ATT 2 - Sargent Ranch Quarry Draft EIR — Mountain View City Council, April 25, 2023 (part 1 of 4)

Draft
Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2016072058
Prepared by
County of Santa Clara
With Technical Assistance by: ESA
July 2022

SARGENT RANCH QUARRY
Attachment 2
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2016072058
Prepared by
County of Santa Clara
With Technical Assistance by: ESA
July 2022

SARGENT RANCH QUARRY
Sargent Quarry i ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sargent Ranch Quarry Draft EIR
Page
Summary.............................................................................................................................S-1 S.1 Project Summary ...............................................................................................S-1 S.2 Overview of Project Impacts .............................................................................S-5 S.3 Summary of Alternatives....................................................................................S-8 S.4 Areas of Controversy .........................................................................................S-9 S.5 Unresolved Issues .............................................................................................S-9 S.6 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................S-9 Chapter 1, Introduction...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of This Document ................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Project Overview................................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Use of This Document by Agencies................................................................... 1-2

1.4 EIR Process....................................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Organization of this EIR..................................................................................... 1-3 Chapter 2, Project Description.......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Location................................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 Project Objectives.............................................................................................. 2-6

2.4 Project Components .......................................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Construction Activities and Assumptions ......................................................... 2-42

2.6 Reclamation..................................................................................................... 2-43

2.7 Approvals, Permits, and Consultation.............................................................. 2-57

2.8 References ...................................................................................................... 2-58 Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ......................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis...........................................................3.1-1

3.2 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................3.2-1

3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................3.3-1

3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................3.4-1

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ...........................................................3.5-1

3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................3.6-1

3.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology...................................................................3.7-1

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................3.8-1

3.9 Hazardous and Hazardous Materials..............................................................3.9-1

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................3.10-1

3.11 Mineral Resources........................................................................................3.11-1

3.12 Noise ............................................................................................................3.12-1

3.13 Transportation ..............................................................................................3.13-1

3.14 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................3.14-1

3.15 Wildfire..........................................................................................................3.15-1 Table of Contents
Page
Sargent Quarry ii ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Chapter 4, Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................4-1

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Project Objectives..............................................................................................4-3

4.3 Significant Project Impacts ................................................................................4-4

4.4 Alternatives Discussion......................................................................................4-5

4.5 Alternatives to the Project..................................................................................4-7

4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative...............................................................4-29

4.7 References ......................................................................................................4-33 Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations...........................................................................5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement ...........................................................................................5-1

5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.................................................................5-2

5.3 Irreversible Impacts ...........................................................................................5-2 Chapter 6, Report Preparation ..........................................................................................6-1

6.1 Lead Agency......................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Consultant .........................................................................................................6-1

6.3 Subconsultants ..................................................................................................6-2 Appendices
A. Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments....................................................A-1 B. Mining and Reclamation Plan ..............................................................................B-1 C. General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis .......................................................C-1 D. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations ....................................................D-1 E. Biological Resources............................................................................................E-1 E.1 Investigation of Potential Waters of the United States E.2 Biotic Evaluation Peer Review (2017)
E.3 Biotic Evaluation (2017)
E.4 Non-Protocol California Tiger Salamander Aquatic Larval Survey Results Report
E.5 Responses to Peer Review Comments on the Sargent Ranch Quarry Biological Evaluation (2017)
E.6 Biotic Peer Review-Revised (2017)
E.7 Biotic Peer Review Addendum (2019)
E.8 Supplement to the 2017 Sargent Ranch Quarry Biological Evaluation F. Energy Use Calculations...................................................................................... F-1 G. Geology, Soils, and Paleontology ....................................................................... G-1 G.1 Geotechnical Analyses and Peer Reviews
G.2 Paleontological Technical Report
H. Hazards (Phase I ESA)........................................................................................H-1 I. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ I-1 I.1 Flood and Drainage Analysis
I.2 Evaluation of Groundwater Conditions and Potential Mining Impacts and SGMA Addendum
I.3 Water Supply Assessment
I.4 Industrial SWPPP
I.5 Additional EIR Support
J. Noise .................................................................................................................... J-1 J.1 Environmental Noise Assessment
J.2 Noise Analysis of Rail Spur Alternative
J.3 Create Model Output
Table of Contents
Page
Sargent Quarry iii ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
J.4 Traffic Noise Model
K. Transportation .....................................................................................................K-1 K.1 Transportation Impact Analysis
K.2 Construction Traffic Evaluation
L. Fire Protection Plan.............................................................................................. L-1 M. Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. M-1 M.1 Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment
M.2 Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey Report
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Map ..............................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2 Project Site and Vicinity...............................................................................2-4 Figure 2-3 Parcel Map ..................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-4 Mining Site Plan...........................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-5a Aggregate Plant Site Plan..........................................................................2-10 Figure 2-5b Temporary Batch Plant Location ...............................................................2-11 Figure 2-6 Phases 1 and 2 Grading and Excavation Plan ..........................................2-15 Figure 2-7 Phases 3 and 4 Grading and Excavation Plan ..........................................2-17 Figure 2-8 Mining Cross Sections...............................................................................2-18 Figure 2-9 Phase 3 and 4 Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (North)........2-22 Figure 2-10 Phase 3 and 4 Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (South) .......2-23 Figure 2-11 Ingress and Egress....................................................................................2-26 Figure 2-12 Northbound Acceleration Lane Improvements...........................................2-27 Figure 2-13 Tar Creek Bridge .......................................................................................2-29 Figure 2-14 Processing Plant and Creek Crossing Detail.............................................2-31 Figure 2-15 Mining Drainage Plan ................................................................................2-32 Figure 2-16 Drainage Detail - Phases 1 and 2..............................................................2-34 Figure 2-17 Drainage Detail - Phases 3 and 4..............................................................2-35 Figure 2-18 Reclamation Plan – Phases 1 and 2..........................................................2-45 Figure 2-19 Reclamation Plan – Phases 3 and 4..........................................................2-46 Figure 2-20 Aggregate Plant Site Reclamation.............................................................2-47 Figure 2-21a Mine Reclamation Cross Sections.............................................................2-48 Figure 2-21b Mine Reclamation Cross Sections.............................................................2-49 Figure 2-22 Revegetation Plan .....................................................................................2-53 Figure 3.2-1 Representative Photo of Regional Visual Character.................................3.2-8 Figure 3.2-2 Representative Photo of Project Site Visual Character ............................3.2-9 Figure 3.2-3 Photosimulation Key...............................................................................3.2-12 Figure 3.2-4 Photosimulation View 1 ..........................................................................3.2-16 Figure 3.2-5 Photosimulation View 2 ..........................................................................3.2-17 Figure 3.2-6 Photosimulation View 3 ..........................................................................3.2-18 Figure 3.2-7 Photosimulation View 4 ..........................................................................3.2-19 Figure 3.2-8 Photosimulation View 5 ..........................................................................3.2-20 Figure 3.3-1 Project Area Sensitive Receptors ...........................................................3.3-15 Figure 3.4 1 Project Area Biotic Habitats and Land Uses.............................................3.4-9 Figure 3.4 2 Roadway Improvements Biotic Habitats and Land Uses ........................3.4-10 Figure 3.4-3 Potential Waters of the United States.....................................................3.4-17 Figure 3.4-4 Species Observations in the Project Site and Vicinity ............................3.4-24 Figure 3.4-5 CNDDB Special-Status Species Occurrences........................................3.4-25 Figure 3.4-6 Mapped Serpentine Communities in Santa Clara County ......................3.4-26 Table of Contents
Page
Sargent Quarry iv ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Figure 3.4 7 Wildlife Movement Pathways in Project Vicinity......................................3.4-36 Figure 3.4-8 Important U.S. 101 Wildlife Crossings ....................................................3.4-38 Figure 3.4-9 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area..............3.4-118 Figure 3.5-1 Ethnographic Study Area..........................................................................3.5-2 Figure 3.5-2 Residence Associated with CA-SCL-578/H............................................3.5-20 Figure 3.5-3 Barn Associated with CA-SCL-578/H .....................................................3.5-20 Figure 3.5-4 Corral Associated with CA-SCL-578/H ...................................................3.5-21 Figure 3.5-5 Tick Creek Branch Culvert......................................................................3.5-22 Figure 3.5-6 Abandoned Road Alignment: Th-03 .......................................................3.5-23 Figure 3.7-1 Project Geology Map ..............................................................................3.7-10 Figure 3.7-2 Fault Rupture Zones...............................................................................3.7-14 Figure 3.10-1 Creeks and Subwatersheds within the SWRP Area .............................3.10-12 Figure 3.10-2 Locations of Sargent Creek Watershed Features.................................3.10-14 Figure 3.12-1 Typical Noise Levels.............................................................................3.12-12 Figure 3.12-2 Noise Measurement Locations ...........................................................3.12-111 Figure 3.12-3 Receptor Locations.............................................................................3.12-119 Figure 4-1 Alternative 3...............................................................................................4-15 Figure 4-2 Alternative 3 Conveyor Belt to Phases 1 and 2 .........................................4-16 List of Tables
Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 10 Table S-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Project (Significant Impacts) ................... 54 Table 2-1 Estimated Ground Disturbance Areas .......................................................2-12 Table 2-2 Estimated Mining and Excavation Quantities (cubic yards) .......................2-13 Table 2-3 Tentative Schedule of Construction, Mining, and Reclamation Actions.....2-14 Table 2-4 Mobile Equipment Assumptions ................................................................2-19 Table 2-5 Water Consumption by Project Component...............................................2-39 Table 2-6 Construction Equipment and Durations by Project Component.................2-43 Table 2-7 Post-Reclamation Planting Success Criteria .............................................2-56 Table 2-8 Approvals, Permits, and Consultation Permits...........................................2-57 Table 3.1-1 Cumulative Projects List ...........................................................................3.1-8 Table 3.1-2 Geographic Areas for Cumulative Analysis ............................................3.1-10 Table 3.2-1 Summary of Visual Sensitivity Findings: Viewer Types And Visual Exposures...............................................................................................3.2-13 Table 3.2-2 Guidelines for Determining Adverse Aesthetic Impact Significance .......3.2-15 Table 3.3-1 Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants ..........................................................3.3-1 Table 3.3-2 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the SFBAAB’s Attainment Status .....................................................................................3.3-8 Table 3.3-3 Summary of Air Quality Monitoring Data (2017–2019) ...........................3.3-13 Table 2.3-4 Air Quality Significance Thresholds ........................................................3.3-17 Table 3.3-5 Construction Period Exhaust Emissions.................................................3.3-20 Table 3.3-6 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in the SFBAAB from Operations and Reclamation............................................................................................3.3-24 Table 3.3-7 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in the NCCAB .......................................3.3-25 Table 3.3-8 Project Risk Impacts to the Closest Sensitive Receptor.........................3.3-31 Table 3.3-9 Cumulative Risk Impacts to the Closest Sensitive Receptor ..................3.3-34 Table 3.5-1 AB 52 Consultation Summary Overview.................................................3.5-11 Table 3.5-2 Summary of Archaeological and Built Environment Resources..............3.5-18 Table of Contents
Page
Sargent Quarry v ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Table 3.5-3 Summary of General Location, Integrity, and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Eligibility of each of the Four Tribal cultural Resources..................................................................................3.5-25 Table 3.5-1 AB 52 Consultation Summary Overview.................................................3.5-14 Table 3.5-2 Summary of Archaeological and Built Environment Resources..............3.5-19 Table 3.5-3 Summary of Location, Integrity, and California Register of Historical Resources Eligibility of each of the Four Tribal cultural Resources ........3.5-26 Table 3.6-1 California In-State Electricity Generation Sources (2019) ........................3.6-4 Table 3.6-2 PG&E-Owned Electricity Generating Sources (2019)...............................3.6-6 Table 3.6-3 PG&E 2018 Renewable Energy Sources .................................................3.6-6 Table 3.6-4 Electricity Consumption in PG&E Service Area (2019).............................3.6-7 Table 3.6-5 Project Energy Consumption during Construction (Total).........................3.6-9 Table 3.6-6 Annual Project Energy Consumption during Operation and Reclamation..............................................................................................3.6-9 Table 3.7-1 Soil Types at Project Site........................................................................3.7-11 Table 3.8 1 State of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................3.8-6 Table 3.8-2 2015 Bay Area GHG Emissions (CO2e per Year)....................................3.8-7 Table 3.8-3 Project Annual GHG Emissions..............................................................3.8-11 Table 3.10-1 Contributing Activity Areas to Site Runoff.............................................3.10-24 Table 3.10-2 Tar Creek Sediment Transport for Pre- and Post-development Condition ..............................................................................................3.10-41 Table 3.12-1 Recommended Maximum Interior Noise Levels for Intermittent Noise ...3.12-7 Table 3.12-2 County of Santa Clara Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Limits ...............3.12-8 Table 3.12-3 County of Santa Clara Noise Ordinance Standards for Construction Equipment ..............................................................................................3.12-9 Table 3.12-4 Long-Term Noise Data .........................................................................3.12-10 Table 3.12-5 Short-Term Noise Data.........................................................................3.12-12 Table 3.12 6 Measures of a Substantial Increase in Transportation Noise Exposure ..............................................................................................3.12-14 Table 3.12-7 Daytime Noise Levels from Construction Projects................................3.12-17 Table 3.12-8 Ambient and Operational Noise Levels (dBA) ......................................3.12-20 Table 3.12 9 Operational Noise Levels and Increases over Ambient Conditions (dBA) ....................................................................................................3.12-20 Table 3.12-10 Vibration Source Levels for Equipment ................................................3.12-24 Table 3.13-1 Hourly Distribution of Project Tripsa .......................................................3.13-7 Table 3.13-2 Trip Generation for Project Construction and Operation During Peak Construction Activity ...............................................................................3.13-8 Table 3.13-3 Vehicle Miles Traveled ...........................................................................3.13-9 Table 3.14-1 Projected Water Demand, Santa Clara County and Llagas Groundwater Subbasin...........................................................................3.14-5 Table 3.14-2 Projected Sources of Water Supply, Santa Clara County and Llagas Groundwater Subbasin...........................................................................3.14-6 Table 3.14-3 Comparison of Projected Countywide Supply and Demand Under Normal Year, Single Dry Year, and Multiple Dry Year Conditions ..........3.14-6 Table 3.15 1 Relevant Community Wildfire Protection Plan Policies...........................3.15-4 Table 4-1 Estimated Mining and Excavation Quantities (cubic yards) ........................4-1 Table 4-2 Estimated Mining and Excavation Quantities (cubic yards) .........................4-2 Table 4-3 Alternative 2: Estimated Mining and Excavation Quantities (cubic yards) ..........................................................................................................4-9 Table 4-4 Tentative Schedule of Construction, Mining, and Reclamation Actions.....4-11 Table of Contents
Page
Sargent Quarry vi ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Table 4-5 Alternative 3: Estimated Mining and Excavation Quantities (cubic yards) ........................................................................................................4-20 Table 4-6 Tentative Schedule of Construction, Mining, and Reclamation Actions.....4-21 Table 4-7 Comparison of Alternatives to the Project (Significant Impacts) ................4-30 Sargent Quarry S-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

SUMMARY
S.1 Project Summary
S.1.1 Introduction
This summary chapter provides an overview of the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project (Project), which is described in detail in Chapter 2, Project Description, and the conclusions of the environmental analysis, provided in detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. This chapter also summarizes the alternatives to the Project that are discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Table S-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, at the end of this Summary, provides a summary of the environmental effects of the Project identified in each technical issue section of Chapter 3. The table consists of the environmental impacts, the significance of the impact, proposed mitigation, if any, and the significance of the impact after the mitigation measure is implemented. Table S-2, Summary Comparison of Alternatives to the Project, provides a summary of the relative severity of the impacts of the alternatives.

S.1.2 Project Location
The 5,154-acre Sargent Ranch property is located within an unincorporated area of southern Santa Clara County, approximately four miles south of the City of Gilroy, California. The approximately 403-acre area where mining and related activities are proposed is located on the eastern portion of Sargent Ranch (see Figures 2-1 through 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description).

S.1.3 Summary of Project Description
Introduction
Sargent Ranch Partners, LLC (Applicant) proposes to develop a sand and gravel surface mining operation called the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project (Project) on an approximately 403-acre site located in Santa Clara County (Project site). The Project consists of the development of a sand and gravel mining operation on approximately 298 acres within the Sargent Ranch property, which currently is used for cattle ranching. The remaining 105 acres of the 403-acre Project site would be designated as a “geotechnical setback area” that would buffer excavation areas from surrounding uses and that could be used if needed to allow more slope layback1 to increase slope stability or provide a buffer area in the case of unforeseen slope failure. Mining operations would be conducted for 30 years, in four phases as described below. Over the 30-year period, portions of the 1 “Slope layback” is a term for grading the final slope at a less steep angle. For example, a 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope rather than a 3:1 slope.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
site would be reclaimed upon completion of each phase of the quarry operation. At the end of the Project’s life, final reclamation of the last surface mining phase would occur, and the aggregate processing facility site would also be reclaimed.

The Santa Clara County Zoning Code requires the issuance of a Use Permit for surface mining projects and approval of a site-specific Reclamation Plan and Financial Assurance Cost Estimate (Section 4.10.370 – Surface Mining, subsections (E), (F), and (K)) in accordance with the State of California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 3500 et seq.). SMARA was enacted to help mitigate environmental impacts from mining by ensuring that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition.

Surface mining activities and implementation of the Reclamation Plan for the Project would be needed to satisfy requirements of both SMARA and the County of Santa Clara’s (County’s) Surface Mining requirements (County Zoning Code Section 4.10.370). The surface mining operation would process sand and gravel Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and sales (including transport off-site) would occur from 4:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Because these proposed hours of operation would extend beyond the standards for Surface Mining operation allowed by the County Zoning Ordinance (4.10.370 Part II, A (1)), Planning Commission approval of a deviation from the standard hours of operation would be required.

Project Objectives
The fundamental underlying purpose of the Project is to develop a feasible source of aggregate in close proximity to the Bay Area to meet regional demand for construction sand. The Project objectives are as follows:

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 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. 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.

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.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Project Components
Open-pit mining would occur in four areas (Phases 1 through 4) within the Project site (see Figure 2-4, Mining Site Plan, in Chapter 2). Construction of the structures, conveyor belt and roads to access Phases 1 and 2, acceleration lane improvements, and related facilities would occur over nine months (157 construction days) prior to the start of surface mining activities. All of the facilities within the processing area, including the aggregate processing plant, office/scale house, process water pond, and stormwater basins, would be constructed during this period. Initially, a temporary processing plant would be constructed. Additional improvements would include the access/maintenance roads, a free-span bridge over Tar Creek, and a new groundwater well. After completion of Phase 2 mining, a conveyer belt connecting Phases 3 and 4 to the processing area and a parallel maintenance road, including a crossing at Sargent Creek, would be constructed.

These facilities and related construction activities are described in more detail in Chapter 2, Project Description.

After the Project facilities are in place, mining would commence at the Phase 1 quarry. At the commencement of mining within each phase, the topsoil and overburden would be removed and stored separately in the processing area. Temporary stockpiles would be located within the individual quarry areas. A permanent overburden stockpile area would be placed between the processing plant and Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas. This area would receive materials during Phases 1, 2, and 3.

In general, excavation to remove topsoil and overburden would be conducted during the dry season (April 16 through October 14). If excavation occurs in the wet season, appropriate best management practices (BMPs) would be used to control erosion.

Hill slopes within the designated quarry pits would be cut back to expose sand and gravel deposits.

This product would be excavated and transported from the quarry pits to the processing plant via conveyer belt. In general, an open pit would be developed with 2:1 (i.e., 2 feet horizontal for every vertical foot) or flatter side walls with 10-foot-wide benches every 40 vertical feet. Each bench would have a longitudinal grade of four to 12 percent. All materials would be processed at the aggregate plant on-site. After processing, finished products would be sold and transported off-site via truck or rail. As slopes within each quarry pit are finished, they would be reclaimed while mining would continue on other slopes within the pit. Each phase would be fully reclaimed upon completion of mining activities within that phase (see reclamation description in Section 2.6).

The final reclaimed fill slopes would have varying gradients of 3:1 or flatter.

Approximately 35 million cubic yards (cy) of material would be excavated over the 30-year life of the Project. Of this, it is estimated that a total volume of approximately 25.3 million cy would be saleable sand and gravel aggregate (product). This would equate to a total weight of approximately 38 million tons of product (assuming 1.5 tons per cy). Product consisting of mined sand and gravel aggregate would be sold to the local market for a variety of construction-related uses.

Overburden and/or mined material that is not salable as concrete-grade aggregate would be stockpiled on-site. Up to 20 percent of overburden could be sold as engineered fill for construction projects throughout the life of the Project; the portion not sold would be used in the final reclamation of quarry slopes at the conclusion of each mining phase, as described further below.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
“Geotechnical setback” areas have been identified surrounding each mining area. These setback areas would be used as a buffer area if needed to allow more slope layback to increase slope stability and/or allow a buffer area in the case of slope failure.

An earthen berm would be constructed between U.S. 101 and the processing plant to screen views of the facilities from the highway. The berm would be approximately 40 feet tall and constructed from overburden taken from Phase 1. Other facilities to be constructed include a vehicular bridge across Tar Creek to provide access to the Project site, drainage facilities, and roads.

The maximum area of potential disturbance would be approximately 403 acres. Ground disturbance includes grading, excavation, and other earthwork, and does not include areas that would only have vegetation mowed (e.g., fuel modification zones around access roads). This includes the 105 acres of geotechnical setback areas (described in more detail below), which may not all be disturbed (i.e., would be used as needed). Disturbance areas for each phase and associated facilities are summarized in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2.

Estimated total mining and excavation quantities for each phase of the Project are shown in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2. Approximately 35 million cy of native materials would be excavated over the life of the Project, including 25,305,000 cy or 38 million tons of product (assuming 1.5 tons per cy). Over the life of the Project, approximately 846,000 cy of topsoil and 8,865,000 cy of overburden would be excavated. The aggregate would be composed of 60 percent sand, 20 percent gravel, and 20 percent clay. The rate of surface mining and mineral extraction would vary from day to day and year to year depending on demand, site conditions and other factors, such as weather. In the initial five years of operation, the maximum amount of product that would be produced in a single day would be 2,500 tons. At full operational capacity, the mining operation could produce a maximum of 6,000 tons of product in a single 10-hour day. Actual amounts would be less on some days, but would not exceed 6,000 tons per day on any day. The maximum amount of product that would be produced in a single year is 1,860,000 tons.

The duration of each phase would depend on market demand for sand and gravel materials. A tentative schedule for construction, mining, and reclamation is shown in Table 2-3 in Chapter 2.

Surface mining at the Phase 1 and Phase 2 pit areas would be complete in approximately 10 to 13 years, respectively. At maximum production levels, Phase 3 would be completed in approximately 4 years, and Phase 4 would require two years to complete. As noted above, the actual timelines could vary, although the total amount of material to be mined would not exceed the maximum identified amounts in any single year.

Project product would be transported to customers using both haul trucks and rail. Vehicle and truck access, including emergency access, to and from the Sargent Ranch Quarry would occur via U.S. 101, as shown on Figure 2-11 in Chapter 2. Access to the Project site from the north would occur via southbound U.S. 101 and Old Monterey Road through a gated entrance to an existing private access road. Trucks leaving the site traveling to destinations south of the quarry would exit onto Old Monterey Road and then onto southbound U.S. 101 via an existing acceleration lane.

Trucks traveling to destinations north of the quarry would use the Sargent Ranch undercrossing of U.S. 101.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
To facilitate truck access, an existing U.S. 101 on-ramp east of the Project site would be improved prior to the start of mining to include a 12-foot-wide, 0.25-mile-long acceleration lane for trucks accessing northbound U.S. 101. This on-ramp would require an encroachment permit from Caltrans and would be built according to Caltrans specifications. Other access improvements would include a free-span bridge over Tar Creek and new pavement overlaid on Old Monterey Road.

Rail tracks are located to the east of Sargent Ranch along U.S. 101. As part of the Project, a rail spur would be constructed within the processing plant area. The spur would accommodate up to 16 rail cars. Rail cars would be picked up by Union Pacific Railroad trains up to three times per week.

After mining is complete, the Project site would be reclaimed as described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix B). The proposed reclamation generally involves equipment and building removal, regrading, re-soiling, drainage and erosion control, and revegetation. Some of these activities may occur simultaneously. Reclamation would include the use of overburden to fill quarry pits to elevations to levels at or below the immediately surrounding grades, recontouring of the surface of mined and processing plant areas, installation of erosion and stormwater control features, redistribution of topsoil, and revegetation. The site topography would ultimately be contoured to create a safe condition for cattle grazing. Upon completion of all reclamation activities, the Project site would be returned to cattle grazing and/or be retained as open space S.2 Overview of Project Impacts
S.2.1 No Impact
There are several issue areas raised in Chapter 3 that would not have any impacts under the Project. For example, there are no known forestry resources within the Project Site, so construction and operation of the Project would not affect the availability of forests or forestry resources. The Project would have no impacts within any of the following resource areas:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Land Use and Planning
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
S.2.2 Less-than-Significant Impacts
Some impacts that would occur under the Project would be adverse, but not severe enough to warrant mitigation. The Project would have a less-than-significant impacts in the following areas:
• Aesthetics (light and glare)
• Biological Resources (habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated plants located off-site)
• Air Quality (toxic air contaminants; odors)
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• Energy
• Geology, Soils, and Paleontology (seismic events; erosion and loss of topsoil; onsite wastewater treatment)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (routine transportation, use and disposal of hazardous materials)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (degradation of surface water quality; groundwater supply, production, quality and management; stormwater drainage and flooding) • Mineral Resources
• Noise (construction, operational and transportation noise) • Transportation (conflict with policies related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities)
• Utilities and Service Systems (water supply and solid waste) • Wildfire
S.2.3 Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation
Incorporated
Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). Based on the analysis contained in this EIR, implementation of the Project could result in significant impacts in the following areas:
• 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; and 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: Generate 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.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
If an impact is determined to be significant, applicable mitigation measures are identified as appropriate. These mitigation measures are also summarized in Table S-1. The mitigation measures presented in the EIR will form the basis of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Except for the impacts listed below under S.2.4, all of the potentially significant impacts could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in this EIR. An impact that remains significant after mitigation is considered an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project.

S.2.4 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. The following significant and unavoidable impacts would result from the Project.

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, PM2.5, and PM10 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). This significant unavoidable impact would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Impact 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 (Impact 3.4-15). Mitigation Measure 3.4-15 would reduce this impact but not below the thresholds of significance. 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 3.5-4,3.5-5, 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.

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).

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-8 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
S.2.5 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.

Buildout of the Project would commit nonrenewable resources during Project construction and ongoing utility services during Project operations. During operations, some oil, gas, and other fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources would be consumed and irreversible commitments of small quantities of nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of long-term Project operations.

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.

S.3 Summary of Alternatives
The following alternatives to the Project are evaluated in this Draft EIR:

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.

For a complete description of Project alternatives, please see Chapter 4, Alternatives. The relative impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Table S-2.

S.3.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the alternatives to the proposed Community Plan, CEQA requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be identified and the reasons for such selection disclosed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). In general, the Summary
Sargent Quarry S-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least adverse impacts.

The No Project alternative would not have any environmental impacts, so it would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Project and to Alternative 2 because it would avoid and/or reduce most significant impacts of the Project. This includes the significant and unavoidable impacts to the Betevel Bluff Tribal Cultural Resource and the Juristac Landscape Tribal Cultural Resource, as well as impacts on air quality, biological resources, paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and vehicle miles traveled.

S.4 Areas of Controversy
Any of the environmental issues considered during scoping or in this Draft EIR could become an issue of controversy. Preliminarily, the County has identified areas of controversy as including the issues and questions raised in agency and public comments received during scoping; all comments received during the scoping period are included in Appendix A to this Draft EIR.

Primary areas of concern include the loss of biological habitat and compensatory mitigation, and the loss of cultural and tribal cultural resources, particularly those of importance to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Costanoan/Ohlone Indians. Other potential areas of concern include the effects of the Project on surface and groundwater quality and Project construction traffic and vehicle miles traveled. These issues are addressed in sections 3.4, Biological Resources, 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 3.13, Transportation.

S.5 Unresolved Issues
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, which include the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts.

The following major issues are to be resolved:
• Choose among alternatives;
• Determine whether the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; and
• Determine whether additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the Project.

S.6 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation
Measures
Table S-1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the Project and recommended mitigation measures that, if adopted, would avoid or substantially reduce potential significant impacts of the Project. The analysis of each impact is provided on a resource-by-resource basis in Chapter 3.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact 3.2-1: The Project would alter the visual
character of the Project site or scenic resources
visible from U.S. 101, a County-designated scenic
highway.

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 are screened to the extent possible by a combination of the screening berm, fencing, and vegetation in order to achieve a natural appearance, to the extent possible.

Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 3.2-2: The Project could introduce a new
source of substantial light or glare.

None required. Less than Significant
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.2-4: The Project could contribute to
cumulative increases in light and glare.

None required. Less than Significant
Air Quality
Impact 3.3-1: The Project would affect
implementation of the applicable air quality plans.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b, discussed in greater detail below under Impact 3.3-2.

Significant and Unavoidable
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a: The Project Applicant shall require that all off-road mobile equipment and Applicant-owned trucks powered by diesel used during the construction and operation phases of the Project meet USEPA Tier 4 engine standards for NOx (i.e., Tier 4 final). If implementation of this requirement is determined to not be feasible for given piece(s) or model(s) of off-road equipment, the Project Applicant shall substantiate the reason(s) for infeasibility and shall propose equipment with the next most restrictive tier status (e.g., Tier 3, Tier 2) and shall submit the documentation to the County of Santa Clara for review and approval at least 7 days prior to the planned use of the non-Tier 4 equipment.

Designate a person to implement and modify the Dust Control Plan as appropriate. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following elements based on BAAQMD recommended construction mitigation measures, most of which also apply to Project operations:

1. Water all active unpaved vehicle roadways at least twice a day during dry conditions to ensure that roadways are damp enough to suppress dust generation;
Significant and Unavoidable
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation

2. All haul trucks transporting soil or sand off-site shall be covered;

3. Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour on all unpaved roadways and off-road areas (e.g., mining pits);

4. Prevent dirt track out on to public roadways by using wheel washers or other washing methods to ensure that tires or tracks on all trucks and equipment leaving the site are cleaned of dirt. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;

5. Remove any visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto Old Monterey Road using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day;

6. Water, cover, or treat (with non-toxic soil stabilizers) exposed stockpiles of fine materials;

7. Water and/or treat inactive exposed soil areas including areas exposed within mining pits, to minimize dust generation from wind or other ground disturbances;

8. Apply water misting or spraying to all material transfer points, including export truck loading activities;

9. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the County of Santa Clara regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations;

10. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph;

11. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established;

12. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site;

13. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6-to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel;

14. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent; and

15. In the processing areas where vehicles and equipment travel, apply dust suppressant at least once per year in addition to watering and limiting travel speeds to 15 mph. Dust suppressants or gravel would be applied more often if visible dust clouds extending beyond the roadway are noted, or apply gravel to the areas.

Impact 3.3-3: The Project could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

None required. Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.3-4: The Project would not result in
odorous emissions adversely affecting a substantial
number of people.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.3-5: The Project would contribute
nonattainment pollutants (ozone precursors, PM2.5,
and PM10) to cumulative increases in air pollutants.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.3-6: The Project could contribute to
cumulative TAC concentrations.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.3-7: The Project would not combine with
other, cumulative sources of odors in the Project
vicinity adversely affecting a substantial number of
people.

None required. Less than Significant
Biological Resources
Impact 3.4-1: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on special-status plant species.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities in natural (i.e., undeveloped) habitat for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase to ensure that impacts to special-status plants as a result of Project activities are avoided or minimized.

1. Preconstruction surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted by a qualified plant ecologist prior to all phases of ground disturbance or construction activity throughout the Project life. A focused survey during the appropriate bloom season for the 10 special-status plant species that could occur shall be conducted in any area of proposed ground disturbance and a surrounding 50- foot buffer area. Surveys must take place no more than four years before ground disturbance in any given area commences. Surveys shall be conducted in a year with near-average or aboveaverage precipitation (i.e., precipitation that is at least 70% of the long-term average for the site, as determined using the 30-year climate normals from the PRISM Climate and Weather System [https://prism.oregonstate.edu] or a similar source). Alternatively, these surveys may be conducted in a year of below-average precipitation if the target species are documented to be flowering/detectable at nearby reference populations despite the below-average rainfall. If surveys are conducted in a below-average rainfall year and detectability of a species at a reference population cannot be confirmed, then no impacts should occur in suitable habitat for that species until a survey can be conducted in an appropriate year (with adequate rainfall or detectability at a reference population). The purpose of the surveys shall be to assess the presence or absence of the potentially occurring species. If none of the target species are found in the impact area or surrounding 50-foot buffer, then no further mitigation measures shall apply. If any individual special-status plants are found in the impact area or 50-foot buffer, then the Applicant shall implement all of the following additional mitigation measures. • In consultation with a qualified plant ecologist, the Applicant shall redesign the Project to avoid direct and indirect impacts to the species to the extent feasible (e.g., via the establishment of an appropriately sized buffer of at least 50 feet or larger, as determined by a Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
qualified plant ecologist based on the avoided species and the type of nearby impacts). If all special-status plant occurrences can be avoided via an adequate buffer (as determined by a qualified plant ecologist), then no further mitigation is necessary. • If a qualified plant ecologist determines that avoidance is not feasible (including determining that the buffers around an occurrence are inadequate to avoid impacts), then the Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures.
Prior to initiation of impacts, a qualified plant ecologist will determine the extent of impacts based on the number of individuals impacted and the acreage of habitat occupied by each special-status plant species, based on the results of the preconstruction survey described above and the impact areas. The Applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation through preservation and management of another, existing on-site or off-site population within Santa Clara County, or in neighboring portions of Santa Cruz, San Benito, or Monterey Counties within 30 miles of the Project area. First priority shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch, if other on-site populations are present. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for species losses. Habitat occupied by the affected species shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 2:1 mitigation ratio (at least two plants preserved for each plant affected, and also at least two occupied acres preserved for each occupied acre affected), for any impact to Congdon’s tarplant. This 2:1 mitigation ratio is not lower because Congdon’s tarplant is ranked 1B by the CNPS, and such species have declined significantly over the last century and are considered “rare, threatened, or endangered”. However, because no particularly high-quality habitat for Congdon’s tarplant is present in the Project area, a 2:1 mitigation ratio is sufficient to offset Project impacts. For the other nine specialstatus plant species that may to be impacted by the Project, habitat occupied by the affected species shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (at least one plant preserved for each plant affected, and also at least one occupied acre preserved for each occupied acre affected). This mitigation ratio is not higher than 1:1 because these other nine species have a CRPR of 4; such species are on the CNPS “watch list” because they are of limited distribution, but they are not as scarce or imperiled as CRPR 1B species, and therefore compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio would adequately offset Project impacts to these species. Alternatively, a contribution to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, in an amount determined in coordination with the agency, for maintenance of special-status plant species populations within the VHP Covered Area may be considered appropriate mitigation for impacts, if approved by the County Department of Planning and Development. This contribution shall be made prior to the initiation of impacts to specialstatus plants. Areas proposed to be preserved as compensatory mitigation for special-status plant impacts must contain verified extant populations of the CRPR-ranked plants that would be impacted. Mitigation areas shall be managed in perpetuity to encourage persistence Summary
Sargent Quarry S-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
and even expansion of the preserved target species. Mitigation lands shall not be located on land that is currently publicly owned for resource protection unless substantial enhancement of habitat quality (e.g., removal of invasive plants, correction of over-grazing, introduction of appropriate grazing management) shall be achieved by the mitigation activities. The mitigation habitat shall be of equal or greater habitat quality compared to the impacted areas, as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, in terms of soil features, extent of disturbance, vegetation structure, and dominant species composition, and shall contain at least as many individuals of the species as are impacted by Project activities. The permanent protection and management of mitigation lands shall be ensured by the Applicant through an appropriate mechanism, such as a conservation easement to the County or other qualified entity approved by the County, which could be included in the conservation easement referenced in Mitigation Measure M 3.5-4b.
If Project-specific compensatory mitigation occurs (instead of a contribution to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency), a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified ecologist and implemented by the Applicant for the mitigation lands. The HMMP shall be prepared by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist. The HMMP shall be approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities that would impact special-status plants. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, all of the following information:
o Summary of impacts on special-status plant species (including individuals and habitat) and the proposed mitigation;
o Description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions, including documentation of the occurrence of the specialstatus plant species for which mitigation is being provided; o Description of measures to be undertaken to enhance (e.g., through focused management that may include removal of invasive species in adjacent suitable but currently unoccupied habitat) the mitigation site for the focal special-status species; o Description of measures to transplant individual plants or seeds from the impact area to the mitigation site, if appropriate (which shall be determined by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist depending on the species and circumstances); o Proposed management activities to maintain high-quality habitat conditions for the focal species;
o Description of habitat and species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective final criteria and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include demonstration that any plant population fluctuations over the monitoring period do not indicate a downward trajectory in terms of reduction in numbers and/or occupied area for the preserved Summary
Sargent Quarry S-15 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
mitigation population that can be attributed to management (e.g., that are not the result of local weather patterns, as determined by monitoring of a nearby reference population, or other factors unrelated to management);
o Contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria; and
o Description of adaptive management , indicating how management may be adapted depending on climate change or other changes in site conditions and the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented, Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: To minimize the potential for Project activities to result in the introduction and/or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora (a plant-damaging water mold), the Applicant shall prepare and implement an Invasive Species and Phytophthora Management Plan (ISPMP). The ISPMP shall be approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to issuance of a grading permit by the County. The ISPMP shall detail the measures to be implemented to minimize the potential for the introduction and spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora during Project implementation, including during Project construction, operations, and reclamation. At a minimum, the ISPMP shall include a description of the following information:

1. How materials (including vegetation, soil, and construction materials) and construction personnel, vehicles, and equipment will move around the site and between on-site and off-site areas.

2. Measures that will be implemented to minimize the potential for introduction or spread of invasive plants and Phytophthora on equipment, tools, vehicles, and personnel, including (but not limited to) the following:
• Before arrival at the site, equipment, vehicles, and tools will be free of soil including debris on tires, wheel wells, vehicle undercarriages, and other surfaces. A high-pressure washer and/or compressed air may be used to ensure that soil and debris are completely removed. • Vehicles may be cleaned at a commercial vehicle or appropriate truck washing facility.

Vehicles that only travel and park on paved public roads do not require external cleaning.

The interior of vehicles and equipment (cabs, etc.) must be free of mud, soil, gravel, and other debris (vacuumed, swept or washed).
• Vehicle wash stations may be installed at entrances and exits to the site. All wastewater from those stations should be detained so that it does not enter natural waterbodies or areas of unimpacted vegetation.
• Small tools and equipment must be washed to be free of soil or other contamination and sanitized. Wood handles on tools should be sealed with a waterproof coating to make them easier to sanitize. Before sanitizing, remove all soil and organic material (roots, sap, etc.) from the surface. If necessary, use a detergent solution and brush to scrub off surface contaminants. The sanitizing agent may also be used as a cleaning fluid. Screwdrivers or similar implements may be needed to clean soil out of crevices or shoe treads. Brushes and other implements used to help remove soil need to be cleaned and sanitized after use.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
• After surface soil and contamination are removed, treat the surface with a sanitizing agent, allowing the appropriate contact time before use or rinsing. If surfaces are clean and dry, wet surfaces thoroughly and allow for the appropriate contact time. If the sanitizer has been used to help clean the surface, use fresh sanitizer to rinse off any dirty solution and again allow the required contact time. If treated surfaces are wetted with water, the sanitizing solution will become diluted. Apply enough sanitizer to completely displace the water film and then allow the required contact time. Sanitizing agents may be applied by using spray bottles and applied to thoroughly wet the surface. Observe all appropriate safety precautions to prevent contact with eyes or skin when using these agents.
• Sanitizing agents may include 70-90% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol (spray to thoroughly wet the surface and allow to air dry before use); freshly diluted bleach solution (0.525% sodium hypochlorite) for a minimum of 1 minute (due to corrosivity, not advised for steel or other materials damaged by bleach); 2000 ppm quaternary ammonium disinfectant for 1 min (or according to manufacturer recommendations), freshly made or tested to ensure target concentrations.
• Soles and uppers of footwear must be free of debris and soil before arriving at the site. Clean and sanitize footwear as described above.
• Before entering the job site, field workers will receive training that includes information on Phytophthora diseases and how to prevent the spread of these and other soil-borne pathogens by following approved phytosanitary procedures. • Do not bring more vehicles into work sites than absolutely necessary. Within the site, keep vehicles on surfaced or graveled roads whenever possible to minimize soil movement.

