Construction
Water use during construction would be intermittent and temporary. The primary use of water during construction would be for dust control in areas that are exposed during initial site grading.
The source of this water would be the existing onsite well, which would be supplemented by a new on-site well once it is completed. After construction of each Project component is complete, construction-related dust control would no longer be necessary; however, as described below, groundwater would continue to be used for dust suppression during operation. Potable water would be hauled to the Project site for consumptive use by workers. As discussed in more detail below, according to the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix I), adequate water supply is available to meet Project demand during construction, and the impact would be less than significant.
Operation and Reclamation
Mining Pits, Access Roads, and Processing Plant
Project operation and reclamation activities would consume up to a total of 85,800 gallons per day, or approximately 82 acre-feet per year, at peak production (see Table 2-5 in Chapter 2, Project Description). Most of the water would be used for aggregate processing. Dust suppression would be the next highest demand for water. A new private well would supply the Project’s water needs. During operation, approximately 80 percent of the water used in aggregate processing would be reused as part of plant operations. No groundwater would be used for human consumption; drinking water would be brought to the facility by private vendors.
According to the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix I), adequate water supply is available to meet Project demand. Groundwater to supply the Project would be pumped from the Llagas subbasin, described in Section 3.14.3.1. While the additional groundwater demand from the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sargent Quarry 3.14-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Project would increase the groundwater outflows from the Llagas subbasin, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project and current and future water demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (Appendix I.3). Total Project water demand, while not specifically accounted for within Valley UWMP, would be within the municipal and industrial demand growth projections of 11,000 acre-feet per year shown in Table 3.14-1 (listed in Table 3.14-1 as “municipal retailers”). The Project’s demand would account for less than 1 percent of the increase in municipal and industrial demand growth. Furthermore, groundwater production in the Llagas subbasin has historically remained stable and fulfilled water demand during both single and multiple dry year periods (Appendix I.3). Because the Project’s water demand would comprise a small fraction of future water demand that has been accounted for in Valley Water’s UWMP, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project and current and future water demands in normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water supply facilities.
The impact would be less than significant.
Rail Spur, Conveyor Belt, Roadway Improvements
These Project components would not require the use of water either for operation or for ongoing dust suppression and would therefore result in no impact.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
_________________________
Impact 3.14-2: The Project would generate additional solid waste. (Less than Significant) This impact addresses Significance Criterion (d).
There are several nearby landfills with capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs during operation and reclamation/demolition. Based on current tonnage rates, Kirby Canyon Landfill will have capacity to remain in operation until 2059 (CalRecycle 2021b).
Buena Vista Landfill has a remaining capacity of 2 million cubic yards and is estimated to close in 2031 (CalRecycle 2021c).
Construction
No existing facilities would be demolished during Project construction; therefore, construction would not generate demolition debris. Construction would not include other activities that generate large amounts of solid waste; most construction waste would be packaging from delivery of Project components and building materials (e.g., plastic wrap, pallets) and ranchrelated items (e.g., barbed wire) found onsite. Pallets would be recycled locally. The nonrecyclable solid waste generated during construction would be accommodated by existing landfills given the existing capacity available. Therefore, solid waste generated during construction would be a less-than-significant impact.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sargent Quarry 3.14-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Operation
Mining Pits and Processing Plant
The quarrying and processing operations would generate solid waste typical of an industrial business, such as discarded packaging for office and operation supplies. The Project would employ up to 15 people during maximum production times, and the solid waste collected from these 15 employees (e.g., packaging from lunches eaten at the Project site) would be minimal.
The Project would be required to comply with recycling requirements, which would reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, there is extensive capacity available in in existing landfills, so the addition of Project waste would be a less-thansignificant impact.
Conveyor Belts, Access Roads, Rail Spur, Roadway Improvements Operation of these facilities and improvements would not generate substantial solid waste.
Minimal quantities of greases, lubricants, and other maintenance materials would be disposed of in accordance with hazardous materials disposal requirements (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Therefore, the impact on landfills would be less than significant.
Reclamation
Reclamation of the Project site involve removal of structures, equipment, and conveyors. The Project’s scales, vehicles, conveyors, and other equipment could be resold to other parties or repurposed for ranching uses (for example to move livestock, feed, and equipment) after final reclamation is completed. While it is planned that most of the equipment identified would be salvaged rather than disposed of in a landfill, even if some equipment and materials were landfilled, existing landfills would have adequate capacity. For example, of the landfills identified above, Kirby Canyon is not projected to close for approximately 38 years and would have remaining capacity when the 30-year mining term for the Project ends and final reclamation begins.
Summary
Because there is sufficient existing capacity at area landfills, the generation of solid waste by the Project would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
_________________________
Impact 3.14-3: Project construction and operation would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction goals, statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant)
This impact addresses Significance Criterion (e).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sargent Quarry 3.14-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Construction
No facilities would be demolished during construction. Therefore, construction would not generate demolition debris. Construction would not include other activities that generate large amounts of solid waste. Solid waste generated during construction would be delivered to or disposed of at a permitted disposal facility as required by County code. Compliance with local requirements would avoid significant public or environmental health effects related to storage or transport of solid waste, so the impact related to solid waste during Project construction would be less than significant.
Operation
Rail Spur, Conveyor Belt, Access Roads, Roadway Improvements As discussed above, these facilities would not generate any solid waste during Project operation.
Processing Plant and Mining Pits
During operation, waste generated by employees (which would be minimal) would be hauled off weekly by the local garbage company and disposed of or recycled in accordance with state and local requirements.
Reclamation
During reclamation phases, the Project would dispose of waste in accordance with state and local health and safety ordinances (as required by SMARA).
Summary
The Project would not impair the attainment of local solid waste reduction goals because it would produce minimal solid waste (e.g., employee lunch packaging), and would comply with reduction statutes and regulations regarding solid waste, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
_________________________
3.14.4.4 Cumulative Analysis
The geographic scope for potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts consists of the Project site, its immediate vicinity, and the service areas of regional service/utility providers.
The geographic scope for potential cumulative impacts on solid waste facilities includes landfills within Santa Clara County. The cumulative analysis geographic scope for water supply impacts includes the Llagas subbasin and the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin, located downstream of the project site on the Pajaro River.
The following analysis focuses on impacts related to water supply utilities and service systems, capacity of local solid waste infrastructure, and attainment of solid waste reduction goals .
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sargent Quarry 3.14-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.14-4: The Project would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for water supply. (Less than Significant)
As discussed in Impact 3.14-1, approximately 82 AFY of water sourced from the Llagas subbasin would supply the Project over 30 years of operations. During that period, other development may occur in areas overlying the Llagas subbasin, the downstream Pajaro Valley subbasin, or the North San Benito groundwater basin, such that water demand increases in these areas enough to require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities.
As discussed in Impact 3.14-1, the Project’s demand would account for less than 1 percent of the projected increase in municipal and industrial demand growth projected for the Llagas subbasin.
As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project’s demand is similarly less than 1 percent of the total water use in the Pajaro Valley subbasin. These demand increases, which have been determined to be less than significant in the context of other sources of variability in water supply for either groundwater basin, nonetheless could combine with demand from reasonably foreseeable development and cause cumulative environmental effects associated with construction or relocation of water facilities.
However, the Llagas subbasin and Pajaro Valley subbasin both are managed by groundwater sustainability agencies under adopted groundwater management plans that are functionally equivalent to groundwater sustainability plans. Pursuant to the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (discussed in greater detail in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality), the management plans of Valley Water and the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency must account for the most recent planning assumptions of jurisdictions overlying the basins and include projects and management actions that ultimately eliminate undesirable results (such as chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply) in each groundwater basin. These plans are designed to manage groundwater such that sufficient supplies are available for future projected growth during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Groundwater sustainability agencies have the authority to regulate groundwater extraction, including by limiting or suspending extractions from individual groundwater wells or wells in aggregate, to achieve the sustainability goals of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The groundwater management plans are being implemented to improve the long-term reliability of water supply in the Llagas and Pajaro Valley subbasins.
As shown in Table 3.14-3, water supply is projected to be adequate to meet demand within the County during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry years. Because the groundwater management plans and the 2020 UWMP incorporate projects for future cumulative development in areas served by the Llagas and Pajaro Valley subbasins, and the WSA determined that the project would be consistent with these plans, the cumulative impacts on water supply would be less than significant, and the Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and thus less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sargent Quarry 3.14-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Impact 3.14-5: The Project would contribute to cumulative increases in generation of solid waste. (Less than Significant)
Generally, the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.1-1, regardless of construction date, would dispose of construction debris at available landfills, which would contribute to reductions in available landfill capacity. As discussed in Impact 3.14-3, the Project would dispose of solid waste in a landfill. Similarly, the other cumulative projects would also generate construction debris that could be disposed at any number of landfills.
During Project construction the Kirby Canyon and Buena Vista landfills would receive waste from the project and other projects within the landfill’s service area. For the purposes of this analysis, given the finite nature of landfill capacity, it is conservatively assumed there could be a significant cumulative impact on landfill capacity to which both the Project and other projects could contribute. As noted above, the Kirby Canyon and Buena Vista landfills had remaining capacities of several million cubic yards and can accept about 3,400 tons of material per day, combined (CalRecycle 2021b, 2021c).
The incremental effect of the Project’s weekly and overall solid waste contribution to these landfills would be very small relative to the total daily throughput and overall landfill capacity. As a result, the effects of the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact on landfill capacities would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
_________________________
3.14.5 References
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail, Santa Clara-Unincorporated, 2015. Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/%20DiversionProgram/ JurisdictionDiversionDetail/467/Year/2015. Accessed April 20, 2021.
CalRecycle. 2020. Countywide Disposal Destination Detail, Santa Clara County 2019. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/ CountywideDisposal. Accessed April 20, 2021.
CalRecycle. 2021a. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available online at: https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006.
Accessed April 20, 2021.
CalRecycle. 2021b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Kirby Canyon Recycl.& Disp. Facility.
Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/ 1370?siteID=3393. Accessed April 27, 2021.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sargent Quarry 3.14-15 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CalRecycle. 2021c. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Buena Vista Drive Sanitary Landfill.
Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/ 1397?siteID=3420. Accessed April 27, 2021.
County of Santa Clara. 1995. Integrated Waste Management Plan Summary Plan and Siting Element. Available online at: https://reducewaste.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb691/files/ Summary-plan-and-siting-element.pdf.
Valley Water. 2016. Groundwater Management Plan, November.
Valley Water. 2020. Annual Groundwater Report 2019. July.
Valley Water. 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
Valley Water. 2021b. 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. June
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sargent Quarry 3.14-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.15 Wildfire
3.15.1 Introduction
This section addresses impacts of the Project related to wildfire. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues evaluated include the potential for the Project to exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby to expose people to wildfire or to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, to require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risks, and to expose people or structures to significant risks resulting from post-fire runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes. The County of Santa Clara (County) received no comments regarding wildfire in response to the Notice of Preparation (Appendix A).
The following discussion is informed by the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project Fire Protection Plan (FPP) that is included as Appendix L to this Environmental Impact Report. There would be no impacts on impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
3.15.2 Regulatory Setting
3.15.2.1 Federal
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection
NFPA Standard 22 provides requirements for the design, construction, installation, and maintenance of tanks and accessory equipment that supply water for private fire protection.
3.15.2.2 State
California Public Resources Code Sections 4201 to 4204
The California Public Resources Code, Sections 4201 to 4204, directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to map fire hazards within State Responsibility Areas (SRA).1 The maps, created by CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), are based on data related to development patterns, estimated fire behavior characteristics, and expected burn probabilities. The maps quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure to new construction. Hazards are described according to their potential for causing ignitions to buildings. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), provide the basis for application of mitigation strategies to reduce risks to buildings associated with wildland fires. The zones also relate to the requirements for building codes designed to reduce the ignition potential to buildings in wildland–urban interface (WUI) zones. The Project site is located within designated High and Moderate FHSZs (CAL FIRE 2007). 1 SRAs are the official boundaries where the State of California (through CAL FIRE) has the primary legal and financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. CAL FIRE provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services for these designated areas (CAL FIRE 2012). SRAs are generally located in non-urbanized areas that are outside of city boundaries.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
California Public Resources Code Fire Safety Requirements Several sections of the California Public Resources Code also include fire safety requirements that restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on construction equipment that use an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided on site for various types of work in fire-prone areas. These requirements include the following:
• Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines shall be equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (Section 4442) • Appropriate fire suppression equipment shall be maintained during the highest fire danger period – from April 1 to December 1 (Section 4428)
• On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials shall be removed to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, and the construction contractor shall maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment (Section 4427) • On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines shall not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (Section 4431)
California Fire Code Chapter 47
The California Fire Code is contained within Title 24, Chapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations. Chapter 47 of the California Fire Code sets requirements WUI fire areas that increase the ability of buildings to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire, in addition to systematically reducing conflagration losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements. The Project site is located in a WUI area (SWCA 2016, Figure 4.2).
Defensible Space and the Fire Safe Regulations
State law requires a minimum clearance (defensible space) of 100 feet around structures within SRAs (Pub. Res. Code Sections 4290 and 4291). Implementing regulations (the “Fire Safe Regulations”) provide related requirements to be implemented in an SRA, including road standards for fire equipment access (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 1273 et seq.); standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 1274 et seq.); requirements for minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 1275 et seq.); and requirements for fuel breaks such as defensible space and greenbelts (14 Cal. Code Regs.
Sections 1272, 1276 et seq.).
California Strategic Fire Plan
The 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California is the most recent statewide plan for the adaptive management of wildfire (CAL FIRE 2018). The central goals that are critical to reducing and preventing the impacts of fire revolve around both suppression efforts, natural resource management, and fire prevention efforts. The relevant goals of the Strategic Fire Plan include promoting the role of local planning processes, including county-based plans and community-based plans such as
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs), and recognizing individual landowner/homeowner responsibilities. The Fire Plan does not contain any specific requirements or regulations. Rather, it acts as an assessment of current fire management practices and standards and makes recommendations on how best to improve the practices and standards in place (CAL FIRE 2018).
The County of Santa Clara has prepared a CWPP, described below, that implements the community-based wildfire planning goal of the Strategic Fire Plan.
3.15.2.3 Local
There are no General Plan wildfire strategies or policies that would apply to the Project.
Santa Clara County Fire Department Standards and Specifications The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) provides Fire Marshal services (building permits, building inspections, and code violations) to the portion of the county in which the Project site is located, but is not the emergency services agency that provides fire protection in this location; see Section 3.15.3 for more details on emergency services.
