madera quarry project

M A D E R A Q U A R R Y P R O J E C T D R A F T R E V I S E D E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O . 2 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 2 8

V O L U M E I : D R A F T R E V I S E D E I R

DECEMBER 2009

Lead CEQA Agency Madera County Planning Department

Applicant/Operator Madera Quarry, Inc.

M A D E R A Q U A R R Y P R O J E C T D R A F T R E V I S E D E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O . 2 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 2 8

V O L U M E I : D R A F T R E V I S E D E I R

DECEMBER 2009

Lead CEQA Agency Madera County Planning Department 2037 West Cleveland Avenue, Mail Stop G, Madera, California 93637 Applicant/Operator Madera Quarry, Inc. P.O. Box 994248, Redding, California 96099-4248 Preparer Resource Design Technology, Inc. 4990 Hillsdale Circle, Suite 400, El Dorado Hills, California 95762

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I: DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY........................................................................................................S-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1.0-1

1.1 EIR Purpose, Use, and Scope ..................................................................... 1.0-1 1.1.1 Purpose and Use .....................................................................................................1.0-2 1.1.2 Nature and Background of Project ..................................................................1.0-2 1.1.3 CEQA and Litigation Process ..............................................................................1.0-3 1.1.4 Changes to the Project Subsequent to Prior EIR Resulting from

the Applicant’s Consultants’ Studies Done in Response to the Judicial Decisions....................................................................................................1.0-5

1.1.5 County Approach to DREIR .............................................................................. 1.0-10 1.1.6 Notice of Preparation ......................................................................................... 1.0-10 1.1.7 Public Scoping Meeting .................................................................................... 1.0-11 1.18 DREIR Scope........................................................................................................... 1.0-11 1.1.9 Effects Found Not to be Significant .............................................................. 1.0-12 1.1.10 Areas of Controversy .......................................................................................... 1.0-13 1.1.11 Disposition of Issues Raised and Remaining Areas of Controversy.. 1.0-18 1.1.12 Document Availability ....................................................................................... 1.0-18

1.2 DREIR Public Review ................................................................................1.0-19

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. i

MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Table of Contents

2.0 REVISIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS, ENTITLEMENTS, AND CONTRACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FEIR ............................................................... 2.0-1 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 2.0-1 2.2 Minor Changes to Project as Defined in DEIR .......................................... 2.0-2

2.2.1 Affected Acreage Recalculated .........................................................................2.0-2 2.2.2 Modifications Resulting from Hydrology, Groundwater,

and Surface Water Studies ..................................................................................2.0-2 2.2.3 Modified Phasing Plan ..........................................................................................2.0-5 2.2.4 Additional Traffic Contributions Resulting from 2006

Hearing Process ......................................................................................................2.0-5 2.3 Entitlements and Contracts Obtained Subsequent to the FEIR ............. 2.0-8

3.0 REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL SECTIONS

3.1 Revisions to Hydrology and Water Quality Section in Response to Judicial Decisions ....................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.9.1 Summary....................................................................................................................3.1-1 3.9.2 Introduction..............................................................................................................3.1-2 3.9.3 Existing Setting and During and Post-Mining Conditions ......................3.1-8

3.9.3.1 Surface Water Quantity......................................................................................3.1-8 3.9.3.2 Surface Water Quality ......................................................................................3.1-11 3.9.3.3 Groundwater Quantity....................................................................................3.1-11 3.9.3.4 Groundwater Quality........................................................................................3.1-20

3.9.4 Standards of Significance, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.1-21 3.9.4.1 Standards of Significance ..............................................................................3.1-21 3.9.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................3.1-22

3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................... 3.1-29

3.2 Revisions to Noise and Vibration Section in Response to

Judicial Decisions ....................................................................................... 3.2-1 3.11.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................3.2-1 3.11.2 Noise and Vibration Fundamentals and Terminology .............................3.2-3