3. measures to revegetate temporarily impacted areas using appropriate seed mixes that do not contain invasive species and that are free from Phytophthora, shortly following completion of those impacts

4. measures for disposing of cleared vegetation so that Phytophthora on plant roots or invasive plant propagules are not spread to uncontaminated areas

5. measures for transporting and stockpiling soil so that Phytophthora or invasive plant propagules are not spread from contaminated soil (e.g., in runoff)

6. monitoring to ensure that the ISPMP is properly implemented and that infestations of invasive species or Phytophthora are detected before they become widespread or severe

7. methods of addressing any infestations of invasive species, or preventing infestations of Phytophthora from spreading

8. the means by which plant materials used in site restoration, during site reclamation, will be ensured to be free of invasive species and Phytophthora infestation Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c: To minimize impacts on special-status plants and animals, and sensitive habitats, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct an employee education training Summary
Sargent Quarry S-17 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
session for employees working on all construction, operations, and reclamation activities, prior to those employees’ work on the Project. This training session can consist of in-person training or preparation of a video or similar presentation. Personnel shall be required to attend the presentation, which shall describe any special-status or sensitive species, and sensitive/regulated habitats, that may be present; avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures; legal protection of these animals; the boundaries of Project work areas; and other related issues, including any relevant conditions from resource agency permits obtained for Project implementation. A fact sheet or other supporting materials containing this information shall be prepared and distributed. Upon completion of training, employees will sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all the conservation and protection measures.

Biological Resources (cont.)
Impact 3.4-2: Project nitrogen emissions would not
result in adverse effects on habitat for the Bay
checkerspot butterfly and rare serpentine-associated
plants located off-site.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.4-3: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on special-status fish and their
habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: The Applicant shall implement the following measures and the “Aquatic Avoidance and Minimization Measures” contained in Table 6-2 of the VHP, during any Project construction activity, and during operational and reclamation activities as appropriate (e.g., equipment storage or refueling, or other activities that could result in spills) to minimize increases of peak discharge of stormwater and to reduce runoff of sediment and pollutants to protect water quality. The following measures to be implemented by the Applicant shall be monitored by the qualified biologist retained by the Applicant as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, who shall be present to monitor construction activities during initial ground disturbance or vegetation clearing in any given area or Project phase.
a. No construction within creeks or riparian habitats shall occur during the wet season (October 15 to April 15, or as otherwise indicated by the conditions of resource agency permits). b. Ground disturbance shall be minimized so that only those phases of the Project and ancillary supporting facilities, including but not limited to road construction, conveyor installation and operation, and plant and rail construction, which are actively being constructed or being mined would be cleared/prepared.
c. The removal of riparian vegetation shall be minimized to the amount necessary to accomplish the required activity and comply with public health and safety directives. Any riparian vegetation to be removed shall be clearly identified on plans submitted to and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to any riparian vegetation removal, along with evidence establishing why removal of such vegetation is necessary. d. Erosion control plans shall be submitted to and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development prior to initiation of ground disturbance and shall include the following:
• Control exposed soil by stabilizing slopes (e.g., with erosion control blankets) and protecting channels (e.g., using silt fences or straw wattles). Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips) shall be used on-site adjacent to creeks Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-18 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
or riparian vegetation. Fiber rolls used for erosion control shall be certified as free of noxious weed seed.
• Stockpiled soil shall be stabilized with geotextile or plastic covers. Sediments shall be stored and transported in a manner that minimizes water quality impacts. If soil is stockpiled, no runoff shall be allowed to flow back to the channel.
e. If high levels of groundwater in a work area are encountered and dewatering must occur, the water shall be directed into infiltration basins, holding ponds, or areas with vegetation to remove sediment prior to the water re-entering a creek.
f. Construction and mining waste shall be disposed of in designated areas and stormwater shall be prevented from flowing onto or off of these areas.
g. Personnel shall use the appropriate equipment for the job that minimizes disturbance to the stream bottom. Appropriately tired vehicles, either tracked or wheeled, shall be used depending on the situation.

Impact 3.4-4: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on California red-legged frogs and
their habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a: The Applicant shall implement the following avoidance and minimization measures for all ground-disturbing activities throughout the life of the Project, including construction, operations, and reclamation, at access roads, bridges over Tar Creek and Sargent Creek, mining areas, and processing facilities, to minimize impacts on CRLF:

1. A biologist approved by the County and USFWS (hereafter “approved biologist”) shall be onsite during all activities that, in the opinion of the approved biologist and after consultation with USFWS, may result in impacts to individual CRLF. For example, once a work area is surrounded by exclusion fencing (as described below), any CRLF within that exclusion fencing have been relocated (as described below), and the qualified biologist has surveyed the area within the exclusion fencing well enough to determine that no CRLF are present, activities within the exclusion fencing and on other “developed” areas (e.g., roads and the processing plant) may proceed without the need for a biological monitor. The qualifications of the biologist(s) shall be submitted to the County and USFWS for review and written approval at least 15 calendar days prior to the date earthmoving is initiated at the Project site.

2. Prior to the initiation of any other protective measures, an approved biologist shall determine, in consultation with the USFWS, appropriate relocation sites for any adult, juvenile, or larval CRLF that may be observed during preconstruction surveys and monitoring and that need to be relocated. The approved biologist shall also determine, in consultation with the USFWS, how any CRLF showing evidence of poor health (which might indicate disease such as chytrid) should be handled or disposed of, to avoid translocating diseased individuals into habitat supporting healthy amphibians.

3. The Applicant shall install and maintain exclusion fencing around construction and mining zones, to prevent CRLF from moving into these areas. Exclusion fencing shall be at least 3 ft high, and the lower 6 inches of the fence shall be buried in the ground to prevent animals from crawling under. The remaining 2.5 ft shall be left above ground to serve as a barrier for animals moving on the ground surface. The fence shall be pulled taut at each support to prevent folds or snags. The Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-19 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Applicant shall inspect such fencing regularly (at least weekly) and maintain it in good condition throughout the construction and mining period.

4. The Applicant shall flag or fence construction and mining areas to identify areas where work is permitted to occur, and work activities shall be confined to these areas.

5. An approved biologist shall delineate sensitive habitat areas such as streams, wetlands, and riparian habitats outside the permitted work area with high-visibility flagging or fencing to prevent encroachment of construction and mining personnel and equipment into any sensitive areas during Project work activities. At no time shall equipment or personnel be allowed to enter, disturb, or otherwise adversely affect these sensitive habitat areas without prior written authorization from the County and USFWS.

6. No more than 24 hours prior to initial ground disturbance for each phase of construction or mining activity, an approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for the CRLF at the Project site.
• The survey shall consist of walking the Project limits and within the Project site to ascertain the possible presence of the species. The approved biologist shall investigate all areas that could be used by the CRLF for feeding, breeding, sheltering, movement, and other essential behaviors. This includes an adequate examination of mammal burrows, such as California ground squirrels or gophers.
• Each encounter with the CRLF shall be treated on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the USFWS, but the general procedure is as follows: (1) the animal shall not be disturbed if it is not in danger; or (2) the animal shall be moved to a secure location if it is in any danger.

These procedures are further described below:

7. When a CRLF is encountered, all activities which could result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual shall be immediately halted. The approved biologist shall then assess the situation in order to select a course of action that would avoid or minimize adverse effects to the animal. To the maximum extent possible, contact with the frog shall be avoided and the Applicant shall allow it to move out of the hazardous situation to a secure location on its own volition. This procedure applies to situations where a CRLF is encountered while it is moving to another location. It does not apply to animals that are uncovered or otherwise exposed or in areas where there is not sufficient adjacent habitat to support the species should the individual move away from the hazardous location.

8. CRLF that are in danger shall be relocated and released by the approved biologist outside the construction or mining area within the same riparian area or watershed. If relocation of the frog outside the fence is not feasible (i.e., there are too many individuals observed per day), the approved biologist shall relocate the animals to a USFWS preapproved location. Prior to the initial ground disturbance, the Applicant shall obtain approval of the relocation protocol from the Service in the event that a CRLF is encountered and needs to be moved away from the Project site.

9. The approved biologist shall limit the duration of the handling and captivity of the CRLF to the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the task. If the animal must be held in captivity, it Summary
Sargent Quarry S-20 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
shall be kept in a cool, dark, moist, aerated environment, such as a clean and disinfected bucket or plastic container with a damp sponge. The container used for holding or transporting the individual shall not contain any standing water.

10. No construction within creeks or riparian habitats shall occur during the wet season (October 15 to April 15, or as otherwise indicated by the conditions of resource agency permits). Outside of creeks and riparian habitats, when ground-disturbing activities in any given location commence between October 15 and April 15, daily monitoring by an approved biologist shall occur for the CRLF until April 16 or until all clearing and grubbing have been completed and the work area is completely surrounded by wildlife exclusion fencing, at which time CRLF would no longer be able to enter the work area.

11. To minimize harassment, injury death, and harm in the form of temporary habitat disturbances, all Project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction and mining areas, equipment staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas. These areas shall be delineated by the Applicant in preconstruction surveys and shall be established in locations disturbed by previous activities whenever feasible unless otherwise approved by the County Planning Department.

12. Project-related vehicles shall observe a 15 mile per hour speed limit within construction and mining areas, except on County roads, and State and Federal highways. Off-road traffic outside of designated and fenced Project work areas shall be prohibited.

13. The Applicant shall ensure bio-swales and bio-filtration are installed at the Project site adjacent to roadways to avoid and minimize sediment loading and point source pollutants.

14. If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters to prevent CRLF from entering the pump system.

Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.

15. Uneaten human food and trash attracts crows, ravens, coyotes, and other predators of the CRLF.

A litter control program shall be instituted by the Applicant for construction, operations, and reclamation work. All workers shall ensure their food scraps, paper wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash are deposited in covered or closed trash containers. The trash containers shall be removed from the Project area at the end of each working day.

16. No insecticides or herbicides shall be used during construction or operations where there is the potential for these chemical agents to enter creeks, streams, waterbodies, or uplands that contain suitable habitat for the CRLF.

17. No canine or feline pets or firearms (except for federal, state, or local law enforcement officers and security personnel) shall be permitted at the Project site to avoid and minimize harassment, injury, and death of the CRLF.

18. For onsite storage of pipes, conduits and other materials that could provide shelter for CRLF, the Applicant shall use an open-top trailer or some other means to elevate the materials above Summary
Sargent Quarry S-21 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
ground. This is intended to reduce the potential for animals to climb into the conduits and other materials.

19. To the maximum extent practicable, no construction activities shall occur during rain events (i.e., when rain hits the ground) or within 24-hours following a rain event. Prior to construction activities resuming after a rain event, an approved biologist shall inspect the action area and all equipment/materials for the presence of CRLF.

20. To the maximum extent practicable, night-time construction shall be minimized or avoided by the Applicant because dusk and dawn are often the times when the CRLF is most actively moving and foraging. Because dusk and dawn are often the times when the CRLF is most actively moving and foraging, to the maximum extent practicable, earthmoving and construction activities will cease no less than 30 minutes before sunset and will not begin again prior to no less than 30 minutes after sunrise.

21. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting), loosely woven netting, or similar material in any form shall not be used at the Project site because CRLF can become entangled and trapped in them. Any such material found on site shall be immediately removed by the approved biologist, construction or mining personnel, or the Applicant. Materials utilizing fixed weaves (strands cannot move), polypropylene, polymer or other synthetic materials shall not be used.

22. Trenches or pits one (1) foot deep or more that are going to be left unfilled for more than fortyeight (48) hours shall be securely covered by the Applicant with boards or other material to prevent the CRLF from falling into them, unless slopes leading out of the pits are suitable to allow CRLF to leave on their own. If this is not possible, the Applicant shall ensure wooden ramps or other structures of suitable surface that provide adequate footing for the CRLF are placed in the trench or pit to allow for their unaided escape. The trench, pit, or hole also shall be examined by the approved biologist each workday morning during construction at least one hour prior to initiation of work and in the late afternoon no more than one hour after work has ceased to ascertain whether any individuals have become trapped. If the escape ramps fail to allow the animal to escape, the approved biologist shall remove and transport it to a safe location or contact the USFWS for guidance.

23. The approved biologist(s) shall permanently remove any aquatic non-native wildlife species, such as bullfrogs and crayfish from the Project site, to the maximum extent possible.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b: The Applicant shall implement the following avoidance and minimization measures for certain operational activities:

1. Impacts on the known CRLF breeding pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback shall be avoided, if feasible, so that this pond is not lost (i.e., so that the pond is not removed, filled, or drained so that it no longer provides suitable amphibian breeding habitat). If loss of this pond is unavoidable, compensatory mitigation will be provided as described in Mitigation Measure

3.4-4c(3).

2. If mining activity that directly disturbs any pools or ponds within a mining pit, including retention basins, experiences a lull of at least 7 days, an approved biologist shall conduct a survey of the pool, pond, or basin for all life stages of the CRLF before mining in that Summary
Sargent Quarry S-22 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
waterbody resumes. Any individuals detected shall be captured (e.g., via dipnet, seine, or other means suitable for the life stage in question) and relocated to the nearest habitat suitable for the life stage in question (e.g., egg masses and larvae shall be moved to other ponds or pools with suitable hydroperiod for successful metamorphosis) by the approved biologist.

3. The Applicant shall install wildlife exclusion fencing around the storage pond within the processing plant to prevent special-status species such as CRLF from entering the pond.

Exclusion fencing shall be at least 3 ft high, and the lower 6 inches of the fence shall be buried in the ground to prevent animals from crawling under. The remaining 2.5 ft shall be left above ground to serve as a barrier for animals moving on the ground surface. The fence shall be pulled taut at each support to prevent folds or snags. Such fencing shall be inspected regularly (at least weekly) and maintained in good condition throughout the period of the plant’s operation.

4. All lighting on the site, including security lighting (remain on throughout the night but shall be turned off if feasible) and lighting used during the plant’s hours of operation, shall be minimized in terms of intensity, height of lights, extent (i.e., dispersion around the processing plant), and spillover into adjacent areas. A detailed lighting plan shall be provided to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval as part of the processing plant building permit or any grading permit submittal, whichever occurs first. The lighting plan shall show the fixture locations and specifications. All lighting shall be pointed downward and shielded. A photometric plan shall be included showing the lumens (or other similar measurement) for each fixture at the site. Light spillover outside of the processing plant shall be limited, and no fixtures shall be installed on the east side of the processing plant.

5. Fencing with screening shall be installed around as much of the main plant as possible, as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-15.2.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4c: The Applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to CRLF habitat as follows:

1. Prior to initiation of impacts, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of impacts on CRLF habitat based on the acreage of all non-developed habitat to be impacted. The pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area and the pond immediately south of Phase 4 that will be altered hydrologically by mining will be considered breeding habitat, and all other non-developed habitat to be impacted will be considered nonbreeding habitat.

2. The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts on CRLF nonbreeding habitat (e.g., upland habitat and nonbreeding aquatic habitat) through the preservation, management, and enhancement (e.g., through long-term management targeted toward this species) of high-quality habitat that is already occupied by the CRLF at a ratio of at least 2:1 (mitigation:impact), on an acreage basis, or as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS. This 2:1 mitigation ratio is not lower because CRLF appear to regularly use the Project site and breed in or near impact areas, so that a 2:1 mitigation ratio is deemed necessary to offset Project impacts, but it is not higher because Project areas will Summary
Sargent Quarry S-23 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
be restored to conditions suitable for CRLF following completion of mining. First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.

3. The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts on CRLF breeding habitat, including the pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area (if it will be lost or permanently drained) and the pond immediately south of Phase 4 that will be altered hydrologically by mining, through one or both of the following methods, or equivalent or more effective methods as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS:
• the creation of aquatic habitat suitable for CRLF breeding that could support the species at a 2:1 (mitigation:impact) ratio, on an acreage basis.
• the enhancement of degraded aquatic habitat that is unsuitable for use by CRLF, but that is in close proximity to areas of known occurrence and can be made more suitable for use via the eradication of aquatic predators (e.g., bullfrogs and predatory fish) at a 3:1 mitigation ratio, on an acreage basis.

First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Offsite mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.

4. A qualified biologist shall develop an HMMP describing the measures that shall be taken to manage the created/enhanced breeding and upland habitat described above and to monitor the effects of management on the CRLF. The HMMP shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. The County may retain a qualified biologist at the Applicant’s expense to peer-review the HMMP. The HMMP shall include the following:
• a summary of impacts on CRLF habitat and populations, and the proposed mitigation; • a description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions;
• a description of measures to be undertaken if necessary, to enhance (e.g., through focused management) the mitigation site for CRLF;
• proposed management activities, such as managed grazing, management of invasive plants, measures targeted at sustaining populations of burrowing mammals, or other measures to maintain high-quality habitat for CRLF;
• a description of species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, goals and objectives (such as maintaining or increasing abundance of CRLF or maintaining or improving habitat suitability), performance indicators and success criteria (such as presence or abundance of upland refugia or hydroperiod of breeding habitat), monitoring methods (such as sampling of upland refugia or monitoring of the hydroperiod of breeding habitat), Summary
Sargent Quarry S-24 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include occupation by the CRLF of created aquatic habitat; • a description of the management plan’s adaptive management component, including a description of how management may be adapted depending on climate change or other changes in site conditions and the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented, as well as contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria; and
• a description of the funding mechanism for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation lands.

Impact 3.4-5: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on California tiger salamanders
(CTS) and their habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: The Applicant shall implement all impact avoidance and minimization measures described in Mitigation Measures 3.4-4a and 3.4-4b for the CRLF to reduce impacts on CTS, and shall consult with CDFW (e.g., for approval of biologists and relocation areas, and for approval conditions in which no take of individual CTS is anticipated to occur within an area and site monitoring by the qualified biologist is no longer necessary) in addition to the County and USFWS for all measures involving CTS.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b:

1. Prior to initiation of impacts, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of impacts on CTS habitat based on the acreage of all non-developed habitat to be impacted.

2. The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts on CTS nonbreeding habitat (e.g., upland habitat and nonbreeding aquatic habitat) through the preservation, management, and enhancement (e.g., through long-term management targeted toward this species) of high-quality habitat that is already occupied by the CTS at a ratio of at least 1:1 (mitigation:impact), on an acreage basis, or as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS and CDFW. This 1:1 mitigation ratio is not lower because CTS are expected to be present on the Project site at least in low numbers, so that a 1:1 mitigation ratio is deemed necessary to offset Project impacts, but it is not higher because surveys have documented that the species is scarce in the Project area (so that effects of the Project on this species’ populations would be low), and Project areas would be restored to conditions suitable for CTS following completion of mining. If CTS are recorded breeding successfully in the stock pond in the Phase 2 geotechnical setback area and that pond is subsequently impacted, or in the pond adjacent to the Phase 4 mining area that will be impacted indirectly as a result of reduction in the pond’s watershed, the Applicant shall provide mitigation for impacts to those breeding habitats at a ratio of at least 1:1, on an acreage basis, or as determined through the consultation and/or permitting process with USFWS and CDFW; mitigation for lost breeding habitat shall consist of creation, preservation, and management of CTS breeding habitat. The same mitigation areas established for CRLF can be used for CTS if both species are documented to be present.

First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.

Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-25 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation

3. The HMMP described for CRLF in Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 will also describe the measures that shall be taken to manage the created/enhanced habitat and to monitor the effects of management on CTS. The HMMP shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. The County may retain a qualified biologist at the Applicant’s expense to peer-review the HMMP. The HMMP shall include the following:
• a summary of impacts on CTS habitat and populations, and the proposed mitigation; • a description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions;
• a description of measures to be undertaken if necessary to enhance (e.g., through focused management) the mitigation site for CTS, including creation of new breeding habitat (if the Project impacts areas known to have been used for successful breeding by CTS); • proposed management activities, such as managed grazing, management of invasive plants, measures targeted at sustaining populations of burrowing mammals, and other measures to maintain high-quality habitat for CTS;
• a description of species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective goals and objectives (such as maintaining or increasing abundance of CTS or maintaining or improving habitat suitability), performance indicators and success criteria (such as presence or abundance of upland refugia), monitoring methods (such as sampling of upland refugia), data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include demonstrated occurrence of CTS on the mitigation site;
• a description of the management plan’s adaptive management component, including a description of how management may be adapted depending on climate change or other changes in site conditions and the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented, as well as contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria; and
• a description of the funding mechanism for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation lands.

Impact 3.4-6: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on western pond turtles and their
habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: The Applicant shall implement all impact avoidance and minimization measures described in Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 for water quality and 3.4-4a and 3.4-4b for the CRLF for the western pond turtle, and CDFW will be consulted (e.g., for approval of biologists and relocation areas) in addition to the County for all measures involving this species.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.4-7: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on burrowing owls and their habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: The Applicant shall implement the following measures (based on those contained within Condition 15 of the VHP) prior to groundbreaking activities for each phase of the Project (construction, operations, and reclamation) to ensure that individual burrowing owls are not injured or killed as a result of Project activities.

Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-26 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Prior to any ground disturbance associated with the Project (including vegetation removal; construction of individual Project components, such as roads, conveyor belts, and mining infrastructure; and ground disturbance associated with the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase), a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys in all suitable burrowing owl habitat areas on and within 250 feet of the area in which ground disturbance is proposed. To maximize the likelihood of detecting owls, the preconstruction survey shall last a minimum of three hours. The survey shall begin one hour before sunrise and continue until two hours after sunrise (three hours total) or begin two hours before sunset and continue until one hour after sunset. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted (if owls are detected on the first survey, a second survey is not needed). Owls observed shall be counted and their location shall be mapped.

Surveys shall conclude no more than two calendar days prior to construction; thus, surveys must begin no less than four days prior to the start of construction, operations, or reclamation activities (two days of surveying plus up to two days between surveys and construction).

To avoid last-minute changes in schedule that may occur if burrowing owls are found, a preliminary survey may be conducted up to 14 days before construction. This preliminary survey may count as the first of the two required surveys, as long as the second survey concludes no more than two calendar days in advance of construction. Should the preconstruction survey determine the presence of burrowing owls on or within 250 feet the site, then the Applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures.
a. Avoidance during the Breeding Season. If evidence of burrowing owls is found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), all nesting or roosting sites that could be disturbed by Project construction shall be avoided during the remainder of the breeding season (if owls remain throughout the breeding season) or while the nest (i.e., a burrow occupied during the period February 1 to August 31) is occupied by adults or young (occupation includes individuals or family groups foraging on or near the site following fledging). Although burrowing owls are unlikely to nest on the Project site, there is a remote possibility that nesting may occur. Wintering owls in Santa Clara County often remain past February 1, at which time they cannot be distinguished from breeding birds. As a result, any owl present between February 1 and August 31 will be considered a potential breeder unless and until it leaves the site.

Avoidance shall include establishment of a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer zone around nests.

Construction may occur outside of the 250-foot non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur inside of the 250-foot non-disturbance buffer during the breeding season only if the nest is not disturbed, and a qualified biologist retained by the Project Applicant develops an avoidance, minimization, and monitoring plan that is reviewed and approved by the CDFW prior to Project construction and meets all of the following criteria:
• A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least 3 days prior to construction to determine baseline nesting and foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). • The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl nesting and foraging behavior in response to construction activities.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-27 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
• If there is any change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, all disturbance activities shall cease within the 250-foot buffer. Construction shall not resume within the 250-foot buffer until the adults and juveniles from the occupied burrows have moved out of the Project area and 250-foot buffer. • If monitoring indicates that the nest is abandoned prior to the end of the nesting season (as would occur if a wintering owl lingered past February 1 and then eventually migrated to its breeding areas outside the region), and the burrow is no longer in use by owls, the nondisturbance buffer zone may be removed. The qualified biologist will excavate the burrow to ensure that no owls are present and to prevent reoccupation after receiving approval from CDFW.
b. Avoidance during the Non-Breeding Season. During the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around occupied burrows as determined by a qualified biologist. Construction activities outside of this 250-foot buffer are allowed. Construction activities within the 250-foot buffer are allowed if all of the following criteria are met in order to prevent owls from abandoning important overwintering sites:
• A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). • The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl foraging behavior in response to construction activities. • If there is any change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, all disturbance activities shall cease within the 250-foot buffer. • If the owls are gone for at least one week, the Project Applicant may request approval from the CDFW that a qualified biologist excavate usable burrows to prevent owls from reoccupying the site. After all usable burrows are excavated, the buffer zone will be removed and construction may continue. Monitoring must continue as described above for the nonbreeding season as long as the burrow remains active. c. Construction Monitoring. Based on the avoidance, minimization, and monitoring plan developed during construction, all non-disturbance buffer zones shall be established and maintained. A qualified biologist shall monitor the site consistent with the requirements described above to ensure that buffers are enforced and owls are not disturbed. The biological monitor shall also conduct training of construction personnel on the avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that a burrowing owl flies into an active construction zone or within 250 feet of such zone.
d. Passive Relocation. Passive relocation shall only be allowed, with the approval of CDFW, during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), and may only occur if the burrow needs to be removed or could collapse from construction activities. If passive relocation is allowed by CDFW, a qualified biologist shall passively exclude birds from their burrows during nonbreeding season only by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in Summary
Sargent Quarry S-28 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
place for at least 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow, and then the qualified biologist shall excavate the burrow to prevent reoccupation. Burrows shall be excavated using hand tools.

During excavation an escape route shall be maintained at all times. This may include inserting an artificial structure into the burrow to avoid having the overburden collapse into the burrow and trap owls inside.

Impact 3.4-8: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on tricolored blackbirds and their
habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-8a: The Applicant shall implement the following measures (based on those contained within Condition 17 of the VHP) prior to groundbreaking activities for each phase of the Project (construction, operations, and reclamation), to ensure that active tricolored blackbird colonies, including active nests, eggs, and young, are not lost as a result of Project activities.

1. Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase that occur between March 15 and July 31, a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys in all suitable tricolored blackbird habitat areas on and within 250 feet of the area in which construction or operational activities are proposed. The survey will be conducted no more than two calendar days prior to the start of the construction or operational activity. To avoid last minute changes in schedule that may occur if an active nest (i.e., a nest that is under construction or contains eggs or young) is found, the Project Applicant may also conduct a preliminary survey more than two calendar days before the start of construction, operations, and reclamation activities.

2. If any emergent vegetation develops in the bottom of an active mining pit (i.e., one that has not yet undergone complete reclamation), and more than one week of inactivity within 250 feet of that emergent vegetation occurs during the breeding season (March 15-July 31), a qualified biologist shall perform a survey for nesting tricolored blackbirds prior to the initiation of any subsequent Project activity within 250 feet of the emergent vegetation.

3. If a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is present, the qualified biologist will map the extent of suitable nesting habitat in which nesting is taking place (this suitable habitat may extend beyond the locations of actual nests). A 250-foot buffer will be applied between the edge of that nesting habitat and Project activities. This buffer may be reduced in areas with dense forest or other habitat features between the construction activities and the active nest colony, or where there is sufficient topographic relief to protect the colony from excessive noise or visual disturbance.

Depending on site characteristics, the sensitivity of the colony, and surrounding land uses, the buffer zone may also be increased beyond 250 feet.

4. If construction or operational activities take place during the breeding season when an active colony is present, a qualified biologist will monitor these activities to ensure that the 250-foot buffer zone is enforced. If monitoring indicates that Project activities outside of the buffer are affecting a breeding colony, the buffer will be increased if space allows (e.g., moving work areas farther away). If space does not allow, the Project activities causing disturbance of the colony will cease until the young have fledged or until the end of the breeding season, whichever occurs first.

The biological monitor will also conduct training of construction personnel on the avoidance Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-29 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that tricolored blackbirds fly into an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-8b: If Project construction or operational activities will result in direct impacts (outside the breeding season) on nesting habitat known to have supported nesting tricolored blackbirds within the last five years (as identified in the CNDDB, through contact with local experts, and Project pre-activity surveys in Mitigation Measure 3.4-8a), compensatory mitigation for the loss of nesting habitat shall be provided. Prior to initiation of impacts on that nesting habitat, a qualified biologist will determine the acreage of nesting habitat (habitat used by nesting blackbirds in the previous five years) that will be impacted. Compensatory mitigation will be provided in the form of habitat preservation or creation at a ratio of 1:1 (on an acreage basis) and shall be described within the Project’s HMMP prepared for the CRLF and CTS as described in Mitigation Measures 3.4-4c and 3.4-5b. First priority for compensatory mitigation sites shall be areas located on Sargent Ranch. Off-site mitigation shall only be used if on-site mitigation cannot fully compensate for habitat losses.

Habitat to be preserved or created shall contain at least the same acreage of suitable nesting habitat for the tricolored blackbird as the amount of nesting habitat acreage lost, and the suitability of that habitat for nesting must be verified by a qualified biologist and reviewed and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development. A habitat protection easement ensuring that the use and development of the compensatory mitigation area shall be consistent with this purpose in perpetuity shall be granted by the Applicant to the County or other qualified entity approved by the County.

Impact 3.4-9: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on other special-status and
protected birds and their habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for construction, for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase, and for the start of reclamation activities to ensure that active nests, eggs, and young of protected birds are not lost as a result of Project activities. a. To the extent feasible, construction, operational, and reclamation activities that involve vegetation removal or ground-breaking, or that occur near wooded or forested habitats likely to support large numbers of nesting birds, shall be initiated during the nonbreeding season for birds (generally September 1 through January 31). If these activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, impacts on active nests of birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided.
b. Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for Project activities that occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. The survey will cover the portions of the Project site where construction/operations activities will be initiated as well as a 1- mile buffer for nesting eagles (in the event that eagles may nest in the vicinity during the Project’s lifetime), a 250-foot buffer for other raptors, and a 100-foot buffer for non-raptors (other than tricolored blackbirds, which are addressed in Mitigation Measures 3.4-8a and 8b). During each survey, the qualified biologist will inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, grasslands, wetlands, and other nesting substrate) within direct impact areas and the aforementioned buffers for active nests (i.e., nests with eggs or young). The survey will be conducted no more than two calendar days prior to the start of the construction or operational Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-30 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
activity. To avoid last-minute changes in schedule that may occur if an active nest is found, the Project Applicant may also conduct a preliminary survey more than two calendar days before construction.
c. If an active nest is found, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of a disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest to ensure that it is not disturbed during Project implementation. The buffer distance is measured as the straight-line distance between an active nest and the activity. No Project-related activities that could physically disturb the nest, or any new Project-related activities (i.e., activities that were not ongoing when the nest was established) near the nest, will be performed within the buffer until the young have fledged or the nest has been determined to be inactive by a qualified biologist. Standard buffers are typically 100 feet for nonraptors and 250 feet for raptors other than eagles (for which the buffer may be up to 1 mile). A qualified biologist may determine that a reduced buffer is acceptable, taking into account dense vegetation, topography, or structures that will block Project activities from view; the life history and behavior of the bird species in question; and the nature (such as amount of noise, ground disturbance, or activity of personnel and equipment) of the proposed activity. If a reduced buffer is implemented, the qualified biologist will monitor bird behavior during work activities to the degree necessary to determine whether the buffer should be increase.

Impact 3.4-10: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on special-status bats.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-10a: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities involving habitat impacts or movement of Project personnel, vehicles, or heavy equipment for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase to ensure that active pallid bat maternity roosts are not destroyed or disturbed as a result of Project activities.

1. A qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct a habitat assessment of any riparian or oak woodland within the Project area for high-quality pallid bat roost sites prior to the start of any activities that will result in the removal of trees, use of heavy equipment, or night lighting. The habitat assessment shall include all impact areas plus a surrounding 150-foot buffer. If the habitat assessment concludes that any trees proposed for removal, or within 150 feet of areas where heavy equipment will be operated or night lighting will occur, provide high-quality roosting habitat for pallid bats (e.g., large cavities), the qualified biologist shall conduct a focused emergence survey to determine whether the roost is occupied. The survey shall be performed within 15 days prior to the start of construction or operations activities in a given Project phase. The survey shall include monitoring of suitable cavities at dusk, on a warm, dry evening when bats would emerge, to determine whether bats exit the roosts. Surveys may necessitate multiple qualified biologists and the use of acoustic detection devices to ensure that any pallid bats present are detected. If no pallid bats are detected emerging during the survey, no further measures are necessary. If pallid bats are detected during the survey, the qualified biologist will identify an appropriate buffer to be maintained around the roost during the maternity season (April 1 through July 31). The dimensions of the buffer will be determined based on the nature of the construction or operational activities proposed near the roost tree, the presence of dense vegetation or topography between the Project activities and the roost, and any other relevant factors. No new activities (i.e., activities that were not ongoing when the maternity season began) will occur within the buffer around the roost tree during the maternity season.

Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-31 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation

2. Pallid bat roost sites will be avoided and buffered, even outside the maternity season, if feasible. If it is infeasible to avoid the removal of a roost tree, whenever feasible the tree shall be removed only outside the maternity roost season and during seasonal periods of bat activity, when bats would be best able to find alternative roost sites. Thus, whenever feasible tree removal would occur only August 1 through October 15 or during March. Removal of these trees shall occur under the supervision of a qualified biologist via a two-phased process over two consecutive days.

In the afternoon of the first day, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features shall be removed. This disturbance would cause bats to leave the roost that evening. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-10b: If a tree (or any other structure) containing a pallid bat maternity roost must be removed as part of the Project, a qualified biologist shall design and determine an appropriate location, on Sargent Ranch, for an alternative roost structure, based on the location of the original roost and habitat conditions in the vicinity. The roost structure shall be built to specifications as determined by a qualified biologist, or it may be purchased from an appropriate vendor, though the design must be approved by a qualified biologist. The structure shall be placed as close to the impacted roost site as feasible, though it will be located far enough from future Project activities so as to avoid disturbance of bats using the roost. The Applicant shall monitor the roost for three years or until occupancy is determined (whichever occurs first) to determine use by bats and submit annual reports verifying monitoring results to the County Department of Planning and Development Department.

Impact 3.4-11: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on mountain lions and their habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-4c, 3.4-5b, and

3.4-15.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.4-12: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrats and their habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-12a: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-12b: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities in riparian or oak woodland for construction or for the start of mining activities associated with each new mining phase to ensure that impacts to active nests of woodrats as a result of Project activities are minimized.

No more than 15 days prior to initial vegetation removal or ground disturbance within suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, for each phase of construction and mining, a preconstruction survey for woodrat nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant. The survey shall consist of walking through all areas of suitable habitat within the Project work area looking for woodrat nests, both on the ground and in oak trees.

1. All woodrat nests detected within the survey area shall be flagged and mapped.

2. A minimum 10-foot buffer should be maintained between Project construction activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. A smaller buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than that due to Project activities.

3. If avoidance of active woodrat nests is not feasible (e.g., the nest is in the Project disturbance area) the woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the woodrats. The eviction of woodrats Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-32 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
and dismantling of woodrat nests shall begin no earlier than one hour before sunset to allow woodrats to escape under cover of dusk and avoid predators. A qualified biologist shall disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge outside of the Project activity area. Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be relocated; these materials will be gathered onto a tarp and then piled at the base of a nearby tree or shrub outside of the activity’s impact area. The spacing between relocated nests shall not be less than 20 feet, if feasible, to avoid over-crowding.

4. If, during dismantling of a woodrat nest, young woodrats are detected, the nest will be left in place.

Qualified biologists will revisit the nest after 3 days to determine whether it is still active, or whether the mother relocated the young to another area. Once the nest is determined to be inactive or the young are large enough to disperse on their own, the nest will be dismantled and the nest materials relocated.

Impact 3.4-13: Project activities would result in
adverse effects on American badgers and their
habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-13: The Applicant shall implement the following measures prior to any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities in natural (i.e., undeveloped) habitat for construction or for the start of mining and reclamation activities associated with each new mining phase to ensure that injury or mortality of American badgers as a result of Project activities is avoided. a. Preconstruction surveys (occurring prior to all phases of ground disturbance or construction activity throughout the Project life) conducted for burrowing owls shall also be used to determine the presence or absence of badgers within the Project area, as well as within a 300-foot buffer around the Project area. If an active badger den is identified during preconstruction surveys, a construction-free buffer of 300 feet (or an alternate distance determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW) shall be established around the den if feasible. If a 300-foot buffer is infeasible, then the qualified biologist and CDFW shall determine whether a reduced buffer is preferable to evicting the badger (which would likely be the case for a single badger). b. During the period September 1 through the end of February, when young are unlikely to be present in a burrow, if a badger den is located within the Project footprint, the den shall be excavated by a qualified biologist to cause the badger to leave the area. Because badgers are known to use multiple burrows in a breeding burrow complex, multiple dense may need to be excavated. Ground disturbance can proceed only after all dens within the impact area have been excavated to ensure that no badgers are present below-ground/ c. During the period March 1 through August 31, when young could be present within a burrow, a biological monitor shall be present on the site during Project activities that occur within 500 feet of any known or suspected badger den to ensure the buffer is adequate to avoid direct impacts to individuals or den abandonment. Such monitoring shall occur until it is determined that young are of an independent age such that Project development would not result in harm to individual badgers. Once the biological monitor has determined that young badgers are old enough to leave their natal den or have vacated the site, the burrows can be excavated, and ground disturbance can proceed.

Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-33 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.4-14: Project activities would result in
substantial adverse effects on jurisdictional
wetlands, other waters, and riparian habitats.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a: Prior to issuance of any development permits, the Project Applicant shall compensate for the estimated loss of any jurisdictional wetlands, ponds, creeks, and riparian habitat that would occur over the Project’s permitted term through on-site or off-site restoration, creation, or enhancement of similar or higher-quality habitat, the purchase of mitigation credits, or a combination of these two approaches. A qualified biologist shall determine the extent of impacts based on the acreage of overlap of Project construction and operations/mining areas on wetlands, ponds, and riparian habitat, and the linear footage of creek channel within those Project impact areas. A minimum of a 1:1 (on an acreage basis for wetlands, ponds, and riparian habitat and a linear footage basis for creeks) replacement-to-loss ratio for in-kind habitat (or equivalent or greater as determined in coordination with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB during permitting) is required. Enhancement of existing, low-quality habitats (rather than restoration or creation) is acceptable if a substantial increase in ecological functions and values can be achieved, as determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB.

If mitigation is to be satisfied through purchase of mitigation credits in an agency-approved mitigation bank, such as the Pajaro River Mitigation Bank (for wetlands), proof of the purchase of credits shall be provided to the County Department of Planning and Development prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. If mitigation is to be satisfied through Project-specific habitat restoration, creation, or enhancement, the mitigation shall be described in an HMMP, which shall be prepared by a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant and submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. At a minimum, the HMMP shall include the following:
• A summary of Project impacts to jurisdictional habitats; • The location of all restoration, creation, or enhancement activities; • Detailed description of all restoration, creation, or enhancement activities; • Evidence of a suitable water budget to support any restored, created, or enhanced aquatic and riparian habitats;
• The species, amount, and location of plants to be installed in the created habitats; • The time of year for planting and the method for supplemental watering during the establishment period;
• Management and maintenance activities, such as weeding of invasive plants, providing for supplemental water, and repair of water delivery systems; • The monitoring period, which shall not be less than five years. • Criteria for mitigation efforts to be deemed a success; at a minimum, success for vegetated wetlands and riparian habitats would include at least seventy-five percent (75%) cover by native vegetation, or seventy-five percent (75%) survival of planted or seeded native riparian vegetation, within the target mitigation acreage by the end of year five; Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-34 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
• Adaptive management procedures that accommodate the uncertainty that comes with restoration projects. These include, but are not limited to, measures to address colonization by invasive species, unexpected lack of water, excessive foraging of installed plants by native wildlife, and variable climatic conditions. This section will also describe the process by which adaptive management decisions will be made and implemented;
• A description of the financial mechanisms for funding of all monitoring activities and ensuring that the created aquatic and riparian habitats shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-14b: The Project Applicant shall compensate for any loss of riparian habitat that occurs along Sargent Creek adjacent to or downstream from Phases 3 and 4 as a result of a reduction in streamflow as a result of mining. A baseline survey shall be conducted prior to initiation of any earth-moving in Phases 3 and 4 to document the areal extent of woody riparian vegetation, including mapping of canopy and native understory vegetation separately, within the entire reach of Sargent Creek downstream from Pits 3 and 4. Mapping of these same parameters shall then be conducted in the year following completion of reclamation in Phases 3 and 4 to determine whether any decline in the overall extent of woody riparian canopy or native understory within this reach has occurred and is caused by the Project. If any decline has occurred and is caused by the Project, compensatory mitigation shall be provided via the restoration, creation, or enhancement of riparian habitat, purchase of mitigation credits, or a combination of these two methods as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a (or as otherwise required to provide equivalent or greater mitigation by regulatory agencies as a condition of Project permits), except that compensatory mitigation for temporary changes in hydrology during mining shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 1.5:1 (mitigation:impact), on the basis of the acreage of decline in canopy or native understory, whichever is greater, that has occurred since the baseline survey. This ratio is higher than the 1:1 replacement ratio specified in Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a due to the temporal loss in riparian habitat functions and values that will have occurred over the 20-30 year period and due to the higher-habitat quality along lower Sargent Creek.