SI-7 Construction Site Safety
This standard requires development and implementation of a written FPP for significant or complex construction projects at the discretion of and approved by the fire department. The FPP must include procedures for reporting emergencies to the fire department, emergency notification and evacuation of all persons on the site, hot work operations, management of hazardous materials, removal of combustible debris, and maintenance of emergency access roads. It also must include plans identifying the locations of exits, the designated exterior assembly areas for each evacuation route, and required fire apparatus access roadways and on-site fire hydrants or water tanks (SCCFD 2009). The Project-specific FPP is intended to comply with this requirement, is included as Appendix L, and is considered part of the Project.
CFMO-A3 Installation of Security Gates for Access Roads and Driveways This specification requires that gates installed across a required fire department access road or driveway must have prior approval of the County Fire Marshal’s Office, specifies allowable lock types and required override switches, and specifies width, swinging and sliding specifications, and other requirements for gates to allow fire department access (SCCFD 2003).
Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
In 2016, the SCCFD commissioned the preparation of a Santa Clara County CWPP to address the multijurisdictional scope of wildfire preparation (SWCA 2016). The CWPP is a countywide strategic plan with goals for creating a safer WUI community. The purpose of the CWPP is to assist in protecting human life and reducing property loss due to wildfire throughout the planning area. The CWPP includes an analysis of fire apparatus access, community evacuation, fuels, topography, and weather conditions for several different areas in Santa Clara County. The CWPP prioritizes and identifies fuel-reduction treatments and recommends measures and action items that residents and communities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The Office of the County Fire Marshal provides education, plan review, inspection, and code enforcement for the county regarding fire issues. The Fire Marshal, who also serves as the Chief of the Santa Clara County Fire Department, is responsible for fire prevention activities in most unincorporated areas of the county. Authority for the Fire Marshal is derived from Section A33- 47 of the County Code and Section 101 of the California Fire Code. The County Fire Marshal has the authority to make and enforce such rules and regulations for the prevention and control of fire and fire hazards (SWCA 2016).
The CWPP goals and policies shown in Table 3.15-1 would apply to the Project.
TABLE 3.15-1
RELEVANT COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN POLICIES
ID Project Description
Land Disposition and
Responsibility Method Resources Available
Strategic Goal FR7: Develop roadside fuel treatment program, including suite of methods available and sustainability mechanism
SCCFR7.1Improve
ingress/egress
capabilities through
installation of fuel
breaks and brushing
SCC WUI areas. Public
and privately
owned/maintained road
systems.
Limb trees and remove
brush along roadways to
at least reclaim full
original width and height.
Goal: minimum 20' clear
width and 15' clear
height.
County General Fund
Budget. CAL FIRE
crews – County Public
Works budget. Local
community groups -
donations and grant
funding. USDA-NRCS
SCCFR7.2Install roadway buffers
and cut grass earlier
in the season
All WUI areas, Public
and privately
owned/maintained road
systems.
Limb trees and remove
brush along roadways to
at least reclaim full
original width and height.
Goal: minimum 20' clear
width and 15' clear
height. Cut grass earlier.
CAL FIRE crews -
Public Works budget.
Local community
groups - donations and
grant funding.
SCCFR7.3Improve man- made
fuel breaks around
individual structures
or groups of
residences
All WUI areas. Public
and privately
owned/maintained road
systems.
Clear brush, limb trees,
and remove dead woody
materials, located within
10' of road edges.
CAL FIRE crews -
Public Works budget.
Local community
groups - donations and
grant funding.
Strategic Goal FC13: Develop a coordinated approach between fire jurisdictions and water supply agencies to identify needed improvements to the water distribution system, initially focusing on areas of highest wildfire hazard.
SCC
FC13.3
Mapping of available
private water supplies
SCFSC, CAL FIRE Increase knowledge of
available water sources
prior to a wildfire event to
improve fire response
capability.
Strategic Goal FC8: Where road systems are antiquated and do not provide for proper evacuation or two-way flow, require removal of obstructions or upgrade to minimum two-lane road system over time.
SCCFC8.1Improve
ingress/egress
capabilities. All areas
in SCC FPD
SCC FPD and CAL
FIRE
Establish secondary
access roads in current
single access areas.
Ensure the safe and rapid
evacuation of residents
during fire response and
suppression activities
County General Fund -
Public Works budget.
Local community
groups - donations and
grant funding
SOURCE: SWCA 2016.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
3.15.3 Environmental Setting
3.15.3.1 Project Site Fire Hazard Designations
The Project site is located in the West Gilroy WUI area, which is defined as an area “where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels” (Fire Management Board 2019). The Project site also is located within two different FHSZs within the SRA: the Project’s mining areas and processing plant are located within a designated High FHSZ; the access roadway (Old Monterey Road) and free-span bridge are located in a Moderate FHSZ (CAL FIRE, 2007).
3.15.3.2 Wildland Fire Protection
The South Santa Clara County Fire District (SSCCFD) provides fire and rescue services to the Project site vicinity through a contract with CAL FIRE. The SSCCFD encompasses approximately 320 square miles of unincorporated areas in the southern portion of Santa Clara County, including Coyote Valley, portions of Almaden Valley, Casa Loma, Uvas-Svedal, the Pacheco Pass area, and the unincorporated area directly surrounding the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy (including the Project site). The SSCCFD participates actively in automatic aid agreements with the Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Pajaro Valley, Hollister, and San Jose Fire Departments (the closest engine responds regardless of jurisdiction) (SSCCFD 2021). The nearest SSCCFD fire station to the Project site is Gilroy Fire Station #61 at 7070 Chestnut Street in Gilroy (SCCFC 2020); however, Hollister Station #4 is slightly closer to the Project site and may respond to incidents at the site per automatic aid agreements.
The Santa Clara County Unit of CAL FIRE, with its headquarters in Morgan Hill, is administratively in charge of CAL FIRE operations in Santa Clara County. Normal CAL FIRE wildland response includes chief officers, fire engines, air tankers (Hollister Air Attack Base), helicopter (Alma Heli Base), fire dozers, and hand crews (Ben Lomond Camp). SSCCFD/CAL FIRE initial response to the Project site would be primarily from Treehaven, Morgan Hill, Masten, Coyote, Corralitos, Almaden, Hollister, and Pacheco fire stations. Morgan Hill and Gilroy Fire Departments also would respond with mutual aid.
3.15.3.3 Climate and Fuels
Santa Clara County has a Mediterranean climate, with most precipitation occurring during the winter months and virtually no precipitation from spring though autumn. The Santa Cruz mountains typically have the highest precipitation totals, approximately 40 to 60 inches per year, compared to the relatively dry Santa Clara Valley where the city of San Jose has average totals of 12 inches (SWCA 2016). The Project site is within the drier portion of Santa Clara County.
This area routinely experiences westerly afternoon winds exceeding 20 miles per hour, which can spread fires faster and blow embers great distances to cause spot fires and ignite structures some distance away. Summer “Diablo Winds” can carry hot, dry air from the Central Valley over the Diablo Range, which then flows across Santa Clara Valley and then upslope over the Santa Cruz Mountains from a northerly direction towards the Monterey Bay (SWCA 2016).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Vegetation within the Project site consists of predominantly annual grasslands, chaparral and northern coastal scrub, oak and conifer woodland, and riparian forests (see Appendix E). The majority of the Project site consists of the California annual grasslands vegetation/fuel type, which can generate fast-moving but low-intensity wildfires (Dudek 2020).
3.15.3.4 Fire History
There have been 10 recorded wildfires larger than 10 acres (“large wildfires”) that have occurred within 5 miles of the Project site. These ranged in size from 12 acres to 1,867 acres (1981 Herbert Fire) and the average size was approximately 343 acres. The 2017 Bally Fire (109 acres) is the most recent large fire; it occurred approximately 4 miles north of the Project site. Additional large fires located within 5 miles of the Project site include the 1984 Rocha EMP Escape #2 Fire (1,240 acres); the 2002 Merrill fire (64 acres); the 2005 156 Fire (16 acres); the 2007 Avenida Fire (34 acres); the 2010 Salinas Fire (12 acres); the 2011 Red Barn Fire (22 acres); the 2011 Rocks Fire (13 acres); and the 2015 Betabel Fire (56 acres). The SSCCFD or the Gilroy Fire Department may have data regarding smaller fires (equal to or less than 10 acres) that have occurred on the site that have not been included herein. There have not been any recorded large wildfires that have burned onto the Project site (Dudek 2020).
3.15.4 Impact Evaluation
3.15.4.1 Approach to the Analysis
This section evaluates whether the Project would exacerbate wildfire risk and/or contribute to temporary or ongoing environmental impacts by exposing either people or structures to significant risks (i.e., pollutant concentrations, flooding, landslides, drainage changes) as a result of wildfire.
It also analyzes whether people or structures would be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildfires. The following analysis relies upon information provided in the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project FPP (Appendix L), which includes a site-specific fire environment/risk analysis, and incorporates input from the County and local fire jurisdictions.
The FPP identifies and considers several factors contributing to wildfire risk at the Project site, including topography, slope, combustible vegetation or fuel types, climate, fire history, and proposed land use. The Project would adhere to all fire risk reduction measures, daily fire prevention measures, fire prevention/protection system maintenance, and hot work safety guidelines described in detail in the FPP. The FPP is considered part of the Project description.
3.15.4.2 Significance Criteria
The Project would result in a significant impact related to wildfire if it would:
a) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
b) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
c) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. d) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Due to the nature of the Project, the following criterion is not analyzed in this section for the reasons described below:
• Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The Project would include the improvement and maintenance of access roads, and their potential to exacerbate fire risk is addressed throughout the impact discussions in Section 3.15.4.3. The temporary and ongoing impacts on the environment of all Project infrastructure, including access roads, are analyzed throughout this EIR. Therefore, no additional specific impact analysis is needed to address this significance criterion.
There would be no impacts on impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
3.15.4.3 Project Impacts
Impact 3.15-1: The Project could exacerbate wildfire risks and could thereby expose people to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or expose people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (Less than Significant) This impact addresses Significance Criteria (a) and (d).
Construction and Reclamation
All Project Components
The primary fire hazards from Project activities during construction and reclamation of all Project components would involve the use of typical construction vehicles and equipment, including earth moving equipment, chainsaws, and woodchippers. Additionally, “hot work” construction activities that could result in sparks, such as use of welders, grinders, and torches, have a greater likelihood of creating a source of ignition. Heat or sparks from vehicles and equipment, or from other sources such as large compost piles or cigarettes, matches, or generators, could ignite dry vegetation and cause a fire, particularly during drier, warmer conditions. Therefore, due to the increase in potential sources of ignition, Project construction and reclamation could increase the risk of surrounding communities’ exposure to pollutant concentrations and risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire and the uncontrolled spread of wildfire to a level that is higher than currently exists. However, prevailing winds in this area blow to the west, away from any workers at the processing plant and away from U.S. 101, and in a direction where there are no nearby communities, residences, businesses, or structures.
Project design and implementation of the FPP (Dudek 2020) would reduce the risk of ignition and provide for the suppression of wildfires if ignitions occur. Consistent with Public Resources Code
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-8 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
requirements, all earthmoving and portable equipment would be equipped with spark arrestors to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire during the highest fire danger period from April 1st to December 1st. As detailed in the FPP, during construction and reclamation activities, the following measures would be implemented to prevent the uncontrolled spread of wildfire:
• Minimize combustible and flammable materials storage on site and store any combustible or flammable materials that need to be on site away from ignition sources. • Label all containers of potentially hazardous materials with their contents and store in the same location as flammable or combustible liquids.
• Clear parking areas and fuel or oil storage areas of grass and brush by a distance of at least 30 feet.
• Keep evacuation routes free of obstructions.
• Perform “hot work” according to fire safety practices in a controlled environment and with fire suppression equipment at the job site. A fire watch person (Fire Patrol), with extinguishing capability (e.g., fire extinguishers), would be in place for all “hot work” activities during construction. Ensure hot work adheres to the guidelines provided. • Dispose of combustible waste promptly and according to applicable laws and regulations. • Report and repair fuel leaks without delay.
• Do not overload circuits or rely on extension cords where other options would be safer. • Turn off and unplug electrical equipment when not in use. • Direct contractors on site to restrict use of chainsaws, chippers, vegetation masticators, grinders, drill rigs, tractors, torches, and explosives during Red Flag Warnings. When such tools are used, a water truck equipped with hoses, shovels, Pulaskis (axe/adzes), and McLeods (rakehoes) shall easily be accessible to personnel. • Equip all construction-related vehicles with a dry chemical fire extinguisher, a backpack pump fire extinguisher, a shovel, and a first aid kit.
• When an evacuation has been called, site employees would gather at the designated assembly area and the site safety officer (SSO) would account for personnel. Once all personnel are accounted for, the vehicles would safely convoy from the Project site to safe zones, which are generally areas off site and away from the threat.
Implementation of these fire prevention and suppression measures would substantially reduce the risk of the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and consequently reduce the risk of surrounding communities’ exposure to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or to risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire. Thus, as a result of Project design and commitments made by the Applicant for construction and reclamation, the impact during these phases would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project would not be inhabited because it would not include a residential component. Up to 15 employees would be present during business hours, as well as customers picking up aggregate.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Mining Pits and Conveyor Belts
Mining activities would involve similar earth-moving equipment and vehicles to those described for construction and reclamation. These would result in similar potential for sparks; however, following removal of topsoil from the mining pits, there would be little to no ignitable material in the pits near where this equipment would be operating. Additionally, the spark arrestor requirements and risk reduction measures for vehicles and equipment described above would apply to vehicles and equipment used during this phase during the highest fire danger period from April 1st to December 1st. Therefore, the likelihood of ignition of wildfire from within the mining pits would be low. Conveyor belts would be used for sand and gravel transportation from the mining pit to the processing plant, rather than trucks, which would reduce potential fire risks from vehicle-related ignitions during mining.
Furthermore, the Applicant would maintain a portable 10,000-gallon water tank on site at all times, which would move with each mining phase. Water would be stored in the aboveground water tank in compliance with County and SSCCFD requirements and with NFPA 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection (Dudek 2020). The tank would be inspected regularly and placed on the side of the fire access road with adequate space to allow fire engines to park and connect to the tank while leaving the road open to other travel (see Chapter 2, Project Description, for more information). The portable water tank location would be determined by a Fire Protection Engineer and submitted for approval by the County. With these protections in place, coupled with the low risk of ignition from mining and conveyor belt components, the impact would be less than significant.
Access Roads and Roadway Improvements
The Project would involve vegetation removal and maintenance along roadways to and from the Project site as required by CAL FIRE in SRAs and in compliance with the County of Santa Clara Standards for Fire Department Vehicle Access. The required minimum vertical clearance over vehicular access roads and driveways would be 15 feet for SRAs and County-designated Ranchlands and a minimum of 13.5 feet for all other areas. Per the Project-specific FPP (Dudek 2020), the Applicant would maintain a 20-foot Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) on each side of the access roads. In addition, the proposed improved roadway shoulders would reduce fire risks and facilitate evacuations of employees in the event of a wildfire-related emergency. Additional fuel modification and vegetation management would be conducted by May 15 of each year.
