocturnal migrations, congregating at breeding sites. Following metamorphosis, juveniles leave the drying ponds in late spring or summer and move at night to upland refugia. Juveniles and adults emerge from refugia on cool, moist, or foggy nights to feed on a wide variety of invertebrate and small vertebrate prey.
Figure 3.4-4 shows the locations where CTS were found on Sargent Ranch, and detailed survey results are included within Appendices E.3 and E.4. CNDDB records are shown in Figure 3.4-5.
The proposed Project area does not support ponds or other hydrologic features that have an ideal hydrologic regime (i.e., ponding at least through May in an average rainfall year, but then drying out until the following wet season) to support successful CTS breeding. However, several ponds
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-28 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
occur in the vicinity of the site, and the geotechnical setback areas for Phases 1 and 2 support a wetland seep and a stock pond. During a CTS and CRLF larval survey conducted in 2000 and 2001, the presence of successful breeding populations of CTS was confirmed in two locations on the greater Sargent Ranch property. These successful breeding locations included the pond/seasonal wetland complex in the northeastern corner of Sargent Ranch in a pond/wetland complex near Tick Creek and within a pond adjacent to Sycamore Creek, a tributary of Tar Creek (both approximately 0.85 mile north of the Project area, or 4,500 feet). In 2005, CTS were again found successfully breeding in a pond/wetland complex south of Tick Creek. During 2017 surveys, what was believed to be CTS hybrids1 were found on the larger Sargent Ranch property, although none were collected for genetic testing, and no tiger salamanders of any kind were found in the Project area.
CTS larvae were also observed in 2000 and 2001 surveys within a seasonal wetland upstream of a culvert of Intermittent Channel 3 within the Phase 1 mining area; however, the seasonal wetland dried up before larvae had a chance to metamorphose and move to upland habitats. Although this feature has been confirmed to dry up by early spring and therefore does not provide suitable breeding habitat, the presence of larvae is evidence that CTS can move into the Project area from another breeding habitat area, despite the distance to the nearest known breeding pond. The stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area is perennial, and therefore does not provide ideal conditions for successful breeding by CTS. Although this pond has been sampled and has not been found to support CTS (LOA 2017b), it could, however, still provide a CTS breeding location. Similarly, a pond along Sargent Creek, between the creek and the Phase 4 mining area, is apparently perennial and was sampled with negative results for CTS (LOA 2017b), though it could also potentially support the species. In addition, there are at least two ponds that could provide suitable habitat for CTS within 1.30 miles (the maximum distance CTS are known to move away from a breeding pond) of the Phase 3 mining area, but the ponds are located outside of the Sargent Ranch property and were not included in the CTS and CRLF larval surveys conducted on the property in 2000 to 2001, 2004, 2004, and 2017. Thus, known or potential CTS breeding ponds are located within dispersal distance of all four Project phases.
During a CTS and CRLF larval survey conducted in 2000 and 2001, the presence of successful breeding populations of CTS was confirmed in a pond/wetland complex near Tick Creek and within a pond adjacent to Sycamore Creek, a tributary of Tar Creek (both approximately 0.85 mile north of the Project area).
Given the presence of CTS breeding locations well within potential dispersal distance of the Project site, individuals from CTS breeding ponds near the Project site could disperse into the Project area. As a result, the entire Project area could be used by CTS as dispersal and refugial habitat, and it is possible that the species could breed in the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area.
1 Eastern tiger salamanders (as well as other non-native salamander species) were introduced to California over 50 years ago and have hybridized with native CTS throughout Santa Clara County.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-29 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
California Red-legged Frog (CRLF)
CRLF inhabit perennial freshwater pools, streams, and ponds. Larvae, juveniles, and adult frogs have been collected from natural lagoons, ponds, pools in or next to streams, marshlands, and springs, as well as human-created stock and sewage treatment ponds, sand and gravel pits (containing water), and large reservoirs. The species requires the presence of perennial or nearperennial water and a general lack of introduced aquatic predators. Non-breeding CRLF are found adjacent to streams and ponds in grasslands and woodlands. They use small mammal burrows in or under vegetation, willow root wads, the undersides of debris within the riparian zone, and large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds as refugia. Movements typically occur along riparian corridors, but some individuals move directly from one site to another through normally inhospitable habitats (e.g., heavily grazed pastures or oak-grassland habitats).
CRLF have been confirmed to be present in ponds and tributaries of the Tick Creek, Tar Creek, Sycamore Creek, Pescadero Creek and Sargent Creek watersheds of the greater Sargent Ranch property during surveys, including four larval surveys conducted on the site from 2000 through 2017 (LOA 2017a, 2017b). The proposed quarry areas themselves provide no suitable breeding habitat for this species; however, a suitable breeding pond is present in the geotechnical setback area for Phase 2, and juvenile CRLF were observed in this pond during a wetland delineation survey in 2017. In addition, Tar Creek and Sargent Creek in locations proposed for access road and conveyor belt crossings, respectively, provide foraging and movement habitat for these species, and all upland habitats of the proposed quarry may also be utilized by this species for dispersal. The locations where CRLF were found are shown on Figure 3.4-4 and detailed survey results are included within Appendices E.3 and E.4.
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (FYLF)
Foothill yellow-legged frogs inhabit partially shaded shallow streams and riffles with a rocky, usually cobbly, substrate. None of the creeks on or adjacent to the Project site have the cobbly substrate typically present where this species occurs. There are no known occurrences in the Project vicinity (CNDDB 2021), and this species has not been detected on the Project site, or anywhere on the larger Sargent Ranch, during many focused herpetological surveys on the ranch.
Therefore, this species is absent from the Project site.
Reptiles
Western Pond Turtle
Within aquatic habitat, pond turtles are associated with areas that contain underwater refugia such as rocks or submerged vegetation. Female pond turtles excavate an upland nest chamber in which the eggs are laid and subsequently buried. Nests are typically found within 600 feet of aquatic habitat, but if no suitable nesting habitat is nearby, adults will travel up to 1,500 feet overland to nest. The only observation of pond turtles on the greater Sargent Ranch property was in a pond along the eastern boundary of the property near U.S. 101, approximately 1,100 feet south of the proposed processing plant. Although there are no known occurrences of western pond turtles within Sargent Creek or Tar Creek, both of these creeks may provide foraging and movement habitat for this species (though occurrence on Sargent Creek is likely limited to lower reaches, downstream from the Project site, due to the brevity of flow in upper reaches closer to the Project site). Neither Sargent Creek nor Tar Creek in the Project vicinity provides large pools with
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-30 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
extensive basking habitat, and therefore the species does not occur in large numbers in or near the Project area. It is possible that western pond turtles could also occur in the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area, and a pond along Sargent Creek near the Phase 4 mining area, though the species has not been recorded in these locations during multiple herpetological surveys conducted at Sargent Ranch (LOA 2017a, 2017b), so it does not occur there regularly or in large numbers, if at all. The species could nest in upland areas of the Project site, though occurrence in upland areas for nesting or dispersal between aquatic habitats would be infrequent.
There are two other occurrences recorded in the CNDDB within a three-mile radius, as shown in Figure 3.4-5. The location of the proposed Tar Creek bridge is the primary area on the Project site that supports aquatic habitat for this species, but the species could occasionally occur in the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area and may occur infrequently in other locations during movements between suitable aquatic habitats.
Birds
Bald Eagle
Ideal habitat for bald eagles is composed of remote, forested landscape with old-growth or mature trees and easy access to an extensive and diverse prey base. Bald eagles forage in fresh and salt water where fish are abundant and diverse. They build nests in tall, sturdy trees. Suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles is not present on the Project area. However, this species has been observed roosting on the ranch in the vicinity of Tar Creek and may occasionally forage on the Project area.
Bank Swallow
In California, bank swallows are found primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats in the Central Valley. The species nests colonially and inhabits isolated places where fine-textured or sandy vertical bluffs or riverbanks are available in which to dig burrows 2 to 3 feet deep. Bank swallows forage for insects over open riparian areas, brushland, grassland, and cropland. The bank swallow was documented foraging on the ranch by PNWB biologists, and potential nesting habitat occurs along Sargent Creek in the vicinity of the Project. However, this species is known as a breeder in Santa Clara County and its vicinity only from historical breeding at a nearby location along the Pajaro River. It is not known to have nested in recent decades anywhere in Santa Clara County or elsewhere in the site vicinity, and it therefore occurs on the site only as an occasional nonbreeding visitor.
Least Bell’s Vireo
The least Bell’s vireo is a riparian-obligate breeder, nesting in dense thickets of willows and other low bushes along perennial or ephemeral streams. The VHP defines nesting habitat for this species as early successional riparian vegetation (typically dominated by willow shrubs and other thick understory vegetation). Although the Project area contains habitat mapped as suitable for the least Bell’s vireo by the VHP, the mixed riparian forest and woodland habitat on the Project area lacks the density in the lower strata and the vertical complexity of the riparian vegetation that typifies this species’ habitat. Thus, the habitat within the Project area is inconsistent with habitat in which this species has been recorded in northern California. This species has not been observed during surveys on Sargent Ranch, and this species is not expected to occur on the Project site owing to the absence of high-quality habitat and its very sporadic occurrence anywhere in the region.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-31 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Tricolored Blackbird
As described in the VHP, suitable tricolored blackbird nesting habitat includes flooded, thorny, or spiny vegetation dominated by cattails or bulrushes, as well as willows, blackberries, thistles, and nettles, usually near extensive open areas such as marshes, grasslands, or agricultural lands that provide foraging habitat. Suitable foraging habitat for the species is present on the Project area.
Although the species has not been recorded breeding in the Project area, a stock pond within the geotechnical setback area adjacent to Phase 2 and one small seep that occurs within the setback area of Phase 1 provide suitable nesting habitat. Further, the CNDDB includes a 1989 breeding record for the species on Sargent Ranch. Therefore, the species could breed in the Project area.
Nevertheless, this species was not observed on Sargent Ranch during a number of surveys conducted during the period 2000 to 2017, so it does not occur on the site regularly, and it is possible that it no longer breeds there.
White-tailed Kite
White-tailed kites are year-round residents of Santa Clara County, establishing breeding territories that encompass open areas with healthy prey populations (e.g., mice and voles) and snags, shrubs, trees, or other nesting substrates. They typically nest in trees adjacent to extensive open areas, such as grasslands, wetlands, and agricultural areas, that provide their prey. Suitable breeding habitat exists on the site for this species within oak woodland habitat, and grasslands and agricultural areas on the Project area provide suitable foraging habitat.
Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons are widespread throughout California. They typically eat other bird species.
Peregrine falcons generally require cliffs for nesting and forage in a variety of habitats. They lay their eggs in “scrapes,” which are shallow indentations they scratch out with their talons in the soft earth on the floor of their nests. No suitable nesting sites are present on the Project area; however, suitable foraging habitat is present, and the species has been observed over Sargent Ranch, so peregrine falcons likely occur as an occasional nonbreeding forager.
Golden Eagle
The golden eagle nests in a range of open habitats, including desert scrub, foothill cismontane woodlands, and annual or perennial grasslands. Nesting habitat is characterized by large, remote patches of grassland or open woodland; a hilly topography that generates lift; an abundance of small mammal prey; and tall structures that serve as nest platforms and hunting perches.
Woodlands on the Project area provide marginal nesting habitat for this species, as very large trees suitable for nests are not present near the Project area. No nesting activity has ever been observed on Sargent Ranch despite numerous various biological surveys of the site, many of which occurred during the nesting season. However, golden eagles have been observed foraging over Sargent Ranch and are presumed to forage on the Project area on a regular basis.
Northern Harrier
The northern harrier nests in marshes and grasslands, usually those with tall vegetation and moisture sufficient to inhibit accessibility of nest sites to predators. Individuals forage in a variety of open habitats, especially during the nonbreeding season. The northern harrier has been observed foraging over grasslands on the Project area, and potential nesting habitat occurs adjacent to Sargent Creek.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-32 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Short-eared Owl
This species is a year-round resident in certain areas within California, though in Santa Clara County it occurs mainly as a winter resident. The species is found in wide open spaces including marshes, open shrublands, grassland, prairie, and agricultural field habitats, and needs dense ground cover to conceal nests. Breeding is most regular in northeastern California and in the Suisun Marsh area, and irregular elsewhere. Although fluctuating greatly annually, numbers are generally greatest during migration and winter, when birds occur more widely in lowland areas of the state. The Project area supports suitable foraging habitat for this species, but the species has not been observed on Sargent Ranch and does not breed there.
Long-eared Owl
The long-eared owl occurs in the state year-round, although seasonal status varies regionally. The long-eared owl roosts and nests in trees by day and hunts small mammals (such as mice and voles) in open areas by night. The species is found mainly in open woodlands, and riparian areas with adjacent grasslands for foraging. The Project area supports suitable foraging habitat for this species, but the species has not been observed on Sargent Ranch and would not nest in the Project area.
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is a small, terrestrial owl that prefers annual and perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or non-existent tree or shrub canopies. In California, burrowing owls are found in close association with California ground squirrels, using the abandoned burrows of ground squirrels for shelter and nesting. Their breeding season ranges from February 1 and continues through August 31.
A burrowing owl was observed north of the wetland/pond complex near Tick Creek in the northeastern portion of greater Sargent Ranch during 2000 to 2001 surveys; however, the owl was confirmed to be gone from that area by the nesting season. Burrowing owls have been observed during the summer perched on serpentine rock outcrops in the northern portion of Sargent Ranch (well outside of the proposed quarry and processing plant areas), but it is likely the owls were foraging, and not roosting or nesting in this location because rocky outcroppings do not represent suitable nesting habitat. Burrowing owls were observed nesting at Sargent Ranch (outside the Project area) in 2015, and grasslands within the Project area appear to provide suitable breeding habitat for this species; however, burrowing owls are very scarce as a breeder in southern Santa Clara County. Thus, although the possibility that grasslands could provide nesting habitat cannot be eliminated from consideration, this species is most likely to occur in the Project area only as a nonbreeder.
Grasshopper Sparrow
The grasshopper sparrow is a small, inconspicuous sparrow that nests in short (often grazed) to middle-height, moderately open grasslands with few or no shrubs. Tall grassland heavily overgrown with non-natives is not typically used for nesting. The grasslands on the Project area provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the grasshopper sparrow, and the species has been observed breeding on the greater Sargent Ranch property.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-33 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Bryant’s Savannah Sparrow
Bryant’s savannah sparrow is one of four subspecies of savannah sparrow that breed in California. The alaudinus subspecies occurs primarily in coastal and bayshore areas, from Humboldt Bay to Morro Bay, and is found year-round in low-elevation, tidally influenced habitat, specifically pickleweed-dominated salt marshes, and in grasslands and ruderal areas. Bryant’s savannah sparrows breed in Santa Clara County primarily in short pickleweed-dominated portions of diked/muted tidal salt marsh habitat, and in adjacent ruderal habitat, in the South San Francisco Bay area. Breeding also has been confirmed in expanses of short grassland in inland/upland areas on the west side of the Coyote Valley and in the Santa Cruz Mountain foothills, just north of the Pajaro River Valley. During the non-breeding season, alaudinus and other savannah sparrow subspecies may forage in open areas throughout the County. Grassland habitats within and adjacent to the Project site provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the Bryant’s savannah sparrow, although this species breeds there only in low numbers.
Yellow Warbler
The yellow warbler occupies wooded riparian habitats along the coast and prefers riparian corridors with an overstory of mature cottonwoods and sycamores, a midstory of box elder and willow, and a substantial shrub understory. Yellow warblers are uncommon breeders in Santa Clara County, but the species has been recorded breeding in riparian habitat in the southern part of the County along Llagas, Uvas/Carnadero, and Pacheco Creeks, as well as the Pajaro River.
Riparian habitats within and adjacent to the Project area provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the yellow warbler.
Loggerhead Shrike
Ideal breeding habitat for loggerhead shrikes consists of short grass habitat with many perches, shrubs, or trees for nesting, and sharp branches or barbed wire fences for impaling prey. Small trees and shrubs within the Project area provide suitable nesting habitat for shrikes, and the grassland habitat present on the Project area provides suitable foraging habitat. The site supports both suitable breeding and foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike.
Mammals
Mountain Lion
Mountain lions occur in a variety of habitat types, including dense forest, more open woodland, and rocky grassland. Though they may forage widely, they typically den in areas providing dense cover, away from human activity. Mountain lions are present in fairly low densities in the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range, though they occur widely. This species was observed on Sargent Ranch in 2004 and could occur there regularly. The Project area may be a part of a regular mountain lion territory, and dispersing individuals likely occur within the Project area (e.g., possibly using the U.S. 101 overpass over the railroad tracks and Tar Creek, or the U.S. 101 bridge over the Pajaro River, to disperse across the highway).
Western Red Bat
Western red bats prefer the edges of open foothill woodlands along streams. They roost primarily in trees with moderately dense foliage in a wide variety of habitats. Western red bats prefer open
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-34 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
areas for foraging. The species does not breed in the Project region, and the species has not been observed on Sargent Ranch. However, trees on the site provide suitable roosting habitat for nonbreeders, and small numbers may forage over the site.
Pallid Bat
The pallid bat is most commonly found in oak savannah and in open dry habitats with rocky areas, trees, buildings, or bridge structures with cavities for roosting. Roosts generally are high above the ground, warm, and inaccessible to terrestrial predators. Although the species has not been observed on Sargent Ranch, the Project area offers suitable foraging habitat for this species, and roosting habitat may be available in woodlands that support large, cavernous hollows.
California Mastiff Bat
This species resides at low elevations in the coastal basins. California mastiff bats forage over many habitats but require tall cliffs (usually granite or sandstone) with exposed rock faces or buildings for roosting. The species does not breed in the Project region, it has not been observed on Sargent Ranch, and no suitable roosting habitat is present on the Project site. Therefore, the species would not roost on or near the Project site, and it is unlikely to occur in the Project area at all.
Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat
Townsend’s big-eared bats live in a variety of woodland and forest habitat but prefer conifers.
They require caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human-made structures for roosting, may use separate sites for night, day, hibernation, or maternity roosts. Suitable roosting habitat is absent from the Project area, and the species has not been observed on Sargent Ranch. Therefore, the species does not roost in the Project area, and it is unlikely to occur there.
San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats typically live in wooded areas near creeks and streams, where they make large, elaborate nests of twigs and leaves. During a wetland delineation survey, woodrat nests were observed within the Tar Creek riparian corridor near the current at-grade crossing where the free-span bridge is proposed. This species occurs within the Project area in riparian woodland and possibly in oak woodland.
American Badger
In the Project area, American badgers typically occur in annual grasslands, oak woodland savannas, semi-arid shrub/scrublands, and any habitats with friable soils and stable prey populations. Habitat is present on the Project area and this species has been observed during surveys, so this species could forage over much of the site and may den there.
3.4.3.5 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity
Overview
Habitat connectivity is vital to animals for maintaining connections between core habitat areas (i.e., larger intact habitat areas where species typically reside). Connectivity helps ensure that genetic diversity is maintained by allowing individuals and genes to disperse between populations, thereby diminishing the probability of inbreeding depression, and helps to maintain
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-35 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
populations, as individuals from larger or more productive populations can disperse to areas where populations are lower. This helps to ensure that populations are more widely dispersed rather than being confined to fewer, more limited areas where disease, large disturbances such as extensive fires, or random events could cause extirpation (local extinction). Connectivity is especially important in landscapes fragmented by urban development and agricultural activities, such as those in the vicinity of the Project area.
The Santa Cruz Mountains to the northwest, the Gabilan Range to the south, and the Diablo Range across the Santa Clara Valley to the east provide vast areas of natural core habitat that support sizeable populations of common and special-status plant and animal species. Exchange of individuals and genes among populations in these ranges is important to the long-term maintenance of populations and genetic diversity in these ranges and in central California as a whole. Undeveloped habitats in southern Santa Clara County, including the Project area, provide landscape linkages between the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range, and between these mountain ranges and the Gabilan Range. Figure 3.4-7 indicates the general linkages/movement pathways that exist between these mountain ranges in the Project vicinity. A number of linkages come together on and near Sargent Ranch, as shown in Figure 3.4-7.
Immediately west of the Project area, the Santa Cruz Mountains narrow from north to south, ending at the Pajaro River Valley and SR 129, where the Gabilan Range begins. The Pajaro River, State Route (SR) 129, U.S. 101, and low-density development represent impediments to wildlife movement between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Gabilan Range. The ability of animals to move between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Gabilan Range is dependent upon their ability to navigate these impediments. For example, U.S. 101 represents a substantial impediment to wildlife movement, as studies have found few individual animals crossing U.S. 101 in the Aromas area (Serieys et al. 2021, T. Diamond, pers. Comm.). As a result, areas where animals are able to cross U.S. 101 are critical to the maintenance of connectivity between populations on either side of this highway.
A second important landscape linkage, which is also bisected by U.S. 101, lies between the Santa Cruz Mountains/Gabilan Range and the Diablo Range to the east. The Diablo Range is separated from the Santa Cruz Mountains/Gabilan Range by approximately six (6) miles of valley-floor area dominated by agricultural lands. The riparian habitat along the Pajaro River and its tributaries (i.e., Tar, Carnadero, and Llagas Creeks), and relatively natural habitats (such as fallow fields and ranchlands) along these waterbodies, are important in maintaining this linkage. Aside from Coyote Valley far to the north, the Pajaro River area represents the best opportunity for movement of larger animals, or exchange of genes over generations for smaller species, between the Diablo Range and the Santa Cruz Mountains. U.S. 101 constrains east-west movement between the Pajaro River east of U.S. 101 and areas west of U.S. 101, but there are a number of culverts and other undercrossings that allow animals to move beneath the highway. A smaller-scale and more local, but still important, area of wildlife movement is provided by the proximity of the southern Santa Cruz Mountains and the Lomerias Muertas (the hills east of U.S. 101 between the Pajaro River and San Benito River). These hills provide important secondary linkages between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Gabilan Range, and between the Gabilan Range and the Diablo Range. £[
£[
£[
£[
£[
3DMDUR5LYHU
/ODJDV&UHHN
S A N T A C R U Z R A N G E
D I A B L O R A N G E
G A B I L A N R A N G E
L O M E R I A S M U E R T A S£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
£[
3DMDUR5LYHU
6DQ%HQLWR5LYHU
/ODJDV&UHHN 8YDV&UHHN
&R\RWH&UHHN
6DQ/XLV&UHHN
± 0LOHV
Legend
Proposed Sargent Quarry
Project Facilities
Streams
General Wildlife
Movement Pathways
(Source: ICF International 2012)
June 2021
Sargent Quarry Environmental Impact Report (3909-03)
Figure 3.4-7. Wildlife Movement Pathways in Project Vicinity Figure 3.4-7
Wildlife Movement Pathways in Project Vicinity
SOURCE: H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2021 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-37 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Individuals of larger, more mobile species such as mountain lion, black-tailed deer, coyote, and bobcat can move among these mountain ranges where they are able to navigate impediments such as U.S. 101. For many of the smaller, less mobile species, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, single individuals are unlikely to be able to disperse between the mountain ranges due to the long distances separating the range. However, there is sufficient suitable core habitat within the landscape linkages (e.g., along the Pajaro River) for breeding populations to extend from one mountain range to another, allowing exchange of individuals and genes over a series of generations.
U.S. 101 Wildlife Movement Undercrossings
As noted above, the ability of animals to disperse among the Santa Cruz Mountains, the Gabilan Range, and the Diablo Range depends on their ability to cross U.S. 101. Along much of this highway, U.S. 101 is a complete barrier to overland dispersal for most mammals due to the presence of a tall concrete median. Such a median is present from a point between Tar Creek and the Pajaro River (see Figure 3.4-8 for the location of the northern end of this continuous concrete median barrier) southward through the Aromas area. One study of wildlife movement in the Aromas hills, south of the Project area, found that mortality of bobcats was higher along segments of roads with such high median barriers (Serieys et al. 2021). In a limited section of U.S. 101 from the south end of the Tar Creek/railroad overcrossing north to SR 25 (see Figure 3.4-8), a corrugated steel median feature allows better wildlife passage across the highway’s surface. However, vehicle traffic impedes wildlife movement, both by discouraging wildlife from attempting to cross the highway and through vehicular collisions with wildlife. As a result, locations where drainage culverts or bridges are present, and where the undercrossings can be used by animals, are important in allowing animals safe passage under U.S. 101.
Several studies have investigated wildlife movements, including the use of U.S. 101 undercrossings, in the Project vicinity. H. T. Harvey & Associates assessed wildlife movement through the U.S. 101 corridor for the U.S. 101 Improvement Project between Gilroy and State Route 129 (California Department of Transportation 2011, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2013). To study wildlife use of culverts and bridge undercrossings under U.S. 101, motion-sensor cameras were deployed from February 13 to June 10, 2008. At the Tar Creek/railroad undercrossing beneath U.S. 101, which is directly adjacent to (and just northeast of) the proposed processing plant site, cameras detected 25 mammals at this crossing – 14 bobcats, six coyotes, two mule deer, one raccoon, one striped skunk, and one Audubon’s cottontail. These 25 mammals represent ten-andone-half percent (10.5%) of the crossings detected within the 4.2-mile-long segment of U.S. 101 between Tick Creek and the San Benito River. Other undercrossings within the 4.2-mile-long study area with greater numbers of detections were the bridge over the San Benito River and a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culvert south of the Betabel/Y Road interchange. Figure 3.4-8 depicts the U.S. 101 undercrossings closest to the Project site (i.e., at Tick Creek, Tar Creek, the Pajaro River, and a drainage just south of the Pajaro River).
Tick Creek
Undercrossing
Tar Creek/UPRR
Undercrossing
Pajaro River
Undercrossing
Box Culvert
Undercrossing
Betabel
Road/Y Road
Overcrossing
Tar Creek/UPRR
Undercrossing
Lomerias Muertas
1 ?3URMHFWV
?
??0LVF?3URSRVHG)DFLOLWLHVDSU[
1,924 9620 1,924
Feet
Proposed Project Facilities
Metal Thrie-Beam Median
Solid/Continuous Concrete Median
Wildlife Crossings
)LJXUHImportant U.S. 101 Wildli
Sargent Quarry (QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5
Santa Cruz Mountains
Sargent Creek Sargent Creek
Pajaro River Pajaro River
Tick Creek
Tar Creek
Pajaro River Pajaro River
Phase 4
Phase 3
Phases 1 & 2
Old Monterey Rd
Improvements
Conveyor
U.S. 101 Road
Improvements
Processing
Plant
Overburden
Stockpile
Tar Creek
Bridge
Processing
Plant
Tar Creek
Bridge
Overburden
Stockpile
Figure 3.4-8
Important U.S. 101 Wildlife Crossings
SOURCE: H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2021 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-39 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
In 2012-2013, Pathways for Wildlife (2013) conducted a 12-month study of wildlife movement using motion-sensor cameras to detect mammals at 19 locations in the Pajaro River floodplain and at U.S. 101 crossings of the Pajaro River, San Benito River, Tick Creek, and Tar Creek. The highest numbers of detections were at the Pajaro River/Uvas Creek confluence and the Uvas Creek/Tick Creek confluence, indicating the importance of riparian habitats in the area for wildlife movement. Among U.S. 101 undercrossings, the Tar Creek/railroad undercrossing had the highest number of detections of native mammals (297), with 212 deer, 44 bobcat, 30 coyote, nine raccoon, and two striped skunk detections. Detections of native mammals at other U.S. 101 undercrossings near the proposed Sargent Quarry Project included 136 at the Pajaro River (63 bobcat, three coyote, 15 deer, 53 raccoon, and two striped skunk), 113 at Tick Creek (89 bobcat, two coyote, 21 raccoon, and one striped skunk), and 102 at the San Benito River (43 bobcat and 59 black-tailed deer).
A study by Serieys et al. (2021) of the movement of bobcats wearing GPS telemetry collars in 2017 and 2018 included some animals in the Aromas hills, south of the Project area where the Santa Cruz Mountains-Gabilan Range linkage is located. Most road crossings occurred under bridges or through culverts in topographically low areas (usually along drainages) with tree or shrub cover on both sides of the road, and most crossings occurred at night. Few crossings were attempted in areas without culverts or bridges, and little bobcat movement across U.S. 101 occurred in the Aromas hills area.
A more recent road ecology study performed by the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), Pathways for Wildlife, and others used motion-sensor cameras to investigate the use of U.S. 101 undercrossings by wildlife from Carnadero Creek south to the Aromas area from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020 (T. Diamond, pers. comm.). Results of that study that are relevant to the Sargent Quarry Project are as follows (T. Diamond, pers. comm.):
• Wildlife use of undercrossings was higher in the vicinity of the Sargent Quarry Project (i.e., at Tick Creek, Tar Creek, the Pajaro River, and the San Benito River) than at U.S. 101 undercrossings farther south in the Aromas area.
• Diversity of animals using undercrossings was highest at the Tar Creek/railroad crossing.
Bobcats, coyotes, and black-tailed deer were the most frequently detected mammals, and the Tar Creek undercrossing was likely important both to dispersing animals and resident animals. American badger, gray fox, striped skunk, and raccoon were also detected using this undercrossing. At this location, animals moved along the edge of (outside of) the Tar Creek riparian corridor rather than through the dense vegetation, and they moved over the railroad tracks rather than through the small Tar Creek culvert under the tracks. • Animal diversity at the Pajaro River undercrossing was slightly lower than at Tar Creek, as American badger and gray fox were not detected under the U.S. 101 bridge over the Pajaro River, although good numbers of coyotes and bobcats used this crossing consistently. The Tick Creek culvert under U.S. 101 supported multiple coyotes, bobcats, raccoons, and striped skunks, though in lower numbers than at Tar Creek and the Pajaro River, and due to the low height of the Tick Creek culvert, no black-tailed deer were recorded using that undercrossing.
The San Benito River undercrossing was used by large numbers of black-tailed deer, and mountain lion prints were detected at that undercrossing. Farther north, use of the Gavilan Creek undercrossing (near the SR 25/U.S. 101 interchange) and the Carnadero Creek
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-40 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
undercrossing (where human activity was quite high) was much lower than the culverts from Tick Creek south to the San Benito River.
• Throughout the entire study area, the Tar Creek and Pajaro River undercrossings supported the highest diversity and abundance of mammals.
• Although some animals used undercrossings at night, most detections occurred during the day.
Collectively, these studies have determined that the Tick Creek, Tar Creek, Pajaro River, and San Benito River undercrossings are critical to allowing animals to move back and forth under U.S. 101 along linkages between the Santa Cruz Mountains, Gabilan Range, and Diablo Range.
The Tar Creek/railroad undercrossing is one of the most well-used undercrossings for wildlife movement across U.S. 101, due in part to its dimensions. Undercrossings for wildlife are of higher quality if they are more open and have more natural light so that animals do not feel as though they are in a tunnel (FHWA 2011). The Tar Creek/railroad undercrossing is a very broad crossing, in terms of the length of U.S. 101 under which animals can move, being approximately 500 feet wide as measured between the abutments on the narrower (northbound) span. It is also tall, with the spans high above the ground, and short crossing distance from one side to the other, which also makes it well lit. This openness makes the U.S. 101 overcrossing over Tar Creek and the railroad tracks, near the proposed main processing plant, a high-quality crossing. This undercrossing is also valuable for wildlife movement because high-quality cover for dispersing mammals is present on both sides of the crossing.
Existing On-Site Impediments to Wildlife Movement
Existing fencing around the proposed processing plant area currently provides some impediment to wildlife movement (five-strand barbed wire for the existing cattle ranching operation is present along Old Monterey Road, the outer edge of the Tar Creek riparian corridor, the eastern site boundary along the edge of the railroad tracks, and the southern boundary of the processing plant area). West of the proposed processing plant area, cattle herding/separation pens provide a number of fences that animals would need to navigate when moving east-west or west-east through the vicinity of the processing plant. In some areas, such as along the boundary between the site and the railroad tracks, new five-strand barbed wire fencing has been added to older barbed wire fencing so that gaps between strands are particularly narrow. Although animals such as mature mule deer, mountain lions, bobcats, and gray foxes can likely jump or climb over the fencing, and smaller animals can find areas to cross under the fencing, the site does not provide easy, impediment-free movement in its current condition.
An existing residence and small ranching area, including pens for ranching dogs, is present immediately north of Tar Creek and west of U.S. 101, at the south end of Old Monterey Road.
Occupancy of this residence and the presence of dogs likely discourages wildlife movement to some extent along the north side of Tar Creek, where there is a narrow, fenced/gated opening between Tar Creek and the northern abutment for southbound U.S. 101.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-41 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.4.4 Impact Evaluation
3.4.4.1 Significance Criteria
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), other jurisdictional waters, and riparian habitat through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; The proposed Project is not a covered activity under the VHP and therefore would not conflict with the plan. Therefore, criterion f) is not discussed further under the impact evaluation.
Given the biological sensitivity and importance of the Project area, the following customized specific significance thresholds were used for this EIR. The threshold for significance for specialstatus plants would be any measurable decrease in special-status plant populations. For endangered or threatened status wildlife, including fully protected species, any loss of individual animals would be a significant impact. For habitat modification, a significant impact is any alteration of the habitat that would result in a drop in the population of special-status species, such as changes in food supply, reduction in elements needed for breeding habitat, or changes that limit opportunities for cover and movement.
The threshold for significance for sensitive natural communities (defined as riparian habitat, wetlands, other jurisdictional waters, and oak woodlands) would be any reduction in the extent of the community compared with baseline, or a change that could threaten the long-term existence of the community itself. The threshold of significance for wetlands and other jurisdictional waters is no-net-loss of extent. The threshold of significance for local ordinances would be conflicts between the project and any such ordinances. Consistent with the Santa Clara County Planning Office Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts, the threshold of significance for impacts to oak woodland is a decrease of 0.50 acre or more in the native oak canopy of an oak woodland.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-42 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.4.4.2 Approach to the Analysis
The following impact analysis evaluates temporary and permanent impacts from construction as well as more permanent effects from operation of the quarry and reclamation following cessation of mining activities. Impacts evaluated include both effects to individuals of a species as well as effects to the species from modification or loss of habitat.
Compensatory Mitigation. To the extent loss of habitat cannot be avoided through Project design or avoidance mitigation measures, compensatory habitat is proposed at an appropriate ratio based on the species affected and, where applicable, the quality of habitat impacted.
However, because more than one species may use similar habitat (e.g., aquatic or upland habitat), this compensatory mitigation would benefit multiple species. As Sargent Ranch can likely provide all the replacement habitat necessary to compensate for habitat loss for all species evaluated, on-site mitigation is the preferred approach. Off-site habitat mitigation would only be used in the event that on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.
3.4.4.3 Project Impacts
Impact 3.4-1: Project activities would result in adverse effects on special-status plant species. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Project area provides suitable habitat for 10 special-status plant species, as shown previously in Table 3.4-2. Although none of these species has been detected in the Project area, no focused surveys for these species have been performed, and given the presence of suitable habitat, these species could be present in the Project area. If present, these species could be impacted by the Project as described below.
Construction
There is the potential for ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the processing plant, conveyor belt, rail spur, roadway improvements, bridges over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek, and stormwater drainage facilities to damage or destroy special-status plants, if present. Proposed Project activities may affect these plants through direct disturbance of vegetation and disturbance, modification, or destruction of habitat, and may affect them indirectly through damage to underground root structures. Equipment use, vehicle traffic, and worker foot traffic may result in the injury or mortality of individual plants. These activities also could result in altered growth or reduced seed set. Grading may result in the mechanical or physical removal of vegetation and modification of the seed bank. Furthermore, proposed Project activities may include the refueling of equipment on location, and fuel or oil spills may occur during refueling.
Dust generated by construction activities could coat vegetative and floral surfaces, interfering with normal gas exchange, photosynthesis, or pollination.
Construction could also result in indirect impacts on special-status plants and their habitats through the introduction and/or spread of invasive plants. If construction vehicles or equipment carries weed seeds or other propagules onto the Project site, new invasive plants could be introduced to the Project site. Many invasive plants thrive following ground disturbance, so
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-43 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
grading for construction could result in the spread of invasive species throughout the site.
Invasive species introduced onto the site or spread as a result of construction activities could then spread into undisturbed natural habitats, competing with special-status plants and degrading native plant communities.
Similarly, the water mold Phytophthora could be introduced to or spread within the Project site.
Many species of Phytophthora are native to California and do not pose a threat; however, several recently introduced exotic species can have serious effects on native trees, shrubs, and other plants.
For example, sudden oak death is caused by a Phytophthora. Disease symptoms depend on the species of Phytophthora and the host plant but can include stem cankers (necrotic lesions found in the bark), branch dieback, dead leaves, wilting of apical shoots, blight (a water-soaked appearance progressing to brown/black spots and lesions), and root rot. Phytophthora infestations can spread to novel areas through the movement of contaminated plant material, roots, or soil, such as through clearing of vegetation, disposal of that vegetation, and relocation of soil between the dam and stockpile areas. In addition, boots, tools, vehicles, and equipment that have moved through contaminated areas can then deposit Phytophthora spores or infected debris in uncontaminated areas. The use of water from contaminated watercourses for dust control or other applications can also move spores or infected debris into uncontaminated areas. Spread of contamination could then result in impairment of the health of native vegetation, resulting in declines in abundance of specialstatus plants and loss or degradation of sensitive native plant communities. Construction impacts would be significant because special-status plants would be adversely affected.
Operation
The greatest potential for impacts on special-status plants would occur during mining and stockpiling; if any such species are present within the mining footprint, the geotechnical setbacks (if those areas are impacted), or the permanent overburden stockpile area, those plants would be destroyed when mining of occupied habitat or deposition in the stockpile area occurs. Specialstatus plants could also be impacted by clearing of fire protection zones. Where roads, the conveyor belt, the rail spur, and the processing plant have been constructed, no direct impacts on special-status plants are likely to occur during operations, as the construction activities will have destroyed any individuals present within the construction footprints.
However, indirect impacts might occur from mining, stockpiling, and use of roads, the conveyor belt, the rail spur, and the processing plant. During refueling of equipment, fuel or oil spills may occur. Dust generated by mining, vehicular activities, use of the conveyor belt, and processing activities could coat vegetative and floral surfaces in nearby areas, interfering with normal gas exchange, photosynthesis, or pollination. Special-status plants and their habitats could also be degraded by the introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora as described for construction activities above. Operations impacts would be significant because special-status plants would be adversely affected.
Reclamation
Impacts to special-status plants would be unlikely to occur during reclamation because these activities (e.g., final grading and reseeding, removal of equipment) would take place in already
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-44 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
disturbed areas (e.g., mining pits, processing plant) where impacts would already have occurred during construction and operation. Impacts of reclamation on special-status plant species would be less than significant.
Summary
No existing laws or regulations apply to impacts to the special-status plant species potentially occurring on the Project site that would reduce impacts (e.g., no permits from regulatory agencies regarding these species would need to be obtained). The degree to which construction or operational activities would affect special-status plants would depend on the number of individuals and/or extent of occupied habitat that is affected. However, because the significance threshold for impacts to special-status plants is “any measurable decrease in special-status plant populations,” the loss of any individual special-status plants as a result of Project activities would be a significant impact. The introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora could also cause the loss of individual special-status plants and the long-term degradation of their habitats, which would be a significant impact. Therefore, impacts would be significant because special-status plants would be adversely affected.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities in natural (i.e., undeveloped) habitat for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase to ensure that impacts to special-status plants as a result of Project activities are avoided or minimized.
1. Preconstruction surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted by a qualified plant ecologist prior to all phases of ground disturbance or construction activity throughout the Project life. A focused survey during the appropriate bloom season for the 10 special-status plant species that could occur shall be conducted in any area of proposed ground disturbance and a surrounding 50-foot buffer area. Surveys must take place no more than four years before ground disturbance in any given area commences. Surveys shall be conducted in a year with near-average or aboveaverage precipitation (i.e., precipitation that is at least 70% of the long-term average for the site, as determined using the 30-year climate normals from the PRISM Climate and Weather System [https://prism.oregonstate.edu] or a similar source).
Alternatively, these surveys may be conducted in a year of below-average precipitation if the target species are documented to be flowering/detectable at nearby reference populations despite the below-average rainfall. If surveys are conducted in a below-average rainfall year and detectability of a species at a reference population cannot be confirmed, then no impacts should occur in suitable habitat for that species until a survey can be conducted in an appropriate year (with adequate rainfall or detectability at a reference population). The purpose of the surveys shall be to assess the presence or absence of the potentially occurring species. If none of the target species are found in the impact area or surrounding 50-foot buffer, then no further mitigation measures shall apply. If any individual special-status plants are found in the impact area or 50-foot buffer, then the Applicant shall implement all of the following additional mitigation measures.
• In consultation with a qualified plant ecologist, the Applicant shall redesign the Project to avoid direct and indirect impacts to the species to the extent feasible (e.g., via the establishment of an appropriately sized buffer of at least 50 feet or
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-45 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
larger, as determined by a qualified plant ecologist based on the avoided species and the type of nearby impacts). If all special-status plant occurrences can be avoided via an adequate buffer (as determined by a qualified plant ecologist), then no further mitigation is necessary.
• If a qualified plant ecologist determines that avoidance is not feasible (including determining that the buffers around an occurrence are inadequate to avoid impacts), then the Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures. Prior to initiation of impacts, a qualified plant ecologist will determine the extent of impacts based on the number of individuals impacted and the acreage of habitat occupied by each special-status plant species, based on the results of the preconstruction survey described above and the impact areas. The Applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation through preservation and management of another, existing on-site or off-site population within Santa Clara County, or in neighboring portions of Santa Cruz, San Benito, or Monterey Counties within 30 miles of the Project area. First priority shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch, if other on-site populations are present. Offsite mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for species losses. Habitat occupied by the affected species shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 2:1 mitigation ratio (at least two plants preserved for each plant affected, and also at least two occupied acres preserved for each occupied acre affected), for any impact to Congdon’s tarplant. This 2:1 mitigation ratio is not lower because Congdon’s tarplant is ranked 1B by the CNPS, and such species have declined significantly over the last century and are considered “rare, threatened, or endangered”. However, because no particularly high-quality habitat for Congdon’s tarplant is present in the Project area, a 2:1 mitigation ratio is sufficient to offset Project impacts. For the other nine special-status plant species that may be impacted by the Project, habitat occupied by the affected species shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (at least one plant preserved for each plant affected, and also at least one occupied acre preserved for each occupied acre affected). This mitigation ratio is not higher than 1:1 because these other nine species have a CRPR of 4; such species are on the CNPS “watch list” because they are of limited distribution, but they are not as scarce or imperiled as CRPR 1B species, and therefore compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio would adequately offset Project impacts to these species.
Alternatively, a contribution to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, in an amount determined in coordination with the agency, for maintenance of special-status plant species populations within the VHP Covered Area may be considered appropriate mitigation for impacts, if approved by the County Department of Planning and Development. This contribution shall be made prior to the initiation of impacts to special-status plants. Areas proposed to be preserved as compensatory mitigation for special-status plant impacts must contain verified extant populations of the CRPR-ranked plants that would be impacted. Mitigation areas shall be managed in perpetuity to encourage persistence and even expansion of the preserved target species. Mitigation lands shall not be located on land that is currently
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-46 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
publicly owned for resource protection unless substantial enhancement of habitat quality (e.g., removal of invasive plants, correction of over-grazing, introduction of appropriate grazing management) shall be achieved by the mitigation activities. The mitigation habitat shall be of equal or greater habitat quality compared to the impacted areas, as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, in terms of soil features, extent of disturbance, vegetation structure, and dominant species composition, and shall contain at least as many individuals of the species as are impacted by Project activities. The permanent protection and management of mitigation lands shall be ensured by the Applicant through an appropriate mechanism, such as a conservation easement to the County or other qualified entity approved by the County, which could be included in the conservation easement referenced in Mitigation Measure M 3.5-4b.