Unless all mitigation is provided via purchase of credits from a mitigation bank, an HMMP describing Project-specific riparian habitat mitigation shall be prepared when the magnitude of the impact is known (i.e., after completion of Phases 3 and 4 mining) and the mitigation location is known. Aside from the mitigation ratio and the timing of preparation of the HMMP, mitigation shall occur exactly as described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-14a.

Impact 3.4-15: Implementation of the Project would
interfere substantially with wildlife movement.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-15: The Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts of Project construction, operation, and reclamation on wildlife movement.

1. Fencing in and around the Project site shall be designed and configured to facilitate wildlife movement around areas of intensive Project activity, such as facilitating movement around the processing plant. Areas where fencing shall be designed to facilitate wildlife movement include fencing along the outer edge of the Tar Creek riparian corridor (on both sides of the creek); the eastern site boundary (along the edge of the existing railroad tracks), including the area north of Tar Creek adjacent to the existing residence; the southern boundary of the processing plant area; and areas immediately west and northwest of the processing plant area that would not be occupied by mining activity. Such fencing shall incorporate the following components.

Significant and Unavoidable
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-35 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
a. Barbed-wire fencing shall consist of no more than five strands. b. To facilitate wildlife crossing over and under fencing (except for fencing around the main plant, which should not be designed for wildlife entry), a gap of at least 20 inches shall be provided between the ground and the bottom wire, board, or rung to allow fawns to pass under the fencing, and the top wire shall be no more than 40 inches high to allow more mature deer to jump over.
c. Where fencing is not necessary for livestock management, a smooth (instead of barbed) wire shall be used for the top and/or bottom strands.
d. At intervals of no more than every 200 feet, a segment of fencing at least 8 feet long with wooden poles instead of a top strand of wire shall be provided to allow animals such as gray foxes, mountain lions, and bobcats to more easily cross over the fencing. e. No new fencing shall be installed along the entrance road or around the bridge over Tar Creek, with the exception of a gate to allow control of vehicle access to the site.

2. Fencing at least 10 feet in height shall be installed around as much of the processing plant as possible (on the north side adjacent to Tar Creek and as much of the east side as is feasible with construction of the rail spur), and screening fabric shall be installed on that fencing to prevent light spillover and block visible signs of physical activity (movement of people and equipment) from view of wildlife outside the processing plant. The fencing details and specifications shall be included in the Wildlife-Compatible Fencing Plan (described above) and reviewed and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development.

3. The bridge over Tar Creek shall be designed to maximize open space where wildlife can cross under the bridge (e.g., spaces between the abutments and top of bank shall be left as open as possible). No new fencing shall be added at or around the bridge. Engineering plans for the Tar Creek bridge shall be provided to the County Department of Planning and Development as part of the processing plant building per or any grading permit submittal, whichever comes first.

4. Along Old Monterey Road between its junction with U.S. 101 and the entrance to the Project site, the Applicant shall install signs shall be placed every ½-mile warning drivers to watch for animals and to observe the speed limit, which shall be no more than 25 miles per hour to minimize vehicle collisions and reduce vehicular noise. Such signage shall also be placed along the conveyor belt access/maintenance road, indicating a speed limit of no more than 15 miles per hour.

5. At intervals of no less than every 1,000 feet, the conveyor shall be elevated so that the bottom of the conveyor belt structure is at least 8 feet clear above the ground to facilitate movement of larger animals under the belt.

Impact 3.4-16: Project activities would conflict with
County ordinances and policies intended to protect
biological resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-16a:

1. Prior to removal of any oaks, or any other trees protected under Section Sec. C16-3 of the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance, from the Project area, a tree removal plan and arborist report shall be submitted identifying the species type, acreage, diameter, and amount of canopy of oak trees or other protected trees proposed for removal. The report shall also Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-36 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
designate oak woodland as high-quality or medium-quality for the purposes of establishing the mitigation ratio. The arborist report shall be prepared by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist, Registered Professional Forester, or another professional approved by the County Department of Planning and Development. Reports may be submitted separately for the construction phase and by Project mining phase, prior to the start of tree removal within each phase.

2. The Applicant shall implement both of the following two measures to compensate for the loss of any oak woodland habitat to ensure that it complies with the County of Santa Clara Planning Office Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts.
• Planting Replacement of Oak Trees. New oak trees shall be planted on the Project site to compensate for lost oaks, though the planting of new oak trees shall not fulfill more than fifty percent (50%) of the mitigation requirement for the Project. The objective of tree planting shall be to establish new oak woodland at a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1 based on the condition of the oak woodland habitat: 2:1 replacement is required for medium-quality oak woodland habitat; and 3:1 replacement is required for high-quality oak woodland habitat. The following standard mitigation ratios shall be used, unless a different ratio is approved by the County Department of Planning and Development based on sitespecific characteristics associated with the mining phases:
o For the removal of one small tree (5 to 18 inches): two 24-inch boxed trees or three 15-gallon trees.
o For the removal of 1 medium tree (18 to 24 inches): three 24-inch boxed trees or four 15-gallon trees.
o For the removal of a tree larger than 24 inches: four 24-inch boxed trees or five 15- gallon trees.

Tree replacement shall be with like species unless alternate species are approved by the County. A Tree Planting and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted for County review and approval showing species, size, spacing and location of plantings and the location and species of established vegetation. Tree plantings shall be monitored for five years following planting, and a survival rate of seventy-five percent (75%) shall be required.

Should the planted trees fail to meet the established performance and survival criteria, the Project Applicant shall be responsible for additional plantings and management activities necessary to ensure the long-term success of planted mitigation trees. • Conservation Easement. For mitigation of the remaining oak woodlands impacts not mitigated by planting replacement oak trees, existing native oak trees on or off the Project area shall be protected from future development through a conservation easement in perpetuity or fee title dedication to the County or other qualified entity approved by the County, through inclusion in the conservation easement referenced in Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b Oak woodland offered as mitigation must be configured in such a manner as to best preserve the integrity of the oak ecosystem and minimize the Summary
Sargent Quarry S-37 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
ratio of edge to area. Priority should be given to conserving oak habitat adjacent to existing woodlands under conservation easements, public lands, or open space lands.

The protection of existing oak woodlands through conservation easements shall mitigate for the loss of oaks at a ratio equal to 2:1 (for medium quality oak woodland habitat) or 3:1 (for high quality oak woodland habitat) as determined by the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development. Land proposed as mitigation, when viewed with adjacent protected conservation land, should not result in conserved parcels of less than one acre.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-16b: The Applicant shall provide mitigation to compensate for impacts to ordinance trees in compliance with Section Sec. C16-7 of the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. Mitigation provided per Mitigation Measure 3.4-16(2) for oak tree replacement will satisfy mitigation requirements for impacts to ordinance-sized oak trees. For other tree species, the Applicant will prepare a replanting and/or re-vegetation plan for all ordinance-sized trees to be removed.

Replacement trees shall be of a like kind and species of tree removed, if native and feasible, or of a kind and species to be determined by the Planning Department. The replacement tree(s) need not be in the same location of the tree removed, but the replacement trees will be planted somewhere on Sargent Ranch. Replacement tree size and ratio shall be as follows:
o For the removal of one small tree (5 to 18 inches): two 24-inch boxed trees or three 15-gallon trees.
o For the removal of 1 medium tree (18 to 24 inches): three 24-inch boxed trees or four 15-gallon trees.
o For the removal of a tree larger than 24 inches: four 24-inch boxed trees or five 15- gallon trees.

Impact 3.4-17: The Project activities could
contribute to the cumulative loss of special-status
plant species.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-17: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, b, and c. Less than Significant Impact 3.4-18: The proposed Project could
contribute to cumulative increases in nitrogen
emissions that could result in adverse effects on
habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly and rare
serpentine-associated plants located off-site.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.4-19: Project activities could contribute to
a cumulative degradation of habitat for specialstatus fish.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-19: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-3. Less than Significant Impact 3.4-20: Project activities could contribute to
cumulative harm to protected terrestrial species and
loss of their habitats.

Mitigation Measures 3.4-20: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1c, 3.4-4a through 3.4-4c, 3.4-5a and 3.4-5b, 3.4-6, 3.4-7, 3.4-8a and 3.4-8b, 3.4-9, 3.4-10a and 3.4-10b, 3.4-11,

3.4-12a and 3.4-12b, and 3.4-13.

Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-38 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.4-21 The Project activities could contribute
to the cumulative loss of jurisdictional wetlands,
other waters, and riparian habitats.

Mitigation Measures 3.4-21: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1c, 3.4-14a and

3.4-14b.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.4-22: The Project activities could
contribute to the cumulative impairment of wildlife
crossings.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-22: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-15. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.4-23: The Project activities could
contribute to the cumulative loss of oaks and oak
woodlands.

Mitigation Measures 3.4-23: The Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1b, 3.4-1c, 3.4- 16a, and 3.4-16b.

Less than significant
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1
a. Resource Avoidance/Protection. Roads used by the Project, such as existing roads that cross identified resources (CA-SCL-577/H and CA-SCL-578/H) during construction, operations, and reclamation. If resources cannot be avoided, but grading shall be capped through use of durable materials to ensure that wear and tear by vehicles of the road surface does not disturb the road bed and damage archaeological deposits, or burials located underneath. No ground disturbance below the existing grade shall occur. In addition, fencing shall be used to prevent vehicles from leaving the access roads where they are adjacent to identified resource sites. The Applicant shall submit archaeological and historic resource protection plans to the County Department of Planning and Development for review and approval prior to any project construction. b. Archaeological Testing Program for Known and Unrecorded Resources. For areas where ground disturbance would occur, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological consultant to prepare an Archaeological Testing Program (ATP) that covers each of the three project phases:
construction, mining, and reclamation. The ATP shall identify the type of archaeological resources that could potentially be disturbed by the proposed Project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended for testing based on sensitivity mapping for areas identified as having high to highest sensitivity, as well as and the location of known resources. The purpose of the ATP will be to determine whether archaeological materials are present and evaluate whether the materials constitute an historical resource. The ATP shall focus on areas that are of high to highest sensitivity, as well as those that are in the vicinity of CA-SCL-578/H, and would apply during all phases of the project. Disturbance shall not occur in areas where newly-discovered significant cultural resources are identified; newly-discovered significant cultural resources shall be avoided if feasible, with data recovery only if avoidance is not feasible, consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(b).

The Applicant shall submit the draft ATP to the County Department of Planning and Development and to a designated representative of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band for review. The County and Tribal representative shall have 45 days to review and comment on the draft ATP. The qualified Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-39 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
archaeological consultant shall then update the draft ATP to incorporate relevant comments and resubmit a final ATP to the County and Tribal representative. Testing shall not begin until the County Department of Planning and Development has approved the final ATP.

Testing shall be conducted by the archaeological consultant and observed by a monitor designated by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band in accordance with the approved Archaeological Monitoring Program (AMP), as described further in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c.

At the completion of activities associated with the ATP, the archaeological consultant shall submit a written report of findings to the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development and Tribal representative for review. If, based on the ATP, the archaeological consultant finds that potentially eligible archaeological resources are present, the archaeological consultant shall consult (as part of one in-person meeting or conference call) with the County Department of Planning Development and the Tribal representative to determine if additional measures are warranted during testing. Additional measures that may be undertaken include specialized archaeological testing methods and/or an archaeological data recovery program. c. Archaeological Monitoring Program for Known and Unrecorded Resources. Following completion of the ATP, the Applicant shall prepare and the County Department of Planning and Development shall implement an Archaeological Monitoring Program (AMP) in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the Tribal representative. The AMP shall include the following:
• Prior to any ground-disturbing activities related to the development of the Project throughout the Project life, including access roads, the free-span bridge over Tar Creek, mining areas, and processing facilities, the following shall occur:
i. The County, in consultation with the archaeological consultant and Tribal representative, shall determine what Project activities shall be monitored. ii. All ground-disturbing activities (outside of the low sensitivity areas of Phases 1 and 2), such as demolition, excavation, grading, utilities installation, etc., shall require archaeological and Native American monitoring because of the risk these activities pose to potential buried archaeological resources and to their depositional context. • The Native American monitor shall be designated/approved by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to monitor ground-disturbing activities at the Project proponent’s expense. The terms of Native American monitoring shall be determined prior to the onset of monitoring activities, including requirements for prior notice of areas to be disturbed and provisions if a designated monitor is unavailable. The Native American monitor shall be notified at least 30 days prior to onset of construction, and at least 14 days in advance of when and where new ground disturbance will occur. The Native American monitor shall be present at all times that the archaeological monitor is present, unless the Native American monitor determines that his/her presence is not required at a particular location. If the Native American monitor does not arrive or is not present as scheduled, Project work may continue in the monitor’s absence..

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-40 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
• The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall advise Project contractors to be alert for evidence of archaeological resources, how to identify archaeological resources, and of appropriate protocol in the event of discovery of an archaeological resource. • The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall be present on the Project area according to a schedule agreed upon by the archaeological consultant and County (generally during ground-disturbing activities) until the County has, in consultation with the Project archaeological consultant and Tribal representative, determined that Project construction activities in the particular disturbance area could have no effects on significant archaeological deposits.
• The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and material of archaeological or historical interest as warranted for analysis. • If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall temporarily redirect grounddisturbing activities until the deposit is evaluated. The archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the County Department of Planning and Development of the encountered archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit, and present the findings of this assessment in a report submitted to the County and Tribal representative. Should archaeological resources with ties to Native Americans be discovered, the archaeological monitor shall immediately notify the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs.

The draft AMP shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development and to a designated representative of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band for review. The County and Tribal representative shall have two weeks to review and comment on the draft AMP. The qualified archaeological consultant shall then update the draft AMP to incorporate relevant comments and resubmit a final AMP to the County and Tribal representative. Testing shall not begin until the County has approved the final AMP.
d. Archaeological Data Recovery Program for Known and Unrecorded Resources If an eligible archaeological resource is determined to be present as part of the ATP or AMP, then the Applicant shall implement an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP) to be prepared by the Applicant. The archaeological consultant, County Department of Planning and Development staff, and Amah Mutsun Tribal Band representative shall consult (as part of one conference call or inperson meeting) on the scope of the ADRP prior to preparation of a draft ADRP.

The ADRP shall be consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). It shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the relevant information the archaeological resource contains, identify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the resource, what data classes the resource possesses, and how the data classes would address applicable research questions. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical. The scope of the ADRP shall also include the following elements:

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-41 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
• Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and operations; • Additional measures that should be undertaken if Native American resources are unearthed; • Description of selected cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures; • Description of and rationale for field and post-field discard and deaccession policies; • Consideration of an off-site public interpretive program during the course of the ADRP; • Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities;
• Description of proposed final report format and distribution of results; and • Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.

The draft ADRP shall be submitted to a designated representative of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and to the County Department of Planning and Development for review. The Tribal representative and County shall have two weeks to review and comment on the draft ADRP. The qualified archaeological consultant shall then update the draft ADRP to incorporate relevant comments and resubmit a final ADRP to the County and Tribal representative. Data recovery shall not begin until the County has approved the final ADRP. e. Final Archaeological Resources Report for Known and Unrecorded Resources. The Applicant shall retain the services of the archaeological consultant, who shall submit a Draft Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the County Department of Planning and Development describing the historical significance of discovered archaeological resources and describing the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery programs undertaken. Information that may put at risk (such as resource locations) any archaeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable insert within the final report. Once approved by the County, copies of the FARR (including any formal site recordation forms and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources) shall be distributed to the California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center, County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development, and Tribal representative.

Impact 3.5-2: Implementation of the proposed
Project could damage unrecorded subsurface
prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Less than Significant Summary
Sargent Quarry S-42 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.5-3: The Project could disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3a: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3b: In the event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities and/or grading at the site, the Applicant shall stop all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find.

The County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is necessary (as required by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e), and County Ordinance Number B6-18). If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this determination. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants shall make recommendations regarding proper burial (including the treatment of grave goods). No further disturbance of the site shall be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs and NAHC in accordance with the provisions of state law and the County Ordinance.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.5-4: The Project would cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural
resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-4a: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3b.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b: To partially offset and compensate for impacts to the three specific TCRs, and to compensate for the loss and disturbance of those portions of the physical landscape of the JTCL that are within the Project site, the property owner/applicant shall record a conservation easement in accordance with Civil Code section 815 et seq. The conservation easement shall be conveyed by the property owner/applicant to any entity identified in Civil Code section 815.3, and verified by the County prior to any ground disturbance. The conservation easement shall include a minimum two acres for every one acre disturbed by the Project (total disturbed acreage of the Project is 403.3 acres), and shall include the Project site itself upon completion of reclamation. In addition, the conservation easement shall include an area outside the Project site of comparable size to the acreage disturbed by the Project. The boundaries of the offsite easement shall be determined by the County in consultation with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, and shall include areas and/or resources that are of particular important in their contribution to the JTCL, such as identified tribal cultural resources, riparian areas and /or specific oak trees.

The conservation easement shall prohibit all uses and development that are not already legally occurring prior to Project approval, except for environmental restoration activities, including biological resource compensatory mitigation measures identified in this EIR and restoration of the JTCL, which may be allowed with the appropriate governmental approval and permits. Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21084.3(b)(3), this mitigation measure will ensure the land within the conservation easement is substantially preserved and/or restored in its current natural state, thereby preventing development or disturbance from new uses that could adversely affect the JTCL.

Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 3.5-5: The Project would cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of the Juristac
Tribal Cultural Landscape.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-5a: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-3b and 3.5-4b. Significant and Unavoidable Summary
Sargent Quarry S-43 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 3.5-5b: Prior to commencement of any vegetation removal or ground disturbance, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, or Director’s designee, evidence that the following actions have been satisfied:
i. After seeking consultation with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (AMTB), refine the plant list provided in Appendix F of Gathering Voices Past and Present (2021) to identify those plants that contribute to the significance of the JTCL as a Tribal Cultural Resource, and that could be present within the Project site.
ii. Prepare a survey of the Project site to identify the plant species identified in the plant list. iii. Determine the extent of Project impacts based on the number of individuals impacted and the acreage of habitat occupied by each plant species on the plant list. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified plant biologist.
iv. Plant species:
(a) For species on the plant species that are also federal or state-listed special-status plant species, implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, which requires compensatory mitigation for the loss of specialstatus plants. (b) For species on the plant list that are not federal or state-listed special-status, compensatory mitigation shall be provided by preservation and management of another, existing on-site or off-site population within the JTCL boundary. Habitat occupied by the affected species shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (at least one plant preserved for each plant affected, and also at least one occupied acre preserved for each occupied acre affected for the affected plant species).
v. In addition to 1:1 preservation as described in 3.5-5b.iv, the restoration area shall be enhanced by transplanting individual plants or seeds from the Project site as appropriate. vi. Plant species in the preservation areas shall be monitored using specific, objective final criteria and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule. At a minimum, performance criteria shall include demonstration that any plant population fluctuations over the monitoring period do not indicate a downward trajectory in terms of reduction in numbers and/or occupied area for the preserved mitigation population that can be attributed to management (i.e., that are not the result of local weather patterns, as determined by monitoring of a nearby reference population, or other factors unrelated to management).

Impact 3.5-6: The Project could contribute to
cumulative adverse changes in known historical or
archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-6: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Less than Significant Impact 3.5-7: The Project could contribute to
cumulative adverse changes in unrecorded
subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological
resources
Mitigation Measure 3.5-7: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Less than Significant Summary
Sargent Quarry S-44 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.5-8: The Project could contribute to
cumulative disturbance of human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-8: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3b. Less than Significant Impact 3.5-9: The Project could contribute to
cumulative adverse changes in the significance of
tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-9: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3b, 3.5-4b and 3.5-5b. Significant and Unavoidable Energy
Impact 3.6-1: Construction, operation and
maintenance, and reclamation of the Project would
increase the use of energy resources, but would not
result in significant wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.6-2: Construction, operation and
maintenance, and reclamation of the Project could
conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.6-3: The Project could contribute to
cumulative increases in the energy use.

None required. Less than Significant
Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Impact 3.7-1: Seismic hazards could cause adverse
effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death
during a seismic event.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.7-2: Excavation of quarry pits and
reclamation would increase the potential for slope
instability and slope failure.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-2a: This mitigation measure applies to the mining pits during mining and reclamation. Throughout the mining operation and reclamation slope grading, the Applicant shall retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to inspect the mining area and monitor construction of the quarry cut slopes twice annually and each time a new 30-foot bench has been excavated. Upon completion of each inspection, the geotechnical engineer shall submit a report to the County and Applicant detailing observations of subsurface conditions, descriptions of potential in-slope failure mechanism (i.e., failure planes, faults, jointing, existing failure planes, and groundwater seepage) or any other concerns regarding the stability of the cut slopes. The geotechnical engineer shall prescribe remedial actions that shall be implemented by the Applicant. Remedial actions could include adjustments to proposed slope configurations (i.e., decreasing slope angle or attitude), additional groundwater seepage management, removal of failure-prone materials, and/or performing additional data collection and slope stability monitoring. After the report has been reviewed and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development, the Applicant shall implement the remedial actions in compliance with a timeline established by the County.

Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-45 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2b: This mitigation measure applies to the mining pits during mining. During quarry operation, the Applicant shall implement a combination of the following measures to ensure slope stability:
• Localized layback, earth buttresses, and/or stabilization fills of individual slopes to accommodate for unfavorable bedding. This measure would be required when bedding is observed to be oriented and inclined and/or daylights toward the mining pit. This condition could indicate inherent instability in the slope.
• Remedial grading to remove in-place clayey topsoil/colluvium below the proposed stockpiles. This measure would remove potentially unstable or weak topsoil and loose colluvium from the base of the stockpile to ensure the stockpile is founded on competent material, reducing the likelihood of failure.
• Waste pile buttress fills or backfill to contain or mitigate surficial and/or minor translational failures.

This measure would be implemented when beds are observed to be oriented and inclined and/or daylight toward the mining pit and appear to have the potential to fail. • For groundwater seepage, dewatering by horizontal drains, deep cutoff trenches, or gabion buttresses. Removal of groundwater would be necessary to reduce failure potential in a slope.

Groundwater increases the potential of failure by adding weight to the slope and reducing the friction forces in soils and rock.

Observation and inspection during excavation of the quarry pits by a California Certified Engineering Geologist retained by the Applicant shall occur at a minimum of twice per year or any time that mining operations encounter conditions that vary significantly from conditions described in the Project’s geotechnical slope stability report, for the term that the quarry is operational. The Engineering Geologist shall submit a report for review and approval to the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development recommending any additional operational measures deemed necessary to ensure slope stability.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-2c: This mitigation measure applies to the mining pits during reclamation.

Prior to reclamation slope grading, the Applicant shall develop proposed final slope configurations that address and improve the factors of safety (FS) that are less than 1.0 under seismic loading conditions.

The Applicant shall demonstrate in its analysis, that a pseudo static FS of 1.0 or greater will be achieved by mitigation strategies such as placement of soil buttresses at the toe of slopes vulnerable to failure under seismic loading. In conjunction with Mitigation Measures 3.7-2a and 3.7 2b, the analysis and mitigation strategies prescribed by the measure would provide the supplemental information needed to demonstrate compliance with SMARA at reclamation.

Impact 3.7-3: Activities associated with
construction, mining and reclamation could result in
accelerated erosion and loss of topsoil.

None required. Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-46 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.7-4: The site soils would not be
incompatible with the proposed On-Site Wastewater
Treatment System (OWTS).

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.7-5: Project excavation and grading could
adversely affect paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-5: This measure applies to construction of the Phase 3 and 4 conveyor belt and access road within areas mapped as Etchegoin Formation (Te) with a PFYC of 4 (high), as well as to all ground-disturbing activities (whether considered construction or operation) within the mining pits (Phases 1 through 4) and geotechnical setback areas.

The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards to oversee the preparation of a paleontological resources monitoring plan (PRMP). The PRMP shall be prepared prior to the start of construction and mining activities, reviewed and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development, and implemented by a qualified paleontologist. The PRMP shall provide guidance for paleontological field surveys, fossil sampling, spot checking/monitoring, reporting, curation, and on-call response to fossil discoveries that occur for the duration of the Project construction and operation. The PRMP shall detail the following components:
a) Worker Training. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare and implement a worker training program to inform construction and mining personnel of the possibility for fossil discoveries. The training program shall provide an overview of the paleontological sensitivity of the site and the potential to uncover fossil remains. The training program shall instruct personnel to immediately inform their supervisor if any bones, teeth, or other substantial fossil remains are unearthed. In such a case, workers shall immediately cease activity within a 50-foot radius of the discovery site until a qualified paleontologist can examine and evaluate the find per item (b) below. Work may not resume in the discovery area until it has been authorized by the County. The training shall be provided to new personnel prior to beginning work on the site and such trainings should be coordinated with the site manager and should coincide with spot checking/sampling visits.

Verification of training will be provided as an appendix to the annual report submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development described in item (f). b) Evaluation and Salvage of Fossils. If any bones, teeth, or other fossil remains are unearthed in the course of ground disturbance, work will cease as directed in item (a) and a qualified paleontologist will examine and evaluate the find. In the event that the qualified paleontologist deems the fossil significant according to SVP Guidelines (2010) and recommends it for curation, the qualified paleontologist shall propose salvage measures in consultation with the Applicant, and the salvage measures shall be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Planning and Development and shall be carried out by or under the direct supervision of the qualified paleontologist. Curation shall follow the process directed in item (e). c) Paleontological Survey. At least 30 days prior to the start of surface disturbance in any new portion of the Project site that is not low potential (e.g., at the beginning of the Project construction period, when construction on the Phase 3 and 4 access road and conveyor belt begins, or when excavation of a new mining phase begins), a paleontological survey shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist for the area to be disturbed to allow for in situ documentation and collection of surficial fossils. Following each survey, a paleontological survey memorandum shall Less than significant for construction;
significant and unavoidable for
operation.

Summary
Sargent Quarry S-47 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
be prepared. The first survey memorandum prior to the start of construction shall be submitted immediately upon completion to the County Department of Planning and Development.

Subsequent surveys during the life of the Project can be compiled and submitted as part of the annual paleontological mitigation report described in item (f). d) Spot Checks During Mining. A qualified paleontologist shall conduct periodic spot checks (at least six times per year) for the duration of mining activities that impact native Etchegoin Formation (Te), unnamed claystone (Tn), and Pleistocene older alluvium (Qoa). This includes all of Phases 1 through 4. The qualified paleontologist shall check for the presence of any recently uncovered macrofossils or layers that should be sampled for microfossils. The need for, frequency, and timing of the spot checks shall be outlined in the PRMP, and during implementation the actual need, frequency, and timing shall be based on the PRMP and coordinated with the Applicant based on real-time excavation activities and locations. The frequency of spot-checking efforts in a given portion of the quarry area may be reduced at the recommendation of the qualified paleontologist with approval from the County Department of Planning and Development if it is determined that only previously disturbed, imported, or Holocene-age alluvial sediments are being impacted, or if sediments are deemed to be nonconducive to fossil preservation. Dates and results of spot checks shall be recorded and reported as described in item (f).
e) Sample Identification and Curation. The qualified paleontologist shall ensure that all fossils and bulk matrix samples collected at the Project site during work stoppages (if resources are found during ground disturbance), paleontological surveys, or spot checks are removed to a secure paleontological laboratory within 30 days of collection from the field for preparation to the point of identification and curation in accordance with SVP Guidelines (2010). All data, including the results of the analysis and research on the fossil collection, shall be compiled along with the fossil specimen inventory and detailed paleontological locality forms, maps, and photos for inclusion in the annual paleontological mitigation report described in item (f). f) Annual Reporting. The annual paleontological mitigation report shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development and, if fossils are discovered, to the University of California Museum of Paleontology (or other equivalent fossil repository). The annual paleontological mitigation report shall also include dates of field work, results of spot checking, survey and sampling, fossil analyses, significance evaluation, conclusions and future recommendations, locality forms, and an itemized list of specimens. Detailed survey reports and verification of new mining personnel paleontology trainings shall be included as appendices. The PRMP shall identify an annual due date for the report.

Impact 3.7-6: The Project would contribute to the
cumulative loss of paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-6: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-5 (requiring worker training, surveys, spot checks, curation, and annual reporting).

Significant and Unavoidable
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-48 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 3.8-1: The Project would generate
greenhouse gas emissions directly and indirectly,
contributing to global climate change.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a: Prior to the commencement of the construction activities, the Applicant shall purchase offset credits in the amount of 7,408 metric tons CO2e. This amount represents amortized construction emissions plus estimated first year operational emissions. The Applicant shall provide verification to the County that carbon offset credits have been purchased.

The Applicant shall prioritize offsets within Santa Clara County, BAAQMD boundaries, the rest of California, and from other states with offset laws at least as strict as California’s, in order of preference.

The carbon offset credits shall be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, additional, and enforceable, as defined by 17 CCR 95802. Offset protocols must also be consistent with CARB requirements under 17 CR 95972. Carbon offsets must meet these requirements and be purchased from offset programs verified by a recognized third-party registry such as the American Carbon Registry, Verra, or Climate Action Reserve. For each subsequent year of Project operations, the Applicant shall choose one of the following options.

1. Option 1: The Applicant shall continue to make the offset payment each subsequent year in the complete amount of 7,408 metric tons CO2e.

2. Option 2: The Applicant shall purchase offset credits in the amount of 7,408 metric tons CO2e minus the difference between 7,408 metric tons and the actual CO2e emissions that the project generated in the prior year. Based on actual Project construction and/or subsequent year operational activities that resulted in GHG emissions, the Applicant shall calculate annual GHG emissions, including consideration of any measures that have been taken to reduce project GHG emissions, and provide emissions estimates to the County for review and approval. Within 60 days of County approval of the estimated emissions, the Applicant shall provide verification to the County that carbon offset credits have been purchased for the amount identified by the Countyapproved emissions estimates.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b: For construction and operational off-road equipment, the Applicant shall replace diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles with electric or other low or zero-GHG emissions equipment as feasible, based on availability of the technology and whether the cost would be prohibitive. In addition, biodiesel or renewable diesel shall replace traditional petroleum-based diesel to fuel off-road equipment where feasible, based on availability of the technology and whether the cost would be prohibitive. Any resulting changes to the Project fleet or fuel type shall be reflected in the calculations of GHG emissions for Option #2 of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, and every five years afterward, the Applicant shall provide the County with a report for County review and approval describing the feasibility of using low carbon-emitting equipment and fuels for the Project.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-1c: If and when electric haul trucks are used for product hauling associated with the Project, the Applicant shall install conduit and EV charging stations at locations where trucks will be parked or idling. The Applicant shall notify the County when installation of conduit and EV charging stations is completed, following which the County shall verify installation. Any resulting changes to the Project fleet shall be reflected in the calculations of GHG emissions for Options #2 in Mitigation Measure

3.8-1a. This mitigation measure will also reduce future NOx emissions from trips to the site.

Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-49 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.8-2: The Project could conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1a through 3.8-1c. Less than Significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.9-1: The Project would routinely transport,
use, and disposal of hazardous materials, which
could pose a risk to human health and/or the
environment.

None required. Less than Significant
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (cont.)
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: The Project Applicant shall analyze and remove suspected residual pesticides in corral on-site soils. This measure applies to construction and mining and applies only to the corral area soils identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Specifically, the Applicant shall implement the following:
a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any soil-disturbing activities, including placement of overburden material, within the corral area (shown on Figure 3 in Appendix H), the Project Applicant shall have soil samples collected and analyzed by a qualified environmental professional to determine if residual pesticides are present in on-site soils within the corral area. If residual pesticides are detected at levels that exceed regulatory thresholds, the geographical and vertical extent of contamination shall be identified, and recommendations for a Health and Safety Plan and methods for cleanup shall be implemented, as applicable. This work shall be performed under the oversight of the County’s Site Cleanup Program (SCP) within the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Site Mitigation Programs (County of Santa Clara 2021b) with copies of all documentation provided to the County Department of Planning and Development. b) If residual pesticides are present at the corral site, then the Applicant shall have soils containing pesticides removed from the site and characterized and disposed of according to the California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Contaminated soil that exceeds regulatory thresholds shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering and dust controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, such as those enforced by Cal/OSHA and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Any contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be disposed of at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.9-3: The Project would contribute to the
cumulative increases in the risk of exposure to
hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-3: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.9-2. Less than Significant Summary
Sargent Quarry S-50 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 3.10-1: Project construction grading and
other activities would substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality.

Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 from Section 3.4, Biological Resources.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-2: Project operation and subsequent
reclamation of the Project site would not
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-3: The Project would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies through affecting
groundwater quality such that the Project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-4: Project activities would not have an
adverse impact on groundwater production in local
groundwater wells.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-5: The Project would not substantially
increase regional consumptive use of groundwater
or reduce recharge, thereby decreasing availability
of groundwater.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-6: The Project would not impede
sustainable groundwater management of a
groundwater basin.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-7: The Project would not substantially
alter existing drainage patterns in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or
off site, increased runoff, or adverse impacts on
water quality or related to flood flows.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-8: The Project would not risk release of
pollutants due to Project inundation in a flood hazard
zone, or due to impeding or redirecting flood flows.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-9: The Project would not conflict with
the CCRWQCB Basin Plan or obstruct
implementation of a sustainable groundwater
management plan.

None required. Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-51 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.10-10: The Project would n contribute to
significant cumulative degradation of water quality.

Mitigation Measure 3.10-10: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 from Section 3.4, Biological Resources, during Project construction.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.10-11: The Project would not contribute to
significant cumulative increases in the consumption
of groundwater supply.

None required. Less than Significant
Mineral Resources
Impact 3.11-1: The Project could result in the loss of
a valuable mineral resources or loss of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.11-2: The Project could contribute to
cumulative loss of availability of a known mineral
resource or loss of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site.

None required. Less than Significant
Noise and Acoustics
Impact 3.12-1: Project construction would result in
temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.12-2: Project operations would
permanently increase ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.12-3: Use of conventional earth moving
equipment during construction, operation, and
reclamation could generate groundborne vibration
and groundborne noise levels.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.12-4: The Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant noise or vibration impact.

None required. Less than Significant
Transportation
Impact 3.13-1: The Project would not conflict with
County of Santa Clara policies addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.13-2: The Project would generate
substantial additional VMT.

No mitigation available. Significant and Unavoidable
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-52 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.13-3: Project construction could increase
roadway hazards due to the presence of large
construction trucks, temporary lane closures and
detours.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: Construction Traffic Control Plan The Applicant shall require the construction contractor to prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to the County of Santa Clara Department of Public Works and Caltrans District 4 for approval prior to the onset of construction. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the California Department of Transportation Transportation Management Plan Guidelines (2015) and shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. Restricting or limiting heavy vehicle traffic to and from the Project site to occur outside the peak commute hours (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.);
b. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials to occur outside the peak commute hours;
c. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
d. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;
e. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the Project site; f. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery or the construction of roadway improvements;
g. Storing construction equipment on-site during construction; h. Identifying and using truck routes acceptable to Caltrans and the County for construction-related heavy trucks;
i. Maintaining access to any adjacent properties; and,
j. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Less than Significant
Impact 3.13-4: The Project could result in
inadequate emergency access.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-4: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.13-3, Construction Traffic Control Plan. Less than Significant Impact 3.13-5: The Project would contribute to
cumulative increases in vehicle miles traveled.

No mitigation available. Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 3.13-6: The Project would contribute to
significant cumulative increases in roadway hazards
and/or interference with emergency access.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-6: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.13-3, Construction Traffic Control Plan. Less than significant Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 3.14-1: The Project would increase demand
for water supply.

None required. Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-53 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Impact 3.14-2: The Project would generate
additional solid waste.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.14-3: Project construction and operation
would comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.14-4: The project would contribute to
cumulative increases in demand for water supply.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.14-5: The project would contribute to
cumulative increases in generation of solid waste.

None required. Less than Significant
Wildfire
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.

None required. 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.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact 3.15-3: The Project could result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact related to wildfire.

None required. Less than Significant
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-54 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-2

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= Summary
Sargent Quarry S-55 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-2 (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<
Summary
Sargent Quarry S-56 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE S-2 (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
Sargent Quarry 1-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CHAPTER 1
Introduction

1.1 Purpose of This Document
The County of Santa Clara (County), as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project (Project) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), and its implementing regulations, the CEQA Guidelines. (14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.)
As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses significant environmental impacts of a proposed project, and it identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. As the CEQA Lead Agency for this Project, the County will consider the information in the EIR along with other information available in the record for the Project in deciding whether to approve the Project. Consistent with CEQA, this EIR includes discussions of the environmental setting, environmental impacts, mitigation measures, cumulative impacts, alternatives, and growth-inducing impacts.

1.2 Project Overview
Sargent Ranch Partners, LLC (Applicant) proposes to construct, operate for 30 years, and subsequently reclaim the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project on an approximately 403-acre site in Santa Clara County (Project site). The Project is a sand and gravel mining operation that includes an aggregate processing facility. The Project site is located within the Sargent Ranch property, which is approximately 4 miles south of the city of Gilroy and approximately 1 mile south of the U.S. 101 and Highway 25 interchange.

The County Zoning Code requires the issuance of a Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval for mining projects, along with approval of a site-specific Reclamation Plan and financial assurances (Section 4.10.370 – Surface Mining, subsections (E), (F) and (K)). Mining activities and implementation of the Reclamation Plan for the Project would be required to satisfy requirements of both the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 3500 et seq.) and the County’s Surface Mining requirements (County Zoning Code Section 4.10.370).

1. Introduction
Sargent Quarry 1-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

1.3 Use of This Document by Agencies
The County is the CEQA Lead Agency and has discretionary authority over the land use entitlements necessary to implement the Project under the County Code and SMARA. Other state and local agencies with discretionary approval authority over the Project (Responsible Agencies) or a trustee for certain specific resources (Trustee Agencies) are described in Chapter 2, Project Description. For example, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is both a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency that would use the EIR in its decision-making processes for any permits that the Project requires from CDFW.

Responsible agencies for this EIR in addition to CDFW include Caltrans, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Santa Clara Valley Water District (see Table 2-7).

1.4 EIR Process

1.4.1 Scoping
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the County prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR and circulated it to local, state, and federal agencies on July 21, 2016.

The 30-day period for agencies and others to provide input as to the scope and contents of this EIR concluded on August 20, 2016. The NOP provided a general description of the Project and identified possible environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the Project.

The County also held a public scoping meeting on August 10, 2016, to discuss the Project and solicit input. The meeting was held at 350 West 6th Street in Gilroy, California. Appendix A of this EIR includes the NOP and comments received on the NOP. The County considered input received during the scoping period, evaluated Project-specific and site-specific technical studies, conducted independent research, and has documented its environmental analysis in this Draft EIR.

1.4.2 Public Comment on the Draft EIR
Publication of this Draft EIR will mark the beginning of a 60-day public review and comment period.

During this period, the Draft EIR will be available for review by local, state, and federal agencies; tribes; and interested organizations and individuals for review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15086).

1.4.3 Final EIR
Following the conclusion of the public review and comment period, the County will prepare a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA. The Final EIR will consist of:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR

1. Introduction
Sargent Quarry 1-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
d) The responses of the County to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 e) Any other information added by the County

1.4.4 EIR Certification, Findings, and Project Approval Following preparation of the Final EIR, the County Planning Commission will consider whether to: certify the EIR, adopt CEQA finding of fact, adopt a statement of overriding considerations for any significant unavoidable impacts, and approve the Project. Any action of the Planning Commission would be appealable to the County Board of Supervisors.