Additional risk reduction measures related to the use of access roads would include equipping all vehicles with fire prevention equipment, prohibiting driving over unmaintained dry vegetation, and maintaining mufflers on cars and light-duty trucks. These Project design features and commitments would remove ignitable materials and reduce the potential for sparks from use of Project access roads during the highest fire danger period from April 1st to December 1st, ensuring that the impact from the use of roads would be less than significant.
Processing Plant and Rail Spur
The aggregate processing facility structures would be constructed to the County Fire Code, which has adopted the 2019 California Fire Code standards, and all proposed structural buildings would comply with the enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards of the California Building
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Code (Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban Wildland Interface code (Dudek 2020). These requirements would harden structural components such as roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors, which would reduce structural vulnerability to wildfire. The Project would also include a 100-foot FMZ buffer zone around each building and structure within the proposed processing plant area. Additional FMZs would also be applied around the equipment storage yard, 17-space parking area, truck scales, and loading area. Designated plantings for defensible space would consist of low-growing ground cover selected from an approved plant list and all appropriate spacing would be reviewed and approved by the SSCCFD Fire Marshal (or other authorized fire jurisdiction Fire Marshal) as described in the CWPP and Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291. FMZ specifications outlined in the FPP include non-combustible surfaces (e.g., gravel, dirt) if applicable, clearing and removal of all existing native vegetation or prohibited plants and replaced with drought tolerant native species, each planting area would also be maintained at a height of 6 inches or less (See FPP in Appendix L for details regarding a customized fuel modification plant list). These Project design features would minimize ignitable materials and reduce the potential for sparks from use of equipment and vehicles at the processing plant, ensuring that the impact would be less than significant.
Summary
Project compliance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Sections 4442 and 4428 for appropriate fire suppression equipment (i.e., spark arrestor, fire extinguisher, water backpack, shovel, axe, and first aid kit) during the highest fire danger period from April 1st to December 1st would reduce the risk of uncontrolled fire. Compliance with identified CWPP goals and policies identified previously would also reduce fire risks. While the Project has the potential to exacerbate wildfire risks by introducing new sources of ignition into a High/Moderate FHSZ, compliance with applicable Public Resources Code requirements, California Fire Code standards, and CWPP goals, and implementation of the fire prevention and suppression methods outlined in the FPP would ensure that Project-related wildfire risk (and risks of pollutant exposure and loss, injury, or death caused by wildfires) is not substantially higher than baseline wildfire risk, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance: Less than significant
_________________________
Impact 3.15-2: The Project could expose people or structures to risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (Less than Significant)
Construction, Operation, and Reclamation
All Project Components
This impact addresses Significance Criterion (c). As described under Impact 3.15-1, the Project would not substantially exacerbate fire risks because fire prevention and suppression measures
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
have been included in the design of the Project as well as in measures required to be implemented under the Project-specific FPP. Therefore, the Project would have minimal potential to result in flooding, landslides, slope instability, or drainage changes as a result of the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Furthermore, stormwater BMPs described in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, would be consistent with the requirements of the state construction and industrial general permit preventing substantial increases in the volume of stormwater draining from the site. As a result, people or structures would not be exposed to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance: Less than significant
_________________________
3.15.4.4 Cumulative Analysis
Impact 3.15-3: The Project could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to wildfire. (Less than Significant) Depending on the pathway of migration for or nature of future wildfires, the geographic scope for cumulative effects related to wildfire would be the air basin, watershed boundary, or extent of adjacent wildlands. If the Project were to contribute to wildfires in the vicinity of the Project site, this could happen at any point during construction, operation, and reclamation; therefore, the temporal scope of cumulative impacts extends through the life of the Project, including through final reclamation. The Project site is located within a High and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones and within a WUI area.
Cumulative projects (including those identified in Table 3.1-1, Cumulative Projects List, as well as continuing and projected development within the geographic scope that is not captured in the table) could involve ignition sources such as smoking, vehicle or mobile equipment use, generators, small fires (campfires, barbeques), and electrical equipment that could contribute to a cumulative risk of wildfire in the vicinity of the Project site. The closest cumulative project anticipated to occur near the Project site is the widening of and upgrades to U.S. 101 from Monterey Road in Gilroy to State Route 129 in San Benito County. The proximity of that project would include additional ignition sources within cumulative impact study area from vehicles during construction. However, that project’s impact would be limited to construction and result in a temporary condition; long-term ignition sources such as vehicle traffic and cigarette smoking would be similar to existing conditions. All cumulative projects in would be subject to the same Public Resources Code requirements for spark arrestors and fire suppression equipment. Highway projects, such as the U.S. 101 widening project, also would be subject to fire safety measures from the Caltrans Construction Manual (Caltrans 2021).
The Project’s adherence to fire prevention and suppression measures outlined and described in detail in the FPP would minimize its contribution to an adverse cumulative wildfire impact. The incremental impact of additional ignition sources during Project construction would not be
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
cumulatively considerable because the risk of Project-related wildfire ignition would be substantially reduced and/or suppressed quickly, thereby minimizing the likelihood of spread of Project-related wildfire ignitions.
As noted above in Section 3.15.4.3, Project Impacts, the Project would not include any permanent housing and would not expose people to any increased level or risk associated with wildfires or wildfire-related flooding, landslides, or post-fire slope instability. The closest cumulative project that would include housing or living quarters would be the Dae Seung Sa Korean Buddhist Temple, which would be located approximately 8.5 miles upslope from the Project site in a predominantly residential area. The construction and operation of that project would not be located downslope or downstream of the Project and would not be impacted by any potential post-fire conditions such as landsliding, even if such conditions were to result from Project-associated fires (identified as unlikely under Impact 3.15-1). Associated off-site, post-fire soils risks at the Betabel RV Park would not increase due to multiple cumulative scenario fires because the RV park is only downstream and downslope from the proposed quarry site and not the other cumulative projects. Additionally, the Project would reduce the risk of the spread of fire to near baseline conditions with the implementation of the FPP, coordination with the County Fire Departments, and Public Resource Code standards. Therefore, the potential for post-fire flooding or landslides would be less than significant.
Based on the above analysis, the Project’s incremental impact would not be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to wildfire risks, and therefore would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance: Less than significant
_________________________
3.15.5 References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Map. November 6, 2007.
CAL FIRE. 2022. What is a State Responsibility Area (SRA). Available online at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severityzones/#:~:text=What%20is%20%E2%80%9CState%20Responsibility%20Area,for%20fire %20prevention%20and%20suppression.
CAL FIRE. 2018. 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. Available online:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. Construction Manual. Available online: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/construction/construction-manual. Accessed September 6, 2021.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Dudek. 2020. Sargent Ranch Quarry Project Fire Protection Plan. December 2020.
Fire Management Board. 2019. Federal Wildland Fire Policy Terms and Definitions. Available online at: https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/docs/eb-fmb-m-19-004a.pdf.
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2016. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Prepared for Santa Clara County. August 2016. Available online at: https://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara-county-community-wildfire-protection-plan.
Santa Clara County FireSafe Council (SCCFC). 2020. Wildland-Urban Interface. Available online at: https://sccfiresafe.org/resources/do-you-reside-in-santa-clara-countys-wildlandurban-interface-wui/. Accessed June 12, 2020.
Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). 2003. Spec No CFMO-A3, Installation of Security Gates for Access Roads and Driveways. Available online at:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FMO_Standards_A3.PDF.
Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). 2009. Spec No SI‐7, Construction Site Fire Safety. Available online at: https://www.sccfd.org/images/documents/fire_prevention/ standards/2.4.6_construction_site_safety.pdf.
South Santa Clara County Fire District. 2021. About Us. Available online at:
https://www.ssccfd.com/about/. Accessed November 9, 2021.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.15 Wildfire
Sargent Quarry 3.15-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank
Sargent Quarry 4-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CHAPTER 4
Alternatives Analysis
4.1 Introduction
CEQA requires lead agencies to consider alternatives to proposed projects with significant environmental impacts, and that an EIR provide information about alternatives (Pub. Res. Code Sections 21001, 21002, 21002.1, 21003.1, 21061). Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify alternatives that would reduce a project’s significant impacts while meeting most of the basic objectives of the project. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a “rule of reason” approach to the analysis, stating that the alternatives shall be reasonable, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen the project’s significant environmental impacts.
The proposed Project consists of open-pit mining that will occur in four areas in four phases, and construction and operation of processing and mining-related facilities, including an aggregate processing plant, office/scale house, process water pond, stormwater basins, conveyor belt, access/maintenance roads, a free-span bridge over Tar Creek, and a new groundwater well.
The Phase 1 and 2 mining areas are located in the northern portion of the Project site (see Figure 2-2, Project Site and Vicinity, in Chapter 2, Project Description). Estimated production from Phases 1 and 2 are shown below in Table 64-1. Phases 1 and 2 combined would disturb approximately 152.34 acres, exclusive of geotechnical setback areas (approximately 81.64 acres).
For a more complete description of Phases 1 and 2, please see Chapter 2, Project Description.
TABLE 4-1
ESTIMATED MINING AND EXCAVATION QUANTITIES (CUBIC YARDS) Mining Phase Product Topsoila Overburdenb Excavation Total Phase 1 9,600,000 375,000 3,325,000 13,300,000
Phase 2 11,900,000 300,000 4,100,000 16,300,000
Total 21,500,000 675,000 7,425,000 29,600,000
NOTES:
a. Topsoil represents approximately the top 2 feet of soils on the site. b. Overburden is the material (e.g., soil and rock) that lies above the economically valuable mineral resources; in this case the mineral resources are sand and gravel suitable for use as concrete grade aggregate.
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Mining and Reclamation Plan, February 2022. Table 4.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Phases 3 and 4 would be located in the southern portion of the Project site (see Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description), and would require construction of a conveyor belt connecting the Phase 3 and 4 mining areas to the processing plant. Estimated production from Phases 3 and 4 are shown below in Table 4-2. Phases 3 and 4 would disturb approximately 67.23 acres, exclusive of geotechnical setbacks, which could disturb up to an additional 23.46 acres. For a complete description of Phases 3 and 4, please see Chapter 2, Project Description.
TABLE 4-2
ESTIMATED MINING AND EXCAVATION QUANTITIES (CUBIC YARDS) Mining Phase Product Topsoila Overburdenb Excavation Total Phase 3 2,565,000 135,000 900,000 3,600,000
Phase 4 1,240,000 36,000 540,000 1,816,000
Total 3,805,000 171,000 1,440,000 5,416,000
NOTES:
a. Topsoil represents approximately the top 2 feet of soils on the site. b. Overburden is the material (e.g., soil and rock) that lies above the economically valuable mineral resources; in this case the mineral resources are sand and gravel suitable for use as concrete grade aggregate. February 2022. Table 4.
4.1.1 Guidelines for Selection of Alternatives
The requirement that an EIR evaluate alternatives to a Project or alternatives to the location of a project is a broad one, since the primary intent of the alternatives analysis is to disclose other ways that the objectives of the project could be attained while reducing the magnitude of, or avoiding entirely, the significant environmental impacts of the Project. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f):
The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determined could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.
In the context of CEQA, "feasible" is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 as:
Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.
Further, the following factors may be considered in the assessment of the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and the ability of the proponent to attain site control. Finally, an EIR is not required to analyze alternatives when the effects of the alternative "cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3)).
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Based on the above guidance, alternatives were selected for review that would meet most of the basic project objectives, would reduce one or more of the significant impacts of the Project, would be reasonable and potentially feasible, and would not be speculative.
The following alternatives are evaluated in this chapter:
1. Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative: Assumes that no mining or aggregate processing occurs on the Project site, and that the current uses continue.
2. Alternative 2 - Phases 1 and 2 Only and Processing Plant Relocation: Phases 1 and 2 would be mined at the same level as the Project, but the Phases 3 and 4 sites would not be mined. The crossing over Sargent Creek and the conveyor belt/access road would not be constructed because access to the Phases 3 and 4 sites would not be needed. The amount of aggregate product produced under this alternative would be 21.5 million cubic yards (cy), an approximate 15 percent reduction compared to the Project as proposed.
The processing plant would be moved approximately 0.85 miles north of Tar Creek. In addition, Old Monterey Road would be realigned, and the Tar Creek bridge would be located upstream of the location proposed for the Project.
Other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed Project.
3. Alternative 3 – Reduced Phases 1 and 2 Only, Processing Plant Relocation, and Addition of Screening Berm: This alternative would be similar to Alternative 2, except that a screening berm would be constructed along the Phase 1 mining pit and the mining activities would not occur above 500 feet mean sea level (msl). In addition, there would be a 15 percent reduction in the amount of aggregate mined in Phases 1 and 2, for a total reduction in mining of 28 percent.
In addition to the description provided for each alternative, this chapter provides a comparative analysis of the potential environmental effects resulting from each alternative, and the extent to which each alternative would support the project objectives.
4.2 Project Objectives
As stated on page 2-7 of Chapter 2, Project Description, the project objectives are:
1. Develop a long-term source of high-quality aggregate needed for various uses in the County and other local markets, in furtherance of General Plan Policy R-RC 68;
2. Ensure that mining occurs in an environmentally responsible and sensitive manner that is consistent with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and County requirements;
3. Locate the source of aggregate in proximity to one or more major transportation corridors and in proximity to local construction contractors and others in need of such materials, who otherwise might have to seek and transport such materials from more distant sources;
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
4. In furtherance of General Plan Policy R-RC 78, provide an alternative to truck transport of construction aggregates by using the Union Pacific Railroad rail spur adjacent to Sargent Ranch to replace haul trucks to the extent feasible;
5. Develop the aggregate resource in a manner that is economically feasible;
6. Minimize impacts on sensitive natural and cultural resources on the Project site;
7. Minimize aesthetic impacts through site design, phasing, and concurrent reclamation; and
8. Implement a reclamation plan that provides for long-term slope stability, prevents wind and water erosion, and establishes self-sustaining native and naturalized vegetation cover.
4.3 Significant Project Impacts
The alternatives analysis addresses significant impacts of the Project, including both impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels and those that would remain significant even after implementation of identified mitigation measures.
4.3.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following significant and unavoidable impacts could result from implementation of the Project.
• Aesthetics: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact, both at the Project-specific level and cumulatively, with regard to the effect on existing visual character or quality of public views of the Project site and its surroundings from U.S. 101, a County-designated scenic highway (Impact 3.2-1). Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would lessen the severity of these impacts but not below the level of significance. This significant unavoidable impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.2-3).