If Project-specific compensatory mitigation occurs (instead of a contribution to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency), a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified ecologist and implemented by the Applicant for the mitigation lands. The HMMP shall be prepared by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist. The HMMP shall be approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities that would impact special-status plants. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, all of the following information:
Summary of impacts on special-status plant species (including individuals and habitat) and the proposed mitigation;
Description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions, including documentation of the occurrence of the special-status plant species for which mitigation is being provided;
Description of measures to be undertaken to enhance (e.g., through focused management that may include removal of invasive species in adjacent suitable but currently unoccupied habitat) the mitigation site for the focal special-status species;
Description of measures to transplant individual plants or seeds from the impact area to the mitigation site, if appropriate (which shall be determined by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist depending on the species and circumstances);
Proposed management activities to maintain high-quality habitat conditions for the focal species;
Description of habitat and species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective final criteria and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include demonstration that any plant population fluctuations over the monitoring period do not indicate a downward trajectory in terms of reduction in numbers and/or occupied area for the preserved mitigation population that can be attributed to management (e.g., that are not the result of local
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-47 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
weather patterns, as determined by monitoring of a nearby reference population, or other factors unrelated to management);
Contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria; and
Description of adaptive management2, indicating how management may be adapted depending on climate change or other changes in site conditions and the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: To minimize the potential for Project activities to result in the introduction and/or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora (a plant-damaging water mold), the Applicant shall prepare and implement an Invasive Species and Phytophthora Management Plan (ISPMP). The ISPMP shall be approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to issuance of a grading permit by the County. The ISPMP shall detail the measures to be implemented to minimize the potential for the introduction and spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora during Project implementation, including during Project construction, operations, and reclamation. At a minimum, the ISPMP shall include a description of the following information:
1. How materials (including vegetation, soil, and construction materials) and construction personnel, vehicles, and equipment will move around the site and between on-site and off-site areas
2. Measures that will be implemented to minimize the potential for introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora on equipment, tools, vehicles, and personnel, including (but not limited to) the following:
• Before arrival at the site, equipment, vehicles, and tools will be free of soil including debris on tires, wheel wells, vehicle undercarriages, and other surfaces.
A high-pressure washer and/or compressed air may be used to ensure that soil and debris are completely removed.
• Vehicles may be cleaned at a commercial vehicle or appropriate truck washing facility. Vehicles that only travel and park on paved public roads do not require external cleaning. The interior of vehicles and equipment (cabs, etc.) must be free of mud, soil, gravel, and other debris (vacuumed, swept or washed). • Vehicle wash stations may be installed at entrances and exits to the site. All wastewater from those stations should be detained so that it does not enter natural waterbodies or areas of unimpacted vegetation.
• Small tools and equipment must be washed to be free of soil or other contamination and sanitized. Wood handles on tools should be sealed with a waterproof coating to make them easier to sanitize. Before sanitizing, remove all soil and organic material (roots, sap, etc.) from the surface. If necessary, use a detergent solution and brush to scrub off surface contaminants. The sanitizing agent may also be used as a cleaning fluid. Screwdrivers or similar implements 2 Adaptive management is an iterative process in which practitioners test hypotheses and adjust behavior, decisions, and actions based on experience and actual changes.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-48 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
may be needed to clean soil out of crevices or shoe treads. Brushes and other implements used to help remove soil need to be cleaned and sanitized after use. • After surface soil and contamination are removed, treat the surface with a sanitizing agent, allowing the appropriate contact time before use or rinsing. If surfaces are clean and dry, wet surfaces thoroughly and allow for the appropriate contact time. If the sanitizer has been used to help clean the surface, use fresh sanitizer to rinse off any dirty solution and again allow the required contact time.
If treated surfaces are wetted with water, the sanitizing solution will become diluted. Apply enough sanitizer to completely displace the water film and then allow the required contact time. Sanitizing agents may be applied by using spray bottles and applied to thoroughly wet the surface. Observe all appropriate safety precautions to prevent contact with eyes or skin when using these agents. • Sanitizing agents may include 70-90% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol (spray to thoroughly wet the surface and allow to air dry before use); freshly diluted bleach solution (0.525% sodium hypochlorite) for a minimum of 1 minute (due to corrosivity, not advised for steel or other materials damaged by bleach); 2000 ppm quaternary ammonium disinfectant for 1 min (or according to manufacturer recommendations), freshly made or tested to ensure target concentrations. • Soles and uppers of footwear must be free of debris and soil before arriving at the site. Clean and sanitize footwear as described above.
• Before entering the job site, field workers will receive training that includes information on Phytophthora diseases and how to prevent the spread of these and other soil-borne pathogens by following approved phytosanitary procedures. • Do not bring more vehicles into work sites than absolutely necessary. Within the site, keep vehicles on surfaced or graveled roads whenever possible to minimize soil movement.
3. measures to revegetate temporarily impacted areas using appropriate seed mixes that do not contain invasive species and that are free from Phytophthora, shortly following completion of those impacts
4. measures for disposing of cleared vegetation so that Phytophthora on plant roots or invasive plant propagules are not spread to uncontaminated areas
5. measures for transporting and stockpiling soil so that Phytophthora or invasive plant propagules are not spread from contaminated soil (e.g., in runoff)
6. monitoring to ensure that the ISPMP is properly implemented and that infestations of invasive species or Phytophthora are detected before they become widespread or severe
7. methods of addressing any infestations of invasive species, or preventing infestations of Phytophthora from spreading
8. the means by which plant materials used in site restoration, during site reclamation, will be ensured to be free of invasive species and Phytophthora infestation Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c: To minimize impacts on special-status plants and animals, and sensitive habitats, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct an
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-49 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
employee education training session for employees working on all construction, operations, and reclamation activities, prior to those employees’ work on the Project.
This training session can consist of in-person training or preparation of a video or similar presentation. Personnel shall be required to attend the presentation, which shall describe any special-status or sensitive species, and sensitive/regulated habitats, that may be present; avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures; legal protection of these animals; the boundaries of Project work areas; and other related issues, including any relevant conditions from resource agency permits obtained for Project implementation. A fact sheet or other supporting materials containing this information shall be prepared and distributed. Upon completion of training, employees will sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all the conservation and protection measures.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce Project impacts on specialstatus plants to less-than-significant levels through the following means:
• determining whether special-status plants are present in impact areas; • avoiding or minimizing impacts to special-status plants to the extent feasible; and • compensating for any impacts that cannot be avoided through the preservation and management of existing populations of the affected species.
Enhancement and management efforts that would be implemented as described in the HMMP prepared for the mitigation effort, if avoidance is not possible, would help maintain, and potentially even increase, populations of the affected species.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce the potential for specialstatus plants, and their habitats, that occur near the Project site (i.e., outside of impact areas) to be adversely affected by the introduction and/or spread of invasive species or Phytophthora. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would help minimize impacts to special-status plants by training staff on these plants and the measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Implementation of the mitigation could also result in impacts to special-status plants; for example, injury or loss of some individuals of the target special-status plant species could occur incidentally (and may not be avoidable) during management activities such as removal of invasive plants or grazing management. However, the overall effects of mitigation would reduce the Project’s adverse effects on special-status plant species to a less-than-significant level.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-2: Project nitrogen emissions would not result in adverse effects on habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated plants located off-site. (Less than Significant)
No serpentine plant communities are present within the Project area (Figure 3.4-6), and none will be directly impacted by the Project. However, the Project could result in indirect impacts on serpentine communities off-site by releasing nitrogen compounds from equipment involved in Project construction and operations. It has been demonstrated that the fertilization of serpentine grasslands with nitrogen allows some non-native grasses, particularly Italian ryegrass, to be more competitive and become dominant, typically at the expense of native plants (Huenneke et al.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-50 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
1990). Weiss (1999) described how moderate, well-managed grazing is necessary to prevent large-scale invasion of serpentine grassland by non-native grasses. In the absence of grazing, Bay checkerspot butterflies disappeared from ungrazed areas due to declines in densities of their larval host plants. Weiss (1999) further provided evidence that dry nitrogen deposition resulting from smog facilitates the invasion of serpentine grassland by non-native plants. As a result, the Santa Clara VHP (VHP) concluded that increases in nitrogen emissions from increased traffic associated with development projects in the South Bay could adversely affect serpentine plant and animal communities. Impacts of Project construction and operational activities are described below.
Construction
As indicated in Section 3.3, construction activities would release up to 1.94 tons per year or
24.8 pounds/day of nitrogen oxides. Serpentine communities supporting the Bay checkerspot and special-status plants are located north/northwest of the Project site, primarily on both sides of the Santa Clara Valley from the San Martin area northwest into San Jose. As a result, for nitrogen emitted from the Project to be deposited on serpentine communities supporting those rare species, winds would need to be generally from the south or southwest to carry nitrogen from the Project site to those sensitive habitat areas. Winds are from the south/southeast at times, and therefore some of the nitrogen emitted by Project construction activities may be deposited on serpentine communities to the northwest of the site. However, winds in the Project site vicinity are primarily from the west and north. Winds in the Gilroy area are “most often from the west for 8.8 months, from February 14 to November 8” and “most often from the north for 3.2 months, from November 8 to February 14” (WeatherSpark 2021). Therefore, most of the nitrogen emitted during construction activities would be carried in directions that would not result in deposition on suitable habitat (including designated critical habitat) for the Bay checkerspot butterfly or specialstatus serpentine plants. The impact of Project construction on habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated plants due to nitrogen emissions would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project would result in nitrogen emissions from vehicles and equipment during quarry operations. As indicated in Section 3.3, vehicles accessing the site for quarrying operations, equipment performing quarry operations, and locomotives and trucks carrying quarried materials to users would release approximately 82.8 lbs/day on average and 12.8 tons/year of nitrogen for operation. As described for construction impacts above, prevailing winds in the Gilroy area would carry most nitrogen emitted at the Project site itself in directions that would not result in nitrogen deposition impacts on serpentine communities and species in the Santa Clara Valley.
Vehicles and locomotives traveling to the site from points closer to these serpentine communities are more likely to emit nitrogen that would be deposited in areas where serpentine impacts may occur, and some of the nitrogen emitted from vehicles, equipment, and locomotives on the site would be carried north/northwest toward, and may be deposited on, those serpentine communities.
However, these emissions would be low in concentration and dissipated to the point of not causing impacts on serpentine communities due to the typical direction of prevailing winds in the area. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated plants due to nitrogen emissions would be less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-51 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Reclamation
As discussed under operational impacts, nitrogen emissions from vehicles and equipment could occur during reclamation activities. As described for construction impacts above, prevailing winds in the Gilroy area would carry most nitrogen emitted at the Project site itself in directions that would not result in nitrogen deposition impacts on serpentine communities and species in the Santa Clara Valley. Deposition of nitrogen on serpentine communities would occur from vehicles used in reclamation traveling to and from the site. However, these emissions would be low in concentration and dissipated to the point of not causing impacts on serpentine communities.
Therefore, the impact of Project reclamation on habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated plants due to nitrogen emissions would be less than significant.
Summary
Nitrogen emissions from the Project would not result in any substantive impacts on serpentine communities near the Project site. The nitrogen emissions would not facilitate growth of nonnative grasses that could compete with special-status serpentine plants and with Bay checkerspot host plants for the following reasons:
• nitrogen emitted during the Project’s construction activities is less than BAAQMD thresholds;
• the directionality of the prevailing winds (which would carry most emissions away from serpentine communities supporting the Bay checkerspot butterfly and special-status plants); • the dissipation of that nitrogen as it is carried from the Project site to distant serpentine communities (nitrogen oxide concentrations are highest closest to the source and then quickly dissipate3; and
• the relatively low concentrations of nitrogen deposition that will occur in any given area of serpentine habitat.
The significance threshold for habitat modification impacts is “any measurable alteration of the habitat that would result in a drop in the population of special-status species”, and a measurable alteration of habitat that would result in a decrease in populations of special-status, serpentineassociated species would not be caused by the Project. Therefore, impacts of the construction, operations, and reclamation phases of the Project on the Bay checkerspot butterfly and other serpentine-associated species and communities would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance: Less than significant.
_________________________
3 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191113-the-toxic-killers-in-our-air-too-small-to-see
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-52 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.4-3: Project activities would result in adverse effects on special-status fish and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The federally threatened South-Central California Coast steelhead, as well as two California fish species of special concern (Monterey roach and Monterey hitch), likely occur in the on-site reach of Tar Creek that will be traversed by a new clear-span bridge. Monterey roach and Monterey hitch could also occur in the lower reaches of Sargent Creek (downstream from the Project area) when that stream contains water, and all three species occur in the Pajaro River downstream from the Project site.
Construction
Tar Creek Bridge
While steelhead migrate through the reach of Tar Creek where the free-span bridge crossing is proposed, this area and immediately adjacent upstream and downstream reaches do not provide spawning habitat for this species due to a lack of gravelly substrate. This reach of the creek is also unlikely to be used by rearing juveniles due to the relatively high temperatures of this valley-floor reach. Therefore, steelhead use this reach only during migration. In contrast, the Monterey roach and Monterey hitch are smaller fish that are more tolerant of high-water temperature and low water quality, so these fish could occur in the reach of Tar Creek where the bridge is proposed year-round.
The Tar Creek bridge is proposed as a free-span structure that would span the aquatic habitat of the creek, maintaining a natural creek bottom, and footings would be placed outside the wetted channel and bank area. The bridge, as proposed, would not result in direct loss of habitat for special-status fish or impede their current use of the creek. Currently, there is an at-grade crossing at this location, with related erosion and sedimentation due to vehicles travelling through the wetted channel. The free-span bridge would result in an improved condition as compared to vehicles crossing directly through the creek.
Sargent Creek Bridge
A crossing of Sargent Creek is also proposed. This crossing would consist of an arch culvert crossing that, like the Tar Creek bridge, would span the creek bed, leaving the channel bottom undisturbed and able to convey flows in a natural manner. Although steelhead are not present in Sargent Creek, and Monterey roach and Monterey hitch would not occur in the creek as far upstream as the bridge location, these latter two species could be present in Sargent Creek downstream from the proposed bridge.
During construction of these bridges, adverse impacts on fish and their habitat (including designated critical habitat for steelhead within Tar Creek) could occur. Petrochemicals, hydraulic fluids, and solvents that are spilled or leaked from construction vehicles or equipment may kill or injure individuals, in the absence of water-quality protection measures. Grading may mobilize soils into the creek, and bare soils following completion of grading may leave soils susceptible to erosion and sedimentation. Sedimentation of the stream could degrade habitat for invertebrates on which steelhead prey, and increased turbidity could make it more difficult for fish to see their
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-53 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
prey. However, construction of the bridges would occur during the dry season, from approximately April 16 through October 14. Steelhead are unlikely to be present on the Project site during those months due to high stream temperatures and this species’ distribution (with juveniles rearing higher in the watershed), thereby minimizing the likelihood that steelhead would be present in or downstream from the impact area when these impacts occur. Monterey roach and Monterey hitch could be present in or downstream from the Project footprint at the time construction occurs, but these species are much more tolerant of low-quality habitats and lower water quality than steelhead, and sedimentation would likely have less effect on these species than on steelhead.
Other Construction
The impacts on water quality and instream habitat could also occur as a result of construction of access roads, the conveyor belt, and the processing plant. Although those Project components are not located in streams, construction of the access road between Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas will occur on both sides of the proposed bridge over Sargent Creek. Mobilization of sediments during grading, and mobilization of sediments and pollutants (e.g., leaked from equipment) in runoff from areas under construction, could adversely affect water quality in Sargent Creek, and therefore fish habitat downstream from the Project site.
Avoidance Requirements
Water quality impacts on special-status fish would be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities. These activities would necessitate permits from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. These permits would include conditions requiring the implementation of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality and to aquatic species such as fish.
Implementation of the conditions in these permits would reduce impacts on special-status fish and their habitats considerably. To further address the potential for hazardous materials to enter these creeks during Project construction and operations, the Project would implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) as required by the State Water Resources Control Board and a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) so that any spills or leaks would be controlled before they could enter waterways containing sensitive species.
Nevertheless, because resource agency permits have not been issued and the conditions of those permits are not yet known with certainty, the impact of construction activities on special-status fish and their habitat would be significant.
Operation
Water Quality Impacts
Trucks using the bridges over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek during Project operations would not result in adverse effects on special-status fish, as both bridges would completely span their respective creeks, and any water-quality impacts from runoff from the bridges into these streams would be minor due to the very limited surface area of these bridges. In addition, the trucks
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-54 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
would not be traveling off-road surfaces; therefore, they would not track debris that could fall onto the surfaces of the bridges. However, refueling of equipment or accidental spills (e.g., from equipment malfunctions) could result in chemicals or fluids to be washed into streams supporting special-status fish.
Project facilities (i.e., processing plant, screening berm, and mining pits) are located at least 150 feet from Tar Creek. At this distance, direct impacts on steelhead, Monterey roach, Monterey hitch, or their habitat (including steelhead critical habitat) would not occur. Settling ponds would collect stormwater and ultimately percolate it into the ground, preventing sediment or pollutants in stormwater from entering waterways containing special-status fish. Swales would buffer overburden stockpiles and the processing plant area from Tar Creek to the west and prevent stormwater from the Project area from entering the creek. Stormwater management is described in greater detail below.
There is some potential for chemicals or fluids associated with use of the rail cars to be washed into habitats for sensitive species adjacent to the spur or rail line; however, this type of chemical release would be unlikely given that the rail cars would not be fueled or maintained while picking up loads at Sargent Quarry. UPRR and its contractors are required to implement specific Safety Rules that include spill control measures in the event that an incident occurs (UPRR 2019a, 2019b). These Safety Rules would ensure that impacts to water quality and aquatic species are minimized by ensuring a quick response to any spill.
Stormwater Management in Quarry Areas
Based on the November 3, 2016 Todd Groundwater memo (Todd Groundwater 2016) and July 29, 2019 addendum (Todd Groundwater 2019) (see Appendix I.2), as well as information on reclamation of the mining areas, several changes in groundwater and surface hydrology may occur during Project operations. All four mining pits would intercept groundwater and surface runoff that otherwise would have flowed on or below the surface of the area to be occupied by the pits. During mining, that water would concentrate in pools/ponds within each pit (with separate pools in Pit 3, Pit 4, and Pits 1 and 2 combined). The water that concentrates in the pits would otherwise have continued downslope to contribute hydrology to creeks such as Tar Creek and Sargent Creek. During mining within a given pit, either in-water mining will take place, or if water needs to be pumped out of active mining areas, this water will be pumped to an adjacent stormwater retention basin within the pit area, where it would be allowed to percolate into the ground from the basin. Some of the water that has collected in the pits during mining operations would also percolate to groundwater, as there would be no impervious surfaces. This groundwater infiltration would continue to contribute hydrology to creeks or riparian habitats downgradient of the pits.
Changes in In-Stream Flow
As discussed in Impact 3.10-5 in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, onsite consumptive use of water (primarily from pumped groundwater from a well near the Pajaro River in the northwest corner of the processing plant area shown on Figure 2-5a) could reduce the amount of water in the Pajaro River. A substantial reduction in flow in the Pajaro River could affect the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-55 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
ability of steelhead to pass up and down the river, particularly during the primary migration months (December-April). Monterey roach and Monterey hitch are smaller than steelhead and are less likely to be affected by reductions in Pajaro River flows. The consumptive use of water on the site is estimated to equal at most seven-one-hundredths-of-a-percent (0.07%) of average monthly flows during the period December-April (Todd Groundwater, see Appendix I.2). During the driest year evaluated by Todd Groundwater, the onsite water use equaled up to six percent (6%) of flow in December, January, and February. However, the groundwater that would be used by the Project would come from a deep well that would have little effect on groundwater that supports flow in the Pajaro River. This would further reduce any changes in river flow. Similarly, the amount of runoff that would be intercepted by the mining pits represents a very small proportion of the watershed of the Pajaro River, and much of the water in the mining pits would infiltrate through the pools that form in the mining pits or through the retention basins that will be constructed in those pits, thereby continuing to move down-gradient into groundwater. Therefore, water use by the Project or interception of groundwater or surface flow (e.g., sheet flow or intermittent tributaries, such as Sargent Creek) would not result in a reduction in flow in the Pajaro River sufficient to affect steelhead passage, or result in any other significant impacts on aquatic habitats or species associated with the Pajaro River.
Similarly, no substantial changes in streamflow within Tar Creek would result from Project operations. As indicated by the topography and streams illustrated on Figure 4 of LOA (2017a), very little of the area that would be occupied by the Phases 1 and 2 mining pits, and none of the Phases 3 and 4 mining areas, flows toward Tar Creek. Therefore, interception of surface flow and ephemeral streamflow by mining would have a negligible effect on Tar Creek flows.
However, the Project could have a greater impact on flows in Sargent Creek. Groundwater (primarily in the case of Pit 3) and surface runoff (in both Pits 3 and 4) that currently flows through the Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas to Sargent Creek would be intercepted by the mining pit in each phase and would collect in pools within the pits. The bottoms of both pits would be at elevations approximately 15 feet higher than the bed of Sargent Creek where it passes these pits.
As a result, infiltration from the bottom of these pits (either in the pool that forms in the low area of each pit or in a separate stormwater retention basin within each pit) might still provide some groundwater flow to Sargent Creek.
Collectively, Phases 3 and 4 would include approximately 209 acres of watershed, including the acreage of the pits and their contributing watersheds, that would be intercepted, representing approximately thirty percent (30%) of the 700-acre Sargent Creek watershed upstream from these two phases. According to Todd Groundwater’s memo, Pit 3 will intercept groundwater recharge from an area of 177 acres, while Pit 4 likely does not provide substantial groundwater to Sargent Creek because of its small tributary watershed, with little upslope area generating groundwater recharge and surface runoff. Hydrologic assessment indicates an intercepted groundwater-tosurface water ratio of about 1:1 in Pit 3 (meaning that roughly half the water intercepted will be groundwater and half will be surface water), and that the hydrologic contribution of the Pit 4 area to Sargent Creek is approximately eleven percent (11%) of that of the Pit 3 area. Therefore, the total reduction in hydrologic input to the reach of Sargent Creek downstream of Phases 3 and 4 could be less than the thirty percent (30%) figure calculated from a straight estimate of the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-56 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
percentage of impacted watershed. In addition, Pits 3 and 4 would not be mined concurrently.
Although there may be some overlap between mining in Pit 4 and reclamation in Pit 3, the full impact of hydrologic alteration from mining in each phase would not be exerted simultaneously.
Nevertheless, a reduction in inflow to Sargent Creek could result in a decline in the extent and quality of habitat for Monterey roach and Monterey hitch in the lower reaches of Sargent Creek (downstream from the Project area) for the approximately six years in which both of these pits would be in operation. Because Sargent Creek is intermittent, the extent of suitable habitat for these species within the creek likely varies naturally from year to year depending on precipitation levels, with these species moving from the Pajaro River into lower Sargent Creek and moving upstream along Sargent Creek as far as suitable habitat is present and accessible. As a result, if the extent of suitable aquatic habitat, and the duration in which such habitat is present, are reduced in lower Sargent Creek during the 10 to 15 years of mining in Pit 3 and then in Pit 4 Monterey roach and Monterey hitch would simply occupy less of Sargent Creek, and confine their activities more to the Pajaro River, during that mining period. Given the limited extent of Sargent Creek that is suitable for these species even under baseline conditions (due to intermittent flow), and the very limited proportion of the Pajaro River watershed represented by lower Sargent Creek, the 20- to 30-year reduction in Sargent Creek flows would not result in a substantial loss of habitat for Monterey roach and Monterey hitch and would not result in the loss of individuals of these species.
To summarize, the impacts of Project operations on special-status fish and their habitat would be less than significant.
Reclamation
For the reasons discussed under Operations, water quality impacts are unlikely to occur as a result of reclamation activities. However, there is some potential for chemicals to enter streams as a result of spills or equipment malfunctions during reclamation. In-stream flow would be returned to baseline conditions. All pits would be graded so that non-draining depressions (e.g., ponds or pools) are not present; rather, the floors of the reclaimed pits will slope at a gradient of at least one-percent (1%) toward graded swales. The swales in Pits 3 and 4 would carry water toward Sargent Creek, so that after reclamation, Sargent Creek would receive approximately the same input of surface water (and likely the same input of groundwater) as it did prior to Project activities. After reclamation, Pits 1 and 2 would have gradual slopes, with the western portion sloping toward a retention basin in the central part of the pit and the eastern portion sloping toward a second retention basin, which would flow into the existing ephemeral stream. Due to the potential for chemicals to enter streams during reclamation activities, the impact of Project reclamation on special-status fish and their habitat would be significant.
Summary
Although no individual steelhead would be directly lost as a result of the Project, habitat modification resulting from inadvertent mobilization of sediment or chemicals released into waters supporting steelhead, Monterey roach, or Monterey hitch would result in a reduction in the populations of one or more of these species. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on special-status fish would be significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-57 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: The Applicant shall implement the following measures and the “Aquatic Avoidance and Minimization Measures” contained in Table 6-2 of the VHP, during any Project construction activity, and during operational and reclamation activities as appropriate (e.g., equipment storage or refueling, or other activities that could result in spills) to minimize increases of peak discharge of stormwater and to reduce runoff of sediment and pollutants to protect water quality. The following measures to be implemented by the Applicant shall be monitored by the qualified biologist retained by the Applicant as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, who shall be present to monitor construction activities during initial ground disturbance or vegetation clearing in any given area or Project phase.
a. No construction within creeks or riparian habitats shall occur during the wet season (October 15 to April 15, or as otherwise indicated by the conditions of resource agency permits).
b. Ground disturbance shall be minimized so that only those phases of the Project and ancillary supporting facilities, including but not limited to road construction, conveyor installation and operation, and plant and rail construction, which are actively being constructed or being mined would be cleared/prepared. c. The removal of riparian vegetation shall be minimized to the amount necessary to accomplish the required activity and comply with public health and safety directives.
Any riparian vegetation to be removed shall be clearly identified on plans submitted to and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to any riparian vegetation removal, along with evidence establishing why removal of such vegetation is necessary.
d. Erosion control plans shall be submitted to and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to initiation of ground disturbance and shall include the following:
• Control exposed soil by stabilizing slopes (e.g., with erosion control blankets) and protecting channels (e.g., using silt fences or straw wattles). Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips) shall be used on-site adjacent to creeks or riparian vegetation. Fiber rolls used for erosion control shall be certified as free of noxious weed seed. • Stockpiled soil shall be stabilized with geotextile or plastic covers. Sediments shall be stored and transported in a manner that minimizes water quality impacts.
If soil is stockpiled, no runoff shall be allowed to flow back to the channel. e. If high levels of groundwater in a work area are encountered and dewatering must occur, the water shall be directed into infiltration basins, holding ponds, or areas with vegetation to remove sediment prior to the water re-entering a creek. f. Construction and mining waste shall be disposed of in designated areas and stormwater shall be prevented from flowing onto or off of these areas. g. Personnel shall use the appropriate equipment for the job that minimizes disturbance to the stream bottom. Appropriately tired vehicles, either tracked or wheeled, shall be used depending on the situation.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-58 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 would reduce potential impacts to steelhead (including critical habitat for the species), Monterey roach, and Monterey hitch to a lessthan-significant level by minimizing impacts of construction and operation on water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on fish and their habitats by training Project personnel on these species, their habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. As a result, no individuals would be lost as a result of water-quality impacts, and these species’ habitat would not be lost or degraded to the point of resulting in declines in these species’ populations. _________________________
Impact 3.4-4: Project activities would result in adverse effects on California red-legged frogs (CRLF) and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The presence of CRLF has been confirmed throughout the greater Sargent Ranch property. While the proposed quarry areas do not provide suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF, breeding has been observed in the geotechnical setback area for Phase 2. Tar Creek and Sargent Creek provide foraging and movement habitat for these species, and all upland habitats (e.g., where access roads or the processing plant would be constructed) in the Project area may also be utilized by this species for dispersal.
Construction
Proposed construction activities could result in the injury or mortality of individual CRLF.
Although no breeding habitat would be impacted during construction, small numbers of adult or juvenile CRLF could be present along Tar Creek and Sargent Creek where crossings would be constructed. Further individuals could be present in upland areas where grading would occur.
Construction activities might result in the injury or mortality of individuals as a result of worker foot traffic, equipment use, or vehicle traffic. Substrate vibrations may cause individuals to move out of refugia (e.g., small mammal burrows), exposing them to a greater risk of predation or desiccation. In addition, CRLF may be crushed, trapped, or suffocated, in refugia by the passage of heavy equipment. Grading and other construction activities could impede movements by CRLF by altering topography or placing stockpiles of materials along movement pathways.
Construction of roads, structures, and related facilities will occur over a 9-month period, and therefore will overlap the wet season when the majority of CRLF activity in upland areas (i.e., away from wetland and aquatic habitats) occurs. However, the majority of initial grading for any of the Project phases, and the processing plant area, would occur primarily during the dry season.
The likelihood that CRLF would be present in upland areas during dry-season construction is limited because this species moves across upland areas more often during the wet season.
Individuals could still move through upland areas or use refugia such as small mammal burrows in upland areas during the dry season.
Indirect impacts to CRLF and their habitat could also result from impacts to water quality in the ways described in Section 3.4-3 above. Water-quality impacts could include reduction in the suitability of aquatic foraging habitat, which could reduce prey abundance, and pollutants could affect the health of both CRLF and their prey. Increases in human concentration and activity in
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-59 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that would prey opportunistically on CRLF.
Movement of Project personnel and equipment within the site, and between on-site and off-site areas, could also spread pathogens such as chytrid fungus, which can impair the health of amphibians such as CRLF.
Construction of the bridges across Tar Creek and Sargent Creek would not result in the loss of aquatic habitat. The bridge proposed over Tar Creek is a free span bridge and Sargent Creek bridge would be an arched culvert, both of which would span the creek bed, leaving the channel bottom undisturbed. However, construction of these bridges would result in the direct loss of suitable riparian and upland dispersal habitat for CRLF.
Impacts on CRLF would be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals.
For example, conditions of the permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities (from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code) would include conditions requiring the implementation of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality and to aquatic and amphibious species such as CRLF. Implementation of the conditions in these permits would reduce impacts on CRLF and their aquatic habitats. Even more relevant to CRLF, the Project may obtain a FESA incidental take approval from the USFWS, either through Section 7 consultation (e.g., through USACE permitting) or via Project-specific FESA Section 10 incidental take permit. This FESA incidental take approval would address the effects of both construction and operational activities. USFWS incidental take approval would include conditions to reduce and compensate for impacts to CRLF. Nevertheless, because resource agency permits and approvals have not yet been issued and the conditions of those permits are not yet known with certainty, Project construction could result in significant impacts on CRLF. The impact of Project construction on CRLF would be significant.
Operation
Mining Pits
Project operation would also result in the loss of upland dispersal habitat of CRLF, within the footprints of the mining pits and any portions of the geotechnical setback areas and overburden stockpile areas that need to be disturbed, during the period in which mining occurs. A pond in the geotechnical setback area for Phase 2 is known to have been used for breeding by this species. It is unknown whether this pond would be disturbed during operations, given that portions of the geotechnical setbacks may only be excavated in the event of slope failure. However, because this pond is located very close to the proposed Phase 2 mining boundary, the risk that it may be lost is considerable. Loss of this pond could result in impacts to CRLF eggs and/or larvae, if present when the pond is disturbed, and impacts to this pond would represent a loss of breeding habitat.
Similarly, mining at Phase 4 would reduce the area draining to a pond between the Phase 4 mining area and Sargent Creek where LOA detected CRLF (2017b). Although the pond would not be physically impacted, as it is outside of the proposed mining area, diversion of some of this pond’s watershed via mining could cause it to be effectively lost as a suitable breeding pond.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-60 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
During mining operations, individual CRLF could be adversely affected in the same ways described above for construction activities. For example, individuals could be injured or killed by foot traffic, equipment, and vehicles, both during new groundbreaking in mining pits, during mining activities, and during movement of people around the site. As described for construction activities above, degradation of water quality could occur during Project operations; CRLF could be affected by greater concentrations of predators attracted to human food waste; and Project personnel and equipment could introduce or spread amphibian diseases such as chytrid fungus.
Operational activities such as pit excavation could impede movements by CRLF by altering topography or placing stockpiles of materials along movement pathways, though there are no areas where CRLF would be completely unable to move through or around such obstacles.
Because CRLF are often active (especially when moving through upland areas) at night, nighttime operational activities could harm this species by increasing the potential for personnel or vehicles to injure or kill individuals (e.g. on roadways), and nighttime lighting could make it easier for predators to detect and capture CRLF. Mining would occur during the day, and therefore no lighting would be installed in the quarry pit areas or along the conveyor belt. Lighting would be installed at the processing plant in accordance with Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulations and County Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval (30 CFR Parts 1-199; Santa Clara County, 2020). Lights at the processing plant may be on in the early morning and later afternoon hours (i.e., when the plant opens at 4:30 a.m. and prior to closing at 5:00 p.m.) during the winter months. Lighting would be shielded to prevent light overspill onto neighboring properties and reduce impacts on nighttime views from U.S. 101. Tall fixtures that illuminate large areas would be avoided. Festooned, naked-bulb, or flashing bulb lighting would not be allowed per County Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) guidelines. While these aspects of the lighting plan would reduce impacts resulting from lighting, it is still possible that lighting between 4:30 a.m. and dawn could increase the risk of predation on CRLF.
During mining, CRLF could occupy any ponds and pools that form in the mining pits, or retention basins that are constructed in the pits. Although mining activities would inhibit growth of emergent and riparian vegetation that may serve as high-quality CRLF cover and egg mass attachment sites, vegetation could grow in these pools if there is a lull in mining or in disturbance of those pools. Mining could injure or kill frogs that colonize the pools. If CRLF were to lay eggs in those pools, then mining activities could destroy the egg masses, and any artificial drawdown of the pools (e.g., by pumping of water into retention basins) could strand, or cause the desiccation of, eggs or larvae. Mining could therefore impact all life stages of the species within pools that form, or are constructed, in the pits. If enough CRLF were attracted to these pools, then affected as described above, these pools could serve as population sinks, resulting in a long-term decline in local CRLF populations. Ongoing mining activity in any given pool would result in disturbance that would discourage large numbers of frogs from remaining in or breeding in that pool, but a lull in such disturbance could cause larger numbers of individuals to concentrate in the pool, and possibly to breed there.
Processing Plant
The processing plant would include a 0.52-acre storage pond. CRLF could be attracted to this pond or could find this pond during dispersal events. Such individuals could then be subject to
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-61 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
injury or mortality from Project personnel or equipment or could be subjected to adverse effects from reduced water quality. If CRLF attempt to breed in the pond, egg masses and larvae could also be subjected to poor water quality or adverse variations in hydroperiod.
Changes in Hydrology from Mining Activities
Todd Groundwater’s analysis of effects of mining on hydrology determined that interception of groundwater flow, as well as surface runoff, could reduce the amount of water reaching areas downslope from mining areas (Todd Groundwater 2016, 2019). A reduction in the amount of water reaching ponds or pools that support CRLF could reduce both breeding and nonbreeding habitat for the species. In waterbodies used for breeding, a reduction in the amount of water flowing into them could cause those waterbodies to dry out before larvae turn into an adult. This would result in mortality of larvae and reduce CRLF populations.
Aside from a known CRLF breeding pond within the geotechnical setback area for the Phase 2 mining area, most ponds and pools would not have their hydrology sufficiently disrupted to the point that adverse effects on habitat or hydrology would occur. Several ponds along the west side of Sargent Creek upstream from Phase 3 and 4 mining areas are unlikely to be affected by mining because no mining activities would occur within the watersheds supporting these ponds. Mining at Pits 3 and 4 could have some impact on the amount of water in Sargent Creek, which could affect the amount of aquatic nonbreeding habitat and vegetative cover for the CRLF within the creek. However, the creek would continue to provide sufficient flow and vegetation that frogs would be able to continue to use that creek as nonbreeding habitat.
Surveys recorded CRLF in a pond south of Pit 3, which would encroach into that pond’s watershed but not its footprint. Mining at Pit 3 could redirect some of the surface and groundwater flow feeding the pond, which would reduce the surface area, depth, and hydroperiod, potentially resulting in permanent impacts on the pond’s habitat value for CRLF.
This reduction in hydrologic input could even result in a categorical change in the pond’s use by CRLF, such as changing it from a suitable breeding pond into a pond that no longer holds water long or deep enough to support breeding. This reduction in habitat value would be permanent, as the redirection of surface runoff would continue even after mining has ceased and Pit 3 has been reclaimed. For the reasons discussed above, the impact of Project operation on CRLF would be significant.
Reclamation
Similar to the construction and operational phases discussed above, reclamation activities could result in the injury or mortality of CRLF individuals as a result of worker foot traffic, equipment use, or vehicle traffic. Indirect impacts to CRLF and their habitat could also result from impacts to water quality in the ways described in Section 3.4-3 above. Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of CRLF use. Therefore, the impact of Project reclamation on CRLF would be significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-62 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Summary
Given the number of recorded occurrences of CRLF in or adjacent to the Project area, the species could occur anywhere on the Project site. Therefore, natural habitats (i.e., all areas that are not currently developed) disturbed by the proposed Project, totaling approximately 403 acres, would be considered impacted CRLF habitat. Individual CRLF could be lost during Project construction and operation, and habitat modifications (such as the loss of the breeding pond near Pit 2 and adverse effects on the breeding pond south of Pit 3) could result in reductions in CRLF populations. Therefore, Project impacts on CRLF are considered significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a: The Applicant shall implement the following avoidance and minimization measures for all ground-disturbing activities throughout the life of the Project, including construction, operations, and reclamation, at access roads, bridges over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek, mining areas, and processing facilities, to minimize impacts on CRLF:
1. A biologist approved by the County and USFWS (hereafter “approved biologist”) shall be onsite during all activities that, in the opinion of the approved biologist after consultation with USFWS, may result in impacts to individual CRLF. For example, once a work area is surrounded by exclusion fencing (as described below), any CRLF within that exclusion fencing have been relocated (as described below), and the qualified biologist has surveyed the area within the exclusion fencing well enough to determine that no CRLF are present, activities within the exclusion fencing and on other “developed” areas (e.g., roads and the processing plant) may proceed without the need for a biological monitor. The qualifications of the biologist(s) shall be submitted to the County and USFWS for review and written approval at least 15 calendar days prior to the date earthmoving is initiated at the Project site.
2. Prior to the initiation of any other protective measures, an approved biologist shall determine, in consultation with the USFWS, appropriate relocation sites for any adult, juvenile, or larval CRLF that may be observed during preconstruction surveys and monitoring and that need to be relocated. The approved biologist shall also determine, in consultation with the USFWS, how any CRLF showing evidence of poor health (which might indicate disease such as chytrid) should be handled or disposed of, to avoid translocating diseased individuals into habitat supporting healthy amphibians.
3. The Applicant shall install and maintain exclusion fencing around construction and mining zones, to prevent CRLF from moving into these areas. Exclusion fencing shall be at least 3 ft high, and the lower 6 inches of the fence shall be buried in the ground to prevent animals from crawling under. The remaining 2.5 ft shall be left above ground to serve as a barrier for animals moving on the ground surface. The fence shall be pulled taut at each support to prevent folds or snags. The Applicant shall inspect such fencing regularly (at least weekly) and maintain it in good condition throughout the construction and mining period.
4. The Applicant shall flag or fence construction and mining areas to identify areas where work is permitted to occur, and work activities shall be confined to these areas.
5. An approved biologist shall delineate sensitive habitat areas such as streams, wetlands, and riparian habitats outside the permitted work area with high-visibility flagging or fencing to prevent encroachment of construction and mining personnel
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-63 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
and equipment into any sensitive areas during Project work activities. At no time shall equipment or personnel be allowed to enter, disturb, or otherwise adversely affect these sensitive habitat areas without prior written authorization from the County and USFWS.
6. No more than 24 hours prior to initial ground disturbance for each phase of construction or mining activity, an approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for the CRLF at the Project site.
• The survey shall consist of walking the Project limits and within the Project site to ascertain the possible presence of the species. The approved biologist shall investigate all areas that could be used by the CRLF for feeding, breeding, sheltering, movement, and other essential behaviors. This includes an adequate examination of mammal burrows, such as California ground squirrels or gophers. • Each encounter with the CRLF shall be treated on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the USFWS, but the general procedure is as follows: (1) the animal shall not be disturbed if it is not in danger; or (2) the animal shall be moved to a secure location if it is in any danger. These procedures are further described below:
7. When a CRLF is encountered, all activities which could result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual shall be immediately halted. The approved biologist shall then assess the situation in order to select a course of action that would avoid or minimize adverse effects to the animal. To the maximum extent possible, contact with the frog shall be avoided and the Applicant shall allow it to move out of the hazardous situation to a secure location on its own volition. This procedure applies to situations where a CRLF is encountered while it is moving to another location. It does not apply to animals that are uncovered or otherwise exposed or in areas where there is not sufficient adjacent habitat to support the species should the individual move away from the hazardous location.
8. CRLF that are in danger shall be relocated and released by the approved biologist outside the construction or mining area within the same riparian area or watershed. If relocation of the frog outside the fence is not feasible (i.e., there are too many individuals observed per day), the approved biologist shall relocate the animals to a USFWS preapproved location. Prior to the initial ground disturbance, the Applicant shall obtain approval of the relocation protocol from the Service in the event that a CRLF is encountered and needs to be moved away from the Project site.
9. The approved biologist shall limit the duration of the handling and captivity of the CRLF to the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the task. If the animal must be held in captivity, it shall be kept in a cool, dark, moist, aerated environment, such as a clean and disinfected bucket or plastic container with a damp sponge. The container used for holding or transporting the individual shall not contain any standing water.
10. No construction within creeks or riparian habitats shall occur during the wet season (October 15 to April 15, or as otherwise indicated by the conditions of resource agency permits). Outside of creeks and riparian habitats, when ground-disturbing activities in any given location commence between October 15 and April 15, daily monitoring by an approved biologist shall occur for the CRLF until April 16 or until all clearing and grubbing have been completed and the work area is completely
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-64 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
surrounded by wildlife exclusion fencing, at which time CRLF would no longer be able to enter the work area.
11. To minimize harassment, injury death, and harm in the form of temporary habitat disturbances, all Project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction and mining areas, equipment staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas. These areas shall be delineated by the Applicant in preconstruction surveys and shall be established in locations disturbed by previous activities whenever feasible unless otherwise approved by the County Planning Department.
12. Project-related vehicles shall observe a 15 mile per hour speed limit within construction and mining areas, except on County roads, and State and Federal highways. Off-road traffic outside of designated and fenced Project work areas shall be prohibited.
13. The Applicant shall ensure bio-swales and bio-filtration are installed at the Project site adjacent to roadways to avoid and minimize sediment loading and point source pollutants.
14. If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters to prevent CRLF from entering the pump system. Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.
15. Uneaten human food and trash attracts crows, ravens, coyotes, and other predators of the CRLF. A litter control program shall be instituted by the Applicant for construction, operations, and reclamation work. All workers shall ensure their food scraps, paper wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash are deposited in covered or closed trash containers. The trash containers shall be removed from the Project area at the end of each working day.
16. No insecticides or herbicides shall be used during construction or operations where there is the potential for these chemical agents to enter creeks, streams, waterbodies, or uplands that contain suitable habitat for the CRLF.
17. No canine or feline pets or firearms (except for federal, state, or local law enforcement officers and security personnel) shall be permitted at the Project site to avoid and minimize harassment, injury, and death of the CRLF.
18. For onsite storage of pipes, conduits and other materials that could provide shelter for CRLF, the Applicant shall use an open-top trailer or some other means to elevate the materials above ground. This is intended to reduce the potential for animals to climb into the conduits and other materials.
19. To the maximum extent practicable, no construction activities shall occur during rain events (i.e., when rain hits the ground) or within 24-hours following a rain event.
Prior to construction activities resuming after a rain event, an approved biologist shall inspect the action area and all equipment/materials for the presence of CRLF.
20. To the maximum extent practicable, night-time construction shall be minimized or avoided by the Applicant because dusk and dawn are often the times when the CRLF is most actively moving and foraging. Because dusk and dawn are often the times
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-65 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
when the CRLF is most actively moving and foraging, to the maximum extent practicable, earthmoving and construction activities will cease no less than 30 minutes before sunset and will not begin again prior to no less than 30 minutes after sunrise.
21. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting), loosely woven netting, or similar material in any form shall not be used at the Project site because CRLF can become entangled and trapped in them. Any such material found on site shall be immediately removed by the approved biologist, construction or mining personnel, or the Applicant. Materials utilizing fixed weaves (strands cannot move), polypropylene, polymer or other synthetic materials shall not be used.