1.5 Organization of this EIR
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 through 15131, this Draft EIR includes a:
• Table of contents
• Summary: Summary that identifies each significant impact along with the proposed mitigation measures and/or alternatives that would reduce or avoid each impact, discusses areas of controversy known to the County, and identifies the issues to be resolved. • Chapter 1: Introduction to the purpose of this document, a brief Project overview, the use of this document by agencies, and the EIR process.
• Chapter 2: Project description, including the regional and precise location and boundaries of the Project on maps; provides a statement of Project objectives, including the underlying Project purpose; provides a general description of Project characteristics; and includes a brief statement of the intended uses of the EIR to the extent known to the County, including a list of other agencies that are expected to use the EIR in decision making, a list of permits and approvals required to implement the Project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements mandated by laws, regulations, or policies. • Chapter 3: Environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. Includes analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize significant impacts.
• Chapter 4: Discussion of alternatives that evaluates, analyzes, and compares a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that would attain most of the basic Project objectives and would avoid or reduce any of the significant impacts of the Project; evaluates and analyzes a “no project” alternative that describes impacts that are reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project is not approved; identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative; and identifies potential alternatives that initially were considered by the County and briefly explains why they were not carried forward for more detailed review. • Chapter 5: Discussion of other CEQA considerations, consisting of discussions of growthinducing impacts, irreversible environmental changes, and a summary of significant and unavoidable impacts.
• Chapter 6: A list of organizations and persons preparing the EIR. • Appendices, including scoping materials, the Applicant’s Mining and Reclamation Plan, and technical reports supporting the analyses in this EIR.

1. Introduction
Sargent Quarry 1-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank
Sargent Quarry 2-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CHAPTER 2
Project Description

2.1 Introduction
Sargent Ranch Partners, LLC (Applicant) proposes to develop a sand and gravel surface mining operation called the Sargent Ranch Quarry Project (Project) on an approximately 403-acre site located in Santa Clara County (Project site). The Project consists of the development of a sand and gravel mining operation on approximately 298 acres within the Sargent Ranch property, which currently is used for cattle ranching. An aggregate processing facility is proposed on the east frontage of the site, and a surface mining operation to the west and south. The mined material (sand and gravel, collectively called “product”) would be transported off-site by a combination of truck and train hauling. The remaining 105 acres of the 403-acre Project site would be designated as a “geotechnical setback area” that would buffer excavation areas from surrounding uses and that could be used if needed to allow more slope layback1 to increase slope stability or provide a buffer area in the case of unforeseen slope failure. Mining operations would be conducted for 30 years, in four phases as described below. Over the 30-year period, portions of the site would be reclaimed upon completion of each phase of the quarry operation. At the end of the Project’s life, final reclamation of the last surface mining phase would occur, and the aggregate processing facility site would also be reclaimed.

Surface mining activities and implementation of the Reclamation Plan for the Project would be needed to satisfy requirements of both SMARA and the County of Santa Clara’s (County’s) Surface Mining requirements (County Zoning Code Section 4.10.370). The surface mining operation would process sand and gravel Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and sales (including transport off-site) would occur from 4:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Because these proposed hours of operation would extend beyond the standards for Surface Mining operation allowed by the County Zoning Ordinance (4.10.370 Part II, A (1)), Planning Commission approval of a 1 “Slope layback” is a term for grading the final slope at a less steep angle. For example, a 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope rather than a 3:1 slope.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
deviation from the standard hours of operation would be required. The following terms are used throughout this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and defined here for clarification:

Product consists of sand and gravel. These are the economically valuable mineral resources suitable for use as concrete grade aggregate that would be graded by size at the processing plant and sold to customers. Construction aggregate is a broad category of coarse- to mediumgrained particulate material used in construction, including sand, gravel, or crushed stone.

Aggregates are a major component of construction materials such as concrete and asphalt.

Fine aggregate is generally smaller than 0.25 inches in size and consists usually of sand.

Coarse aggregates range from 0.25 inches to 1 inch in size and usually consist of crushed rock or gravel.

Topsoil is the top approximately 2 feet of soils on the site and does not contain saleable product. It would be removed in order to access sand and gravel product and stockpiled for reuse during reclamation.

Overburden is the material (e.g., soil and rock) that lies above the product. It does not include topsoil. Overburden would be removed to access product and stockpiled for reuse in constructing the screening berm, backfilling mining pits during reclamation, and some potential sales.

Total excavation refers to all materials removed from the ground as part of the surface mining process, including product, topsoil, and overburden.

2.2 Project Location
The Project site is located within the approximately 5,154-acre Sargent Ranch property in Santa Clara County. The Project site is located within the foothills of the Coast Range Mountains approximately four miles south of the city of Gilroy and approximately one mile south of the U.S. 101 and Highway 25 interchange, as shown in Figure 2-1, Regional Map. The Project site is accessed from U.S. 101 via Old Monterey Road.

As shown in Figure 2-2, Project Site and Vicinity, the Project site and surrounding areas are largely undeveloped. Several creeks cross the Project site, including Sargent Creek and Tar Creek.

Project site elevations range from approximately 130 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 800 feet above msl. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for the Project site are 810-38-014, -016, and 017 (see Figure 2-3, Parcel Map).

2.2.1 Existing and Past Uses of the Project Site
The Project site occupies approximately 403 acres within the Sargent Ranch. The Project site itself is void of structures but contains fencing and a dirt roadway network that accesses areas of the ranch. The Project site is used for cattle grazing and some cultivation of dry-farmed oat hay for cattle feed.

REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.2-1
xx
Morgan Hill
Los Gatos
Milpitas
San Jose
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Gilroy
Watsonville
Santa Cruz Project Location
101
101
880
85 17
1 87
237
152 152
25 Pacific Ocean
San Francisco
Bay
Santa Clara County Boundary
Figure 2-1
Regional Map
SOURCE: Triad/Holmes Associates, September 17, 2020 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Tar
Creek
Pajaro River
Sargent Creek
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, June 20, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 2016 0 500 2000 4000 Feet
Figure 2-2
Project Site and Vicinity
SOURCE: Triad/Holmes Associates, 2021 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator ɯɨɥɪɯɥɨɭ
ɯɨɥɪɯɥɨɮ
ɯɨɥɪɯɥɨɫ
^ĂƌŐĞŶƚZĂŶĐŚWĂƌĐĞůƐ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDŝŶŝŶŐKƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ ¯
0LOHV
SOURCE: County of Santa Clara, 2021
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 2-3
Parcel Map

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

2.2.2 Uses Surrounding the Project Site
The area immediately surrounding the Project site to the north, west, and south is part of the 5,154-acre Sargent Ranch. North of the Project site, there are several buildings that support the Sargent Ranch cattle operation, including a barn, storage building, and the ranch manager’s residence. These buildings are located off Old Monterey Road adjacent to U.S. 101 and north of Tar Creek. The residence, which is located approximately 250 feet from the Project site, is occupied by the ranch manager at present, but would be vacated when the Project is implemented. A portion of Sargent Ranch (to the north and west of the Project site) is engaged in oil production, and there are small pipelines and oil storage facilities on the property northwest of the Project site. Additionally, several dirt roads from Old Monterey Road provide access into the larger property.

The lands surrounding Sargent Ranch are located in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties and also are primarily used for agriculture and grazing, with some open space to the west of the property. The off-site residences nearest to the Project site are located at the Betabel RV Resort, approximately 1,600 feet southeast of the eastern edge of the Phase 2 mining area. The former Freeman Quarry (a reclaimed aggregate quarry) is located approximately two miles to the north. Mining at Freeman Quarry ceased in 2019, and the mining and processing areas of the quarry have been reclaimed. The reclaimed Freeman Quarry site is currently used for cattle grazing and open space.

2.2.3 General Plan Designations and Zoning
The Project site is designated as Ranchland on the Land Use Plan map in the Santa Clara County General Plan (2016). Mineral extraction is an allowable use under the Ranchlands General Plan designation (General Plan Policy R-LU 39; Santa Clara County 1994). The Project site is zoned AR-d1 and AR-d1-sr. The AR zone refers to Agricultural Ranchlands, where surface mining is a permitted use subject to obtaining a Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) (Zoning Code Section 2.20.010 (B); Santa Clara County 2018). The -d1 designation indicates that the area is within the Santa Clara Valley Viewshed Design Review Combining District and the -sr designation indicates the area within the Scenic Roads Combining District. The Project therefore is subject to design review (Sections 3.20.030, 3.30.020).

2.3 Project Objectives
The fundamental underlying purpose of the Project is to develop a feasible source of aggregate in close proximity to the Bay Area to meet regional demand for construction sand. The Project objectives are as follows:

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 and County requirements.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

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.

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.

2.4 Project Components
Information in this section is based on the Applicant’s Mining and Reclamation Plan (Draft EIR Appendix B). The Project would be implemented through: (1) initial site construction activities, during which the proposed facilities and needed infrastructure would be constructed; (2) quarry operation and maintenance, which comprise the major work of the Project; and (3) reclamation, during which mined lands would be reclaimed for the identified end use. Initial site construction activities would occur over nine months; they are described in Section 2.5. The duration of the requested Use Permit is 30 years; mining activities and quarry operation activities are described in Section 2.6. Reclamation of mined lands would occur at the end of each phase of mining, and would be completed five years after all mining activities cease. Reclamation-related activities are described in Section 2.6. This Section 2.4 describes components common among these three periods.

The Project must comply with Section 4.10.370 of the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance, which establishes standards and requirements for surface mining operation within the County. The Zoning Ordinance identifies standards for layout and design as well as operation, including hours of operation, appearance, noise and vibration, traffic safety, dust control, setbacks, fencing and postings, screening, and protection of streams and water-bearing aquifers, which are reviewed through the permitting process. The Applicant has designed the Project to be consistent with these requirements, except with respect to the proposed hours of operation. The requested extension of the hours of operation would require approval by the Planning Commission (see Section 2.7, Approvals, Permits, and Consultation).

2.4.1 Overview
Open-pit mining would occur in four areas (Phases 1 through 4) within the Project site (see Figure 2-4, Mining Site Plan). An overview of Project components and the mining process is provided below, followed by additional detail for specific components.

Figure 2-4
Mining Site Plan
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Construction of the structures, conveyor belt and roads to access Phases 1 and 2, acceleration lane improvements, and related facilities would occur over nine months (157 construction days) prior to the start of surface mining activities. All of the facilities within the processing area, including the aggregate processing plant, office/scale house, process water pond, and stormwater basins, would be constructed during this period (see Figure 2-5a, Aggregate Plant Site Plan). Initially, a temporary processing plant would be constructed (see Figure 2-5b, Temporary Processing Plant).

Additional improvements would include the access/maintenance roads, a free-span bridge over Tar Creek, and a new groundwater well. After completion of Phase 2 mining, a conveyor belt connecting Phases 3 and 4 to the processing area and a parallel maintenance road, including a crossing at Sargent Creek, would be constructed. These facilities are described in more detail below. Construction activities are described in more detail in Section 2.5.

After the Project facilities are in place, mining would commence at the Phase 1 quarry. At the commencement of mining within each phase, the topsoil and overburden would be removed and stored separately in the processing area. Temporary stockpiles would be located within the individual quarry areas. A permanent overburden stockpile area would be placed between the processing plant and Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas as shown in Figure 2-4. This area would receive materials during Phases 1, 2, and 3.

Hill slopes within the designated quarry pits would be cut back to expose sand and gravel deposits.

This product would be excavated and transported from the quarry pits to the processing plant via conveyor belt. In general, an open pit would be developed with 2:1 (i.e., 2 feet horizontal for every vertical foot) or flatter side walls with 10-foot-wide benches every 40 vertical feet. Each bench would have a longitudinal grade of four to 12 percent. All materials would be processed at the aggregate plant on-site. After processing, finished products would be sold and transported off-site via truck or rail. As slopes within each quarry pit are finished, they would be reclaimed while mining would continue on other slopes within the pit. Each phase would be fully reclaimed upon completion of mining activities within that phase (see reclamation description in Section 2.6).

The final reclaimed fill slopes would have varying gradients of 3:1 or flatter.

Up to 20 percent of overburden could be sold as engineered fill for construction projects throughout the life of the Project; the portion not sold would be used in the final reclamation of quarry slopes at the conclusion of each mining phase, as described further below.

Figure 2-5a
Aggregate Plant Site Plan
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 2-5b
Temporary Batch Plant Location
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
“Geotechnical setback” areas have been identified surrounding each mining area. These setback areas would be used as a buffer area if needed to allow more slope layback to increase slope stability and/or allow a buffer area in the case of slope failure.

Vehicles used for surface mining activities would include a dozer, an excavator, a wheel loader, and a motor grader. Other vehicles that would be used on-site would include a water truck, a food service truck, and two pickup trucks. Except for one pickup truck, all vehicles would use diesel fuel. Three front-loaders would be used to load customer trucks. The front-loaders also would be used to load rail cars up to three times per week.

The maximum area of potential disturbance would be approximately 403 acres. Ground disturbance areas include grading, excavation, and other earthwork, and do not include areas that would only have vegetation mowed (e.g., fuel modification zones around access roads). The disturbance area includes the 105 acres of geotechnical setback areas (described in more detail below), which may not all actually be disturbed (i.e., would be used as needed). Disturbance areas for each phase and associated facilities are summarized in Table 2-1.

TABLE 2-1

ESTIMATED GROUND DISTURBANCE AREAS
Project Facility Disturbance Area
(acres)
Construction Activities
Access Roads 3.51
Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road 13.28
Processing Plant and Related Facilities (screening berm, stockpiles, creek crossing, stormwater basin, parking lot) 61.83
Mining Phases
Mining Phase 1 90.57
Mining Phase 2 61.77
Mining Phase 3 25.39
Mining Phase 4 41.84
Geotechnical Setback Areas 105.1
Total 403.29
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Mining and Reclamation Plan, February 2022, Table 20.

Mining Quantities and Phasing
Estimated total mining and excavation quantities for each phase of the Project are shown in Table 2-2. The duration of each phase would depend on market demand for sand and gravel materials.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 2-2

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 2,565,000 135,000 900,000 3,600,000
Phase 4 1,240,000 36,000 540,000 1,816,000
Total 25,305,000 846,000 8,865,000 35,016,000
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.

Approximately 35 million cy of native materials would be excavated over the life of the Project, including 25,305,000 cy or 38 million tons of product (assuming 1.5 tons per cy). Over the life of the Project, approximately 846,000 cy of topsoil and 8,865,000 cy of overburden would be excavated. The aggregate would be composed of 60 percent sand, 20 percent gravel, and 20 percent clay. The rate of surface mining and mineral extraction would vary from day to day and year to year depending on demand, site conditions and other factors, such as weather. In the initial five years of operation, the maximum amount of product that would be produced in a single day would be 2,500 tons. At full operational capacity, the mining operation could produce a maximum of 6,000 tons of product in a single 10-hour day. Actual amounts would be less on some days, but would not exceed 6,000 tons per day on any day. The maximum amount of product that would be produced in a single year is 1,860,000 tons.

Up to 2,880 tons of product could be sold and off-hauled in trucks in a 10-hour day. The typical haul truck load would be 24 tons, or 16 cubic yards, but there could also be some smaller truck loads as well. On days when loads of product are taken by train (1,600 tons per train, up to three times per week), the maximum product transported off-site would be 4,480 tons per day. In a typical year, about 990,000 tons (660,000 cy) of product would be exported, and the most that would be exported in a single year would be 1,142,400 tons. Aggregate that is not immediately exported would be stockpiled on-site.

A tentative schedule for construction, mining, and reclamation is shown in Table 2-3. Surface mining at the Phase 1 and Phase 2 pit areas would be complete in approximately 10 to 13 years, respectively. At maximum production levels, Phase 3 would be completed in approximately 4 years, and Phase 4 would require two years to complete. As noted above, the actual timelines could vary, although the total amount of material to be mined would not exceed the maximum identified amounts in any single year.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 2-3

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 2034 13,300,000 9,600,000 Reclamation February 2034 February 2039
Phase 2: Mining February 2034 February 2047 16,300,000 11,900,000 Reclamation March 2047 March 2052
Construction of Conveyor January 2047 March 2047
Phase 3: Mining March 2047 March 2051 3,600,000 2,565,000 Reclamation March 2051 March 2056
Phase 4: Mining April 2051 April 2053 1,816,000 1,240,000 Reclamation April 2053 April 2058
Removal of Conveyor February 2053 July 2053
Removal of Plant and Final Reclamation May 2053 May 2058 SOURCE Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Mining and Reclamation Plan, February 2022, Table 21.

Mining Phases 1 and 2
Based on the typical mining rate of 990,000 tons per year, the estimated duration of mining for Phase 1 would be 10 years, and approximately 13 years for Phase 2. Approximately 29,600,000 cy of material would be excavated, including topsoil and overburden removed.

Phase 1 surface mining would consist of excavating a portion of the quarry area approximately 2,400 feet in length to a maximum depth of 250 feet. During Phase 1 mining operation, a road would be graded from the mining area along the south side of the hillside and used to access the plant and an overburden stockpile area. Overburden would be removed from the Phase 1 mining area and stored in the Overburden Stockpile area west of the processing plant and north of the Phase 1 mining area (see Figure 2-6, Phases 1 and 2 Grading and Excavation Plan). Approximately 90,000 cy of overburden from Phase 1 would be used to construct the screening berm discussed in Section 2.4.2. Operation in the Phase 1 mining area would excavate the upper 220 feet of the northeasterly trending ridge that is the likely limit of viable product. Once Phase 1 mining is complete, reclamation would begin in this area. To reduce the duration of maximum visibility of mining areas at the ridge, the easterly portion of Phase 1 would be the first portion reclaimed.

Operation in Phase 2 would continue excavation of the northeasterly trending ridge begun in Phase 1. Excavation of the ridge down to the pit level would remove the upper 250 feet of the ridge, which is the likely limit of viable aggregate resource in that portion of the quarry.

Reclamation of Phase 2 would begin upon completion of Phase 2 mining.

During Phase 2 mining operation, a road would be graded to the top of the Phase 2 mining area near an elevation of 600 feet located in the western-most area of the Phase 2 mining disturbance.

Figure 2-6
Phases 1 and 2 Grading and Excavation Plan
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Phase 2 overburden would be placed onto the northern, eastern, and western temporary slopes to create the permanent slope of 3:1. Overburden would also be stockpiled in the Phase 1 pit for later use in reclamation. Planned excavation and grading for Phases 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 2-6.

In addition, a small landslide identified in the northern portion of Phase 2 (see Appendix G1, Slope Stability Analysis Report) would be removed.

Mining Phases 3 and 4
Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas are located adjacent to each other on two hilltops on either side of Sargent Creek at the southeast portion of Project site. Mining in Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas would occur for a total of six years (March 2046 to April 2052) with roughly 5,416,000 cy of material being excavated, including topsoil and overburden removed. Of this, approximately 3,805,000 cy would be product.

Phase 3 mining operation would begin after completion of Phase 2 mining with removal of topsoil and overburden, which would be stored as shown in Figure 2-7, Phases 3 and 4 Grading and Excavation Plan. Phase 4 overburden would be stored in an area west of the processing plant and north of the Phase 1 mining area. To transport mined material from the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas to the processing plant, an approximately 1.6-mile-long electric-powered conveyor belt would be constructed as described below.

Excavation of the pits in Phases 3 and 4 would remove the upper 200 feet of each hill, starting at the top. This depth is the likely limit of the aggregate resources in these locations (see Figure 2-8, Mining Cross Sections). Sand and gravel would be excavated from west to east using mobile equipment (e.g., scrapers, bulldozers, excavators, and front-end loaders). During mining Phases 3 and 4, quarry pit slopes would be maintained with slopes of 2:1 and 10-foot-wide benches every 40 vertical feet.

Planned excavation and grading for Phases 3 and 4 is shown in Figure 2-7.

Once sand and gravel excavation in Phase 3 is complete, operations would move into the Phase 4 area of the quarry and reclamation would begin in the Phase 3 area. Overburden from Phase 4 would be placed in the excavated area of Phase 3 to construct the permanent slope faces. After mining in Phase 4 is complete, final reclamation would include placing stored overburden from Phase 3 into the Phase 4 pit.

Geotechnical Monitoring and Stability
A geotechnical setback area (i.e., a buffer) is proposed around each of the mining pits to allow a safe setback between cut slopes and adjacent areas, and to account for any unanticipated slope instability associated with surface mining activities. These geotechnical setback areas (shown in Figure 2-4, Site Plan) are not proposed for surface mining but may be excavated to provide a more gradual angle to quarry walls in order to achieve greater stability. Slope instability could occur during surface mining as a result of buried landslides, clay lenses,2 or perched water tables.

The total acreage included in these geotechnical setback areas is 105 acres. 2 A layer of clay material occurring between other soil/geologic layers.

Figure 2-7
Phases 3 and 4 Grading and Excavation Plan
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 2-8
Mining Cross Sections
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-19 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
A licensed geotechnical engineer (to be hired by the Applicant) would inspect the mining area and monitor excavation of the quarry cut slopes each time a new bench has been excavated and completed. Inspections of each finished cut slope would begin as each bench is completed and would be conducted annually for at least three years. Upon completion of each inspection, the engineer would submit a report to the County Geologist and quarry operator detailing any concerns regarding the stability of the cut slopes and recommending remedial actions that should be taken by the quarry operator. If the slopes are stable after three years, then inspections by the Applicant’s geotechnical engineer would not be required until the next bench is completed. However, during the County’s annual SMARA inspection or as otherwise necessary, County inspectors would also inspect slopes for their stability.

Mobile Equipment Assumptions
Mobile equipment would be used to remove the topsoil and overburden, excavate the quarries, and load customer trucks and rail cars. All mobile equipment would use diesel fuel, with the exception of the sales truck, which would use gasoline. With the exception of the scraper, the analysis in this EIR assumes that all equipment would be used on a daily basis. A scraper would be used to remove the topsoil and overburden until the aggregate is exposed. This would occur intermittently, when excavation moves from one location or phase to another. The analysis in this EIR assumes this would occur for one to two weeks at a time, for up to two times each year.

Mobile equipment assumptions used in this Draft EIR are shown in Table 2-4.

TABLE 2-4

MOBILE EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Equipment Number Location/Purpose Days/Year Hours/Day
Dozer 1 Quarry Excavation 310 10
Excavator 1 Quarry Excavation 310 10
Wheel Loader 1 Quarry Excavation 310 10
Wheel Loader 3 Processing Plant/Customer Loading 310 11.5 Motor Grader 1 Quarry Excavation 310 10
10,000 Gallon Water Truck 2 Dust Control at All Locations 310 10 4,000-Gallon Water Truck 1 All Locations As needed As needed Scraper 1 Quarries/Remove Overburden 28 10
Service Truck 1 All Locations 310 10
Managers Truck 1 All Locations 310 10
Sales Truck 1 All Locations 310 10
SOURCE: Freeman, 2021.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-20 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Mining Below the Groundwater Table
Surface mining would be unlikely to encounter groundwater because groundwater elevations are typically below identified excavation levels (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of groundwater conditions at the Project site). If perched groundwater (i.e., groundwater separated by an unsaturated zone) is encountered during mining, then the water would be drained away from the excavation area using standard industry methods such as brow ditches3 or pumps. The water would be drained into the low point of the nearest mining pit and allowed to percolate into the groundwater table. Once the mining area is drained and the area slopes stabilized, mining activities would proceed as planned.

Should the water table (i.e., groundwater that is not perched) be encountered during mining, then wet mining would be initiated. Wet mining uses a dragline crane4 or a large long-reach excavator that can cast its bucket below the water surface and retrieve material. Sand and gravel harvested underwater would be placed in a stockpile area where the material could drain prior to transport back to the processing plant. Water draining from this stockpile would be channeled to drain back into the pit area. Dragline cranes would be used to harvest material to an elevation of approximately 45 feet below the water surface. Deadman-pulley systems5 would be used to harvest to approximately 90 feet below the water surface, if necessary.

Mined out phases that include exposed groundwater ponds would be filled with overburden or other imported fill, if necessary, to bury and cap the groundwater and not leave any groundwater exposed to evaporation after reclamation is completed. At least 20 feet of fill would be placed over the elevation of the groundwater’s surface. Once the bottom elevation has been established, other reclamation actions would be taken as described in Section 2.6.

Conveyor Belts and Access Road
Material mined from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas would be moved to the on-site processing plant using a conveyor belt that follows the alignment of existing unpaved cattle ranch roads for approximately 0.3 miles (see Figure 2-6). The conveyor belt would be 48 inches wide and would be raised on supports an average of 4 feet off the ground. A 22-foot-wide road would be constructed next to the conveyor belt. The conveyor belt would be powered by electricity using power supplied from the processing plant site.

To transport mined material from the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas to the processing plant, the conveyor belt would be extended to approximately 1.6 miles in length following completion of Phase 2 mining. The extended portion of the conveyor belt also would be 4 feet wide. Supports would be spaced every 10 to 20 feet, but could be extended with truss bracing to up to 60 feet apart if necessary. Typical heights off the ground surface would vary from 3 to 5 feet, but would 3 A brow ditch is a ditch constructed to intercept and convey minor surface runoff. They are placed above cut slopes. 4 A dragline crane excavates by drawing a bucket attached by cables toward the machine. The crane has a bucket attached by two cables, which allows for control of the bucket as it is brought toward the machine. 5 Deadman pulley systems consist of a bucket supported by a cable connected on both sides of the pit to stationary poles. The bucket moves slowly from one side of the pit to the other and harvests material from beneath the water.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-21 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
be increased in places to allow for large animals to cross under the structure. The belt would be supported by a series of rollers to prevent sagging, typically spaced 6 inches to 12 inches apart.

A 22-foot-wide dirt road would be constructed alongside the conveyor belt for access to the mining areas and to maintain the conveyor belt. The conveyor belt and maintenance road would generally follow the east side of the western ridge of the Sargent Valley as shown in Figure 2-9, Phase 3 and 4 Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (North), and Figure 2-10, Phase 3 and 4 Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (South). With the exception of the creek crossing, which would be an arch culvert, the conveyor pathway (including the maintenance road) would generally be located upslope from Sargent Creek.

At the end of Phase 4 mining operation, the conveyor belt would be removed, and its path regraded and revegetated. The maintenance road that runs parallel to the conveyor belt would be left in place to continue providing access to the mined areas during reclamation activities. After reclamation is complete, the maintenance road may be retained for use by cattle operations.

2.4.2 Processing Plant
An approximately 62-acre processing area would be developed in the northeastern portion of the site. The aggregate processing plant components would occupy approximately 14 acres, with stockpiles occupying the remaining area. The processing area would include 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, and stormwater basins (see Figure 2-5a, Processing Plant Site Plan). The office/scale house would be located near the entrance to the quarry. Vehicles used for mining would be parked near the rock processing plant and the stockpiles at the end of work hours. Aggregate stockpiles would be located to the east of the processing plant. The processing plant would be powered by electricity. A generator would be located on-site to provide backup power in the event of an electrical outage. The generator would be 65 kilovolt-ampere and rated Tier 4 (currently the strictest rating for air pollutant emissions for off-road engines). The generator would be used on average approximately 50 hours per year for testing, maintenance, and emergency use.

Prior to construction of the permanent processing plant, a temporary prefabricated sand and gravel processing plant would be used, to be located in the processing area (see Figure 2-5b). A temporary processing plant can be set up quickly and easily, allowing for mined materials to be processed before the permanent plant is completed. It also provides a lower-cost option for processing while the Project ramps up and the customer base is being developed. The temporary plant would be brought to the plant site in four separate loads and assembled on-site. It would be capable of producing 250 tons of aggregate per hour for a total of 2,500 tons in a 10-hour day.

Piping would be used to connect the plant to the new well and to the process water pond for settling. Once the sediment has settled out of the used water, that water would be pumped back to the temporary plant for reuse. The temporary plant would use approximately 200 gallons of water per minute, and once fully operational, would use a mixture of 80 percent reused water and 20 percent new well water.

Figure 2-9
Phase 3 and 4 Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (North) SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 2-10
Phase 3 and 4 Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (South) SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-24 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The temporary plant would be able to process up to 250 tons of aggregate per hour (for a total of 2,500 tons in a 10-hour day), compared to 600 tons per hour that the permanent plant would process. The timing of the permanent plant would depend in part on demand for aggregate; it is proposed to be constructed in the first five years of operation, and could be constructed as early as the first year.

A new groundwater well is proposed to the north of the screening berm, along with a pipeline to convey the groundwater to the processing plant. This well would produce water for washing aggregate, dust control, and fire suppression. Water for firefighting would be stored in a portable 10,000-gallon water tank, which would be relocated with each phase of mining to serve the active phase. According to the Sargent Ranch Quarry Fire Protection Plan (Dudek 2020; see Appendix L, page 12), water would be stored in this tank in compliance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection. The tank would be inspected and maintained regularly, including filling as needed. The tank would be approximately 13 feet tall and 12 feet in diameter and would be placed on the side of the access road for the active phase with adequate space (18 feet of travel width plus 10 feet of additional width, for a distance of 50 feet) to allow fire engines to park and connect to the tank while leaving the road open to other travel.

During mining operation, excavated product would be transported via a conveyor belt (see previous section on conveyor belt/access road) to the processing plant. All excavated sand and gravel would be washed and screened at the rock processing plant to remove fines (i.e., silt and clay) and to produce finished products for sale. Materials would be transported from the Project site to customers using a combination of haul trucks and rail cars, as described in Section 2.4.2.

Up to three front-end loaders would load customer trucks. A new rail spur would be constructed approximately 900 feet south of the rail undercrossing of U.S. 101. The spur would follow the southern edge of the screening berm and processing area, splitting to two spurs as it reaches the processing area, as shown in Figure 2-5, Processing Plant Site Plan. An overhead conveyor system also would be installed to load the rail cars. The new rail spur would be approximately 1,000 feet long.

As mined materials are processed and sorted, they would be added to stockpiles within the processing plant. Some materials would be crushed and sorted into stockpiles by a radial stacker6 and conveyors. Materials would be kept wet to minimize dust emissions. Sprinklers and water trucks would be used to control dust at the processing plant and on stockpiles. The processing plant would also contain a process water pond, which would be used to retain water for reuse in aggregate processing. Groundwater would be pumped from a new on-site well to supply water to the process pond and for dust control as part of processing plant operation (see Section 2.4.7, under the subheading Water Supply and Use, for details). 6 A radial stacker is a conveyor that sits on a wheeled truck, which runs on a railed track that forms a radius semicircle around the stacker. The advantage of the radial stacker is that it gives the operator the option to create many multiple stacks of material or one continuous radial stack.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-25 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Screening Berm
An approximately 40-foot-tall visual screening berm would be constructed along the east side of the processing plant, adjacent to U.S. 101 (see Figure 2-5a, Processing Plant Site Plan). The earthen berm would be constructed using approximately 90,000 cy of overburden from Phase 1.

The berm would be graded to resemble the form and shape of the surrounding hill slopes. It would then be planted with native and naturalized shrubs, grasses, and trees and irrigated to blend with the surroundings and screen views of the processing plant and Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining operation from U.S. 101. The screening berm would remain in place after Project completion.

Site Access and Vehicle Trips
The Project site would be fenced and gated, and signage posted in accordance with County requirements (County of Santa Clara 2020a). A three-strand barbed wire fence would be placed along the perimeter of the mining area and inspected monthly by the quarry manager. All breaks would be repaired promptly upon identification.

All visitors would be required to check in at the administration office, have proper safety gear, and be accompanied to any restricted areas. Parking for all customer and employee vehicles would be available at the processing plant site.

The primary market for product is projected to be the construction industry operating in Santa Clara County (80 percent of demand). The remainder of the production would be distributed in San Benito County (10 percent) and Monterey County (10 percent). The finished product would be transported by a combination of trucks and rail cars, as described below.

Vehicle Access and Roadway Improvements
Vehicle and truck access, including emergency access, to and from the Sargent Ranch Quarry would occur via U.S. 101, as shown on Figure 2-11, Ingress and Egress. Access to the Project site from the north would occur via southbound U.S. 101 and Old Monterey Road through a gated entrance to an existing private access road. Trucks leaving the site traveling to destinations south of the quarry would exit onto Old Monterey Road and then onto southbound U.S. 101 via an existing acceleration lane. Trucks traveling to destinations north of the quarry would use the Sargent Ranch undercrossing of U.S. 101.

To facilitate truck access, an existing U.S. 101 on-ramp east of the Project site would be improved prior to the start of mining to include a 12-foot-wide, 0.25-mile-long acceleration lane for trucks accessing northbound U.S. 101. See Figure 2-12, Northbound Acceleration Lane Improvements. This on-ramp would require an encroachment permit from Caltrans and would be built according to Caltrans specifications.

The northern portion of Old Monterey Road is approximately 20 to 24 feet wide. This section, which lies within a County right-of-way, would be improved as needed with new pavement overlaid on the existing roadway. Roadway shoulders approximately 3 feet wide would be added as needed on both sides of the road. The southern portion of the private roadway located on Sargent Ranch would be improved with a 1-inch pavement overlay on the existing pavement, where needed. 86,1*5(66 (*5(66/2&$7,216 ),*85(
Source: Triad/Holmes Associates., 6/9/2015.
800 0 800 1600 3200 Feet
(;,67,1*&$77/(*$7(
86
48$55<(;,7
(*5(66)25
1257+%281'9(+,&/(6
,1*5(66)256287+%281'
9(+,&/(6
(*5(66)256287+%281'

12,03529(0(176352326('

Figure 2-11
Ingress and Egress
SOURCE: Triad/Holmes Associates, 2015 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator 1257+%281'$&&(/(5$7,21/$1(,03529(0(176 ),*85(

'$&&(/(5$7,21/$1(,03529(0(176 ),*85(

SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 2-12
Northbound Acceleration Lane Improvements

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-28 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Old Monterey Road, both within the County right-of-way and the private portions, would be repaired and maintained, with additional pavement overlays, and removal and repair of roadway sections if needed, approximately every 5 years during the 30-year term of the mining operation.

A free-span bridge is proposed over Tar Creek to provide truck access to the processing plant from Old Monterey Road. See Figure 2-13, Tar Creek Bridge. The bridge would replace an existing at-grade, in-water crossing and would span the banks of the creek and the majority of the riparian area. The bridge would be approximately 24 feet wide and 100 feet long with a 70-foot span over Tar Creek. Berms would be installed on both sides of the bridge to direct stormwater flows into Tar Creek and to elevate the bridge.

Based on site constraints, the size of the trucks to be used by customers, and the safety requirements for safe loading of trucks, the processing plant would have room for three loaders to be in use at any given time. These would be able to load a total of 12 trucks per hour operating at full capacity (four trucks per hour per loader). On a typical day, there would be 120 haul trucks per day. The maximum number of haul trucks would be 139 trucks per day.

In addition to the haul trucks, there would be approximately eight vehicles arriving at the site per day for material delivery and maintenance and up to 15 employee vehicles.

Freight Rail Access
Rail tracks are located to the east of Sargent Ranch along U.S. 101. As part of the Project, a rail spur would be constructed within the processing plant area. The spur would accommodate up to 16 rail cars. Rail cars would be filled at the processing plant during the day and would sit on the rail spur in the processing plant once filled. Up to three times per week, a locomotive would haul the rail cars to the main track (a process that takes approximately 30 minutes from start to finish) where they would be connected to a northbound train. Trains would be loaded during the day, but connection to the train and rail transport would be scheduled to take place at night (generally between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.). As discussed above, up to 1,600 tons of material could be transported by train at one time, or up to 4,800 tons per week. A maximum of 249,600 tons annually could be transported by rail, assuming three times per week every week of the year.

The quarry would contract with Union Pacific Railroad, or one of its subcontractors, to provide freight cars and locomotives to transport the cars. The cars would be added to an existing train carrying other freight, rather than requiring a new separate train just for the Project. The primary destination for the trains would be the Graniterock facility at 11711 Berryessa Road in San Jose.

The Graniterock facility at the Port of Redwood City would be an additional destination. Both stops have existing quarry material unloading facilities and infrastructure that could handle the Project’s product.

Figure 2-13
Tar Creek Bridge
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, 2020 SCC Sargent Quarry
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-30 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

2.4.3 Stormwater Drainage
For the portion of the property within the proposed Phase 1 and 2 areas, stormwater from the higher elevations and ridges currently flows into two ephemeral drainages and several drainage channels that join Tar Creek just north of the proposed processing plant area. Existing drainage from the proposed Phase 3 and 4 mining areas sheet flows to Sargent Creek, which then flows south to the Pajaro River.

The quarry would cease operation on any day with 0.50 inches or more of rain to preserve quarry equipment and to maintain safe operations for employees. However, the storm drain conveyance structures and creek crossings are designed to convey the 100-year storm event.

A 5-foot-tall flood protection berm would be constructed around the northern boundary of the processing plant site. Another 4-foot-high berm would be constructed on the north side of Tar Creek to channel flows under the proposed 70-foot-wide Tar Creek bridge and to bring the plant access road above the flood plain (see Figure 2-14, Processing Plant and Creek Crossing Detail).

Both berms would be armored with 12-inch rip rap to prevent scour. In addition, bridge abutments would be reinforced with 12-inch rock placed at a thickness of 1.2 feet and extending

7.6 feet horizontally, 6 feet vertically and 25 feet down stream of abutments.

Surface runoff from the processing plant would be directed via drainage ditches and swales to a stormwater sediment basin). According to the Reclamation Plan, this basin would receive all surface water from areas disturbed by mining via drainage ditches and swales (Appendix B).

Stormwater in this basin would be allowed to percolate on-site or be reused for processing plant operations (e.g., dust control, washing aggregate materials). This basin also would receive runoff from swales surrounding the adjacent overburden stockpiles, containing stormwater from disturbed area to within the Project site. The basin at the processing plant would be approximately

0.21 acre (surface area) and have a capacity of 0.45 acre-feet in order to accommodate the 24-hour, 100-year storm event. Another sediment basin would be constructed immediately east of the Phase 3 pit (see Figure 2-7, Phases 3 and 4 Grading and Excavation Plan), with a surface area of 1.17 acres and a capacity of 5.44 acre-feet. An additional eight sediment basins would be constructed intermittently along the conveyor belt/access road as shown Figure 2-9, Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (North), and Figure 2-10, Conveyor Belt and Maintenance Road Detail (South). These basins would have surface areas ranging from 0.01 to 0.34 acres and capacities of 0.01 to 1.45 acre-feet.

Stormwater that falls within the quarry would be directed into drainage ditches and swales and conveyed to stormwater basins within the mining pits (see Figure 2-15, Mining Drainage Plan).

These ditches would be maintained during mining and relocated as mining moves into new areas.

Runoff from the quarried slopes and benches would be directed down to the quarry floor through drainage ditches. Energy dissipaters would be located at the base of the slope where the runoff would flow into ditches that drain into the pit and basins. Runoff from the quarry slopes would join runoff from the quarry floor in the pit and basins. The basins would retain stormwater until it percolates into the ground.

SOURCE: Triad Holmes, January 2022
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 2-14
Processing Plant and Creek Crossing Detail
Figure 2-15
Mining Drainage Plan
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-33 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Conveyance of Off-Site Stormwater through Mining Areas
Although the quarry and processing plant would not operate during a significant storm event (i.e., predicted 0.50 inch or more of rain), the storm drain conveyance structures and creek crossings are designed to convey the 100-year storm event.

At two locations, off-site watershed areas at higher elevations would drain through or adjacent to proposed mining areas. For Phases 1 and 2, concentrated flows from an approximately 43-acre off-site area above and northwest of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 areas would be conveyed between the Phase 1 pit and the overburden stockpile area via a 36-inch, inlet-controlled culvert located between the pit area and the overburden stockpile, as shown in Figure 2-16, Drainage Detail - Phases 1 and 2. The culvert would continue further southeast under the proposed access road and discharge the flows at a natural drainage depression beyond the active mining areas. Due to the high velocity in the outlet, 18-inch rock in a layer 2 feet thick would be placed for the 25 feet downstream of the outlet.

Runoff from an approximately 75-acre area above the Phase 3 pit would be collected in a 12-footwide, 2-foot-deep drainage swale and conveyed along several benches around the Phase 3 mining area. The water in the proposed swale would flow into an existing natural drainage swale on the east side of the Phase 3 mining area, as shown in Figure 2-17, Drainage Detail - Phases 3 and 4.

The flow from the swale would continue under the conveyor belt and access/maintenance road via three 36-inch culverts and flow into Sargent Creek just upstream of the natural drainage swale outfall into the creek. The depth of flow in the culvert would be 3 feet. Due to velocities at the outfall, rip rap would be placed along the culvert.