• Air Quality: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to its effect on BAAQMD NOx thresholds and emissions of NOx, ROG, PM 2.5, and PM 10 for which the region is in nonattainment status. Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b would reduce NOx but not below significance thresholds for project-specific or cumulative impacts (Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2 and 3.3-5).). This significant unavoidable impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.3-5). • Biological Resources: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to the Project’s interference with wildlife movement. Mitigation Measure 3.4-15 would reduce this impact but not below the threshold of significance (Impact 3.4-15).
This significant unavoidable impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.4-22).
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact both at the Project-specific level and cumulatively with regard to changes in the significance of tribal cultural resources within the proposed area of development, and the Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape (Impacts 3.5-4, 3.5-5, and 3.5- 9). Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-3b, 3.5-4b and 3.5-5b would reduce the severity of these impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• Geology, Soils, and Paleontology: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to the Project’s potential to destroy paleontological resources important to Santa Clara County (Impact 3.7-5). Mitigation Measure 3.7-5 would not reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. This impact would also be considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.7-6). • Transportation: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to the Project’s generation of additional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and no feasible mitigation is identified to reduce the impact (Impact 3.13-2). This impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.13-5).
4.3.2 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant impacts that could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with identified mitigation measures are summarized below:
• Biological Resources: Impacts on the following special-status species and/or their habitat:
special-status plant species, special-status fish, California red-legged frogs (CRLF), California tiger salamanders (CTS), western pond turtles, burrowing owls, tricolored blackbirds, raptors and other protected birds, special-status bats, mountain lions, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats, American badgers; adverse effects on jurisdictional wetlands and other waters; conflicts with County ordinances and policies intended to protect biological resources, including oak woodlands.
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: Adverse impacts on known historical or archaeological resources; damage to unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources; disturbance of human remains. • Geology, Soils, and Paleontology: Increased potential for slope instability and slope failure. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); conflict with applicable GHG plans, policies, or regulations.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Accidental release of existing soil contaminants, such as historic pesticide residues.
• Hydrology and Water Quality: Substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. • Transportation: Roadway hazards due to the presence of large construction trucks, temporary lane closures and detours; inadequate emergency access.
4.4 Alternatives Discussion
4.4.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Analysis
The following alternatives initially were considered, but were not evaluated in detail because they would not achieve the primary objective of developing a long-term source of aggregate, they are infeasible, and/or they would not reduce the significant impacts of the Project.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Offsite Location
In considering an alternative location in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines advise that consideration of “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location” (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)(A)). The CEQA Guidelines do not require analysis of off-site alternatives in every case. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and meet most of the project objectives need be considered in an EIR’s alternatives analysis. In determining whether potential alternative sites are feasible, factors to be considered include whether the project proponent could reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1).
The Project is an aggregate mine and processing facility. A project of this nature and type is only viable within areas that are known to contain accessible aggregate materials. To be considered feasible, properties must meet the necessary requirements for approval and successful operation of an aggregate quarry and processing plant, including the following:
• Sufficient size: The location of the quarry/aggregate resource must be buffered from surrounding sensitive receptors to avoid impacts and ensure feasibility; • Known high-quality reserve of aggregate material;
• Proximity to major transportation corridor;
• The site must be available for mining; and
• Distance to markets: The site must be close enough to its customer base to be delivered efficiently and at a reasonable cost.
A potential alternative location for the Project was considered and rejected as infeasible and overly speculative for the reasons described below.
There are significant obstacles to finding an alternative site location for potential purchase by the Project Applicant. First, consideration of available lands would be limited to those with access to a major freeway and/or rail line that are within 30 miles of the greater Bay Area market. This limits the potential properties to those in the vicinity of the current site location, given that locating a quarry farther to the north would put it into areas with more urban development patterns that are not feasible for sand and gravel (the raw materials for aggregate) quarry development. To the south of the site is an area designated by the State as having a high likelihood of mineral resources. However, there are several existing quarries (Stevens Creek Quarries in San Juan Bautista Plant and Aromas and Logan Quarry), making it highly unlikely that a third quarry would be feasible given the lack of land, limited space, and smaller parcel sizes (California Department of Conservation, 1999).
To the north of the site is a reclaimed hard rock quarry and urban development in the City of Gilroy. While some mineral resources have been identified even farther north (in unincorporated County areas near San Martin), the small parcel sizes and proximity of developed areas (which include agricultural, commercial, and residential uses) make development of an aggregate mine infeasible. To the northwest, the terrain is extensively wooded and inaccessible by vehicle and no
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
rail lines are present (UPRR, 2019; BNSF, 2019), making access to these sites difficult. Further, these lands are not within an identified Mineral Resource Zone by the State. Directly west (in Santa Cruz County) are lands that have been identified as having a high likelihood of the presence of mineral resources or where information is inadequate to make an assessment of likelihood.
These lands are, however, only accessible from the west side of the Santa Cruz range, requiring long haul trips to transport aggregate to the areas where it is in demand east of the mountain range. The sites are zoned Timber Production (TP), Commercial Agriculture (CA), and Commercial Agriculture with an Agricultural Preserve and Farmland Security Combining District (CA-P). Mining is not allowed on land zoned CA or CA-P. These areas are heavily wooded, and the topography and terrain would make access and mining challenging given current practices.
These areas also contain habitat for sensitive for plant and wildlife species and contain intermittent and perennial water features and riparian areas (County of Santa Cruz, 2019).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(B) specifically recognizes mining projects to be an example of why evaluation of an alternative location may not be feasible, because the location of any mineral resources is fixed to the specific site, cannot move, and may not be available elsewhere. This is the primary reason why a specific alternative location for the Project could not be identified and is not considered further in this EIR.
Alternative Use
An alternative new use for the Project site was considered and rejected. The Project site is currently used for a cattle operation, which is consistent with the zoning. Mining and associated aggregate processing are allowed uses subject to first obtaining a Use Permit. The Project site is not zoned for urban uses, such as housing and commercial development. While the site could be rezoned, a housing and/or commercial use alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives. In response to the Notice of Preparation for the Project, it was suggested that there could be a better use of the Project site mining, such as a park. While a park may have fewer environmental impacts than an aggregate mine (depending on the type of park and its layout), it would not meet any of the project objectives and so has not been carried forward for detailed review.
4.5 Alternatives to the Project
Each of the three potentially feasible alternatives for detailed consideration is described below, followed by a discussion of the extent to which the impacts of the alternative would be similar, less severe than or more severe than the impacts of the Project. A comparison of the relative impacts of the Project and alternatives is provided in Table 4-5 at the end of this chapter.
Consistent with CEQA, the comparison focuses on the potential significant impacts of the Project; less-than-significant impacts are not addressed.
4.5.1 Alternative 1: No Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(4) requires that an EIR specifically discuss a “No Project” alternative, which shall address both the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-8 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved. The CEQA Guidelines stipulate that an EIR specifically include a “No Project” alternative to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project alternative be what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved.
Description
Under the No Project Alternative, the site would remain under its current grazing use.1 Agricultural cultivation also could occur and would be allowed by right without the need to secure a land use entitlement or County permit; however, the site historically has been used for cattle grazing and there is no evidence that cultivation of crops other than hay for cattle would occur. Therefore, this analysis assumes that there would be no change in the current agricultural uses.
Relationship of Alternative 1 to Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project’s objectives.
Environmental Analysis
Impacts Identified as Being the Same or Similar to the Project Alternative 1 would not have any impacts that are the same or similar to the Project, because no mining would occur, and no improvements would be made to the Project site, Old Monterey Road or U.S. 101.
Impacts Identified as Being Less Severe than the Project All of the impacts identified for the Project would be avoided under Alternative 1, because there would be no change to existing conditions.
Impacts Identified as Being More Severe than the Project Based on the existing conditions documented in Chapter 3, no impacts identified for the Project would be more severe under the No Project alternative. It is possible that the demand for aggregate could lead to another similar project being developed elsewhere in the region, and that such a project would have impacts on the environment. The nature and severity of such impacts would depend, among other factors, on the location and conditions of the site to be mined and its distances traveled for deliveries and employees. Because it would be speculative to make 1 At a regular meeting on January 23, 2018, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors approved a referral to County Administration to work with interested conservation partners and property owners to explore the opportunity to acquire the property or easements to conserve all or some of the Sargent Ranch property. The County of Santa Clara Parkland Acquisition Plan 2012 Update (“Update”) identifies suitable zones for acquisition of lands reflecting the policies of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The Update does not represent an absolute plan for targeted properties. Figure 5-1 (p. 59) of the Update identifies areas of potential acquisition, including the future Castro Valley Park zone. This zone includes property surrounding the Sargent Ranch property. The acquisition of the property for potential habitat and/or parks and recreation purposes can be considered as a variation of the No Project Alternative that also would not meet any of the Project’s objectives. Acquisition would have similar impacts as the No Project Alternative; potential end uses and their impacts are too speculative to evaluate in this EIR.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
assumptions about how exactly aggregate demand would be met in the future, for the purposes of this EIR, no impacts would result from the No Project alternative. However, it should be noted that to the extent that aggregate is exported from outside of the Bay Area in order to meet demand for aggregate within the Bay Area, impacts related to transportation, including air and greenhouse emissions and noise, could be more severe than the impacts of the proposed Project.
4.5.2 Alternative 2: Phases 1 and 2 Only and Relocated
Processing Plant
This alternative is designed to reduce impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources by eliminating the impacts on the Betevel Bluff and archaeological site CA-SCL-578/H, and reduce the extent to which the processing plant would disturb wildlife movement. This alternative would also reduce impacts associated with grading, mining, processing, and transportation activities by reducing the amount of aggregate that would be mined.
Description
Elimination of Phases 3 and 4
Under Alternative 2, mining would occur at Phases 1 and 2 as described for the Project, but Phases 3 and 4 would be eliminated. The conveyor belt/access road connecting Phases 3 and 4 to the processing plant and the crossing of Sargent Creek would also be eliminated.
A total of 21.5 million cy (32.25 million tons) of product would be mined and processed under Alternative 2 (as compared to 25.3 million cy or 38 million tons for proposed Project), a reduction of 3.8 million cy or 5.7 tons of material. A total of 29.6 million cy would be excavated under Alternative 2 (as compared to 35 million cy under the proposed Project), a reduction of approximately 5.4 million cy. This represents an approximately 15.5 percent reduction in the amount of total excavation and a 15.1 percent reduction in the amount of product that would be processed and sold. Table 4-3 summarizes the amount of aggregate, overburden and topsoil that would be excavated under Alternative 2.
TABLE 4-3
ALTERNATIVE 2: ESTIMATED MINING AND EXCAVATION QUANTITIES (CUBIC YARDS) Mining Phase Product Topsoila Overburdenb Excavation Total Phase 1 9,600,000 375,000 3,325,000 13,300,000
Phase 2 11,900,000 300,000 4,100,000 16,300,000
Phase 3 0 0 0 0
Phase 4 0 0 0 0
Total 21,500,000 675,000 7,425,000 29,600,000
NOTES:
a. Topsoil represents approximately the top 2 feet of soils on the site. b. Overburden is the material (e.g., soil and rock) that lies above the economically valuable mineral resources; in this case the mineral resources are sand and gravel suitable for use as concrete grade aggregate.
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Mining and Reclamation Plan, February 2022. Table 4.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Relocated Processing Plant
Under Alternative 2, the processing plant would be relocated approximately 1 mile north of the location proposed by the Project (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2). This alternative processing plant site is outside of the Project site, but within Sargent Ranch. The alternative site is relatively flat, but would require more grading than the site proposed by the Project. There are several oak trees on the alternative site, and they would remain in place. Plant equipment and stockpiles would be located to avoid the trees.
The processing plant would include the same components as delineated for the Project, including the aggregate processing plant, shop and maintenance buildings, vehicle parking areas, storage yard (miscellaneous equipment and materials), office/scale house, stockpiles (product, overburden, and topsoil), process water pond, storm water basins and groundwater well.
With the relocation of the processing plant, a screening berm would not be necessary adjacent to U.S. 101 due to the processing plant distance from U.S. 101 (over 500 feet). Instead, a solid fence would be constructed around the perimeter of the plant.
The processing plant would be of similar size to the Project plant, 14 acres, but would be relocated adjacent to Old Monterey Road, approximately 0.75 mile south of the U.S. 101 exit and approximately 0.85 mile north of the Tar Creek crossing (see Figure 4-2). Under Alternative 2, Old Monterey Road would be improved and maintained to accommodate haul trucks. However, this alternative would eliminate the ability to access northbound U.S. 101 on the east side of the highway (as shown in Figure 2-11, Ingress and Egress). Rather, northbound trucks—approximately 40 percent of the total truck trips—would depart the processing plant via Old Monterey Road onto U.S. 101, head south on U.S. 101, and turn around at Betabel Road/Y Road to travel north.
South of the alternative processing plant site, Old Monterey Road would be realigned to the northwest and the bridge across Tar Creek would be located upstream (west) of the bridge site proposed by the Project (see Figure 4-1). A new (minimum) 15-foot-wide roadway would be constructed with a similar free-span crossing of Tar Creek at the new location. A conveyor belt also would be constructed along the roadway alignment between the processing plant and the Phase 1 mining site. The conveyor belt would be approximately 1 mile long, and would be elevated at intervals to allow wildlife to pass beneath, similar to the conveyor belt to the Phases 3 and 4 area under the Project.
Other Components of the Project
Other components would be identical to the Project, including Phase 1 and 2 mining, the conveyor belt between the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas, the location of the overburden stockpile, and improvements to Old Monterey Road.
Under Alternative 2, the amount of mining-related ground disturbance would be reduced from approximately 298.2 acres to 218.2 acres (exclusive of geotechnical setbacks) due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the screening berm. The elimination of the geotechnical setbacks for Phases 3 and 4 would reduce ground disturbance by an additional 23.46 acres. Total
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
disturbance under Alternative 2 would be approximately 299.3 acres, compared to 403.29 acres under the Project, a reduction of approximately 26 percent.
Alternative 2 would occur over the same period as the Project. It is assumed that the processing plant, conveyor belt to Phases 1 and 2, Tar Creek bridge and road improvements would occur in the first year, and that mining would occur over a 30-year period. Because the amount of aggregate mined and processed would be reduced by 15 percent, but the mining period of 30 years would not change, the amount of product produced each year would be reduced. The maximum amount of product that would be produced would be 5,100 tons on a single day, and
1.581 million tons per year.
The hours of operation would accordingly be reduced to 7:30am to 5:00 pm. These hours of operation would be consistent with the County Code, so a variance would not be required.
Reclamation activities would be identical to the Project, except that they would not occur in the Phase 3 and 4 area.