22. Trenches or pits one (1) foot deep or more that are going to be left unfilled for more than forty-eight (48) hours shall be securely covered by the Applicant with boards or other material to prevent the CRLF from falling into them, unless slopes leading out of the pits are suitable to allow CRLF to leave on their own. If this is not possible, the Applicant shall ensure wooden ramps or other structures of suitable surface that provide adequate footing for the CRLF are placed in the trench or pit to allow for their unaided escape. The trench, pit, or hole also shall be examined by the approved biologist each workday morning during construction at least one hour prior to initiation of work and in the late afternoon no more than one hour after work has ceased to ascertain whether any individuals have become trapped. If the escape ramps fail to allow the animal to escape, the approved biologist shall remove and transport it to a safe location or contact the USFWS for guidance.
23. The approved biologist(s) shall permanently remove any aquatic non-native wildlife species, such as bullfrogs and crayfish from the Project site, to the maximum extent possible.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b: The Applicant shall implement the following avoidance and minimization measures for certain operational activities:
1. Impacts on the known CRLF breeding pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback shall be avoided, if feasible, so that this pond is not lost (i.e., so that the pond is not removed, filled, or drained so that it no longer provides suitable amphibian breeding habitat). If loss of this pond is unavoidable, compensatory mitigation will be provided as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c(3).
2. If mining activity that directly disturbs any pools or ponds within a mining pit, including retention basins, experiences a lull of at least 7 days, an approved biologist shall conduct a survey of the pool, pond, or basin for all life stages of the CRLF before mining in that waterbody resumes. Any individuals detected shall be captured (e.g., via dipnet, seine, or other means suitable for the life stage in question) and relocated to the nearest habitat suitable for the life stage in question (e.g., egg masses and larvae shall be moved to other ponds or pools with suitable hydroperiod for successful metamorphosis) by the approved biologist.
3. The Applicant shall install wildlife exclusion fencing around the storage pond within the processing plant to prevent special-status species such as CRLF from entering the pond. Exclusion fencing shall be at least 3 ft high, and the lower 6 inches of the fence shall be buried in the ground to prevent animals from crawling under. The remaining
2.5 ft shall be left above ground to serve as a barrier for animals moving on the ground surface. The fence shall be pulled taut at each support to prevent folds or
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-66 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
snags. Such fencing shall be inspected regularly (at least weekly) and maintained in good condition throughout the period of the plant’s operation.
4. All lighting on the site, including security lighting (remain on throughout the night but shall be turned off if feasible) and lighting used during the plant’s hours of operation, shall be minimized in terms of intensity, height of lights, extent (i.e., dispersion around the processing plant), and spillover into adjacent areas. A detailed lighting plan shall be provided to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval as part of the processing plant building permit or any grading permit submittal, whichever occurs first. The lighting plan shall show the fixture locations and specifications. All lighting shall be pointed downward and shielded. A photometric plan shall be included showing the lumens (or other similar measurement) for each fixture at the site. Light spillover outside of the processing plant shall be limited, and no fixtures shall be installed on the east side of the processing plant.
5. Fencing with screening shall be installed around as much of the main plant as possible, as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-15.2.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c: The Applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to CRLF habitat as follows:
1. Prior to initiation of impacts, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of impacts on CRLF habitat based on the acreage of all non-developed habitat to be impacted. The pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area and the pond immediately south of Phase 4 that will be altered hydrologically by mining will be considered breeding habitat, and all other non-developed habitat to be impacted will be considered nonbreeding habitat.
2. The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts on CRLF nonbreeding habitat (e.g., upland habitat and nonbreeding aquatic habitat) through the preservation, management, and enhancement (e.g., through long-term management targeted toward this species) of high-quality habitat that is already occupied by the CRLF at a ratio of at least 2:1 (mitigation:impact), on an acreage basis, or as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS. This 2:1 mitigation ratio is not lower because CRLF appear to regularly use the Project site and breed in or near impact areas, so that a 2:1 mitigation ratio is deemed necessary to offset Project impacts, but it is not higher because Project areas will be restored to conditions suitable for CRLF following completion of mining.
First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.
3. The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts on CRLF breeding habitat, including the pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area (if it will be lost or permanently drained) and the pond immediately south of Phase 4 that will be altered hydrologically by mining, through one or both of the following methods, or equivalent or more effective methods as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS:
• the creation of aquatic habitat suitable for CRLF breeding that could support the species at a 2:1 (mitigation:impact) ratio, on an acreage basis
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-67 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• the enhancement of degraded aquatic habitat that is unsuitable for use by CRLF, but that is in close proximity to areas of known occurrence and can be made more suitable for use via the eradication of aquatic predators (e.g., bullfrogs and predatory fish) at a 3:1 mitigation ratio, on an acreage basis.
First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.
4. A qualified biologist shall develop an HMMP describing the measures that shall be taken to manage the created/enhanced breeding and upland habitat described above and to monitor the effects of management on the CRLF. The HMMP shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. The County may retain a qualified biologist at the Applicant’s expense to peer-review the HMMP. The HMMP shall include the following:
• a summary of impacts on CRLF habitat and populations, and the proposed mitigation;
• a description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions;
• a description of measures to be undertaken if necessary, to enhance (e.g., through focused management) the mitigation site for CRLF;
• proposed management activities, such as managed grazing, management of invasive plants, measures targeted at sustaining populations of burrowing mammals, or other measures to maintain high-quality habitat for CRLF; • a description of species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, goals and objectives (such as maintaining or increasing abundance of CRLF or maintaining or improving habitat suitability), performance indicators and success criteria (such as presence or abundance of upland refugia or hydroperiod of breeding habitat), monitoring methods (such as sampling of upland refugia or monitoring of the hydroperiod of breeding habitat), data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include occupation by the CRLF of created aquatic habitat;
• a description of the management plan’s adaptive management component, including a description of how management may be adapted depending on climate change or other changes in site conditions and the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented, as well as contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria; and
• a description of the funding mechanism for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation lands.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-68 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 and 3.4-4a through 3.4-4c would reduce impacts on CRLF to a less-than-significant level by minimizing impacts of construction, operations, and reclamation on water quality so that no individuals are lost as a result of water-quality impacts; avoiding and minimizing injury or mortality of individual CRLF, and impacts on this species’ habitat, during construction, operations, and reclamation; and compensating for impacts to individual CRLF and their habitat so that the Project does not cause a net reduction in this species’ populations, while allowing for construction, operations, and reclamation to proceed under specific circumstances specified in the mitigation without a full time biological monitor. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce the potential for pathogens such as chytrid to be introduced and/or spread during construction, operations, and reclamation activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on CRLF and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures, would ensure that this species’ populations are not reduced by the Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures could result in impacts to CRLF; for example, relocation of individuals could result in injury of some individuals, and individuals that are relocated could increase competition within the relocation areas or spread disease to the relocation areas. However, the overall effects of mitigation would reduce the impact to less thansignificant levels. _________________________
Impact 3.4-5: Project activities would result in adverse effects on California tiger salamanders (CTS) and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Four CTS larval survey efforts conducted on the larger Sargent Ranch property (in 2000-2001, 2004, 2005, and 2017) detected CTS larvae only once on the Project site (LOA 2017a, 2017b). In 2000-2001, larvae were in a pool in a seasonal wetland in Phase 1. However, monitoring of the pool in that year and subsequent years determined that the pool did not hold water long enough for breeding to be successful. Therefore, CTS are not known to have bred successfully on the Project site. CTS breeding in ponds approximately 0.85 mile north of the Project site could disperse onto the Project site, and the pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area could potentially be used for breeding by this species. The species could use upland habitat anywhere on the Project site for dispersal and refugia. However, it is apparently scarce in the Project area, based on the presence of only one detection despite intensive survey effort.
Construction
Construction activities could result in the injury or mortality of individual CTS in the same manner as described for CRLF in Impact 3.4-4. No suitable breeding habitat would be disturbed during construction, and CTS do not focus their activities near streams, ponds, and wetlands to the extent that CRLF do. As a result, adverse effects of construction activities on water quality would not affect CTS as much as they would CRLF. Nevertheless, small numbers of adult and juvenile CTS could be present during dispersal, or in refugia such as small mammal burrows, in upland areas throughout the Project site. Construction activities may result in the injury or
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-69 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
mortality of individuals as a result of worker foot traffic, equipment use, or vehicle traffic.
Substrate vibrations may cause individuals to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation or desiccation. In addition, CTS may be crushed, or trapped and suffocated, in refugia by the passage of heavy equipment. Construction activities could impede movements by CTS by altering topography or placing stockpiles of materials along potential movement pathways, though there are no areas that CTS would be completely unable to move through or around.
Construction of roads, structures, and related facilities will occur over a 9-month period, and therefore will overlap the wet season when the majority of CTS movement occurs. Although the majority of initial grading for any of the Project phases, and the processing plant area, would occur primarily during the dry season, when CTS are unlikely to be moving above-ground, individuals could be present in refugia such as small mammal burrows in upland areas, yearround.
Increases in human concentration and activity in the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that would prey opportunistically on CTS. Movement of Project personnel and equipment within the site, and between on-site and off-site areas, could also spread pathogens such as chytrid fungus, which can impair the health of amphibians such as CTS.
Impacts on CTS would be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals.
For example, conditions of the permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities would include conditions requiring the implementation of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality and to aquatic and amphibious species such as CTS. In addition, the Project may be required to obtain FESA incidental take approval from the USFWS and CESA incidental take approval from CDFW, given the 2000- 2001 occurrence of CTS within the Project area. These FESA and CESA incidental take approvals would address the effects of both construction and operational activities. USFWS and CDFW incidental take approval would include conditions to reduce and compensate for impacts to CTS.
Nevertheless, because resource agency permits and approvals have not yet been issued and the conditions of those permits are not yet known with certainty, Project construction could result in impacts on CTS. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on CTS would be significant.
Operation
Mining Pits
Operational activities could also adversely affect CTS. No known breeding ponds for CTS would be disturbed by the Project, and given that the CTS larval surveys performed over a 17-year span at Sargent Ranch found that the species is not abundant in the area, it is unlikely that CTS would be breeding in ponds where they have not been detected by those surveys. Therefore, it is unlikely that ponds to be adversely affected by the Project, either directly (i.e., the pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area) or indirectly (i.e., the pond immediately south of the proposed Phase 3 mining area) as described for known CRLF breeding ponds in Impact 3.4-4 above, serve as CTS breeding ponds. Nevertheless, impacts on these ponds, as described for CRLF in Impact 3.4-4
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-70 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
above, would reduce habitat that could be used by breeding CTS in the future if the species became more abundant in this portion of Sargent Ranch.
During mining operations, individual CTS could be adversely affected in the same ways described above for construction activities. For example, individuals could be injured or killed by foot traffic, equipment, and vehicles, both during new groundbreaking in mining pits, during mining activities, and during movement of people around the site. As described for construction activities above, CTS could be affected by greater concentrations of predators attracted to anthropogenic food waste, and Project personnel and equipment could introduce or spread amphibian diseases such as chytrid fungus. Operational activities such as pit excavation could impede movements by CTS by altering topography or placing stockpiles of materials along movement pathways, though there are no areas that CTS would be completely unable to move through or around.
During mining, CTS could attempt breeding in new ponds and pools that form in the mining pits, or retention basins that are constructed in the pits. If CTS were to lay eggs in those pools, then mining activities could destroy the eggs, and any artificial drawdown of the pools (e.g., by pumping of water into retention basins) could strand, or cause the desiccation of, eggs or larvae.
Mining could therefore impact all life stages of the species within pools that form, or are constructed, in the pits. If enough CTS were attracted to these pools, then impacted, these pools could serve as population sinks; however, results of the relatively intensive CTS surveys conducted 2000-2017 indicate that CTS are not abundant in the Project area, and it is therefore unlikely that mining pits would attract CTS away from more suitable breeding locations to the point of causing a long-term decline in local CTS populations.
Processing Plant
The processing plant would include a 0.52-acre storage pond. CTS could be attracted to this pond or could find this pond during dispersal events. Such individuals could then be subject to injury or mortality from Project personnel or equipment, or could be subjected to adverse effects from reduced water quality. If CTS attempt to breed in the pond, egg masses and larvae could also be subjected to poor water quality or adverse variations in hydroperiod.
Effects of Mining on Sargent Creek
CTS do not regularly use streams as habitat; rather, they breed in pools or ponds. As a result, any effects of mining on the hydrology of Sargent Creek (e.g., as discussed for CRLF in Impact 3.4-4) would not have any substantive impact on CTS or their habitat.
Loss of Upland Dispersal and Refugial Habitat
Project operations would result in the loss of upland dispersal and refugial habitat of CTS, within the footprints of the mining pits and any portions of the geotechnical setback areas and overburden stockpile areas that need to be disturbed, during the period in which mining occurs.
As noted under Construction, impacts on CTS during operations would be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals. However, because resource agency permits and approvals have not yet been issued and the conditions of those permits are not yet
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-71 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
known with certainty, Project operations could result in impacts on CTS, and this impact would be significant.
Reclamation
During mining operations, individual CTS could be adversely affected in the same ways described above for construction activities. For example, individuals could be injured or killed by foot traffic, equipment, and vehicles, both during new groundbreaking in mining pits, during mining activities, and during movement of people around the site. Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of CTS use. The impact of Project reclamation on CTS would be significant.
Summary
Given the dispersal capabilities of CTS, with individuals potentially moving up to 1.3 miles from breeding locations (Orloff 2007), the species could occur on the Project site. Therefore, all impacted natural habitat (i.e., all areas that are not currently developed) would be considered impacted CTS nonbreeding habitat. Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance of up to approximately 403 acres of suitable habitat for this species. No known or high-quality breeding habitat would be impacted, though it is possible that the species could breed in the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area and in the pond south of the Phase 4 mining area. Given the detection of CTS only once during four years of larval surveys conducted from 2000 to 2017, this species is likely present in the Project area only in low numbers. As a result, the Project’s effects on the species would be relatively low.
Individual CTS could be lost during Project construction, operations, and reclamation, and habitat modifications (such as the loss of upland dispersal and refugial habitat during mining operations) could result in some reductions in CTS populations. Therefore, impacts on CTS would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: The Applicant shall implement all impact avoidance and minimization measures described in Mitigation Measures 3.4-4a and 3.4-4b for the CRLF to reduce impacts on CTS, and shall consult with CDFW (e.g., for approval of biologists and relocation areas, and for approval conditions in which no take of individual CTS is anticipated to occur within an area and site monitoring by the qualified biologist is no longer necessary) in addition to the County and USFWS for all measures involving CTS.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b:
1. Prior to initiation of impacts, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of impacts on CTS habitat based on the acreage of all non-developed habitat to be impacted.
2. The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts on CTS nonbreeding habitat (e.g., upland habitat and nonbreeding aquatic habitat) through the preservation, management, and enhancement (e.g., through long-term management targeted toward this species) of high-quality habitat that is already occupied by the CTS at a ratio of at least 1:1 (mitigation:impact), on an acreage basis, or as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-72 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
and CDFW. This 1:1 mitigation ratio is not lower because CTS are expected to be present on the Project site at least in low numbers, so that a 1:1 mitigation ratio is deemed necessary to offset Project impacts, but it is not higher because surveys have documented that the species is scarce in the Project area (so that effects of the Project on this species’ populations would be low), and Project areas would be restored to conditions suitable for CTS following completion of mining. If CTS are recorded breeding successfully in the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area and that pond is subsequently impacted, or in the pond adjacent to the Phase 4 mining area that will be impacted indirectly as a result of reduction in the pond’s watershed, the Applicant shall provide mitigation for impacts to those breeding habitats at a ratio of at least 1:1, on an acreage basis, or as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS and CDFW; mitigation for lost breeding habitat shall consist of creation, preservation, and management of CTS breeding habitat. The same mitigation areas established for CRLF can be used for CTS if both species are documented to be present.
First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.
3. The HMMP described for CRLF in Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 will also describe the measures that shall be taken to manage the created/enhanced habitat and to monitor the effects of management on CTS. The HMMP shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. The County may retain a qualified biologist at the Applicant’s expense to peer-review the HMMP. The HMMP shall include the following:
• a summary of impacts on CTS habitat and populations, and the proposed mitigation;
• a description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions;
• a description of measures to be undertaken if necessary to enhance (e.g., through focused management) the mitigation site for CTS, including creation of new breeding habitat (if the Project impacts areas known to have been used for successful breeding by CTS);
• proposed management activities, such as managed grazing, management of invasive plants, measures targeted at sustaining populations of burrowing mammals, and other measures to maintain high-quality habitat for CTS; • a description of species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective goals and objectives (such as maintaining or increasing abundance of CTS or maintaining or improving habitat suitability), performance indicators and success criteria (such as presence or abundance of upland refugia), monitoring methods (such as sampling of upland refugia), data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include demonstrated occurrence of CTS on the mitigation site; • a description of the management plan’s adaptive management component, including a description of how management may be adapted depending on
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-73 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
climate change or other changes in site conditions and the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented, as well as contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria; and
• a description of the funding mechanism for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation lands.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 would benefit CTS by reducing impacts on water quality and aquatic habitats. Mitigation Measures 3.4-4a and 3.4-4b and Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a would avoid and minimize injury or mortality of individual CTS during construction, operations, and reclamation and minimize impacts on this species’ habitat.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b would offset Project impacts on CTS and their habitat by compensating for impacts to individual CTS and their habitat so that the Project does not cause a net reduction in this species’ populations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce the potential for introduction and/or spread of pathogens such as chytrid. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on CTS and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts, while allowing for construction, operations, and reclamation to proceed under specific circumstances specified in the mitigation without a full-time biological monitor. Collectively, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on CTS to less-thansignificant levels. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures would ensure that this species’ populations are not reduced by the Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures could result in impacts to CTS; for example, relocation of individuals could result in injury of some individuals, and individuals that are relocated could increase competition within the relocation areas or spread disease to the relocation areas. However, the overall effects of mitigation would reduce to the impact to less-than-significant levels. _________________________
Impact 3.4-6: Project activities would result in adverse effects on western pond turtles and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Western pond turtles have been documented in a pond approximately 1,100 feet south of the proposed processing plant location (as shown in Figure 3.4-4). Although there are no known occurrences of western pond turtles within Sargent Creek or Tar Creek, both of these creeks may provide foraging and movement habitat for this species (though occurrence in Sargent Creek is likely limited to lower reaches, downstream from the Project site, due to the brevity of flow in upper reaches closer to the Project site). It is possible that western pond turtles could also occur in the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area, and a pond along Sargent Creek near the Phase 4 mining area, though the species has not been recorded in these locations during multiple herpetological surveys conducted at Sargent Ranch (LOA 2017a, 2017b), so it does not occur there regularly or in large numbers, if at all. Neither Sargent Creek nor Tar Creek in the Project vicinity provides large pools with extensive basking habitat, and therefore the species does not
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-74 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
occur in large numbers in or near the Project area. The species could nest in upland areas of the Project site, though occurrence in upland areas for nesting or dispersal between aquatic habitats would be infrequent.
Construction
Proposed construction activities could result in the injury or mortality of individual western pond turtles. Small numbers of individuals could be present along Tar Creek and Sargent Creek where crossings would be constructed, and there is some potential (albeit low) that individuals could be present in upland areas where grading would occur. Construction activities might also result in the injury or mortality of individuals as a result of worker foot traffic, equipment use, or vehicle traffic. In the unlikely event (given the lack of high-quality aquatic habitat) that the species nests in the Project area, grading and movement of heavy equipment could destroy nests. Grading and other construction activities could impede upland movements by western pond turtles by altering topography or placing stockpiles of materials along movement pathways, though the effects of such impacts would be limited given that this species occurs primarily along streams, which would be subject to only limited Project construction activity. For these reasons, the impact of Project construction on western pond turtles would be significant.
Water Quality Impacts
Indirect impacts to western pond turtles and their habitat could also result from impacts to water quality in the ways described in Impact 3.4-3 above. Water-quality impacts could include reduction in the suitability of aquatic foraging habitat, which could reduce food abundance, and pollutants could affect the health of both western pond turtles and their food. Increases in human concentration and activity in the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that would prey opportunistically on western pond turtles.
Bridge Construction
Because the bridge proposed over Tar Creek would be a free-span bridge and the crossing over Sargent Creek would be an arch culvert, no significant loss of aquatic habitat occupied by the species would result from construction activities. However, construction would result in the direct loss of suitable upland dispersal and nesting habitat for the species.
Construction impacts on western pond turtles would be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals. For example, conditions of the permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities (from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code) would include conditions requiring the implementation of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality and to aquatic species such as the western pond turtle.
Implementation of the conditions in these permits would reduce impacts on western pond turtles and their aquatic habitats. Nevertheless, because resource agency permits and approvals have not yet been issued and the conditions of those permits are not yet known with certainty, Project construction and operations could result in impacts on western pond turtles.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-75 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Operation
During mining operations, individuals could be adversely affected in the same ways described above for construction activities. Pond turtles could be injured or killed by foot traffic, equipment, and vehicles, during mining activities and during movement of people around the site. If the species nests in the Project area, mining and movement of heavy equipment could destroy nests. As described for construction activities above, impacts on water quality could occur during Project operations, and western pond turtles could be affected by greater concentrations of predators attracted to human generated food waste. Operational activities such as pit excavation could impede movements by turtles by altering topography or placing stockpiles of materials along movement pathways, though overland movement by turtles through the mining areas likely occurs little, if at all, and there are no areas that western pond turtles would be completely unable to move through or around.
Mining Pits
Surveys conducted over a 17-year period at Sargent Ranch have not detected the species, and this species’ use of habitat within the Project area is therefore low if the species occurs there at all.
Nevertheless, direct and indirect impacts from mining operations on the pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area and the pond immediately south of the proposed Phase 3 mining area could reduce aquatic habitat for western pond turtles. In addition, during mining, western pond turtles could occupy any ponds and pools that form in the mining pits, or retention basins that are constructed in the pits. Mining activities could injure or kill turtles that colonize the pools, although it is unlikely that mining pits would attract western pond turtles away from more suitable off-site breeding locations to the point of causing a long-term decline in local populations. Project operations would also result in the loss of upland dispersal and nesting habitat for western pond turtles, within the footprints of the mining pits and any portions of the geotechnical setback areas and overburden stockpile areas that need to be disturbed, during the period in which mining occurs.
Processing Plant
The processing plant would include a 0.52-acre storage pond. Western pond turtles dispersing through the area could take residence in this pond. Such individuals could then be subject to injury or mortality from Project personnel, equipment, or could be subjected to adverse effects from reduced water quality. Western pond turtles have been recorded 1,100 feet south of the processing plant, and therefore could potentially disperse to this pond. However, the probability and magnitude of impacts on the species is low given the low numbers of occurrences in the vicinity.
Changes in Hydrology
Todd Groundwater’s analysis of effects of mining on hydrology determined that interception of groundwater flow, as well as surface runoff, could reduce the amount of water reaching areas downslope from mining areas (Todd Groundwater 2016, 2019). A reduction in the amount of water reaching ponds or pools within streams that provide habitat for western pond turtles could reduce aquatic habitat for this species. This impact could occur as described in Impact 3.4-4 for the CRLF. However, due to the paucity of records of this species from the Project vicinity, reductions
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-76 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
in ponding or flow in waterbodies in and downstream from the Project area would have little impact on western pond turtles and would not result in reductions in this species’ populations.
For all the reasons discussed above, the impact of Project operations on western pond turtles would be significant.
Reclamation
Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits and removal of the processing plants would restore their use as upland dispersal habitat for the species, to the extent that they are currently used at all. Although ponds and pools associated with mining pits that attract western pond turtles would be removed, individuals dispersing through the area during reclamation activities could be subject to injury or mortality from Project personnel or equipment. Although the species has not been recorded in the Project area itself, and the species’ use of habitat within the Project area is low, the impact of Project operations on western pond turtles would be significant.
Summary
Although surveys occurring over a long period (2000-2017) have only detected this species in only one location, outside the Project site, given the dispersion of ponds and streams on and near the Project site, and the potential for western pond turtles to occasionally disperse overland among waterbodies or to nest, western pond turtles could occasionally occur virtually anywhere on the Project site. Therefore, all impacted natural habitat (i.e., all areas that are not currently developed) would be considered potential western pond turtle habitat. Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance of up to approximately 403.29 acres of potential habitat for this species. However, the magnitude of impacts of the Project on this species’ populations, and on occupied habitat important to this species’ populations, would be low. This species is not listed under FESA or CESA, but it is a regionally scarce species. Although the Project would not impact habitat important to regional populations of this species, the Project could result in the loss of individuals during habitat modifications, and the loss of individual western pond turtles could result in a decline in this species’ population. Therefore, Project construction, operations, and reclamation impacts on western pond turtles are considered significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: The Applicant shall implement all impact avoidance and minimization measures described in Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 for water quality and
3.4-4a and 3.4-4b for the CRLF for the western pond turtle, and CDFW will be consulted (e.g., for approval of biologists and relocation areas) in addition to the County for all measures involving this species.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 would benefit western pond turtles by reducing impacts on water quality and aquatic habitats. Mitigation Measures 3.4-4a and 4b and Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 would avoid and minimize injury or mortality of individual western pond turtles during construction, operations, and reclamation and minimize impacts on this species’ habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-77 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
would further reduce impacts on western pond turtles and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Collectively, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on western pond turtles to less-than-significant levels. No compensatory mitigation for impacts to this species is necessary because the species has not been recorded in the Project area itself, and the species’ use of habitat within the Project area is low if the species occurs there at all. Nevertheless, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b for the CRLF and CTS, respectively, would benefit this species if western pond turtles are present in the areas where compensatory mitigation is provided for those species. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures, coupled with ultimate reclamation of the site, would ensure that this species’ populations are not reduced by the Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures could result in impacts to western pond turtles; for example, relocation of individuals could result in injury of some individuals, and individuals that are relocated could increase competition within the relocation areas. However, the overall effects of mitigation would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-7: Project activities would result in adverse effects on burrowing owls and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Burrowing owl breeding populations have declined precipitously throughout Santa Clara County in recent decades, a decline that seems to have accelerated in recent years. As a result, many locations that supported nesting burrowing owls 15 to 20 years ago (and even more recently) no longer support the species. The VHP’s 2018 countywide breeding burrowing owl survey included visits to Sargent Ranch on April 24 and May 23; no owls were observed in those surveys (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency 2018), and no burrowing owls have been recorded breeding in southern Santa Clara County during VHP surveys in 2019 or 2020 (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency 2019, 2020). No burrowing owls have been recorded within the Sargent Quarry Project area. However, burrowing owls have been observed foraging on the greater Sargent Ranch property, and a pair nested as recently as 2015 on the northern portion of the property, outside of the Project area. The Project area is likely used primarily or solely by wintering owls. This species is not listed under FESA or CESA, but it is a regionally scarce species. The significance threshold for habitat modification of special-status species is any measurable alteration of the habitat that would result in a drop in the population of the species.
Construction
If burrowing owls are present in areas disturbed by Project construction, they could be injured or killed by heavy equipment if occupied burrows are destroyed or compacted. Such impacts would be most likely to affect nonbreeding owls (e.g., in winter). Construction activities such as grading or movement of construction personnel or heavy equipment near (e.g., within 250 feet of) an occupied burrow could disturb owls to the point of abandoning the burrow. This could result in the loss of a wintering burrow, forcing the owl to relocate. Increases in human concentration and activity in the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-78 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that could prey opportunistically on burrowing owls. Construction would also result in the loss of foraging and roosting habitat for burrowing owls.
These impacts would not be reduced appreciably by implementation of the conditions of permits and agency approvals, as burrowing owls roost in upland areas where conditions of CWA, PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code permits would not apply. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on burrowing owl would be significant.
Operation
Operational activities could impact burrowing owls in the same ways described above for construction activities, with mining activities causing the loss of grassland that could be used as roosting and foraging habitat by burrowing owls. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on burrowing owl would be significant.
Reclamation
Activities associated with reclamation could impact burrowing owls in the same ways described above for construction activities. However, reclamation would restore grassland that could be used as roosting and foraging habitat by burrowing owls. Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, habitat conditions would be like baseline conditions from the perspective of burrowing owl use. Nevertheless, the impact of Project reclamation on burrowing owl would be significant.
Summary
Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance of up to 337.3 acres of grassland providing potential habitat for this species. However, this area is not known or expected to be used by breeding burrowing owls and comprises a very limited portion of the greater South Bay Area nonbreeding habitat. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial impacts to this species’ breeding or nonbreeding habitat. Although the Project would not have a significant impact on this species’ habitat, the Project could result in the loss of individuals during habitat modifications, and the loss of individual burrowing owls could result in a decline in this species’ wintering population. Therefore, Project construction and operational impacts on burrowing owls would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: The Applicant shall implement the following measures (based on those contained within Condition 15 of the VHP) prior to groundbreaking activities for each phase of the Project (construction, operations, and reclamation) to ensure that individual burrowing owls are not injured or killed as a result of Project activities.
Prior to any ground disturbance associated with the Project (including vegetation removal; construction of individual Project components, such as roads, conveyor belts, and mining infrastructure; and ground disturbance associated with the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase), a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys in all suitable burrowing owl habitat
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-79 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
areas on and within 250 feet of the area in which ground disturbance is proposed. To maximize the likelihood of detecting owls, the preconstruction survey shall last a minimum of three hours. The survey shall begin one hour before sunrise and continue until two hours after sunrise (three hours total) or begin two hours before sunset and continue until one hour after sunset. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted (if owls are detected on the first survey, a second survey is not needed). Owls observed shall be counted and their location shall be mapped. Surveys shall conclude no more than two calendar days prior to construction; thus, surveys must begin no less than four days prior to the start of construction, operations, or reclamation activities (two days of surveying plus up to two days between surveys and construction).
To avoid last-minute changes in schedule that may occur if burrowing owls are found, a preliminary survey may be conducted up to 14 days before construction. This preliminary survey may count as the first of the two required surveys, as long as the second survey concludes no more than two calendar days in advance of construction. Should the preconstruction survey determine the presence of burrowing owls on or within 250 feet the site, then the Applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures. a. Avoidance during the Breeding Season. If evidence of burrowing owls is found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), all nesting or roosting sites that could be disturbed by Project construction shall be avoided during the remainder of the breeding season (if owls remain throughout the breeding season) or while the nest (i.e., a burrow occupied during the period February 1 to August 31) is occupied by adults or young (occupation includes individuals or family groups foraging on or near the site following fledging). Although burrowing owls are unlikely to nest on the Project site, there is a remote possibility that nesting may occur. Wintering owls in Santa Clara County often remain past February 1, at which time they cannot be distinguished from breeding birds. As a result, any owl present between February 1 and August 31 will be considered a potential breeder unless and until it leaves the site.
Avoidance shall include establishment of a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer zone around nests. Construction may occur outside of the 250-foot non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur inside of the 250-foot non-disturbance buffer during the breeding season only if the nest is not disturbed, and a qualified biologist retained by the Project Applicant develops an avoidance, minimization, and monitoring plan that is reviewed and approved by the CDFW prior to Project construction and meets all of the following criteria:
• A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least 3 days prior to construction to determine baseline nesting and foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction).
• The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl nesting and foraging behavior in response to construction activities.
• If there is any change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, all disturbance activities shall cease within the 250-foot buffer. Construction shall not resume within the 250-foot buffer until the adults and juveniles from the occupied burrows have moved out of the Project area and 250-foot buffer.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-80 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• If monitoring indicates that the nest is abandoned prior to the end of the nesting season (as would occur if a wintering owl lingered past February 1 and then eventually migrated to its breeding areas outside the region), and the burrow is no longer in use by owls, the non-disturbance buffer zone may be removed. The qualified biologist will excavate the burrow to ensure that no owls are present and to prevent reoccupation after receiving approval from CDFW. b. Avoidance during the Non-Breeding Season. During the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around occupied burrows as determined by a qualified biologist.
Construction activities outside of this 250-foot buffer are allowed. Construction activities within the 250-foot buffer are allowed if all of the following criteria are met in order to prevent owls from abandoning important overwintering sites:
• A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). • The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl foraging behavior in response to construction activities. • If there is any change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, all disturbance activities shall cease within the 250-foot buffer.
• If the owls are gone for at least one week, the Project Applicant may request approval from the CDFW that a qualified biologist excavate usable burrows to prevent owls from re-occupying the site. After all usable burrows are excavated, the buffer zone will be removed and construction may continue. Monitoring must continue as described above for the non-breeding season as long as the burrow remains active.
c. Construction Monitoring. Based on the avoidance, minimization, and monitoring plan developed during construction, all non-disturbance buffer zones shall be established and maintained. A qualified biologist shall monitor the site consistent with the requirements described above to ensure that buffers are enforced and owls are not disturbed. The biological monitor shall also conduct training of construction personnel on the avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that a burrowing owl flies into an active construction zone or within 250 feet of such zone. d. Passive Relocation. Passive relocation shall only be allowed, with the approval of CDFW, during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), and may only occur if the burrow needs to be removed or could collapse from construction activities. If passive relocation is allowed by CDFW, a qualified biologist shall passively exclude birds from their burrows during non-breeding season only by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in place for at least 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow, and then the qualified biologist shall excavate the burrow to prevent reoccupation. Burrows shall be excavated using hand tools. During excavation an escape route shall be maintained at all times. This may include inserting an artificial structure into the burrow to avoid having the overburden collapse into the burrow and trap owls inside.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-81 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-7 would ensure that individual burrowing owls are not injured or killed during Project construction and operation activities, and that burrows occupied by owls are not abandoned (through implementation of buffers) unless those burrows are within the Project footprint, in which case passive relocation of owls may be implemented with CDFW approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4- 1c would further reduce impacts on burrowing owls and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on burrowing owls to less-than-significant levels. No compensatory mitigation for impacts to this species is necessary because the Project is highly unlikely to impact owls that are part of the South Bay breeding population, and there is no evidence that the availability of grassland habitat is limiting populations of the nonbreeding owls that occupy grasslands in southern Santa Clara County in winter.
Nevertheless, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b for the CRLF and CTS, respectively, may benefit this species if the upland habitats provided as compensatory mitigation for those amphibian species are also suitable for burrowing owls. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures, coupled with ultimate reclamation of the site, would ensure that burrowing owl populations are not reduced by the Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures could impact burrowing owls; for example, passive relocation of individuals could cause owls to move to areas where they may be more subject to predation or competition with other burrowing owls. However, the relatively low potential for such adverse effects is preferable to direct injury or mortality that might occur if owls were not passively relocated from burrows within Project impact areas. _________________________
Impact 3.4-8: Project activities would result in adverse effects on tricolored blackbirds and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Tricolored blackbirds have not been recorded breeding in the Project area. This species was not observed on Sargent Ranch during several surveys conducted from 2000 to 2017, and it may not currently breed there. Nevertheless, there is a historical (1989) breeding record of the species on Sargent Ranch. A stock pond in the geotechnical setback area of Phase 2, a pond adjacent to the Phase 4 mining area, and a seep within the setback area of Phase 1 provide suitable nesting habitat, and this species can nest in extensive mustard, thistles, or other upland vegetation if suitable structure is present. Suitability of this species’ nesting habitat can change dramatically at a site from one year to the next (e.g., grazing can degrade habitat, and removal of grazing can allow habitat to regenerate from one year to the next). Given the long duration for full Project implementation, tricolored blackbirds could occupy the site during the lifetime of the Project. The Project area also provides suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbirds.
Construction
Adult tricolored blackbirds would not be injured or killed by Project activities, as they could fly away from any construction equipment. Therefore, if tricolored blackbirds are absent from the Project site or use the site only for foraging, no injury or mortality would occur. However, if
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-82 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
tricolored blackbirds are actively breeding in areas disturbed by Project construction, then eggs or nestlings could be lost as a result of vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities during the breeding season (March 15 to July 31). Noise and movement of construction personnel, vehicles, and equipment in close proximity to (e.g., within 250 feet of) active nests could disturb breeding adults to the point of nest abandonment. Based on the lack of observations of this species during Project surveys, it is unlikely that nesting colonies would be destroyed or disturbed. However, this species nests in colonies that may number hundreds or even thousands of pairs, and therefore, if Project construction impacts a colony, large numbers of nests would be lost.
Construction would result in the loss of foraging habitat for tricolored blackbirds, as this species forages in a wide variety of habitats. Construction could also cause the loss of nesting habitat, although no construction activities are proposed to occur in areas that currently provide highquality nesting habitat (i.e., emergent wetland vegetation), and the absence of detections of this species during Project surveys indicates that it is highly unlikely that any habitat used currently or recently for nesting would be impacted by the Project.
Impacts on tricolored blackbirds would not be reduced substantively by implementation of the conditions of permits and agency approvals. Although this species often nests in emergent vegetation that may be regulated by the USACE and RWQCB under the CWA or Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Project permits may allow impacts to such vegetation, and the conditions of those permits may not include measures to protect tricolored blackbirds. Any Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by CDFW may include measures to avoid impacts to tricolored blackbirds, but those conditions would apply only to creek and riparian habitats under CDFW jurisdiction, whereas tricolored blackbirds could nest in ponds or other areas not subject to CDFW’s jurisdiction. Due to the potential for construction activities to result in disturbance of nesting colonies and the loss of nesting habitat, the impact of Project construction on tricolored blackbirds and their habitat would be significant.
Operation
Mining Pits
Operational activities could impact tricolored blackbirds in the same way as construction impacts.
If nesting occurs in or near the mining areas, groundbreaking could result in the loss of active nests, eggs, and young, or disturbance of nesting colonies. Mining could also result in the loss of nesting habitat, such as a stock pond within the geotechnical setback area of Phase 2 and a seep within the setback area of Phase 1, and could potentially reduce habitat quality at a pond adjacent to the Phase 4 mining area due to reduction in the watershed draining to this pond. Mining would result in the loss of foraging habitat.
The Todd Groundwater memo and addendum suggested that emergent vegetation could establish in the bottoms of the mining pits (Todd Groundwater 2016, 2019). However, it is unlikely that sufficient emergent vegetation would accumulate in the pits to support nesting by tricolored blackbirds, as mining disturbance would minimize vegetation development until mining in a given pit is completed. Because reclamation would occur on an ongoing basis (as use of certain areas is completed), reclamation would prevent the establishment of large amounts of emergent
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-83 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
vegetation after mining activities cease. Even if vegetation is present, mining disturbance within a pit would likely provide sufficient disturbance to discourage tricolored blackbirds from establishing a nesting colony. Therefore, there is a low probability that tricolored blackbirds would establish nesting colonies within the mining pits. However, if sufficient vegetation develops, and if mining activity does not prevent nesting (either because of a lull in activity during the breeding season or because mining is occurring far enough from the suitable habitat), then mining close to a colony after a colony becomes established could cause abandonment of active nests or could destroy active nests. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on tricolored blackbirds and their habitat would be significant.
Reclamation
Reclamation activities would involve use of construction equipment. Adult tricolored blackbirds would not be injured or killed by reclamation activities, as they could fly away from any construction equipment. Reclamation activities could result in the loss of active nests, eggs, and young, or disturbance of nesting colonies, if nesting is occurring in or near the areas being reclaimed.
Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of tricolored blackbird use. The impact of Project construction on tricolored blackbirds would be significant.
Summary
Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance of up to 361.5 acres of potential foraging and/or nesting habitat (i.e., all habitat types on the Project site except for developed and wooded habitats) for this species. However, suitable foraging habitat for this species is widespread in the South Bay; given the species’ very scarce and localized status as a breeder in the South Bay, suitable foraging habitat is not limiting this species’ distribution. Therefore, if tricolored blackbirds only use the Project area for foraging (or not at all), the Project would not result in a significant impact on this species. However, if the species breeds on the Project site, the Project could cause the loss of active nests, eggs, and young, and the Project could result in the loss of breeding habitat. Therefore, Project construction and operational impacts on the tricolored blackbird are considered significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-8a: The Applicant shall implement the following measures (based on those contained within Condition 17 of the VHP) prior to groundbreaking activities for each phase of the Project (construction, operations, and reclamation), to ensure that active tricolored blackbird colonies, including active nests, eggs, and young, are not lost as a result of Project activities.
1. Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase that occur between March 15 and July 31, a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys in all suitable tricolored blackbird habitat areas on and within 250 feet of the area in which construction or operational activities are proposed. The survey will be conducted no more than two calendar days prior to the start of the construction or operational activity. To avoid last minute changes in schedule that may occur if an active nest
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-84 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
(i.e., a nest that is under construction or contains eggs or young) is found, the Project Applicant may also conduct a preliminary survey more than two calendar days before the start of construction, operations, and reclamation activities.
2. If any emergent vegetation develops in the bottom of an active mining pit (i.e., one that has not yet undergone complete reclamation), and more than one week of inactivity within 250 feet of that emergent vegetation occurs during the breeding season (March 15-July 31), a qualified biologist shall perform a survey for nesting tricolored blackbirds prior to the initiation of any subsequent Project activity within 250 feet of the emergent vegetation.
3. If a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is present, the qualified biologist will map the extent of suitable nesting habitat in which nesting is taking place (this suitable habitat may extend beyond the locations of actual nests). A 250-foot buffer will be applied between the edge of that nesting habitat and Project activities. This buffer may be reduced in areas with dense forest or other habitat features between the construction activities and the active nest colony, or where there is sufficient topographic relief to protect the colony from excessive noise or visual disturbance. Depending on site characteristics, the sensitivity of the colony, and surrounding land uses, the buffer zone may also be increased beyond 250 feet.
4. If construction or operational activities take place during the breeding season when an active colony is present, a qualified biologist will monitor these activities to ensure that the 250-foot buffer zone is enforced. If monitoring indicates that Project activities outside of the buffer are affecting a breeding colony, the buffer will be increased if space allows (e.g., moving work areas farther away). If space does not allow, the Project activities causing disturbance of the colony will cease until the young have fledged or until the end of the breeding season, whichever occurs first.
The biological monitor will also conduct training of construction personnel on the avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that tricolored blackbirds fly into an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-8b: If Project construction or operational activities will result in direct impacts (outside the breeding season) on nesting habitat known to have supported nesting tricolored blackbirds within the last five years (as identified in the CNDDB, through contact with local experts, and Project pre-activity surveys in Mitigation Measure 3.4-8a), compensatory mitigation for the loss of nesting habitat shall be provided. Prior to initiation of impacts on that nesting habitat, a qualified biologist will determine the acreage of nesting habitat (habitat used by nesting blackbirds in the previous five years) that will be impacted. Compensatory mitigation will be provided in the form of habitat preservation or creation at a ratio of 1:1 (on an acreage basis) and shall be described within the Project’s HMMP prepared for the CRLF and CTS as described in Mitigation Measures 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b. First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.
Habitat to be preserved or created shall contain at least the same acreage of suitable nesting habitat for the tricolored blackbird as the amount of nesting habitat acreage lost, and the suitability of that habitat for nesting must be verified by a qualified biologist and reviewed and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development. A habitat protection easement ensuring that the use and development of the compensatory
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-85 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
mitigation area shall be consistent with this purpose in perpetuity shall be granted by the Applicant to the County or other qualified entity approved by the County.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-8a would ensure that Project construction and operational activities do not cause the direct or indirect loss of active nests, eggs, or young, and Mitigation Measure 3.4-8b will compensate for any loss of nesting habitat known to have supported nesting tricolored blackbirds within the last five years.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on tricolored blackbirds and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on tricolored blackbirds to less-than-significant levels.
Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining will occur, and Project areas will be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures, coupled with reclamation of the site, will ensure that this species’ populations are not reduced by the Project. _________________________
Impact 3.4-9: Project activities would result in adverse effects on other special-status and protected birds and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Project site provides potential foraging and nesting habitat for several special-status bird species, including the grasshopper sparrow, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, yellow warbler, loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, and northern harrier, and all these species could breed on the Project site in low numbers. The site also provides suitable foraging habitat for several other special-status bird species, including the bald eagle, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, short-eared owl, long-eared owl, and bank swallow; however, these species would not nest on or very close to the Project site due to the absence of high-quality nesting habitat and nest sites. In addition, a diverse array of other native bird species, all protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, nest in the grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian habitats, and other habitat types present on the Project site.