An arch culvert (i.e., a culvert shaped like a half circle) would be installed for use in crossing Sargent Creek. The culvert would span the creek bed, leaving the channel bottom undisturbed and would be able to convey flows in a more natural manner than if the conduit was fully closed. The culvert would have a 35-foot span and 11-foot rise. The slopes and inside edge of the culvert would be armored with rip-rap to prevent scouring during higher creek velocities.

2.4.4 Erosion and Sediment Control
The potential for erosion would be minimized with a combination of drainage improvements, revegetation, and management of stockpiles. These measures would include the construction of benches, interceptor and collector ditches, and energy dissipaters at the base of slopes, installation of culverts, drop inlets and over side drain pipes, and use of sediment basins as shown in Figure 2-15. Drainage improvements, including sediment basins, would be designed to accommodate the 24-hour, 100-year storm event.

Initial grading for any Project phases and at the processing plant area would be conducted primarily during the dry season from approximately April 16 through October 14. The quarry would be graded to achieve positive drainage7 consistent with the performance standards contained in 7 A drainage surface that is graded so that water collects and flows to a lower elevation is referred to as “positive drainage.”
'5$,1$*('(7$,/3+$6( ),*85(
Source: Triad/Holmes Associates., 8/31/2016.

SOURCE: Triad Holmes, January 2022
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 2-16
Drainage Detail - Phase 1 and 2
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
'5$,1$*('(7$,/3+$6( ),*85(

Source: Triad/Holmes Associates., 8/31/2016.

PHASE 2
PHASE 1
SOURCE: Triad Holmes, January 2022
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 2-17
Drainage Detail- Phase 3 and 4
PHASE 4
PHASE 3

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-36 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
SMARA’s implementing regulations for drainage and diversion. Surface runoff and drainage from surface mining activities, for example, would be controlled by berms, silt fences, sediment ponds, revegetation, hay bales, or other erosion control measures to ensure that surrounding land and water resources are protected from erosion, gullying, sedimentation, and contamination. Erosion control methods have been designed to handle runoff from not less than the 20-year/1-hour intensity storm event consistent with regulatory Performance Standards for Drainage, Diversion Structures, Waterways, and Erosion Control (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 3706(d)).

BMPs for sediment control would be used when grading work is undertaken during the wet season. The proposed Industrial Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Appendix I) identifies a wide range of BMPs to be used, including but not limited to coir wattles (coconut fiber rolls), silt fences, sediment traps, and stilling basins in and adjacent to disturbed areas (see Appendix I for a complete list. A water truck would be used for wetting down work areas while the ground surface is being ripped or disked. Drainage ditches in loose soil would be lined with rock to reduce soil erosion. Sediment basins would be cleaned regularly to maintain proper function. Open drainage ditches over loose, erodible soil would be lined with crushed rock.

Drainage ditches on the benches have a minimum lateral slope of four percent to ensure proper drainage. Energy dissipaters would be placed where drainage ditches flow into the basins and or the pit, and in appropriate locations where over-side drain culverts would carry stormwater or collector ditches flow downslope. Unpaved areas, subject to vehicular traffic within the operations area, would be graded and compacted for positive drainage.

Revegetation with grassland species, herbaceous species, and trees would bind the soil particles together and break up the erosion energy of raindrops. Temporary erosion control measures to be implemented in conjunction with revegetation efforts include the use of coir wattles strategically placed on the fill slopes every 20 vertical feet. Stockpiles at the processing plant would be managed for wind and erosion to control erosion and sediments that may contribute to silt build-up in the sediment basin. Temporary erosion control measures would be used on the stockpiles during the rainy season. For example, stormwater would be diverted away from stockpiles into drainage ditches that collect stormwater from the stockpiles and direct the flow into one of the sediment basins and pits. In addition, coir wattles or silt fences would be installed at the base of stockpiles if there is evidence of erosion. Topsoil stockpiles that would not be used in the near-term would be hydroseeded.

Dust control would be achieved by regular watering in the processing plant and mining areas and on unpaved roads. In the mining areas, there would be regular watering of cut slopes by the water trucks. Open working areas in any given pit in any phase would be limited to the smallest area necessary for mining, with topsoil and grass left in place in the areas to be mined in the future. As described in Section 2.6, below, after mining is complete in each phase, the area would be reclaimed and revegetated.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-37 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

2.4.5 Operational Schedule, Employees, and Utilities
Operational Workforce
Sargent Ranch Quarry would have up to 15 employees on-site at any one time for surface mining activities. In general, up to five staff would run the processing plant, three would load trucks with front-end loaders, three would conduct active mining operations, one would manage scale operations, and up to three would weigh incoming trucks and provide office support.

As shown in Table 2-3, reclamation activities would occur for approximately five years after completion of each phase, and up to five years after completion of all mining (see Section 2.6).

Initially, reclamation of each phase would involve grading that would be conducted by the 15 Project employees. Similarly, removal of Project facilities, such as the processing plant, would be done by those Project employees. Other reclamation activities, such as hydroseeding, tree planting and monitoring, would be done by consultants under contract to the Applicant. Hydroseeding is estimated to employ approximately two employees or contractors for four days for each phase. Tree planting would employ approximately two employees or contractors for 21 days. Monitoring would be an intermittent activity occurring over the 5-year periods and would require approximately two consultants for up to two days per year.

Hours and Days of Operation
Mining operations are proposed to occur year-round. The level of activity at the quarry would be highest during the active mining season, between April and October, and lowest during the rainy season. The quarry would operate a maximum of 310 days per year. Generally, mining activities would not occur on any day with one-half-inch (0.5”) of rain or more to preserve quarry equipment and to maintain safe operations for employees.

All Project operations would occur Monday through Saturday between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., with two exceptions. Mining and activities at the processing plant would occur between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with one (1) hour for breaks (for a 10-hour workday). Sales transported by truck could begin as early as 4:30 a.m. each day, continuing until 4:00 p.m. Pick up of loaded rail cars would be scheduled to occur at night up to three times per week between Monday and Saturday.

These operational hours are not consistent with the County standards and so would require separate Planning Commission approval (see Section 2.7, Approvals, Permits, and Consultation).

The quarry operation would be closed on Sundays and holidays consistent with County Code Section 4.10.370 Part II A.1. Maintenance of equipment may be conducted on any day of the week. Reclamation activities would occur within these same operating hours.

2.4.6 Utilities
The Project would be served by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) use existing electric power and telephone lines during initial site construction, mining operations, and reclamation.

Electricity would be the source of power for the aggregate processing plant, offices and other facilities. No natural gas would be used, and no extensions of public utilities or alterations to existing utility service would be necessary to implement the Project.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-38 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Septic System and Wastewater
An on-site septic system (also known as an on-site wastewater treatment system, or OWTS) would be installed, consisting of a septic tank, distribution box, and leach field, which would be constructed for Project use. The leach field would be located as near to the processing plant area as feasible in order to service wastewater generated by toilets and sinks in the processing plant office, as well as one additional restroom facility in the processing plant area. (See Figure 2-5) The septic system would be designed for a daily wastewater generation of 400 gallons per day based on the Uniform Plumbing Code estimated wastewater generation of 25 gallons per day per employee. Division B11, Chapter IV, of the County Ordinance Code establishes regulations for the approval, installation, and operation of OWTS within unincorporated Santa Clara County, consistent with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards and water quality plans; the Project’s OWTS would be installed and operated in compliance with these requirements. Portable toilets would be used at the processing plant during initial site construction activities until installation of the septic system is completed. Portable toilets would also be used in the mining areas. The portable toilets are expected to be serviced weekly at the same time as the portable toilet that currently serves the oil extraction operation, which is located within Sargent Ranch (outside of the Project site).

Water Supply and Use
Water for dust control, aggregate processing, and other non-potable plant operations would be obtained from a new on-site well to be located near the processing plant site (as shown in the upper right-hand corner of the processing plant on Figure 2-5). This well would be installed during Project construction, and would supplement an existing on-site well. During full operations (i.e., after the initial 5 years of mining), aggregate processing would require water throughput of approximately 800 gallons per minute (384,000 gallons per day). Approximately 80 percent of the water used would be reused as part of plant operations. Water for sand and gravel washing would be pumped from the proposed well to the processing plant. The mined aggregate material would pass through a series of wet screens that are sprayed with the well water. Water and sediment would drain out of the screens and be pumped into the process water pond, which would be used to retain water. After sediment settles to the bottom of the pond, the clarified water on the pond surface would be pumped back to the plant for reuse in aggregate washing and for dust control at the processing plant, along roads, and within mining areas.

Potable water would be brought in by private vendors and used for drinking water and other uses as required by building code and the potable water requirements of the Department of Environmental Health. Water deliveries are expected to occur once a week.

As shown in Table 2-5, the maximum daily and annual water consumption rates during peak production, would be 86,135 and 26,742,000 gallons, respectively. This includes refilling of a 10,000-gallon fire response water tank four times per year. The total annual water demand in a peak production year would equate to approximately 82 acre-feet per year. This is the amount of water that would be pumped from the groundwater well and does not include the reused water described above. As shown in Table 2-5, reclamation activities would require approximately 155,000 gallons

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-39 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
per year, and another 465,000 gallons per year would be used for dust control in reclamation areas.

All irrigation would be turned off two years after all reclamation actions are completed.

TABLE 2-5

WATER CONSUMPTION BY PROJECT COMPONENT
Project Component
Annual Consumption
in Peak Production
Year (gal)
Maximum Daily
Demand (gal)
Aggregate Processing 23,808,000 76,800a
Processing Plant Dust Suppression 155,000 500
Access Roads and Maintenance Road Dust Suppression 930,000 3,000 Mining Area Dust Suppression 930,000 3,000
Reclamation Area Dust Suppression 465,000 1,500
Reclamation Areas Irrigation 155,000 500
Landscaping Irrigation 155,000 500
Indoor Use 104,000 335
Water Tank for Fire Response 40,000 n/a
Total 26,742,000 86,135
NOTES:
a. This assumes that 80 percent (307,200 gal/day) of the total aggregate processing water (384,000 gal/day) would be reused for plant operations, and therefore only 20 percent (76,800 gal/day) would be consumed. A maximum of 6,000 tons per day would be processed. A maximum of 1,512,800 tons of aggregate would be exported in a single year. b. The 10,000-gallon water tank would be refilled four times per year. If a fire does occur, there could be some additional water use, but it would be intermittent and temporary.

SOURCE: Freeman, 2021.

Additional water would be used for dust control during construction, although this would be a temporary use and would not exceed 100,000 gallons in the 9-month construction period.

The groundwater well would be constructed consistent with Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) Ordinance 90-1, which requires that well construction comply with Valley Water and California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-81 standards. These standards address annular seal depths and thicknesses, acceptable sealing materials, and placement of sealing materials, as well as the required distance from contaminant sources. County Department of Environmental Health approval would be required for all water supply wells. See Section 2.7, Approvals, Permits, and Consultation. The groundwater well would be closed during final reclamation and after removal of the irrigation system.

Solid Waste
Because no demolition would occur at the site, 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 on-site. During the mining and product processing operation, the 15 employees would generate small amounts of waste, as typical of a business operation. Solid waste would be hauled off weekly by a local waste disposal company.

Receptacles for garbage and recycling would be located at the processing plant.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-40 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
After mining is completed, reclamation would include the dismantling and disposal of Project facilities and equipment. Most of these components would be salvaged, for example by being repurposed for ranch use or resold to other parties. For example, the conveyor belts used to haul materials from the mining pits would be sold and taken off-site for reuse.

2.4.7 On-Site Hazardous Material Use and Storage
Fuels and oils for mobile equipment would be used and stored on-site during both the active mining and reclamation periods. These petroleum hydrocarbon materials would be stored in aboveground tanks with fuel delivered on an as-needed basis. Other materials including new oil and waste oil, antifreeze, and hydraulic fluids would be stored in aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and smaller containers at defined storage sites within the processing plant area that are located to the south of the processing plant parking lot.

Storage and handling of hazardous materials would comply with federal, state, and local requirements for minimizing inadvertent contamination of groundwater and accidental spillage into open water bodies. The Project would include preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), consistent with state and County regulatory requirements. A proposed Industrial SWPPP consistent with federal and state regulatory requirements already has been prepared (Appendix I). Both would be implemented at the Project site to minimize the potential for spills and leaks from material handling and storage and to minimize exposure of significant materials to stormwater. These procedures include installing secondary containment or using double-walled ASTs, conducting regular inspections, and training employees.

In addition, oil and chemical vendors and operators of equipment would be trained and instructed to comply with applicable speed limits and to exercise caution when driving near ASTs and associated equipment. Drivers would be instructed to respond to an emergency by shutting off the pump or closing the emergency shutoff valve at the delivery truck product compartment. A spill containment kit would be located on employee vehicles and rail cars arriving at the site. In the event that a spill occurs, absorbent material would be used to prevent chemicals or oils from leaving the area. For larger spills, the on-site earthmoving equipment would be used to create a berm to contain the spill so that it can be cleaned up consistent with regulatory requirements.

During weekly safety meetings that would begin with the commencement of on-site activities and continue until the conclusion of final reclamation, workers and relevant vendors would receive training in the safe handling of fuels and oils.

2.4.8 Lighting
Mining would occur during the day; therefore, no lighting is proposed in the quarry pit areas or along the conveyor belts. Lighting would be installed at the processing plant in accordance with Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulations and County Guidelines for ASA (30 CFR Parts 1-199; Santa Clara County 2020b). Lighting also would be provided at the rail loading area.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-41 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Lights at the processing plant may be on in the early morning and later afternoon hours (i.e., when the plant opens for sales at 4:30 a.m. until dawn and from dusk until closing at 5:00 p.m. during the summer and early evening in the winter). Lights at the rail loading area would be used only when rail cars are being connected to the train for transport and when empty cars are returned to the Project site.

Light fixtures would be a maximum of 12 feet tall and would be located throughout the processing plant as needed for safety and security purposes. Lights along the rail line would be located where the spur connects to the main line, and approximately every 20 feet along the spur. Lighting would be shielded to prevent light overspill onto neighboring properties and to reduce impacts on nighttime views from U.S. 101. Festooned, naked-bulb, or flashing bulb lighting would not be allowed per County ASA guidelines.

2.4.9 Routine Maintenance Procedures
Ongoing maintenance would include routine removal of debris from benches, removal of accumulated sediment from drainage ditches and basins, and regrading of the haul roads. A loader, or dozer would be used to remove debris from the benches if the debris impairs drainage on the bench and if removal of the debris would not affect the revegetation program on the benches. If necessary to remove the debris without affecting the revegetation program, then the debris would be removed by hand. A backhoe or an excavator would be used to clean out drainage ditches and basins annually before winter rains, and when it is observed that a ditch is impacted by accumulated debris. A road grader would be used to smooth unpaved access roads.

Spilled rock or soil would be cleaned up by hand or by using a loader. Minor or emergency (non-routine) maintenance or repairs also would be conducted at the quarry as needed.

2.4.10 Fire Suppression
The Sargent Ranch Quarry Project Fire Protection Plan (FPP) (Appendix L) identifies and evaluates fire risk associated with the Project’s activities and identifies requirements for risk reduction features such as water supply, fuel modification, defensible space, emergency access, building ignition and fire resistance, fire protection systems, red flag warning protocols, safety requirements for hot work, and wildfire emergency preplanning. The FPP includes a summary of the existing fire risk on-site and considers the Project site’s climate, on-site topography and vegetation, and fire history. The FPP uses the “BehavePlus Fire Modeling” analysis to predict fire behavior on-site and conducts a fire risk assessment that considers the potential for the Project to impact fire risk and fire protection services in the area (Dudek 2020). The Project would implement the following recommendations:
• Maintaining a Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) of 100 feet around each building and structure in the processing plant area.
• Maintaining a 20-foot FMZ on each side of access roads. • Maintaining a 10-foot FMZ in all directions from the water tank.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-42 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• Clearing parking areas and fuel or storage areas of grass and brush for a distance of at least 30 feet.
• Completing fuel modification vegetation management by May 15 of each year. • Obtaining an inspection and report by a County-authorized Wildland Fire Safety Inspector by June 1st of each year.
• Providing a 10,000-gallon water tank (described in Section 2.4.2) dedicated to firefighting purposes. The water tank would be moved to each phase when mining commences at that phase.
• Providing a 4,000-gallon water truck for fire suppression (included in Table 2-4).

Fuel modification would include removal of all existing native vegetation and prohibited plants (see Appendix E of the FPP), which would be replaced with drought tolerant native species (see Appendix D of the FPP), maintained at a height of 6 inches or less. Fuel modification maintenance work would include mowing, trimming, managed goat grazing, and/or similar methods to reduce the height of vegetation in the FMZs.

The two water trucks used for dust control would be available to assist with fire suppression as needed. Also, fire prevention training for all quarry personnel would be a regular part of the weekly safety training for all employees of the quarry.

2.5 Construction Activities and Assumptions
The analysis in this EIR assumes that Project construction would begin in March 2023 and be completed by December 2023. The actual start date would depend on status of Project approvals.

During this 9-month construction period, the following Project components would be constructed:
the screening berm, the aggregate processing plant and associated facilities, access road improvements, and drainage facilities. All construction activities would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, consistent with the County Code Section B11- 154(b)(6).

The projected durations for construction of each Project component are shown in Table 2-6. The equipment likely to be used also is identified. Each component would be constructed sequentially, with the exception of the Monterey Road Improvements and Northbound 101 Acceleration Lane improvements, which would be constructed at the same time.

The number of employees would vary depending on the facilities being constructed. Construction of the processing plant and road improvements would require 15 employees. Bridge construction would include 10 employees, and eight employees would be involved in construction of the rail spur. The above construction activities would occur in sequence, so there would not be any overlap, with the exception of improvements to Old Monterey Road and Highway 101, which could overlap. Up to 30 construction employees could be on-site during these road improvements.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-43 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
In addition to the above initial construction activities, at the end of Phase 2 mining (estimated to occur in 2047), a new conveyor belt and maintenance road (including the proposed Sargent Creek crossing) would be graded from the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas north to the plant site as described in Section 2.4.1.

TABLE 2-6

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND DURATIONS BY PROJECT COMPONENT Project Component Equipment Types Duration
Project Construction (2023)
Processing plant (including Phases
1&2 conveyor belt, access road)
1 crane
1 blade
1 bulldozer
1 scraper
1 excavator
1 trenching machine
4 weeks
Free-span bridge over Tar Creek 1 excavator
1 bulldozer
1 crane
3 weeks
Monterey Road Improvements 1 bulldozer
1 blade
1 paving machine
2 rollers
1 water truck
3 weeks
Northbound 101 Acceleration Lane 1 bulldozer
1 blade
1 paving machine
2 rollers
1 water truck
2 weeks
Rail spur 1 crane
1 blade
3 weeks
Screening Berm 2 bulldozers
1 excavator
4 weeks
Maintain Old Monterey Road 1 paving machine
2 rollers
1 oil truck
Ongoing (every 5 years)
Phases 3 and 4 Construction (2047)
Conveyor Belt/Access road 1 bulldozer
1 blade
1 scraper
1 trenching machine
3 months
SOURCE: Freeman, 2021.

2.6 Reclamation
The Applicant has prepared a draft Reclamation Plan for the Project (Appendix B). The proposed reclamation generally involves equipment and building removal, regrading, re-soiling, drainage and erosion control, and revegetation. Some of these activities may occur simultaneously but the general sequence of reclamation would be as set forth below so that the most exposed created slopes are revegetated first. Upon completion of all reclamation activities, the Project site would be returned to cattle grazing and/or be retained as open space.

1. Whenever a finished slope is completed within each mining phase, contour grading and resoiling would commence on that slope. Hydroseeding would be done and an irrigation system would be installed if required, and the area would be revegetated.

2. Once mining is complete in a phase, the slopes would be filled and regraded to 3:1.

Hydroseeding and irrigation (if required) would be installed.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-44 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3. Seeding and planting of oak trees would begin on the uppermost benches and slopes, working down toward lower elevations.

4. Once mining is complete in Phase 4, the mining equipment would be removed.

5. Final reclamation (after Phase 4 is complete) would include using remaining stockpiles to fill, compact, and re-soil the pit and process water basin; contour and grade unnecessary internal roads; rip, disk, and re-soil the quarry floor; and re-soil the reclamation slopes and benches.

6. Implementation of inspection and monitoring programs.

7. Implementation of post-reclamation maintenance.

Specific reclamation activities are described in more detail below.

2.6.1 Building, Structure, and Road Removal
Quarry equipment, structures associated with the processing plant, storage yard debris, the scale, the rail spur and excavation and loading vehicles used during mining operations would be removed when the mining operation ceases. Removal of equipment and structures would take up to two months. Some of the equipment (e.g., modular office space and scale) would be used as part of post-mining uses such as cattle grazing. At the end of Phase 4 mining operations, the conveyor belt would be removed, and its footprint regraded and revegetated. The Tar Creek bridge and the access road that runs parallel to the conveyor belt would be left in place to continue to provide access to the Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas during reclamation, and ultimately to be used for cattle operations.

After reclamation of the Phase 3 and Phase 4 areas has been completed, the Sargent Creek crossing would be removed, and the area disturbed for the maintenance road would be either revegetated or maintained for use for cattle operations. After the removal of the Sargent Creek crossing Sargent Creek would be restored to its pre-Project condition. The water well would be retained for the duration of reclamation activities as a source of water for irrigation of plantings and thereafter for future grazing uses. The removal of structures, equipment, and vehicles would include the removal of contaminants and hazardous chemicals such as oils and lubricants from the site. After removal of equipment, the rock plant would be disassembled for sale. Tanks and drums would be sold to recyclers or returned to the distributor. Storage yard debris would be recycled.

2.6.2 Redistribution of Materials and Recontouring
Reclamation would include the use of overburden to fill quarry pits to elevations to levels at or below the immediately surrounding grades, recontouring of the surface of mined and processing plant areas, installation of erosion and stormwater control features, redistribution of topsoil, and revegetation. The site topography would ultimately be contoured to create a safe condition for cattle grazing, which is intended to be resumed at the site upon completion of reclamation activities. Slopes would be a maximum of 3:1. Finished site contours for each phase of mining are shown in Figure 2-18, Reclamation Plan – Phases 1 and 2, Figure 2-19, Reclamation Plan – Phases 3 and 4, and Figure 2-20, Processing Plant Site Remediation Plan. Cross sections for each phase are shown in Figure 2-21a and Figure 2-21b, Mine Reclamation Cross Sections.

Figure 2-18
Reclamation Plan - Phases 1 and 2
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 2-19
Reclamation Plan - Phases 3 and 4
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 2-20
Aggregate Plant Site Reclamation
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 2-21a
Mining Reclamation Cross Sections
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 2-21b
Mining Reclamation Cross Sections
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-50 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Overburden would be used to fill quarry pits up to five (5) feet below the ground surface and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Topsoil would then be applied to the upper five (5) feet to support plant growth during revegetation. The topsoil stockpiled during mining activities would be redistributed to enhance revegetation as final surfaces and quarry slopes are completed. A water truck would be used for wetting down work areas while topsoil is being spread onto the reclaimed slopes, benches, and valley floor. The sediment basins would also be filled with the remaining soil material, contoured, and revegetated once all mining activities are complete.

The regrading and contouring of specific Project components such as the material processing area, mining areas, and roads is described in more detail below.

Once equipment and buildings have been removed in the material processing area, the process water pond would be back-filled and compacted. The processing area would be ripped to a depth of two feet in order to loosen compacted soil and regraded using the stockpiled overburden from the northwest corner to achieve a uniform finish grade. After the area has been graded, topsoil would be placed over the area and reseeded with the seed mixes identified in Tables 6 and 7 of the draft Mining and Reclamation Plan (Appendix B).

Using overburden from the stockpile area, the mining areas would be graded with side slopes of 3:1 or flatter. The final grade would be based on the volume of stockpile and overburden available. After the mining areas have been graded appropriately, the areas would be re-soiled using stockpiled topsoil and reseeded. A bulldozer would be used to spread topsoil which would be spread across the ripped quarry pit to a depth of six inches. Final grading and contouring after the completion of Phase 4 would be completed within approximately one month.

Except in the case of the conveyor belt access road, which may be left in place for use in cattle grazing, roads created for the Project would be ripped to a depth of 12 inches. Topsoil would be applied to reach a depth of eight inches and reseeded. Ranch roads established prior to mining operations would remain after the completion of mining and reclamation. These ranch roads are, on average, 25 feet wide and unpaved. The bridges constructed for the Project would be removed, with the exception of the Tar Creek bridge, which would be retained for use by the cattle operation.

2.6.3 Slope Stability
Final reclaimed slopes in mined areas would have slope gradients of 3:1 or flatter with 1- to 2-foot-wide benches at 30-foot intervals. Overburden and topsoil would be used to fill and re-soil each quarry pit, to construct reclaimed fill buttress slopes and benches, and to facilitate revegetation. Slopes would be seeded or planted with oaks and other vegetation.

As part of recontouring activities, fill would be compacted to 90 percent density up to five (5) feet below the surface and the upper 5 feet would be granular material with a layer of topsoil. The ground surface would be ripped prior to receiving the topsoil layer. Loaders would be used for transporting fill material to the basins, and bulldozers would place and compact fill. A motor grader would be used to shape the final surface area and to spread the topsoil layer as part of establishing the final site contours. Once reclamation grading is complete, these areas would be revegetated as described below.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-51 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

2.6.4 Revegetation
Noxious Weed Removal During Mining and Reclamation
A biological survey conducted in 2015 found that yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) are present at the Project site (Appendix E). SMARA’s implementing regulations require these two USDA-listed noxious weeds to be eradicated from the reclaimed Project site (USDA 2020). The Applicant has proposed to implement a program to manage these weeds during operations and reclamation. Weed removal would commence during each mining phase and continue annually through the 30-year mining term by hand, with herbicides, or with managed grazing. As part of reclamation activities, annual inspections of the quarry would identify the presence of the two species. The findings of these inspections would be recorded on the Annual Noxious Weed Control Inspection form, which would be submitted to the County for review. Weed removal would continue until the end of the post-mining 5-year maintenance period or when the planting success criteria identified in Table 2-6 have been achieved, whichever occurs last.

Planting Methods and Plant Selection
Test Plots and Monitoring Plots
Revegetation test plots and monitoring plots would be set up at the beginning of Phase 1 mining activities and would be located near the processing plant in an area that would not be disturbed by mining activities. This section summarizes success criteria for each. For additional details, see Section 4.4.12 of Appendix B.

Test plots would be used to determine the water and soil amendment needs for the revegetation program for the proposed California native and naturalized8 grassland and oak woodland communities that would be planted at the site as part of overall site reclamation. The test plots would be used to refine the planting palette and methods, as needed, to ensure that the revegetation program is successful.

Test plots are intended meet the following criteria:

1. Allow evaluation of the different plant palettes presented on Tables 5 to 7 of the Mining and Reclamation Plan (Appendix B)

2. Plot sizes should be sufficiently large to be able to quantify success criteria

3. Test plots should experience no disturbance for a minimum of 5 years after establishment

4. Soil materials with topsoil should be comprised of the same materials that would be used during future reclamation (stockpiled topsoil, weathered materials or fines from processing and overburden, and soil testing to support native plants) 8 Naturalized plants are non-native plant species growing beyond their natural range or natural zone of potential dispersal, including domesticated and feral species and hybrids involving at least one non-native parent species. Other terms that are often used as synonyms for non-native include alien, exotic, introduced, adventive, non-indigenous, nonaboriginal, and naturalized. https://www.cal-ipc.org/resources/library/publications/ipcw/cwip/.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-52 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

5. Fill placement and planting preparation should follow guidelines for future reclamation presented in the Reclamation Plan.

The monitoring plots would be installed when mining is completed at the end of each mining phase and after reclamation grading and when revegetation begins. The monitoring plots would measure 2 feet by 50 feet in the grassland habitats. The monitoring plots for the oak woodlands would be 2 feet by 100 feet and the area used to measure oak tree density would be a 100-footdiameter circular plot. The monitoring plots would be used to evaluate the success of the revegetation planting and ensure that the vegetative success criteria required by SMARA are achieved. Monitoring plots are intended to meet the following criteria:

1. Locations of monitoring plots should represent significant microclimates in terms of slope, aspect, and elevation.

2. Plot sizes should be sufficiently large to quantify success criteria.

Revegetation
Revegetation would include hydroseeding of slopes that have a gradient of 3:1 or flatter by drilling or imprinting seeds on flatter slopes and benches, and by planting oak tree masses in designated locations to integrate the reclaimed area with the surrounding undisturbed lands. Soil supplements and irrigation to revegetated areas would be provided if the test plot planting program determines that they would improve survival of the plantings. Figure 2-22, Revegetation Plan, shows where revegetation would occur.

Species to be planted would consist of native and naturalized plant species that have a record of success on disturbed soils and are consistent with vegetation present generally in the area.

Baseline data for oak tree density and plant species present on the site was collected and used to create a target oak density and planting palette. The findings from the test plots would be used to modify the planting program described below, as needed.

An irrigation system would be installed to assist in the revegetation effort if the test plot monitoring program determines that supplemental water improves the growth and survival rate of the oak tree seedlings. If an irrigation system is needed, then the woody plants would be hand watered with a hose on a water truck for the first two years and then irrigated for the third year to facilitate plant establishment. Plant irrigation would be discontinued at the end of the third year or continued for an additional two years if replacement plants are installed due to losses of the initial plants. The objective is to meet the planting success criteria without ongoing irrigation. As shown in Table 2-5, an estimated 155,000 gallons per year would be used for irrigation of reclaimed areas. After reclamation and monitoring are completed, the irrigation system would be removed.

Four different seed mixes would be used to replicate the different existing site conditions found at the quarry and the surrounding landscape, including native/naturalized grasslands on the flat valley areas and lower and upper slopes and oak woodland with annual grassland around the midelevation slopes. Native and naturalized plants that are more commonly found within these plant communities at the site would be replanted in the same general area. Species to be planted would consist of commercially available erosion-control native and naturalized plant species that have Figure 2-22
Revegetation Plan.pdf
SOURCE: Freeman Associates, February 2022 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-54 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
evidenced good success on disturbed soils and are consistent with vegetation used in the region.

By proposing to revegetate with the same or similar plants that are growing in the area, the Applicant intends for revegetated slopes to be visually compatible with the native landscape.

Oak trees would be planted at a density of approximately 20 per acre in identified oak tree planting zones and would include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and blue oak (Quercus douglasii). Trees would be grown on-site or acquired from local commercial nurseries, and 1-gallon and tub-stock-sized oaks would be planted between October and February. Planting holes would be dug; the irrigation, if needed, would be installed; and a marker stake would be posted in each planting hole before seeding. Trees would be planted randomly and in clusters to mirror the oak tree massing on surrounding hillsides in the oak tree planting areas (see Figure 2-22).

2.6.5 Drainage, Erosion, and Sediment Controls
During reclamation, a water truck would be used for wetting down work areas during ground disturbing reclamation activities. Drainage ditches would be lined with rock to reduce soil erosion.

During reclamation interceptor ditches would be installed at the back of reclamation benches which would flow into either 1) drop inlets that drain into override drains that discharge onto energy dissipaters at the base of the slope or 2) either side collector ditches or lined ditches with energy dissipaters at the base of the slope. From the energy dissipaters, water would either dissipate into the ground of the valley floor or would be collected in drainage ditches that flow into the basin on the floor or into the reclaimed pit. In order to accomplish this, the valley floor would be graded to provide a 1 percent slope to allow for sheet flow toward the drainage ditches and basin.

Erosion control features would be constructed as necessary during reclamation. The grade of the reclaimed mining area would be such that the majority of stormwater runoff is likely to be retained within the boundaries of the mining area. Temporary erosion control features such as silt fences, berms, coir wattles, and hay bales may be used where necessary, depending on the location of the grading work.

Due to the ongoing grading required in mining and reclamation, sediment basins would serve as the primary sediment control measures. In the event of continual, uncontrolled soil erosion, a seed/spraying technique may be used to create vegetation for erosion control. These erosion, drainage, and siltation measures would aid in protecting downstream surface waters during reclamation.

2.6.6 Reclamation Monitoring, and Maintenance
The Applicant would monitor reclamation activities independent of the County’s annual SMARA inspections to determine the effectiveness of the revegetation activities compared to benchmarks established in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix B). The monitoring program incorporates sitespecific criteria to measure compliance. Criteria are grouped into five categories:
grading/topography, sediment and erosion control, revegetation, irrigation, and ongoing maintenance. See Section 4.6 of Appendix B for more detail on each of these elements.

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-55 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Final Topography
Reclamation would be considered complete and satisfactory when the site configuration matches the slope and topography depicted in the Reclamation Grading and Drainage Plans and the Reclamation Cross-Sections. These requires that slopes have a varying gradient of 3:1 or flatter and have 3-foot-wide benches established at 40-foot intervals. Reclamation benches would be sloped at a minimum of 4 percent to the rear and a minimum of two percent laterally for drainage.

As described above, fill placed into pits, process water pond, and on the fill earth buttresses would be compacted up to five (5) feet below the ground surface to at least a 90 percent density.

The top five (5) feet would be filled with predominantly granular material. Reclamation standards require that test results demonstrate that compaction limits have been met.

Erosion Sediment and Control
The final reclamation slopes, benches, and valley floor would be revegetated to stabilize the ground surface. Jute matting, erosion control blankets, coir wattles, silt fences, and sediment traps would be used to mitigate areas where runoff is concentrated to reduce sediment levels. Rill erosion would be repaired whenever rills are found. Remaining sediment basins would be inspected annually for five (5) years after mining ceases or two years after plant recovery has achieved the success criteria outlined in the Reclamation Plan (consistent with standard SMARA requirements), whichever occurs later. Accumulated sediment in the drainage facilities would be removed prior to the rainy season each year. Erosion controls would be used and inspected each fall before the rainy season until the vegetative cover has become established and reclaimed slopes are stable.

Erosion sediment and dust control would be considered to be satisfactory when the revegetation criteria have been met.

Sediment basins in the processing plant area and at the mining pits that are to be retained following the completion of mining would be inspected annually while the operator is maintaining the site.

Inspections would occur each year for five (5) years after mining ceases or two years after reclamation planting and after the planting success criteria have been met, whichever is later.

The final reclaimed fill benches and slopes, quarry floor, drainage facilities, and plantings (which provide erosion and sediment control) would be inspected prior to October 1 each year of the 5-year post-mining reclamation maintenance and monitoring period. Maintenance and repair work each year would be completed prior to November 1.

Revegetation Monitoring
At the end of mining and reclamation of the Phase 4 mining area, the quarry operator would continue to maintain all of the reclaimed areas for either a 5-year period after mining ceases or a 2-year period after the last human involvement with plantings, and until the planting success criteria are satisfied - whichever occurs last. Should Phases 1, 2, and 3 achieve the vegetative success criteria while Phase 4 is still being mined or reclaimed, the operator may ask the County and the State to approve these areas as reclaimed. After completion of the quarry operator’s monitoring period (post-mining), ongoing maintenance would be the responsibility of the Applicant. Monitoring Plots, after the initial 5-year period, would continue to be inspected every

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-56 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
third year between April and May until they achieve the vegetative success criteria. Maintenance and repair work would be completed prior to November 1.

The revegetation success criteria include assessments of coverage, density, and species richness.

Revegetation performance would be measured by a qualified biologist as described in the approved Reclamation Plan. Planting, maintenance, and monitoring work would be directed toward achieving the following minimum success criteria by the end of the first 5 years after each phase area is reclaimed. The planting success criteria that would be used to evaluate the postreclamation revegetation program are summarized in Table 2-7.

TABLE 2-7

POST-RECLAMATION PLANTING SUCCESS CRITERIA
Location Plant Coverage
(percent)
Plant
Density
(per transect)
Species
Richness
(per transect)
Grassland – 3:1 or flatter fill slopes 60a 5b 21c
Grassland – quarry floor 70d 4e 3f
Oak Woodland with Grasslands – 3:1 or flatter fill slopes 50g 4h 4i Badlandsi– fill slopes 40j 4k 2l
NOTES:
a. The plant coverage of new grassland areas on the reclaimed 3:1 fill slopes is expected to be 60 % coverage including the native and locally-naturalized plants. Lower plant coverage is anticipated on the fill slopes due to the more difficult growing conditions. b. The plant density of grassland areas is not a measurement used in determining planning success criteria; however, the forbs in the seed mix (4) can be counted; and any other native or locally-naturalized forbe or woody plant that volunteers can be counted. c. The species-richness of the grassland areas on the reclaimed 3:1 fill slopes is expected to be a little less than 50% of the number of perennial plant species (3) and forbes (4) in the seed mixture; and any other native or locally-naturalized forbe and woody plant volunteers can be counted. A lower species-richness count is expected on the cut slopes due to the harsher conditions: dry rocky surfaces and lack of soil.
d. The plant coverage of the grassland on the reclaimed quarry floor is expected to be 70% from all native or locally naturalized plants.
e. The plant density of grassland areas is not a measurement used in determining plant success criteria; however, the forbs in the seed mix (4) can be counted; in addition to any other native or locally-naturalized forbe or woody plant. Lower plant density is anticipated due to more difficult growing conditions.
f. The species-richness of the grassland on the reclaimed quarry floor is expected to be a little less ½ of the number of perennial plant species (3) and forbes (4) in the seed mixture; and any other native or locally-naturalized forbe or woody plant that volunteers can be counted.
g. The plant coverage of the Oak Woodland with grassland areas on fill slopes with a gradient of 3:1 or flatter is expected to be 50 % coverage including the native & locally-naturalized plants. Lower plant coverage is anticipated on the fill slopes due to more difficult growing conditions.
h. The plant density of grassland areas is not a measurement used in determining plant success criteria; however, the plant density in the Oak Woodland with grassland on fill slopes considers the combination of the following assumptions: ½ of the tree species in the circular plot (4 out of 7): and any of the 4 forbs in the seed mix; and any other native or locally-naturalized forbe or woody plant can be counted.
i. The species-richness of the Oak Woodland with grassland areas is expected to be a little less ½ of the number of perennial plant species (3) and forbes (4) in the seed mixture, and ½ of the tree species in the planting list; and any other native or locallynaturalized forbe or woody plant that volunteers can be counted. A lower species-richness count is expected on the slopes due to the harsher conditions: dry rocky sub-surface and thin soil layer. j. The plant coverage of new areas on the reclaimed slopes is expected to be less than the existing cover of 50 %. The plant coverage will include native & locally-naturalized plants. Lower plant coverage is anticipated due to the more difficult growing conditions.
k. The plant density of on the reclaimed slopes is expected to include: 2 perennial shrubs per transect (½ of the perennial shrubs in the seed mix); and any of the 4 forbes in the seed mix; and any other native or locally-naturalized forbe or woody plant volunteer can be counted.
l. The species-richness on the reclaimed slopes is expected to be a little less ½ of the number of perennial plant species in the seed mixture (5); and include any other native or locally-naturalized forbe or woody plant that volunteers. A lower species-richness count is expected on the slopes due to the harsher conditions: dry rocky sub-surface and thin soil layer.

SOURCE: Freeman Associates, Sargent Quarry Mining and Reclamation Plan, February 2022, Table 17

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-57 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

2.7 Approvals, Permits, and Consultation
Several federal, state, regional and local agencies that are likely to have review, permitting, or approval authority over various components or activities associated with the Project. Table 2-8 identifies these agencies and the permits and approvals that may be required.