A schedule for Alternative 2 is provided in Table 4-4.
TABLE 4-4
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION, MINING, AND RECLAMATION ACTIONS Actions Begin Completed Excavation Total
(cy)
Product Total
(cy)
Project Approvals and Permitting n/a March 2023
Project Construction March 2023 December 2023
Phase 1: Mining January 2024 January 2037 13,300,000 9,600,000 Reclamation February 2037 February 2042
Phase 2: Mining February 2037 February 2053 16,300,000 11,900,000 Reclamation March 2053 March 2058
Removal of Plant and Final
Reclamation May 2058 May 2058
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Reclamation Plan, February 2022.
The number of employees for construction, operation and reclamation would be the same as for the Project.
Relationship of Alternative 2 to Project Objectives
Alternative 2 would meet all of the Project Objectives, although not to the extent the Project would. Alternative 2 would provide for a long-term source of high-quality aggregate, although less than would be available under the Project. Thus it would not achieve an important Project objective, developing a long-term source of high-quality aggregate needed for various uses in the County and other local markets, as well as the proposed Project. Like the Project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with SMARA, use rail transport to partially offset the use of haul trucks, and implement a reclamation plan that provides for slope stability, prevents erosion and establishes self-sustaining native and naturalized vegetation cover. As discussed in greater detail, below,
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Alternative 2 would reduce impacts on sensitive natural and cultural resources compared to the Project by reducing the extent of grading and excavation, relocating the Tar Creek bridge away from the wildlife crossing, and avoiding the Betevel Bluff Tribal Cultural Resource.
Environmental Analysis Impacts Identified as Being the Same or Similar to the Project as Proposed
Biological Resources
The impact on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat would be similar to the Project, due to the construction of a crossing of Tar Creek, where its nests have been observed (Impact 3.4-12).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-12 would reduce this to a less-than-significant level for both the Project and Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would partially reduce certain impacts on jurisdictional and other waters by avoiding intermittent and ephemeral drainages located in the Phase 3 mining area and the footprint of the conveyor belt and Sargent Creek (Impacts 3.4-14 and 3.4-21). Specifically, under Alternative 2, impacts on creeks, streams and drainages would be reduced by approximately 900 feet, or 13 percent compared to the Project (see Table 3.4-1). Impacts on the stock pond in the Phase 2 area, seasonal wetlands and wetland seep would be the same as the Project, because these features occur within the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas and/or other components that would be part of either Alternative 2 or the Project.
As discussed above, a seasonal pond is located near the site of the relocated processing plant under Alternative 2. The plant site included in the Project does not contain any jurisdictional or other waters. Impacts on the seasonal pond would therefore be more severe due to the proximity of the relocated processing plant to a seasonal pond. Sufficient area is available to construct the plant at this location while avoiding a direct impact to the pond. However, development of a processing plant at this site could reduce inflow to the pond from surface runoff (Impacts 3.4-14 and 3.4-21). For both the Project and Alternative 2, impacts on jurisdictional and other waters would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.4-14.
Because Alternative 2 would reduce the impacts on creeks, streams and drainages relative to the Project, but at the same time could adversely affect the pond near the relocated processing plant, the impact on jurisdictional and other waters is, on balance, similar to the impact of the Project.
Alternative 2 would have a similar impact on those County ordinances and policies that are intended to protect biological resources (Impact 3.4-16 and 3.4-23). Heritage trees and 99 percent of coast live oak forest and woodland within the Project site are located in areas that would be disturbed under Alternative 2, primarily the Phase 1 and 2 mining and geotechnical setback areas.
Therefore, this impact would be similar to the Project, and would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-16.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Hazardous Materials
Under both Alternative 2 and the Project, the permanent overburden stockpile would be located in an area that may have been subject to pesticide use in the past (Impacts 3.9-2 and 3.9-3). This impact would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 for both the Project and Alternative 2.
Impacts Identified as Being Less Severe than the Project as Proposed Air Quality
Alternative 2 would generate air emissions similar to the Project, but at a reduced amount due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4. Project emissions are estimated to exceed NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 standards on a daily basis and NOx and PM10 on an annual basis (see Table 3.3-6 and Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-5). Under Alternative 2, the amount of aggregate mined and processed on a daily and annual average would be reduced by approximately 15 percent. Alternative 2 would also reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by construction due to the elimination of the conveyor belt and access road to Phases 3 and 4. Air emissions associated with construction and mining activities would be reduced by approximately 15 percent.
This reduction would be partially offset by an increase in vehicle miles traveled due to the relocation of the processing plant. The processing plant would be approximately one mile closer to the U.S. 101 exit under Alternative 2, which would reduce the length of travel by haul trips to the plant by two miles (roundtrip). At the same time, under Alternative 2, these trucks would have a longer route to access U.S. 101 northbound, because they would go south to the Betevel exit, and then access northbound U.S 101. The distance between the on-ramp and the Betevel off-ramp is approximately five miles. The net increase in each haul trip would be approximately 6.5 miles.
As discussed in more detail under Transportation, below, under Alternative 2 there would be an approximately 11 percent reduction in haul truck-related VMT (offsite), which would reduce vehicle-related emissions (off-site haul trips are the largest single source of Project NOx emissions).
The elimination of Phases 3 and 4 would also reduce the number of trips and distance traveled on unpaved roads within the Project site, which are the main sources of both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. While total emissions would be lower under Alternative 2 compared to the Project, they would continue to exceed the same thresholds. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would reduce the amount of daily average NOx and annual PM10 to below the significance thresholds but average daily emissions of PM10 would remain above the threshold. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, but would be less severe under Alternative 2. Further, while the applicable thresholds are daily and annual, the total emissions over the 30-year term of the mining permit would be reduced due to the reduction in mining activity.
Biological Resources
Alternative 2 would reduce impacts on most special-status species and their habitat. Based on the acreages shown by phase in Table 3.4-1 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Alternative 2 would disturb approximately 234 acres of annual grasslands, compared to 337 acres under the Project, an approximate 31 percent reduction. Alternative 2 would result in the loss of 10.87 acres of mixed riparian habitat, compared to 11.41 acres under the Project, an approximately 5 percent reduction. Impacts associated with other habitat types would be similar to the Project.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The Project site provides suitable habitat for 11 special-status plant species. Under Alternative 2, the plant habitat that could be lost to ground disturbance would be reduced due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the conveyor belt connecting these areas to the processing plant under the Project. (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-17). Similarly, Alternative 2 would reduce the disturbance of habitat for special-status wildlife species, including burrowing owls (Impact 3.4-7); tricolored black birds (Impact 3.4-8); raptors and migratory birds (Impact 3.4-9); mountain lion (Impact 3.4-11); and badgers (Impact3.4-13) and cumulative impacts on these terrestrial species (Impact 3.4-20).
Mitigation Measures 3.4-1, 3.4-4(a) through (c), 3.4-5(c), 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, 3.4-13 and 3.4-15 would be required to reduce impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level; nevertheless, the impacts would be less severe under Alternative 2.
Because Alternative 2 would not require a crossing over Sargent Creek, the impact on potential special-status fish habitat would be reduced (Impacts 3.4-3 and 3.4-19). The reduction in disturbance area would also reduce the potential for erosion and contaminants to degrade water quality, lessening the impact on habitat for fish. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 would ensure that this impact would be less than significant for both the Project and Alternative 2. Like the Project, the design of the Tar Creek bridge would benefit fish under Alternative 2, because the bridge would span the creek so that traffic no longer drives through the creek bed.
Alternative 2 would reduce the impact on California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Impact 3.4-4) by eliminating the potential for breeding ponds to be created in the Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas; by eliminating changes in the vicinity of the pond located south of Phase 3; and by reducing the loss of uplands and riparian habitat due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the associated conveyor belt. Mitigation Measures 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 would still be required to reduce impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level; nevertheless, the impact would be less severe under Alternative 2.
Western pond turtle, which has been documented in a pond 1,100 feet south of the processing plant site, also could take advantage of ponds created within quarries, the creeks, and uplands, and therefore be vulnerable to harm during construction and operation (Impact 3.4-6).
Alternative 2 would reduce the potential for harm of this species by reducing the number of quarries, the crossing of Sargent Creek and the amount of acreage that would be disturbed.
Mitigation Measures 3.4-3, and 3.4-4(a) and (b) would reduce impacts on the species and its habitat to a less-than-significant level for both the Project and Alternative 2, but the impact would be less severe under Alternative 2 than for the Project.
Alternative 2 would reduce the loss of habitat for two special-status bat species that have the potential to occur within the Project site--western red bat and pallid bat (Impact 3.4-10) by reducing the amount of annual grassland that is disturbed by approximately 31percent (from 337 acres to 234 acres and the amount of mixed riparian woodland and forest by 0.54 acres, or about 5 percent (see Table 3.4-1). Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 would still be required to reduce impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level under Alternative 2, but the impact would be less severe than under the Project.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-15 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Under the Project, the only significant and unavoidable impact on biological resources would be due to impediments to wildlife movement between important U.S. 101 undercrossings (particularly the Tick Creek, Tar Creek/UPRR, and Pajaro River undercrossings) (Impacts 3.4-15 and 3.4-22). In particular, the proximity of the processing plant, the rail spur and Project traffic to the Tar Creek undercrossing could interfere with wildlife movement. Under Alternative 2, the processing plant would be located approximately 0.85 mile from the Tar Creek undercrossing of U.S. 101, so it would substantially reduce the impediment to wildlife movement at Tar Creek and Pajaro River undercrossings.
Alternative 2 would include approximately 1 mile of the conveyor belt to connect the processing plant to the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas. Most of the conveyor belt would be located along Old Monterey Road, so it would be in an area where there is already some disturbance. The rail spur would still be needed, and there would be some infrastructure associated with loading rail cars, but that would be farther from the undercrossing than the Project plant site. The Alternative 2 site would be 0.2 mile from the Tick Creek undercrossing, so it would likely deter some wildlife from using that culvert. However, the Tick Creek undercrossing is not nearly as heavily used by mammals, particularly large mammals, as Tar Creek and the Pajaro River.
Under Alternative 2, the Tar Creek bridge would be relocated upstream, farther from the U.S. 101 undercrossing. Because heavy truck traffic would not be allowed south of the processing plant under Alternative 2, there would be less vehicle traffic using this bridge, and in the vicinity of undercrossing. There would also be some reduction in the severity of the impact due to the elimination of the Phase 3 and 4 quarries and the 1.6-mile long conveyor belt to Phases 3 and 4, which could also deter wildlife from moving across the Project site.
While Alternative 2 would substantially reduce impacts on wildlife movement, the impact would still be significant due to the conveyor belts which would extend across the entire western side of both the Tar Creek and Pajaro River crossing locations (i.e., wildlife moving to and from each undercrossing would have to navigate that belt at some point). Therefore, Mitigation Measure
3.4-15 would be required of Alternative 2, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cultural Resources
There are two known archaeological sites (CA-SCL-578/H and CA-SLC-577/H), one of which may contain human remains, that would be affected by truck traffic using Old Monterey Road and the road that would be used to access northbound U.S. 101(Impacts 3.5-1, 3.5-3, 3.5-6 and
3.5-8). Under Alternative 2, Old Monterey Road would be rerouted to avoid archaeological site CA-SCL-578/H (Impacts 3.5-1, 3.5-2, 3.5-3, 3.5-6 and 3.5-8). In addition, heavy truck traffic would not be able to use the road and underpass to access U.S. 101, further avoiding this archaeological site. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not have an adverse impact on known resources associated with CA-SCL-578/H. Further, the number of truck trips on these roads would be reduced by approximately 15 percent under Alternative 2, so there would be less wear and tear on the road. The northern segment of Old Monterey Road would still be used to access the processing plant, so the impact on CA-SCL-577/H would be substantially lessened but still significant. While this would create less potential for damage to the archaeological sites,
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3b still would be needed to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.
Alternative 2 would disturb approximately 104 fewer acres, most of which are considered highly sensitive for archaeological resources (Impacts 3.5-2 and 3.5-7) by eliminating Phases 3 and 4.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would still be necessary to reduce the potential for damage to resources in the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas, the processing plant, the bridge and the roads. As with the Project, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources (Impacts 3.5-4,
3.5-5 and 3.5-9). As discussed above, the impacts on CA-SCL-578/H and CA-SLC-577/H, which are individually Tribal Cultural Resources, would be reduced due to the relocation of the processing plant and circulation changes, and the reduction in truck traffic (Impact 3.5-4). The impact on the Betevel Bluff would be entirely eliminated because it would be undisturbed.
Therefore, Impact 3.5-4 would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 under Alternative 2, compared to the significant and unavoidable impact (even with mitigation) that would occur under the Project. The impact on the Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape (JTCL) would be less severe under Alternative 2 due to the reduction in acreage that would be disturbed and the avoidance of Betevel Bluff (Impact 3.5-4). Nonetheless, the alteration of the JTCL, including impacts related to topography and/or vegetation would be substantial, and the impacts would therefore be significant. Impacts 3.5-5 and 3.5-9 would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-5.
Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Under the Alternative 2, approximately 104 fewer acres would be disturbed, and fewer mine bench cuts would be made. The potential for slope-stability impacts to occur would be eliminated in the Phase 3 and 4 area (Impact 3.7-2). Although this impact would be reduced, Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 would still be required to address potential slope instability at Phases 1 and 2 to a less-than-significant level.
Significant-and-unavoidable paleontological impacts also would be reduced due to a smaller area of highly sensitive geological layers being disturbed; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to excavation at Phases 1 and 2 (Impacts 3.7-5 and 3.7-6), even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-5.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 2, the area that would be disturbed would be reduced by approximately 19 percent and the amount of excavation would be reduced by approximately 15.5 percent.
Vehicle miles travelled would also be reduced, but by approximately 8 percent due to the increased trip length for northbound trucks and employees (see transportation discussion below). Therefore, this alternative would generate fewer overall GHG emissions compared to emissions that would be generated under the Project (see Impacts 3.8-1 and 3.8-2). Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would generate substantial GHG emissions, a significant impact, so the impact would require Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 to be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-17 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Hydrology and Water Quality
The area that would be disturbed during construction would be reduced under Alternative 2 due to the elimination of the conveyor belt to the Phase 3 and 4 mining site (Impacts 3.10-1 and 3.10- 10). Consequently, the potential for degradation of water quality due to soil erosion during construction would be reduced. As with the Project, this impact would be a less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, which addresses water quality.