Construction
Adult birds and fledged juveniles/subadults would not be injured or killed by Project activities, as they could fly away from any construction equipment. However, construction during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) could result in the loss of active nests, including eggs or young, during vegetation removal, grading, or construction in nesting habitat. Noise and movement of construction personnel, vehicles, and equipment in close proximity to active nests could disturb breeding adults to the point of nest abandonment. Construction would also result in the loss of nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat for protected birds. All of the natural habitats on the Project site (i.e., all except “developed”) provide suitable nesting, foraging, and/or roosting habitat for at least one special-status bird species, and therefore such impacts could occur virtually anywhere on the Project site.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-86 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impacts on nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for special-status birds and other protected birds would be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals. Conditions of the permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities (from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code) would include conditions requiring the implementation of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality and wetland and aquatic habitats. Further, CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements often include measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Implementation of the conditions in these permits would reduce impacts on protected birds and their habitats. Nevertheless, because construction activities away from regulated habitats would not be subject to nesting bird conditions of resource agency permits, construction has the potential to cause the loss or disturbance of active nests and the loss of their habitat. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on other special-status and protected birds and their habitat would be significant.
Operation
Operational activities could adversely affect protected birds in the same ways as described above for construction activities. Operational activities could also result in the loss or degradation of habitat off-site as a result of changes in hydrology due to mining, as described in greater detail in Impact 3.4-14 for riparian habitats. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on other specialstatus and protected birds and their habitat would be significant.
Reclamation
Reclamation activities would involve use of construction equipment. However, adult protected birds would not be injured or killed by reclamation activities, as they could fly away from any construction equipment. Reclamation activities could result in the loss of active nests, eggs, and young, or disturbance of nesting colonies, if nesting is occurring in or near the areas being reclaimed. Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of use by protected birds, although the removal of trees in coast live oak forest and woodland and mixed riparian woodland and forest habitats (see Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2) would result in some long-term loss of nesting and roosting habitat. The impact of Project reclamation on other specialstatus and protected birds would be significant.
Summary
Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance of up to approximately 403.29 acres of suitable habitat (i.e., all habitat types on the Project site except for developed habitats) for protected birds. None of the special-status bird species nesting in or near the Project area (grasshopper sparrow, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, yellow warbler, loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, and northern harrier) are listed under FESA or CESA. Furthermore, these species are widespread in the region, and none are particularly rare.
However, the significance threshold for habitat modification of special-status species is any measurable alteration of the habitat that would result in a drop in the population of the species. In
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-87 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
addition, all native bird species occurring on the Project site are protected by state and federal law, and due to the high diversity of both special-status and non-special-status birds that occur on the site, Project impacts that result in the loss of active nests could result in substantial degradation of bird communities in the Sargent Ranch area as a whole. Therefore, the impact of Project construction, operations, and reclamation on special-status and protected birds and their habitat would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for construction, for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase, and for the start of reclamation activities to ensure that active nests, eggs, and young of protected birds are not lost as a result of Project activities. a. To the extent feasible, construction, operational, and reclamation activities that involve vegetation removal or ground-breaking, or that occur near wooded or forested habitats likely to support large numbers of nesting birds, shall be initiated during the nonbreeding season for birds (generally September 1 through January 31).
If these activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, impacts on active nests of birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided.
b. Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for Project activities that occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. The survey will cover the portions of the Project site where construction/operations activities will be initiated as well as a 1-mile buffer for nesting eagles (in the event that eagles may nest in the vicinity during the Project’s lifetime), a 250-foot buffer for other raptors, and a 100-foot buffer for non-raptors (other than tricolored blackbirds, which are addressed in Mitigation Measures 3.4-8a and 8b). During each survey, the qualified biologist will inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, grasslands, wetlands, and other nesting substrate) within direct impact areas and the aforementioned buffers for active nests (i.e., nests with eggs or young). The survey will be conducted no more than two calendar days prior to the start of the construction or operational activity. To avoid last-minute changes in schedule that may occur if an active nest is found, the Project Applicant may also conduct a preliminary survey more than two calendar days before construction. c. If an active nest is found, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of a disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest to ensure that it is not disturbed during Project implementation. The buffer distance is measured as the straight-line distance between an active nest and the activity. No Project-related activities that could physically disturb the nest, or any new Project-related activities (i.e., activities that were not ongoing when the nest was established) near the nest, will be performed within the buffer until the young have fledged or the nest has been determined to be inactive by a qualified biologist. Standard buffers are typically 100 feet for non-raptors and 250 feet for raptors other than eagles (for which the buffer may be up to 1 mile). A qualified biologist may determine that a reduced buffer is acceptable, taking into account dense vegetation, topography, or structures that will block Project activities from view; the life history and behavior of the bird
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-88 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
species in question; and the nature (such as amount of noise, ground disturbance, or activity of personnel and equipment) of the proposed activity. If a reduced buffer is implemented, the qualified biologist will monitor bird behavior during work activities to the degree necessary to determine whether the buffer should be increase.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 would ensure that active nests of protected birds are not directly impacted or disturbed to the point of abandonment as a result of Project activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on protected birds and their habitats by training Project personnel on these species, their habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts protected birds to lessthan-significant levels. No compensatory mitigation for impacts to these species is necessary because the Project would not result in substantial impacts to regional populations with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-9.
In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b for the CRLF and CTS, respectively, would benefit numerous bird species, likely including most or all of the special-status bird species that nest on the Project site, given that the upland habitats provided as compensatory mitigation for those amphibian species would also provide suitable habitat for a number of bird species. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measure, coupled with ultimate reclamation of the site, would ensure that populations of protected birds are not reduced by the Project.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-10: Project activities would result in adverse effects on special-status bats. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Two special-status bat species could roost in the Project area: the pallid bat and western red bat, both of which are California species of special concern. They are strongly associated with intact cottonwood/sycamore valley riparian habitats and they roost solitarily in foliage. Structures such as barns that provide high-quality roosting habitat for pallid bats are not present in the Project area, but this species could roost (and females could form maternity roosts) in trees such as oaks that provide large cavities.
Construction
Maternity roosts of western red bat would not be affected by construction activities because the species does not breed in Santa Clara County. However, nonbreeding roosts of western red bat may be impacted by Project construction. In the event that a tree is removed while it is being used for roosting by a red bat (e.g., during riparian tree removal for construction of the bridge over Tar Creek), the individual would be able to flee before it is injured or killed. Although these individuals may be subjected to increased risk of predation during the daytime, few, if any, western red bats would be present in areas where they would be disturbed by proposed Project activities.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-89 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Oak trees provide potential habitat for the cavity-roosting pallid bat. When trees containing roosting colonies or individual pallid bats are removed or modified, individual bats could be physically injured or killed; subjected to physiological stress from being disturbed during torpor; or face increased predation because of exposure during daylight. Construction during the maternity season (April 1 to July 31) near maternity roosts may cause mothers to attempt to relocate to new roosts. Some females may find alternative roosts in other hollows in trees, or crevices in rock outcrops nearby. If females are forced to abandon a roost early in the maternity season (e.g., in April or May), their young may be small enough that the females can carry the young to a new roost. However, if females leave the roost later in the maternity season (e.g., June or July), the young may be too large to carry, and abandonment of young or unsuccessful attempts to relocate young could lead to their mortality.
Project construction would result in the loss of trees in coast live oak forest and woodland and mixed riparian woodland and forest as shown in Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. These areas may serve as roost sites for both western red bats and pallid bats. Further, Project construction would result in the loss of vegetated foraging habitat for the pallid bat, which often picks prey off the ground in open habitats such as grassland. If pallid bats abandon a roost during construction, but the tree containing the roost is not removed, they may return to the roost once construction has been completed. However, unless high-quality alternative roost sites are present in the vicinity, the population may decline before the bats can re-occupy the roost due to permanent dispersal of females away from the roost, lower reproductive success by females using inferior roost sites (such as roosts located farther from high-quality foraging habitat), or predation of bats that are unable to find suitable roost sites. Loss of vegetation may also reduce prey abundance and availability for foraging bats.
Impacts on bat roosting and foraging habitat may be reduced to a limited extent by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals. Conditions of the permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities (from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code) would include conditions requiring the implementation of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to riparian habitats. Further, CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements often include measures to avoid impacts to roosting bats.
Implementation of the conditions in these permits would reduce impacts on special-status bats and their habitats. Nevertheless, because construction activities away from regulated habitats would not be subject to roosting bat conditions of resource agency permits, construction has the potential to cause the loss or disturbance of roosting bats and the loss of their habitat. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on special-status bats and their habitat would be significant.
Operation
Operational activities could affect western red bats and pallid bats in the same ways described for construction activities. Removal of oak woodland within Phases 1 and 2 for mining would be most likely to impact roosting bats. Use of lighting in close proximity to occupied roosts could disturb bats, causing them to abandon the roost. Operational activities could also result in the loss
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-90 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
or degradation of habitat off-site as a result of changes in hydrology due to mining, as described in greater detail in Impact 3.4-14 for riparian habitats. However, such changes in riparian habitat would not result in substantial impacts to western red bats, which are scarce in the Project area/vicinity and would therefore have ample roost sites available to them, or to pallid bats, which would continue to use suitable cavities of riparian trees even if those trees are stressed by changes in hydrology. The impact of Project operations on special-status bats and their habitat would be significant.
Reclamation
Reclamation would not involve tree removal and therefore would not affect roosting activities by special-status bats. Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, foraging habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of bat use, though the removal of trees would result in some long-term loss of potential roosting habitat. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on special-status bats and their habitat would be less than significant.
Summary
All impacted riparian and oak woodland habitat provides suitable roost sites for western red bats, and a subset of such habitat (mature trees with large cavities) provides suitable roosting habitat for pallid bats. Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance or loss of up to 40.4 acres of potential roosting habitat for these two special-status bats, as well as the loss of up to 337.3 acres of grassland that provides suitable foraging habitat for pallid bats. The western red bat occurs in the region only in low densities, and only as a nonbreeder; as a result, suitable roosting habitat for this species is widespread, and the Project site supports only a very small proportion of regionally available habitat for this species. However, the significance threshold for habitat modification of special-status species is any alteration of the habitat that would result in a drop in the population of the species. Moreover, pallid bats are scarce and localized species in the region, and if construction or operational activities were to cause the loss or abandonment of an actively used maternity roost site for this species, or in the destruction of an occupied maternity roost (resulting in injury or mortality of individual pallid bats), such an impact could cause a decline in the population of the species. Therefore, the impact of Project construction and operations on special-status bats would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10a: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase to ensure that active pallid bat maternity roosts are not destroyed or disturbed as a result of Project activities.
1. A qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct a habitat assessment of any riparian or oak woodland within the Project area for high-quality pallid bat roost sites prior to the start of any activities that will result in the removal of trees, use of heavy equipment, or night lighting. The habitat assessment shall include all impact areas plus a surrounding 150-foot buffer. If the habitat assessment concludes that any trees proposed for removal, or within 150 feet of areas where heavy equipment will
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-91 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
be operated or night lighting will occur, provide high-quality roosting habitat for pallid bats (e.g., large cavities), the qualified biologist shall conduct a focused emergence survey to determine whether the roost is occupied. The survey shall be performed within 15 days prior to the start of construction or operations activities in a given Project phase. The survey shall include monitoring of suitable cavities at dusk, on a warm, dry evening when bats would emerge, to determine whether bats exit the roosts. Surveys may necessitate multiple qualified biologists and the use of acoustic detection devices to ensure that any pallid bats present are detected. If no pallid bats are detected emerging during the survey, no further measures are necessary. If pallid bats are detected during the survey, the qualified biologist will identify an appropriate buffer to be maintained around the roost during the maternity season (April 1 through July 31). The dimensions of the buffer will be determined based on the nature of the construction or operational activities proposed near the roost tree, the presence of dense vegetation or topography between the Project activities and the roost, and any other relevant factors. No new activities (i.e., activities that were not ongoing when the maternity season began) will occur within the buffer around the roost tree during the maternity season.
2. Pallid bat roost sites will be avoided and buffered, even outside the maternity season, if feasible. If it is infeasible to avoid the removal of a roost tree, whenever feasible the tree shall be removed only outside the maternity roost season and during seasonal periods of bat activity, when bats would be best able to find alternative roost sites.
Thus, whenever feasible tree removal would occur only August 1 through October 15 or during March. Removal of these trees shall occur under the supervision of a qualified biologist via a two-phased process over two consecutive days. In the afternoon of the first day, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features shall be removed. This disturbance would cause bats to leave the roost that evening. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10b: If a tree (or any other structure) containing a pallid bat maternity roost must be removed as part of the Project, a qualified biologist shall design and determine an appropriate location, on Sargent Ranch, for an alternative roost structure, based on the location of the original roost and habitat conditions in the vicinity.
The roost structure shall be built to specifications as determined by a qualified biologist, or it may be purchased from an appropriate vendor, though the design must be approved by a qualified biologist. The structure shall be placed as close to the impacted roost site as feasible, though it will be located far enough from future Project activities so as to avoid disturbance of bats using the roost. The Applicant shall monitor the roost for three years or until occupancy is determined (whichever occurs first) to determine use by bats and submit annual reports verifying monitoring results to the County Department of Planning and Development Department.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b would reduce impacts to roosting bats by reducing lighting effects. Mitigation Measure 3.4-10a would ensure that pallid bats are not injured or killed during tree removal, and that occupied pallid bat maternity roosts are not disturbed to the point of abandonment during the maternity season. Mitigation Measure 3.4-10b would require replacement of any pallid bat maternity roosts that are
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-92 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
impacted by the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on bats and their habitats by training Project personnel on these species, their habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. These measures collectively minimize the potential for the loss of individual pallid bats and offset the loss of maternity roost sites.
In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b for the CRLF and CTS, respectively, would likely benefit both the western red bat and pallid bat by preserving and managing upland habitat that could be used by both bat species. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures, coupled with ultimate reclamation of the site, would ensure that populations of special-status bats are not reduced by the Project. Implementation of mitigation measures could result in impacts to bats, as bats that are encouraged to leave their roosts could be subject to increased predation risk or reduced reproductive success if they are unable to easily find alternative roosts. However, the net effects of mitigation measures would be preferable to having bats injured or killed during tree removal. _________________________
Impact 3.4-11: Project activities would result in adverse effects on mountain lions and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
A mountain lion was observed on Sargent Ranch in 2004, and the species could occur there regularly. The Project area may be a part of a regular mountain lion territory, in which case the species may forage throughout the Project area, and dispersing individuals also likely occur within the Project area. Individuals typically have a large home range, ranging from 25 to 500 square miles in males and 8 to 400 square miles in females. As a result, the Project area would at most serve as a very small portion of an individual’s home range.
Construction
Project construction would not result in direct injury or mortality of mountain lions. The majority of the Project area is occupied by open grassland, which would not be used as denning habitat by the mountain lion, which uses dens that are well concealed. The riparian habitat along Tar Creek near the proposed bridge crossing is very close to an occupied residence with dogs, which would be avoided by mountain lions, and even the oak woodland is open enough that mountain lions are not expected to establish dens there. As a result, mountain lions would occur in construction areas only when foraging or during dispersal. Construction activity may disturb foraging or dispersing mountain lions, causing them to move away from or to avoid Project areas that are under construction. If construction activities cause dispersing mountain lions to move across U.S. 101 over the road surface instead of using undercrossings, then the Project could indirectly cause injury or mortality of individuals due to vehicle collisions. Effects of the Project on movement of wildlife, including mountain lions, are discussed in detail in Impact 3.4-15. Construction would result in the loss of foraging habitat for mountain lions.
Conditions of the permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities (from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-93 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code) could reduce impacts on riparian habitats that provide cover for mountain lions. However, because the majority of mountain lion activity in the Project area would occur in upland habitats that are not subject to resource agency permits, impacts on mountain lions are unlikely to be reduced substantially by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on mountain lions and their habitat would be significant.
Operation
As discussed for construction activities, Project operations would not result in direct injury or mortality of mountain lions. However, operational activities would create enough disturbance that mountain lions may avoid the Project area, at least during the hours of operation (4:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday). Operational activities could also deter mountain lions from using certain undercrossings, such as the Tar Creek/UPRR undercrossing of U.S. 101, which could cause individuals to cross over the highway (which could result in injury or mortality) or inhibit dispersal. Effects of the Project on movement of wildlife, including mountain lions, are discussed in detail in Impact 3.4-15. Operational activities, primarily mining, would result in the loss of foraging habitat for mountain lions. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on specialstatus bats and their habitat would be significant.
Reclamation
As discussed for construction activities, reclamation would not result in direct injury or mortality of mountain lions. Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of mountain lion use. Therefore, the impact of Project reclamation on special-status bats and their habitat would be less than significant.
Summary
All impacted natural habitat (i.e., all areas that are not currently developed) would be considered suitable mountain lion foraging and dispersal habitat. Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance or loss of up to approximately 403.29 acres of suitable habitat for this species. The significance threshold for habitat modification is any measurable alteration of the habitat that would result in a drop in the population of special-status species. The significance threshold for endangered or threatened animals such as the mountain lion is any loss of individual animals. Although no direct loss of individuals would result from Project activities, Project construction and operation could cause dispersing animals to cross over U.S. 101 instead of using undercrossings such as the Tar Creek/UPRR undercrossing. Other impacts of the Project on mountain lion dispersal are discussed in detail in Impact 3.4-15, and Mitigation Measure 3.4-15, discussed in the wildlife movement impact section below, would be implemented to reduce impacts on mountain lions.
The impact of Project construction and operations on mountain lions and their habitat would be significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-94 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-4c,
3.4-5b, and 3.4-15.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-15, discussed in the wildlife movement impact section, would reduce impacts on mountain lion movement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on mountain lions and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b for the CRLF and CTS, respectively, would likely benefit mountain lions by preserving and managing habitat that could be used by mountain lions. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures, coupled with ultimate reclamation of the site, would minimize the potential for populations of mountain lions to be reduced by the Project (though see Impact 3.4-15 for the significance of Project impacts on wildlife movement). _________________________
Impact 3.4-12: Project activities would result in adverse effects on San Francisco duskyfooted woodrats and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests were observed within the Tar Creek riparian corridor where the free-span bridge is proposed during surveys in 2017 (Appendix E.3). This species occurs within the Project area in riparian woodland and possibly also in oak woodland.
Construction
Construction activities could result in injury or mortality of woodrats where dense riparian vegetation or oak woodland would be impacted, such as where the Tar Creek bridge would be constructed. In such areas, nests could be destroyed by heavy equipment during vegetation removal and grading. Though most adults would be able to flee the nests before they are injured or killed, some may be lost during vegetation removal and grading, and young in the nests would likely be lost as well. Substrate vibrations may also cause individuals to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation. Increases in human concentration and activity in the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that could prey opportunistically on woodrats.
Construction would cause the loss of suitable habitat for this species as well.
Impacts on woodrats and their habitat may be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals. Condition of the permits necessary to construct the bridges and to impact wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities (from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code) would include conditions requiring the implementation of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to riparian habitats, and CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements often include measures to minimize impacts to woodrat nests. Implementation of the conditions in these
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-95 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
permits would reduce impacts on woodrats and their habitats to some extent. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is not listed under FESA or CESA. Nevertheless, because construction activities away from regulated habitats would not be subject to woodrat conditions of resource agency permits, construction has the potential to cause the loss or disturbance of woodrat nests and the loss of the species’ habitat. The impact of Project construction would be significant.
Operation
Mining operations could impact woodrats in the ways described above for construction activities where the species is present in oak woodland that would be cleared for mining. Woodrat nests in oak woodland could be present both on the ground (in areas with dense understory) and in arboreal tree nests. Use of lighting in close proximity to occupied woodrat habitat could make woodrats more detectable by nocturnal predators, increasing mortality. Operational activities could also result in the loss or degradation of riparian habitat along Sargent Creek downstream from the Project site as a result of changes in hydrology due to mining, as described in greater detail in Impact 3.4-14 for riparian habitats. The impact of Project operations would be significant.
Reclamation
Reclamation activities would not involve vegetation removal and therefore would not affect woodrat nests. Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, foraging habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of woodrat use. The impact of Project reclamation would be less than significant.
Summary
All riparian and oak woodland habitat on the Project site provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats. Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance or loss of up to 40.4 acres of potential habitat for this species. In addition, woodrats could be injured or killed by construction and operational activities that affect riparian and oak woodland habitats. Also, woodrats are very important ecologically in that they provide an important prey source for predatory animals like raptors (particularly owls) and their nests also provide habitat for a wide variety of small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. As a result, loss of woodrats could have adverse effects on a variety of other wildlife species. Impacts on woodrats and their habitat may be reduced by implementation of the conditions of permits and approvals. However, resource agency permits and approvals have not yet been issued and the conditions of those permits are not yet known with certainty, and those permits would not pertain to upland habitats such as oak woodland that could support nesting woodrats. Therefore, the impact of Project construction and operations on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats and their habitat would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-12a: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-12b: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities in riparian or oak woodland for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-96 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
mining phase to ensure that impacts to active nests of woodrats as a result of Project activities are minimized.
No more than 15 days prior to initial vegetation removal or ground disturbance within suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, for each phase of construction and mining, a preconstruction survey for woodrat nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant. The survey shall consist of walking through all areas of suitable habitat within the Project work area looking for woodrat nests, both on the ground and in oak trees.
a. All woodrat nests detected within the survey area shall be flagged and mapped. b. A minimum 10-foot buffer should be maintained between Project construction activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. A smaller buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than that due to Project activities.
c. If avoidance of active woodrat nests is not feasible (e.g., the nest is in the Project disturbance area) the woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the woodrats. The eviction of woodrats and dismantling of woodrat nests shall begin no earlier than one hour before sunset to allow woodrats to escape under cover of dusk and avoid predators. A qualified biologist shall disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge outside of the Project activity area. Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be relocated; these materials will be gathered onto a tarp and then piled at the base of a nearby tree or shrub outside of the activity’s impact area. The spacing between relocated nests shall not be less than 20 feet, if feasible, to avoid over-crowding.
d. If, during dismantling of a woodrat nest, young woodrats are detected, the nest will be left in place. Qualified biologists will revisit the nest after 3 days to determine whether it is still active, or whether the mother relocated the young to another area.
Once the nest is determined to be inactive or the young are large enough to disperse on their own, the nest will be dismantled and the nest materials relocated.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b would reduce impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats by reducing lighting effects. Mitigation Measure 3.4-12b would minimize mortality of individual woodrats by avoiding impacts to occupied nests where feasible and allowing woodrats to flee from nests before the nests are destroyed. This mitigation measure would also facilitate reconstruction of nests by moving nest materials to suitable habitat areas outside the impact footprint. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on woodrats and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. These measures collectively minimize the number of woodrats that might be lost as a result of Project activities.
In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b for the CRLF and CTS, respectively, would likely benefit this species by preserving and managing woodland habitat that could be used by this species. The mitigation measures would ensure that populations of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats are not reduced by the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-97 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Project. Implementation of mitigation measures would result in impacts to woodrats, as individuals that are encouraged to leave their nests could be subject to increased predation risk or reduced reproductive success if they are unable to easily find or construct alternative nests. However, many woodrats would be able to successfully find alternative refugia after eviction from their nests, and the net effects of mitigation measures would be preferable to having woodrats directly injured or killed during Project activities and would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. _________________________
Impact 3.4-13: Project activities would result in adverse effects on American badgers and their habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
American badgers have been documented on the greater Sargent Ranch property. While badgers and their dens have not been documented within the Project area, grasslands occurring in the Project area provide suitable foraging, denning, and breeding habitat for this species.
Construction
If American badgers are present in areas disturbed by Project construction, they could be injured or killed by heavy equipment if occupied dens are destroyed or compacted. Construction activities such as grading or movement of construction personnel or heavy equipment in close proximity to an occupied den could disturb badgers to the point of abandoning the burrow. This could result in the loss of an active den, forcing the individual to relocate. If a maternity den is physically destroyed or disturbed by the noise or movement of construction personnel or equipment, young could be lost or abandoned. Increases in human concentration and activity in the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that could prey on or compete with badgers.
Construction would also result in the loss of foraging and roosting habitat for this species.
Construction activity may disturb foraging or dispersing badgers, causing them to move away from or to avoid Project areas that are under construction. If construction activities cause dispersing badgers to move across U.S. 101 over the road surface instead of using undercrossings, then the Project could indirectly cause injury or mortality of individuals due to vehicle collisions.
Effects of the Project on movement of wildlife, including badgers, are discussed in detail in Impact 3.4-16.
Impacts on American badgers would not be reduced appreciably by implementation of the conditions of permits and agency approvals, as this species occurs primarily in upland grasslands where conditions of CWA, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code permits would not apply. This species is not listed under FESA or CESA, but it is a regionally scarce species. The impact of Project construction would be significant.
Operation
Operational activities could impact badgers in the same ways described above for construction activities. Operational activities would create enough disturbance that badgers may avoid the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-98 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Project area, at least during the hours of operation (4:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday). Operational activities could also deter badgers from using certain undercrossings, such as the Tar Creek/UPRR undercrossing, of U.S. 101, which could cause individuals to cross over the highway (which could result in injury or mortality) or inhibit dispersal. Effects of the Project on movement of wildlife, including badgers, are discussed in detail in Impact 3.4-16. Operational activities, primarily mining, would result in the loss of foraging and denning habitat for badgers.
Following completion of mining, reclamation of the mining pits, and removal of the processing plant, habitat conditions would be similar to baseline conditions from the perspective of badger use. The impact of Project operations would be significant.
Reclamation
Reclamation activities could impact badgers in the same ways described above for construction activities as well disturb foraging or dispersing badgers, causing them to move away from or to avoid Project areas undergoing reclamation. The impact of Project reclamation would be significant.
Summary
Grassland habitat throughout the Project area provides suitable foraging and denning habitat for American badgers, and all natural habitats (i.e., those that are not developed) provide cover and dispersal habitat for this species. Considering construction and operational activities together, the Project would result in the disturbance of up to approximately 403.29 acres of potential habitat for this species. Further, the Project could result in the injury or mortality of individuals within dens, and the loss of individual badgers could result in a decline in this species’ populations.
Therefore, the impact of Project construction, operations, and reclamation on American badgers and their habitat would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-13: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities in natural (i.e., undeveloped) habitat for construction or for the start of mining and reclamation activities associated with each new mining phase to ensure that injury or mortality of American badgers as a result of Project activities is avoided.
a. Preconstruction surveys (occurring prior to all phases of ground disturbance or construction activity throughout the Project life) conducted for burrowing owls shall also be used to determine the presence or absence of badgers within the Project area, as well as within a 300-foot buffer around the Project area. If an active badger den is identified during preconstruction surveys, a construction-free buffer of 300 feet (or an alternate distance determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW) shall be established around the den if feasible. If a 300-foot buffer is infeasible, then the qualified biologist and CDFW shall determine whether a reduced buffer is preferable to evicting the badger (which would likely be the case for a single badger). b. During the period September 1 through the end of February, when young are unlikely to be present in a burrow, if a badger den is located within the Project footprint, the den shall be excavated by a qualified biologist to cause the badger to leave the area.
Because badgers are known to use multiple burrows in a breeding burrow complex, multiple dense may need to be excavated. Ground disturbance can proceed only after
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-99 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
all dens within the impact area have been excavated to ensure that no badgers are present below-ground
c. During the period March 1 through August 31, when young could be present within a burrow, a biological monitor shall be present on the site during Project activities that occur within 500 feet of any known or suspected badger den to ensure the buffer is adequate to avoid direct impacts to individuals or den abandonment. Such monitoring shall occur until it is determined that young are of an independent age such that Project development would not result in harm to individual badgers. Once the biological monitor has determined that young badgers are old enough to leave their natal den or have vacated the site, the burrows can be excavated, and ground disturbance can proceed.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-15 discussed in the wildlife movement impact section would reduce impacts on dispersal/movement of American badgers.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-13 would avoid injury or mortality of individual badgers, or abandonment of natal dens with dependent young, that may occur if occupied dens are destroyed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on American badgers and their habitats by training Project personnel on this species, its habitats, and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts.
In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b for the CRLF and CTS, respectively, would likely benefit this species by preserving and managing suitable habitat that could be used by this species. Because the Project has a limited (30-year) period in which mining would occur, and Project areas would be restored to natural habitat following completion of mining and reclamation, the mitigation measures, coupled with ultimate reclamation of the site, would minimize the potential for populations of badgers to be reduced by the Project (though see Impact 3.4-15 for the significance of Project impacts on wildlife movement). Implementation of mitigation measures could result in impacts to badgers, as badgers that are encouraged to leave their dens could be subject to increased predation risk or reduced reproductive success if they are unable to easily find alternative roosts. However, the net effects of mitigation measures would be preferable to having individuals injured or killed during Project activities.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-14: Project activities would result in substantial adverse effects on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Project area supports jurisdictional wetlands and other waters (i.e., ponds, creeks, and drainages) that may be regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Creeks and drainages are also regulated by the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and both the RWQCB and CDFW may regulate streambanks and associated riparian habitats. These are all sensitive habitats, as most such wetland, aquatic, and riparian habitats contribute disproportionately to biodiversity by supporting many plant and animal species.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-100 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The USACE verified the boundaries of waters of the U.S. during a site visit in April 2017 that included the majority of Project areas. The delineation was expanded in June 2017 to include the geotechnical setback areas, but these additional areas have not yet been verified by the USACE.
Riparian habitat on the site includes willow-dominated riparian habitat on both sides of the existing at-grade crossing of Tar Creek (where the bridge is proposed), some willow and mulefatdominated habitat along portions of Sargent Creek, and coast live oak-dominated mixed riparian woodland along drainages in the Phase 1 and 2 mining and geotechnical setback areas.
Collectively, construction and operational activities would adversely affect approximately 7,000 linear feet of potentially jurisdictional intermittent and ephemeral channels and drainages,
0.34 acre of stock pond, 0.05 acre of seasonal wetland, 0.03 acre of wetland seep, and 11.41 acres of mixed riparian woodland and forest.
Bridge construction and impacts to wetland, creek, and riparian habitats during mining activities would necessitate permits from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. During the permitting process, these agencies would ensure that impacts to jurisdictional habitats have been avoided and minimized the maximum extent practicable; that appropriate avoidance and minimization measures to limit impacts and avoid substantial impacts to water quality are implemented during Project activities; and that appropriate compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional habitats is provided.
To further address the potential for hazardous materials to enter creeks during Project construction and operations, the Project would implement a SPCCP and HMBP so that any spills or leaks would be controlled before they could enter waterways containing sensitive species. Both plans, which would include measures to reduce the potential for hazardous materials to be released as well as measures to contain any such materials before they could enter waterways, would be reviewed and approved by the County of Santa Clara.
Construction
The Project has been designed to avoid direct and indirect impacts to the most extensive and sensitive aquatic features on the Sargent Ranch (shown in Figure 3.4-3). With the exception of the bridge, road, and conveyor belt crossings, impacts to Sargent Creek and Tar Creek would be avoided with a minimum 150-foot setback. Construction of the bridge, road, and conveyor belt crossings over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek would result in the loss of woody riparian habitat and may result in temporary disturbance of jurisdictional waters within those creeks (e.g., as a result of the movement of construction personnel and equipment). However, permanent impacts to the creeks would be avoided with the use of a free-span bridge over Tar Creek and an arch culvert over Sargent Creek. Construction would not be able to avoid impacts to all wetlands and intermittent and ephemeral drainage channels; construction of the conveyor belt and access road to Phases 3 and 4 would impact 1,922 linear feet of intermittent and ephemeral drainages, and improvements to Old Monterey Road and the railroad spur would impact 315 linear feet of such drainages.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-101 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
In addition to causing direct destruction of jurisdictional drainages, construction activity could result in other adverse effects on water quality, as discussed in Impact 3.4-3 for special-status fish. Such adverse effects, such as mobilization of pollutants and sediments into streams and riparian habitats, would reduce the habitat quality these features provide for plants and animals.
Construction activities could also result in the introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora as described in Impact 3.4-1; Phytophthora could impair the health of native riparian plants, and the quality of riparian habitat could be degraded due to the loss of native riparian vegetation and/or increases in invasive plants.
Due to the loss of intermittent and ephemeral drainages, and potential degradation of water quality and introduction of invasive plants and Phytophthora, the impact of Project construction on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats would be significant.
Operation
Access Roads, Processing Plant, Conveyor Belt
Operation of these components would not directly affect creeks or wetlands. However, operational activities, such as truck traffic, could cause water quality impacts through discharge of pollutants. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats would be significant.
Mining Pits
Mining activities would cause the loss of 4,648 linear feet of intermittent and ephemeral drainages within Phase 1, 2, and 4 mining areas. The geotechnical setback areas for Phases 1 and 2 also support hydrologic features that may also be considered jurisdictional by the USACE and/or RWQCB, including wetland seeps near Phase 1 and a short reach of intermittent channel, a stock pond, and a small seasonal wetland north of the Phase 2 area. In the event that a slope failure were to occur during excavation, there would be encroachment into a portion of the geotechnical setback area to reestablish slope stability at the required grade, which could cause the loss of these jurisdictional features if they are in the area of encroachment. As a result, activities within geotechnical setback areas could impact up to 115 linear feet of an intermittent drainage, a 0.34-acre stock pond, 0.05 acre of seasonal wetland, and 0.03 acre of wetland seep.
Mining activities could also cause indirect impacts on water quality, as described above for construction impacts and in Impact 3.4-3 for special-status fish. Operational activities could also result in the introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora as described in Impact 3.4-1; Phytophthora could impair the health of native riparian plants, and the quality of riparian habitat could be degraded due to the loss of native riparian vegetation and/or increases in invasive plants.
Impacts of operational activities on the quantity of water reaching ponds, creeks, and riparian habitats in and downstream of the Project area were discussed in detail in Impact 3.4-3 for special-status fish. As discussed in that section, on-site consumptive use of water would have a negligible effect on flow in the Pajaro River and would therefore not result in measurable effects on aquatic or riparian habitats along the river.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-102 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
All four mining pits would intercept groundwater and surface runoff that otherwise would have flowed on or below the surface of the area to be occupied by the pits and continued downslope to contribute hydrology to creeks such as Tar Creek and Sargent Creek. During mining within a given pit, a reduction in flow within areas downstream/downslope from that pit may occur.
During reclamation, all pits would be graded so that pits would slope at a gradient of at least 1% toward graded swales. The swales in Pits 3 and 4 would carry water toward Sargent Creek, so that after reclamation, Sargent Creek would receive approximately the same input of surface water (and likely the same input of groundwater) as it currently does. After reclamation, Pits 3 and 4 would have gradual slopes, with the western portion sloping toward a retention basin in the central part of the pit and the eastern portion sloping toward a second retention basin, which would flow into the existing ephemeral stream.
Although no substantial changes in streamflow within Tar Creek would result from Project operations, Project operations would have a greater impact on flows in Sargent Creek during mining. Collectively, Phases 3 and 4 would include approximately 90.7 acres of watershed, including the acreage of the pits and their contributing watersheds, that would be intercepted, representing approximately 30% of the 700-acre Sargent Creek watershed upstream from these two phases. However, Pits 3 and 4 would not be mined concurrently, and although there may be some overlap between mining in Pit 4 and reclamation in Pit 3, the full impact of hydrologic alteration from mining in each phase would not occur simultaneously.
The ecological effects of such changes in flow on aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats would be minor aside from impacts on the health and extent of riparian vegetation (addressed in the next paragraph). The ephemeral drainages downslope from Phases 1 and 2 are dominated primarily by upland vegetation rather than hydrophytes, and those drainages do not support any deep or longlived pools or wetlands that provide habitat for amphibians or wetland-associated animals.
Therefore, although their upper watershed would be temporarily diverted, these bankform features would still exist and would still concentrate and convey some ephemeral flows to the Pajaro River watershed. The impact of changes in flow and contributing watershed on species that depend upon riparian, pond, and wetland habitat, such as CRLF, CTS, and tricolored blackbird, are evaluated under the separate impact discussions for those species.
The only location where mixed riparian forest and woodland is present downslope/downstream from mining areas in locations where adverse effects from flow interception/diversion could occur is along Sargent Creek between and downstream from Pits 3 and 4. High-quality riparian habitat, with mature willows and structurally diverse vegetation, is present along this reach. A reduction in inflow to this reach of the creek for 20-30 years would likely have an effect on the riparian habitat along Sargent Creek. However, mature trees that form the overstory, such as arroyo willow, a species known to develop deep rooting systems in response to falling groundwater, would not die unless already in poor health or stressed.
More shallowly rooted plants, including understory vegetation that creates riparian habitat complexity and increases habitat value, may be more severely affected, and experience a reduction in density or spatial extent. Additionally, the reduction in hydrology and flows may inhibit ongoing recruitment of willows, especially in areas that currently receive regular seasonal
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-103 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
surface flows but that may have shorter duration flows or no flow in shallower areas of the channel after the reduction. Finally, a reduction in surface water flows could reduce inundation that currently prevents weed infestation, making more areas susceptible to colonization by upland or facultative wetland weed species that could degrade the riparian habitat.
These adverse effects of mining on riparian habitats downstream from the Project site would occur only during mining activity. Because Phase 3 and 4 mining would last for a total of approximately six years, impacts of flow interception/redirection would not last much longer than that.
Otherwise, changes in groundwater or surface hydrology resulting from mining would not have substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat. Mixed riparian forest and woodland in the uppermost reach of Sargent Creek is upslope from all mining areas, and hydrology supporting this habitat would therefore not be adversely affected. Phases 1 and 2 mining would affect ephemeral or intermittent streams that do not support riparian habitat. For the reasons discussed above, the impact of Project operations on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats would be significant.
Reclamation
The reclamation plan indicates that flow that might be intercepted or redirected during mining would be restored to flow to the streams that currently receive such flow once mining is completed. The Tar Creek bridge would remain in place, and removal of conveyor belt crossings of Sargent Creek and Tar Creek would not disturb jurisdictional waters within those creeks.
Therefore, the impact of Project reclamation on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats would be less than significant.
Summary
Because resource agency permits have not yet been issued, and the conditions of those permits are not yet known with certainty, it is uncertain the extent to which impacts to jurisdictional habitats would be avoided or minimized or that appropriate compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional habitats is provided. The significance threshold for natural communities such as riparian habitats would be any reduction in the extent of the community compared with baseline, or a change that could threaten the long-term existence of the community itself. The threshold of significance for wetlands is no-net-loss of extent. Implementation of the Project would cause a reduction in the extent of riparian habitats relative to baseline conditions and a net loss of wetlands, aquatic habitats, and riparian habitats. Therefore, the impact of Project construction and operations on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a: Prior to issuance of any development permits, the Project Applicant shall compensate for the estimated loss of any jurisdictional wetlands, ponds, creeks, and riparian habitat that would occur over the Project’s permitted term through on-site or off-site restoration, creation, or enhancement of similar or higher-quality habitat, the purchase of mitigation credits, or a combination of these two approaches. A qualified biologist shall determine the extent of impacts based on the acreage of overlap of Project construction and operations/mining areas on wetlands, ponds, and riparian habitat, and the linear footage of creek channel within those Project impact areas. A
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-104 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
minimum of a 1:1 (on an acreage basis for wetlands, ponds, and riparian habitat and a linear footage basis for creeks) replacement-to-loss ratio for in-kind habitat (or equivalent or greater as determined in coordination with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB during permitting) is required. Enhancement of existing, low-quality habitats (rather than restoration or creation) is acceptable if a substantial increase in ecological functions and values can be achieved, as determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB.
If mitigation is to be satisfied through purchase of mitigation credits in an agencyapproved mitigation bank, such as the Pajaro River Mitigation Bank (for wetlands), proof of the purchase of credits shall be provided to the County Department of Planning and Development prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. If mitigation is to be satisfied through Project-specific habitat restoration, creation, or enhancement, the mitigation shall be described in an HMMP, which shall be prepared by a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant and submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. At a minimum, the HMMP shall include the following:
• A summary of Project impacts to jurisdictional habitats; • The location of all restoration, creation, or enhancement activities; • Detailed description of all restoration, creation, or enhancement activities; • Evidence of a suitable water budget to support any restored, created, or enhanced aquatic and riparian habitats;
• The species, amount, and location of plants to be installed in the created habitats; • The time of year for planting and the method for supplemental watering during the establishment period;
• Management and maintenance activities, such as weeding of invasive plants, providing for supplemental water, and repair of water delivery systems; • The monitoring period, which shall not be less than five years. • Criteria for mitigation efforts to be deemed a success; at a minimum, success for vegetated wetlands and riparian habitats would include at least seventy-five percent (75%) cover by native vegetation, or seventy-five percent (75%) survival of planted or seeded native riparian vegetation, within the target mitigation acreage by the end of year five;
• Adaptive management procedures that accommodate the uncertainty that comes with restoration projects. These include, but are not limited to, measures to address colonization by invasive species, unexpected lack of water, excessive foraging of installed plants by native wildlife, and variable climatic conditions. This section will also describe the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented;
• A description of the financial mechanisms for funding of all monitoring activities and ensuring that the created aquatic and riparian habitats shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-105 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Mitigation Measure 3.4-14b: The Project Applicant shall compensate for any loss of riparian habitat that occurs along Sargent Creek adjacent to or downstream from Phases 3 and 4 as a result of a reduction in streamflow as a result of mining. A baseline survey shall be conducted prior to initiation of any earth-moving in Phases 3 and 4 to document the areal extent of woody riparian vegetation, including mapping of canopy and native understory vegetation separately, within the entire reach of Sargent Creek downstream from Pits 3 and 4. Mapping of these same parameters shall then be conducted in the year following completion of reclamation in Phases 3 and 4 to determine whether any decline in the overall extent of woody riparian canopy or native understory within this reach has occurred and is caused by the Project. If any decline has occurred and is caused by the Project, compensatory mitigation shall be provided via the restoration, creation, or enhancement of riparian habitat, purchase of mitigation credits, or a combination of these two methods as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a (or as otherwise required to provide equivalent or greater mitigation by regulatory agencies as a condition of Project permits), except that compensatory mitigation for temporary changes in hydrology during mining shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 1.5:1 (mitigation:impact), on the basis of the acreage of decline in canopy or native understory, whichever is greater, that has occurred since the baseline survey. This ratio is higher than the 1:1 replacement ratio specified in Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a due to the temporal loss in riparian habitat functions and values that will have occurred over the 20-30 year period and due to the higher-habitat quality along lower Sargent Creek.
Unless all mitigation is provided via purchase of credits from a mitigation bank, an HMMP describing Project-specific riparian habitat mitigation shall be prepared when the magnitude of the impact is known (i.e., after completion of Phases 3 and 4 mining) and the mitigation location is known. Aside from the mitigation ratio and the timing of preparation of the HMMP, mitigation shall occur exactly as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce the potential for riparian habitats that occur near the Project site (i.e., outside of impact areas) to be adversely affected by the introduction and/or spread of invasive species or Phytophthora.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 would reduce impacts to waters of the U.S. and state and to sensitive riparian habitats by minimizing indirect impacts of construction and operational activities on water quality and on these habitats. Mitigation Measure 3.4- 14a would compensate for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional habitats that occur directly as a result of construction and mining, and Mitigation Measure 3.4-14b would compensate for impacts to riparian habitats along Sargent Creek that occur as a result of a reduction in flow reaching these habitats during Phase 3 and 4 mining. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on these sensitive habitats by training Project personnel on these habitats and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Collectively, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on jurisdictional habitats to less-than-significant levels by ensuring that there is no net loss of the extent, or at least of ecological functions and values, of these habitats.
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-106 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.4-15: Implementation of the Project would interfere substantially with wildlife movement. (Significant and Unavoidable)
As described in Section 3.4.3.5 and shown in Figure 3.4-7, the Project is located within an area of important habitat connectivity for wildlife, providing landscape linkages and genetic exchange for species between the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range, and between these mountain ranges and the Lomerias Muertas and Gabilan Range. The site’s primary relation to habitat connectivity is its proximity to several bridges and culverts (Figure 3.4-8) that allow wildlife to safely cross under U.S. 101 rather than attempting to cross over the highway’s surface. The Tar Creek and Pajaro River undercrossings are particularly important for wildlife movement. For species such as the CRLF and CTS, viable breeding occurrences on either side of U.S. 101 are likely too far apart (mostly owing to the absence of suitable breeding habitat and paucity of suitable upland habitat due to agricultural activities east of U.S. 101) for individuals to be able to disperse between breeding locations, and no biologically meaningful dispersal for such species would occur under either baseline or Project conditions. Therefore, in the following impact analysis, references to Project impacts on wildlife movement refer to those larger, more mobile species for which one individual can move among the various mountain ranges and smaller, less mobile species with viable populations on both sides of U.S. 101.