3.11.2.1 Background on Noise and Vibration..........................................................3.2-3 3.11.2.2 Effects of Noise on People ...............................................................................3.2-4

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. ii


3.11.3 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.2-7 3.11.3.1 Project Location and Description................................................................3.2-7 3.11.3.2 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity ..................................................................3.2-8 3.11.3.3 Description of Existing Ambient Noise Environment in 2004....3.2-8 3.11.3.4 Description of Existing Ambient Noise Environment in 2009.3.2-10 3.11.3.5 Description of Current Ambient Vibration Environment...........3.2-11

3.11.4 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................. 3.2-11 3.11.4.1 Local Jurisdictional Guidelines ...................................................................3.2-11 3.11.4.2 Madera County General Plan Noise Element ....................................3.2-11 3.11.4.3 Madera County Noise Ordinance .............................................................3.2-13 3.11.4.4 Noise Level Increase Significance Criteria................................ 3.2-13

3.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.2-15 3.11.5.1 CEQA Environmental Checklist for Noise.............................................3.2-15 3.11.5.2 Application of CEQA Guidelines to the Proposed Project –

Standards of Significance ..............................................................................3.2-15 3.11.5.3 Methodology for Assessing Noise Impacts Associated with

On-Site Equipment............................................................................................3.2-17 3.11.5.4 Methodology for Assessing Blasting Noise

and Vibration Impacts .....................................................................................3.2-22 3.11.5.5 Methodology for Assessing Off-Site Truck Traffic

Noise Levels ...........................................................................................................3.2-23 3.11.5.6 Methodology for Assessing Construction Noise Impacts .........3.2-25 3.11.5.7 Specific Project Impacts and Noise Mitigation Measures..........3.2-26 3.11.5.8 Cumulative Noise Impacts............................................................................3.2-30

3.3 Revisions to Traffic Section in Response to Judicial Decisions............... 3.3-1

3.12.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................3.3-1 3.12.2 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.3-2

3.12.2.1 Project Elements Affecting Traffic ...............................................................3.3-2 3.12.2.2 Study Area and Time Period ...........................................................................3.3-4 3.12.2.3 Existing Lane Configurations..........................................................................3.3-4 3.12.2.4 Planned Improvements.....................................................................................3.3-6

3.12.3 Traffic Methodology ..............................................................................................3.3-6 3.12.3.1 Level of Service .......................................................................................................3.3-6

3.12.4 Traffic Impact Study............................................................................................ 3.3-13 3.12.4.1 Project Traffic Volumes....................................................................................3.3-13 3.12.4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes..................................................................................3.3-14

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. iii


3.12.4.3 Cumulative Traffic Volumes .........................................................................3.3-20 3.12.4.4 Intersection Analyses .......................................................................................3.3-20 3.12.4.5 Road Segment Analyses.................................................................................3.3-24

3.12.5 Standards of Significance, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.3-27 3.12.5.1 Standards of Significance ..............................................................................3.3-27

3.12.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.3-27 3.12.6.1 Discussion of Existing and Existing-Plus-Project Analyses ........3.3-27

3.12.7 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................... 3.3-30

4.0 NEW LEGISLATIVE MANDATE........................................................... 4.0-1

4.1 Introduction to Greenhouse Gas (AB 32, SB 375) .................................... 4.0-1 4.1.1 Greenhouse Gases..................................................................................................4.0-1 4.1.2 Existing Greenhouse Gases.................................................................................4.0-2

4.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.0-2 4.3 Standards of Significance .......................................................................... 4.0-4 4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................. 4.0-5 4.5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................4.0-11

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................... 5.0-1

5.1 Lead Agency Staff....................................................................................... 5.0-1 5.2 Consultants and Other Individuals Involved in the

Preparation of the EIR ................................................................................ 5.0-1 5.2.1 Applicant Team .......................................................................................................5.0-1 5.2.2 Applicant Team Technical Consultants..........................................................5.0-2 5.2.3 Peer Review, Editorial, and Formatting..........................................................5.0-3