TABLE 2-8

APPROVALS, PERMITS, AND CONSULTATION PERMITS
Agency Approval, Permit, and/or Consultation
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act Section Individual Section 404 Permit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Federal Endangered Species Act Compliance (Section 7 Consultation) State Office of Historic Preservation • National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation Mine Safety and Health Administration • Notice of Commencement of Operations • Emergency, Fire, Evacuation, and Rescue Plan
• Legal Identity Report
• Miner Training Program
• MSHA Identification Number
State
California Office of Mine Reclamation • Review of Reclamation Plan State Water Resources Control Board • Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasure Plan approval Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Boarda • General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit/Notice of Intent • General Industrial Activity Stormwater Permit
• Waste Discharge Requirements
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for Section 404 permit
California Department of Transportationa • Standard Encroachment Permit • Transportation Permit for Oversized/Overweight Vehicles California Department of Fish and Wildlifea • Fish and Game Code Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement • Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit or 2080.1 Consistency Determination (California Endangered Species Act)
California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
• Construction Permit
Regional
Bay Area Air Quality Management Districta • Authority to Construct, Permit to Operate Santa Clara Valley Water Districta • Groundwater Well Permit Local
County of Santa Clara Department of
Planning and Development
• Use Permit
• Design Review
• Architecture and Site Approval
• Approval of Reclamation Plan
• Variance for hours of operation
County of Santa Clara Department of
Environmental Health
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan
• Permit for installation of temporary portable toilets • On-site wastewater treatment (septic) systems permit
• Water Supply Well Approval
County of Santa Clara Department of
Roads and Airports
• Hazardous materials permit
• Encroachment permit for work on County roads
NOTES:
a. Responsible Agency

2. Project Description
Sargent Quarry 2-58 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

2.7.1 Related Environmental Review and Consultation
Requirements
Endangered Species Act Section 7 requires federal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) when any action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect either a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act, or any critical habitat designated for it. Similarly, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (decisions) on historic properties9 and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Therefore, before issuing a Section 404 permit, USACE would be required to consult with USFWS under Section 7 and with the State Historic Preservation Officer under Section 106 before issuing or authorizing a permit for the Project. For this Project, the County also would consult with the California Office of Mine Reclamation regarding review of the proposed Reclamation Plan. This EIR provides information to support these environmental reviews and consultations. _________________________

2.8 References
County of Santa Clara. 2020a. Zoning Ordinance. Updated October 2020. Available online:
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ZonOrd.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2021.

County of Santa Clara. 2020b. Webpage regarding Architecture and Site Approval. Available online: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Iwantto/Permits/Pages/ASA.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2020.

Dudek. 2020. Sargent Ranch Quarry Project Fire Protection Plan. December. (Appendix L of this EIR.)
Freeman, Verne, 2021. SQ Summary of Recent Project Information, attachment to electronic communication to David Rader, Senior Planner, County of Santa Clara, April 20, 2021.

Freeman Associates. 2022 Sargent Quarry Mining and Reclamation Plan, February 2022. (Appendix B of this EIR.)
Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2015. Biotic Evaluation Sargent Ranch Quarry.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. California State Listed Noxious Weeds.

Available online: https://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=06 Accessed November 3, 2020.
9 In this context, “historic properties” may include prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, sacred sites, and traditional cultural places, that are included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.

Sargent Quarry 3.1-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CHAPTER 3
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
This chapter documents impacts of the Sargent Quarry Project (Project) to the following environmental subjects in their respective sections of this Chapter 3:

3.2 Aesthetics

3.3 Air Quality

3.4 Biological Resources

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

3.6 Energy

3.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.11 Mineral Resources

3.12 Noise

3.13 Transportation

3.14 Utilities and Service Systems

3.15 Wildfire
The resource sections that follow this introduction summarize the relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the Project; describe the existing physical environmental conditions at the Project site and in the surrounding area; and disclose the Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. For impacts that would be significant, feasible mitigation measures are identified that would avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for the impact to reduce, where feasible, the level of significance below established thresholds.

3.1.1 Environmental Baseline
The analysis of each issue area begins with a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the area where the Project and its alternatives would be implemented. These existing conditions also are referred to as the “baseline” relative to which Project-caused changes are analyzed to determine whether the change is significant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125, 15126.2). Unless otherwise noted, baseline conditions for this Project are those as they existed on or about July 21, 2016, which is the date that the County of Santa Clara (County) published a Notice of Preparation announcing its intention to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); unless otherwise noted, 2016 conditions reasonably represent existing conditions. Sections 3.2 through 3.15 present details of the pre-Project baseline environmental conditions to which the potential impacts of the proposed Project and all alternatives were compared.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.1.2 Types of Impacts
This EIR considers direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for each resource. The terms “direct impacts,” “indirect impacts,” and “cumulative impacts” are defined below, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(d) and 15355.

Project Impacts: The effect of a Project on the existing environment is considered a Projectspecific impact (as opposed to a cumulative impact, discussed below). Project impacts can be either direct or indirect. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment include dust, noise, and odors generated during construction or the loss of sensitive biological habitat due to grading and excavation during Project construction or operation. An indirect physical change in the environment is not immediately related to the Project but is caused indirectly by the Project.

If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment. For example, the construction of new utility capacity may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increased capacity, and that growth may in turn lead to an increase in air pollution. An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. A change that is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.

Cumulative Impacts: A cumulative impact occurs when two or more individual impacts, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 13555). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. The EIR approach for defining and analyzing cumulative impacts is discussed in Section 3.1.6.

3.1.3 CEQA Significance Criteria and Determinations
CEQA lead agencies rely on impact significance criteria as benchmarks to determine whether changes to the existing environment caused by a Project or an alternative would cause a significant adverse effect. CEQA defines a significant impact on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21068), and the CEQA Guidelines further clarify that a significant impact is a substantial adverse change “in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).

To determine whether impacts are significant, the questions provided in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G were considered. Lead agencies generally have broad discretion to formulate significance thresholds and to draw significance conclusions based on information in the record, including the impact’s setting: “For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(a)(1), (b)).

Impact conclusions reached in this Draft EIR are made based on information in the County’s record, including credible science-based research, reference materials, and informed professional judgments of qualified scientists and EIR preparers. Technical studies and analyses relied upon

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
are cited in each section of the EIR; additional Project-specific or site-specific analyses are provided in the appendices.

The categories used to designate impact significance for the purposes of this EIR are:
• No Impact. There would be no impact if there is no Project-caused change in the environment—for example, if the environmental resource does not occur within the Project site or the area of potential effect. For instance, there would be no impact related to tree removal if no tree removal is proposed in the Project site. • Less than significant. This determination applies if a Project-caused change would result but would not exceed the applicable significance threshold. • Significant. This determination applies if the Project would result in an adverse effect that meets or exceeds the applicable significance threshold. Significant impacts are further designated as follows based on the availability of feasible mitigation measures:
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This determination applies if the Project would result in an adverse effect that meets or exceeds the applicable significance threshold, but feasible mitigation is available that would eliminate any adverse impact or reduce it to a less-than-significant level.
Significant and unavoidable. This determination applies if the Project would result in an adverse effect that meets or exceeds the applicable significance threshold but, even with the implementation of mitigation measures to lessen the impact, if available, the residual effect would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

3.1.4 Mitigation Measures

3.1.4.1 General Mitigation Approach
Consistent with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15370, this EIR describes feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize significant adverse effects of the Project. Mitigation can include one or more actions to avoid, minimize, restore, preserve and maintain, and/or compensate for an impact by providing a substitute resource.

This EIR refers to the “Project Owner” rather than the “Applicant” in the text of mitigation measures to define the responsibilities of Sargent Ranch Partners, LLC. Project Owner is defined for purposes of implementation of the mitigation measures as Sargent Ranch Partners, LLC, its successors and assigns, and/or its contractors (such as third-party consultants).

3.1.5 Resources and Uses for which No Impact would Occur The following resources and uses are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR because they would not be affected by the Project and there are no impacts thereto.

3.1.5.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Project site is designated as Grazing Land and small portion as Farmland of Local Importance on the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
(FMMP) maps (2016). There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (“Farmland”) on the Project site, nor is there any land under a Williamson Act contract (Santa Clara County 2021a). The Project site is zoned as Agricultural Ranchlands (AR), but mineral extraction is conditionally allowed in the AR zone, so it would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use with approval of a Use Permit.

Additionally, there is no land zoned as forest or timberland on the Project site (Pub. Res. Code Sections 12220(g), 4526; Gov’t Code Section 51104(g)). Therefore, the Project would have no impact on Farmland and forestry resources.

3.1.5.2 Land Use and Planning
The Project site is part of the 5,154 -acre Sargent Ranch property, which is designated Ranchlands in the County’s General Plan and zoned Agricultural Ranchlands. The Project site is currently used for cattle grazing and cultivation of dry-farmed, oat hay crops for cattle feed. The portion of Sargent Ranch to the north and west of the proposed quarry site is engaged in oil production, and there are small pipelines and oil storage facilities approximately 2 miles northwest of the proposed quarry.

Immediately surrounding uses are primarily agricultural.

There are no developed communities on or near the Project site. The nearest residences are single-family homes on large parcels of private land located approximately 1,600 feet east and 4,700 feet south of the Project site, and the Betabel RV park located 1,600 feet east of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.

The proposed quarry is allowable under the Ranchlands designation, as mineral extraction is listed as one of the allowable uses. The Project site is zoned as Agricultural Ranchlands with design review and scenic road overlays (AR-d1-sr). Mineral extraction is allowed in the AR zone subject to the issuance of a Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) issued in accordance with Chapters 5.20 and 5.65 of the County Zoning Ordinance. The Project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) regulations in Section 4.10.370 of the County Zoning Ordinance. As part of the County’s discretionary Use Permit process, the County would review the proposed reclamation plan and financial assurance cost estimate. The reclamation plan ensures that the post-mining Project site would be in usable condition consistent with the proposed end use (grazing).

The County may not issue a Use Permit for the Project unless it finds that the Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Thus, the Project would only be approved if it did not conflict with an applicable County land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Based on the above analysis, the Project would have no impact on land use and planning.

3.1.5.3 Population and Housing
Project construction would occur over a 9-month period and employ 8 to 30 employees at any one time, depending on the components under construction. The Project would employ up to 15 people

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
on-site for the operation of the quarry and processing plant. This number may be lower at times, depending on extraction and processing plant production rates. Up to two additional employees would be employed intermittently for revegetation and monitoring. With the low number of employees, it is likely that workers would come from the local labor pool and commute from nearby areas in Santa Clara and/or San Benito Counties (e.g., from cities of Gilroy, Hollister, or Watsonville). In addition, the proposed quarry would operate for 30 years, after which, the Project site would be reclaimed and employment at the quarry would end. The resulting reclaimed land would be used for grazing, consistent with its current use, and not result in any population increase beyond the current level. For these reasons, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned short-term or long-term population growth and there would be no impact.

The Project site contains one single-family residence that is occupied temporarily and seasonally by workers associated with on-site cattle ranching operations. This single-family residence and other on-site structures would remain, but would not be used as a residence during the mining term. The Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing.

Displacement of two or three employees who are not permanent occupants of the site would not result in a substantial new demand for housing in the region. As a result, there would be no impact related to the need to construct replacement housing.

3.1.5.4 Public Services
The Project would have a maximum of 15 employees on-site during peak construction, extraction, and processing times. Up to two additional employees would be employed intermittently for revegetation and monitoring. As described above, these employees would likely be provided by the local labor pool and would commute to the Project site from nearby areas. Because workers would come from the local area, they are already considered to be part of the existing demand for public services; therefore, the Project would not cause an increase in demand for schools, parks, schools, libraries, or other public services related to employee commuting and housing. Therefore, there would be no impact related to new or expanded public service facilities.

Project operation would take place on land being used for ranching and oil extraction uses, both of which require occasional responses from public services for fire protection, medical emergencies, or police investigation (e.g., traffic control, vehicle accidents, trespassing). The Project would have a minimal increase on the baseline level of service for the Project site, given its small employee size and location adjacent to existing roadways. While the addition of heavy equipment, fuel, and trucks to the non-urban environment could cause an increase in potential ignition sources, the Project includes removal of potential fuel sources (vegetation) to create a defensible space for wildfires. In addition, the Project would not use explosives as part of the quarrying process and water trucks, primarily used for dust control, could be used for fire suppression. There would be a minimal increase in potential fire hazards and subsequent fire protections services that would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities in order to serve Project demand. Therefore, there would be no impact related to new or expanded fire protection facilities.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Reclamation of the Project site following the 30-year Use Permit term would restore the Project site back to a condition suitable for the baseline use (grazing). Reclamation would return public service levels to current conditions and remove potential ignition sources created by the quarry.

For these reasons, the Project would cause no post-operational impact on public services.

3.1.5.5 Recreation
The Project would not add permanent residents. As described above, Project employees would likely come from the local workforce. Thus, the Project would not create demand for more parks within the county. The Project would not increase the usage of recreational facilities rise above existing baseline levels; therefore, there would be no impact related to increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities that might cause physical deterioration.

The Project does not propose or require new or expanded recreational facilities; therefore, there would be no impact related to new or expanded recreational facilities.

3.1.6 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis

3.1.6.1 General Approach
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental contribution to a significant cumulative effect is “cumulatively considerable.” This means that the project’s incremental effects are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects.

The analysis must determine whether the Project’s contribution to any cumulatively significant impact is cumulatively considerable, as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a)(3). The cumulative impacts discussion for each environmental issue accordingly addresses the following issues: (1) would the effects of all present and probable future projects , combined with the Project’s impact, result in a significant cumulative impact on the resource in question; and, if that cumulative impact is likely to be significant, (2) would the contribution from the proposed Project to that significant cumulative impact be cumulatively considerable? Consistent with CEQA, the analysis of potential cumulative impacts is “guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness,” and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect both their severity and the likelihood of their occurrence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b).) The purpose of the cumulative analysis is to allow decision makers to better understand the impacts that might result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, in conjunction with impacts from the Project addressed in this EIR.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), the County has prepared a list of present and probable future projects that could result in related or cumulative impacts. This list includes projects outside the control of the County.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The analysis of cumulative impacts for some resources also considers projections contained in planning documents designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. Specifically, this “projections approach” is used at least in part in the cumulative analyses for air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation.

Regarding selection of projects to be included in the cumulative impact analysis, past projects were not included because existing, i.e., baseline, conditions within the cumulative impacts geographic area reflect a combination of the natural condition and the effects of past projects in the affected area. The following factors also were used to determine an appropriate list of present and future projects considered in the EIR cumulative impact analysis:
• Certainty – Whether a project is considered “probable,” i.e., likely to occur, and whether the project description is sufficiently certain to meaningfully assess its impacts. • Information availability -- Whether timely and sufficient information was available about the project and its potential impacts to allow meaningful evaluation. • Similar Environmental Impacts – The analysis considers “probable” projects that would contribute to effects on resources also affected by the Project in the vicinity of the Project site, to create cumulative impacts.
• Geographic Scope – The appropriate geographic area of cumulative analysis is identified on a resource-by-resource basis as dictated by relevant physical and/or environmental boundaries (such as the extent of the groundwater basin or the roadways traveled by Project vehicles). See Table 3.1-2.
• Temporal Scope – Incremental impacts of the Project could combine with the incremental impacts of other projects to cause or contribute to cumulative effects if the Project’s construction, operation, and maintenance periods coincide in terms of timing with the effects of the other projects.

In general, projects that are approved and/or funded were included, as well as projects for which complete applications to the approving jurisdiction have been submitted. Projects for which a formal application has not been submitted and/or for which project characteristics have not been described were not included in the Table 3.1. Furthermore, any projects for which applications may have been submitted after approximately January 7, 2022 were not included in the cumulative project list because it was not practical to include them and still meet the Draft EIR publication schedule.

Projects included in the cumulative impact analysis are presented in Table 3.1-1, which also describes the approximate geographic location and timing of effects of each project. The projects in this table include a range of project types. They primarily consist of infrastructure and capital improvement projects, as well as private development projects. These projects are considered reasonably likely to be constructed and/or operated in a similar timeframe as the Project and could contribute incremental impacts that are similar to those of the Project. Because a number of the projects identified as cumulative projects are market-driven and/or have yet to be fully funded, the construction dates are unknown, as shown in Table 3.1-1. Therefore, for the purposes of this cumulative analysis, the EIR assumes these projects could cause impacts concurrently with this Project.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-8 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.1-1

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST
Project Name and
Jurisdiction Location
Distance
from Project
Site (miles) Project Description
Status and
Estimated
Schedule
U.S. 101 Widening
Project, Caltrans
U.S. 101 from
Monterey Road in
Gilroy to SR 129 in
San Benito County
0 to 4 Upgrade U.S. 101 to six lanes between Gilroy
and SR 129 in San Benito County; reconstruct
the Highway 101/SR 25 interchange, extend
Santa Teresa Boulevard from Castro Valley
Road to the US 101/SR 25 interchange;
improve the southbound US 101 off-ramp at
SR 129, grade-separate the Union Pacific Rail
crossing on SR 25 west of Bloomfield Avenue,
construct bicycle facilities
Dependent on
funding, 1 percent
funded. Schedule
unknown.

Modification of
Architecture and Site
Approval for Ag
Structure on Lena
Avenue, County of
Santa Clara
450 Lena Avenue,
Gilroy

9.5 20,000 square foot structure for agricultural
use
Plans submitted
August 2020.

Under
administrative
review.

Compost Pad on
Pacheco Pass
Highway, County of
Santa Clara
3675 Pacheco
Pass Highway,
Gilroy

6.6 Use Permit modification to allow the
construction of a compost pad containment
pond and the removal of the requirement of
food waste being covered.

Unknown
Shamrock Seeds
Project, County of
Santa Clara
6640 Holsclaw
Road, Gilroy
6 Demolition of existing on-site greenhouse
totaling 14,433 square feet and construction
of a new 10,000-square-foot agricultural
research building, parking lot, and two sets of
greenhouse structures.

Approved February
2019, timing of
construction
unknown
Gilroy Rodeo
Grounds, County of
Santa Clara
7955 Ferguson
Road, Gilroy

7.4 Proposed arena, pen, warm-up arena, and
other infrastructure, which would attract up to
6,500 spectators, 500 contestants, and 30
volunteers at any one time when a large
event is held.

Permits approved
May 2019, events
scheduled for
August 2021
Z-Best Compost
Facility Modification,
County of Santa
Clara
980 CA-25, Gilroy 1.9 Expand and convert a Compost Technology Inc. system to an engineered Composting
System open aerated model.

Draft EIR released
January 15, 2021
Christopher Ranch
Farm Worker
Housing, County of
Santa Clara
935 Southside
Drive, Gilroy
4 Use Permit, ASA and Grading Approval for
the construction of up to 200 units permanent
farm worker housing units within five 3,600-
square-foot detached buildings, a 1,460-
square-foot laundry and restroom facility, and
a 840-square-foot modular caretaker unit.

Eleven parking spaces with five bus parking
spaces with loading area and open
recreational space area to the rear.

Approved
Gilroy High-Speed
Rail station and
alignment, California
High Speed Rail
Authority
Monterey Street
between 7th & 9th
Streets, Gilroy
3 Proposed California High-Speed Rail station
and associated alignment.

Environmental
clearance is
anticipated in early
2022
Pacheco Reservoir
Expansion Project
(PREP)
CA 152 (Pacheco
Pass Highway)
16 Reservoir expansion from 5,500 acre-feet up
to 140,000 acre-feet enough to supply up to

1.4 million residents with water for one year in
an emergency. The project will also reduce
the frequency and severity of water shortages
during droughts, protect our drinking water
supply and infrastructure, and improve fish
habitat.

Environmental
clearance is in
process. The end
of the Draft EIR
public comment
period is February
15, 2022
SOURCES: VTA 2013; County of Santa Clara 2021b; California High Speed Rail Authority 2021.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
In additional to the projects in Table 3.1-1, the Santa Clara County General Plan (County of Santa Clara 1994), San Benito County General Plan (San Benito County 2015), and Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (County of Santa Clara et al. 2012) were reviewed for potential future development projects, new roadway corridors, or changes in allowed development patterns that could result in cumulative impacts. No additional projects of this type were identified in the vicinity of the Project site. The surrounding area is General Plan designated and zoned for agricultural, rangeland, and open space uses—similar to existing conditions at the Project site and in the vicinity.

3.1.6.2 Strada Verde Project
As discussed above, Table 3.1-1 does not include projects for which applications may have been filed after January 7, 2002 because it was not practical to include them and still meet the Draft EIR publication schedule. For example, on February 4, 2022, the County of San Benito received an application for the Strada Verde Specific Plan, which is located west of the Project site, across U.S. 101. Specifically, Bristol SB, LLC filed a preliminary application with the San Benito County Resource Management Agency (RMA), Planning and Building Inspection Services division, for the Strada Verde project May 19, 2019 (Holland and Knight, 2021). The application requested entitlements for conversion of approximately 2,777 acres of agricultural land in northwest San Benito County to various uses, including Research/Development, Automotive Testing/Tracks, Distribution, Offices, Business/Professional Services Commercial, Light Industrial, Hospitality, Retail, and Public/Private Services, with building space totally approximately 7.2 million square feet (sf), the creation of a 209.5-acre Pajaro River Park, and preservation of 561.7 acres exclusively for agriculture. The 2019 preliminary application was never deemed complete (Holland and Knight, 2021).

After submitting the 2019 preliminary planning application package, the Strada Verde applicant prepared an initiative for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Zone change. The initiative qualified for the November 3, 2020 general election as “Measure N” Holland and Knight, 2021). Sixty percent of voters rejected Measure N. After Measure N did not pass, the applicant did not withdraw its preliminary planning applications from consideration. The Strada Verde applicant informed the San Benito County Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021, and formally via letter dated March 10, 2021, that they intended to proceed with the project and its pending planning applications in accordance with applicable County procedures and requirements (Holland & Knight, 2021). Due to the outcome of the election and the fact that the application was not complete, the Strada Verde project as described in the 2019 application was not considered a probable future project at the time that the Sargent Quarry Draft EIR was being prepared.

On February 4, 2022, the Strada Verde applicant filed another application with San Benito County RMA, Planning and Building Inspection division. The application consisted of an updated project application, amending the previous application form, including amending proposed land uses (Wiseman). Technical reports with environmental information were not submitted to San Benito County with the February 4, 2022 application submittal, and it had not been deemed complete as of February 24, 2022.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The Strada Verde project as described in the 2021 application was not selected as a probable future project for inclusion in Table 3.1-1 for several reasons. First, given the project’s history, it is speculative whether it would ultimately be approved as described in the 2021 application.

Second, the new project application was submitted after January 7, 2022, too late to include the project in the cumulative impact analysis and still meet the Draft EIR publication schedule. Third, notwithstanding Draft EIR schedule considerations, the technical reports that were referenced in the new project application that might have otherwise assisted in predicting the project’s environmental impacts were not filed with San Benito County when the application was filed, and thus were not publicly available.

3.1.6.3 Geographic Areas for Cumulative Analysis
For each resource area, cumulative impacts may occur over different geographic areas. For example, the Project effects on air quality would combine with the effects of projects in the entire air basin, whereas noise impacts would primarily be localized to the surrounding area. The geographic area that could be affected by the Project varies depending upon the type of environmental issue being considered. Table 3.1-2 provides a summary of the different geographic areas used to evaluate cumulative impacts.

TABLE 3.1-2

GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Resource Area Geographic Area
Aesthetics Project public viewshed; i.e., views of the Project site from U.S. 101 Air Quality San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and North Central Coast Air Basin Biological Resources Valley Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Project site and the vicinity of the Project site
Energy Countywide (electricity) and 40-mile travel radius (fuel) Geology, Soils, and
Paleontological Resources
Geologic and soils impacts are site specific, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts. For paleontological resources, and the Project vicinity in areas with similar geologic conditions.

GHGs Statewide
Hazards and Hazardous Materials A 0.25-mile radius around the Project site, adjacent parcels, and truck hauling routes
Hydrology and Water Quality Pajaro River watershed, groundwater basins in the vicinity of the Project site Mineral Resources Monterey Bay and South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption (P-C) regions
Noise and Vibration Project site and adjacent parcels
Transportation/Traffic Adjacent roadways and highways
Utilities and Service Systems Service areas of regional utility and service providers Wildfire Region
__________________________

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.1.7 References
California Department of Conservation. 2016. DLRP Important Farmland Finder. Available online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed February 11, 2021.

California High Speed Rail Authority. 2021. Gilroy. Available online at https://hsr.ca.gov/highspeed-rail-in-california/station-communities/gilroy/. Accessed November 17, 2021.

County of Santa Clara. 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan, 1995-2010. December 1994.

County of Santa Clara. 2021a. Williamson Act Properties Map. Available online at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1f39e32b4c0644b0915354c3e5 9778ce. Accessed February 11, 2021.

County of Santa Clara. 2021b. Department of Planning and Development Current Projects.

Available online at https://plandev.sccgov.org/development-projects/current-projects Accessed February 11, 2021.

County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2012. Available online at https://scv-habitatagency.org/178/Santa-Clara-Valley-Habitat-Plan.

Holland & Knight, March 10, 2021. Letter to San Benito County Board of Supervisors. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://sanbenito.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/ CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=6106&MeetingID=412
San Benito County. 2015. General Plan 2035. Available online at https://www.cosb.us/home/showpublisheddocument/5859/637347294134470000.

Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). 2013. U.S. 101 Improvement Project between Monterey Street and State Route 129 Final Environmental Impact Report, May 2013. Available online at http:// https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/2013_FinalEIR_US101- Improvement_MontereySt-SR129_FullDocument_0.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2022.

Valley Water, 2022. Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project, https://www.valleywater.org/projectupdates/a1-pacheco-reservoir-expansion-project, accessed February 23, 2022.

Wiseman, Bill, Planning Practice Leader, Kimley-Horn. 2022. Letter to Mr. Taven M. Kinison Brown, Principal Planner, San Benito County, Resource Management Agency. February 4, 2022.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.1 Introduction
Sargent Quarry 3.1-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.2 Aesthetics

3.2.1 Introduction
This section describes the existing visual character of the Project site and vicinity and the changes to those conditions that would result from implementation of the Project. The analysis focuses on the change in visual character, particularly as it would affect views from U.S. 101, which provides the only publicly accessible areas from which the Project site is easily visible. The effects of Project-caused light and glare also are evaluated.

This analysis focuses on impacts on humans and structures; potential effects on wildlife are addressed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources.

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting

3.2.2.1 Federal
There are no federal laws or regulations regarding visual resources that would apply to the Project.

3.2.2.2 State
Scenic Highways Program
The California legislature created the Scenic Highway Program in 1963 to protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to the highways.

State requirements in the Streets and Highways Code (Section 260 et seq.) govern the Scenic Highway Program. A highway may be designated as “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the travelers’ enjoyment of the view. The Scenic Highway System includes highways that are either eligible for designation or have been designated as such.

The status of a State scenic highway changes from “eligible” to “officially designated” when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, and receives the designation from Caltrans. A city or county may propose adding routes with outstanding scenic elements to the list of eligible highways; however, State legislation is required for designation.

The section of U.S. 101 in the vicinity of the Project site is not a designated State Scenic Highway, nor has it been determined eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2021).

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and its implementing regulations include reclamation plan standards related to aesthetics and visual resources, including those that consider

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
slope stabilization, erosion control, revegetation, equipment removal, stream protection, and recontouring. Under Section 3704.1(e) of the SMARA regulations, final quarry slopes must be capable of being revegetated, and shall blend visually with the local topography.

3.2.2.3 Local
County of Santa Clara General Plan
As stated in the General Plan, Santa Clara County scenic resources include the coastal mountain ranges to the west of the valley and the oak chaparral of the Diablo Range on the east, which together frame an urban landscape in the middle (County of Santa Clara 1994, page H-40). The County’s natural rivers and streams, wetlands near the San Francisco Bay edge, urban parks, and architecture of distinction are considered to be scenic resources. Relevant General Plan policies are listed below.

Parks and Recreation Chapter, Scenic Highways
Policy C-PR 37: The natural scenery along many of Santa Clara County’s highways should be protected from land uses and other activities which would diminish its aesthetic beauty.

Policy CP-38: Land use should be controlled along scenic roads so as to relate to the location and functions of these roads and should be subject to design review and conditions to assure the scenic quality of the corridor.

Policy C-PR 39: The visual integrity of the scenic gateways to the South County (Pacheco Pass, Hecker Pass, Route 101 south of Gilroy, and a Coyote greenbelt area north of Morgan Hill) should be protected.

Policy C-PR 43: New structures should be located where they will not have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the area, and in rural areas they should generally be set back at least 100 feet from scenic roads and highways to minimize their visual impact.

Policy C-PR 44: Landscaping with drought-resistant native plants should be encouraged adjacent to scenic roads and highways.

Policy C-PR 45: Activities along scenic highways that are of a substantially unsightly nature, such as equipment storage or maintenance, fuel tanks, refuse storage or processing and service yards, should be screened from view.

The General Plan contains additional goals and policies that are applicable to all development projects in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Countywide and Rural Unincorporated Areas chapters of the General Plan contain various policies associated with visual quality, which are pertinent to the Project (County of Santa Clara 1994):

Growth and Development Chapter
Policy R-GD 17: Design Review Zoning Districts, including Design Review Guidelines, shall apply to primary viewshed areas most immediately and directly visible from the valley floor, lands up to and including the first ridge, or those within approximately 1 to 2 miles’ distance from the edge of the valley floor.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Policy R-GD 31: Ridgelines and ridge areas have special significance for both public policy and private interests. Ridgeline and hillside development that creates a major negative visual impact from the valley floor should be avoided or mitigated, particularly for those areas most immediately visible from the valley floor. Ridgeline development policy should also take into account the need to allow reasonable use and development of private land.

Land Use Chapter
Policy R-LU 16: Hillsides: Mountainous lands and foothills unsuitable and/or unplanned for annexation and urban development. Lands so designated shall be preserved largely in natural resource related and open space uses in order to:
a. support and enhance rural character;
b. protect and promote wise management of natural resources; c. avoid risks associated with the natural hazards characteristic of those areas; and d. protect the quality of reservoir watersheds critical to the region’s water supply.

Policy R-LU 17: These lands also contain such important resources as grazing lands, mineral deposits, forests, wildlife habitat, rare or locally unique plant and animal communities, historic and archeological sites, and recreational and scenic areas of regional importance, which serve to define the setting for the urbanized portions of the County. Given the importance of these lands to the County’s overall quality of life, allowable uses shall be consistent with the conservation and wise use of these resources and levels of development shall be limited to avoid increased demand for public services and facilities.

Parks and Recreation Chapter
Policy R-PR 39: The natural scenery which exists along many of the County’s highways should be protected from land uses and other activities which would diminish its aesthetic qualities.

Resource Conservation Chapter
Policy R-RC 98: Hillsides, ridgelines, scenic transportation corridors, major County entryways, stream environments, and other areas designated as being of special scenic significance should receive utmost consideration and protection due to their prominence, visibility, and overall contribution to the quality of life in the County.

Policy R-RC 102: Structures on ridgelines must be located, constructed or landscaped so that they do not create a major negative visual impact from the Valley floor. Land should be divided in such a way that building sites, if possible, are not located on ridgelines.

Policy R-RC 103: Development in rural areas should be landscaped with fire resistant and/or native plants which are ecologically compatible with the area.

Regional Parks, Trails, and Scenic Highways Plan Map
The County of Santa Clara Regional Parks, Trails, and Scenic Highways Plan Map (part of the County’s General Plan) provides information regarding the current status and future plans for regional parks, trails, and scenic highways. Freeways and expressways are included on the map to

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
recognize quality urban road design, and to promote the protection of scenic surroundings of notable urban and rural routes (County of Santa Clara 1994). The portion of U.S. 101 adjacent to the Project site and to the south is a County-designated Scenic Freeway and considered the gateway into Santa Clara County from San Benito County. This portion of U.S. 101 is not a part of the State Scenic Highway Program administered by Caltrans. However, for the purpose of this analysis, U.S. 101 is considered a scenic resource as it has been designated by the County as a Scenic Freeway.

Zoning Ordinance
The Project area is within a Design Review Combining District, Santa Clara Valley Viewshed (-d1) and Scenic Roads Combining District (-sr). The -d1 combining district is intended to conserve the aesthetic qualities of hillsides most visible from the valley floor through utilization of development standards, design guidelines, design review, and incentives for smaller projects.

The purpose of the -sr combining district is to protect the visual character of scenic roads through application of development regulations. For example, under the -sr combining district, no building or structure is allowed within 100 feet of the U.S. 101 right-of-way. Structures within 100 feet of the U.S. 101 right-of-way would be subject to design review by the Planning Commission [Zoning Ordinance Section 3.30.030 (C.)] (County of Santa Clara 2017).

Lighting Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval
Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) is a procedure established by the County Zoning Ordinance to review the quality of site and architectural design associated with proposed projects. The County Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval (page 10) include a design standard related to external lighting that provides:

External lighting, when used, should be subdued. It should enhance building design and landscaping, as well as provide for safety and security. It should not create glare for occupants, neighboring properties or streets. Lighting fixtures should be durable and compatible with building design and landscaping. Tall fixtures that illuminate large areas should be avoided. Not allowed are festooned or naked-bulb lighting, or flashing bulb lighting. Energy conservation should be given consideration when planning the amount and type of lighting. High crime areas should be well lit.

Mining Regulations
County of Santa Clara surface mining regulations are located in Section 4.10.370 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Their purpose is to ensure the continued availability of important mineral resources, while regulating surface mining operations as required by SMARA (specifically Public Resources Code Section 2207, related to annual reporting requirements), and State Mining and Geology Board regulations for surface mining and reclamation practices. The following regulations related to aesthetics from Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.370 would apply to the Project.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Zoning Section Description

4.10.370: Supplemental
Use Regulations –
Part II: County
Regulations

2. Appearance. Surface mines shall be operated in a neat and orderly manner, free from junk, trash, or unnecessary debris. Buildings shall be maintained in a sound condition, in good repair and appearance. Weeds shall be cut as frequently as necessary to eliminate fire hazards. Salvageable equipment stored in a non-operating condition shall be suitably screened or garaged where normally visible from public view.

6. Setbacks from property lines.
a) Cut slope setbacks. Cut slopes shall be no closer than 25 feet distant from any adjoining property line, except where adjoining property is being mined; nor 50 feet to any right-of-way of any public street, or official plan line or future width line of a public road.
b) Ridgeline setbacks. When surface mining occurs in a canyon area which abuts an urban area or the ridgeline is visible from the valley floor, the top of the uppermost cut area shall be as shown in an approved reclamation plan, or in the absence of an approved plan, not less than 50 feet from the top of the ridge existing prior to excavation.

7. Fencing and posting.
a) It is the intent of this subsection that fencing will be required only for those portions of an excavation needing fencing for purposes of public safety; other portions may need posting only.

Where excavation is authorized to proceed in stages, only the area excavated plus the area of the stage currently being excavated need be fenced. Adequate fencing shall be provided to exclude unauthorized dumping.
b) The Planning Commission may require the enclosure of all or a portion of an excavation by an approved fence either along the property line or the periphery of the excavation where deemed necessary for public safety by the Planning Commission. Such fence shall not be closer than ten feet to the top edge of any cut slope. All fences shall have suitable gates at accessways. Gates to be securely locked during hours and days of non-operation.
c) Fencing type shall be determined by the Planning Commission. d) Signs shall be conspicuously posted along the periphery of the property. The signs shall be posted in such a manner and at such intervals as will give reasonable notice to passersby of the matter contained in such notice by stating in letters not less than four inches in height.

WARNING: COMMERCIAL QUARRY ON THESE LANDS;
Santa Clara County Use Permit No: _______
In addition, the signs shall be pictorial in the nature of information being disclosed for non-English readers.

8. Screening.
a) Screening shall be required for excavations in urbanized and scenic corridors or locations at the time of excavation so that the screening will provide a reasonable means of securing use and enjoyment of nearby properties. b) The screening by means of installation of berms, fences, plantings of suitable shrubs and trees. They shall be placed and maintained in order to minimize visibility from public view of cut slopes or mining operations and equipment. c) Such screening when required by the Planning Commission may be along the streets and exterior property lines or the perimeter of the visible portions of the site being operated.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.2.3 Environmental Setting

3.2.3.1 Key Terms Used in This Analysis
This section defines terms and concepts where establishing a shared understanding of the meaning is important to the consideration of the Project’s potential impacts to aesthetics. • Visual character refers to the features of the natural (e.g., landforms, vegetation, rock and water features) and built (e.g., buildings, utility infrastructure) features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. • A scenic vista is generally considered to be a location from which the public can experience unique and exemplary views, which are typically from elevated vantage points that offer panoramic views of great breadth and depth. There are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Project site.
• For this analysis, scenic resources are specifically defined as features that are visible from a state- or county- designated scenic highway, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • For purposes of this analysis, light refers to artificial lighting used to illuminate exterior areas.
• Glare is typically a harsh, bright light, such as glare caused by sunlight. Glare also can be caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials, such as reflective glass, polished surfaces, or metallic architectural features. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight relative to the reflective surface. At night, the intensity of glare depends on the design, strength, direction, and location of artificial lighting.

The degree of impact depends on viewer sensitivity to aesthetic changes. For this analysis, viewer sensitivity is categorized into high, moderate, and low visual sensitivity ranges. These ranges are based on a composite measurement of the overall susceptibility of an area or viewer group to adverse visual or aesthetic impacts, given the combined factors of:
• Visual quality: the overall visual impression or attractiveness of an area as determined by the particular landscape characteristics, including landforms, rock forms, water features, and vegetation patterns.
• Viewer types and volumes of use: the types of people viewing the affected landscape including, for example, motorists traveling on nearby roadways, park and other recreational area users, as well as residents and business patrons in Santa Clara County with views of the Project site. Land uses that derive value from the quality of their settings, such as parks or scenic routes, are considered particularly sensitive to changes in visual setting conditions. • Viewer exposure: landscape visibility, viewing distance, viewing angle, extent of visibility, and duration of view. For the purposes of this analysis, viewing distance is described in three general categories. Foreground refers to views observed from within 0.25 to 0.5 miles from viewer; middle-ground refers to views from the foreground out up to 2 miles from the viewer; background extends from that middle-ground distance outward, as far as the view extends (i.e., the horizon).

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.2.3.2 Visual Character of the Region
Scenic resources in the vicinity of the Project site include the coastal mountain ranges to the west and Diablo Range on the east. The hills, ranchlands and streams within the county are considered to be scenic resources in the County General Plan. The visual character in the region is characterized by valleys with predominantly rural agricultural uses and rolling hills with grasslands and scattered oak trees. Depending on the viewer’s location and vantage point in the region, views typically include agricultural fields and rural development in the foreground and middle-ground, with views of gentle, rolling mountains in the background. Figure 3.2-1, which depicts views east looking toward the Diablo Range from the Project site, is representative of the existing visual character in the region.

The grasslands of the coastal mountain ranges and Diablo Range are brown during dry parts of the year such as the summer and fall and become green during the rainier portions of the year such as winter and spring. Irrigated agricultural fields also are visible throughout the valley floor and are often flat and green. Scattered industrial and agricultural buildings as well as ranches and residences are located throughout the agricultural areas. U.S. 101 runs in the north and south direction, just east of the Project site, and is a four-lane highway with an elevated overcrossing at Tar Creek east of the Project site. The Union Pacific railroad travels on tracks adjacent to U.S. 101.

Adjacent privately owned properties north, west, and south of the Project site consist of grassland and oak forests transected by creeks and drainage channels. Freeman Quarry (an aggregate quarry which has been reclaimed), is located approximately 2 miles to the north. Mining at Freeman Quarry has ceased, and the mining and processing areas have been reclaimed and closed. Directly east of the Project site are active agricultural lands planted with row crops on the Santa Clara Valley floor.

3.2.3.3 Visual Character of the Project Site
The proposed Project site is located on Sargent Ranch in the coastal mountain range near the southern tip of Santa Clara County. Project site elevations range from approximately 150 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 800 feet above msl. The Project site is currently used for cattle grazing as well as cultivation of dry-farmed oat hay crops for cattle feed. The hilly topography of the Project site is dotted with oak trees. Riparian vegetation is located along several creeks and drainages that cut across the property. As shown in Figure 3.2-2, the existing visual character of the Project site is characterized primarily by rolling brown hills and agricultural features, such as barbed wire fencing, pipe corrals, barns and other outbuildings. Scenic resources present on the project site include trees, buildings, and hills.

As stated in Section 3.1.2, Regulatory Setting, the section of U.S. 101 in the vicinity of the Project site (i.e., adjacent to the Project site and to the south) is a County-designated Scenic Freeway and considered the gateway into Santa Clara County from San Benito County. From U.S. 101, unobstructed views of fields and rural agricultural development are in the foreground and middle-ground and the Sargent Hills are visible in the background. From some locations along U.S. 101, vegetation and trees in the foreground obscure views of the Project site.

Figure 3.2-1
Representative Photo of Regional Visual Character
SOURCE: ESA, 2020 SCC Sargent Quarry
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator Figure 3.2-2
Representative Photo of Project Site Visual Character
SOURCE: ESA, 2020 SCC Sargent Quarry
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Light and Glare
The Project site is surrounded by a mix of rural agricultural areas and open space adjacent to roadways. The primary sources of lighting in the vicinity of the Project site include vehicle headlights, street lighting, parking lot lighting, security lighting, building lighting, as well as various other sources of light from surrounding commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The only source of artificial light on the Project site is the existing residence.