Construction
Construction activities could interfere with wildlife movement in several ways. Construction vehicles accessing the site along Old Monterey Road could disturb animals attempting to move toward or away from U.S. 101 (e.g., in the vicinity of the Tick Creek undercrossing), and could pose some collision risk. The noise and movement of construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment on the rest of the Project site (such as will be present during construction of bridges over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek, access roads, road improvements along Old Monterey Road and at its junction with U.S. 101, the conveyor belt, the rail spur, and the processing plant) could also disturb animals, causing them to divert around the work areas or suspend their dispersal activity until construction activity is not occurring.
In most areas, the amount of construction traffic, especially from dusk until dawn when many animals may be dispersing, would not be so high as to preclude access to and from important highway undercrossings. Animals would still be able to move through construction areas, albeit most easily between dusk and dawn. Construction at the processing plant likely represents the greatest construction impact to animal movement given the concentration of equipment and personnel at that plant during construction, and its proximity to the important U.S. 101 crossing of Tar Creek and the UPRR tracks; most animals would likely not be willing to disperse through or around the processing plant during daytime periods when construction occurs.
Construction would result in the removal of some vegetation, including limited riparian habitat at the Tar Creek bridge and oak woodland along the access road, that provides cover for dispersing animals. However, the amount of cover that would be removed by construction activities is low, and ample cover for dispersing animals would remain following construction. The access road would not be built with high, vertical walls or other features that would impede animals from physically crossing over it. Because Project construction would discourage wildlife movement
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-107 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
through the important U.S. 101 crossing of Tar Creek and the UPRR tracks, construction impacts on wildlife movement would be significant.
Operation
Operational activities could interfere with wildlife movement in several ways:
• disturbance of animals by vehicles, personnel, and equipment; • vehicular collisions;
• discouragement of animal activity as a result of night lighting at the processing plant; • physical impediments posed by the conveyor belt and processing plant; and • loss of vegetative cover for dispersing animals.
These impacts are discussed below for each Project component (see Figure 3.4-8 for a depiction of the locations of these Project components relative to U.S. 101 undercrossings).
Roadway Improvements
Improvements made by the Project to Old Monterey Road and its junction with U.S. 101 include repaving and slight widening of portions of Old Monterey Road and widening an existing U.S. 101 on-ramp east of Sargent Ranch. Traffic on Old Monterey Road and under U.S. 101 along Tar Creek would be substantially higher with the Project than under baseline conditions, as 167 new daily vehicle trips would be generated by the Project. These include daily trips by up to 144 haul trucks, eight vehicles arriving at the site for material delivery and maintenance, and 15 employees.
This increase in vehicular activity would result in an increase in disturbance of animals that currently may move across Old Monterey Road (as a result of vehicular movement and noise) and would increase the risk of animal-vehicle collisions. Although most vehicular activity (particularly by haul trucks) would occur during daytime, the plant would be open 4:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vehicles would begin accessing the site before dawn (year-round), and during winter, vehicles leaving the plant at its 5:00 p.m. closing time would likewise be traveling in dusk/dark conditions. As a result, crepuscular (active around dawn and dusk) and nocturnal animals could be disturbed by this increase in vehicular traffic on Old Monterey Road in addition to diurnal animals (active during daytime). However, an increase of 167 daily vehicle trips over the course of the 12.5-hour workday amounts to an average of one vehicle every 4.5 minutes. Thus, for animals that wanted to cross Old Monterey Road, there would be opportunities to make such a crossing between vehicle appearances.
The new bridge over Tar Creek would inhibit wildlife movement along the creek to some extent.
Currently, the at-grade crossing poses no impediment to wildlife movement and even provides a shallow-water crossing (lacking dense riparian vegetation) that wildlife could use to cross through the creek and riparian corridor. The proposed bridge would span the channel. However, its abutments could provide a physical impediment that wildlife would need to circumvent by moving under the bridge or around the abutments (i.e., crossing this access road where it then comes back down to the existing grade), and noise from traffic could inhibit wildlife movement
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-108 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
under the bridge when vehicles are present. The types of vehicles using the new bridge, and the timing and frequency of vehicle trips, would be as described for Old Monterey Road above.
Conveyor Belt and Access Road
To transport mined material from the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas to the processing plant, an approximately 1.6-mile-long electricity-powered conveyor belt and an associated access/maintenance road would be constructed just prior to the initiation of mining at Phase 3.
The location of the conveyor belt is shown on Figures 2-11 and 2-12. The conveyor belt would be 4 feet wide. Supports would be spaced every 10 to 20 feet but could be extended with truss bracing to up to 60 feet apart if necessary. Typical heights off the ground surface would vary from 3 to 5 feet but could be increased in places to allow for animal undercrossings. The belt would be supported by a series of rollers to prevent sagging, typically spaced 6 inches to 12 inches apart. An access road for use by quarry employees and maintenance personnel and equipment would be located parallel to the conveyor belt.
The proposed conveyor belt and access road are oriented roughly in a north-south direction. Thus, for wildlife moving between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and the Lomerias Muertas (and then to the Gabilan Range) and Diablo Range to the east, the proposed conveyor belt and maintenance road would be located roughly perpendicular to the path of movement. From the main plant southwest to Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas, any animals moving between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the U.S. 101 bridge over the Pajaro River or highway undercrossings south of that bridge would need to either cross under the conveyor belt or travel around the Project site (e.g., accessing these undercrossings by moving south along the railroad tracks from areas north of Tar Creek or traveling around/south of Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas). The conveyor belt and maintenance road might similarly impede animals moving from the west or southwest toward the U.S. 101 crossing over Tar Creek and the UPRR tracks.
Use of the access road by personnel and vehicles would be limited. Because excavated materials would be transported from the mining areas to the processing plant via the conveyor belt, use of the access road would be limited to the passage of quarry employees (a maximum of 15 individuals) to and from the active mining area each day, as well as occasional maintenance. This level of daily traffic would not substantially impede wildlife movement across the unpaved maintenance road, and the road itself would not be constructed with high vertical walls or other physical impediments to wildlife movement.
The conveyor belts height of 3 to 5 feet, combined with a width of 4 feet, would allow most animals, and even larger mammals such as coyotes and mountain lions, to readily pass underneath the structure. Deer would be less likely to attempt, or be able, to cross under the conveyor if it is no more than 3 to 5 feet high. The noise and motion of the conveyor belt when it is operating is likely to discourage animals from even approaching, let alone crossing under, the belt.
If the conveyor belt is operating from 4:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, there would still be opportunity for animals other than large deer to move under the belt at night, during evening daylight from late winter to late fall, or on Sundays. However, animals are not likely to readily attempt to cross under the belt when it is operating, such as during the early morning and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-109 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
daytime, 6 days/week. As a result, the conveyor belt would inhibit wildlife movement in an eastwest direction through the site and access to the culverts and other undercrossings that facilitate wildlife movement beneath U.S. 101. These impacts would occur for approximately 6 to 7 years, while the Phase 3 or Phase 4 pits are being actively used for mining. Subsequently, after Phase 4 mining is completed, the conveyor belt would be removed.
Rail Spur
The rail spur would be long enough that freight cars would not sit on the existing tracks, and therefore would not block the ability of animals to cross over the tracks when using the U.S. 101 crossing of Tar Creek and the UPRR tracks. Trains would be loaded during the day, but connection to the train and rail transport would be scheduled to take place at night (generally between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.). Thus, up to three times per week, a locomotive would arrive during the night to connect the freight cars to a northbound train (a process that takes approximately 30 minutes) and haul the cars north to San Jose and the Peninsula. The use of the rail spur would provide noise and equipment movement that would disturb animals in the vicinity, and during the brief period (30 minutes, three times per week) that the freight cars are being moved in or out, animals that might otherwise use the U.S. 101 undercrossing may avoid doing so. However, except for these limited periods, the use of the rail spur and Project-related train activity in general would not affect wildlife movement.
Mining Pits
Mining activities would impede wildlife movement, at least in the areas in which mining is actively occurring. In the Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas and the permanent overburden stockpile area, removal of oak woodland and mixed riparian woodland for mining would remove vegetation that animals may use for cover during dispersal. Physical modifications of the ground from mining and stockpiling, such as making grades steeper, would impede wildlife movement to some extent. However, most species would be able to traverse most slopes that are envisioned in the mining pits, and larger animals that had difficulty navigating steep slopes would be able to move around the pits if necessary. Mining and reclamation activities themselves, such as the noise and disturbance associated with the movement of equipment and personnel, would discourage many animals, particularly larger mammals, from approaching the mining pits when mining is actively occurring.
As indicated previously, it is the proximity of the mining areas, and the Project site in general, to important U.S. 101 crossings (Figure 3.4-8) that could have the most impact on regional wildlife movement. The Phase 1 mining area is located approximately 1,950 feet from the highway bridge over Tar Creek and the UPRR tracks, and the overburden stockpile area is approximately 950 feet from this crossing. Animals moving toward or from that undercrossing would be subjected to disturbance from mining activities and loss of vegetative cover in the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas, and the overburden stockpile area. Although animals can move around these areas, and possibly through them when moving at night (when mining is not occurring), animals may be discouraged from dispersing through that undercrossing during the daytime when mining is occurring at Phase 1 or Phase 2, or when activity at the overburden area is occurring – especially when considered in conjunction with activity at the processing plant (discussed below). The Phase 1 mining area is
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-110 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
located approximately 0.4 mile from the U.S. 101 bridge over the Pajaro River. Though animals using that undercrossing would be able to move around those mining areas, the mining areas would make it somewhat more difficult for movement between that culvert and areas to the northwest.
The Phase 3 and Phase 4 pits are not located particularly close to important U.S. 101 undercrossings. They are approximately one (1) mile southwest of the bridge over the Pajaro River. Although animals using that undercrossing would still need to navigate the conveyor belt, as described above, the one-mile distance between the bridge and the pits would provide ample opportunity for animals to move through the area to the north of the pits. Mining would only occur at one of the four pits at a time, with no overlap in mining activities proposed between pits.
Reclamation at one pit (e.g., Phase 3) may be occurring while mining occurs at another pit (e.g., Phase 4), however, so at any given time, there could be mining or reclamation activities occurring at two of the four Project phases. Nevertheless, even when reclamation activities are occurring at Phase 2 and mining activities are occurring at Phase 3, there would be an area at least 0.8 mile wide between the two areas through which animals could move when moving to or from the Pajaro River bridge.
The Phase 3 and Phase 4 pits are located closer to highway crossings south of the Pajaro River bridge, such as the culvert immediately south of that bridge or the Betabel Road/Y Road overcrossing. Because animals using those highway crossings would also have to navigate the river itself, any animals mobile enough to navigate through the river and under U.S. 101 would be capable of moving around the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas when making such long-distance movements.
Processing Plant
Owing to the physical location of the processing plant, coupled with its close proximity to the Tar Creek/UPRR undercrossing of U.S. 101 (approximately 330 feet away), the main plant would occupy a large proportion of the area immediately west/southwest of the undercrossing. Animals that currently move through the fields where the processing plant is proposed, including the screening berm between the processing plant and the railroad tracks and the proposed rail spur (refer to Figure 2.4-2), would need to move around the processing plant once constructed. There would still be space north, east, and south of the processing plant through which animals could move, but the plant would occupy a large area of open space immediately adjacent to the undercrossing.
Noise and movement of equipment and personnel would disturb animals, potentially discouraging them from moving along their intended pathways. Some of the animals for which the undercrossing is important are active at night, so disturbance from pre-dawn and dusk activity at the plant (noise, movement of equipment and Project personnel, and lighting) would likely discourage some animals from moving along their intended pathways. Such disturbance could particularly affect crepuscular animals that could be moving in the very early morning or on winter evenings when mining work may continue until after sunset. Some permanent nighttime lighting would remain on at the plant throughout the night, though this lighting would be the minimum necessary for site security. However, most of the detections of animals using U.S. 101
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-111 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
undercrossings during the most recent road ecology study in the Project vicinity – including the Tar Creek undercrossing – occurred during the daytime (T. Diamond, pers. comm.), when the plant would be in operation 6 days/week.
Sufficient physical space would be present around the processing plant for movement by all animals that currently use the Tar Creek/UPRR undercrossing to move around the plant. The 150- foot setback between the processing plant and the riparian corridor along Tar Creek would include small flood protection berms, but these berms would be no higher than three to five feet, would be vegetated, and would not be too steep for animals to navigate. Animals would therefore be physically capable of moving through this 150-foot setback area. Although animals moving along the west/south side of Tar Creek past the Project site would need to navigate around or under the new bridge over Tar Creek, they would be physically able to do so. Animals attempting to move to or from the Tar Creek undercrossing from points to the south could move through open space that would not be impacted by the Project on the south side of the processing plant and then along the frontage road and railroad tracks east of the processing plant.
The area east of the processing plant includes the rail line, frontage road, and ruderal vegetation that is 140 feet wide or more. Although animals may move through these areas less frequently after Project implementation, due to disturbance associated with the processing plant and Projectrelated traffic, animals would still be physically capable of moving around the processing plant.
For the reasons discussed above, the impact of Project operations on wildlife movement would be significant.
Reclamation
Following the completion of mining and reclamation of the site, the site would provide habitat for wildlife movement similar to current conditions. Although the loss of oak-dominated woodlands in mining Phases 1 and 2 and at the overburden stockpile site may have some lingering effect on wildlife movement as a result in a reduction of cover for dispersing animals, wildlife movement would be very similar to baseline conditions following reclamation and removal of the conveyor and processing plant. Therefore, the impact of Project reclamation on wildlife movement would be less than significant.
Summary
As discussed above, operation of the Project would introduce a number of impediments to wildlife movement between important U.S. 101 undercrossings (particularly the Tick Creek, Tar Creek/UPRR, and Pajaro River undercrossings) and source populations of wildlife in the Santa Cruz Mountains, the Diablo Range, and the Gabilan Range. Although space would still be available for animals to physically move through or around Project components, and animals could move through these undercrossings when Project activities are not occurring, animals have very little information about when and how they might safely move past Project areas (e.g., regarding whether or not noise, night lighting, and the movement of heavy equipment and Project personnel pose a threat, or regarding hours when Project facilities will or will not be in operation).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-112 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
If the Project were to result in a substantial reduction in movement of individuals, exchange of genes and individuals among populations could be reduced to the point of reducing genetic variability in one or more population, which could make populations more vulnerable to declines due to disease or other stressors (Serieys et al. 2021) and reducing the ability for dispersants from one population to “rescue” declining populations elsewhere. Therefore, the Project operations would interfere substantially with wildlife movement, and this impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-15: The Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts of Project construction, operation, and reclamation on wildlife movement.
1. Fencing in and around the Project site shall be designed and configured to facilitate wildlife movement around areas of intensive Project activity, such as facilitating movement around the processing plant. Areas where fencing shall be designed to facilitate wildlife movement include fencing along the outer edge of the Tar Creek riparian corridor (on both sides of the creek); the eastern site boundary (along the edge of the existing railroad tracks), including the area north of Tar Creek adjacent to the existing residence; the southern boundary of the processing plant area; and areas immediately west and northwest of the processing plant area that would not be occupied by mining activity. Such fencing shall incorporate the following components.
a. Barbed-wire fencing shall consist of no more than five strands. b. To facilitate wildlife crossing over and under fencing (except for fencing around the main plant, which should not be designed for wildlife entry), a gap of at least 20 inches shall be provided between the ground and the bottom wire, board, or rung to allow fawns to pass under the fencing, and the top wire shall be no more than 40 inches high to allow more mature deer to jump over. c. Where fencing is not necessary for livestock management, a smooth (instead of barbed) wire shall be used for the top and/or bottom strands. d. At intervals of no more than every 200 feet, a segment of fencing at least 8 feet long with wooden poles instead of a top strand of wire shall be provided to allow animals such as gray foxes, mountain lions, and bobcats to more easily cross over the fencing.
e. No new fencing shall be installed along the entrance road or around the bridge over Tar Creek, with the exception of a gate to allow control of vehicle access to the site.
2. Fencing at least 10 feet in height shall be installed around as much of the processing plant as possible (on the north side adjacent to Tar Creek and as much of the east side as is feasible with construction of the rail spur), and screening fabric shall be installed on that fencing to prevent light spillover and block visible signs of physical activity (movement of people and equipment) from view of wildlife outside the processing plant. The fencing details and specifications shall be included in the WildlifeCompatible Fencing Plan (described above) and reviewed and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-113 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3. The bridge over Tar Creek shall be designed to maximize open space where wildlife can cross under the bridge (e.g., spaces between the abutments and top of bank shall be left as open as possible). No new fencing shall be added at or around the bridge.
Engineering plans for the Tar Creek bridge shall be provided to the County Department of Planning and Development as part of the processing plant building per or any grading permit submittal, whichever comes first.
4. Along Old Monterey Road between its junction with U.S. 101 and the entrance to the Project site, the Applicant shall install signs placed every ½-mile warning drivers to watch for animals and to observe the speed limit, which shall be no more than 25 miles per hour to minimize vehicle collisions and reduce vehicular noise. Such signage shall also be placed along the conveyor belt access/maintenance road, indicating a speed limit of no more than 15 miles per hour.
5. At intervals of no less than every 1,000 feet, the conveyor shall be elevated so that the bottom of the conveyor belt structure is at least 8 feet clear above the ground to facilitate movement of larger animals under the belt.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-15 would reduce impacts of the Project on wildlife movement by minimizing constraints to wildlife movement posed by Project fencing; minimizing disturbance of animals and alteration of movement patterns as a result of lighting; providing animals the ability to move under the Tar Creek bridge; reducing collisions between Project-related vehicles and animals; and ensuring that even the largest animals that occur on the site can move under the conveyor belt. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b would reduce impacts on wildlife movement by minimizing lighting that might discourage some animals from moving through lit areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on wildlife movement by training Project personnel on the measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts.
However, the various ways in which Project operations would reduce the degree to which animals can safely traverse U.S. 101 would reduce the frequency of successful crossings.
Given the location of the Project site, in an area where movement of animals in multiple directions and among multiple populations is very important, a reduction in the frequency of successful crossings over a 30 to 35-year period would have implications for regional movements, gene exchange, and potentially population viability.
Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-15, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-16: Project activities would conflict with County ordinances and policies intended to protect biological resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance
Construction activities, such as road improvements and the installation of Tar Creek Bridge, would remove native oak trees having a main trunk or stem measuring 37.7 inches or greater in circumference. Mining activities in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 quarry sites would also remove
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-114 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
ordinance-protected oaks. Because the Project site parcels are within a “-d” (Design Review) combining zoning district, these trees are deemed protected trees under Section Sec. C16-3 of the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. Removal of protected trees would be a significant impact and requires a permit from the County and replanting and/or re-vegetation plan for all trees to be removed. An application to remove protected trees is part of the overall Use Permit application for the proposed Project. Mitigation Measures 3.4-16a and 3.4-16b would address the ordinance’s requirement for replanting and/or re-vegetation.
Riparian Buffer Policies
With the exception of the proposed Tar Creek Bridge, the Project would maintain a 150-foot or greater buffer from Project site creeks, consistent with General Plan Policy R-RC 37. The Tar Creek Bridge would replace an existing at-grade, in-water crossing and would span the banks of the creek and the majority of the riparian area. The bridge would be approximately 24 feet in width and 90 feet in length with a 70-foot span over Tar Creek. Because the creek crossing is already developed, and the new bridge would free span the creek, providing additional protection of the creek from adverse impacts, the Project would not conflict with County riparian buffer policies, and this impact would be less than significant.
Oak Woodland Impacts
Coast live oak-dominated woodlands, including coast live oak forest and woodland and mixed riparian woodland, are present in several areas within the Phases 1 and 2 mining areas, their respective geotechnical setback areas, and the permanent overburden stockpile area. Impacts to riparian habitats, including oak-dominated mixed riparian habitat, during mining activities would necessitate permits from the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and possibly also from the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. During the permitting process, these agencies would ensure that impacts to jurisdictional habitats have been avoided and minimized the maximum extent practicable, and that appropriate compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional habitats is provided.
Construction
Most construction activities would not impact any oak woodland, as no oak-dominated habitats are present in areas where berms, roads, bridges, or the processing plant would be constructed.
However, construction of the conveyor belt would impact approximately 0.6 acre of coast live oak forest and woodland. Construction of the conveyor belt could also result in the introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora as described in Impact 3.4-1; Phytophthora could impair the health of oaks, and the quality of oak woodland habitat could be degraded due to the loss of native riparian vegetation and/or increases in invasive plants. This impact would be significant.
Operation
Operational activities would impact oak-dominated woodlands, including coast live oak forest and woodland and mixed riparian woodland, within the Phases 1 and 2 mining areas, their respective geotechnical setback areas, and the permanent overburden stockpile area. Operational
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-115 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
activities would result in the loss of approximately oak woodland habitat, and additional oak woodland is present in the Phases 1 and 2 geotechnical setback areas, which may be impacted as well. Operational activities could also result in the introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora as described in Impact 3.4-1; Phytophthora could impair the health of native oaks, and the quality of oak woodland habitat could be degraded due to the loss of native riparian vegetation and/or increases in invasive plants. This impact would be significant.
Reclamation
Reclamation activities would not involve tree removal, as all trees would have been removed during construction and operations. This impact would be less than significant.
Summary of Oak Woodlands Impacts
Collectively, Project construction and operational activities would result in the loss of up to 40.4 acres of oak-dominated woodlands, including coast live oak forest and woodlands and mixed riparian woodland dominated by oaks. Loss of oak woodland could be reduced through the conditions of resource agency permits. However, because permits have not yet been issued, these conditions are not yet known. The significance threshold for impacts to oak woodlands is a decrease of 0.50 acre or more in the native oak canopy of an oak woodland. The Project would result in impacts that far exceed this threshold, and therefore, the impacts of Project construction and operations on oak woodlands would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-16a:
1. Prior to removal of any oaks, or any other trees protected under Section Sec. C16-3 of the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance, from the Project area, a tree removal plan and arborist report shall be submitted identifying the species type, acreage, diameter, and amount of canopy of oak trees or other protected trees proposed for removal. The report shall also designate oak woodland as high-quality or medium-quality for the purposes of establishing the mitigation ratio. The arborist report shall be prepared by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist, Registered Professional Forester, or another professional approved by the County Department of Planning and Development. Reports may be submitted separately for the construction phase and by Project mining phase, prior to the start of tree removal within each phase.
2. The Applicant shall implement both of the following two measures to compensate for the loss of any oak woodland habitat to ensure that it complies with the County of Santa Clara Planning Office Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts. • Planting Replacement of Oak Trees. New oak trees shall be planted on the Project site to compensate for lost oaks, though the planting of new oak trees shall not fulfill more than fifty percent (50%) of the mitigation requirement for the Project. The objective of tree planting shall be to establish new oak woodland at a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1 based on the condition of the oak woodland habitat: 2:1 replacement is required for medium-quality oak woodland habitat; and 3:1 replacement is required for high-quality oak woodland habitat. The following standard mitigation ratios shall be used, unless a different ratio is approved by the County Department of Planning and Development based on site-specific characteristics associated with the mining phases:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-116 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
For the removal of one small tree (5 to 18 inches): two 24-inch boxed trees or three 15-gallon trees.
For the removal of 1 medium tree (18 to 24 inches): three 24-inch boxed trees or four 15-gallon trees.
For the removal of a tree larger than 24 inches: four 24-inch boxed trees or five 15-gallon trees.
Tree replacement shall be with like species unless alternate species are approved by the County. A Tree Planting and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted for County review and approval showing species, size, spacing and location of plantings and the location and species of established vegetation. Tree plantings shall be monitored for five years following planting, and a survival rate of seventy-five percent (75%) shall be required. Should the planted trees fail to meet the established performance and survival criteria, the Project Applicant shall be responsible for additional plantings and management activities necessary to ensure the long-term success of planted mitigation trees. • Conservation Easement. For mitigation of the remaining oak woodlands impacts not mitigated by planting replacement oak trees, existing native oak trees on or off the Project area shall be protected from future development through a conservation easement in perpetuity or fee title dedication to the County or other qualified entity approved by the County, and/or through inclusion in the conservation easement referenced in Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b. Oak woodland offered as mitigation must be configured in such a manner as to best preserve the integrity of the oak ecosystem and minimize the ratio of edge to area. Priority should be given to conserving oak habitat adjacent to existing woodlands under conservation easements, public lands, or open space lands. The protection of existing oak woodlands through conservation easements shall mitigate for the loss of oaks at a ratio equal to 2:1 (for medium quality oak woodland habitat) or 3:1 (for high quality oak woodland habitat) as determined by the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development. Land proposed as mitigation, when viewed with adjacent protected conservation land, should not result in conserved parcels of less than one acre.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-16b: The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for impacts to ordinance trees in compliance with Section Sec. C16-7 of the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. Mitigation provided per Mitigation Measure 3.4- 16(2) for oak tree replacement will satisfy mitigation requirements for impacts to ordinance-sized oak trees. For other tree species, the Applicant will prepare a replanting and/or re-vegetation plan for all ordinance-sized trees to be removed. Replacement trees shall be of a like kind and species of tree removed, if native and feasible, or of a kind and species to be determined by the Planning Department. The replacement tree(s) need not be in the same location of the tree removed, but the replacement trees will be planted somewhere on Sargent Ranch. Replacement tree planting shall size and ratio shall be as follows:
• For the removal of one small tree (5 to 18 inches): two 24-inch boxed trees or three 15-gallon trees.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-117 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• For the removal of 1 medium tree (18 to 24 inches): three 24-inch boxed trees or four 15-gallon trees.
• For the removal of a tree larger than 24 inches: four 24-inch boxed trees or five 15- gallon trees.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce the potential for oak woodland habitats that occur near the Project site (i.e., outside of impact areas) to be adversely affected by the introduction and/or spread of invasive species or Phytophthora.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-16 would reduce impacts to oak woodlands by compensating for loss of this habitat type, both through planting of new oaks and preservation of existing oak woodlands. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c will further reduce impacts on oak woodlands by training Project personnel on these habitats and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Collectively, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on oak woodlands to less-than-significant levels by ensuring that there is no net loss of the extent of these habitats.
_________________________
3.4.4.4 Cumulative Analysis
The geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts on biological resources is the VHP Study Area and Permit Area shown on Figure 3.4-9. The VHP Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (ICF International 2012) evaluated the direct and cumulative effects of covered activities (proposed action) and other projects identified within the VHP Study Area/Permit Area on the species and critical habitat covered by the plan. Although the proposed Project is not a covered activity, it is located with the Study Area/Permit Area, and the impact statements above evaluated effects on many of the same species and critical habitat covered by the plan.
This EIR identifies nine projects for the Sargent Quarry cumulative scenario (see Table 3.1-1). Of these projects, the U.S. 101 Widening Project, which is also located in the VHP Study Area/Permit Area, has the most potential to combine with the proposed Project to cause cumulative impacts. Segments of that Project are located near to the proposed Project and would also have similar impacts on biological resources.
Impact 3.4-17: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative loss of specialstatus plant species. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Project area provides suitable habitat for 10 special-status plant species, as shown previously in Table 3.4-2. The VHP did not evaluate these species, and therefore they are not covered by the VHP. The status of 9 of the 10 plants is CRPR 4, which are plants that are on a watch list because of their limited distribution. The status of one of the 10 species—Congdon’s tarplant—is CRPR 1B. Plants with this status are rare throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. §¨¦280
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
£¤101
·þ|130 }
·þ|152 }
·þ|}82
·þ|}9
·þ|}17
·þ|237 }
·þ|}85
·þ|}25
·|}þ152
·|}þ85
£¤101
San Jose
Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Santa Clara
Gilroy
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Cupertino
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Los Altos
Campbell
Los Altos
Hills
Monte
Sereno
San Jose
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Middle Fork Coyote Creek
North Fork Pacheco Creek
East Fork Coyote Creek
Guadalupe River
Alameda Creek
Pacheco Creek
Arroyo Hondo Creek
Pescadero Creek
M si sissippi Creek
San Francisquito Creek
Smith Creek
Canada de los Osos
Canoas Creek Little Coyote Creek
Soda Springs Canyon
Ca al bazas Creek
Stevens Creek
Permanente Creek
Packwood Creek
San Felipe Creek
Saratoga Creek
Los Gatos Creek
Llagas Creek
San Tomas Aquino Creek
Los Trancos Creek
Upper Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek
Las Animas Creek
Alamitos Creek
Guadalupe Creek
Uvas-Carnadero Creek
Ross Creek
Pajaro River
Uv as-Carnadero Creek
Coy ote Creek
Upper Silver Creek
Thompson Creek
Llag as Creek
Guadalupe River
Coyote Creek
Lower Silver Creek
Guadalupe
Reservoir
Lake
Elsman
Coyote
Reservoir
Uvas
Reservoir
Stevens
Creek
Reservoir
Pacheco
Reservoir
Lexington
Reservoir
Felt
Lake
Anderson
Reservoir
Vasona
Reservoir
Calaveras
Reservoir
Calero
Reservoir
Chesbro Reservoir
Almaden
Reservoir
Cherry Flat
Reservoir
Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Cupertino
Mountain View
Los Altos
Campbell
Los Altos
Hills
Monte
Sereno
Newark
Fremont
Menlo Park
East Palo
Alto
Foster City
Redwood City
San Mateo
Hayward
Henry W. Coe State Park
Pacheco State Park
Figure 1-2
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area Legend
Habitat Plan Study Area
and Permit Area
State Park In Study Area but
Excluded from Permit Area
Expanded Study Area and Permit
Area for Burrowing Owl Conservation
Santa Clara County
Incorporated Areas
Reservoirs
Major Streams
Major Roads
5 2.5 0 5 10
Miles ´ Data Sources:
ICF International (2007), SCVWD (2005),
City of San Jose (2006),
City of Morgan Hill (2006), City of Gilroy (2006)
K: \ PROJECTS_2 \ SANTA_CLARA_HCP \ 05489_05 \ ARCMAP \ CHAPTER1_FIGS \ FIG1-2_STUDYAREA_8X11.MXD ds (03-22-10) Prepared by:
Figure 3.4-9
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area SOURCE: ICF International SCC Sargent Quarry
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-119 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Congdon’s tarplant is endemic to Central California, in San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano (presumably extirpated) counties (CNPS 2013). Much of the former habitat for this plant was lost to early agricultural conversion; more recently, urban expansion has threatened populations near San Jose, in the Livermore Valley, and in San Luis Obispo, the latter where restoration have been conducted (Sanders 2004).
The Final EIR for the U.S. 101 Widening Project assessed nine special-status plants for their potential to occur within the Project’s biological study area. The U.S. 101 Widening Project Final concluded that the habitat is of poor quality. Protocol-level, blooming period surveys were conducted during 2007 and 2008 for all 9 species, and none were detected in the study area. The Final EIR concluded that the Project would not impact any special-status plant species. However, given the regional decline in rare plant species and the fact that most of these species are not covered by the VHP, the cumulative impact with respect to the adverse effects on special-status plant species listed in Table 3.4-2 is significant.
Project Contribution
Although none of species listed in Table 3.4-2 has been detected in the Project area, no focused surveys for these species have been performed on the Project site or immediate surrounding area.
Therefore, these species could be present in the Project area. If present, these species could be impacted by the Project as described below. Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the processing plant, conveyor belt, rail spur, roadway improvements, bridges over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek, and stormwater drainage facilities could damage or destroy special-status plants, if present. Proposed Project activities may affect these plants through direct disturbance of vegetation and disturbance, modification, or destruction of habitat, and may affect them indirectly through damage to underground root structures. Equipment use, vehicle traffic, and worker foot traffic may result in the injury or mortality of individual plants. These activities also could result in altered growth or reduced seed set. Grading may result in the mechanical or physical removal of vegetation and modification of the seed bank. Furthermore, proposed Project activities may include the refueling of equipment on location, and fuel or oil spills may occur during refueling. Dust generated by construction activities could coat vegetative and floral surfaces, interfering with normal gas exchange, photosynthesis, or pollination.
Project operations could also impact special-status plants. The greatest potential for impacts on special-status plants would occur during mining and stockpiling; if any such species are present within the mining footprint, the geotechnical setbacks (if those areas are impacted), or the permanent overburden stockpile area, those plants would be destroyed when mining of occupied habitat or deposition in the stockpile area occurs. Special-status plants could also be impacted by clearing of fire protection zones. Where roads, the conveyor belt, the rail spur, and the processing plant have been constructed, no direct impacts on special-status plants are likely to occur during operations, as the construction activities would have destroyed any individuals present within the construction footprints. However, indirect impacts may occur from mining, stockpiling, and use of roads, the conveyor belt, the rail spur, and the processing plant. During refueling of equipment, fuel or oil spills may occur. Dust generated by mining, vehicular activities, use of the conveyor belt, and processing activities could coat vegetative and floral surfaces in nearby areas, interfering
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-120 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
with normal gas exchange, photosynthesis, or pollination. Special-status plants and their habitats could also be degraded by the introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora as described for construction activities above. Because there is a possibility that special-status plants may be located in the Project area that Project activities could destroy, the Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable, and would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-17: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, b, and c.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce Project impacts on specialstatus plants to less-than-cumulatively considerable and less-than-significant levels by determining whether special-status plants are present in impact areas, avoiding or minimizing impacts to special-status plants to the extent feasible, compensating for any impacts that cannot be avoided through the preservation and management of existing populations of the affected species, and preventing the introduction and/or spread of invasive species or Phytophthora.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-18: The proposed Project could contribute to cumulative increases in nitrogen emissions that could result in adverse effects on habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated plants located off-site. (Less than Significant) The VHP identified nitrogen deposition from urban and rural development in the Plan Area and a lack of land management techniques as a significant threat to Bay checkerspot habitat and serpentine plants. The EIR-EIS identified other conservation activities in the Plan Area as well as the High-Speed Rail as contributing to the cumulative effect. It was concluded that cumulative impacts would be minor, however, because most of the remaining serpentine grassland land cover types would be acquired, managed, and monitored as part of the Reserve System with implementation of the VHP. To the extent that projects listed in Table 3.1-1, Cumulative Projects List, are not covered by the VHP, they would be subject to environmental review of their contribution to increases in nitrogen emissions and adverse effects on habitat, and mitigation would be required to reduce these impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to the adverse effects of nitrogen emissions on Bay checkerspot butterfly habitat and serpentine plants is not significant.
Project Contribution
The proposed Project would generate nitrogen emissions from combustion of diesel fuel used in trucks and construction/mining equipment. However, as discussed in Impact 3.4-2 relatively low amounts of nitrogen would be emitted during the Project’s construction activities. Due to the directionality of the prevailing winds (which would carry most emissions away from serpentine communities supporting the Bay checkerspot butterfly and special-status plants), the dissipation of that nitrogen as it is carried from the Project site to serpentine communities, and the relatively low concentrations of nitrogen deposition that would occur in any given area of serpentine habitat
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-121 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
as a result of this Project, nitrogen emissions from the Sargent Quarry Project (on a Projectspecific basis) would not result in any substantive impacts on serpentine communities by facilitating growth of non-native grasses that could compete with special-status serpentine plants and with Bay checkerspot host plants. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute substantially to cumulative increases in nitrogen emissions that could result in adverse effects on habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated plants located off-site.
The Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance: Less than significant.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-19: Project activities could contribute to a cumulative degradation of habitat for special-status fish. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The EIR-EIS for the VHP identified urbanization and associated infrastructure development as causing past and ongoing impacts to riverine and riparian habitat for the South-Central California Coast steelhead and Monterey roach in the Study Area. Steelhead spawning has been heavily impacted by the loss of habitat associated with the construction of dams, which blocked access to high quality spawning habitat. Operation of these flood control projects has substantially altered downstream flows such that suitable instream spawning and habitat has been substantially degraded.
To the extent areas of suitable habitat existed in the Study Area prior to the development of flood control infrastructure, it is likely that most of those areas have been substantially altered by reservoir operations that emphasize the conveyance of flood flows. Increased loss of suitable habitat, however, is unlikely to occur because no additional conversions of natural stream channels and no additional dam or reservoir construction projects are proposed within the Study Area. Urban development and related activities also have caused a variety of other adverse effects including reduced channel complexity, loss of riparian vegetation, and reduced water quality from sediment. Special-Status fish species present in streams in the Study Area have been forced to spawn in areas of poor quality habitat. Although the projects listed in Table 3.1-1, Cumulative Projects List, would not directly affect habitat for Special-Status fish species, such as the Pajaro River, they could indirectly affect this habitat by degrading water quality via construction-related stormwater runoff.
The Final EIR for the U.S. 101 Widening Project concluded that removal of vegetation in shaded riverine habitat at the Pajaro River, Sen Benito River, and Carnadero Creek areas during construction would adversely affect Pacific Lamprey and Monterey Roach by reducing habitat quality within and downstream of affected stream reaches due to slightly increased water temperature and reduction in inputs of organic matter and coarse wood debris. Mitigation was identified to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, because of the past development described above, the cumulative impact on habitat for special-status fish is significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-122 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Project Contribution
As discussed under Impact 3.4-3 above, the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on steelhead, Monterey roach, Monterey hitch, or their habitat (including steelhead critical habitat) through release of chemicals and erosion and sedimentation during construction of the Sargent Creek Bridge and from similar but less direct effects from construction of access roads, the conveyor belt, and the processing plant. Operation of Project facilities (i.e., processing plant, screening berm, and mining pits) have the potential for indirect impacts from sediment or pollutants in stormwater to enter waterways containing special-status fish; however, stormwater would collect within settling ponds and would ultimately percolate into the ground, be reused for processing plant operations, or evaporate. Swales would buffer overburden stockpiles and the processing plant area from Tar Creek to the west and prevent stormwater from the Project area from entering the creek. For these reasons, the Project’s impact would be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-19: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-3.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 and 3.4-1c, as well as any additional permit and wildlife agency consultation requirements and conditions, would reduce Project impacts to steelhead (including critical habitat for the species), Monterey roach, and Monterey hitch to less-than-cumulatively considerable and less-than-significant levels by minimizing impacts of construction and operation on water quality so that no individuals are lost as a result of water-quality impacts, and so that these species’ habitat is not lost or degraded to the point of resulting in declines in these species’ populations, and by training project personnel.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-20: Project activities could contribute to cumulative harm to protected terrestrial species and loss of their habitats. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) As discussed in Impacts 3.4-4 through 3.4-13, project activities would result in the injury or mortality of individuals of terrestrial species, including CRLF, CTS, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, special-status and protect birds, special-status bats, mountain lion, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and American badger. In addition, the project site contains several types of habitat that could support these species. Those same impacts have occurred and may occur in the future within the VHP Plan Area. Within the Permit Area, causes of population decline for these species include nesting and foraging habitat loss due to urban and agricultural development, predation by non-native species, and lack of genetic diversity in specific areas as a result of human population growth and barriers that restrict connectivity.
Within the Plan Area, the VHP would preserve, restore, and/or create breeding and foraging habitats for the terrestrial species listed above through a reserve system funded by impact fees paid by covered projects. In addition, the VHP contains various other measures that would minimize direct and indirect impacts to these habitats, improve connections between areas of adjacent habitat, and increase the size and viability of breeding populations
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-123 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The U.S. 101 Widening Project between Gilroy and the interchange with SR 129 could result in the temporary and permanent loss of habitat for these terrestrial species through construction activities in or adjacent to wetlands and aquatic habitat at Tar Creek and the Pajaro River in the vicinity of the proposed Sargent Quarry as well as in grassland, agricultural land, coyote brush scrub, and oak woodland that may serve as upland habitat. The EIR for the project also concluded that construction activities could cause the destruction or disturbance of nests for several of the species. Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce construction impacts to a lessthan-significant level. In addition, the U.S. 101 Widening Project is a “covered Project” under the VHP. As such, it would pay fees for habitat loss and be implement the plan’s conditions designed to avoid and minimize take of covered species. Therefore, due to the beneficial effects of VHP on terrestrial species and their habitat described above, and the less-than-significant impact of the U.S. 101 Widening Project on this species, the cumulative impact with respect to the harm to protected species and loss of their habitats would be less than significant.
Project Contribution
Project construction activities would result in the injury or mortality of individual animals of terrestrial species, as discussed in Impacts 3.4-4 through 3.4-13. Indirect impacts to several of these species, including CRLF, CTS, and western pond turtle, and their habitat could also result from impacts to water quality. Water-quality impacts could include reduction in the suitability of aquatic foraging habitat, which could reduce prey abundance, and pollutants could affect the health of these species and their prey. Construction activities may result in the injury or mortality of individuals as a result of worker foot traffic, equipment use, or vehicle traffic. Substrate vibrations may cause individuals to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation. Movement of Project personnel and equipment within the site, and between on-site and off-site areas, could also spread pathogens such as chytrid fungus, which can impair the health of amphibians such as CRLF. Bridge construction would result in the direct loss of suitable riparian (CRLF) and upland dispersal habitat (CRLF, CTS, and western pond turtle). Construction would also result in the loss of foraging and roosting habitat for burrowing owls, tricolored blackbirds, special-status and protected birds, special-status bats, mountain lions, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats, and American badgers.
During mining operations and reclamation, individuals could be adversely affected in the same ways described above for construction activities. For example, individuals could be injured or killed by foot traffic, equipment, and vehicles, both during new groundbreaking in mining pits, during mining activities, and during movement of people around the site. Project operations would also result in the loss of nesting habitat (e.g., oak woodland) and upland habitat (e.g., grassland) used for dispersal and refuge. For these reasons, the Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be considerable; therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures 3.4-20: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4- 1c, 3.4-4a through 3.4-4c, 3.4-5a and 3.4-5b, 3.4-6, 3.4-7, 3.4-8a and 3.4-8b, 3.4-9, 3.4- 10a and 3.4-10b, 3.4-11, 3.4-12a and 3.4-12b, and 3.4-13.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-124 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Implementation of these mitigation measures, as well as any additional permit and wildlife agency consultation requirements and conditions, would reduce impacts on terrestrial species to less-than-cumulatively considerable and less-than-significant levels by minimizing impacts of construction and operation on water quality so that no individuals are lost as a result of water-quality impacts; avoiding and minimizing injury or mortality of individual animals, and impacts on this species’ habitat, during construction and operations; reducing the potential for pathogens such as chytrid to be introduced and/or spread during construction and operational activities; and compensating for impacts to habitat so that the Project does not cause a net reduction in the populations of terrestrial species.
_________________________
Impact 3.4-21: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative loss of jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
According to CDFW, California has lost more than 90% of its historical wetlands with threats remaining to many existing wetlands. Wetlands continue to be drained for agriculture, filled for development, or disturbed by modifications to the watershed such as dams or water diversions.
The VHP has identified approximately 583 acres of wetlands in the permit area. Under the VHP, no more than 92 acres of wetlands and ponds could be developed. Habitat Condition 12 would require 2 acres of wetlands (perennial, seasonal, and ponds) to be preserved and enhanced for every 1 acre of impact. The VHP also contains various other measures that would improve connections between wetlands and areas of adjacent habitat implemented.
The U.S. 101 Widening Project would result in the removal of wetland and aquatic habitat due to relocation of bridge abutments and piers, addition of new bridge abutments and piers, and shifting of road alignments and associated fill in the vicinity of the proposed Sargent Quarry Project. The potential for temporary, non-fill impacts during construction were also identified. The U.S. 101 Widening Project would pay development fees to the VHP for impacts to wetlands and aquatic habitat. In addition, temporary impacts would be mitigated through restoration of preconstruction grades, hydrology, and soil conditions at the location of the impact to wetland and aquatic areas temporarily disturbed during construction. Therefore, due to the beneficial effects of VHP on wetlands and riparian habitat described above, and the less-than-significant impact of the U.S. 101 Widening Project on these habitat types, the cumulative impact with respect to loss of jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats is not significant.