Transportation
Under Alternative 2, there would be an approximately 15 percent reduction in haul truck trips commensurate with the reduction in the amount of aggregate being processed and sold (Impacts 3.13-2 and 3.13-5). The number of employees is assumed to be unchanged, so there the number of employee trips would be the same as the Project. As discussed under Air Quality, the prohibition on the use of the undercrossing and access to the northbound onramp near the Project site would result in a net increase in each outbound, northbound haul trip of approximately 6.5 miles. In addition, employees heading northbound would increase their trip lengths by approximately 6.5 percent. This would offset the reduction in the number of trips, so that the total reduction in VMT would be approximately 8 percent. Therefore, this significant and unavoidable impact under Alternative 2 would be only slightly less severe than under the Project.
Under Alternative 2, there would be no improvements to the northbound on-ramp to U.S. 101.
Therefore, the potential for conflicts between on-ramp construction and highway traffic, as well as potential interference with emergency vehicles, would be reduced (Impacts 3.13-3, 3.13-4 and
3.13-6). However, such conflicts could occur due to delivery of wide loads and other construction activities that would occur under both Alternative 2 and the Project. In both cases, these impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-3.
Impacts Identified as Being More Severe than the Project as Proposed Aesthetics
Under the Project, Phases 3 and 4 and the conveyor belt would be mostly obscured by surrounding topography and would not be clearly visible from U.S. 101 or other sensitive viewpoints. Therefore, removing Phases 3 and 4 under Alternative 2 would not substantially reduce the visual impacts of mining.
Under Alternative 2, the processing plant would be relocated to about one mile north of the location proposed by the Project. No screening berm would be constructed; rather, a fence would be installed around the perimeter of the processing plant. During initial Project construction, the visual impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the Project. As Project construction progresses, the visual impacts of Alternative 2 would be slightly worse than those of the Project as the screening berm would not be present to block views of the final stages of Project construction.
During operation of Alternative 2, unobstructed views would be available of Phase 1 and 2 mining from some viewpoints (Impacts 3.1-1 and 3.2-3). The Project would include a screening berm which would screen views of the mining equipment and activities at the lower elevations of
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-18 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
the hillsides during Phases 1 and 2. Under Alternative 2, no screening berm would be in place, so views from U.S. 101 of the mining site and surrounding landscape would be more open than under the Project. Views of mining activities would be partially obscured by the overburden stockpile, which would be located approximately 300 feet from the highway, adjacent to Phase 1 (see Figure 4-1). This stockpile would be up to 90 feet tall. Because it would be setback from the highway, it would not fully block views of mining activity like the Project screening berm. But any equipment or activity that occurred below the top of the stockpile would be obscured, and it would interrupt the line-of-sight to some activities in the distance. However, equipment and mining activity on the upper hills would be visible. Further, the stockpile itself would be an artificial structure introduced into the viewshed. Because there would be no screening berm, mining activities for Phases 1 and 2 would be more visible from U.S. 101 than under the Project, and would result in a high change to views from the highway.
The processing plant would be surrounded by a fence, and would be farther from U.S. 101 than under the Project, but the addition of a fenced facility would result in a moderate to high change in views from an additional U.S. 101. For these reasons, compared to the Project, operation of Alternative 2 would result in more severe aesthetic impacts.
The Project would result in aesthetic impacts during project reclamation as the screening berm would remain in place and would continue to block views of the surrounding hillsides and the reclaimed project hills, resulting in a significant amount of visual contrast compared with preProject conditions. Under Alternative 2, there would be no screening berm; therefore, reclamation activities would be more visible from U.S. 101. While elimination of the screening berm would allow for broader views of the landscape, and reclamation would involve regrading and revegetating the Project site to resemble pre-Project conditions, the ultimate visual appearance of the hills on the Project Site would differ substantially from existing conditions. For these reasons, Alternative 2 would result in a high degree of visual change compared to existing conditions.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, as revised below, would reduce the significant visual impacts of Alternative 2 described above. However, even with mitigation, views of the Project site would be substantially altered during operation and after reclamation. Therefore, the visual impacts of Alternative 2 would be significant and unavoidable and would be more severe than those of the Project.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1(a): Once constructed, the Applicant shall contour the screening berm northern and eastern edges of the overburden stockpile to resemble surrounding land features, to the extent possible, and shall plant fast-growing native vegetation. The screening berm shall either be extended around the northern portion of the processing plant, or fencing and vegetation shall be used to further screen views of the processing plant from southbound traffic on U.S. 101. Native vegetation and/or trees shall be planted around the northern portion of the processing plant to further screen views of the processing plant from viewpoints on southbound U.S. 101 that would not be blocked by the screening berm. The proposed final design for screening shall be reviewed by the County prior to construction in order to ensure that views of the processing plant and other mining activities are screened to the extent possible by a combination of the screening berm, fencing, and vegetation in order to achieve a natural appearance.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-19 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Biological Resources
Alternative 2 would partially reduce the impact on California tiger salamander (CTS) (Impact
3.4-5) by eliminating the potential for breeding ponds to be created in the Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas; by eliminating changes in the vicinity of the pond located south of Phase 3; and by reducing the loss of uplands and riparian habitat due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the associated conveyor belt. At the same time, the processing plant would be located immediately adjacent to a seasonal pond that is used by CTS for breeding. Even if the pond itself is not directly affected, placing the processing plant in this location could reduce runoff that supports ponding in that feature. Further, the plant would occupy upland dispersal and refugial habitat used by salamanders, and could impede the movement of salamanders to and from that pond.
Mitigation Measures 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 would still be required to reduce significant impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level; nevertheless, the impact would be more severe under Alternative 2.
4.5.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Phases 1 and 2 Only, Relocated Processing Plant and Addition of Screening Berm
The intent of Alternative 3 is to reduce impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources and sensitive habitats, similar to Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 would address visual impacts by constructing a berm adjacent to the Phase 1 mining area, and would reduce VMT and air and GHG emissions by substantially reducing the amount of mining.
Elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and Reduction in Mining
Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, Phases 3 and 4 would not be mined. In addition, the amount of mining in Phases 1 and 2 would each be reduced by 15 percent. As a result, the amount of aggregate to be mined and processed would be reduced to 18.3 million cy (27.4 million tons) compared to 25.3 million cy under the Project, a reduction of approximately 7.1 million cy (10.6 million tons), or 28 percent.
Relocation of Processing Plant
As with Alternative 2, the processing plant would be relocated approximately 1 mile north of the location proposed by the Project (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The processing plant would occupy approximately 14 acres, and would include the same components as delineated for the Project, including the aggregate processing plant, shop and maintenance buildings, vehicle parking areas, storage yard (miscellaneous equipment and materials), office/scale house, stockpiles (product, overburden, and topsoil), process water pond, storm water basins and groundwater well.
Screening Berm
With the relocation of the processing plant, a screening berm would not be necessary adjacent to U.S. 101. However, without the screening berm, the mining area would be visible from the highway. Therefore, unlike Alternative 2, a screening berm would be constructed closer to the mining area. Under Alternative 3, the screening berm would be located at the edge of the Phase 1 mining area, approximately 400 feet west of U.S. 101. The berm would be approximately 35 feet
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-20 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
tall (from ground surface) and 300 feet long, occupying approximately 0.3 acre. The berm would be constructed of overburden taken from the Phase 1 mining area. After all mining is complete, the berm would be removed, and the area would be reclaimed.
In addition to including a screening berm, to reduce the visual impact of mining under Alternative 3, the mining would not occur at elevations above 500 feet (msl), so that the upper levels of the mining area would remain intact.
Excavation Summary
Under Alternative 3, the amount of aggregate to be mined and processed would be reduced as a result of the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the retention of the upper levels of the Phase 1 mining area. As shown in Table 4-5, the total amount of aggregate to be mined would be reduced to 18.28 million cy or 27.41 million tons, a reduction of approximately 28 percent compared to the Project. A total of 25.13 million cy would be excavated under Alternative 3 (as compared to 35 million cy under the proposed Project). This represents a 28 percent reduction in the amount of total excavation.
Other Components of the Project
Other components would be identical or similar to the Project and Alternative 2, including construction and mining techniques and equipment, the conveyor belt between the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas, the location of the overburden stockpile, and improvements to Old Monterey Road.
TABLE 4-5
ALTERNATIVE 3: ESTIMATED MINING AND EXCAVATION QUANTITIES (CUBIC YARDS) Mining Phase Product Topsoila Overburdenb Excavation Total Phase 1 8,160,000 318,750 2,826,250 11,305,00
Phase 2 10,115,000 255,000 3,485,000 13,855,000
Phase 3 0 0 0 0
Phase 4 0 0 0 0
Total 18,275,000 573,750 6,311,250 25,160,000
NOTES:
a Topsoil represents approximately the top 2 feet of soils on the site. b Overburden is the material (e.g., soil and rock) that lies above the economically valuable mineral resources; in this case the mineral resources are sand and gravel suitable for use as concrete grade aggregate.
SOURCE: Modified from Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Mining and Reclamation Plan, February 2022. Table 4.
As discussed above, with the reduction in the amount of product to be mined, the annual amount of aggregate would be reduced, by approximately 28 percent. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the hours of operation would be reduced to 7:30am to 5:00 pm, similar to Alternative 2.
These hours of operation would be consistent with the County Code, so a variance would not be required. Reclamation activities would be identical to the Project, except that they would not occur in the Phase 3 and 4 area.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-21 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
A schedule for Alternative 3 is provided in Table 4-6..
TABLE 4-6
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION, MINING, AND RECLAMATION ACTIONS Actions Begin Completed Excavation Total
(cy)
Product Total
(cy)
Project Approvals and Permitting n/a March 2023
Project Construction March 2023 December 2023
Phase 1: Mining January 2024 January 2037 11,305,00 8,160,000 Reclamation February 2037 February 2042
Phase 2: Mining February 2037 February 2053 13,855,000 10,115,000 Reclamation March 2053 March 2058
Removal of Plant and Final
Reclamation May 2058 May 2058
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Reclamation Plan, February 2022.
The area to be disturbed would also be reduced under Alternative 3. Mining under Phases 3 and 4 and the conveyor belt would disturb approximately 80.5 acres, and the geotechnical setbacks would disturb approximately 23.46 acres if fully used. The total disturbance area potential for Phases 3 and 4, which no longer occur under Alternative 3, would be approximately 104 acres.
This disturbance would not occur under Alternative 3. In addition, there would be a 15 percent reduction in mining of Phases 1 and 2, with a commensurate reduction in the area of disturbance for those two areas. Under Alternative 3, the total area to be disturbed would be approximately 276.5 acres, including the Phase 1 and 2 geotechnical setbacks, compared to 403.3 acres under the Project. This represents a reduction of approximately 127 acres, approximately 31 percent.
The maximum amount of product that would be produced would be 4,326 tons on a single day, and 1.341 million tons per year.
The number of employees for construction, operation and reclamation would be the same as for the Project.
Relationship of Alternative 3 to Project Objectives
Alternative 3 would meet all of the Project Objectives, although not to the extent the Project would.
Alternative 3 would provide for a long-term source of high-quality aggregate, although less than would be available under the Project. Thus it would not achieve an important Project objective, developing a long-term source of high-quality aggregate needed for various uses in the County and other local markets, as well as the proposed Project. Like the Project, Alternative 3 would be consistent with SMARA, use rail transport to partially offset the use of haul trucks, and implement a reclamation plan that provides for slope stability, prevents erosion and establishes self-sustaining native and naturalized vegetation cover. Alternative 3 would minimize impacts on sensitive natural and cultural resources to a greater extent than the Project due to the relocation of the processing plant, the change in haul truck circulation and the reduction in the amount of mining. The
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-22 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
objective of minimizing visual effects would be achieved to a similar degree by using a screening berm to partially obscure views of Phase 1 mining.
Environmental Analysis
Environmental Analysis Impacts Identified as Being the Same or Similar to the Project as Proposed
Biological Resources
The impact on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat would be similar to the Project, due to the construction of a crossing of Tar Creek, where its nests have been observed (Impact 3.4-12).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-12 would reduce this to a less-than-significant level for both the Project and Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 would partially reduce impacts on jurisdictional and other waters by avoiding intermittent and ephemeral drainages located in the Phase 3 mining area and the footprint of the conveyor belt and Sargent Creek (Impacts 3.4-14 and 3.4-21). Specifically, under Alternative 3, impacts on creeks, streams and drainages would be reduced by approximately 900 feet, or 13 percent compared to the Project (see Table 3.4-1). Impacts on the stock pond in the Phase 2 area, seasonal wetlands and wetland seep would be the same as the Project, because these features occur within the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas and/or other components that would be part of either Alternative 3 or the Project. As discussed above, a seasonal pond is located near the site of the relocated processing plan under Alternative 3. The existing plant site does not contain any waters.
Impacts on jurisdictional and other waters would therefore be more severe under Alternative 3 due to the proximity of the relocated processing plant to a seasonal pond. Sufficient area is available to construct the plant at this location while avoiding a direct impact to the pond.
However, development of a processing plant at this site could reduce inflow to the pond from surface runoff (Impacts 3.4-14 and 3.4-21). For both the Project and Alternative 3, impacts on jurisdictional and other would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-14.
Because Alternative 3 would reduce the impacts on creeks, streams and drainages relative to the Project, but at the same time could adversely affect the pond near the relocated processing plant, the impact on jurisdictional and other waters is, on balance, similar to the impact of the Project.
Alternative 3 would have a similar impact on those County ordinances and policies that are intended to protect biological resources (Impact 3.4-16 and 3.4-23). Heritage trees and 99 percent of coast live oak forest and woodland within the Project site are located in areas that would be disturbed under Alternative 3, primarily the Phase 1 and 2 mining and geotechnical setback areas.
The reduction in the footprint of Phases 1 and 2 would occur primarily in grassland areas, so the number of trees and coast life oak forest and woodland acreage subject to disturbance would be similar to the Project. Therefore, this impact would be similar to the Project, and would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-16.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-23 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Hazardous Materials
Under both Alternative 3 and the Project, the permanent overburden stockpile would be located in an area that may have been subject to pesticide use in the past (Impacts 3.9-2 and 3.9-3). In addition, under Alternative 3, a 300-foot berm would be constructed in this area. This impact would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 for both the Project and Alternative 3.
Impacts Identified as Being Less Severe than the Project as Proposed Aesthetics
Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 in many respects. Under Alternative 3, the processing plant would be relocated to about 1 mile north of the location proposed by the Project.
No screening berm would be constructed adjacent to the processing plant; rather, a fence would be constructed around the perimeter of the processing plant. Unlike Alternative 2, however, a screening berm would be located close to the edge of the Phase 1 mining area. Additionally, under Alternative 3, the mining would not occur at elevations above 500 feet (msl), so that the upper levels of the mining area would remain intact.
During initial Project construction, the visual impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those of the Project, with the exception of the processing plant (Impacts 3.2-1 and 3.2-3). Lacking the visual barrier of a screening berm, the processing plant would be surrounded by a fence, and would be farther from U.S. 101 than its location under the Project. However, the addition of this fenced facility would result in a moderate to high visual change in views from U.S. 101 by adding a constructed feature which would be visually dominant.