Viewer Types and Exposures
Public viewer groups and sensitive viewpoints evaluated for this analysis include motorists along major or scenic roadways, visitors to parks and recreational areas, and visitors to scenic vistas.

For each viewer group analyzed, viewer exposure conditions were evaluated based on information of traffic flows along local roadways in Section 3.13, Transportation.

Variables considered include the angle of view, the extent to which views are open or screened, the duration of view, and viewing distance. Viewing angle and extent of visibility consider the location of the Project site relative to the viewer and whether visibility conditions would be open or panoramic, or limited by intervening vegetation, structures, or terrain. Duration of view pertains to the amount of time the Project typically would be seen from a sensitive viewpoint.

In general, duration of view would be shorter or fleeting in instances where the Project would be seen for brief or intermittent periods (such as from major travel routes and recreation destination roads) and greater or sustained in instances where the Project would be seen regularly and repeatedly (such as from public use areas). Viewing distances are described according to whether the Project would be viewed within a foreground (within 0.5 mile), middle-ground (0.5 to 2 miles), or background (beyond 2 miles) zone.

Motorists on Major or Scenic Travel Routes
As noted previously, there are no designated or eligible State Scenic Highways within the viewshed of the Project site. The closest State Scenic Highways (designated or eligible) are State Route (SR) 156 and the portion of U.S. 101 south of SR 156. Both are State-eligible highways located approximately 3.1 miles from the Project site. The Project site would not be visible from these State-eligible highways due to intervening topography and the viewing angle.

As mentioned above, the portion of U.S. 101 that is adjacent to the east of the Project site is a Countydesignated scenic highway. The proposed processing plant and portions of the quarry would be visible from both northbound and southbound U.S. 101 adjacent to and near the Project site.

U.S. 101 is a major transportation route in the region that is used by commuters as well as recreationalists. Along this section of U.S. 101, the viewing duration for motorists would be brief unless motorists are slowed by traffic congestion along U.S. 101. As described in Section 3.13, Transportation, peak hour and daily on U.S. 101 near the Project site are approximately 6,000 vehicles and 63,000 vehicles, respectively. The speed limit along this section of U.S. 101 is 65 mph.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Parks and Recreational Areas
Recreationalists are generally determined to be the viewers most sensitive to visual impacts. The closest County park to the Project site is Chitactac-Adams Heritage County Park, approximately 9 miles northwest in Gilroy. The closest City of Gilroy park is Cydney Casper Park, 4 miles north of the Project site. Due to intervening topography, the Project site would not be visible from either of these locations (FHWA 2015). There are no public trails and/or other recreational facilities within or in proximity to the Project site.

Key Observation Points
Key observation points (KOPs) were established to provide a representative cross-section of affected landscapes in the visual study area. These KOPs were selected based on the Project’s viewshed, visual exposure, and sensitive viewer groups, as well as the availability of publicly accessible vantage points or view opportunities. The selected KOPs are shown on Figure 3.2-3.

Comparisons of existing (pre-Project) views from these KOPs with interim simulations are provided in Figure 3.2-4 through Figure 3.2-8. Because the screening berm would remain after Project operation, the interim conditions are used to simulate reclaimed Project conditions. However, certain elements shown in the interim conditions would not be visible after reclamation. For example, in Figure 3.2-8, the processing plant and mining Phase 3 are visible in the interim view; these would no longer be visible after reclamation.

The visual simulations viewed from these KOPs provide the basis for evaluating the changes in visual character and quality of views toward the Project site. The only publicly accessible vantage points of the Project are from U.S. 101. No other publicly accessible vantage points were identified that would experience a greater degree of visual change than the selected KOPs along U.S. 101 southbound. Additionally, farther south along U.S. 101, the Project site (Phases 3 and 4) would be screened from U.S 101 by intervening topography. Therefore, the visual simulations that are used in this analysis as representative views are located along the portion of U.S. 101 from which the northern portion of the Project site (i.e., Phases 1 and 2 and the processing plant) would be visible.

Visual Sensitivity
Visual sensitivity is determined by a composite measurement of the overall susceptibility of an area or viewer group to adverse visual or aesthetic impacts given the combination of existing landscape quality, viewer type, and exposure conditions. For example, in an area of distinct visual quality and long view duration, such as a designated scenic vista, visual sensitivity would be considered high. In an area with distinct visual quality but short view durations, such as a designated scenic highway, viewer sensitivity would be considered moderate. In an area with less unique visual quality and short view durations, such as views from a slow-moving car of an industrial park in an area where such views are common, visual sensitivity would be considered low. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the overall visual sensitivity from each KOP. Due to the high volume of viewers, the short to medium duration of views and the unobstructed nature of views in the foreground, visual sensitivity was determined to be moderate. 3+2726,08/$7,21.(< ),*85(
< 5RDG
%
HWD
E
H
5 R
D
G %HWD
E
HO5RD
G
2OG
0 H\ 5RD
Tar
G
Spring Creek
Pajaro
River
Sargent
Creek
9LHZ
9LHZ
9LHZ
9LHZ
9LHZ
Access Road & Conveyor Belt
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, June 20, 2016. Photo Date: Apr. 2016 0 500 2000 3000 Feet
Sargent Hills
Phase 2
Phase 1
Phase 4
Phase 3
SOURCE: Digital Imaging Studio, 2018
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.2-3
Photosimulation Key

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.2-1
SUMMARY OF VISUAL SENSITIVITY FINDINGS: VIEWER TYPES AND VISUAL EXPOSURES Primary
Viewer Type Use and Visual Exposure Description
Visual
Sensitivity
Visible Project
Elements
Local Motorists
U.S. 101
(KOP 1)
Brief views by a high volume of local motorists from a
designated scenic highway. Views of Project site in
foreground. Low view angle, unobstructed. Short to
medium view duration depending on traffic congestion
Moderate Processing Plant and
Screening Berm
U.S. 101
(KOP 2)
Brief views by a high volume of local motorists from a
designated scenic highway. Views of Project site in
foreground. Low view angle, unobstructed. Short view
duration.

Moderate Processing Plant and
Screening Berm and
Phase 2 Mining Area
U.S. 101
(KOP 3)
Brief views by a high volume of local motorists from a
designated scenic highway. Views of Project site in
foreground. Low view angle, unobstructed. Short to
medium view duration depending on traffic congestion
Moderate Screening Berm
U.S. 101
(KOP 4)
Brief views by a high volume of local motorists from a
designated scenic highway. Views of Project site in
foreground. Low view angle, unobstructed. Short to
medium view duration depending on traffic congestion
Moderate Screening Berm
U.S. 101
(KOP 5)
Brief views by a high volume of local motorists from a
designated scenic highway. Views of Project site in
foreground. Low view angle, unobstructed. Short to
medium view duration depending on traffic congestion
Moderate Phase 3 Mining Area,
Processing Plant,
Screening Berm

3.2.4 Impact Evaluation

3.2.4.1 Approach to the Analysis
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section I, suggests, “In non-urbanized areas,” a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would “substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.” Public views are defined for purposes of this EIR as “those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.” A different consideration is suggested if a project would be located in an urbanized area. The Project is not located in an area that meets the CEQA definition of “urbanized” (Pub. Res. Code Section 21071); therefore, the analysis below focuses on the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views.

The analysis is based on review of information provided by the Applicant that has been independently verified on behalf of the County by Environmental Science Associates, including Project maps, drawings, aerial and ground-level photography of the study area, local planning documents, and computer-generated visual simulations. Field observations were conducted by Environmental Science Associates staff on August 4, 2020, to document existing visual conditions and to document potentially affected sensitive viewing locations.

The methodology used in this analysis is adapted from an approach to visual impact assessment developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2015). The FHWA analysis uses the concepts of visual character and quality to evaluate visual impacts, specifically: (1) the compatibility

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
of the visual impact with the existing environment; (2) the sensitivity of viewers to impacts; and (3) the degree of impact to visual quality. The methodology in this document evaluates compatibility of the visual impact by analyzing the visual contrast, project dominance, and screening that would be introduced by the project (these concepts are described further below). The methodology considers the sensitivity of viewers (described in further detail above under the heading “Viewer Types and Exposures.” This analysis then determines the degree of impact by considering the combined effect of overall visual change introduced by the project (described in more detail below) along with the visual sensitivity of viewers.

Key factors in determining the degree of visual change are visual contrast, project dominance, and visual screening. The interaction of visual change with the components of visual sensitivity (visual quality, viewer types and volumes, and viewer exposure; see Section 3.1.3, Environmental Setting) is discussed below under “Overall Adverse Visual Impact.” Visual Contrast
Visual contrast is a measure of the degree of change in line, form, color, and texture that a project would create, when compared to the existing landscape. Visual contrast ranges from “none” to “strong”, and may be characterized as:
• None – The element contrast is not visible or perceived. • Weak – The element contrast can be seen, but does not attract attention. • Moderate – The element contrast begins to attract attention and begins to dominate the characteristic landscape.
• Strong – The element contrast demands the viewer’s attention and cannot be overlooked.

Project Visual Dominance
Project visual dominance is a measure of the apparent size and bulk of a proposed component relative to other visible landscape features in the viewshed, or seen area. The visual dominance of a component is affected by its relative location in the viewshed and the distance between the viewer and the proposed component.

Visual Screening
View screening (blockage or impairment) is a measure of the degree to which a project would obstruct or block views to aesthetic features due to its position and/or scale. Blockage of aesthetic landscape features or views can cause adverse visual impacts, particularly in instances where scenic or view orientations are important to the use, value, or function of the land use.

Overall Adverse Visual Impact
The determination of impact significance is based on combined factors of visual sensitivity and the degree of visual change that the project would cause. Overall adverse visual impact reflects the composite visual changes to both the directly affected landscape and from sensitive viewing locations. Overall visual change is determined by the degree to which the visual changes introduced

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-15 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
by the project would result in contrast with the existing landscape, would block or screen aesthetic features in a given view, and the extent to which project components would dominate views of the surrounding landscape. For example, a project such as a solar generating facility in an agricultural area results in moderate to high contrast with the surrounding landscape due to the changes in form line and color introduced by the proposed project. However, if the project does not block any important visual features in the surrounding landscape and does not dominate existing views, then the overall visual change would be considered moderate. The degree of visual impact also considers the timescale of impacts; impacts that are temporary are considered less adverse than permanent visual impacts. The visual impact levels referenced in this analysis indicate the relative degree of overall change to the visual environment that the project would create, considering visual sensitivity together with the project’s visual contrast, screening, and dominance.

Table 3.2-2, Guidelines for Determining Adverse Aesthetic Impact Significance, shows how the inter-relationship of these overall factors determines the level of significance of visual impacts and presents the impact classifications applied in this analysis.

TABLE 3.2-2

GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ADVERSE AESTHETIC IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE Overall Visual
Sensitivity
Overall Visual Change
Low Low to
Moderate Moderate Moderate to High High
Low No Impact No Impact Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Low to Moderate No Impact Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Moderate Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Moderate to High Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant Significant
High Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Potentially
Significant Significant Significant
NOTES:

No Impact. Effects may or may not be perceptible, but are considered minor in the context of existing landscape characteristics and view opportunity.

Less than Significant. Impacts are perceived as negative, but do not exceed environmental thresholds.

Potentially Significant. Impacts are perceived as negative and may exceed environmental thresholds depending on project- and sitespecific circumstances (e.g., orientation of the viewer).

Significant Impacts. Impacts with feasible mitigation may be reduced to less-than-significant levels or avoided altogether. Without mitigation or avoidance measures, significant impacts would exceed environmental thresholds.

SOURCE: ESA, modified from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2015).

As explained in Section 3.2.3.3, to document the visual change attributable to the Project, visual simulations have been prepared and included in the following impact analysis. Figures 3.2-4 through 3.2-8 present before and after images showing the Project from the KOPs identified above. The simulated images present the location, scale, and appearance of the Project as it would be seen from the publicly accessible KOPs identified within the study area.

SOURCE: Digital Imaging Studio, 2018
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.2-4
Photosimulation View 1
Current
Interim
Fil
Screening Berm Processing Plant
SOURCE: Digital Imaging Studio, 2018
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.2-5
Photosimulation View 2
Current
Interim
Screening Berm Processing Plant Phase 2 Mining Area
Phase Mining Area (Reclaimed) Phase Mining Area (Reclaimed) SOURCE: Digital Imaging Studio, 2018
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.2-6
Photosimulation View 3
Current
Interim
Screening Berm
Mining Phase (Reclaimed)
SOURCE: Digital Imaging Studio, 2018
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.2-7
Photosimulation View 4
Current
Interim
Screening Berm
Mining Phase (Reclaimed)
SOURCE: Digital Imaging Studio, 2018
SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator SCC Sargent Quarry
Figure 3.2-8
Photosimulation View 5
Current
Interim
Processing Plant Screening Berm
Mining Phase (Reclaimed) Mining Phase (Reclaimed)
Mining Phase 1

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-21 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.2.4.2 Significance Criteria
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the Project would result in a significant impact on aesthetics if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings; or
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Due to the nature of the Project, the following criteria are not analyzed in this section for the reasons described below:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. There are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.2.4.3 Project Impacts
Impact 3.2-1: The Project would alter the visual character of the Project site or scenic resources visible from US 101, a County-designated scenic highway. (Significant and Unavoidable)
This impact discussion corresponds to Significance Criteria (b) and (c).

As discussed above and shown in Table 3.2-1, the segments of U.S. 101 from which the Project site is visible are considered to be of moderate sensitivity to visual changes due to the high number of motorists combined with the short duration of views.

Construction
All Project Components
As described in Section 2.5, Construction Activities and Assumption, Project construction would include the construction of the screening berm, aggregate processing plant and associated facilities, access road improvements, and drainage facilities. These activities would require the presence of delivery trucks, vehicles, and construction equipment. Additionally, construction activities would require the use of storage, staging, and active work areas. More details regarding specific activities and equipment required are provided in Section 2.5 of the Project Description. The construction period would last 9 months and all activities associated with construction would be temporary.

Construction would introduce visual changes to the Project site, altering views from U.S. 101.

Construction would result in the presence of heavy equipment, excavation and transport of dirt around the Project site, and the building of structures. These activities would be sequential, and each activity would be visible for a limited amount of time (for example construction of the

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-22 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
processing plant would only be visible for about 4 weeks). The visual change associated with construction would not create a significant amount of contrast with the surrounding environment as the presence of large equipment, movement of soil, and construction of buildings would not differ substantially from the visual impact of large-scale agriculture operations and general construction along the U.S. 101 corridor and would not have a significant impact on scenic resources visible from U.S. 101.

One of the first activities would be to construct the screening berm, which would shield views of the Project site from U.S. 101. Therefore, during the initial stages, travelers along U.S. 101 would have unobstructed views of Project construction, but once the screening berm is completed, construction activity at the processing plant would be largely shielded from view of U.S. 101.

However, construction activities would still be visible, particularly improvements to Old Monterey Road and U.S. 101. Riparian vegetation removed from Tar Creek to accommodate the bridge and road improvements would also alter views from southbound U.S. 101. Grassland and oak woodland vegetation along intermittent stream channels would be removed for construction.

Visual sensitivity along this section of U.S. 101 is moderate due to large number of viewers and varying sensitivity to visual change. Overall, visual impacts from construction would be less than significant as they would be temporary impacts and would result in a moderate amount of visual change.

Operation
Figure 3.2-4 through Figure 3.2-8 show the current views of the Project site, and the views of the Project during operation from each of the representative KOPs.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Mining Areas
The base of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 hillsides are located approximately 0.3 mile from U.S. 101 at its nearest point. Views of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining areas and overburden storage areas, as well as the processing plant described above, would be the most visible components of the Project to vehicles/motorists traveling southbound on U.S. 101. The screening berm would be constructed from overburden. Therefore, in the initial phases of excavation, while overburden is being removed from mining areas, the screening berm will not yet be constructed and views of mining equipment on hillsides will be visible. Once constructed, the screening berm would block views from the freeway of mining excavation equipment and activities at the lower elevations of the hillsides. However, excavation activities would be visible on the upper slopes of hillsides as part of Phases 1 and 2. (as shown in Figure 3.2-7 and Figure 3.2-8). Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be mined from west to east, such that the existing hillsides facing U.S. 101 would block mining activities for several years of the estimated 23-year mining term at Phase 1 and Phase 2. The visibility of mining equipment and modification of the hillsides which are considered a scenic resource would result in a moderate to high change in the existing visual character of the Project site, which would be considered a substantial degradation in the quality of public views and scenic resources visible from U.S. 101.The impact of mining Phases 1 and 2 would be significant.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-23 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Phase 3 and Phase 4 Mining Areas and Conveyor Belt
Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas are located on two hilltops on either side of Sargent Creek at the southeast portion of the Project site (see Figure 3.2-3). Each of the mining areas would consist of an open pit with benches every 30 vertical feet on the side slopes. The mining areas would be elevated from vantage points along U.S. 101, since the mineable sand and gravel materials have been geologically uplifted by tectonic forces. The mining areas are approximately 0.25 miles from the southbound lanes of U.S. 101 and are approximately 300 feet higher in elevation than the highway.

Mining would occur from west to east with the actual hillside facing the freeway, blocking views of mining activities for the first few years of mining. The Phase 4 mining area would block views of the Phase 3 mining area. Further, the Phase 3 and 4 mining areas are separated by elevation and distance, obscuring views of mining activities from public vantage points on U.S. 101. Views also would be partially blocked by surrounding undisturbed hillslopes.

The proposed conveyor belt and maintenance road from the processing plant to the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas would be located approximately 1,500 feet from U.S. 101. They would follow a route similar to an existing dirt access road to the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas. The existing access road is not clearly visible from U.S. 101; thus, the elevated conveyor belt would also not be clearly visible except at points where it periodically crosses ridgelines. The distance of separation and intervening hillsides and topography would obscure clear views of this Project infrastructure from public vantage points on U.S. 101.

For the reasons above, the visual impacts of the Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining areas and conveyor belt would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the Project site and its surroundings or scenic resources visible from U.S. 101. The impact of mining Phases 3 and 4 would be less than significant.

Processing Plant and Screening Berm
The processing plant would be the closest Project component to U.S. 101 (300 feet west). The processing plant area would include buildings, parking areas for vehicles, processing equipment (such as conveyors and radial stacker), and stormwater catchment ponds. The screening berm would be constructed and vegetated to screen views of these features. The screening berm and overburden stockpile are intended to comply with Section 4.10.370 of the County Code, which requires screening of excavation activities from scenic corridors. The screening berm would be constructed using overburden from Phase 1 mining and the construction of the berm would occur in tandem with the beginning of Phase 1 mining. The berm would be landscaped (hydroseeded) and graded to resemble the surrounding topography to the extent possible while still providing substantial screening. Within a season, the berm would be vegetated and within 1 year it would look similar to the surrounding hillsides, which contain mostly annual grasses. In the longer term, trees planted along the screening berm would grow, blending the view of the screening berm in with the surrounding landscape.

The berm would be graded to resemble the form and shape of the surrounding hills and would be planted to blend in with the surroundings (See for example, Figure 3.2-6). Nonetheless, initially it

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-24 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
would appear constructed rather than natural. Additionally, during the Planning Commission review of the Project, the screening berm would be subject to Architecture and Site Approval and Design Review, which would consider the compatibility of the Project with the natural environment.

As demonstrated in Figures 3.2-5 through 3.2-8, the screening berm would block views of the majority of the processing plant site from drivers and passengers traveling along U.S. 101.

However, from some viewing locations along U.S. 101 viewers would be able to see portions of the processing plant equipment and stockpiles (See Figures 3.2-4, 3.2-5, and 3.2-8) in a way that would create a visual contrast with the surrounding area.

In addition, from most viewing locations, the screening berm would block existing scenic resources such as the Sargent Hills. The visual quality of views from U.S. 101 under existing conditions is dependent on the overall impression of the rural agricultural development and rolling hills, as shown in Figures 3.2-6 through 3.2-8. The dominant scenic feature in views looking toward the Project site from U.S. 101 are the agricultural fields in the foreground and middle-ground and the Sargent Hills in the background. As shown in the photographic simulations on Figures 3.2-6 through 3.2-8, the screening berm would block these landscape features, creating a moderate to strong level of visual change compared to existing conditions. Additionally, the screening berm would dominate views along this section of U.S. 101.

Given the moderate level of visual sensitivity along U.S. 101 (see Table 3.2-1) and the high level of visual contrast and change, the processing plant and screening berm would have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character and quality of public views from U.S. 101. The impact of the processing plant and screening berm would be significant.

Roadway Improvements and Rail Spur
The rail spur would not be visible from U.S. 101 because it would be at grade and intervening topography would not afford views. The improvements to Old Monterey Road and U.S. 101 would occur within the current roadway configurations and would therefore not contrast with the existing views of roadways from U.S. 101. The roadway improvements would be at-grade and would not block any views of scenic resources. Because the roadway improvements would not substantially alter views from U.S. 101, and because the rail spur would not be visible from offsite, the impact of these components on visual resources would be less than significant.

Reclamation
Once mining is complete, earthmoving and recontouring would be undertaken as part of reclamation of each of the four mined areas. Slopes and benches would be planted with native grasses and oak trees under the proposed Reclamation Plan (Appendix B). The slopes would be graded and restored in order to blend in with the existing topography and vegetation to the extent possible, as described in the Reclamation Plan. Over time, reclamation of mined areas with final grading to conform to local topography and reclamation plantings would soften views of disturbed areas in conformance with County Mining Regulations and SMARA. Although reclamation activities would reclaim the Project site in a manner that would largely blend in with the surrounding landscape, there would

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-25 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
be areas with benches and slopes that would not appear entirely natural, and the ultimate visual appearance of the hills on the Project site would differ substantially from existing conditions.

While the goal of reclamation would be to recontour the Project site to resemble pre-Project conditions, it would not be feasible to match the topography of pre-Project conditions, as a substantial amount of soil and material will have been removed during mining.

In addition, the screening berm would remain in place after the conclusion of Project operation.

The berm would block views of the Project site, including both areas that have been altered and those that remain in the existing state. Therefore, the extent of visual change that would be introduced by the reclaimed Project site would not be visible. However, as the screening berm would be permanent and would continue to block existing scenic resources, it cause a moderate to high level of visual change compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be significant.

Summary
Portions of the Project would be visible from U.S. 101, a County-designated scenic freeway.

Construction activities associated with the processing plant and roadway improvements would be visible, but temporary. Once constructed, the screening berm would largely block views of the processing plant, but some equipment and stockpiles would remain visible from certain vantage points. At the conclusion of mining, the Project site would be recontoured and revegetated, resulting in a more natural appearing reclaimed landscape. However, the removal of the portions of hills during mining, and the benches and slopes resulting from reclamation would result in a landscape that differs from the existing condition. Therefore, the processing plant, and quarrying and reclamation activities at Phases 1 and 2 would result in a significant impact on the visual quality of views from U.S. 101. In addition, the screening berm would block views from the highway of both Project elements and portions of the natural landscape that would be untouched by Project activities. The blocking of views of the natural landscape also would be a substantial change in visual quality. For these reasons, the Project would have a significant impact on visual resources.

Once constructed, the roadway improvements and Phases 3 and 4 quarrying would not substantially alter views from U.S. 101, and therefore the impact from these components would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Once constructed, the Applicant shall contour the screening berm to resemble surrounding land features, to the extent possible, and shall plant fastgrowing 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 are screened to the extent possible by a combination of the screening berm, fencing, and vegetation in order to achieve a natural appearance, to the extent possible.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-26 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would lessen the severity of impacts by further screening views of the mining operations and processing plant. Impacts resulting from extending the screening berm and additional fencing and vegetation around the northern portion of the processing plant would involve minor additional earth work and equipment operation, and would not substantially increase the amount of grading and equipment use for the Project.

Ensuring that the screening berm is contoured to resemble surrounding topography and planted with fast-growing, native vegetation would reduce the visual contrast with the surrounding natural landscape. However, the screening berm itself would continue to block views of the Sargent Hills which are an important visual resource. Screening is necessary to reduce the visual contrast created by the mining equipment, processing plant, and quarries.

Therefore, there is no additional feasible mitigation that could further reduce the visual impacts.
________________________
Impact 3.2-2: The Project could introduce a new source of substantial light or glare. (Less than Significant)
This impact discussion corresponds to Significance Criterion (d). None of the Project components would erect visible structures with highly reflective surfaces or locate light sources in areas that would create harsh glare. Therefore, the focus of the following analysis is on light, rather than glare.

Construction
All Project Components
Project construction would occur over a 9-month period within the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction lighting may be required during the late afternoon and early evening hours during the winter months. If so, construction lighting would be visible from U.S. 101 during this period of time. As described in Section 3.1.3, Environmental Setting, there are existing sources of light in the study area, including light from vehicles on U.S. 101 and surrounding agricultural and residential land uses. The lighting that would be introduced during construction would be temporary and would not introduce a substantial new source of light as compared to existing conditions. Impacts from lighting during Project construction would be less than significant.

Operation
Mining Pits, Conveyor Belts, Screening Berm, Access Roads, and Roadway Improvements
No new lighting would be installed along Old Monterey Road, U.S. 101 or the conveyor belts, on the screening berm, or in the mining areas. Mining would occur only during daylight hours.

Therefore, there would be no impact from light in these areas.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-27 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Processing Plant
As described in Section 2.4.9, lighting would be installed at the processing plant. All lighting would comply with the Mine Safety and Health Administration regulations and the County Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval (30 CFR Parts 1-199; County of Santa Clara 2020). Light fixtures would be a maximum of 12 feet tall. The majority of activities at the processing plant would occur during day light hours. Activities at the processing plant could begin as early as 4:30 a.m. each day, continuing until 5:00 p.m. Between 5:00 p.m. during the summer and early evening in the winter, and 4:30 a.m., all lighting would be turned off, except for some minor security lighting. During the winter months, some lighting might be necessary in the early morning or late afternoon hours.

Lighting would be visible primarily in the early morning or late afternoon hours during the winter months and in pre-dawn hours in the summer months. All lighting would be shielded and oriented downward (consistent with County Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval) so as not to cause glare or result on spillover at adjacent properties or U.S. 101. Additionally, lighting at the processing plant would be shielded by the screening berm. As described in Section 3.1.3, Environmental Setting, existing sources of light in the vicinity of the Project site include light from vehicles on U.S. 101 and surrounding industrial, agricultural, and residential land uses. For these reasons, the lighting that would be introduced during operation would not introduce a substantial new source of light as compared to existing conditions, and the impact would be less than significant.

Rail Spur
The lights at the rail loading area would be used only when the rail cars are being connected to the train for transport and when empty cars are returned to the Project site. Lights along the rail line would be located where the spur connects to the main line, and approximately every 20 feet along the spur.

These lights would be illuminated a maximum of 3 times a week, for approximately 30 minutes each time. As stated above, there are no adjacent properties or land uses that would be adversely affected by these lights. Furthermore, as with the processing plant, the lights would be screened from view of U.S. 101 by the 30-foot screening berm. Therefore, the impact of rail spur lighting on visual quality would be less than significant.

Reclamation
At the completion of the mining term, all lighting installed at the processing plant would be removed when the site is reclaimed. Some temporary lighting may be required during the process of reclamation. Lighting impacts from Project reclamation would be similar to the impacts from construction and would be less than significant. Once the Project site is reclaimed, lighting conditions would be restored to pre-Project conditions and there would be no remaining impact to the light or glare.

Mitigation: None required.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
_________________________

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-28 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.2.4.4 Cumulative Analysis
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. (Significant and Unavoidable)
The geographic scope of cumulative impacts on visual quality includes the viewsheds that would be affected by the Project, consisting of views from public areas such as major or scenic roadways, parks and recreational areas, and scenic vistas. As discussed above, there are no publicly accessible parks, trails or other recreational facilities with views of the Project site.

Therefore, the cumulative context for this impact would be projects within the same viewshed as the Project. The only project identified in Section 3.1 located within the viewshed of the Project is the U.S. 101 Widening Project, which would be located adjacent to the east and south of the Project site.

As disclosed in the 2013 EIR for the U.S. 101 Widening Project, visual impacts attributable to that project were determined to be less than significant for all viewpoints considered in the analysis except for a sensitive viewpoint at the intersection of U.S. 101 and Castro Valley Road approximately 3 miles to the north of the Project site. At this location, the impacts of the widening project on aesthetics were determined to be significant because views of the Diablo Mountains would be blocked by the proposed interchange once constructed (SCVTA 2013).

From this sensitive viewpoint, distance and intervening topography would block views of the Project site. However, given driving speeds of 65 mph, these two projects would be viewed in quick succession for drivers along U.S. 101. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant.

The Project would contribute to the significant cumulative impacts along the U.S. 101 view corridor because the visual changes resulting from the U.S. 101 widening would be visible shortly before or after the Project site comes into view (depending on whether one is traveling north or south on U.S. 101). Because the changes in visual quality attributable to the Project would be long-term, irreversible, and of moderate to strong level of visual contrast, the Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be considerable, and therefore significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1.

Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. As discussed in Impact 3.2-1, mitigation would reduce the impact but not to a less-than-significant level. ________________________
Impact 3.2-4: The Project could contribute to cumulative increases in light and glare. (Less than Significant)
As discussed above, the Project would have no impacts on glare, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative increases in glare.

The only project identified in Section 3.1 located within the same viewshed as the Project is the U.S. 101 Widening Project, which would be located adjacent to the east and south of the Project

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-29 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
site. The widening project could result in temporary construction lighting. Existing light sources along U.S. 101 include lights from cars traveling along U.S. 101 and other local roads as well as lighting due to industrial, agricultural, and residential uses. Given the numerous existing sources of light, the addition of light from the widening project would not be significant.

As discussed in Impact 3.2-2 and above, there are existing sources of light in the vicinity of the Project site. While the Project would introduce new sources of lighting into the Project area, the light sources would be largely screened from view by the screening berm and used for limited durations. Project lighting footprints would not overlap with construction lighting for the U.S. 101 Widening Project, so the lighting effects of the widening project would not be exacerbated by the light from the processing plant or rail spur. Therefore, cumulative impacts on lighting would be less than significant, the Project contribution to cumulative increases in light in the vicinity of the Project site would not be considerable, and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
_________________________

3.2.5 References
Caltrans. 2021. Officially designated state scenic highways and historic parkways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed March 20, 2021.

County of Santa Clara. 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan, 1995-2010. December 1994.

County of Santa Clara. 2016. Santa Clara County Planning Development Application-Freeman Quarry. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/ 6538_FreemanQuarry_RPA_Application.pdf.

County of Santa Clara. 2017. Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance. June 2017.

County of Santa Clara. 2020. Architecture and Site Approval. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/ Iwantto/Permits/Pages/ASA.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2020.

Digital Imaging Studio, 2018. Visual Simulations for Sargent Quarry Project. February 2018.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA). 2013. Final Environmental Impact Report, U.S. 101 Improvement Project between Monterey Street and State Route 129. May 2013. https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/2013_FinalEIR_US101- Improvement_MontereySt-SR129_FullDocument_0.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2021.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.2 Aesthetics
Sargent Quarry 3.2-30 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This page intentionally left blank

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-1 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.3 Air Quality

3.3.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the impacts of the Project on regional and local air quality from both stationary and mobile sources of air pollutant emissions. The following discussion is based on a review of existing air quality regulations and on an air quality calculations prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (2021). Calculation tables and model output from that analysis are included as Appendix D to this EIR.

3.3.1.1 Criteria Pollutants
The Project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality in the SFBAAB is assessed for seven common air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants), including ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead.1 Criteria pollutants are regulated because they result in health effects.

The sources of criteria pollutants and their associated health effects are summarized in Table 3.3-1 and discussed below. Among the pollutants that may be generated by the Project, those of greatest concern are emitted by off-road equipment and truck traffic. These pollutants include PM2.5 and PM10, and the ozone precursors nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG).

TABLE 3.3-1

HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Ground-level Ozone (O3) Atmospheric reaction of
reactive organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function impairment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Motor vehicle exhaust,
high temperature
stationary combustion,
atmospheric reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory illness
• Reduced visibility
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) and Coarse
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Stationary combustion of
solid fuels, construction
activities, industrial
processes, atmospheric
chemical reactions
• Reduced lung function, especially in children
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory
diseases
• Increased cough and chest discomfort
• Reduced visibility
SOURCE: CARB 2021e.
1 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The Project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-2 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Ozone
Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. The main sources of ROG and NOX, often referred to as ozone precursors, are the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels and combustion processes (including motor vehicle engines). In the Bay Area, automobiles are the single largest source of ozone precursors.

According to USEPA and CARB, ozone can cause the muscles in the airways to constrict, potentially leading to wheezing and shortness of breath. Exposure to ozone can:
• Make it more difficult to breathe deeply and vigorously; • Cause shortness of breath and pain when taking a deep breath; • Cause coughing and sore or scratchy throat;
• Inflame and damage the airways;
• Aggravate lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis; • Increase the frequency of asthma attacks;
• Make the lungs more susceptible to infection;
• Continue to damage the lungs even when the symptoms have disappeared; and • Cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Long-term exposure to ozone is linked to aggravation of asthma and is likely to be one of many causes of asthma development. Exposure to higher concentrations of ozone may also be linked to permanent lung damage, such as abnormal lung development in children. USEPA states that the people most at risk from breathing air containing ozone include those with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers (USEPA 2018, CARB 2019a).

Nitrogen Dioxide and Oxides of Nitrogen
NO2 is a reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes, which emit NOx.

Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high-pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. Nitrogen dioxide is a major component of the group of gaseous nitrogen compounds commonly referred to as NOX, which also includes nitric oxide (NO).

Nitrogen dioxide is of concern for air quality because it acts as a respiratory irritant and is a precursor of ozone. Short-term exposures can aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, leading to respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, or difficulty breathing. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, requiring hospital admissions and visits to emergency rooms.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-3 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Infants and children are particularly at risk from exposure to NO2 because of their more rapid breathing rate for their body weight and their typically greater duration of outdoor exposure. In adults, the greatest risk is to people who have chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma and COPD (CARB 2019b).

Particulate Matter
PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 micrometers or less in diameter and

2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, respectively. PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of PM that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects, particularly at levels above the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Some sources of PM, such as wood burning in fireplaces, demolition, and construction activities, are more local, while others, such as vehicular traffic, have a more regional effect. PM2.5 (including diesel exhaust particles) is thought to have greater effects on health because these particles are so small and thus can penetrate to the deepest parts of the lungs.

A large body of scientific evidence indicates that both long-term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 can cause a wide range of health effects (e.g., aggravating asthma and bronchitis), causing visits to the hospital for respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms, and contributing to heart attacks and deaths. Children are more susceptible to the health risks of PM10 and PM2.5 because their immune and respiratory systems are still developing. Recent studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of PM in the air (CARB 2019c).

3.3.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Diesel Particulate Matter
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to have health effects.

TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway).

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that DPM represents about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs, which are most susceptible to injury (CARB 2021a).

Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, previously have been identified as TACs by CARB.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Crystalline Silica
Crystalline silica is a component of soil, sand, granite, and many other minerals and has been associated with potential respiratory health effects. Respirable-sized particles of crystalline silica may be formed when workers chip, cut, drill, or grind the base materials that contain it. If the base rock material at a quarry contains crystalline silica, the fugitive dust generated during

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-4 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
quarrying activities may contain crystalline silica. If respirable crystalline silica dust enters the lungs it can cause the formation of scar tissues (silicosis), which can be disabling or even fatal, reducing the lungs’ ability to take in oxygen and increasing the susceptibility to lung infections.

The non-crystalline form of silica (amorphous silica) is not nearly as toxic, since it usually does not cause silicosis. Crystalline silica has been identified as a TAC with chronic non-cancer health effects by the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA 2008). OEHHA has established an acceptable exposure level for crystalline silica’s potential health effect.

The likelihood of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) at the Project site is based on a California Department of Conservation map showing areas where ultramafic rocks that are most likely to contain NOA have been identified (California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology 2000). This map indicates that there is not likely to be ultramafic rock in the Project area.

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Air quality and air pollution sources are regulated by federal, state, regional, and local regulatory agencies. Air quality regulations provide the standards by which air quality is measured and institute controls on air pollution sources to improve air quality. The federal Clean Air Act established the national ambient air quality standards and delegated the enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the states. CARB develops and enforces air regulations for California but delegates the responsibility of stationary emission source regulation to local air pollution control agencies.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for air pollution source regulation for the Project site and vicinity. Mobile sources of air pollutant emissions are regulated on a state-wide basis by CARB. The air pollutants of concern and the roles of the agencies primarily responsible for managing the air quality within the Project site and vicinity. Relevant air quality regulations are further discussed below.

3.3.2.1 Federal
At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) oversees implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the USEPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the seven common criteria pollutants, including PM2.5, PM10, O3, CO, SO2, NOx, and lead. See Table 3.3-2. The federal Clean Air Act was established to assure that acceptable levels of air quality are maintained in all areas of the United States. Air quality is characterized by the presence of pollutants that fall into two basic categories: criteria air pollutants and toxic or hazardous air contaminants. Criteria air pollutants refer to a group of pollutants that the regulatory agencies have adopted ambient air quality standards and pollution management and control strategies. Toxic or hazardous air contaminants refer to a category of air pollutants that have potential adverse health effects but do not have an associated ambient air quality standard. These pollutants are called hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in federal law and TACs in California law.

Each state is divided into air basins based on topographic, geographic, and meteorological conditions. Each air basin is then assessed to determine if the area meets the National Ambient

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-5 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Air basins or portions thereof have been classified as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant based on whether compliance with the standards has been achieved.

If an area does not meet the NAAQS over a set period of time, the USEPA designates the area as a “nonattainment” area for that particular pollutant and sets deadlines for bringing the area into compliance with the standards. These deadlines vary by pollutant, the current level of air pollution in the air basin, and the ability of each region to meet the deadline. The USEPA requires states that have areas that are not in compliance with the NAAQS to prepare and submit air quality plans showing how and when the standards will be met. These plans are referred to as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). If the states cannot show how the standards will be met, then they must show progress toward meeting the standards.

Stationary Source Requirements
The Clean Air Act authorizes USEPA to adopt regulations specifying pollutant levels that may be emitted from newly constructed stationary sources. These regulations, called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), are implemented for different categories of stationary emission sources. One such NSPS regulation has been promulgated for non-metallic mineral processing operations (40 CFR 60 Subpart OOO), which includes rock and sand and gravel quarry operations.

This performance standard includes particulate matter emission limitations and visible emissions (opacity) limits for point and fugitive sources at quarries and other facilities. The regulation applies to various equipment components at quarries including crushers, grinders, screening operations, belt conveyors, and storage bins that were constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 1983. Equipment at the Sargent Quarry would be subject to these requirements.

The Clean Air Act also requires stationary sources that emit or may emit large quantities of pollutants (called “major sources”) to obtain a federally enforceable permit to operate, called a Title V permit or a Part 70 permit, which is implemented and enforced by the local air agency, in this case the BAAQMD. A major source is defined as a source that emits or has the potential to emit either 100 tons per year or more of any criteria pollutant, ten tons per year of any single Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP), or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs. The USEPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program also applies to major stationary sources. For sources like the Project, the PSD major source emissions threshold for criteria pollutants is 250 tons per year (40 CFR Section 52.21).

The Project would not be a major source under the PSD or Title V permit regulations because the proposed increase in quarry production levels would result in emissions that would be below the major source emission thresholds.

Mobile Source Control Measures – Diesel Engines
In addition to setting emission standards for stationary sources, the USEPA sets nationwide emission standards for mobile sources, which include on-road (highway) motor vehicles such as trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-6 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
USEPA also sets nationwide fuel standards. California also has the ability to separately set motor vehicle emission standards and standards for fuel used in California, as long as they are the same or more stringent than the Federal standards.

In the past decade, the USEPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and because the USEPA has identified DPM as a probable carcinogen. Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on-road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to substantially reduce PM and NOx emissions from diesel engines when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards (USEPA 2021).

In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the USEPA has substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off-highway diesel fuel (from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel, is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S. All of the above federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner.

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
In addition to setting emission standards for stationary sources, the USEPA sets nationwide emission standards for mobile sources, which include on-road (highway) motor vehicles such as trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The USEPA also sets nationwide fuel standards, such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (adopted in 2010) that require improved fuel economy and lower pollutant emissions.

In 2018, the USEPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One and Part Two. Part One revoked California’s authority to set its own fuel economy standards and zero-emission vehicle mandate, and Part Two increased the fuel economy standards (84 Federal Register 51,310 for Part One and 85 Federal Register 24, 173 for Part Two).