Project Contribution
The Project area supports jurisdictional wetlands and other waters (i.e., ponds, creeks, and drainages) that may be regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. These are all sensitive habitats, as most such wetland, aquatic, and riparian habitats contribute disproportionately to biodiversity by supporting many plant and animal species. The Project has been designed to avoid direct and indirect impacts to the most extensive and sensitive aquatic features on the Sargent Ranch (shown in Figure 3.4-3). With the exception of the bridge, road,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-125 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
and conveyor belt crossings, impacts to Sargent Creek and Tar Creek would be avoided with a minimum 150-foot setback. Construction of the bridge, road, and conveyor belt crossings over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek would result in the loss of woody riparian habitat and may result in temporary disturbance of jurisdictional waters within those creeks (e.g., as a result of the movement of construction personnel and equipment). However, permanent impacts to the creeks would be avoided with the use of a clear-span bridge over Tar Creek and an arch culvert over Sargent Creek. Construction would not be able to avoid impacts to all wetlands and intermittent and ephemeral drainage channels, and construction of the conveyor belt and access road to Phases 3 and 4 would impact intermittent and ephemeral drainages within the Phase 1, 2, and 4 mining areas
Operational activities would also result in impacts on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats. Intermittent and ephemeral drainages within Phase 1, 2, and 4 mining areas, as well as the permanent overburden stockpile area, would be lost as a result of mining activities.
The geotechnical setback areas for Phases 1 and 2 also support hydrologic features that may also be considered jurisdictional by the USACE and/or RWQCB, including wetland seeps, a short reach of intermittent channel, a stock pond, and a small seasonal wetland north of the Phase 2 area. Although it is unknown whether these geotechnical setbacks would need to be disturbed, they may be impacted if slope failures expand the mining excavation areas into the setbacks. For these reasons, the Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures 3.4-21: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4- 1c, 3.4-14a and 3.4-14b.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential for riparian habitats that occur near the Project site (i.e., outside of impact areas) to be adversely affected by the introduction and/or spread of invasive species or Phytophthora, minimize the indirect impacts of construction and operational activities on water quality and on these habitats, compensate for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional habitats, and riparian habitats along Sargent Creek that occur as a result of a reduction in flow reaching these habitats during Phase 3 and 4 mining. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce Project impacts on wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats to lessthan-cumulatively considerable and less-than-significant levels. _________________________
Impact 3.4-22: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative impairment of wildlife crossings. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Preserving regional wildlife linkages is one of the biological goals and objectives of the VHP.
The reserve system has been designed to protect key linkages described in the plan. The VHP also includes additional conservation actions to promote species movement within and between natural communities within and outside of the Study Area, focusing on five geographic areas,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-126 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
including movement across U.S. Highway 101 and other barriers in the following areas between Gilroy and the county line (Habitat Plan Linkages 18, 19, and 20).
The Final EIR for the U.S. 101 Widening Project identified the most significant wildlife movement area as Tar Creek south to the San Benito River. Replacement of culverts currently used by wildlife as part of the widening of the highway would increase the length and there decrease the openness ratios of these culverts, which may discourage some individual animals from moving through these culverts. Mitigation to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level includes installation of new box culverts south of Tar Creek to provide additional passages for wildlife to cross under U.S. 101, installation of wildlife fencing from Tar Creek south to the San Benito River to minimize wildlife access to the highway’s surface, and use of metal grating on lengthened culverts to increase light within the culverts. Therefore, due to the beneficial effects of VHP on wildlife linkages, and the less-than-significant impact of the U.S. 101 Widening Project on wildlife movement, the cumulative impact with respect to the cumulative impairment of wildlife crossings is not significant.
Project Contribution
As described in Section 3.4.3.5 and shown in Figure 3.4-7, the Project is located within an area of important habitat connectivity for wildlife, providing landscape linkages and genetic exchange for species between the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range, and between these mountain ranges and the Lomerias Muertas and Gabilan Range. Within the Project site itself, wildlife is currently able to move relatively easily among virtually any portions of the Project site on the west side of U.S. 101. Although some impediments to wildlife movement within the site currently exist, such as the densely-stranded barbed wire fencing along the UPRR tracks and the occupied residence and dogs near Tar Creek, habitats on the Project site are conducive to wildlife movement because of the absence of roads, extensive structures, or other features that represent substantial impediments to wildlife movement.
Construction activities could interfere with wildlife movement in several ways. Construction vehicles accessing the site along Old Monterey Road could disturb animals attempting to move toward or away from U.S. 101 (e.g., in the vicinity of the Tick Creek undercrossing), and could pose some collision risk. The noise and movement of construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment on the rest of the Project site (such as would be present during construction of bridges over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek, access roads, road improvements along Old Monterey Road and at its junction with U.S. 101, the conveyor belt, the rail spur, and the processing plant) could also disturb animals, causing them to divert around the work areas or suspend their dispersal activity until construction activity is not occurring.
Operational activities could interfere with wildlife movement in several ways:
• disturbance of animals by vehicles, personnel, and equipment; • vehicular collisions;
• discouragement of animal activity as a result of night lighting at the processing plant; • physical impediments posed by the conveyor belt and processing plant; and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-127 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• loss of vegetative cover for dispersing animals.
Owing to the physical location of the processing plant, coupled with its close proximity to the Tar Creek/UPRR undercrossing of U.S. 101 (approximately 330 feet away), the main plant would occupy a large proportion of the area immediately west/southwest of the undercrossing. Animals that currently move through the fields where the processing plant is proposed, including the screening berm between the processing plant and the railroad tracks and the proposed rail spur (refer to Figure 2.4-2), would need to move around the processing plant once constructed. There would still be space north, east, and south of the processing plant through which animals could move, but the plant would occupy a large area of open space immediately adjacent to the undercrossing. For these reasons, the Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-22: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-15.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts of the Project on wildlife movement by minimizing constraints to wildlife movement posed by Project fencing; minimizing disturbance of animals and alteration of movement patterns as a result of lighting; providing animals the ability to move under the Tar Creek bridge; reducing for collisions between Project-related vehicles and animals; and ensuring that even the largest animals that occur on the site can move under the conveyor belt. The Project’s operational lifespan is 30 years; by 2052, the conveyor belt and processing plant would have been removed, and by 2057, the Project’s mining pits would all have been reclaimed (with Pits 1, 2, and 3 having been reclaimed even earlier). However, the various ways in which Project operations might reduce the degree to which animals can safely traverse U.S. 101 would reduce the frequency of successful crossings. Given the location of the Project site, in an area where movement of animals in multiple directions and among multiple populations is very important, a reduction in the frequency of successful crossings over a 30 to 35-year period would have implications for regional movements, gene exchange, and potentially population viability. _________________________
Impact 3.4-23: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative loss of oaks and oak woodlands. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Oak woodlands are one of the most widespread habitats in Santa Clara County, and various species of oaks are among the most abundant and widespread trees in the county. The VHP identified six different oak woodland land cover types, varying by dominant oak species and the abundance of co-dominant non-oak trees. Oak woodlands have been reduced in extent, and often fragmented, by clearing and other land use activities, but they still occupy 156,930 acres (34.2%) of the VHP’s Plan Area.
The VHP covers permanent impacts to up to 2,709 acres of oak woodland. Within the Plan Area, the VHP would enhance or restore 12,900 acres of oak woodland within a reserve system funded by impact fees paid by covered projects. In addition, the VHP contains Condition 14 to avoid and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-128 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
minimize impacts on two of the most limited and sensitive oak woodland land cover types, valley oak and blue oak woodland. The vast majority of projects that will impact oak woodlands in Santa Clara County would be VHP-covered projects. Those projects would be required to comply with Condition 14, as applicable, to avoid and minimize impacts on valley oak and blue oak woodland, and they would pay impact fees. Those fees would be used to implement the VHP’s conservation program, which would preserve, enhance, and restore oak woodlands, among a number of other habitats.
However, some oak woodlands are not included in VHP boundaries, and loss of oaks and oak woodlands in these areas, combined with the Project’s incremental impacts, would result in a significant cumulative impact.
Project Contribution
Collectively, Project construction and operational activities would result in the loss of up to
40.4 acres of oak-dominated woodlands, including coast live oak forest and woodlands and mixed riparian woodland dominated by oaks. The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to oak trees and oak woodlands would be cumulatively considerable, and therefore significant.
Mitigation Measures 3.4-23: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4- 1b, 3.4-1c, 3.4-16a, and 3.4-16b.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce the potential for oak woodland habitats that occur near the Project site (i.e., outside of impact areas) to be adversely affected by the introduction and/or spread of invasive species or Phytophthora.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-16a and 3.4-16b would reduce impacts to oak woodlands by compensating for loss of this habitat type, both through planting of new oaks and preservation of existing oak woodlands. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.4-1c would further reduce impacts on oak woodlands by training Project personnel on these habitats and measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts. Collectively, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on oak woodlands to less-than-cumulatively-considerable and less-than-significant levels by ensuring that there is no net loss of the extent of these habitats.
_________________________
3.4.5 References
California Department of Transportation. 2011. Natural Environment Study. U.S. Highway 101 Improvement Project between Monterey Street and State Route 129 from PM 5.0 in Santa Clara County to PM 4.9 in San Benito County.
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2021. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.
Diamond, T. 2021. Personal communication via telephone conversation with H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist Steve Rottenborn. April 9, 2021.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-129 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2017a. Sargent Ranch Quarry Biotic Evaluation Peer Review. April 12, 2017.
H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2017b. Sargent Ranch Quarry Biotic Evaluation Peer Review-- Revised. December 8, 2017.
H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2019. Sargent Ranch Quarry Biotic Evaluation Peer Review Addendum. August 19, 2019.
Huenneke, L.F., S.P. Hamburg, R. Koide, H.A. Mooney, and P.M. Vitousek. 1990. Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland.
Ecology 71:478-491.
[LOA] Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2016. Investigation of Potential Waters of the United States Sargent Quarry. December 2016.
[LOA] Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2017a. Biotic Evaluation Sargent Ranch Quarry. August 2017. [LOA] Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2017b. Non-Protocol California Tiger Salamander Aquatic Larval Survey Results Report Sargent Ranch Property. July 2017. [LOA] Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2017c. Responses to Peer Review Comments on the Sargent Ranch Quarry Biological Evaluation, August 16, 2017.
[LOA] Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2021. Supplement to the 2017 Sargent Ranch Quarry Biological Evaluation Technical Report prepared by Live Oak Associates for the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project, Santa Clara County, CA. November 2021.
Orloff, S. 2007. Migratory Movements of California Tiger Salamander in Upland Habitat – A Five-year Study. Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates LLC. May 2007.
Pathways for Wildlife. 2013. The Nature Conservancy’s Pajaro Study 2012-2013. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy.
[PNWB] Pacific North Western Biological Resources Consultants, Inc. 2002. Biological Resources Assessment for the proposed Sargent Ranch Conservation Bank Agreement.
Santa Clara County. 2010. Guidelines for Tree Protection and Preservation for Land Use Applications.
Santa Clara County Planning Office. 2011. Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. “Habitat Agency Geobrowser.” Accessed September 19, 2017. http://www.hcpmaps.com/habitat/.
ICF International. 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. 2018. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan 2018 burrowing owl breeding season survey report. Prepared by the Burrowing Owl Expert Team.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Biological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.4-130 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. 2019. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan 2019 burrowing owl breeding season survey report. Prepared by the Burrowing Owl Expert Team.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. 2020. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan 2020 burrowing owl breeding season survey report. Prepared by the Burrowing Owl Expert Team.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2013. U.S. 101 Improvement Project between Monterey Street and State Route 129. Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Serieys, L. E. K., M. S. Rogan, S. S. Matsushima, and C. C. Wilmers. 2021. Road-crossings, vegetative cover, land use and poisons interact to influence corridor effectiveness.
Biological Conservation 253 (2021): 108930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108930 Todd Groundwater. 2019. Memorandum Re: Sargent Ranch Quarry: Addendum to Todd Groundwater November 2016 Memo to Address SGMA Issues. July 29, 2019.
Todd Groundwater. 2016. Sargent Ranch Quarry: Evaluation of Groundwater Conditions and Potential Mining Impacts. November 3, 2016.
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). 2019a. Safety Rules. Available online:
https://www.up.com/ert/safety.pdf.
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). 2019b. Minimum Safety Requirements for UPRR Contractors Engineering Addendum. Available online: https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/ @suppliers/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_contractor_min_safe_req.pdf.
WeatherSpark. 2021. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Gilroy California, United States. Available online: https://weatherspark.com/y/1079/Average-Weather-in-GilroyCalifornia-United-States-Year-Round. Accessed September 10, 2021.
Weiss, S.B. 1999. Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and grassland management for a threatened species. Conservation Biology 13:1476-1486.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5.1 Introduction
This section evaluates impacts of the Project on known and unknown cultural and tribal cultural resources (, including those of historical, archaeological, paleontological, and ethnographic importance. The discussion within this section is based on several technical reports, including archaeological and historic reports and data sheets prepared by Far Western Anthropological Resources Group, Inc. in January 2017 and December 2017 (Far Western 2017a and 2017b), as well as a confidential ethnographic study prepared by Albion Environmental dated September 2021 and a memo attached to the study, prepared in 2022 (Albion 2021). Locations of archaeological sites and tribal cultural resources as well as information exchanged during the AB 52 consultation contained in these reports are confidential and not available for public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d). The non-confidential portions of the Far Western reports are provided in Appendix M.
For the purposes of this section, the term “ethnographic study area” includes the Sargent Hills and associated riverine lowlands, as shown in Figure 3.5-1. The term “Project site” includes the area being physically impacted by the Project as a result of ground disturbing activities (i.e., mining pits, access roads, conveyor belt footprint, screening berms, stockpile areas, processing plant, etc.). These areas are shown in Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description.
3.5.2 Regulatory Setting
3.5.2.1 Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.
The NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of historic resources that are considered significant at the national, state, or local level. The minimum criteria (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part
60.4) for determining NRHP eligibility follow:
• The property is at least 50 years old (however, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP); • It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations; and
(7+12*5$3+,&678'<$5($ ),*85(
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
CALIFORNIA
USGS 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle: Santa Clara, Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties, California Scale - 1:100,000 Legend
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Ethnographic Study Area
Project Area
SOURCE: Live Oak Associates, Inc.
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.5-1
Ethnographic Study Area
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:
– Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history.
– Association with the lives of persons significant in the past. – Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. – Has yielded, or may yield, information important to prehistory or history.
3.5.2.2 State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has several provisions related to the cultural resources impacts and mitigation measures.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) - Definition of a Historic Resource CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines a “historic resource” as follows:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.
Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) - Definition of A Substantial Adverse Change in a Historical Resource
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historic resource as follows:
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. (2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
(3) Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) - Effects on Archeological Sites If a cultural resource in question is an archaeological site, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5[c][1] require that the lead agency first determine if the site is a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(a). If the archaeological site qualifies as a historical resource, potential adverse impacts must be considered in the same manner as a historical resource (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][2]). If the archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but does qualify as a unique archaeological resource, then the archaeological site is treated in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][3]). In practice, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource also meet the definition of a historical resource.
CEQA (PRC Section 21083.2[g]) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is public information in that information.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest or best example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) - Mitigation Requirements for Archaeological Historical Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) contains the following requirements for mitigating impacts on historical resources that are archeological in nature, including the following:
(3) Public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site:
(A) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.
(C) When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. If an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria listed previously.1
Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and hence; in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. March 14, 2006.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
during the resource's period of significance.” The process of determining integrity is similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.
Discovery of Human Remains
The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction, or excavation activity must cease and the County Coroner be notified. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance is allowed until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains, and subsequent steps have been taken. If the remains are of a Native American, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The act stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.
Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains. These procedures protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, and establish the NAHC as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.
Both state law and County of Santa Clara Code (Section B6-189) require that the Santa Clara County Coroner be notified if cultural remains are found on a site. If the County Coroner determines the remains are those of Native Americans, the NAHC and a most likely descendant must also be notified.
Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Cultural Resources
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 1, 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies when approving discretionary projects under CEQA, called tribal cultural resources. Public Resources Code Section 21074 (a), defines tribal cultural resources as either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR2 (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)
2 See Public Resources Code section 5024.1. The State Historical Resources Commission oversees the administration of the CRHR and is a nine-member state review board that is appointed by the Governor, with responsibilities for the identification, registration, and preservation of California's cultural heritage. The CRHR “shall include historical resources determined by the commission, according adopted procedures, to be significant and to meet the criteria in subdivision (c) (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1 (a)(b)).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 (CRHR criteria described above). In applying the criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project’s geographic area if they have requested to be notified, in writing, of projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and the tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification of a project and requests consultation (Public Resources Code, Section 21080.3.1.). 3 As part of the consultation process, the parties may propose mitigation measures, including those capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a Tribal Cultural Resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a Tribal Cultural Resource (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2, 21084.3). Section 21080.3.2(b) provides:
“The consultation process shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
(1) The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource. (2) A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.”
AB 52 Methodology
The identification of tribal cultural resources that might be affected by the proposed Project is based on the County’s application of California Public Resources Code section 21074, after consulting with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. California Public Resources Code section 21074 defines a Tribal Cultural Resource as noted above in the “Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Cultural Resources.” There are no tribal cultural resources in the Project area that are included in a local register of historic resources; therefore, the evaluation of whether cultural resources meet the definition of tribal cultural resources in Public Resources Code section 21074 is based on the eligibility criteria for listing on the CRHR, which are set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 (c). (Public Resources Code section 21074(a)(2)). Those criteria are whether the resource meets any of the following four criteria for listing on the CRHR:
(1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
3 Consultation has the same meaning under AB 52 as provided in Government Code Section 65352.4: “consultation’ means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional cultural significance.”
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-8 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
(4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (See also Title 14, Cal. Code Regs. Section 4852 (criteria for listing on the CRHR), and Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines).
The lead agency must also consider the significance of the resource to the Tribe (Public Resources Code section 21074(a)(2)). PRC Section 21080.3.1(a) recognizes that California tribes may have expertise regarding tribal history and practices concerning the tribal cultural resources with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated.
According to State Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 et seq), a “site” is a type of resource that may be eligible for nomination to the CRHR and is defined as follows:
A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historical, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric event, and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time. Examples of such sites are trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs (Title 14, Cal.
Code Regs. Section 4852(a)(2)).
The integrity of a resource is also an important factor in establishing significance. “Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described in section 4852(b) of this chapter and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance” (Title 14, Cal. Code Regs. Section 4852(c)). An evaluation of integrity considers the retention of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association and feeling. These aspects are judged with reference to the particular criteria under which the resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations to a resource or historic changes in its use may also have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data (Title 14, Cal. Code Regs. Section 4852(c)).
With respect to cultural landscapes, Public Resources Code Section 21074(b), provides: “A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.” California statutes and regulations do not provide specific guidance with respect to “sacred places.”
Significance of a Project’s Effects on a Tribal Cultural Resource Pursuant to AB 52, “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21084.2). A “substantial adverse change” is defined above. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1).) Consideration of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives under AB 52 Any mitigation measures or alternatives that are agreed upon during the consultation process between the lead agency and the Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the potential significant impacts to a Tribal Cultural Resource must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and shall be fully enforceable (Public Resources Code, Section 21082.3). If, however, the mitigation measures recommended by staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document, or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of the consultation, “and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 21084.3” (Public Resources Code, Section 21082.3(e)).
Public Resources Code section 21084.3(a) requires public agencies to avoid damaging effects to any Tribal Cultural Resource, when feasible. Section 21084.3(b) provides that: “If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process provided in Section 21080.3.2, the following are examples of mitigation measures that, if feasible, may be considered to avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts:
(1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
(2) Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. (B) Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
(C) Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
(3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
(4) Protecting the resource.
AB 52 Consultation Summary
AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project’s geographic area if they have requested to be notified, in writing, of projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
tribe, and the tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification of a project and requests consultation (Public Resources Code, Section 21080.3.1.).4 As part of the consultation process, the parties may propose mitigation measures, including those capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a Tribal Cultural Resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a Tribal Cultural Resource (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2, 21084.3). Section 21080.3.2(b) provides: “The consultation process shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: (1) The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource. (2) A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.”
For this Project, the County of Santa Clara received a request for consultation under AB 52 from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Costanoan/Ohlone Indians in October 2016. The following table summarizes the consultation activities that occurred between the Tribe and the County of Santa Clara as part of the consultation process (Table 3.5-1).
Following conclusion of the consultation in December 2019,5 the County determined that additional information was needed from the Tribe to complete the environmental analysis. An additional interview was conducted with the Tribe on April 16, 2021. The Tribe provided written responses to the interview questions on May 13, 2021.
3.5.2.3 Local
County of Santa Clara Historic Preservation Ordinance
The Historic Preservation Ordinance, set forth in Division C17 of the County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code, is intended to identify, protect, preserve, and enhance historic resources representing distinctive historical elements (i.e., cultural, social, and economic) of Santa Clara County. The Historic Preservation Ordinance regulates landmark designations, landmark alterations, demolition of historical resources, and provides incentives for historic resource preservation. The County also maintains a list of identified historic resources and landmarks within the County’s jurisdiction known as the heritage resource inventory.6 4 Consultation has the same meaning under AB 52 as provided in Government Code Section 65352.4: “consultation’ means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional cultural significance.” 5 The AB 52 consultation process concluded because, per Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2, the County concluded after reasonable effort and acting in good faith, that mutual agreement could not be reached as to measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on tribal cultural resources. The County fully considered the proposed mitigation measures submitted by the Tribe before reaching this conclusion. The Tribe maintained that impacts to tribal cultural resources cannot be fully mitigated. 6 Santa Clara County. Historic Resources Inventory. Accessed January 30, 2018. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/ Programs/HistoricPreservation/Pages/Inventory.aspx.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.5-1
AB 52 CONSULTATION SUMMARY OVERVIEW
Consultation Action Date
1. County receives Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Resolution No. 03-2016 opposing Sargent Quarry Project on “Unique Ancestral Tribal Lands at Juristac”
10/10/16
2. Letter received from Berkey Williams LLP on behalf of the Tribe requesting formal consultation under AB 52
10/13/16
3. Initial AB 52 consultation meeting to discuss EIR process and reports to be prepared, solicit feedback on potential impacts and mitigation measures
5/17/17
4. County receives comments from the Tribe on the draft archaeological resources report 6/5/17
5. First site visit with County staff, tribal representatives, the Project applicant, archaeologist, and ethnographer Far Western
6/15/17
6. Far Western contacted the NAHC and requested a Sacred Lands Search and Native American Contact List
9/18/17
7. County receives comments from the Tribe on the scope for the ethnographic study 10/5/17
8. Far Western notified parties on the County’s interested parties list for the Project (including the Tribe) of the Project via letter; additional follow up was conducted via email and phone calls on 11/14/17 and 11/20/17
11/7/17
9. County receives letter from Shute, Mihaly &Weinberger, LLP (representing the Tribe) regarding the CEQA review process and potential cultural and biological resources issues 1/19/18
10. Second site visit with County staff, the Tribe, and ethnographer 2/13/18
11. County receives comments from the Tribe on the draft ethnographic study (Ethnohistory and Ethnographic Study of Juristac ("Sargent Ranch Project")) 7/6/18
12. County responds to Tribe’s July 6, 2018 comments on draft ethnographic study 9/13/18
13. Tribe receives administrative draft of EIR Tribal Cultural Resources Section 9/13/18
14. Second AB 52 consultation meeting between the County and the Tribe to discuss the ethnographic study results, Project impacts, potential mitigation measures, alternatives, and the EIR process
9/20/18
15. County receives comments from the Tribe on administrative draft of EIR Tribal Cultural Resources Section, including archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources mitigation measures, and a request for a meeting with the County to discuss the Tribe’s comments and requested mitigation measures
10/5/18
16. County sends revised draft archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources mitigation measures to the Tribe for review
11/20/18
17. Responses to Tribe’s requests for mitigation measures sent by the County 11/27/18
18. Berkey Williams LLP, on behalf of the Tribe, sent the County, via e-mail, the Tribe’s comments on the revised archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources mitigation measures and reiterated the Tribe’s availability for a meeting to discuss the comments and requested mitigation measures.
12/4/18
19. Final AB 52 consultation meeting to discuss the EIR process and final comments on mitigation 10/8/19
20. County sends Tribe the revised administrative draft of EIR Cultural and Tribal Resources Section
10/31/19
21. Tribe responds to revised administrative draft of EIR Cultural and Tribal Resources Section 11/8/19
22. County notifies Tribe in a letter that the AB 52 consultation process has concluded a 12/12/19 NOTES:
a. The AB 52 consultation process concluded because, per Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2, the County concluded after reasonable effort and acting in good faith, that mutual agreement could not be reached as to measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on tribal cultural resources. The County fully considered the proposed mitigation measures submitted by the Tribe before reaching this conclusion. The Tribe maintained that impacts to tribal cultural resources cannot be fully mitigated.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Santa Clara County General Plan
The County of Santa Clara adopted its General Plan in 1994. The document provides a comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing cultural resources (referred to as heritage resources). The general plan identifies three strategies for protecting heritage resources:
• Strategy #1. Inventory and Evaluate Heritage Resources • Strategy #2. Prevent, or Minimize, Adverse Impacts on Heritage Resources • Strategy #3. Restore, Enhance, and Commemorate Resources as Appropriate The general plan also acknowledges the challenges for preserving heritage resources in urban settings versus rural settings, such as the Project area, and provides similar but different policies for each setting. Section RC of the Santa Clara County General Plan (County of Santa Clara 2015) addresses cultural and tribal resources that may be considered “heritage resources.” There are two general policies that guide implementation of the strategies in rural settings:
Policy R-RC 81: Heritage resources within rural unincorporated areas shall be preserved, restored wherever possible, and commemorated as appropriate for their scientific, cultural, historic, and place values.
Policy R-RC 82: The following strategies should provide overall direction to efforts to preserve heritage resources:
• Inventory and evaluate heritage resources.
• Prevent, or minimize, adverse impacts on heritage resources. • Restore, enhance, and commemorate resources as appropriate.
Other resource policies that pertain to this Project include the following:
Policy R-RC 85: No heritage resource shall knowingly be allowed to be destroyed or lost through a discretionary action (zoning, subdivision site approval, grading permit, building permit, etc.) of the County of Santa Clara unless: a. the site or resource has been reviewed by experts and the County Historic Heritage Commission and has been found to be of insignificant value; or b. there is an overriding public benefit from the project and compensating mitigation to offset the loss is made part of the project.
Policy R-RC 86: Projects in areas found to have heritage resources shall be conditioned and designed to avoid loss or degradation of the resources. Where conflict with the resource is unavoidable, mitigation measures that offset the impact may be imposed.
Policy R-RC 88: For projects receiving environmental assessment, expert opinions and field reconnaissance may be required if needed at the applicant’s expense to determine the presence, extent, and condition of suspected heritage resources and the likely impact of the project upon the resources.
Policy R-RC 92: The participation of concerned citizens and professionals dealing with heritage resources in the identification of sites and the review and conditioning of projects by its boards and commissions shall be encouraged by the County.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.5.3 Environmental Setting
3.5.3.1 Ethnographic Context
As discussed in the ethnographic study by Albion (2021), the Ohlone, also known as the Costanoans, occupied a large part of the San Francisco Bay Area (and beyond) at the time of European contact in the late eighteenth century. This area of occupation extended from the San Francisco Peninsula south to the northern part of Big Sur and included parts of the East Bay north and east to the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, and the Santa Clara Valley down to San Juan Bautista. This larger Ohlone territory was further divided into a number of subdivisions based on language dialects. Ohlone territory during the European contact period was occupied by numerous tribal groupings and villages; however, historical sources do not explicitly delineate tribal boundaries. For most parts of west-central California, approximate tribal locations can be determined indirectly, based on marriage patterns and baptism records.
The Uñijaimas, the Ausaimas, and the Motsun were the three major Ohlone tribelets occupying the ethnographic study area in the vicinity of the Pajaro River at its confluence with the San Benito River. Tribelet is the basic unit of Ohlone political organization. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (Tribe) today connects its roots to these three Ohlone tribelets.
The Uñijaima people were associated with the villages of Carneadero, Saisin, Tebletac, Thirthiri, and Tipisastac (north of the Project area). The Ausaimas occupied the eastern side of the southern Santa Clara Valley, in the vicinity of Pacheco Creek, and their major villages included Poytoquix, Jupagtac, Upunixmum, Ssuric-numa, and Tipumin. The Motsun occupied the area south of the Uñijaimas. The southern boundary of the Uñijaimas was likely located at the Pajaro River, and Motsun territory was located south of the Pajaro River. It is possible that Juristac (or Jurestaca) was a Motsun village north of the Pajaro River.
Subsistence and Religion
Ohlone people built permanent villages and seasonal campsites throughout their ancestral territory. They would travel across this territory to hunt and gather seasonally available resources such as oak, salmon, berries, deer, rabbit, and important basketry and medicinal plants. Ohlone people traded raw materials and finished crafts with other villages and Tribal cultures outside of their ancestral area, in addition to meeting their own needs.
The Ohlone are a deeply spiritual people who continue to practice ceremonial traditions that predate missionization. Many of these traditions pertain to the Project area and have been documented in a confidential ethnographic study prepared as part of the environmental review for the Project.
This study documents Ohlone religion, and cosmology, provided through consultation with Ohlone Tribal elders and cultural experts and supplemented with data collected by early ethnographers and within the historical record. Central to the ceremonial values of the Sargent Ranch region is the ancestral figure of Kuksui, who made his home in these hills and came in spirit to nearby Ohlone villages.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Mission Period
In the late 1700s, Spanish exploratory expeditions passed through southern Santa Clara Valley.
The expeditions encountered a number of Native villages in the vicinity of Tar Creek and the Pajaro River (i.e., the general location of Sargent Ranch). Spanish accounts from the time indicate that the southern Santa Clara Valley was an area of extensive indigenous habitation. The three major Ohlone tribelets occupying the ethnographic study area (Uñijaimas, the Ausaimas, and the Motsun) were forced into the missions at San Juan Bautista, Mission San Carlos Borromeo, Santa Clara de Asís, and Santa Cruz.
Mission San Juan Bautista was founded in 1797 along the route that would become the El Camino Real, in an area the Native peoples called Popeloutchom.7 Native Americans living at Mission San Carlos Borromeo (in Carmel) were taken to Mission San Juan Bautista and new converts came from villages and tribes in the surrounding area. Despite acts of Native American resistance, the mission continued to take Native Americans for baptism. Between 1797 and 1807, a large portion of the surrounding region’s Native population was forced into the mission and placed under the control of the mission padres. In 1800, 275 Mutsun were taken to the mission, enslaved, and baptized.
Following significant deaths from disease due to unsanitary and inhumane conditions at the mission in the early 1800s, indigenous people from the Central Valley and Sierra Miwoks were brought into the mission to manage the expanding ranchlands and herd animals. Outstations, where livestock could be raised away from the Mission itself, were established. These outstations were located on lands formerly occupied by Native peoples and villages. The mission put these lands into “trust,” until such time that reorganization of indigenous life consistent with Spanish ways had been achieved (i.e., until the Native peoples had become Hispanicized). Mission San Juan Bautista owned and operated seven outstations, including Natividad, Aromas, La Brea, San Felipe, Pagsines, Santa Ana, and San Matias.
La Brea was located on land centered on the Sargent Hills in the vicinity of Sargent Ranch extending from Carnadero in the north to the Pajaro River/San Benito River confluence in the south.
It is likely that La Brea (brea is Spanish for tar) derived its name from Tar Creek. While most of La Brea was grazing land, the mission outstation also contained an adobe, corrals, and kitchen.
La Brea was also an important place for the Mission Indians, families permanently occupied the outstation during those years as a center for managing herds of livestock in the vicinity.
Archaeological investigations did not, however, uncover significant evidence of this outstation. The outstation may have been located at SCL-577/H, where a few artifacts were found indicative of the mission outstation. Additional investigations focused on the historic-era component would be needed to determine the connection between the site and the mission outstation.
Post-Mission Period (Secularization)
The mission padres managed La Brea until 1834, when church properties were confiscated by civil authorities and Native Americans were emancipated from Mission San Juan Bautista. Two brothers, Antonio and Faustino German, acquired the title to Sargent Ranch (and surrounding 7 The term Popeloutchom is generally considered by the Tribe to be a Native region rather than a village name.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-15 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
lands) during secularization in 1835, having already lived there for a number of years, and constructed adobe houses on the site. During the land transfer, the name changed from Rancho La Brea to Rancho Juristac.
Native people were living in the area of Rancho Juristac immediately after post-secularization, including ancestors of today’s Amah Mutsun Tribal Band members (including Ascensión Solórsano’s family). Ascensión Solórsano is the cultural bearer of the Tribe and she lived on a now-demolished house on Sargent Ranch. Ascensión Solórsano’s teachings and practices carry special significance for the Tribe.
The Tribe recovered knowledge of their ancestral ways of life from the more than 75,000 pages of notes of the Tribe’s oral history (as told to John P. Harrington, an early ethnographer during the 1920s and 1930s), most of which came from Ascensión Solórsano. The Tribe recognizes these notes as an essential body of knowledge of their traditions and honors them as scriptural texts. There were several post-mission villages, or rancherias, where emancipated Native peoples found refuge upon the collapse of the mission system. The German brothers apparently wanted the Native peoples living at Rancho Juristac evicted but were halted from doing this by civil authorities and a compromise was agreed to where the Native peoples would be allowed to occupy the area at the confluence of Pescadero Creek and the Pajaro River.
In 1856, Faustino German sold a portion of the property to the Sargent brothers, but several Native peoples continued to live on the land through 1856 and beyond after the property was sold. The Project area and portions of greater Sargent Ranch continued to be used for ranching throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. When James Sargent died in 1900, he passed on his estate to his children; however, according to records, most of the Native peoples had left or were evicted by 1936.
Recent History
By the time anthropologists began their studies of the California Indians in the early twentieth century, many of the tribes’ pre-contact cultural traditions had been forgotten. During the Mission Period, Franciscan fathers discouraged or banned Ohlone customs, rites, and rituals.
Further, as a result of disease and birth rate declines, the Ohlone population fell from approximately 10,000 in 1770 to less than 2,000 in 1832. Limited knowledge of their language, lifestyle, and material culture was preserved by the few surviving Ohlone and was supplemented by eighteenth century Spanish letters, diaries, and archival information drawn from the ethnographic record left by pioneer ethnographer J. Peabody Harrington. From this information and archaeological investigations of the area, ethnographers have been able to piece together information related to traditional Ohlone culture at the time of European contact.
3.5.3.2 Archaeological Resources Context
As discussed in the Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment for the Sargent Ranch Project by Far Western (2017a), the Santa Clara Valley landscape has changed significantly during the last 15,000 years. Floodplains and alluvial fans of the Santa Clara Valley experienced repeated
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
cycles of deposition, erosion, and stability, processes that have strongly influenced the condition of the local archaeological record. The potential for surface prehistoric archaeological sites to be located within the Project area was assessed.
The potential for unidentified surface prehistoric archaeological sites to be located within the Project area was assessed using a weighted model recently created for the San Francisco BayDelta Region that includes all Santa Clara County (Far Western, 2017a). This model considers three environmental factors—surface slope, determined using a digital elevation model; distance to a historic-era stream; and distance to a stream confluence. Results identify areas of greater or lesser sensitivity for prehistoric surface sites.
Areas assessed as having the highest potential (high or highest sensitivity) for prehistoric and historic-era surface archaeological sites were surveyed. A pedestrian transect survey of the site was completed between October 23 and 26, 2017. The survey team focused on areas with the highest surface site potential, while excluding the extremely steep slopes categorized as having the low and lowest potential for archaeological surface sites. In-field assessments of topography and archaeological potential were also made. Revisions to the site sensitivity maps, based on on-the-ground observations, were completed.
Archaeological sensitivity maps indicate that the potential for prehistoric surface sites is lowest to low in the majority of the Project mining areas, with the high to highest potential at the processing plant and a portion of the permanent overburden stockpile area, Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas, and along much of the existing roadways (including Old Monterey Road).
The potential for buried prehistoric sites in the Project area was also assessed and is lowest to low in approximately 90 percent of the Project area. The majority of the high potential area is adjacent to Tar Creek at the processing plant and permanent overburden stockpile area, with a small amount of highest potential area located along Old Monterey Road near Tick Creek.
Because of its long history as a major transportation corridor extending back to the 1770s, the Project area is also sensitive for historic-era archaeological sites. Areas with the greatest potential for historic-era archaeological resources include areas related to El Camino Real, La Brea Mission, Antonio and Faustino German Adobe, the stagecoach road, and Carnadero School (described further below).
3.5.3.3 Historic Context
The Project area is located within the Highway 101 corridor between San Juan Bautista and Gilroy which has been a primary artery of travel and commerce since the initial settlement of the northern Alta California frontier by Spain in the late eighteenth century. As discussed in the Far Western cultural resources sensitivity assessment (2017a), the route became a primary corridor of travel (part of El Camino Real) between the Bay Area and Monterey, and later to the mission established in 1797 at San Juan Bautista. In the early years of the nineteenth century, the mission fathers at San Juan Bautista established outlying ranchos in the valleys and foothills along this traveled way. Established in 1803, San Juan Bautista mission’s La Brea Rancho was located
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-17 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
north of the Pajaro River in the vicinity of Carnadero (the butchering place) where Tic Creek emerged from the Santa Cruz Mountains and drained into Carnadero Creek.
Later, a stagecoach stop between San Jose and Monterey along El Camino Real was founded in the Project vicinity. The stage road departed from El Camino Real in the vicinity of Tar Creek and climbed uphill southwesterly, paralleling Sargent Creek to the Pajaro River to Monterey Bay. The stage road remained active until the 1880s. Since the 1870s, the Highway 101 corridor has also supported railroad traffic with a station strategically located near the convergence of the Old Monterey Road and the Pajaro River crossing. Historic-era buildings (depot, express office, post office, hotel, saloon, open-air dance floor, gas station, etc.) were once associated with the station and town of Sargent but are now gone.
The Sargent brothers emerged as the principal owners of property along the El Camino Real corridor (later known as State U.S. 101) in southern Santa Clara County at the start of the century.
The 10,000-acre Sargent Ranch extended from the former Juristac Rancho westerly into the Sargent Hills and the Pescadero Creek watershed. The ranch was originally headquartered at the Faustino German adobe site in the vicinity of where Tar Creek crossed El Camino Real, at a place later named Corporal. Haciendas were later established along El Camino Real where Tic Creek and Tar Creek emerge from the foothills along Old Monterey Road at Sargent Ranch.
3.5.3.4 Known Archaeological and Historic Resources
Table 3.5-2 summarizes the known archaeological and historic resources in the Project area and their eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR registers (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2017b). One of these resources is eligible for the NRHP and CRHR registers:
Prehistoric midden with known human burials within the Antonio German Adobe and Farm Complex: CA-SCL-577/H. Although the prehistoric component of CA-SCL-578/H was found to be ineligible for NRHP and CRHR, the exact location and significance of buried historic-era resources associated with CA-SCL-578/H are unknown and have not been evaluated.
Antonio German Adobe and Farm Complex: CA-SCL-577/H
The Antonio German adobe and farm complex was located immediately adjacent to Old Monterey Road (in the vicinity of the Project entrance from U.S. 101) between two small drainages converging at Tic Creek. In the 1830s, it was occupied primarily by Antonio, his wife and children, and several farm laborers. Census data from 1833 to 1852 suggest that there must have been multiple dwellings constructed at the site. The site consists of two components dating to the prehistoric and historic periods.
The prehistoric component is comprised of a moderately large, intact midden deposit that extends to a depth of 2.3 feet, as well as flaked stone tools and flaking debris, ground stone tools, and vertebrate faunal remains. Human burials are also present. The deposit dates predominately to the Early (4500–2500 BP8) and Middle (2500–850 BP). The prehistoric component at SCL-577/H was found eligible for the NRHP. It is therefore also eligible for the CRHR. 8 BP (Before Present)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-18 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.5-2
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES Resource Resource Description Register Eligibility
Antonio German Adobe and Farm
Complex: CA-SCL-577/H
Prehistoric midden with known
human burials
NRHP and CRHR eligible
Buried historic-era artifacts from
Spanish and Mexican occupation,
and the Mission and Rancho Periods
Insufficient data to evaluate the
historic-era component
Faustino German Adobe and Ranch
Complex: CA-SCL-578/H (includes
the Sargent Ranch Complex)
Highly disturbed prehistoric flaked
stone deposit with pockets of midden
Ineligible for NRHP and CRHR
Historic-era artifacts related to the
Spanish and Mexican occupation
Unevaluated
Four historic-era structures
(residence, barn, shed, corral)
Ineligible for NRHP and CRHR
Bloomfield Horse Ranch: P-43-
000855
Five historic-era structures buildings
(two residences, two sheds, stables)
Ineligible for NRHP, CRHR eligibility
unevaluated
Carnadero School: 101-2H/P-43-
002462
Site of demolished Carnadero school
building; low probability of
archaeological deposits
Unevaluated (avoided by Project)
Old Monterey Road/Old State Route
2: P-43-003850
Historic-era (concrete and asphalt)
road alignment, continually used and
maintained
Ineligible for NRHP and CRHR
Tick Creek and Tick Creek Culverts:
P-43-000872 and P-43-000873
Box culverts along Old Monterey
Road
Unevaluated (avoided by Project)
Road Alignment: Th-03 Paved and striped asphalt road Ineligible for NRHP and CRHR NOTES:
* Trinomial identification numbers have been simplified for the purposes of this report and summary table.
Abundant nineteenth-century artifacts were recovered during testing of the prehistoric component in 1993, including ceramic sherds indicative of Spanish and Mexican sites, and floor and roof tiles characteristic of Mission- and Rancho-Period sites. The current site boundary does not indicate the extent of the historic-era component. The State Historic Preservation Officer determined that not enough data was produced from the 1990 excavations to allow for evaluation of the historic-era component. It is possible that additional historic-era archaeological resources are present in the vicinity. Because the people who were associated with this site have been identified, and that population base appears to have been relatively stable, it enhances the site’s potential to yield important information.
Faustino German Adobe and Ranch Complex: CA-SCL-578/H
The Faustino German Adobe and Ranch Complex was located immediately adjacent to the Old Monterey Road near Tar Creek. Faustino and his wife lived in a small, two to three room singlestory adobe, but employed many ranch hands of Hispanic descent and Native Americans who resided at the adobe or in nearby dwellings. Census data from 1852 suggest that there were as many as two dozen people residing on Faustino’s ranch. Numerous buildings (associated with the Sargent Ranch headquarters) have been erected and demolished at the site of the Faustino German adobe. Over the long period of occupation by multiple generations of Sargent family members, railroad and highway construction has impinged on the Sargent Ranch complex and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-19 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
resulted in buildings being torn down or relocated and roads being realigned. The site consists of two components dating to the prehistoric and historic periods.
The prehistoric component of SCL-578/H is a highly disturbed deposit consisting of flaked stone and a few pockets of midden located beneath and just west of U.S. 101. SCL‐578/H was previously evaluated and found ineligible for the NRHP with State Historic Preservation Officer concurrence; therefore, it can also be considered ineligible for the CRHR.
In depth analysis was not conducted on the historic-era artifacts recovered during evaluation of the prehistoric component. Historic-era artifacts observed include ceramics, glass, and nails. It is possible that the historic-era assemblage recovered is not reflective of all activities at the site.
Significant remains of the Faustino German adobe—architectural remains and artifact deposits— could be present on the property. Archaeological resources related to the Spanish and Mexican Periods of California history are rare and can make significant contributions to our understanding of this important and poorly documented time period. Historic-era artifact deposits from this site have never been analyzed and therefore do not provide additional evidence as to the site’s early occupation. It is also possible that additional historic-era artifact deposits are located in the vicinity outside of the Project area boundary.
Sargent Ranch Complex: CA-SCL-578/H
Four historic-era structures (a residence and shed, barn, and corral) composing the Sargent Ranch Complex are adjacent to the Old Monterey Highway/access road and Tar Creek, north of the proposed processing plant. These structures were constructed between 1914 and 1939 and are described below.