As the screening berm around Phase 1 is constructed to an approximate height 35 feet (height could vary some depending on topography), the visual impacts of mining would be reduced as mining activities would be visually blocked by the screening berm. As mining progresses, the screening berm adjacent to Phase 1 would block views of mining activities and equipment that are at-grade and/or lower than the top of the berm for viewers south of the Project headed north on U.S. 101.
Additionally, the overburden stockpile would screen views of mining for viewers at the northern end of the Project looking south. Views from U.S. 101 directly east of the mining area would also be partially blocked by the stockpile. The ability of the stockpile to screen views would depend on the size and shape of the stockpile, which may change over the course of mining. Additionally, by lowering the elevation of mining activities as a result of the reduced aggregate production under Alternative 3, the upper portions of hillsides would be left intact (i.e., no visual change) and the visual impact of mining on the hillside would be reduced relative to the Project.
While the overburden stockpile and the screening berm would reduce the visual impacts of mining relative to the Project, they would also be two large artificial structures that would alter the visual characteristics of the viewshed. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, as revised below, would be required to reduce visual impacts.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1(a): Once constructed, the Applicant shall contour the screening berm and the northern and eastern edges of the overburden stockpile to
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-24 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
resemble surrounding land features, to the extent possible, and shall plant fast-growing native vegetation. The screening berm shall either be extended around the northern portion of the processing plant, or fencing and vegetation shall be used to further screen views of the processing plant from southbound traffic on U.S. 101. Native vegetation and/or trees shall be planted around the northern portion of the processing plant to further screen views of the processing plant from viewpoints on southbound U.S. 101 that would not be blocked by the screening berm. The proposed final design for screening shall be reviewed by the County prior to construction in order to ensure that views of the processing plant and other mining areas are screened to the extent possible by a combination of the screening berm, fencing of the processing plant, and vegetation in order to achieve a natural appearance, to the extent possible.
The screening berm and overburden stockpile would reduce visual impacts relative to the Project as they would screen mining activities without the placement of a berm adjacent to U.S. 101. As the stockpile and Alternative 3 screening berm would be located farther away from U.S. 101 than the Project screening berm, they would not be as visually dominant in the foreground views from U.S. 101 and would appear to be visually incorporated into the viewshed as compared to the screening berm in the Project. While this screening would reduce the visual contrast created by the mining equipment, and quarries, the screening berm and overburden stockpile would continue to block views of the Sargent Hills which are an important visual resource. After reclamation, the screening berm and stockpile would be removed and/or the areas recontoured and revegetated to create a more natural appearance. Nonetheless, the topography within the viewshed would be permanently changed due to mining activities. There is no additional feasible mitigation that could further reduce these visual impacts. Therefore, the visual impacts of Alternative 3 would be significant and unavoidable, although less severe than those of the Project.
Air Quality
Alternative 3 would generate air emissions similar to the Project, but at a reduced amount due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and reduction in mining in Phases 1 and 2. Project emissions are estimated to exceed NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 standards on a daily basis and NOx and PM10 on an annual basis (see Table 3.3-6 and Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-4). Under Alternative 3, the amount of aggregate mined and processed on a daily and annual average would be reduced by approximately 28 percent. Alternative 3 would also reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by construction due to the elimination of the conveyor belt and access road to Phases 3 and 4.
VMT would be reduced as well under Alternative 3 by approximately 16.5 percent, taking into account both the reduction in the number of haul trips and the increased trip length (for offsite travel) (see Transportation, below). The reduction in offsite VMT and mining activities would substantially reduce all emissions, but NOx and PM10 emissions would continue to exceed the thresholds (under the Project, NOx emissions exceed the threshold by 53 percent and PM10 emissions by over 900 percent). The combined reductions in emissions would likely reduce PM2.5 emissions below the identified threshold. Project daily PM2.5 emissions are estimated to be 62.2 pounds per day (see Table 3.3-6 in Section 3.3, Air Quality). The primary source of PM2.5 is haul truck travel on onsite unpaved roads. Assuming a 28 percent reduction in onsite haul truck activity, PM2.5 emissions would be reduced to approximately 48 pounds per day, which would be below the
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-25 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
threshold of 54 pounds per day. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would still be required to reduce the amount of daily average NOx and annual PM10 to below the significance thresholds. However, it is anticipated that average daily emissions of PM10 would remain above the threshold, because mitigated Project emissions of PM10 would exceed the threshold by 30 percent. For these reasons, emissions of criteria air pollutants would be substantially reduced under Alternative 3, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, but would be less severe.
Biological Resources
Alternative 3 would reduce impacts on most special-status species and their habitat due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the reduction in the footprint of Phases 1 and 2, the latter of which would be composed primarily of California annual grassland. Based on the acreages shown by phase in Table 3.4-1 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Alternative 3 would disturb approximately 211 acres of annual grasslands, compared to 337 acres under the Project, an approximately 37 percent reduction. Alternative 3 would result in the loss of 10.87 acres of mixed riparian habitat, compared to 11.41 acres under the Project, an approximately 5 percent reduction.
Impacts associated with other habitat types would be similar to the Project.
The Project site provides suitable habitat for 11 special-status plant species. Under Alternative 3, the plant habitat that could be lost to ground disturbance would be reduced due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4, the reduction in the mining footprint in Phases 1 and 2, and the conveyor belt connecting these areas to the processing plant under the Project (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-17).
Similarly, Alternative 3 would reduce the disturbance of habitat for special-status wildlife species, including burrowing owls (Impact 3.4-7); tricolored black birds (Impact 3.4-8); raptors and migratory birds (Impact 3.4-9); mountain lion (Impact 3.4-11); and badgers (Impact 3.4-13) and cumulative impacts on these terrestrial species (Impact 3.4-20). Mitigation Measures 3.4-1,
3.4-4(a) through (c), 3.4-5(c), 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, 3.4-13 and 3.4-15 would be required to reduce impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level; nevertheless, the impacts would be less severe under Alternative 3.
Because Alternative 3 would not require a crossing over Sargent Creek, the impact on potential special-status fish habitat would be reduced (Impacts 3.4-3 and 3.4-19). The reduction in disturbance area would also reduce the potential for erosion and contaminants to degrade water quality, lessening the impact on habitat for fish. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 would ensure that this impact would be less than significant for both the Project and Alternative 3. Like the Project, the design of the Tar Creek bridge would benefit fish under Alternative 3, because the bridge would span the creek so that traffic no longer drives through the creek bed.
Alternative 3 would reduce the impact on California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Impact 3.4-4) by eliminating the potential for breeding ponds to be created in the Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas; by eliminating changes in the vicinity of the pond located south of Phase 3; and by reducing the loss of uplands and riparian habitat due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the associated conveyor belt. Mitigation Measures 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 would still be required to reduce impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level; nevertheless, the impact would be less severe under Alternative 3.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-26 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Western pond turtle, which has been documented in a pond 1,100 feet south of the processing plant site, also could take advantage of ponds created within quarries, the creeks, and uplands, and therefore be vulnerable to harm during construction and operation (Impact 3.4-6). Alternative 3 would reduce the potential for harm of this species by reducing the number of quarries, the crossing of Sargent Creek and the amount of acreage that would be disturbed. Mitigation Measures 3.4-3, and 3.4-4(a) and (b) would reduce impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level for both the Project and Alternative 3, but the impact would be less severe under Alternative 3 than for the Project.
Alternative 3 would reduce the loss of habitat for two special status bat species have the potential to occur within the Project site--western red bat and pallid bat (Impact 3.4-10) by reducing the amount of annual grassland that is disturbed by approximately 37 percent (from 337 acres to 228 acres and the amount of mixed riparian woodland and forest by 0.54 acres, or about 5 percent (see Table 3.4-1). Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 would still be required to reduce impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level under Alternative 3, but the impact would be less severe than under the Project.
Under the Project, the only significant and unavoidable impact on biological resources would be due to impediments to wildlife movement between important U.S. 101 undercrossings (particularly the Tick Creek, Tar Creek/UPRR, and Pajaro River undercrossings) (Impacts 3.4-15 and 3.4-22). In particular, the proximity of the processing plant, the rail spur and Project traffic to the Tar Creek undercrossing could interfere with wildlife movement. Under Alternative 3, the processing plant would be located approximately 0.85 mile from the Tar Creek undercrossing of U.S. 101, so it would substantially reduce the impediment to wildlife movement at Tar Creek and Pajaro River undercrossings. Alternative 3 would construct a 300-foot long berm, which could interfere with some wildlife movement across the project site, but for the most part the berm would abut the Phase 1 mining pit, which would itself deter wildlife movement.
Alternative 3 would include approximately 1 mile of the conveyor belt to connect the processing plant to the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas. Most of the conveyor belt would be located along Old Monterey Road, so it would be in an area where there is already some disturbance. The rail spur would still be needed, and there would be some infrastructure associated with loading rail cars, but that would be farther from the undercrossing than the majority of the plant site. The Alternative 3 site would be 0.2 mile from the Tick Creek undercrossing, so it would likely deter some wildlife from using that culvert. However, the Tick Creek undercrossing is not nearly as heavily used by mammals, particularly large mammals, as Tar Creek and the Pajaro River.
Under Alternative 3, the Tar Creek bridge would be relocated upstream, farther from the U.S. 101 undercrossing. Because heavy truck traffic would not be allowed south of the processing plant under Alternative 3, there would be less vehicle traffic using this bridge, and in the vicinity of undercrossing. There would also be some reduction in the severity of the impact due to the elimination of the Phase 3 and 4 quarries and the 1.6-mile-long conveyor belt to Phases 3 and 4, which could also deter wildlife from moving across the Project site.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-27 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
While Alternative 3 would substantially reduce impacts on wildlife movement, the impact would still be significant due to the conveyor belts which would extend across the entire western side of both the Tar Creek and Pajaro River crossing locations (i.e., wildlife moving to and from each undercrossing would have to navigate that belt at some point). Therefore, Mitigation Measure
3.4-15 would be required of Alternative 3, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cultural Resources
There are two known archaeological sites (CA-SCL-578/H and CA-SLC-577/H), one of which may contain human remains, that would be affected by truck traffic using Old Monterey Road and the road that would be used to access northbound U.S. 101(Impacts 3.5-1, 3.5-3, 3.5-6 and
3.5-8). Under Alternative 3, Old Monterey Road would be rerouted to avoid archaeological site CA-SCL-578/H (Impacts 3.5-1, 3.5-2, 3.5-3, 3.5-6 and 3.5-8). In addition, heavy truck traffic would not be able to use the road and underpass to access U.S. 101, further avoiding this archaeological site. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not have an adverse impact on known resources associated with CA-SCL-578/H. Further, the number of truck trips on these roads would be reduced under Alternative 3, so there would be less wear and tear on the road. The northern segment of Old Monterey Road would still be used to access the processing plant, so the impact on CA-SCL-577/H would be substantially lessened but still significant. While this would create less potential for damage to the archaeological sites, the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3b still would be needed to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Alternative 3 would disturb approximately 127 fewer acres than the Project, most of which are considered highly sensitive for archaeological resources (Impacts 3.5-2 and 3.5-7), by eliminating Phases 3 and 4. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would still be necessary to reduce the potential for damage to resources in the Phase 1 and 2 mining areas, the processing plant, the bridge and the roads. As with the Project, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would substantially reduce the impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources (Impacts 3.5-4,
3.5-5 and 3.5-9). As discussed above, the impacts on CA-SCL-578/H and CA-SLC-577/H, which are individually Tribal Cultural Resources, would be reduced due to the relocation of the processing plant and circulation changes, and the reduction in truck traffic (Impact 3.5-4). The impact on the Betevel Bluff would be entirely eliminated because it would be undisturbed.
Therefore, Impact 3.5-4 would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 under Alternative 3, compared to the significant and unavoidable impact (even with mitigation) that would occur under the Project. The impact on the Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape (JTCL) would be less severe under Alternative 3 due to the reduction in acreage that would be disturbed and the avoidance of Betevel Bluff (Impact 3.5-4). Nonetheless, the alteration of the JTCL, including impacts related to topography or vegetation would be substantial, and the impacts would therefore be significant., Impacts 3.5-5 and 3.5-9 would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-5.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-28 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Under the Alternative 3, approximately 127 fewer acres would be disturbed, and fewer mine bench cuts would be made. The potential for slope-stability impacts to occur would be eliminated in the Phase 3 and 4 area (Impact 3.7-2). Although this impact would be reduced, Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 would still be required to address potential slope instability at Phases 1 and 2 to a less-than-significant level.
Significant-and-unavoidable paleontological impacts also would be reduced due to a smaller area of highly sensitive geological layers being disturbed; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to excavation at Phases 1 and 2 (Impacts 3.7-5 and 3.7-6), even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-5.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 3, the area that would be disturbed would be reduced by approximately 31 percent and the amount of excavation would be reduced by approximately 28 percent.
Therefore, this alternative would generate fewer overall GHG emissions compared to emissions that would be generated under the Project (see Impacts 3.8-1 and 3.8-2). VMT would also be reduced by about 21 percent (see transportation discussion below). Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would generate substantial GHG emissions, a significant impact, so the impact would require Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 to be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The area that would be disturbed during construction would be reduced under Alternative 3 due to the elimination of the conveyor belt to the Phase 3 and 4 mining site (Impacts 3.10-1 and 3.10- 10). Consequently, the potential for degradation of water quality due to soil erosion during construction would be reduced. As with the Project, this impact would be a less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, which addresses water quality.
Transportation (move to Similar or More)?
Under Alternative 3, there would be an approximately 21 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled commensurate with the reduction in the amount of aggregate being processed and sold (Impacts 3.13-2 and 3.13-5). While there would be a substantial reduction in the number of vehicle trips, approximately 25 percent, the prohibition on the use of the undercrossing and access to the northbound onramp near the Project site would increase the length each trip of approximately 6.5 miles, which would partially offset the reduction in trips with respect to VMT Therefore, this significant and unavoidable impact would be more less under Alternative 3 then under the Project .
Under Alternative 3, there would be no improvements to the northbound on-ramp to U.S. 101.
Therefore, the potential for conflicts between on-ramp construction and highway traffic, as well as potential interference with emergency vehicles, would be reduced (Impacts 3.13-3, 3.13-4 and
3.13-6). However, such conflicts could occur due to delivery of wide loads and other construction
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-29 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
activities that would occur under both Alternative 3 and the Project. In both cases, these impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-3.