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. iv


LIST OF TABLES Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 1.0-1 Table of Appendices Table 2.0-1 Contracts and Entitlements Table 3.11-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Survey Summaries (April 19-20, 2004) Table 3.11-2 Madera County Noise Element Performance Standards Applicable to Land

Uses Affected by Heavy Industrial Uses Table 3.11-3 Significance of Chances in Cumulative Noise Exposure Table 3.11-4 Major Noise Producing Equipment and Associated Noise Levels Table 3.11-5 Scenarios Evaluated for the Madera Quarry Project Table 3.11-6 Predicted Project Noise Levels from On-Site Sources Table 3.11-7 Project-Related Changes in Existing Traffic Noise Levels at

Existing Residences Table 3.11-8 Project-Related Changes in Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels Table 3.12-1 Madera County Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections Table 3.12-2 Level of Service Characteristics for Unsignalized Intersections Table 3.12-3 Level of Service Characteristics for Signalized Intersections Table 3.12-4 Capacities per Hour per Lane for Various Highway Facilities in the

Madera County Table 3.12-5 Project Trip Generation Table 3.12-6 Intersection Analysis Summary – Existing Conditions Table 3.12-7 Intersection Analysis Summary – Existing Plus Project Conditions Table 3.12-8 Intersection Analysis Summary – 2030 Cumulative No Project Conditions Table 3.12-9 Intersection Analysis Summary – 2030 Cumulative With Project Conditions Table 3.12-10 Road Segment LOS Summary – Existing Conditions Table 3.12-11 Road Segment LOS Summary – Existing Plus Project Conditions Table 3.12-12 Road Segment LOS Summary – 2030 Cumulative No Project Conditions Table 3.12-13 Road Segment LOS Summary – 2030 Cumulative With Project Conditions Table 4.0-1 CARB’s Interim GHG Significance Standards for Industrial Projects Table 4.0-2 Summary of GHG Emissions from On-Site Equipment and Quarry Trucks Table 4.0-3 Summary of Transportation-Related Emissions Table 4.0-4 CO2 Emissions from Electricity Generation Table 4.0-5 Estimate of CO2 Sequestration Table 4.0-6 Summary of Avoided Emissions – Scenario 1 (2009 to 2011) Table 4.0-7 Summary of Avoided Emissions – Scenario 2 (Beyond 2011)

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. v


LIST OF FIGURES Figure S-1 Site Location Figure 1.0-1 Current Acreage Calculations Figure 2.0-1 Mining Plan Alternate 2 Figure 2.0-2 Assessor’s Parcel Figure 3.9-1 Locations of Wells Used For Well No. 10 Aquifer Test Figure 3.9-2 Locations of Quarry Wells and Wells Used for 2005 Aquifer Tests Figure 3.9-3 Plan View of Project Site Figure 3.9-4 Location of Private Wells in Vicinity Figure 3.9-5 Maximum Projected Drawdowns in Wells During Mining Figure 3.9-6 Projected Drawdowns in Wells During Reclamation Phase Figure 3.9-7 Table 10 Summary of Aquifer Tests Figure 3.9-8 Table 10 Summary of Aquifer Tests (Continued) Figure 3.9-9 Table 10 Summary of Aquifer Tests (Continued) Figure 3.11-1 Site Plan, Noise Measurement Locations, and Receiver Locations Figure 3.11-2 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Noise Figure 3.12-1 Vicinity Map Figure 3.12-2 Existing Lane Configurations Figure 3.12-3 Cumulative Lane Configurations Figure 3.12-4 Opening Day Project Traffic Volumes Figure 3.12-5 Ultimate Project Traffic Volumes Figure 3.12-6 Project Traffic Distribution Percentages Figure 3.12-7 PCE Project Traffic Volumes Figure 3.12-8 2030 PCE Project Traffic Volumes Figure 3.12-9 Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 3.12-10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Figure 3.12-11 Cumulative 2030 No Project Traffic Volumes Figure 3.12-12 Cumulative 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes Figure 4.0-1 Location of Alternate Sources of Aggregate in Madera County Vicinity

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. vi


VOLUME II: TECHNICAL APPENDICES OF DRAFT REVISED EIR AND PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (Original on CD-ROM)

Appendix A-1 Fifth District Court of Appeal Opinion, Case No. F053661,

Gray v. County of Madera Appendix A-2 Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate on Remand, Madera Co.