The residence is an approximately 930-square-foot bungalow with a side-gable roof sheathed with composition shingles and exposed angle brackets. The building has a rectangular footprint with an enclosed partial-width porch extension and board-and-batten wood siding, as shown in the photo to the right. Immediately west of (behind) the house is an approximately 1,300-squarefoot wood frame storage shed, which has a rectangular footprint, a side-gable roof with corrugated-metal sheathing, and an open north-facing façade (see Figure 3.5-2).
At the west end of the complex is an approximately 3,000-square-foot, wood-frame transverse barn, which has a square footprint, concrete foundation, and steeply pitched gable roof with extended peaks above the hay doors (see Figure 3.5-3). The barn has corrugated metal siding and roofing, except for north-side vertical wood board siding, as shown in the photo below. Several of the doors appear to have fallen off the structure, as shown below.
West of these structures is the three-acre cattle corral, containing a network of metal pipe fencing and gates and wood structures, as shown in the photo below (see Figure 3.5-4). Near the center of the enclosure is a wood-frame shade structure, which appears to have a gable roof sheathed with corrugated metal.
None of these structures meets the criteria for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR because they do not have sufficient historical significance. Nor are the structures located on the County’s heritage resource inventory.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-20 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Figure 3.5-2
Residence Associated with CA-SCL-578/H
Figure 3.5-3
Barn Associated with CA-SCL-578/H
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-21 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Figure 3.5-4
Corral Associated with CA-SCL-578/H
Bloomfield Horse Ranch: P-43-000855
Historic-era site P-43-000855 is the Bloomfield Horse Ranch, located at 3201 Monterey Road adjacent to the Project entrance from U.S. 101, though outside of the defined Project area. The property complex comprises five buildings—two single-family residences built in the 1920s to the 1930s, equipment shed built around 1955, horse stables built around 1920 and 1950, and a stock shed built in the 1940s. The property has been deemed ineligible for the NRHP but has not been assessed for eligibility for the CRHR or for local significance.
Carnadero School: 101-2H/ P-43-002462
Historic-era site P-43-002462 is the location of the now-demolished Carnadero school building, which operated on the west side of Old Monterey Road (which would be improved as part of the Project) just north of Tick Creek, from around 1870 to 1920. The Carnadero school served children who lived at the south end of the Santa Clara Valley. The location of the school (along the Project access road) has not been previously examined or tested for archaeological deposits, but the site would be avoided by the proposed Project.
Old Monterey Road/Old State Route 2: P-43-003850
Old Monterey Road was originally developed as a county wagon road in 1858 and later converted to State Route 2 in 1914. This section of Old Monterey Road/Old State Route 2 is located in the vicinity of the original El Camino Real alignment first travelled by foot, horseback, and ox carts during the era of Spanish colonial settlement in the late eighteenth century. It also provided ready access to the Spanish- and Mexican-era missions and ranchos. Among those who frequented the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-22 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
route were the mayordomo and herdsmen who cared for San Juan Bautista mission sheep and cattle and operated a waystation for travelers at the mission’s La Brea Rancho (Far Western, 2017b).
In 1853, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors commissioned construction of an improved county road between Gilroy and San Juan Bautista that roughly followed the El Camino Real alignment. The road, which came to be known as the Monterey-San Juan Road, and later Old Monterey Road, was completed in 1858. In the early twentieth century, the State of California Highway Commission adopted the route as State Route 2, and in 1914 completed a project to widen the road to 15 feet and to pave it with concrete. Later, between 1924 and 1926, the concrete was overlain with asphalt and slightly widened. In the Project area, the road was replaced as a main access route by the current alignment of U.S. 101 in 1949. Old Monterey Road/Old State Route 2 has since functioned as an access road for Sargent Ranch and adjacent properties (Far Western, 2017b).
As discussed in the Far Western Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey Report (2017b), the roadway in the Project area was deemed ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, and did also not appear to be a historical resource defined by CEQA because it lacked integrity to its period of construction.
Tick Creek Culvert: P-43-000872 and Tick Creek Branch Culvert: P-43-000873 Both of these historic-era resources are appurtenant features of Old Monterey Road. The Tick Creek Culvert (shown below in Figure 3.5-5) is a double-box, board-formed concrete culvert with sacked concrete wingwalls and timber post railings along the roadway.
Figure 3.5-5
Tick Creek Branch Culvert
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-23 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The Tick Creek Branch Culvert is a single-box, reinforced, board-formed concrete culvert with sacked concrete wingwalls, and downstream concrete rip-rap fortification. Timber post railings are located along the margins of the roadway above the culvert.
Both culverts were constructed in 1914 as part of the California Highway Commission’s project to widen and pave to a two-lane automobile road. The sacked concrete wingwalls appear to be a later addition. These resources have not previously been evaluated for listing on the NRHP or CRHR but would be avoided by the proposed Project.
Abandoned Road Alignment: Th-03
This abandoned road alignment (shown below in Figure 3.5-6) is located to the east of U.S. 101 where wetland mitigation area is proposed. TH-03 travels east about 0.25 mile until it meets and follows the western bank of the Pajaro River for about 0.50 mile before extending in a meandering, northwesterly route for about another 0.50 mile, where it terminates at the intersection with an unnamed rural access road near Tar Creek. Th-03 is paved with asphalt with a solid yellow lane and is heavily overgrown. The segment is approximately 0.3 mile in length, with a fence line along the alignment in several places. This rural access road does not meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR because it does not have sufficient historical significance.
Figure 3.5-6
Abandoned Road Alignment: Th-03
3.5.3.5 Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) Within the Project Area The following information is based on the results of the confidential ethnographic and ethnohistoric study for the Sargent Ranch Project, completed by Albion Environmental, Inc. (Albion) and Environmental Science Associates (Albion, 2021), on behalf of the County of Santa
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-24 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Clara. Through archival research, interviews, and consultation with the Tribe, four tribal cultural resources within the Project area were identified: 1) Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape (JTCL) 2) Betevel Bluff, 3) SCL-577/H, and 4) SCL-578/H. Table 3.5-3 summarizes the general location, integrity, and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility of each of the four tribal cultural resources within the Project site (Albion 2021).
Sargenta Village (CA-SCL-578/H)
As stated in Table 3.5-3, the JTCL encompasses the Project site and surrounding areas, including the village site of Sargenta, located in the vicinity of Sargent Station. As part of the JTCL, the Project site could contain resources, such as plants used for healing or ceremonies, used by inhabitants of a village within the JTCL, even where the village site itself is outside of the Project boundaries.
Historical records are complicated for Sargent Station. There were two railroad stations in or near the current Project area:
Sargent Station: The Sargent residence appears on historic maps of the region as early as 1866, near the location of CA-SCL-578/H (Healy, 1866). The rail station was reportedly placed at the mouth of Tar Creek, approximately three miles east of the tar pits, established in 1869, at about the same location as the residence depicted on the 1866 map.
Betebel Station: This station was built no later than 1880, at the location of CA-SCL92/H, at the confluence of the Pajaro and San Benito rivers. A 1940 California Division of Highways As-Built Map depicts a rail station here, as well as a house and stone cabins, on the Sargent property (Caltrans 1940). It is specifically referred to as the Sargent Railroad Siding on archaeological records (Milliken et al. 1993; Nelson 1999; Shurkin et al. 1974), though it appears that this attribution is in error. The station is clearly depicted as “Betabel” on the 1915 USGS map of the area. The discrepancy may be a result of the depiction on the Caltrans As-Built—the map is clearly labeled “Sargent” but this may be only in reference to the property held there and not the name of the station or residence/cabins, which do not appear to have been separately named on the map.
Both station locations are along the Pajaro River riparian corridor, which facilitated the collection of medicinal plants, and both had Native American artifacts present when first recorded. The Sargenta Village community was known to be at the mouth of Tar Creek as late as 1882. The first village site, located near Sargent Station, was impacted by US 101 in 1936, which resulted in the destruction of the of the Sargent adobe and residential complex. The second site, Betabel Station, is shown on Caltrans as-built plans from 1940, as being completing destroyed.
For the reasons stated in Table 3.5-3, the original Sargenta site (CA-SCL-578/H) was determined to be eligible as an individual Tribal Cultural Resource under Criterion 1. The portion of the site within the Project footprint consists of a light artifact scatter; the main part of the village likely lay outside of the Project footprint. The existing archaeological data and historical literature suggest that the physical archaeological footprint of the second Sargenta village site (CA-SCL92/H) does not extend into the Project site.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-25 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.5-3
SUMMARY OF GENERAL LOCATION, INTEGRITY, AND CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES (CRHR)
ELIGIBILITY OF EACH OF THE FOUR TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Tribal Cultural Resource
CRHR Criteria
1. Associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural
heritage of California or the United
States.
2. Associated with the lives of
persons important to local,
California, or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic
values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to
yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area,
California, or the nation.
Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape
(JTCL). Place where the Tribe’s
spiritual traditions blended seamlessly
with the habitation of the village sites,
the numerous natural resources
nearby, and the sacred areas of the
springs, waterways, and hills.
Encompasses the Sargent Hills and
parts of the adjacent waterways,
including Sargent Creek, Tar Creek,
and Tick Creek, and includes
numerous archaeological sites,
resource collection areas, and
landscape features.
Eligible. Value under Criterion 1 for
its association with several important
events, including creation of the
Maksahjah (Sargent Hills), Big Head
Dance, Noyola confronts the Mutsun
evil spirit, the Healing of Barbara
Solórsano, and Mutsun ceremonies.
Eligible. Associated with
numerous individuals that are
important to Mutsun and the
AMTB culture, including
Ascensión Solórsano, Kuksui,
Kaknú, Noyola, other deities
directly associated with the
landscape, and shamans and
doctors.
Eligible. Associated directly with
shamanic and doctoring traditions of
the Mutsun and the AMTB people,
particularly the Spring of Eternal
Water and the Juristac village
location. Doctoring, healing, and
leading ceremonies are master
crafts in the AMTB culture.
Eligible. One of the purposes of the JTCL
in the AMTB culture is to educate. It is the
place where Ascensión Solórsano
learned the craft of healing from Mutsun
elders, and this experience led to her
recording much of the history and culture
of the AMTB with early-twentieth-century
ethnographers. This knowledge forms the
core of much of the AMTB identity.
Integrity. Intact for location, setting,
association, and feeling.
Integrity. Intact for location,
setting, association, and feeling.
Integrity. Intact for location, setting,
association, and feeling.
Integrity. Intact for location, setting,
association, and feeling.
Betevel Bluff. A hill overlooking the
confluence of the San Benito and
Pajaro Rivers, in southern Santa Clara
County. Evaluated in conjunction with
the Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape.
Contributing element to that
landscape, but has sufficient
importance to the AMTB to be
considered as an individual tribal
cultural resource under AB 52.
Eligible. Associated with the Big
Head Dance, an important healing
ceremony held by the Mutsun at the
Juristac village site that was near the
confluence of the San Benito and
Pajaro Rivers. During this ceremony,
the creator deity Kuksui would
descend the slope flying in a zigzag
pattern on his way to the roundhouse.
Also a place where Tribal people
would go for renewal ceremonies and
where shamans and doctors
practiced their craft, at poles installed
on the hillside.
Eligible. Associated with both
Kuksui and the powerful
headmen who lived and
performed ceremonies at
Juristac. The names of the
headmen have been lost over
time, but this does not detract
from the importance of this
place under Criterion 2
Ineligible. Betevel Bluff is
associated with shamanic practices
and the craft of shamanism of precontact Ohlone, and post-contact Mutsun and the AMTB. However,
material evidence of that master
craft, such as roundhouse remains,
sacred springs, shamanic poles or
other regalia features described in
the oral histories and ethnographic
accounts, are lacking from the
Project Area.
Eligible. Betevel Bluff remains a
prominent landscape feature wherein
Tribal elders could take Tribal youth to
teach them their culture and ceremonial
history. Betevel Bluff has the potential to
be used for teaching Tribal members
about many of the historic themes
identified for this resource: Indigenous
Resistance and Survival, JTCL as
Provider, JTCL as Home, and JTCL as a
Place of Power.
Integrity. Intact for location, setting,
association, and feeling.
Integrity. Intact for location,
setting, association, and feeling.
Not applicable. Integrity. Intact for location, setting, association, and feeling.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-26 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.5-3 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF LOCATION, INTEGRITY, AND CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES (CRHR)
ELIGIBILITY OF EACH OF THE FOUR TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Tribal Cultural Resource
CRHR Criteria
1. Associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural
heritage of California or the United
States.
2. Associated with the lives of
persons important to local,
California, or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic
values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to
yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area,
California, or the nation.
SCL-577/H. Multi-component,
indigenous (precolonial) and historicera archaeological site located at the northern end of the Project Area.
Eligible. Associated with pre-contact
habitation of this area by Ohlone
people. The presence of at least six
burials here indicates the
performance of burial ceremonies,
important events in Ohlone traditions
that consecrate the ground in which
the burials are interred, creating a
sacred place.
Ineligible. Historical research
for and oral history of the
Project did not identify any
individuals associated with this
location that would suggest CASCL-577/H has values under Criterion 2.
Ineligible. The site lacks a robust
archaeological deposit or oral
history accounts that could illustrate
the materials, methods, and finished
products needed to support an
association with a master craft or
craftsperson.
Eligible. CA-SCL-577/H contains the
evidence, and example, of numerous past
traditions, from tool production to
ornamentation. The site has been found
to have the potential for teaching
archaeologists; this data potential also
exists for Tribal people.
Integrity. Intact for location, setting,
association, and feeling.
Not applicable. Not applicable. Integrity. Intact for location, setting, association, and feeling.
CA-SCL-578/H. This multi-component
archaeological site, which is located in
the vicinity of the southern end of Old
Monterey Road, is a contributing
element to the JTCL, but has sufficient
importance to the AMTB to be
considered as an individual tribal
cultural resource under AB 52.
Eligible. The historic component of
CA-SCL-578/H is associated with the
survival of post-contact Ohlone
people. Refuge sites and places
where Ohlone culture was preserved
and passed forward by mission
survivors are significant to the
Ohlone, even if the site’s current
conditions cannot convey those
values to non-Tribal people. Postmission indigenous survival is an important event to the AMTB, and the
places where post-contact Ohlone
people sought safety and refuge have
values under Criterion 1 for this
association.
Ineligible. This historical
research and oral history of the
Project did not identify any
individuals associated with this
location that would suggest that
CA-SCL-578/H has values
under Criterion 2.
Ineligible. The site lacks a robust
archaeological deposit or oral
history accounts that could point to
the types of activities that took place
here. As such, the location lacks the
context necessary to tie it to
important crafts, arts, ceremonies,
or traditions of Mutsun people and
the AMTB.
Eligible. Although little of the site
remains, this location is still important as
a location where Tribal people can come
to reflect on Ohlone survival during the
Mission Period and the connection of this
place to the larger JTCL.
Integrity. Intact for location, setting,
association, and feeling.
Not applicable. Not applicable. Integrity. Intact for location, setting, association, and feeling.
NOTE: The table is a summary of information from Chapter 5 of Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Study of Sargent Ranch, Santa Clara County, California (Albion 2021).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-27 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape
The Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape (JTCL) was, and continues to be, the most sacred landscape of the Mutsun people and the AMTB with immense spiritual and cultural value. The JTCL spans approximately 33 square miles from Gilroy in the north to Watsonville in the south.
The entirety of the landscape as defined by the boundaries given to the AMTB is a Tribal Cultural Resource, which includes all hills and natural features on the Project site. The AMTB recognizes the JTCL’s importance as a home to spiritual deities, tribal ceremonies, doctoring, a refuge, and a source of important plants, animals and fish. AMTB villages in the JTCL maintained the sacredness of the landscape.
The Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape is considered a TCR. The character-defining features of the JTCL include nature features like springs, creeks, and rivers, and landscape features associated with tribal history, culture, and spirituality. Viewsheds comprising line of sight to Pacheco and Mariposa Peaks, native habitats, archaeological sites, trails, and ceremonial areas are also character-defining features of the JTCL. Specific character-defining features to the JTCL which overlap, adjoin or encompass the Project area include:
• Maksahjah, the Sargent Hills themselves, which are considered sacred • Sargent Creek riparian and wildlife corridor
• Tar Spring Creek riparian corridor
• Trees of life—large live oak trees held sacred in Mutsun traditions • Ancestral trails, especially those associated with the travel of important tribal figures, including deities and spirits
• Ceremonial areas associated with renewal, healing, resource collection, or harvesting • Landscape features associated with Tribal history, culture, or spirituality
3.5.4 Impact Evaluation
3.5.4.1 Significance Criteria
The project would result in a significant impact on a cultural or tribal cultural resource if it would:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; or d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-28 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
3.5.4.2 Project Impacts
Impact 3.5-1: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical or archaeological resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Significance criteria (a) and (b) are applicable to this impact discussion. One of the identified resources listed in Table 3.5-1 is eligible for the NRHP and CRHR registers: Prehistoric midden with known human burials within the Antonio German Adobe and Farm Complex: CA-SCL577/H. Although the prehistoric component of CA-SCL-578/H was found to be ineligible for NRHP and CRHR, the exact location and significance of buried historic-era resources associated with CA-SCL-578/H are unknown and could not be evaluated. Both resources are assumed to be CEQA-defined “historical resources” for purposes of this impact analysis.
Construction
The mining pits, processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt are not located close enough to CA-SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H to affect these known resources during construction. Use of Old Monterey Road by trucks during construction could cause enough deterioration in the road surface to disturb burial sites and archaeological deposits that are part of CA-SCL-577/H. A freespan bridge is proposed over Tar Creek to provide truck access to the processing plant from Old Monterey Road. Construction of this bridge could result in disturbance of buried historic-era artifacts that are associated with CA-SCL-578/H. Use of Old Monterey Road by construction traffic, as well as installation of the free-span bridge over Tar Creek could disturb CA-SCL577/H and CA-SCL-578/H, causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical or archaeological resources. Therefore, the construction impact on known historical or archaeological resources would be significant.
Operation
The mining pits, processing plant, and conveyor belt are not located close enough to CA-SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H to affect these known resources during Project operations. Operation of the rail spur would not cause ground disturbance. Use of the Tar Creek bridge during operations would not disturb buried historic-era artifacts that are associated with CA-SCL-578/H. However daily use of Old Monterey Road by haul trucks as well as any improvements or maintenance of the road during operations could cause enough deterioration in the road surface to disturb burial sites and archaeological deposits within CA-SCL-577/H. In addition, use of the access road between Tar Creek and the processing plant by trucks during operations could disturb of buried historicera artifacts that are associated with CA-SCL-578/H.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-29 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Use of Old Monterey Road and the access road between Tar Creek and the processing plant by operational traffic could disturb CA-SCL-577/H, causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical or archaeological resources. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on known historical or archaeological resources would be significant.
Reclamation
The locations of the mining pits, processing plant, and conveyor belt are not located close enough to CA-SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H to affect these known resources during reclamation. As the rail spur would not be removed, there would be no ground disturbance associated with this Project component during reclamation. Use of the Tar Creek bridge during final reclamation of the Project site would not disturb buried historic-era artifacts that are associated with CA-SCL578/H. However, daily use of Old Monterey Road by haul trucks as well as any improvements or maintenance of the road during operations could cause enough deterioration in the road surface to disturb burial sites and archaeological deposits within CA-SCL-577/H. In addition, use of the access road between Tar Creek and the processing plant by trucks during reclamation could resources result in disturbance of buried historic-era artifacts that are associated with CA-SCL-578/H.
Use of Old Monterey Road by traffic associated with final reclamation of the Project site could disturb CA-SCL-577/H, causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical or archaeological resources. Therefore, the impact of reclamation on known historical or archaeological resources would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1:
a. Resource Avoidance/Protection. Roads used by the Project, such as the existing access roads that cross identified resources (CA-SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H), shall be capped through use of durable materials to ensure that wear and tear by vehicles of the road surface does not disturb the road bed and damage archaeological deposits, or burials located underneath. No ground disturbance below the existing grade shall occur. In addition, fencing shall be used to prevent vehicles from leaving the access roads where they are adjacent to identified resource sites. The Applicant shall submit archaeological and historic resource protection plans to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to any Project construction.
b. Archaeological Testing Program for Known and Unrecorded Resources. For areas where ground disturbance would occur, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological consultant to prepare an Archaeological Testing Program (ATP) that covers each of the three Project phases: construction, mining, and reclamation. The ATP shall identify the type of archaeological resources that could potentially be disturbed by the proposed Project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended for testing based on sensitivity mapping for areas identified as having high to highest sensitivity, as well as and the location of known resources. The purpose of the ATP will be to determine whether archaeological materials are present and evaluate whether the materials constitute an historical resource. The ATP shall focus on areas that are of high to highest sensitivity, as well as those that are in the vicinity of CA-SCL-578/H, and would apply during all phases of the Project.
Disturbance shall not occur in areas where newly-discovered significant cultural
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-30 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
resources are identified; newly-discovered significant cultural resources shall be avoided if feasible, with data recovery only if avoidance is not feasible, consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(b).
The Applicant shall submit the draft ATP to the County Department of Planning and Development and to a designated representative of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band for review. The County and Tribal representative shall have 45 days to review and comment on the draft ATP. The qualified archaeological consultant shall then update the draft ATP to incorporate relevant comments and resubmit a final ATP to the County and Tribal representative. Testing shall not begin until the County Department of Planning and Development has approved the final ATP.
Testing shall be conducted by the archaeological consultant and observed by a monitor designated by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band in accordance with the approved Archaeological Monitoring Program (AMP), as described further in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c.
At the completion of activities associated with the ATP, the archaeological consultant shall submit a written report of findings to the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development and Tribal representative for review. If, based on the ATP, the archaeological consultant finds that potentially eligible archaeological resources are present, the archaeological consultant shall consult (as part of one in-person meeting or conference call) with the County Department of Planning Development and the Tribal representative to determine if additional measures are warranted during testing.
Additional measures that may be undertaken include specialized archaeological testing methods and/or an archaeological data recovery program. c. Archaeological Monitoring Program for Known and Unrecorded Resources.
Following completion of the ATP, the Applicant shall prepare and the County Department of Planning and Development shall implement an Archaeological Monitoring Program (AMP) in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the Tribal representative. The AMP shall include the following:
• Prior to any ground-disturbing activities related to the development of the Project throughout the Project life, including access roads, the free-span bridge over Tar Creek, mining areas, and processing facilities, the following shall occur:
i. The County, in consultation with the archaeological consultant and Tribal representative, shall determine what Project activities shall be monitored. ii. All ground-disturbing activities (outside of the low sensitivity areas of Phases 1 and 2), such as demolition, excavation, grading, utilities installation, etc., shall require archaeological and Native American monitoring because of the risk these activities pose to potential buried archaeological resources and to their depositional context.
• The Native American monitor shall be designated/approved by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to monitor ground-disturbing activities at the Project proponent’s expense. The terms of Native American monitoring shall be determined prior to the onset of monitoring activities, including requirements for prior notice of areas to be disturbed and provisions if a designated monitor is unavailable,. The Native American monitor shall be notified at least 30 days prior to onset of construction, and at least 14 days in advance of when and where new ground disturbance will
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-31 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
occur. The Native American monitor shall be present at all times that the archaeological monitor is present, unless the Native American monitor determines that his/her presence is not required at a particular location. If the Native American monitor does not arrive or is not present as scheduled, Project work may continue in the monitor’s absence.
• The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall advise Project contractors to be alert for evidence of archaeological resources, how to identify archaeological resources, and of appropriate protocol in the event of discovery of an archaeological resource.
• The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall be present on the Project area according to a schedule agreed upon by the archaeological consultant and County (generally during ground-disturbing activities) until the County has, in consultation with the Project archaeological consultant and Tribal representative, determined that Project construction activities in the particular disturbance area could have no effects on significant archaeological deposits. • The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and material of archaeological or historical interest as warranted for analysis. • If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall temporarily redirect ground-disturbing activities until the deposit is evaluated.
The archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the County Department of Planning and Development of the encountered archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit, and present the findings of this assessment in a report submitted to the County and Tribal representative. Should archaeological resources with ties to Native Americans be discovered, the archaeological monitor shall immediately notify the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs.
The draft AMP shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development and to a designated representative of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band for review. The County and Tribal representative shall have two weeks to review and comment on the draft AMP. The qualified archaeological consultant shall then update the draft AMP to incorporate relevant comments and resubmit a final AMP to the County and Tribal representative. Testing shall not begin until the County has approved the final AMP.
d. Archaeological Data Recovery Program for Known and Unrecorded Resources. If an eligible archaeological resource is determined to be present as part of the ATP or AMP, then the Applicant shall implement an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP) to be prepared by the Applicant. The archaeological consultant, County Department of Planning and Development staff, and Amah Mutsun Tribal Band representative shall consult (as part of one conference call or in-person meeting) on the scope of the ADRP prior to preparation of a draft ADRP.
The ADRP shall be consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). It shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the relevant information the archaeological resource contains, identify what
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-32 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the resource, what data classes the resource possesses, and how the data classes would address applicable research questions. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical. The scope of the ADRP shall also include the following elements:
• Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and operations; • Additional measures that should be undertaken if Native American resources are unearthed;
• Description of selected cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures; • Description of and rationale for field and post-field discard and deaccession policies;
• Consideration of an off-site public interpretive program during the course of the ADRP;
• Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities; • Description of proposed final report format and distribution of results; and • Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.
The draft ADRP shall be submitted to a designated representative of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and to the County Department of Planning and Development for review. The Tribal representative and County shall have two weeks to review and comment on the draft ADRP. The qualified archaeological consultant shall then update the draft ADRP to incorporate relevant comments and resubmit a final ADRP to the County and Tribal representative. Data recovery shall not begin until the County has approved the final ADRP.
e. Final Archaeological Resources Report for Known and Unrecorded Resources.
The Applicant shall retain the services of the archaeological consultant, who shall submit a Draft Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the County Department of Planning and Development describing the historical significance of discovered archaeological resources and describing the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery programs undertaken. Information that may put at risk (such as resource locations) any archaeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable insert within the final report. Once approved by the County, copies of the FARR (including any formal site recordation forms and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources) shall be distributed to the California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center, County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development, and Tribal representative.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-33 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce or eliminate grounddisturbing activities in areas of known historical or archaeological resources and require protection of resources that would not be subject to grading. In the event grading in and around these resources cannot be avoided, this mitigation measure would provide for monitoring and stop work procedures to prevent further disturbance in the event of discovery during Project activities as well as identification of the proper procedures for preserving the relevant information the archaeological resource it contains. _________________________
Impact 3.5-2: Implementation of the proposed Project could damage unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
As discussed in Section 3.5.3.2, the potential for unidentified surface prehistoric archaeological sites to be located within the Project area was assessed using a weighted model recently created for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Region that includes all Santa Clara County (Far Western, 2017).
This model takes into account three environmental factors—surface slope, determined using a digital elevation model; distance to a historic-era stream; and distance to a stream confluence.
Results identify areas of greater or lesser sensitivity for prehistoric surface sites, which are discussed below with respect to the Project components.
Construction
The processing plant area and areas where access roads are located are rated as having high potential for prehistoric surface sites as well as unidentified historic-area resources. The processing plant and adjacent new rail spur would be graded, potentially disturbing buried, undiscovered resources. Installation of the Tar Creek Bridge could disturb unrecorded subsurface resources. Truck traffic on the access road could also disturb such resources beneath the road bed if there’s enough deterioration in its surface. The mining pits would not be excavated during the construction phase. However, portions of the conveyor belt near the Phase 3 and 4 mining area would require minor grading and excavation to establish the access/maintenance road underneath the conveyor belt and to install the supports. These construction activities could disturb buried, undiscovered resources.
Construction of the processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt as well as use of access roads by trucks could damage undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources in areas of high sensitivity. Therefore, the construction impact on unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources would be significant.
Operation
The access roads are located in areas rated as having high potential for prehistoric surface sites as well as unidentified historic-area resources. Operational truck traffic on the access road could disturb such resources beneath the road bed if there’s enough deterioration in its surface. The Phase 1 and 2 mining areas are rated as having low potential for prehistoric surface sites and unidentified historic-area resources. However, the location of the permanent overburden
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-34 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
stockpile, between the processing plant and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas, is rated as having a high sensitivity. Placement of this material would not involve excavation at this location.
However, ground disturbance might occur during preparation of the site during operations. The Phase 3 and 4 mining areas are also rated as having high sensitivity. Disturbance of undiscovered resources could occur during excavation of these pits.
Because of the archaeological sensitivity of these areas, excavation of the Phase 3 and 4 mining pits, development of the permanent overburden pile, and truck traffic on access roads during operations have the potential to damage unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Therefore, the construction impact on unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources would be significant.
Reclamation
The access roads are located in areas rated as having high potential for prehistoric surface sites as well as unidentified historic-area resources. Truck traffic on the access road during final reclamation of the proposed quarry site could disturb such resources beneath the road bed if there’s enough deterioration in its surface. The Phase 1 and 2 mining areas are rated as having low potential for prehistoric surface sites and unidentified historic-area resources. Therefore, reclamation of these mining pits would not likely disturb these resources. The Phase 3 and 4 mining areas are rated as having high sensitivity. Disturbance of undiscovered resources could occur during reclamation of these pits as well as removal of the conveyor belt. Reclamation of the processing plant could also disturb undiscovered resources based on its high sensitivity.
Because of the archaeological sensitivity of these areas, reclamation activities associated with the Phase 3 and 4 mining pits, the conveyor belt, and processing plant as well as truck traffic on access roads during final reclamation have the potential to damage unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Therefore, the construction impact on unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3. 5-2: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce impacts to unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources during construction, operations, and reclamation by reducing or eliminating ground-disturbing activities in areas of high sensitivity and requiring protection of resources that would not be subject to grading. In the event that grading in and around these resources cannot be avoided, this mitigation measure would provide for monitoring and stop work procedures to prevent further disturbance in the event of discovery during Project activities as well as identification of the proper procedures for preserving the relevant information the archaeological resource to contains.
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-35 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.5-3: The Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Archaeological resources may contain human burials. Portions of the Project area are located within mapped areas of high to highest sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological surface sites and historic-era resources. Human burials are also known to be present at CA-SCL-577/H.
Construction
A portion of Monterey Road passes through CA-SCL-577/H, which is known to contain human burials. Heavy truck traffic during construction could cause enough deterioration in the surface of this road to disturb buried human remains. Construction of the bridge over Tar Creek near CASCL-578/H, heavy use of nearby access roads, and grading for the processing plant and rail spur could also potentially disturb unrecorded burials due to these areas being rated as having high sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological surface sites and historic-era resources. The mining pits would not be excavated during the construction phases. However, during construction of the conveyor belt, the upper portion of which is located in a sensitive area, undiscovered human remains would be disturbed. The impact of disturbance of human remains during construction would be significant.
Operation
A portion of Monterey Road passes through CA-SCL-577/H, which is known to contain human burials. Heavy truck traffic during Project operations could cause enough deterioration in the surface of this road to disturb buried human remains. Heavy use of access roads in the vicinity of CA-SCL-578/H and the processing plant could similarly disturb human remains. Phases 3 and 4 are located in areas of high sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological surface sites and historic-era resources and would be excavated during this phase. However, the likelihood of human remains being located in these upland areas is relatively low. Nevertheless, the impact of disturbance of human remains during operations would be significant.
Reclamation
A portion of Monterey Road passes through CA-SCL-577/H, which is known to contain human burials. Heavy truck traffic during final reclamation of the Project site could cause enough deterioration in the surface of this road to disturb buried human remains. Heavy use of access roads in the vicinity of CA-SCL-578/H and the processing plant could similarly disturb human remains. The Phase 3 and 4 mining pits would undergo final reclamation during this phase, although encountering human remains in these areas is unlikely. Nevertheless, the impact of disturbance of human remains during operations would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 5.3-3a: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3b: In the event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities and/or grading at the site, the Applicant shall stop all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find. The County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is necessary (as required by Health and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-36 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e), and County Ordinance Number B6-18). If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this determination. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants shall make recommendations regarding proper burial (including the treatment of grave goods). No further disturbance of the site shall be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs and NAHC in accordance with the provisions of state law and the County Ordinance.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce impacts to human remains during construction, operation, and reclamation by reducing or eliminating grounddisturbing activities in known burial areas, such as CA-SCL-577/H, or in sensitive areas where unrecorded human remains may be present or capping these areas to prevent further disturbance. In the event that human remains are discovered, Mitigation Measure 3.5-3b would stop ground-disturbing activities to prevent further damage and require consultation with descendants on proper burial in the event they are determined to be of native American origin.
_________________________
Impact 3.5-4: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. (Significant and Unavoidable) Three specific TCRs discussed above are located within the footprint of the proposed Project:
Betevel Bluff, the SCL-577/H archaeological site, and the CA-SCL-578/H. These resources are also contributing elements of the JTCL. The effects of the Project on these three TCRs are discussed below. The JTCL is the fourth TCR and encompasses, but is not limited to, the other three. Impacts to the JTCL are analyzed in Impact 3.5-5.
Betevel Bluff
This tribal cultural resource is a hill overlooking the confluence of the San Benito and Pajaro Rivers, in southern Santa Clara County. It is eligible under CRHR criteria 1, 2, and 4 because of its association with AMTB ceremonies, with both Kuksui and the powerful headmen who lived and performed the ceremonies, and because of its potential to be used for teaching Tribal members about many of the historic themes identified for this resource: Indigenous Resistance and Survival, and JTCL as Provider, Home, and Place of Power.
Construction
A portion of Betevel Bluff overlaps with Phase 4 mining area. However, excavation of this pit would not occur during construction. The processing plant, rail spur, access road, and roadway improvements are not located near Betevel Bluff. However, the conveyor belt is located near Betevel Bluff. The conveyor belt would begin at the base of Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining pits, which overlap with the Betevel Bluff TCR. Grading and vehicle trips associated with the installation of the conveyor belt at the base of the Betabel Bluff TCR could have substantial
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-37 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
adverse effects on this resource. Therefore, the impact of construction on Betevel Bluff would be significant.
Operation
The processing plant, rail spur, access road, roadway improvements, are not located near Betevel Bluff, and operation of these Project components would not affect this tribal cultural resource.
However, a portion of Betevel Bluff overlaps with the Phase 4 mining area, and operation of the conveyor belt would be adjacent to Betevel Bluff. The excavation of the pit would start at the top of the hill, and remove the upper 200 feet of the hill, which is the likely extent of the aggregate resources in this phase. Sand and gravel would be excavated from west to east using mobile equipment (e.g., scrapers, bulldozers, excavators, and front-end loaders). During mining Phase 4, quarry pit slopes would be maintained with slopes of 2:1 and 10-foot-wide benches every 40 vertical feet. Currently, Betevel Bluff is considered intact for location, setting, association, and feeling (spiritual and cultural significance to the Tribe, as described in Table 3.5-3) but would be significantly altered by this mining phase. Therefore, impacts of Project operations on Betevel Bluff would be significant.
Reclamation
The processing plant, rail spur, access road, roadway improvements, are not located near Betevel Bluff. However, the conveyor belt is in proximity to Betevel Bluff. Removal of these components during final reclamation would not affect this resource. Reclamation for Phase 4 would include using remaining stockpiles to fill, compact, and re-soil the pit and process water basin, contour and grade unnecessary internal roads, rip, disk, and re-soil the quarry floor, and re-soil the reclamation slopes and benches. After the area has been graded, topsoil would be placed over the area and reseeded with native and naturalized plant species. Although these activities would lessen the visible scarring of the landscape caused by mining, reclamation of this pit would not completely restore this part of the Betevel Bluff to its original physical form, which would adversely affect its spiritual and cultural significance to the Tribe. Therefore, this impact would be significant.
Summary
Construction of the conveyor belt for Phases 3 and 4 and mining of the Phase 4 quarry would significantly alter the physical form of a portion of Betevel Bluff, and reclamation would not completely restore it to the point that its spiritual and cultural significance to the Tribe would not be adversely affected. Therefore, Project operations and reclamation would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resource, Betevel Bluff, and this impact would be significant.
SCL-577/H
This is a multi-component, indigenous (precolonial) and historic-era archaeological site located at the northern end of the Project Area. It is eligible under CRHR Criterion 1 because it is associated with pre-contact habitation of this area by Ohlone people. contains the evidence, and example, of numerous past traditions, from tool production to ornamentation. It is eligible under CRHR
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-38 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Criterion 4 because it contains the evidence, and example, of numerous past traditions, from tool production to ornamentation.
Construction
The mining pits, Tar Creek bridge, processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt are not located near SCL-577/H. Construction of these components would not affect this resource. The northern portion of Old Monterey Road crosses SCL-577/H. Truck traffic associated with construction would use this road to reach the processing plant and other construction sites. These heavy vehicles could degrade the road, causing damage to burial sites and archaeological deposits, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the construction impact on this tribal cultural resource would be significant.
Operation
The mining pits, Tar Creek bridge, processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt are not located near SCL-577/H. Use of these components during quarry operations would not affect this resource. The northern portion of Old Monterey Road crosses SCL-577/H. Truck traffic during operation of the proposed quarry would use this road to access the processing plant and other sites. These heavy vehicles could degrade the road, causing damage to burial sites and archaeological deposits, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. In addition, any improvements or maintenance of the road that occur during operations could also affect this resource. Therefore, this impact of Project operations would be significant.
Reclamation
The mining pits, Tar Creek bridge, processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt are not located near SCL-577/H. Apart from truck traffic, which is discussed above, removal of these components during final reclamation would not affect this tribal cultural resource. The northern portion of Old Monterey Road crosses SCL-577/H. Truck traffic during operation of the proposed quarry would use this road to reach the processing plant and other sites. These heavy vehicles could degrade the road, causing damage to burial sites and archaeological deposits, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. In addition, any improvements or maintenance of the road that occur during final reclamation could also affect this resource. Therefore, the impact of reclamation on this tribal cultural resource would be significant.
Summary
Trucks using Old Monterey Road to reach other parts of the Project area during construction, operations, and reclamation, could degrade the road, causing damage to burial sites and archaeological deposits, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, Betevel Bluff, and this impact would be significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-39 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CA-SCL-578/H
This multi-component archaeological site, located in the northeast corner of the Project area, is a contributing element to the JTCL, but it has sufficient importance to the AMTB to be considered as an individual tribal cultural resource under AB 52. CA-SCL-578/H is eligible under Criterion 1 because it is associated with the survival of post-contact Ohlone people. It is eligible under Criterion 4 because it is still important as a location where Tribal people can come to reflect on Ohlone survival during the Mission Period and the connection of this place to the larger JTCL.
Construction
The proposed mining pits, processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt are not located near CASCL-578/H, so construction of these components would not affect this resource. A free-span bridge is proposed over Tar Creek to provide truck access to the processing plant from Old Monterey Road. Construction of this bridge could result in disturbance of buried historic-era artifacts that are associated with CA-SCL-578/H. In addition, the access road between the bridge and the processing plant is located in the vicinity of CA-SCL-578/H. Truck traffic during construction could degrade the road, causing damage to burial sites and archaeological deposits, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the impact of construction on this tribal cultural resource would be significant.
Operation
The proposed mining pits, processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt are not located near CASCL-578/H. Therefore, use of these components during quarry operations would not affect this resource. Use of the Tar Creek bridge during operations would not cause ground disturbance in the vicinity of CA-SCL-578/H. However, truck traffic on the road between the bridge the processing plant could degrade the road to the point of causing damage to burial sites and archaeological deposits that may be buried in the road bed, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the impact of Project operations on this tribal cultural resource would be significant.
Reclamation
The mining pits, processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt are not located near SCL-578/H.
Apart from truck traffic, which is discussed above, removal of these components during final reclamation would not affect this tribal cultural resource. Use of the Tar Creek bridge during final reclamation would not cause ground disturbance in the vicinity of CA-SCL-578/H. However, truck traffic on the road between the bridge the processing plant could degrade the road to the point of causing damage to burial sites and archaeological deposits that may be buried in the road bed, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the impact of reclamation on this tribal cultural resource would be significant.
Summary
Trucks using Old Monterey Road to reach other parts of the Project area during construction, operations, and reclamation, could degrade the road, causing damage to burial sites and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-40 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
archaeological deposits, adversely affecting this tribal cultural resource. In addition, any improvements or maintenance of the road that occur during operations could also affect this resource. Therefore, the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, CA-SCL-578/H, and this impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4a: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3b.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b: To partially offset and compensate for impacts to the three specific TCRs, and to compensate for the loss and disturbance of those portions of the physical landscape of the JTCL that are within the Project site, the property owner/applicant shall record a conservation easement in accordance with Civil Code section 815 et seq. The conservation easement shall be conveyed by the property owner/applicant to any entity identified in Civil Code section 815.3, and verified by the County prior to any ground disturbance. The conservation easement shall include a minimum two acres for every one acre disturbed by the Project (total disturbed acreage of the Project is 403.3 acres), and shall include the Project site itself upon completion of reclamation. In addition, the conservation easement shall include an area outside the Project site of comparable size to the acreage disturbed by the Project. The boundaries of the offsite easement shall be determined by the County in consultation with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, and shall include areas and/or resources that are of particular important in their contribution to the JTCL, such as identified tribal cultural resources, riparian areas and /or specific oak trees.
The conservation easement shall prohibit all uses and development that are not already legally occurring prior to Project approval, except for environmental restoration activities, including biological resource compensatory mitigation measures identified in this EIR and restoration of the JTCL, which may be allowed with the appropriate governmental approval and permits. Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21084.3(b)(3), this mitigation measure will ensure the land within the conservation easement is substantially preserved and/or restored in its current natural state, thereby preventing development or disturbance from new uses that could adversely affect the JTCL.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce or eliminate grounddisturbing activities in areas of known historical or archaeological resources (SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H), which are also tribal cultural resources, reducing the impact to these resources to less-than-significant levels. In the event that human remains are discovered, Mitigation Measure 3.5-3b would stop ground-disturbing activities in known burial areas, such as CA-SCL-577/H, to prevent further damage and to consult with descendants on proper burial in the event they are determined to be of native American origin. With respect to Betevel Bluff, there is no available alteration to Phase 4 that would avoid or eliminate the substantial adverse change to this TCR that would be caused by excavation and reclamation of this mining pit. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.5-4b would partially offset and compensate for impacts to the three TCRs by ensuring that SCL-577/H and 578/H are protected from future disturbance or development.
However, because Betevel Bluff would be irreversibly altered, the impact would remain significant even with mitigation.
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-41 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.5-5: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape (Significant and Unavoidable).
As discussed in Section 3.5.3.5 above, the JTCL is a large landscape that includes the Sargent Hills and the entirety of the proposed Project site. The County has determined this resource is a TCR pursuant to PRC § 21084.2. The landscape is eligible under all four of the California Register of Historical Resources for multiple historic themes (Albion 2021).The JTCL is considered by the Tribe to be sacred terrain where the Tribe’s spiritual traditions blended seamlessly with the habitation of the village sites, the numerous natural resources nearby, and the sacred areas of the springs, waterways, and hills. It encompasses the entirety of the proposed Project site, the Sargent Hills, parts of the adjacent waterways, including Sargent Creek, Tar Creek, and Tick Creek. The TCRs discussed under Impact 3.5-4—Betevel Bluff, SCL-577/H, and CA-SCL-578/H—are contributing elements to the JTCL as well as other elements that have not been identified.
Construction
Construction impacts would adversely affect the JTCL and contributing elements of the JTCL.
The processing plant, rail spur, and the conveyor belt are located in the JTCL, and installation of the conveyor belt would be near an identified contributing element of the JTCL, the Betevel Bluff. Character defining features of the JTCL 7such as springs, creeks, rivers, topography, vegetation, native habitats, and cultural resources could be impacted during construction of the processing plant, rail spur, and conveyor belt.. The JTCL, which includes the entirety of the proposed Project footprint, may include such resources. Therefore, construction impacts would adversely affect the JTCL.
Construction-related impacts to SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H would occur through truck usage of Old Monterey Road and installation of the free-span bridge over Tar Creek. Construction- related impacts associated with installation of the conveyor belt would adversely affect the Betevel Bluff TCR. Betevel Bluff overlaps with Phase 4 mining area. However, excavation of this pit would not occur during construction. There would not be construction related impacts to the CA-SCL-92/H site because that is located outside of the proposed Project footprint. The impact of Project construction on the JTCL, and contributing elements of the JTCL would be significant because there would be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Operation
Project operations would result in a substantial adverse change to the JTCL. All four mining phases would irrevocably damage and irreversibly alter character defining features of the JTCL.