Impacts Identified as Being More Severe than the Project as Proposed Biological Resources
Alternative 3 would partially reduce the impact on California tiger salamander (CTS) (Impact
3.4-5) by eliminating the potential for breeding ponds to be created in the Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas; by eliminating changes in the vicinity of the pond located south of Phase 3; and by reducing the loss of uplands and riparian habitat due to the elimination of Phases 3 and 4 and the associated conveyor belt. At the same time, the processing plant would be located immediately adjacent to a seasonal pond that is used by CTS for breeding. Even if the pond itself is not directly affected, locating the processing plant in this location could reduce runoff that supports ponding in that feature. The processing plant would also occupy upland dispersal and refugial habitat used by salamanders, which could impede the movement of salamanders to and from that pond). Mitigation Measures 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 would still be required to reduce significant impacts on these species and their habitat to a less-than-significant level; nevertheless, the impact would be more under Alternative 3.
4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states than an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, then the EIR also shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
As shown in Table 4-7, in almost all cases, Alternatives 1 through 3 would reduce or avoid most of the significant impacts of the Project. Alternative 1, the No Project alternative, would avoid all Project impacts, so it would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative would not meet any project objectives.
The environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives would be Alternative 3. As shown in Table 4-7 and discussed in Section 4.5.3, Alternative 3 would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on the Betevel Bluff Tribal Cultural Resource, and would further lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts on the Juristac Landscape Tribal Cultural Resource and paleontological resources. Alternative 3 would also reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on wildlife movement (although the impact would remain significant and unavoidable), and reduce the significant impact but mitigable impact on cultural resources by avoiding site CA-SCL-577/H. In addition, Alternative 3 would substantially reduce impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions, changes in visual character, loss of sensitive habitat, impacts on most special-status species, potential for slope instability and degradation of water quality.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-30 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 4-7
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT (SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS) Environmental Impact Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Aesthetics
Impact 3.2-1: The Project would alter the visual character of the Project site or scenic resource visible from U.S. 101, a Countydesignated scenic highway.SU/M NI SU/M> SU/M< Impact 3.2-3: The Project would contribute to cumulative changes in visual character of public views from U.S. 101, a County-designated scenic highway.
SU/M NI SU/M> SU/M<
Air Quality
Impact 3.3-1: The Project would affect implementation of the applicable air quality plans. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Impact 3.3-2: The Project would emit criteria air pollutants–ozone precursors (NOx and ROG), PM2.5, and PM10, for which the region is in nonattainment status.
SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M<
Impact 3.3-5: The Project would contribute nonattainment pollutants (ozone precursors, PM2.5 and PM10) to cumulative increases in air pollutants.
SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M<
Biological Resources
Impact 3.4-1: Project activities would result in adverse effects on special-status plant species. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-3: Project activities would result in adverse effects on special-status fish and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-4: Project activities would result in adverse effects on California red-legged frogs and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-5: Project activities would result in adverse effects on California tiger salamanders (CTS) and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M> LTS/M> Impact 3.4-6: Project activities would result in adverse effects on western pond turtles and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-7: Project activities would result in adverse effects on burrowing owls and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-8: Project activities would result in adverse effects on tricolored blackbirds and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-9: Project activities would result in adverse effects on other special-status and protected birds and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-10: Project activities would result in adverse effects on special-status bats. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-11: Project activities would result in adverse effects on mountain lions and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-12: Project activities would result in adverse effects on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M= LTS/M= Impact 3.4-13: Project activities would result in adverse effects on American badgers and their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-14: Project activities would result in substantial adverse effects on jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats. LTS/M NI LTS/M= LTS/M= Impact 3.4-15: Implementation of the project would interfere substantially with wildlife movement. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Impact 3.4-16 Project activities would conflict with County ordinances and policies intended to protect biological resources. LTS/M NI LTS/M= LTS/M=
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-31 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 4-7 (CONTINUED)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT (SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS) Environmental Impact Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Biological Resources (cont.)
Impact 3.4-17: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative loss of special-status plant species. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-19: Project activities could contribute to a cumulative degradation of habitat for special-status fish. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-20: Project activities could contribute to cumulative harm to protected terrestrial species and loss of their habitat. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.4-21: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative loss of jurisdictional wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats. LTS/M NI LTS/M= LTS/M= Impact 3.4-22: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative impairment of wildlife crossings. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Impact 3.4-23: The Project activities could contribute to the cumulative loss of oaks and oak woodlands. LTS/MM NI LTS/M= LTS/M= Cultural and Tribal Resources
Impact 3.5-1: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical or archaeological resources. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.5-2: Implementation of the Project could damage unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.5-3: The Project could disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.5-4: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources within the proposed area of development.
SU/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M<
Impact 3.5-5: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Impact 3.5-6: The Project could contribute to cumulative adverse changes in known historical or archaeological resources. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.5-7: The Project could contribute to cumulative adverse changes in unrecorded subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.
LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M<
Impact 3.5-8: The Project could contribute to cumulative disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries
LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M<
Impact 3.5-9: The Project could contribute to cumulative adverse changes in the significance of tribal cultural resources. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Impact 3.7-2: Excavation of quarry pits and reclamation would increase the potential for slope instability and slope failure. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.7-5: Project excavation and grading would adversely affect paleontological resources. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Impact 3.7-6: The Project would contribute to the cumulative loss of paleontological resources. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 3.8-1: The Project would create greenhouse gas emissions directly or indirectly contributing to global climate change. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.8-2: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M<
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-32 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 4-7 (CONTINUED)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT (SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS) Environmental Impact Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.9-2: The Project could create a hazard to the public or the environment through accidental release of existing soil contaminants, such as historic pesticide residues, into the environment.
LTS/M NI LTS/M= LTS/M=
Impact 3.9-3: The Project would contribute to the cumulative increases in the risk of exposure to hazardous materials. LTS/M NI LTS/M= LTS/M= Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 3.10-1: Project construction grading and other activities would substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M< Impact 3.10-10: The Project would not contribute to cumulative degradation of water quality. LTS/M NI LTS/M < LTS/M < Transportation
Impact 3.13-2 The Project would generate additional substantial vehicle miles traveled. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Impact 3.13-3: Project construction could increase roadway hazards due to the presence of large construction trucks, temporary lane closures and detours.
LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M<
Impact 3.13-4: The Project could result in inadequate emergency access. LTS/M NI LTS< LTS/M< Impact 3.13-5: The Project would contribute to cumulative increases in vehicle miles traveled. SU/M NI SU/M< SU/M< Impact 3.13-6: The Project would contribute to significant cumulative increases in roadway hazards and/or interference with emergency access.
LTS/M NI LTS/M< LTS/M<
NOTES:
LTS/MM=Less than Significant with Mitigation
NI=No Impact
SU=Significant and Unavoidable
SU/M=Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation
= Impact would be the same or similar to the Project impact > Impact would be more severe than the Project impact
< Impact would be less severe than the Project impact
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-33 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
_________________________
4.7 References
BNSF Railway. Network Plan. Site accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.bnsf.com/shipwith-bnsf/maps-and-shipping-locations/pdf/bnsf-network-map.pdf California Department of Conservation. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the Monterey Bay Production-Consumption Regions, North Half. 1999.
California Geological Survey. Aggregate Sustainability in California Aggregate Sustainability in California https://www.calcima.org/files/MS52_Ca_Ag_Report_201807.pdf.
County of Santa Cruz. GISweb Parcel Information for 110-28-101, 102, and 11027105. Program used August 6, 2019. https://gis.santacruzcounty.us/gisweb/.
Freeman Associates. 2022. Mining and Reclamation Plan. February. (EIR Appendix B) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). System Map. Site accessed September 30, 2019.
4. Alternatives Analysis
Sargent Quarry 4-34 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank
Sargent Quarry 5-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CHAPTER 5
Other CEQA Considerations
5.1 Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) states that an EIR must discuss “the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including directly through implementation of projects that create new housing and employment opportunities, and indirectly through elimination of obstacles to growth and stimulation of economic activity within a region. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project would be implemented over an approximately 35-year period, including initial construction and final reclamation. A total of up to 15 people would be employed during initial construction and Project operation, including mining, product processing, sales, and those aspects of reclamation that involve earth moving. Up to two additional employees would be employed intermittently for revegetation and monitoring. Given the relatively small size of the staff, these employees would likely come from the existing employment pool in Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, with workers commuting to the site rather than moving. As such, the additional employees would not directly induce population growth in the vicinity of the Project site.
Furthermore, the Project would not directly involve construction of new housing, businesses, or infrastructure. Ultimately, the Project site would be returned to its current use as grazing land following reclamation, and the number of employees would be reduced accordingly. For these reasons, the Project would not induce substantial numbers of people or businesses to move into the Project area.
The Project could remove one barrier to growth in general by meeting the demand for aggregate products in the region. However, the availability of aggregate is only one of many potential barriers to growth. Numerous factors control where and to what extent growth occurs. By the time there is a demand for aggregate products, the projects creating the demand are ready to be built and have already been though an independent environmental and/or planning review process. Therefore, aggregate extraction would accommodate growth to the extent that is necessary for approved growth to occur, but would not indirectly foster economic or population growth.
For the above reasons, the Project would not directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, and the project would not be growth-inducing.
5. Other CEQA Considerations
Sargent Quarry 5-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less-than-significant levels. All impacts could be reduced with the implementation of mitigation measures to a less-than-significant level.
1. Aesthetics: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact, both at the Projectspecific level and cumulatively, with regard to its effect on existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings from U.S. 101, a County-designated scenic highway (Impact 3.2-1). Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would lessen the severity of these impacts but not below the level of significance. ). This significant unavoidable impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.2-3).
2. Air Quality: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to its effect on BAAQMD NOx thresholds and emissions of NOx, ROG, PM 2.5, and PM 10 for which the region is in nonattainment status. Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b would reduce NOx thresholds but emissions of NOx would not be reduced below significance thresholds for project-specific or cumulative impacts (Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2 and 3.3-5).
3. Biological Resources: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to the Project’s interference with wildlife movement. Mitigation Measure 3.4-15 would reduce this impact but not below the thresholds of significance (Impact 3.4-15). This significant unavoidable impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.4-22).
4. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact both at the Project-specific level and cumulatively with regard to changes in the significance of tribal cultural resources within the proposed area of development, and the Juristac Tribal Cultural Landscape (Impacts 3.5-4 and 3.5-5). Mitigation Measures 3.5- 1,3.5-3b, 3.5-4b and 3.5-b would reduce the severity of these impacts, but not to a less-thansignificant level.
5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontology: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to the Project’s potential to destroy paleontological resources important to Santa Clara County (Impact 3.7-5). Mitigation Measure 3.7-5 would not reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. This impact would also be considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.7-6).
6. Transportation: The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to the Project’s generation of additional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and no feasible mitigation is identified to reduce the impact (Impact 3.13-2). This impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.13-5).
5.3 Irreversible Impacts
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an irreversible impact as an impact that uses nonrenewable resources during the initial and continuing phases of the project. Irreversible impacts also can result from damage caused by environmental accidents associated with a project.
Irretrievable commitments of resources are evaluated to ensure that such consumption is justified.
5. Other CEQA Considerations
Sargent Quarry 5-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to consider whether a proposed project, if implemented, would result in significant irreversible environmental changes. Such changes are likely to occur for example, following the dedication of a large commitment of nonrenewable resources because “a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.” Secondary impacts (such as highway improvements, which provide access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses.
Energy would be consumed during both the construction and operational phases of the Project.
The construction phase would require the use of nonrenewable resources during construction, including fossil fuels, concrete, metals, plastics, and glass. The operational phase would consume energy in the form of electricity for multiple purposes, including building heating and cooling, lighting, and use of appliances and electronics, such as conveyor belts and processing equipment.
Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, would be used to fuel vehicles traveling to and from the Project site and for mining operations. Energy consumption also would occur to implement reclamation activities. The use of energy during all phases of the Project would be irreversible but would not be significant in relation to overall sources and supplies, as described in Section 3.6, Energy.
Accidents, such as the release of hazardous materials, could trigger irreversible environmental damage. However, Project construction would result in the transport of hazardous materials including fluids for vehicle operation and maintenance such as fuels, oils, liquid polymer, battery acid, coolant, and cleaner, off-site by an approved carrier in accordance with state and local regulations. See Section 2.4.7, On-Site Hazardous Material Use and Storage, for a range of hazardous materials that could be handled in the Project site. Considering the types and minimal quantities of hazardous materials that are and would continue to be used at the site, and emergency response plans and procedures that would be implemented as a part of the Project, accidental release of substantial quantities is unlikely. State and federal regulations and safety requirements, as described in the regulatory setting in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would ensure that public health and safety risks are maintained at acceptable levels, so that significant irreversible changes from accidental releases are unlikely.
Operation of the Project would also result in the irreversible extraction and consumption of aggregate material that is mined from the Project site and ultimately sold. As described in Table 2-2, Estimated Mining and Excavation Quantities, in Chapter 2, the Project would result in the sale of up to 25,305,000 cubic yards of product, consisting of a combination of sand and gravel.
Upon completion of mining, the site would be returned to its previous use (cattle grazing).
Mining activities would permanently change the topography and hydrology of the mining area.
5. Other CEQA Considerations
Sargent Quarry 5-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank
Sargent Quarry 6-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CHAPTER 6
Report Preparation
6.1 Lead Agency
County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Leza Mikhail, Planning Services Manager
Robert Salisbury, Senior Planner
Xue Ling, Associate Planner
David Rader, Former Senior Planner
6.2 Consultant
Environmental Science Associates
Janna Scott, J.D. Project Director, Overall Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
Alexandra Thompson Deputy Project Manager
Jessica O’Dell Project Coordinator, Aesthetics
Brandon Carroll Paleontological Resources
Dave Davis Aesthetics
Matt Fagundes Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Karen Lancelle Utilities and Service Systems
Jill Feyk-Miney Energy
Michael Newland Tribal Cultural Resources
Chris Sanchez Noise
Russell S. Shapiro, Ph.D. Paleontological Resources
Anitra Rice Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Shadde Rosenblum Transportation
Alexandra Sung-Jereczek Wildfire
Cheri Velzy Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
6. Report Preparation
Sargent Quarry 6-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
6.3 Subconsultants
Adrienne Graham
Project Management
Adrienne Graham, AICP
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Noise Analysis
James Reyff
Bill Popenuck
Dana M. Ludic
Casey Zaglin
H.T. Harvey & Associates
Biotic Evaluation Peer Review
Steve Rottenborn
Kelly Hardwicke
Albion Environmental
Ethnographic Study
Sarah Nicchitta
Seetha Ready
Todd Groundwater
Groundwater/Subsurface Hydrology Review
Gus Yates
Water Supply Assessment
Maureen Reilly
Hexagon Transportation Consultants
Traffic Impact Analysis
Gicela Del Rio
Sutro Science
Hydrology, Geology, Mineral Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials Pete Hudson
Justin Taplin