On April 22, 2021, NHTSA proposed to formally roll back portions of the SAFE Rule, thereby restoring California’s right to set more stringent fuel efficiency standards. NHTSA is also planning to issue a new rule to increase the national fuel economy standard for light duty vehicles beyond those in Part Two of the SAFE Vehicles Rule (Federal Register 2021).

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-7 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.3.2.2 State
CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act. USEPA and CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate, shown in Table 3.3-2.

Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant. Attainment status for a pollutant standard means that a given air district meets the given standard set by USEPA and/or CARB.

Air pollution in California is regulated under the provisions of the California Clean Air Act.

These statutes provide the basis for implementing the federal Clean Air Act. CARB is responsible for establishing and reviewing the State standards, compiling the California SIP, securing approval of that plan from USEPA, and identifying toxic air contaminants. CARB also regulates mobile emission sources in California, such as construction equipment, trucks, and automobiles.

The California Clean Air Act divides implementation responsibility between CARB and local or regional agencies called air quality management districts or air pollution control districts. The BAAQMD is the regional air quality district with jurisdiction over the Project, responsible for bringing and/or maintaining air quality within federal and state air quality standards. This includes the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels and to develop and implement attainment strategies to ensure that future emissions will be within standards. The air districts are primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing federal and state regulations for stationary sources at industrial and commercial facilities within their jurisdictions and for preparing the regional air quality plans that are required under the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. The regional air quality plans prepared by districts throughout the State are compiled by CARB to form the California SIP. The local air districts also have the responsibility and authority to adopt transportation control measures and emission reduction programs for indirect and areawide emission sources.

CARB oversees air district regulation of stationary sources and is the agency primarily responsible for controlling air pollution from mobile sources in California. Regulations have been adopted by both USEPA and CARB that set specific emission standards for vehicles. As older vehicles are retired and replaced with newer, cleaner vehicles (called “fleet turnover”), the air quality will improve. Therefore, most air quality planning documents forecast reduced vehicle emissions in the future.

State Criteria Air Pollutants
The California Clean Air Act outlines a program for areas in the state to attain the California Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The California Clean Air Act sets more stringent air quality standards, as shown in Table 3.3-2, for most of the pollutants covered under the federal standards. Additionally, California has adopted ambient air quality standards for vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. In a manner similar to the Federal requirements, the California Clean Air Act requires designation of attainment and nonattainment areas with respect to CAAQS. The California Clean Air Act also requires that local and regional air districts prepare a Clean Air Plan (CAP) if the State air quality standards for

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-8 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
CO, SO2, NO2, or ozone are violated in their district. These CAPs include information on existing air quality in the region, an inventory of current and forecasted future emissions, emission reductions required to meet the standards, and the control measures required to achieve the emission reduction.

The CAP must show satisfactory progress in attaining the State air quality standards. The California Clean Air Act requires that the State air quality standards be met as expeditiously as practicable but unlike the federal Clean Air Act, does not set precise attainment date deadlines. Instead, the act established increasingly stringent requirements for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards.

TABLE 3.3-2
STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND THE SFBAAB’S ATTAINMENT STATUS Pollutant
Averaging
Time
National Standards California Standards
Concentration Attainment Status Concentration Attainment Status Ozone 1 hour — — 0.09 ppm Nonattainment
8 hours 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.070 ppm Nonattainment Carbon
Monoxide
1 hour 35 ppm Attainment 20 ppm Attainment
8 hoursa 9 ppm Attainment 9.0 ppm Attainment
Nitrogen
Dioxide
1 hour 0.100 ppm Unclassified 0.18 ppm Attainment
Annual
Avg.

0.053 ppm Attainment 0.030 ppm Attainment
Sulfur
Dioxide
1 hour 0.075 ppm Attainment 0.25 ppm Attainment
24 hours 0.14 ppm Attainment 0.04 ppm Attainment
Annual
Avg.

0.030 ppm Attainment — —
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 hours 150 µg/m3 Unclassified 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Annual
Avg.
— — 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 hours 35 µg/m3 Nonattainment — —
Annual
Avg.
12 µg/m3 Unclassified/
Attainment
12 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Lead Monthly
Avg.
— — 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment
Quarterly 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment — —
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 hour — — 0.03 ppm Unclassified
Sulfates 24 hours — — 25 µg/m3 Attainment
VisibilityReducing
Particles
8 hours — — Extinction of

0.23/km; visibility of
10 miles or more
Unclassified
Vinyl
Chloride
24 hours — — 0.010 ppm —
NOTES:
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; Avg. = Average; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million a. A more-stringent 8-hour carbon monoxide state standard exists around Lake Tahoe (6 ppm).

SOURCE: BAAQMD 2017a.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-9 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The SFBAAB is considered a nonattainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal Clean Air Act. The area has attained both State and Federal ambient air quality standards for CO. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air pollutants associated with projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (BAAQMD 2017c). Table 3.3-2 summarizes federal and state ambient air quality standards, as well as the attainment status of the air basin for each of these pollutants.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively new compared to that for criteria air pollutants that have established ambient air quality standards.

TACs are regulated or evaluated on the basis of risk to human health rather than comparison to an ambient air quality standard or emission-based threshold.

CARB Truck and Bus Regulation
The Truck and Bus Regulation is necessary to meet federal attainment standards. This regulation requires heavy-duty diesel vehicles that operate in California to reduce DPM and NOx emissions from their exhaust. Therefore, by January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will be required to have 2010 or newer model year engines to reduce DPM and NOx emissions. To help ensure that the benefits of this regulation are achieved, starting in 2020, only vehicles compliant with this regulation are registered by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CARB 2021b).

CARB also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOx emissions from existing and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks) through its off-road diesel vehicle regulation, approved in 2007 and revised in 2016 (CARB 2016). The regulations apply to diesel-powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce particulate matter and NOx exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleet-averaged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with stringent federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, will reduce emissions of DPM and NOx.

CARB Advanced Clean Cars Program for Light Duty Vehicles Advanced Clean Cars combines the control of smog-causing (criteria) pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of regulations: the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulation for criteria and GHG emissions, and a technology forcing regulation for zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) that contributes to both types of emission reductions.

Advanced Clean Cars I was first adopted by CARB in 2012, including LEV III Criteria, LEV III GHG, and ZEV regulation amendments. The LEV III GHG component was developed in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA for One National Program to harmonize GHG and

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-10 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
fuel economy standards. Advanced Clean Cars II is currently in process to establish the next set of LEV and ZEV requirements to contribute to meeting federal ambient air quality ozone standards and California’s carbon neutrality targets (CARB 2021d).

Asbestos Toxic Air Control Measure
In 2001, CARB adopted an Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations (CARB 2021c). Emission control measures, such as the use of dust suppressants, apply to activities such as road construction and road maintenance, construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations in areas with naturally occurring asbestos/serpentine rock. The BAAQMD enforces the requirements of the asbestos ATCM. The BAAQMD may grant an exemption to the ATCM requirements if a geological evaluation demonstrates that ultramafic rock or serpentine is not likely to be found in the area.

3.3.2.3 Regional
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is primarily responsible for ensuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are attained in the SFBAAB. The agency also is responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities.

BAAQMD has jurisdiction over the SFBAAB, with boundaries encompassing all or portions of nine counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Napa, Solano (southwestern portion), and Sonoma (southern portion). The Project site, located in Santa Clara County, is in BAAQMD’s jurisdiction.

The BAAQMD has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment that would be used for the Project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources; enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and ensuring that public nuisances are minimized. Prior to the proposed quarry operations, an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate must be obtained from the BAAQMD for all applicable processing equipment, etc.

The facility and its emission sources would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations contained in the most recent version of the Rules and Regulations of the BAAQMD. BAAQMD rules and regulations that may apply to environmental considerations for permitting the Project include:
• Regulation 1 – Public Nuisance. Prohibits discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material, including those that cause odors, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public or that cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-11 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
• Regulation 2, Rule 2 – Permits and New Source Review. Requires all new and modified sources of air pollution to obtain authorization to construct and operate and outlines the requirements for obtaining a permit. For sources with pollutants that are emitted in significant amounts, an evaluation of best available control technology (BACT) is required to reduce pollutant emissions using controls that have been successfully utilized, are technologically feasible, and cost-effective. Offsets also would be required for ozone precursors that exceed 10 tons per year, wherein an equal or greater amount must be reduced either at the facility or within the air basin.
• Regulation 6 – Particulate Matter. Limits the quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere through the establishment of limitations on emission rates, concentration, visible emissions, and opacity.
• Regulation 7-102 – Citizen Complaints. This regulation applies when the BAAQMD receives odor complaints from ten or more citizens within a 90-day period.

Regulation 10 – New Source Performance Standards. Requires new sources or modifications to existing sources to comply with the rules, standards, criteria, and requirements of 40 CFR Part 60 (NSPS). The Project would be subject to the requirements of NSPS Subpart OOO for Nonmetallic Materials Processing Plants. This performance standard includes particulate matter emission limitations and visible emissions (opacity) limits for point and fugitive sources at quarries and other facilities. The regulation applies to various equipment components at quarries including crushers, grinders, screening operations, belt conveyors, and storage bins, that were constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 1983. Project equipment would be subject to these requirements. 2017 Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans described above to address attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and CAAQS. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two related BAAQMD goals:
protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other potent GHGs in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion (BAAQMD 2017b).

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide thresholds and methodology for evaluating air quality impacts for projects and plans in the SFBAAB. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures (BAAQMD 2017c).

North Central Coast Air Basin
The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), has jurisdiction over San Benito and Monterey counties, which are south of the Project site. The NCCAB is adjacent to the SFBAAB, and some of the Project trucks would travel

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-12 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
into the NCCAB. The North Central Coast Air Basin is considered nonattainment for state by CARB for ozone and PM10 standards. As a result, the MBARD has established significance thresholds for ozone precursor pollutants and PM10. Significance thresholds for emissions generated in the NCCAB are discussed in Section 3.3.4.1 below.

3.3.2.4 Local
Santa Clara County General Plan
Section G of the Health Element of the Santa Clara County General Plan (County of Santa Clara 2015) addresses Air Quality and Climate Change. This element includes several air quality related policies that pertain to this Project:

Policy HE-G.1: Air quality environmental review. Continue to utilize and comply with the Air District’s project- and plan-level thresholds of significance for air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy HE-G.2: Coordination with regional agencies. Coordinate with the Air District to promote and implement stationary and area source emission measures.

Policy HE-G.3: Fleet upgrades. Promote Air District mobile source measures to reduce emissions by accelerating the replacement of older, dirtier vehicles and equipment, and by expanding the use of zero emission and plug-in vehicles.

Policy HE-G.4: Off-road sources. Encourage mobile source emission reduction from offroad equipment such as construction, farming, lawn and garden, and recreational vehicles by retrofitting, retiring and replacing equipment and by using alternate fuel vehicles.

Policy HE-G.7: Sensitive receptor uses. Promote measures to protect sensitive receptor uses, such as residential areas, schools, day care centers, recreational playfields and trails, and medical facilities by locating uses away from major roadways and stationary area sources of pollution, where possible, or incorporating feasible, effective mitigation measures.

3.3.3 Environmental Setting

3.3.3.1 Summary of Air Quality Monitoring Data
As stated above, the Project site is located in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 30 locations throughout its jurisdiction. The closest monitoring stations to the Project site are in San José and Gilroy. The Gilroy station only measures O3 and PM2.5.

Summarized air pollutant data for these stations are provided in Table 3.3-3. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations measured from 2018 through 2020.

Measured levels of O3 and particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) in the SFBAAB exceed ambient air quality standards based on the monitoring data presented in Table 3.3-3. In Gilroy, the state 1-hour O3 standard was exceeded once per year in 2018 and 2020, and the national and state 8-hour standards were exceeded three times in 2020. PM10 levels monitored in San José exceeded the state annual average standard in 2018 and 2020 and the state 24-hour standard four

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-13 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
days in 2018 and 2019 and 10 days in 2020. PM2.5 levels exceeded the national standards 12 measurement days in Gilroy in 2018 and 14 days in 2020. PM10 and PM2.5 are only measured once every six days, in accordance with a national sampling schedule set by USEPA.

TABLE 3.3-3
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA (2017–2019)
Pollutant Standard 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3) – Gilroy 9th Street Monitoring Station (Approximately 5.5 miles from the Project Site) Maximum 1-hour concentration, ppm 0.09a 0.097 0.079 0.104 Number of days above State 1-Hour standard 1 0 1
Maximum 8-hour concentration (National), ppmd 0.070 0.065 0.067 0.084 Number of days above National/State 8-Hour
standard 0 0 3
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – San José Knox Avenue Monitoring Station (Approximately 33 miles from the Project Site) Annual average concentration, ppmd 0.053 / 0.030 0.017 /

0.016

0.014 /

0.014

0.014 /

0.013
Maximum 1-Hour concentration (National/State),
ppmd 0.100 / 0.18 0.088 /

0.088

0.065 /

0.065

0.056 /

0.056
Number of days above National/State 1-Hour
standard 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) – San José Jackson Street Monitoring Station (Approximately 35 miles from the Project Site)
Annual average concentration, µg/m3 20 a 23.1 19.1 24.8 Maximum 24-Hour concentration, µg/m3 d 150 / 50 115.4 / 121.8 75.4 / 77.1 134.9 /
137.1
Number of days above National/State 24-Hour
standard c 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 10
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Gilroy 9th Street Monitoring Station (Approximately 5.5 miles from the Project Site) Annual average concentration (National/State),
µg/m3 d 12.0 / 12 7.7 / 7.9 8.5 / 5.8 9.9 / 9.9
Maximum 24-Hour concentration, µg/m3 35b 97.5 21.3 102.5 Number of days above National 24-Hour standardc 12 0 14 NOTES:

Number of days exceeded is for all days in a given year, except for particulate matter. PM10 and PM2.5 are monitored every three days.

Ozone and PM2.5 monitoring data from Gilroy 9th Street monitoring station; NO2 and CO monitoring data from the San José Knox Avenue monitoring station; PM10 monitoring data from the San José Jackson Street monitoring station.

Bold values are in excess of applicable standard.
-- indicates data was not available
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. a. State standard, not to be exceeded.
b. National standard, not to be exceeded.
c. Particulate matter sampling schedule of one out of every 3 days, for a total of approximately 122 samples per year. Estimated days exceeded mathematically estimates of how many days’ concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had each day been monitored.
d. Maximum and annual concentrations may differ because the CARB and US EPA use different methods to calculate the emissions for certain criteria air pollutants for comparisons to the state and national standards.

SOURCE: CARB 2021c

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-14 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.3.3.2 Geography and Climate
The SFBAAB is characterized by its Mediterranean type climate with warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The Project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley, which is bounded by relatively high hills to the west and east but is open to the San Francisco Bay to the north, where marine air can easily penetrate the valley, and to the south, where emissions can migrate to California’s Central Valley.

The topography in the vicinity of the Project site influences both the climate and air pollution potential. As an inland valley, Santa Clara Valley has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater SFBAAB. Air pollutant emissions from upwind-urbanized areas are still on occasion transported with a southerly wind flow from the Bay Area or a northerly wind flow from Monterey Bay. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically and are particularly prevalent in the summer months.

3.3.3.3 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified children under 16, people over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular respiratory diseases as sensitive receptors. Residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks may contain a high concentration of these sensitive receptors.

Sensitive receptors near the Project site are shown in Figure 3.3-1. The closest sensitive receptors to where quarry activities would occur are residences in the Betabel RV Resort on Betabel Road, between about 1,600 feet to 2,600 feet southeast of the boundary of the Phase 4 mining area.

Active areas of the quarry where equipment would typically be used are located over 1,600 feet from the closest receptor. A single-family residence (Res. F in Figure 3.3-1) is located approximately 75 feet northwest of the Project entrance from Highway 101 on Old Monterey Road, which would be approximately 1.3 miles north of proposed quarry activities.

3.3.4 Impact Evaluation

3.3.4.1 Approach to the Analysis
The air quality assessment evaluated proposed mining and processing operations based on the average quantity of processed aggregate proposed to be exported from the quarry, processing equipment and processing rates, off-road mobile equipment for use in mining and processing, the number and types of quarry vehicles, and the construction and operation schedule.

Construction and operational activity emissions were calculated separately. For the construction period, exhaust emissions were calculated from construction-related equipment and vehicles, plus fugitive dust emissions from earthmoving and travel over unpaved and paved surfaces. For operation, exhaust emissions were calculated from mining equipment and vehicles, plus rail and haul truck transport of mined materials. This analysis is based on vehicle and equipment use estimates provided by the Applicant for the Project, which are included in Appendix D. 352-(&7$5($6(16,7,9(5(&(37256 ),*85(
3URSRVHG
$FFHOHUDWLRQ
/DQH
Tar Spring Creek
Pajaro River
Sargent Creek
2OG 0RQWHUH\ 5RDG
6DQWD &ODUD &RXQW\
6DQ%HQLWR&RXQW\
6DQWD&ODUD&RXQW\
6DQWD&UX]&RXQW\
6DQWD&UX]&RXQW\
6DQ%HQLWR&RXQW\
Betabel RV Park
Res. -E
Res. -F
Res. -A
Res. -B
Res. -C
Res. -D
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, June 20, 2016. Photo Date: Apr. 2016 0 500 2000 5000 Feet
Access Road & Conveyor Belt
Project Boundary
Figure 3.3-1
Project Area Sensitive Receptors
SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2021 SCC Sargent Quarry SFO/19xxxx/D191577.00 - SCC Sargent Quarry/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-16 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
This analysis was conducted following guidance provided by the BAAQMD and MBARD. Air pollutant emissions were computed for Project construction, and operation and reclamation, by Illingworth & Rodkin on behalf of the County as shown in the calculation spreadsheets and model output provided in Appendix D. The year 2024 was assumed to represent Project conditions with a maximum production level of 1,860,000 tons of sand and gravel (product) annually. This analysis evaluated proposed quarry mining and processing operations based on the maximum quantity of processed aggregate proposed to be mined and exported from the quarry, maximum processing equipment and processing rates, off-road mobile equipment for use in mining and processing, the number and types of quarry vehicles, and the proposed quarry operation schedule.

As shown in Table 3.13-1, Hourly Distribution of Project Trips, in Section 3.13, Transportation, there would be an average of 120 haul trucks per day that would access the quarry (i.e., 240 oneway trips) for export of processed aggregate 310 days per year, while the maximum amount of haul trucks to access the quarry per day would be 139 haul trucks (278 one-way trips). In addition to the haul trucks, there would be about 8 trucks (16 one-way trips trips) for material delivery and maintenance and 15 employee vehicles (30 one-way trips) per day (Illingworth & Rodkin 2021).

Emissions estimates from off-road mobile equipment were developed based on a list of equipment and annual hours of use provided by the Applicant (See Table 2-4 in Chapter 2, Project Description). This equipment was assumed to generally operate a maximum of 10 hours per day for 310 days per year. Extracted aggregate from the mining areas would be transported to the processing area via an overland conveyor and stockpiled.

Once at the processing facility, processing of the aggregate would include washing and size segregation using wet processes (to reduce fugitive dust) then placed in storage piles. Stationary processing equipment would be electrically powered. A list of processing equipment was provided by the Applicant and used in calculating particulate matter emissions from the processing operations. Most of the processing would be done while the aggregate is wet to reduce emissions of fugitive dust. A maximum processing rate of 600 tons per hour for 10 hours per day (6,000 tons per day) over 310 days per year was assumed for emissions modeling.

The earliest year that activity could reach intended maximum production levels is 2024. By analyzing maximum operational conditions in 2024, the maximum emissions on an annual and average daily basis are predicted. Emissions rates from on-site equipment and vehicles would decrease beyond 2024 as newer or retrofitted vehicles and equipment with lower emissions rates are utilized.

Hence, future operations would have lower emissions than those predicted in 2024.2 2 Emissions modeling was conducted assuming construction in 2022 and operations starting in 2023. However, as reflected in the Project Description, these dates were extended to 2023, and 2024, respectively. This results in a conservative estimate of emissions, because emission rates decrease with future years due to improvements in engine and fuel technology plus retirement of older, dirtier engines from the fleet.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-17 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
SFBAAB
As described in Section 3.3.2.3, BAAQMD has adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA (2017). These are the thresholds the County uses to evaluate air quality impacts from projects. The significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD that are used for impact determinations for Project activities conducted within the SFBAAB are summarized in Table 3.3-4.

TABLE 2.3-4

AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Pollutant
Average
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Average
Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Annual Average
Emissions
(tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1- hour average)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance or
other Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
Not Applicable
Risk/Hazard Type Single Source within 1,000 feet Cumulative Sources within 1,000 feet Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 10.0 per one million 100 per one million Chronic or Acute Hazard Index 1.0 10.0
Incremental annual average PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 µg/m3
SOURCE: BAAQMD 2017c.

MBARD
Since the Project would generate traffic that would travel into the NCCAB, these emissions were evaluated using the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines developed by the MBARD. For indirect Project emissions (e.g., emissions from Project traffic), the MBARD has established the following emissions-based significance criterion (MBUAPCD 2008):
• 137 pounds per day or more of volatile organic compounds (referred to in this analysis as ROG) or NOx.

MBARD’s emission-based threshold for PM10 only applies to on-site activities, and since the Project site is located outside the North Central Coast Air Basin, the threshold would not apply.

MBARD does not have thresholds for any other pollutants including PM2.5, for which the air basin is considered to be in attainment.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-18 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022

3.3.4.2 Significance Criteria
The Project would result in a significant impact on air quality if it would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Emit criteria air pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment status; c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or d) Result in odorous emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

3.3.4.3 Project Impacts
Impact 3.3-1: The Project would affect implementation of the applicable air quality plans (Significant and Unavoidable )
This impact addresses significance criterion (a).

Construction, Operation, and Reclamation
All Project Components
Equipment operated at the plant that emits air pollutants would require a Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD. This permit would include conditions for equipment and plant quarry operations to ensure that BAAQMD rules and regulations that pertain to this Project, including relevant requirements within the 2017 Clean Air Plan, are implemented. Construction activities would need to comply with Regulations 1 (Public Nuisance) and 6 (Particulate Matter), and operational and reclamation activities would need to comply with Regulation 2, Rule 2 (Permits and New Source Review), and Regulation 10 (NSPS).

As discussed in detail under Impact 3.3-2, the Project would result in long-term operational NOx emissions that would exceed significance thresholds (as shown in Table 3.3-6 below). According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, one of the measures to demonstrate a project’s consistency with the applicable clean air plan is for its emissions to remain below the significance thresholds.

As a result, the Project would conflict with the clean air plan implementation and the impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b, discussed in greater detail below under Impact 3.3-2.

Significance after mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b, the NOx emissions would not be reduced to below the significance thresholds, so the Project would continue to impede implementation of applicable air quality plans. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
_________________________

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-19 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
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. (Significant and Unavoidable)
This impact addresses significance criterion (b).

Construction
The assumed equipment usage and durations for construction of each Project component are shown in Table 2-5 in Chapter 2, and traffic projections are discussed in detail in Section 3.13, Transportation. Each component would be constructed sequentially, with the exception of the Monterey Road Improvements and Northbound 101 Acceleration Lane improvements, which would be constructed at the same time.

During construction, earthmoving vehicles and other diesel and gas-powered construction equipment would generate exhaust emissions of NOx, VOC, and particulate matter. PM10 and PM2.5 would also be generated in the form of fugitive dust emissions from ground disturbance associated with earth clearing and grading, and vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces at the Project site and on access roads.

The amount of dust generated would be highly variable and is dependent on the size of the area disturbed, amount of activity, and soil and meteorological conditions. Although construction activities would be temporary, they would have the potential to cause both nuisance conditions and air quality impacts. PM10 is the pollutant of greatest concern associated with dust. If uncontrolled, PM10 concentration levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could exceed State standards and result in a significant impact. The BAAQMD does not have a significance threshold for fugitive dust from construction, but specifies the use of BMPs would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate emissions from on-site construction activity, which is primarily made up of construction equipment emissions and evaporative emissions from application of coatings (e.g., painting) and any paving, and off-site activity, which includes construction vehicle trips (worker travel, vendor trucks, and haul trucks). The Project land use types and size, construction schedule, and equipment usage information provided by the Applicant were input to CalEEMod. The CalEEMod model output along with construction inputs are included in Appendix D.

Construction emissions would vary day to day and it is not possible to accurately quantify this variation. BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds for construction emissions have units of average daily pounds. All construction would occur within one year. The average daily emissions for construction were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of active workdays during that year. Table 3.3-5 shows the average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction.

As indicated in Table 3.3-5, estimated average daily Project construction emissions from construction equipment and vehicle exhaust would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds; thus, the impact of Project-generated exhaust emissions during construction would be less than significant.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-20 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
TABLE 3.3-5

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EXHAUST EMISSIONS
Year ROG NOx PM10 (exhaust) PM2.5 (exhaust)
Construction Emissions Per Year (Tons)
2023 0.18 1.94 0.09 0.08
Future years (Maintenance of
Monterey Rd) 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00
Average Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
2023 (157 construction
workdays) 2.3 24.8 1.1 1.0
Future years (Maintenance of
Monterey Rd) 0.8 5.0 0.3 0.2
BAAQMD Thresholds
(pounds per day)a 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
NOTES:
a. PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds for construction impacts are for exhaust only. There are no thresholds for fugitive dust from construction.

SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin 2021.

BAAQMD evaluates the impact from construction fugitive dust emissions based on use of BMPs rather than a quantified amount compared to a threshold (as opposed to exhaust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, which are compared to a threshold, as shown in Table 3.3-5). However, the Project does not include BMPs control dust emissions during construction. As described above, uncontrolled fugitive dust (without BMPs) would result in a significant impact.

Operation
Project emissions were estimated for both air basins. The primary sources of pollutants are on-site operation of off-road (mining) equipment and on-road vehicle traffic. Off-road equipment and most on-road vehicle traffic emissions would affect air quality in the SFBAAB. Only the portion of Project on-road traffic that travels south would affect air quality in the NCCAB. Off-road mining equipment emissions were estimated using the latest emission factors from CARB’s OFFROAD emission model along with proposed equipment inventories and schedules of activity.

On-road vehicles emissions were computed using CARB’s most recent (2021) on-road EMission FACtor model EMFAC 2021 along with traffic projections and origin/destination projections of vehicle travel. This model incorporates SAFE rule fuel economy and CO2 emission rates. The equipment and vehicle usage schedule and amounts for mining were assumed to be equivalent to those for reclamation. Thus, the emissions shown below represent both operation and reclamation activities.

On-site emission sources at the Project include stationary, mobile, and fugitive sources. The conveyor belts would be powered by electricity and would not result in any direct emissions of criteria air pollutants.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-21 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
The assumptions and models used to estimate emissions for each Project component are described in detail below. Because the thresholds are based on total daily emissions rather than the emissions of each individual component, the calculated emissions are presented under Emissions Summary, following the assumptions and modeling discussions.

Mining Pits and Processing Plant
Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from off-road mobile equipment that would be operated at the Project site were computed using emission factors from the latest version of CARB’s off-road emissions model for off-road diesel engines, the OFFROAD2017 Orion model. CARB developed these emission factors, which vary by engine horsepower rating and year of engine, for preparing State and local emission inventories of diesel equipment and off-road sources. Emissions of NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated using these emission factors, along with the year of equipment, engine horsepower ratings, operating schedule, and equipment load factors. Typical off-road equipment can last many years. Older equipment can produce emissions much higher than newer equipment that must meet current or near-future mandated emission standards. Thus, the age of the equipment was taken into account when estimating emissions. In addition to the mobile equipment, emissions from the Project’s 65 kVA (70 horsepower) diesel emergency generator were calculated using the OFFROAD2017 emission factors. The generator was assumed to operate for 50 hours per year for the purposes of maintenance and testing. In general, generators are tested for one half hour per week or per month. Emissions estimates assuming 50 hours would account for some amount of time in emergency use.

Fugitive Dust
Particulate matter emissions from the quarry processing equipment and from overburden and aggregate handling (e.g. truck loading) were calculated using quarry and equipment processing rates and the USEPA’s AP-42 emission factors for crushed stone processing (AP-42 Section

11.19-2). Fugitive dust emissions from overburden and aggregate handling (e.g., truck loading) were calculated using USEPA emission factors for aggregate handling and storage piles (AP-42 Section 13.2.4). Emissions associated with processing of the aggregate would only include fugitive PM10 and PM2.5, and not NOx and ROG emissions (which are associated with fuel combustion) because the processing equipment would be electrically powered.

Dust would also be generated during mining activities. In each phase, topsoil and vegetation would be left in place until a particular area is ready to be mined. Mining activities would occur within only portions of each pit at any one time, limiting the amount of dirt that is being exposed and moved mechanically. Cut slopes would be watered by water trucks to minimize dust from exposed areas. Nonetheless, some dust would be generated in areas of active mining.

Exhaust from On-Site Access Road Vehicle Travel
Exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles at the site (water trucks, service trucks, and quarry pickup trucks) were computed using emission factors from the CARB EMFAC2021 on-road mobile source emissions model. Project trucks operating at the quarry site would be new trucks (assumed to be model year 2022). The water trucks and service trucks would be diesel-fueled and were assumed

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-22 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
to be heavy duty trucks. There would be two pick-up trucks, with one being diesel-fueled and the other being gasoline-fueled, which were assumed to be light heavy-duty and light duty trucks, respectively. For this analysis, emission factors for calendar year 20233 were used. A vehicle speed of 15 miles per hour was used to calculate emissions for vehicles traveling on the access roads and within the quarry, except for the water truck, which was assumed to travel at 5 mph.

Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 were calculated for Project vehicle and equipment travel over on-site unpaved roads and other unpaved areas. In addition, fugitive dust from overburden and aggregate handling, mostly from truck loading, were calculated. USEPA AP-42 emission factors for vehicle travel on unpaved roads (USEPA 1995) and information on road silt content and vehicle weight were used to calculate emissions. Access road fugitive dust emissions were calculated for the Project loaders, motor grader, scraper, service trucks and pick-up trucks. An unpaved road silt content of 10 percent was used, similar to the silt content of the Project aggregate provided by the Applicant. The types of vehicles and average vehicle weights were based on information provided by the Applicant and data from manufacturers. The numbers of miles traveled on unpaved roads for each vehicle type were calculated based on the number of hours the vehicles were assumed to be driven per day and an average vehicle speed. Project emission control was assumed to be use of watering of unpaved areas and a travel speed of 15 mph or less. Details of the Project vehicles and assumptions used for the emission calculations are provided in Appendix D.

Rail Spur
Use of rail for hauling would result in emissions from diesel-powered locomotives. There would be approximately three trains per week, or up to 156 train loads per year, along the existing Union Pacific north-south rail line to the east adjacent to U.S. 101. The rail line predominantly parallels Monterey Road between Gilroy and San José. Most of these trains would travel from the site to San José, with occasional trains continuing to Redwood City. Based on information provided by the Applicant (Freeman Associates 2016, page 2, Item 7), it was assumed that 80 percent of the trains would travel between the quarry site and San José with a one-way travel distance of about 40 miles, and 20 percent of the trains would travel to the Port of Redwood City with a one-way travel distance of 57 miles.

Air pollutant emission factors for train travel emissions in 2024, in units of grams per gallon, were calculated using the CARB methodology for the Vision 2.1 locomotive inventory in California (Vision inventory). The Vision inventory contains emission factors specific to California’s line-haul locomotive fleet, which were combined with fuel productivity factors in terms of gross ton-mile traveled per gallon of fuel for locomotives in the SFBAAB to estimate emission rates for the Project locomotives. Emission factors for train idling emissions, in units of grams per hour, were calculated based on USEPA data and emission factors and a recent 3 Emissions modeling was conducted assuming construction in 2022 and operations starting in 2023. However, as reflected in the Project Description, these dates were extended to 2023, and 2024, respectively. This results in a conservative estimate of emissions, because emission rates decrease with future years due to improvements in engine and fuel technology plus retirement of older, dirtier engines from the fleet.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-23 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Environmental Impact Report that addressed waste hauling by rail from the Bay Area to the Ostrom Landfill in Yuba County (Yuba County Planning Department 2018). The rail emission calculations within the SFBAAB are included in Appendix D.

Off-Site Travel on Paved Roads
Criteria pollutant emissions were calculated for vehicle travel on off-site paved roads. The vehicles included in these emissions calculations are on-road haul trucks, other trucks visiting the quarry, and worker vehicles. Exhaust emissions and particulate matter emissions from tire and brake wear were calculated using emission factors from the CARB EMFAC2021 mobile emissions model for vehicles traveling at 55 mph during the initial Project year 2024. Particulate matter entrained dust emissions from vehicles traffic were calculated using CARB emission calculation procedures. Details of the on-road vehicles and assumptions used for the emission calculations are provided below.

On-Road Haul Trucks
As discussed in Section 3.13, Transportation, it is assumed that 80 percent of the trucks would travel north in Santa Clara County, 10 percent would travel south to San Benito County, and 10 percent would travel south to Monterey County. In calculating emissions, the following assumptions were used:
• Northbound trucks would travel to the San José/Santa Clara area with an average trip distance of 40 miles.
• Southbound trucks to Monterey County would travel to Salinas with an average trip distance of 27 miles.
• Southbound trucks to San Benito County would travel to Hollister with an average trip distance of 17 miles.

Other Trucks
Other trucks would include material delivery trucks and maintenance vehicles. All trucks were assumed to be heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling at 55 mph. Based on the traffic report for the Project there would be a total of 16 other truck trips per day, 310 days per year. The same trip distribution and distances as described above for haul trucks were assumed for these other truck trips.

Worker Vehicles
All worker vehicles were conservatively assumed to be light-duty trucks traveling at 55 mph.

Based on the traffic report for the Project there would be 30 worker vehicle trips per day, 310 days per year. Although there would be some workers coming from Hollister, it was conservatively assumed that all worker trips would be within the Bay Area Air Basin, with most coming from Gilroy. The average trip distance was assumed to be 18 miles to allow for some workers traveling from San Jose.

Emissions were calculated for worker and haul truck travel within the SFBAAB (Santa Clara County) and within the NCCAB (Monterey and San Benito Counties).

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-24 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Emissions Summary
Project emissions that would be generated in the SFBAAB are shown in Table 3.3-6. Details of the emission calculations and equipment lists are provided in Appendix D. Note that the average daily and annual emissions reflect the maximum number of days of quarry operation that the Project proposes. As shown in Table 3.3-6, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for emissions within the SFBAAB resulting in a significant impact. Most of the NOx emissions would be associated with the off-road equipment exhaust, primarily from the bulldozer, and the off-site vehicle travel, mostly truck traffic. The primary source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions (i.e., 73 percent) would be from fugitive dust from on-site unpaved road travel.

TABLE 3.3-6

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE SFBAAB FROM OPERATIONS AND RECLAMATION Emission Source NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions (lb/day)*
Processing Equipment - - 15.3 4.3
Quarrying/Fugitives - - 15.3 4.3
Off-Road Equipment Exhaust 30.6 5.5 1.1 1.1
On-Site Quarry Vehicle Exhaust 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
On-Site Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust - - 507.7 50.8
Rail Emissions 17.0 0.8 0.4 0.3
Off-Site Paved Road Vehicle Emissions 34.0 0.4 3.8 1.4
Total 82.8 6.7 543.6 62.2
Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54
Significant? Yes No Yes Yes
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Processing Equipment - - 2.4 0.7
Quarrying/Fugitives - - 2.4 0.7
Off-Road Equipment Exhaust 4.7 0.8 0.16 0.17
On-Site Quarry Vehicle Exhaust 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00
On-Site Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust - - 12.1 1.2
Rail Emissions 2.6 0.1 0.06 0.05
Off-Site Paved Road Vehicle Emissions 5.3 0.1 0.6 0.2
Total 12.8 1.0 17.7 3.0
Significance Threshold 10 10 15 10
Significant? Yes No Yes No
NOTES:
* Average daily emissions calculated based on annual emissions and 310 days per year for quarry operation SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin 2021.

As shown in Table 3.3-6, rail operations would account for about 20 percent of average daily NOx emissions, less than 0.1 percent of average daily PM10 emissions, and 0.5 percent of average daily PM2.5 emissions. Similarly, rail operations would contribute about 20 percent of annual NOx emissions and less than 0.4 percent of annual PM10 emissions. Therefore, rail operations would be a substantial contributor to significant NOx emissions, but not a substantial contributor to significant particulate matter emissions.

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-25 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
Among other authorizations, the Project would be regulated by a Permit to Operate issued by BAAQMD. This permit applies to aggregate processing equipment and requires controls in the water spray systems, throughput limits, and performance standards (e.g., opacity limits), and would include requirements to use electric-powered equipment and to implement reporting. The Project would include new equipment. The emissions reported in Table 3.3-6 do not assume implementation of dust control measures. The quarry does not have a comprehensive dust control plan that serves as BMPs for fugitive dust control.

As shown in Table 3.3-7, emissions of NOx and ROG generated within the NCCAB would not exceed the MBARD significance thresholds. Therefore, the air quality impact in NCCAB would be less than significant.

TABLE 3.3-7

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE NCCAB
Emission Source NOx CO ROG* PM10 PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions (lb/day)*
Off-Site Paved Road Vehicle Emissions 4.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 Significance Threshold 137 -- 137 -- --
Significant? No -- No -- --
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Off-Site Paved Road Vehicle Emissions 0.64 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.02 Significance Threshold -- -- -- -- --
NOTES:
* For this analysis, ROG is considered equivalent to VOC.

SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin 2021.

Reclamation
Over the 30-year period of Project operation, portions of the site would be reclaimed upon completion of each operation phase. Emissions associated with the reclamation were included in the overall Project operational emissions estimates shown in Table 3.3-6. Thus, the significant impact described above for Project operations also applies to proposed reclamation activities and the mitigation measures discussed below would also apply to reclamation activities.

Health Effects of Ozone and Ozone Precursors
Health effects of criteria pollutant emissions and ozone concentrations are described in Section 3.3.1.1.Given that ground-level ozone formation occurs through a complex photochemical reaction between NOx and VOCs in the atmosphere with the presence of sunlight, the impacts of ozone are typically considered on a basin-wide or regional basis instead of a localized basis. The BAAQMD has not established a significance threshold for ground-level ozone. The health-based ambient air quality standards for ozone are as concentrations of ozone and not as the mass weight (e.g., pounds) of their precursor pollutants (i.e., NOx and VOCs). It is not necessarily the pounds of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects, but the concentration of resulting ozone or particulate matter. Meteorology, the availability of ozone precursors, the

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-26 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022
presence of sunlight, seasonal impacts, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of ozone. (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2014; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2014).

As expressed in the amicus curiae brief submitted for the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case (Friant Ranch Case) (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2014; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2014), the CEQA criteria pollutant significance thresholds from the BAAQMD were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status; since air quality standards are set at levels that protect public health, ozone precursor emissions that exceed significance thresholds are assumed to lead to adverse regional health effects, but these health effects cannot meaningfully be quantified. They are emission levels at which stationary pollution sources permitted by the BAAQMD must offset their emissions and the CEQA evaluation of the project must identify any feasible mitigation measures. They are not intended to be indicative of any localized human health impact that a project may have. Therefore, the Project’s exceedance of the mass regional emissions threshold (i.e., pounds per day [ppd] NOx thresholds) from Project-related activities does not necessarily indicate that the project would cause or contribute to the exposure of localized sensitive receptors to ground-level concentrations in excess of health-protective levels.

Summary
Construction activities would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for exhaust pollutants. For fugitive dust impacts, the impact is significant without use of BMPs. The Project does not include BMPs or dust control measures that would prevent uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions, which would be a significant impact on air quality. Project operation and reclamation would exceed NOx, PM2.5 and PM10 thresholds for exhaust pollutants. Therefore, the Project would have a significant impact on air quality.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: The Project Applicant shall develop and implement a comprehensive dust control plan for Project construction and operation and shall submit the plan to the County Department of Planning and Development at least 90 days prior to the start of construction for review and approval. Designate a person to implement and modify the Dust Control Plan as appropriate. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following elements based on BAAQMD recommended construction mitigation measures, most of which also apply to Project operations:

1. Water all active unpaved vehicle roadways at least twice a day during dry conditions to ensure that roadways are damp enough to suppress dust generation;

3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

3.3 Air Quality
Sargent Quarry 3.3-27 ESA / D201901577.01
Draft EIR July 2022