This impact includes, but is not limited to, alterations to the natural features and habitats of the JTCL that involved the removal and recontouring of landscapes that are held sacred by the AMTB. These physical changes would significantly diminish the emotional and spiritual associations held by the AMTB to this cultural landscape through the alteration of the sacred and spiritual qualities that qualify the JTCL as a TCR.
The processing plant and rail spur are not located near the identified contributing elements of the JTCL, and therefore operation of these components would not affect these resources. As discussed under Impact 3.5-4, operations-related impacts to SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-42 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
would occur through truck usage of Old Monterey Road and the section of road between the Tar Creek bridge and the processing plant. However, the Project would not directly affect the CASCL-92/H site because it is located outside of the proposed Project footprint. The Betevel Bluff TCR would be substantially altered through excavation of a pit in the Phase 4 mining area, and operation of the conveyor belt near the Betevel Bluff TCR. Operating the conveyor belt would change the visual character of the Betevel Bluff TCR. As a result, the impact of Project operations on the JTCL, and on contributing elements of the JTCL, would be significant because there would be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources.
Reclamation
Reclamation activities would not restore the JTCL to a condition that reflects its cultural significance. While reclamation activities would restore some of the features of the landscape, it would not restore the site to its pre-Project condition. Further, reclamation activities include the use of heavy truck traffic that would continue to alter the appearance and use of the landscape.
There would be a substantial adverse change to the JTCL caused by Project construction, operation, and reclamation, resulting in permanent and irreversible alterations to the physical landscape of the JTCL. These alterations would significantly diminish the emotional and spiritual associations held by the Tribe to this cultural landscape through the destruction of the sacred and spiritual qualities that qualify the JTCL as a TCR.
The processing plant and rail spur are not located near the identified contributing elements of the JTCL. Reclamation of these components would not affect these resources. As discussed under Impact 3.5-4, during reclamation, impacts to SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H would occur through truck usage of Old Monterey Road and the section of road between the Tar Creek bridge and the processing plant. However, the conveyor belt is located near the Betevel Bluff. Betevel Bluff overlaps with the Phase 4 mining area. Reclamation for Phase 4 would include using remaining stockpiles to fill, compact, and re-soil the pit and process water basin, contour and grade unnecessary internal roads, rip, disk, and re-soil the quarry floor, and re-soil the reclamation slopes and benches. Nevertheless, reclamation of this pit would not completely restore this part of the Betevel Bluff to its original physical form, which would adversely affect its spiritual and cultural significance to the Tribe.
As a result, the impact of Project reclamation on the JTCL, these contributing elements of the JTCL, and other contributing elements to the JTCL would be significant because there would be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Summary
The Project would cause a substantial adverse change to the JTCL. Construction and operation of the processing plant, rail spur, bridge installations, and conveyor belt would alter character defining features of the JTCL such as springs, creeks, rivers, native habitats, and cultural resources.
Reclamation of the project would involve heavy truck traffic in the JTCL that would further alter the appearance of the landscape, and reclamation of the Phase 4 pit would not completely restore this part of the Betevel Bluff to its original physical form. As a result, the Project’s impact on the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-43 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
JTCL, and on contributing elements of the JTCL, would be significant because there would be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-5a: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-3b, and 3.5-4b.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-5b: Prior to commencement of any vegetation removal or ground disturbance, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, or Director’s designee, evidence that the following actions have been satisfied:
i. After seeking consultation with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (AMTB), refine the plant list provided in Appendix F of Gathering Voices Past and Present (2021) to identify those plants that contribute to the significance of the JTCL as a Tribal Cultural Resource, and that could be present within the Project site. ii. Prepare a survey of the Project site to identify the plant species identified in the plant list. iii. Determine the extent of Project impacts based on the number of individuals impacted and the acreage of habitat occupied by each plant species on the plant list. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified plant biologist.
iv. Plant Species:
(a) For species on the plant list that are also federal or state-listed special-status plant species, implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, which requires compensatory mitigation for the loss of special-status plants.
(b) For species on the plant list that are not federal or state-listed special-status, compensatory mitigation shall be provided by preservation and management of another, existing on-site population if feasible, or if not an off-site population within the JTCL boundary. Habitat occupied by the affected species shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (at least one plant preserved for each plant affected, and also at least one occupied acre preserved for each occupied acre affected for the affected plant species). v. In addition to 1:1 preservation as described in 3.5-5b.iv, the restoration area shall be enhanced by transplanting individual plants or seeds from the Project site as appropriate. vi. Plant species in the preservation areas shall be monitored using specific, objective final criteria and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include demonstration that any plant population fluctuations over the monitoring period do not indicate a downward trajectory in terms of reduction in numbers and/or occupied area for the preserved mitigation population that can be attributed to management (i.e., that are not the result of local weather patterns, as determined by monitoring of a nearby reference population, or other factors unrelated to management).
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable As discussed under Impact 3.5-4, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5- 3b would reduce the impacts of the Project during construction, operation, and reclamation on the tribal cultural resources of SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H through a combination of avoidance, stop-work and resource preservation procedures. Mitigation
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-44 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Measure 3.5-5b would reduce impacts to plant species that contribute to the significance of the JTCL as a TCR. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact through surveys, preparing a comprehensive list in consultation with the AMTB, compensating for the loss of listed and non-listed species, and restoring impacted areas. With respect to Betevel Bluff, there is no available alteration to Phase 4 that would avoid or eliminate the substantial adverse change to this TCR, a contributing element of the JTCL, that would be caused by excavation and reclamation of this mining pit.9
With respect to the JTCL as a whole, the installation of equipment, grading, mining, and reclaiming the site would substantially change the JTCL post-mitigation through altering character defining features of the JTCL such as topography, springs, creeks, rivers, native habitats, and other natural and cultural resources. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b would partially offset and compensate for the impacts on the JTCL by placing a portion of the JTCL, in a conservation easement. The Project site itself would be included in the conservation easement after reclamation is complete, which would protect SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H from future disturbance, as well as any features within the Project site that would be restored through reclamation (e.g., vegetation, creek crossings).
Because the Project site would be substantially altered even after reclamation, placing it in a conservation easement would only partially offset the impact of the Project on the JTCL. Therefore, additional acreage, equivalent to the size of the area disturbed by the Project, would also be placed in a conservation easement. The lands within this easement would be protected from further development or disturbance, except for activities that currently occur there and possible environmental restoration activities, such as biological habitat and/or other plant restoration. However, because the Project site would be irreversibly altered, the impact would remain significant. There is no feasible mitigation that would avoid or further reduce the substantial adverse changes to the JTCL. _________________________
3.5.4.3 Cumulative Analysis
The geographic area for evaluation of cumulative impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources is the Project area and vicinity. The only project identified in Section 3.1 located within the vicinity of the Project site is the U.S. 101 Widening Project, which would be located adjacent to the east and south of the Project site.
Impact 3.5-6: The Project could contribute to cumulative adverse changes in known historical or archaeological resources. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The 2013 EIR for the U.S. 101 widening project identified SCL-577/H as a known archaeological site, which is eligible for the national and California registers, that could be adversely affected by subsurface excavation such as utility work, foundation/bridge pier trenches and driving as well as surface related construction, such as staging. However, the EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant through implementation of mitigation of an Archaeological Treatment 9 Alternative 2: Phases 1 and 2 Only (Section 4.5.2 of Alternatives Analysis) would reduce the impact to the JTCL by eliminating Phase 4 mining. However, even under this alternative, the impact to JTCL would be Significant and Unavoidable because project construction, operation, and reclamation would result in substantial adverse changes to character defining elements such as landforms, natural features, and cultural resources that comprise the JTCL.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-45 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Plan and construction monitoring. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to adverse changes in known historical or archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Project Contribution
As discussed in Impact 3.5-1, the proposed Sargent Quarry Project could also cause damage to SCL-577/H through the use of Old Monterey Road by heavy trucks, which could cause deterioration of the road surface. However, this impact could be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, post-mitigation the Project’s cumulative contribution would not be considerable, and the cumulative impact on known historic or archaeological resources would be less-than-cumulatively considerable and less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-6: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
_________________________
Impact 3.5-7: The Project could contribute to cumulative adverse changes in unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The 2013 EIR for the U.S. 101 widening project did not evaluate impacts on unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources as a separate impact. But given that ground-disturbing activities of that highway construction project would occur in the vicinity of areas that are known to have high potential for prehistoric surface sites as well as unidentified historic-area resources, the cumulative impact with respect to adverse changes in unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources would be significant.
Project Contribution
The proposed Sargent Quarry Project would also cause impacts on unrecorded resources through construction, operations, and reclamation, and these impacts would be cumulatively considerable pre-mitigation. However, as discussed in Impact 3.5-2, this impact would be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would require avoiding areas of known archaeological resources, testing for areas of recorded and unknown resources with a monitor from the tribe, archaeological monitoring developed in consultation with the AMTB, and a data recovery program for known and unknown resources. Lastly, Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would require drafting a final archaeological report for known and unknown resources Therefore, postmitigation the Project’s cumulative contribution would not be considerable, and the cumulative impact on unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-7: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-46 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.5-8: The Project could contribute to cumulative disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The 2013 EIR for the U.S. 101 widening project did not evaluate impacts on human remains.
However, SCL-577/H, which could be adversely affect by construction activities, is known to contain human burials. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to disturbance of human remains would be significant.
Project Contribution
As discussed in Impact 3.5-3, the proposed Sargent Quarry Project could also disturb human remains within SCL-577/H through the use of Old Monterey Road by heavy trucks, which could cause deterioration of the road surface, and this impact would be cumulatively considerable premitigation. However, this impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 would reduce impacts to human remains during construction, operation, and reclamation by reducing or eliminating ground-disturbing activities in known burial areas, such as CA-SCL-577/H, or in sensitive areas where unrecorded human remains may be present or capping these areas to prevent further disturbance. Therefore, postmitigation the Project’s cumulative contribution would not be considerable, and the cumulative impact on known historic or archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-8: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3b.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
_________________________
Impact 3.5-9: The Project could contribute to cumulative adverse changes in the significance of tribal cultural resources. (Significant and Unavoidable) The 2013 EIR for the U.S. 101 widening project did not evaluate impacts on tribal cultural resources, but that does not indicate an absence of impacts to such resources as a result of the project. As discussed under Impact 3.5-6, that EIR did find that project construction activities could adversely affect SCL-577/H, which is a tribal cultural resource and a contributing element of the JTCL. The EIR concluded the impact of construction on SCL-577/H would be less than significant through implementation of mitigation that included an Archaeological Treatment Plan and construction monitoring. The 2013 EIR for the U.S. 101 widening project did not identify SCL-578/H as a site that would be affected by project construction. In addition, the U.S. 101 widening project is not located in the vicinity of Betevel Bluff.
However, regarding cumulative impacts on the JTCL, the full extent of the JTCL is not known; the U.S. 101 widening project could add to the Project’s impacts on altering character- defining features of the JTCL such as topography, springs, creeks, rivers, native habitats, and other natural and cultural resources; and there may be other contributing elements that have not yet been identified that could be adversely affected. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to adverse changes in the significance of tribal cultural resources would be significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-47 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Project Contribution
The proposed Sargent Quarry Project could also cause damage to SCL-577/H through the use of Old Monterey Road by heavy trucks, which could cause deterioration of the road surface and these impacts would be cumulatively considerable pre-mitigation. However, this impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through capping the road to protect resources that may be damaged by heavy truck traffic and by installing fencing to prevent vehicles from leaving the road. Therefore, post-mitigation the Project’s contribution to a cumulative impact on this tribal resource would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, because the U.S. 101 widening project would not affect SCL-578/H or Betevel Bluff, there would be no cumulative effect on these resources.
However, as noted above, the full extent of the JTCL is not known; the U.S. 101 widening project could add to the Project’s impacts on altering character- defining features of the JTCL such as topography, springs, creeks, rivers, native habitats, and other natural and cultural resources; and there may be other contributing elements that have not yet been identified. Therefore, premitigation the Project’s cumulative contribution to impacts on TCRs would be considerable.
Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-3b, 3.5-4b, and 3.5-5b would reduce Project impacts to the affected TCRs, but would not fully offset the alterations to the TCRs in the Project site and the JTCL. Therefore, post-mitigation the Project’s cumulative contribution would be considerable, and the cumulative impact on would be significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-3b, 3.5-4b and 3.5-5b.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable _________________________
3.5.5 References
Albion, 2021. Gathering Voices of the Past and Present, An Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Study of Sargent Ranch, Santa Clara County, California, September; and TCR Memo Update for Sargent Ranch, January 28, 2022 (Confidential) Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2017a. Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment for the Sargent Ranch Project. (Confidential) Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2017b. Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project, Santa Clara County, California. (Confidential)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Report, U.S. 101 Improvement Project between Monterey Street and State Route 129.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.5-48 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.6 Energy
3.6.1 Introduction
This section examines the Project’s energy characteristics to determine whether the Project could result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. No natural gas would be used for the Project; therefore, only electricity and transportation fuels are discussed in this section.
The analysis incorporates information from an air quality and greenhouse gas analysis that was prepared for the Project site dated July 16, 2021, by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (Appendix D), and calculations done for this analysis are provided in Appendix F.
3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
3.6.2.1 Federal
National Energy Conservation Policy Act
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA, 42 USC Section 8201 et seq.) serves as the underlying authority for federal energy management goals and requirements and is the foundation of most federal energy requirements. NECPA established energy-efficiency standards for consumer projects and includes, among other things, energy-efficiency standards for new construction.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
Section 3.3, Air Quality, details federally established fuel economy standards by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards regulate how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel. NHTSA sets CAFE standards for passenger cars and for light trucks (collectively, “light-duty vehicles”), and separately sets fuel consumption standards for mediumand heavy-duty trucks and engines. In the course of more than 30 years, this regulatory program has resulted in improved fuel economy throughout the United States’ vehicle fleet (NHTSA 2014, 2019).
3.6.2.2 State
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 25000 et seq.) established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The Act established a State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The Act also was the driving force behind the creation of Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines.
State of California Integrated Energy Policy
Public Resources Code Section 25301(a) requires the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan at least every two (2) years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. The plan calls for
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. An overarching goal of the resulting Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) is to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, while improving overall energy efficiency (CEC 2020a).
Advanced Clean Cars Program for Light Duty Vehicles
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Advanced Clean Cars combines the control of smog-causing (criteria) pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of regulations: the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulation for criteria and GHG emissions, and a technology forcing regulation for zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) that contributes to both types of emission reductions.
Advanced Clean Cars I was first adopted by CARB in 2012, including LEV III Criteria, LEV III GHG, and ZEV regulation amendments. The LEV III GHG component was developed in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA for One National Program to harmonize GHG and fuel economy standards. Advanced Clean Cars II is currently in process to establish the next set of LEV and ZEV requirements to contribute to meeting federal ambient air quality ozone standards and California’s carbon neutrality targets (CARB 2021).
Renewables Portfolio Standard
The State of California adopted standards to increase the percentage that retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, must provide from renewable resources. The standards are referred to as the renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The RPS program was established by Senate Bill 1078 in 2002 and required electric utilities and other entities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to meet 20 percent of their retail sales with renewable power by 2017. Qualifying renewables under the RPS include bioenergy such as biogas and biomass, small hydroelectric facilities (30 megawatts (MW) or less), wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The CPUC and the CEC jointly implement the RPS program. The CPUC’s responsibilities include: (1) determining annual procurement targets and enforcing compliance; (2) reviewing and approving each investor-owned utility’s renewable energy procurement plan; (3) reviewing contracts for RPSeligible energy; and (4) establishing the standard terms and conditions used in contracts for eligible renewable energy (CPUC 2021).
Senate Bill 350 – Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 Senate Bill (SB) 350, known as the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, was enacted on October 7, 2015. It provides a new set of objectives in clean energy, clean air, and pollution reduction by 2030. The objectives include the following:
1. To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent by December 31, 2030, the procurement of electricity from renewable sources.
2. To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), establishing that 100 percent of all electricity in California must be obtained from renewable and zero-carbon energy resources by December 31, 2045. SB 100 also created new standards for the RPS goals that were established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the bill increases required energy from renewable sources for both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030. Incrementally, these energy providers also are required to have a renewable energy supply of 33 percent by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, and 52 percent by 2027. The updated RPS goals are considered achievable, since many California energy providers are already meeting or exceeding the RPS goals established by SB 350.
Energy-efficient Building Standards and California Green Building Standards The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations include requirements for non-residential building lighting, insulation, ventilation, and mechanical systems (CEC 2018). Its provisions would be relevant to the Project’s proposed processing facility.
The Code (CALGreen, Title 24 Part 11) is a statewide regulatory code for all buildings. CALGreen is intended to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require use of low-pollution emitting substances that cause less harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy-efficient materials and equipment (CBSC 2019).
3.6.2.3 Local
Santa Clara County General Plan
Part 2, Countywide Issues & Policies, and Part 3, Rural Unincorporated Area Issues & Policies, of the Santa Clara County General Plan includes the following policies relevant to the Project and energy (County of Santa Clara, 1994):
Resources Conservation Policy C-RC 77: Energy efficiency and conservation efforts in the transportation, industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, and public sectors shall be encouraged at the local, county (subregional), and regional level.
Resources Conservation Policy C-RC 78: The objectives of the state energy plan should be implemented at the local and regional level through an overall strategy consisting of:
a. reducing transportation energy demand and oil-dependency; b. conserving energy in residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial sectors; and c. increasing consumer and general public awareness through education.
Resources Conservation Policy C-RC 83: Industrial and agricultural processes should be modified wherever feasible to take advantage of energy savings, to reduce operational costs, and to enhance competitiveness.
Resource Conservation Policy R-RC 78: Access to new quarry sites should make maximum use of major thoroughfares, such as expressways, freeways, and designated
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
truck routes, avoiding impacts upon local-serving routes. Where feasible, alternatives to truck transport should be encouraged.
3.6.3 Environmental Setting
3.6.3.1 State
Total energy usage in California was 7,802 trillion British Thermal Units (Btus) in 2019 (the most recent year for which specific data are available), which equates to an average of 198 million Btus per capita. These figures place California second among the nation’s 50 states in total energy use and 50th in per capita consumption (EIA 2021a).
Electricity
In 2019, total system electricity generation for California was 277,704 gigawatt-hours (GWh), down 2.7 percent from 2018’s total generation of 285,488 GWh. Approximately 72 percent of the electrical power needed to meet California’s demand is produced in the state; the balance, approximately 28 percent, is imported from the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest.
In 2019, California’s in-state electricity generation was derived from natural gas; large hydroelectric resources; nuclear sources; oil and coal; and renewable resources that include geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectric resources, wind, and solar. Refer to Table 3.6-1 for the breakdown of California’s in-state electricity generation by percent of source type.
TABLE 3.6-1
CALIFORNIA IN-STATE ELECTRICITY GENERATION SOURCES (2019) Source Type Percent
Natural Gas 43%
Large Hydroelectric Resources 17%
Nuclear 8%
Oil and Coal <1%
Renewable Resources 32%
SOURCE: CEC 2021a.
Of the approximately 64,336 GWh generated from renewable sources in the state, solar-generated electricity made up the highest proportion (44 percent), followed by wind (21 percent), geothermal (17 percent), biomass (9 percent), and small hydroelectric (8 percent) (CEC 2021a).
Transportation Fuels
Gasoline and diesel, both derived from petroleum (also known as crude oil), are the two most common fuels used for vehicular travel. Approximately 85 percent of the petroleum consumed in California is used in the transportation sector (EIA 2021a). In 2019, approximately 30 percent of California’s crude oil was produced within the state, about 12 percent was produced in Alaska, and the remaining 58 percent was produced in foreign lands (CEC 2021b).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
In 2019, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for approximately 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline (CDTFA 2021a), and taxable diesel fuel sales accounted for approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel (CDTFA 2021b). Statewide, there was an overall decrease in gasoline and diesel consumption from 2007 to 2011 due to the economic recession, but consumption has increased since then. The economic shutdown associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic and other related disruptions to the overall economy also decreased gasoline and diesel consumption throughout 2020 and 2021.
Although California imports approximately 70 percent of its crude oil, nearly all of the State’s demand for refined products, including gasoline, diesel, and aviation gasoline fuel—is met by California refineries (CEC 2014). Refineries in California often operate at or near maximum capacity because of the high demand for petroleum products. When unplanned refinery outages occur, replacement supplies must be brought in by marine tanker from refineries in the state of Washington or on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
California requires that all motorists use, at a minimum, a specific blend of motor gasoline called California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG) as part of an overall program to reduce emissions from motor vehicles. Refineries in several other countries can also supply CaRFG, although it can take several weeks to locate and transport replacement motor gasoline that conforms to California’s strict fuel specifications (EIA 2021a). As a result, unplanned outages often result in a reduction in supply that causes prices to increase, sometimes dramatically. The severity and duration of these price spikes depend on how quickly the refinery issue can be resolved and how soon supply from alternative sources can reach the affected market (EIA 2015).
Most petroleum supply disruptions or shortage events are resolved by the energy industry before they become significant. However, there are instances where the severity and scope of disasters require additional actions by the government to help facilitate and coordinate response and recovery efforts (NASEO 2018).
3.6.3.2 Regional
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) is an investor-owned utility company that provides electricity supplies and services throughout a 70,000-square-mile service area that extends from Eureka in the north, to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west, to the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east. Santa Clara County is within PG&E’s service area for electricity. Operating characteristics of PG&E’s electricity supply and distribution systems are provided below. Also discussed is the regional consumption of transportation fuels.
PG&E also provides natural gas to consumers in many parts of the state; however, because the Project would not use natural gas, the amount that is supplied is not discussed below.
PG&E Electric Utility Operations
PG&E provides “bundled” services (i.e., electricity, transmission, and distribution services) to most of the six million customers in its service territory, including residential, commercial,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
industrial, and agricultural consumers. In recent years, PG&E has improved its electric transmission and distribution systems to accommodate the integration of new renewable energy resources, distributed generation resources, and energy storage facilities, and to help create a platform for the development of resilient grid technologies (PG&E 2021).
In 2020, PG&E generated and/or procured a total of 35,838 GWh of electricity.1 PG&E owns approximately 7,662 MW of generating capacity, itemized below (see Table 3.6-2). The remaining electrical power is purchased from other sources in and outside of California.
TABLE 3.6-2
PG&E-OWNED ELECTRICITY GENERATING SOURCES (2019)
Source Generating Capacity (MW)
Nuclear (Diablo Canyon-2 reactors) 2,240
Hydroelectric 3,867
Fossil Fuel-Fired 1,400
Fuel Cell 3
Solar Photovoltaic (13 units;12 in Fresno County, 1 in Kings County) 152 Total 7,662
SOURCE: PG&E 2021.
Renewable Energy Resources
California law (RPS) requires load-serving entities, such as PG&E, to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy they deliver to their customers. The RPS program requires the amount of renewable energy that must be delivered by most load-serving entities to be at least 33 percent of total annual retail sales by 2020, at least 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Renewable generation resources, for purposes of the RPS program, include bioenergy such as biogas and biomass, certain hydroelectric facilities (30 MW or less), wind, solar, and geothermal energy. As shown in Table 3.6-3, during 2020, 35.6 percent of PG&E’s energy deliveries were from renewable energy sources (PG&E 2021).
TABLE 3.6-3
PG&E 2018 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
Source Percent of Total Energy Portfolio
Solar 16.1
Wind 12.9
Bioenergy 2.8
Geothermal 2.6
RPS-Eligible Hydroelectric 1.2
Total 35.6
SOURCE: PG&E 2021.
1 This amount excludes electricity provided to direct access customers and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) entities who procure their own supplies of electricity.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Electricity Consumption
Table 3.6-4 shows electricity consumption by sector in the PG&E service area based on the latest available data from the CEC. As shown in the table, PG&E delivered approximately 78 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2019, of which approximately 1.6 billion kWh were consumed by the mining and construction sector.
TABLE 3.6-4
ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN PG&E SERVICE AREA (2019)
Agricultural
and Water
Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other Industry
Mining and
Construction Residential Streetlight
Total
Usage
All Usage Expressed in Millions of kWh (GWh)
4,490 29,560 4,349 9,710 1,642 28,014 308 78,072
SOURCE: CEC 2021c.
3.6.3.3 Local
Silicon Valley Clean Energy
As stated in Chapter 2, the Project would obtain electricity from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), a community-governed, local power supplier that provides renewable and nearly 100 percent carbon-free electricity to unincorporated Santa Clara County residents and businesses under Silicon Valley’s community choice energy (CCE) program. Under a CCE program, the utility company (in this case PG&E) continues to deliver and service the electricity through its existing utility lines and provide billing and customer service (SVCE 2021).
Local Energy Infrastructure
Existing electrical infrastructure in the Project vicinity includes transmission lines. The existing 100-161 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines run generally north-south on the east side of US 101 to the east of the Project site (PG&E 2021). Existing electrical infrastructure on the Project site includes lower voltage distribution electric power lines.
Electricity Use in Santa Clara County
In Santa Clara County, approximately 16.7 billion kWh of electricity was consumed in 2019, with approximately 12.6 billion kWh consumed by non-residential uses (CEC 2021c).
Gasoline and Diesel
The CEC estimates that 713 million gallons of gasoline and 89 million gallons of diesel were sold in 2019 in Santa Clara County. Approximately 174 million gallons of gasoline and 55 million gallons of diesel were sold in 2019 in Monterey County, and 21 million gallons of gasoline and less than 6 million gallons of diesel were sold in 2019 in San Benito County.2 It is also estimated 2 The data for diesel sales in 2019 for San Benito County was combined with Alpine, Modoc, Sierra, and Trinity Counties. As such, the amount of diesel sold would be less than 6 million gallons.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-8 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
that there were 404 gasoline stations in Santa Clara County, 142 gasoline stations in Monterey County, and 18 gasoline stations in San Benito County in 2019 (CEC 2020b).
3.6.3.4 Project Site
Minimal amounts of electricity are consumed by existing uses at Sargent Ranch, including the Project site. Electricity is consumed by limited site lighting and a well pump. The cattle ranch staff vehicles traveling to and from the site, and limited farm equipment uses small amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel.
3.6.4 Impact Evaluation
3.6.4.1 Approach to the Analysis
This impact analysis evaluates the potential for the Project to result in a substantial increase in energy demand and/or wasteful use of energy during Project construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning. The impact analysis is informed by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. The impacts are analyzed based on an evaluation of whether construction and operational (including reclamation) energy use for the Project would be considered excessive, wasteful, or inefficient, or conflict with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. Energy use details supporting the Project estimates presented in this section also are presented in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
For the purposes of defining the environmental baseline for this analysis, and to be conservative, the energy currently being used at the Project site was assumed to be zero.
3.6.4.2 Significance Criteria
The project would result in a significant impact on energy if it would:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
3.6.4.3 Project Impacts
Impact 3.6-1: Construction, operation and maintenance, and reclamation of the Project would increase the use of energy resources, but would not result in significant wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Less than Significant) This impact discussion corresponds to Significance Criterion (a).
The analysis in this section uses the assumptions identified in Appendix D, Sargent Quarry Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Because the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program and other sources used in this technical analysis do not display the amount and fuel type for construction-related sources, additional calculations were conducted and are summarized in Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6 below and provided in Appendix F, Energy: Fuel Use Calculations.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.6-5
PROJECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION DURING CONSTRUCTION (TOTAL)
Type (use) Quantity Units
Energy
(MMBtu)a
Initial Construction Period
Diesel (construction equipment and trucks) 23,240 gallons 3,193 Gasoline (worker vehicles) 841 gallons 101
Subtotal - - 3,294
Monterey Road Maintenance (every 5 years)
Diesel (construction equipment and trucks) 796 gallons 109 Gasoline (worker vehicles) 94 gallons 11
Subtotal - - 120
Subtotal over 30-year Project - - 720
Total Construction
Diesel 28,011 gallons 3,848
Gasoline 1,405 gallons 169
Total - - 4,017
NOTES:
MMBtu = million British thermal unit
kWh = kilowatt-hours
a. Based on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) conversion factors.
SOURCE: Data compiled by Environmental Science Associates in 2021 (see Appendix F); EIA 2021b.
TABLE 3.6-6
ANNUAL PROJECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION DURING OPERATION AND RECLAMATION Type (use) Quantity Units
Energy
(MMBtu)a
Electricity
Processing Plant, Processing Equipment, Conveyor Belt 1,250,000 kWh 4,265 Diesel
Operational Equipment 219,853 gallons 30,204
Emergency Generator 147 gallons 20
On-site Vehicles 10,490 gallons 1,441
Off-site Trucks 507,640 gallons 69,740
Rail 23,604 gallons 3,243
Gasoline
Operational light-duty truck, Employee vehicles 7,130 gallons 858 Total - - 109,771
NOTES:
MMBtu = million British thermal unit
kWh = kilowatt-hours
a. Based on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) conversion factors.
SOURCE: Data compiled by Environmental Science Associates in 2021 (see Appendix F); EIA 2021b.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Construction
During the construction phase of the Project, diesel and gasoline would be expended by earthmoving vehicles, haul truck trips required to deliver materials and equipment to the site, construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site, and other diesel-powered construction equipment. In total, Project construction would consume a total of approximately 28,011 gallons of diesel fuel from construction equipment and haul truck trips and approximately 1,405 gallons of gasoline from construction worker vehicle trips.
Project fuel use during construction would represent approximately 0.03 percent of diesel and less than 0.0002 percent of gasoline sold in Santa Clara County in 2019 (CEC 2020b). Construction activities and the corresponding fuel energy consumption would be temporary and localized.
Additionally, as described below, the use of heavy-duty equipment for construction would be minimal as compared to the amount of heavy-duty equipment needed during operation. Further, construction equipment and vehicles would be industry-standard, designed to comply with all applicable fuel efficiency standards. Therefore, construction-related fuel consumption by the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction equipment and vehicles used in the region, and the impact would be less than significant.
Operation
Mining Pits, Processing Plant, Conveyor Belt, Rail Spur, Access Road, Roadway Improvements
With respect to energy use, the Project components are interrelated, and therefore considered together. For example, diesel use associated with transporting Project product is affected by both haul truck trips and train trips. By using trains, the Project would partially reduce its need for offsite haul trips. Similarly, the employees who would use gasoline to commute to the Project site would be employed at both the processing plant and the quarries. For the reasons discussed below, energy use during operation would be a less-than-significant impact.
Diesel Consumption
Equipment used for excavation, grading, and material handling and hauling activities during project operation would include a dozer, an excavator, four-wheel loaders, and a motor grader. Other vehicles that would be used on site would include two 10,000-gallon water trucks, one 4,000-gallon water truck, a food service truck, and two pick-up trucks. With the exception of one pick-up truck, all vehicles would use diesel fuel. The Project would also require diesel for off-site haul truck trips and an on-site emergency generator. Project diesel use from equipment during operation and offsite haul truck trips is estimated to be 738,129 gallons per year and would represent approximately
0.83 percent of diesel sold in Santa Clara County in 2019 (CEC 2020b). The use of heavy-duty equipment is an essential component of sand and gravel surface mining operations and represents the second most intensive use of diesel fuel behind truck trips off-site to transport construction aggregates. However, equipment and vehicles would be industry-standard, designed to comply with all applicable fuel efficiency standards. In addition, the Project would also transport product by train, using the Union Pacific Railroad rail spur proposed to be extended from its undercrossing of the U.S. 101 to the processing area. Using trains would reduce the extent to which haul trucks
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
were needed for transporting product. Rail operation would require approximate 23,604 gallons of diesel per year to transport a maximum of 249,600 tons per year, which represents approximately 22 percent of maximum product sold in a single year. In contrast, the haul trucks used to transport product are estimated to use approximately 507,640 gallons a year to transport 892,800 tons per year, demonstrating that trains are more efficient.
Total Project diesel use during operation is estimated to be 761,734 gallons and would represent approximately 0.86 percent of diesel sold in Santa Clara County in 2019 (CEC 2020b). The Project would also include an electric-powered conveyor belt to transport mined material onsite that would reduce the need for additional onsite truck trips. Because the amount of diesel fuel consumed during Project operation would be minimized due to the use of the rail spur and conveyor belt, it would not constitute a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of diesel fuel.
Gasoline Consumption
The Project would have up to 15 employees on-site at any one time for surface mining activities.
One light-duty truck using gasoline would be used during operation. Gasoline also would be required by Project workers commuting to and from the Project site. The total mobile emissions rates (Appendix D) during operation yield a conservative estimate of 7,130 gallons of gasoline required annually during Project operation. The gasoline consumption by Project workers would be approximately 0.001 percent of gasoline consumed in Santa Clara County in 2019 (CEC 2020b).
The Project would have a relatively small number of employees drawn from the surrounding region. Employees would arrive before the peak commute hour, which would shorten travel time. The commute and employee vehicle use would otherwise be typical for such operations in the region. There are no aspects of the Project that would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of gasoline.
Electricity Use
The Project would use existing electric power lines during mining operations. Electricity provided by SVCE would be the source of power for the aggregate processing plant, office/scale house, and other facilities. To transport mined material from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas to the processing plant, an approximately 0.3-mile-long electric-powered conveyor belt would be constructed. A similar conveyor belt, 1.6 miles in length, would be extended to the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining area following completion of Phase 2 mining.
The Project would require approximately 1,250 megawatt-hours per year of electricity (Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2021). This equates to approximately 1,250,000 kWh per year. For comparison, this energy consumption would be approximately 0.21 percent of the electricity consumption for the construction and mining sector in PG&E’s service area in 2019 (CEC 2021c).
The Project would not include any components that would require unusual amounts of electricity.
As discussed further below under Impact 3.6-2, most of the electricity consumed by Project operation would occur during daylight hours, minimizing the need for electric-powered lighting.
Additionally, the level of activity at the quarry would be highest during the active mining season (between April and October) during daylight hours, when the availability of energy from renewable and carbon-free sources from the electrical grid (such as solar power) is at its peak (EERE 2017).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The Project would be required to comply with current Title 24 standards and the CalGreen code, which would promote energy efficiency. Provisions in Title 24 include consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods for building features such as space conditioning, water heating, and lighting, as well as construction waste diversion goals. In addition, the Project incorporates renewable energy features because it would use SCVE as its source of electricity. SCVE provides nearly 100 percent carbon-free electricity. Thus, the electricity required during Project operation would not constitute a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy.
Reclamation
Mining operations would be conducted for 30 years, in four phases, and portions of the site would be reclaimed upon completion of each phase of the quarry operation. At the end of the Project’s life, final reclamation of the last surface mining phase would occur, and the aggregate processing facility site would also be reclaimed. The types of equipment, vehicles, and workforce necessary for grading and final contouring would be the same as the equipment used for mining and is included in the fuel consumption estimates provided under Operation, above. Revegetation and monitoring would require an additional two employees, who would commute to the Project site intermittently, and then use their vehicles to travel throughout the reclamation areas. These activities would add slightly to total Project fuel consumption but would not represent a substantial demand on energy resources. Therefore, energy consumption during reclamation would be a less-than-significant impact.
Summary
As shown in Table 3.6-6, the Project’s total annual operational energy consumption would be approximately 109,771 MMBtu, which is less than 0.002 percent of statewide energy use in 2019.
Project operation would not involve any features that would use fuel or electricity in excess of energy use typical for a mining project. The Project has several features that would serve to minimize overall fossil-fueled energy use, such as the electric-powered conveyor belts, which would minimize internal haul truck trips that use diesel fuel, and conducting operations primarily during daylight hours when the availability of energy from renewable and carbon-free sources from the electrical grid (such as solar power) is at its peak. In addition, all equipment and vehicles would be industrystandard, designed to comply with all applicable energy and fuel efficiency standards, and SCVE would provide nearly 100 percent carbon-free electricity to the Project.
Because the energy use during Project operation and reclamation would not constitute a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, and the Project incorporates renewable energy measures because it relies on nearly 100% renewable energy, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance: Less than significant
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.6-2: Construction, operation and maintenance, and reclamation of the Project could conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant)
This impact discussion corresponds to Significance Criterion (b).
Construction, Operation, and Reclamation
The Project would be required to comply with current Title 24 standards and the CalGreen code, which would promote energy efficiency. Provisions in Title 24 include consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods for building features such as space conditioning, water heating, and lighting, as well as construction waste diversion goals. The Project would also be consistent with Energy Conservation Policies established in the General Plan, as it would comply with the Title 24 standards and the CalGreen code, and would include construction of a new rail spur to use an existing rail line to transport material and a conveyor belt to transport sand and gravel from the quarry pits to the processing plant as alternatives to dieselfueled truck transport during quarry operations.
Electricity would be the source of power for the aggregate processing plant, office/scale house, and other facilities. The Project would procure energy from SVCE, which offers nearly 100 percent carbon-free electricity. Thus, the Project would not in any way impede implementation of the State’s RPS goals, which as required by SB 350, compels utility providers to incrementally increase renewable energy supplies to 44 percent by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030. In fact, electricity that would be obtained for the Project would already be consistent with SB 100, which will require 100 percent of all electricity from renewable and zerocarbon energy resources by 2045. Additionally, most of the electricity consumed by Project operations and maintenance would occur during daylight hours and the level of activity at the quarry would be highest during the active mining season (between April and October), when the availability of energy from renewable and carbon-free sources from the electrical grid (such as solar power) is at its peak (EERE 2017).
In terms of mobile energy usage, as described above, light-duty vehicles would comply with the latest federal and state standards that promote energy efficiency (USEPA 2012). Similar fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles have been adopted resulting in lower fuel consumption over time (USEPA 2016). Vehicles used for Project construction, operation, and reclamation workers to travel to and from the Project site would already incorporate these standards; therefore, the Project would not impede the efficient use of transportation fuels. Additionally, the Project would include construction of a rail spur in order to use an existing rail line and an electric-powered conveyor belt that would minimize vehicle trips.
Since the Project would comply with fuel and energy efficiency regulations and includes components that would reduce truck trips and associated consumption of transportation fuels, it would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Significance: Less than significant
_________________________
3.6.4.4 Cumulative Analysis
The geographic context for potential cumulative impacts related to electricity is Countywide and for equipment and transportation fuel use is within the Project’s truck travel radius (assumed to be approximately 40 miles), since these are the areas within which energy resources would be supplied for the Project.
Impact 3.6-3: The Project could contribute to significant cumulative increases in energy use. (Less than Significant)
Cumulative projects identified in Table 3.1-1 would also require electricity and fuel use. Given the relatively small percentage of the Project’s fuel and energy use compared to existing fuel and energy use in the region, the Project’s less-than-significant incremental impacts related to the use of fuel or energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner would not combine with the incremental impacts of other projects to cause a significant cumulative impact.
Regarding electricity, there is no existing significant adverse condition that would be worsened or intensified by the Project. As discussed previously, most of the electricity consumed by Project operations and maintenance would occur during daylight hours and the level of activity at the quarry would be highest during the active mining season (between April and October), when the availability of energy from renewable and carbon-free sources from the electrical grid (such as solar power) is at its peak (EERE 2017).
Similarly, regarding the efficiency of fuel use, there is no existing significant adverse condition (such as a shortage) that would be worsened or intensified by the Project. In the event of a future shortage, higher prices at the pump would curtail unnecessary trips that could be termed “wasteful” and would moderate choices regarding vehicles, equipment, and fuel efficiency.
Since the Project would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, there would be no cumulative impact related to conflicts withs such plans.
For the above reasons, the cumulative energy impact would not be significant, and the Project contribution to cumulative energy impacts would not be considerable, and therefore less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance: Less than significant
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-15 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.6.5 References
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2021. Advanced Clean Cars Program. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about. Accessed October 22, 2021.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2019. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code Nonresidential Mandatory Measures, July 2019. Available online at: https:/ /www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-CommissionResources-List-Folder/CALGreen#@ViewBag.JumpTo. Accessed January 8, 2021.
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). 2021a. Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons, Including Aviation Gasoline. Available online at: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxesand-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed January 8, 2021.
CDTFA. 2021b. Taxable Diesel Gallons 10 Year Report. Available online at: https:// www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed January 8, 2021.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2014. State of California Energy Assurance Plan. June 2014. Prepared by Aanko Technologies, Inc.
CEC. 2018. 2019 Nonresidential Compliance Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 6, and Associated Administrative Regulations in Part 1, December 2018. Available online at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018- 018/Compliance_Manual-Complete_without_forms.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2021.
CEC. 2020a. Adopted 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report, February 20, 2020. Available online at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/ 2019-integrated-energy-policy-report. Accessed January 8, 2021.
CEC, 2020b. 2019 California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15), September 22, 2020. Available online at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting. Accessed January 8, 2021.
CEC. 2021a. 2019 Total System Electric Generation. Available online: https:// www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-totalsystem-electric-generation. Accessed January 8, 2021.
CEC. 2021b. Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries. Available online at: https:// www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/oil-supplysources-california-refineries. Accessed January 8, 2021.
CEC. 2021c. California Energy Consumption Database. Available online at: https:// ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed March 12, 2021.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2021. RPS Program Overview. Available online at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/RPS_Overview/. Accessed January 8, 2021.
County of Santa Clara. 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan, Part 3: Rural Unincorporated Area Issues & Policies. Adopted December 20, 1994.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Energy
Sargent Quarry 3.6-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
EIA. 2021a. California State Energy Profile, February 18, 2021. Available online at: https:// www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed August 23, 2021.
EIA. 2021b. Units and calculators explained, British thermal units (Btu). Last updated May 13, 2021. Available online at: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-andcalculators/british-thermal-units.php. Accessed August 23, 2021.
Electricity Local. 2021. Santa Clara, CA Electricity Statistics. Available online at:
https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/santa-clara/. Accessed November 3, 2021.
National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). 2018. Guidance for State on Petroleum Shortage Response Planning. February 2018. Available online at: http://www.naseo.org/ Data/Sites/1/petroleum-guidance/final-naseo-petroleum-guidance-feb-2018.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2021.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2014. Summary of Fuel Economy Performance, December 15, 2014. Available online at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ nhtsa.dot.gov/files/performance-summary-report-12152014-v2.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2021.
NHTSA. 2019. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) Public Information Center, Fleet Fuel Economy Performance Report. Available online at: https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/ CAFE_PIC_fleet_LIVE.html. Updated as of October 15, 2019. Accessed January 8, 2021.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2021. Form 10-K, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2020, February 25, 2021. Available online at: https://investor.pgecorp.com/financials/ sec-filings/default.aspx. Accessed March 12, 2021.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2021. SVCE General – FAQs. Available online at:
https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs/#1518148602266-b9fa5ee4-68ab. Accessed March 19, 2021.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2015. This Week in Petroleum: Potential market implications of outage at ExxonMobil's Torrance, California refinery, February 25, 2015.
Available online at: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/archive/2015/150225/includes/ analysis_print.php. Accessed January 8, 2021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks, August 2012. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ P100EZ7C.PDF?Dockey=P100EZ7C.PDF. Accessed January 11, 2021.
USEPA. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2, Regulatory Impact Analysis, August 2016.
Available online at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NS.PDF? Dockey=P100P7NS.PDF. Accessed August 23, 2021.
U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE). 2017. Confronting the Duck Curve: How to Address Over-Generation of Solar Energy, October 12, 2017. Available online at: https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-overgeneration-solar-energy. Accessed August 23, 2021.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Sargent Quarry 3.7-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
3.7.1 Introduction
This section describes the existing geologic and seismic setting and evaluates the potential for facility construction, quarry operation, and reclamation activities to result in adverse impacts associated with surface and subsurface geologic materials, seismic ground shaking, slope stability, soil conditions, and paleontological resources. The analysis is based in part on the review of a geotechnical slope stability investigation (Sierra Geotechnical Services, Inc. [SGS] 2016) and a geotechnical peer review (Golder Associates 2017a, 2017b), all of which are provided as Appendix G.1, and a paleontological technical report (PaleoSolutions), provided as Appendix G.2, prepared specifically for the Project. In addition, the analysis was supported by publicly available reports and maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), and County of Santa Clara (County).