Case No. SCV005567, Gray v. County of Madera Appendix B-1 Notice of Preparation Appendix B-2 Scoping letters Appendix C-1 Technical Memorandum, Review of 'Hydrogeologic Conditions At and Near

the Proposed Madera Quarry,' Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers, dated October 28, 2009

Appendix C-2 Hydrogeologic Conditions At and Near the Proposed Madera Quarry, Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, Groundwater Quality Consultants, Fresno, California, dated October 2009

Appendix C-3 Madera Quarry Surface Water Hydrology Report, Blair, Church & Flynn, Consulting Engineers, dated October 2009

Appendix C-4 Wellco Drilling, Inc., Letter to Madera Quarry, Inc, dated September 23, 2009 Appendix D Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Madera Quarry, Peters Engineering

Group, dated October 13, 2009 Appendix E Department of Conservation Letter to Madera County Assessor's Office,

with Williamson Act Cancellation Valuation Agreement Attached, all dated August 28, 2008

Appendix F Compensation and Grazing Agreement Waiving Potential Noise Impacts to

Residents for Mining and Asphalt Project Truck Traffic, between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family Trust, dated February 2009

Appendix G Conservation Easement Deed, Madera County Contract No. 8512-C-2008,

dated January 15, 2008 Appendix H U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit, dated January 12, 2009, 2005-673

(includes July 1, 2008 U.S. Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion)

Appendix I U.S. Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Comments on

Avoidance Minimization and Compensation Measures, dated December 17, 2007

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. vii


RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. viii

Appendix J-1 CA Office of Historic Preservation, Historic Properties Comment Letter to USACOE, dated November 13, 2008

Appendix J-2 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for The Madera Ranch Quarry Project, Madera County, California, Pacific Legacy, dated June 2008

Appendix J-3 Supplemental Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for The Madera Ranch Quarry Project, Pacific Legacy, dated September 2008

Appendix K CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section 401 Water Quality

Certification, dated July 17, 2008 Appendix L CA Department of Fish & Game Section 1602 Stream Alteration Agreement

No. 2007-0209-R4, Hildreth Creek - Madera County, dated June 13, 2008 Appendix M Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Madera Quarry, Inc., Madera County,

California, October 1, 2009 Appendix N Madera County Road Impact Fee Program Update, November 2009 Appendix O-1 Acoustical Terminology Appendix O-2 Continuously Measured Hourly Noise Levels Appendix O-3 Madera Quarry Noise Source Data Appendix O-4 FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Appendix P Road Construction, Maintenance and Reimbursement Agreement, Madera

County Contract No. 8511-C-2008, dated January 15, 2008 Appendix Q Traffic Mitigation Agreement Capital Deferment, Madera County Contract

No. 8513-C-2008, dated January 15, 2008 June 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Original on CD-ROM) February 2006 Final Environmental Impact Report (Original on CD-ROM)

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT

Project Purpose, Location, and Background Information

This Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) has been prepared in

accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resource

Code, Section 21000, et. seq.) and the State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA

(Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq.). This DREIR will be

used by Madera County (County) in its consideration of the Madera Quarry Project

(Project) as proposed by Madera Quarry, Inc. (Applicant or Operator). Except as

modified by this DREIR, this document incorporates the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final EIR

(FEIR), dated June 2005 and February 2006, respectively. Digital versions of the DEIR

and FEIR are attached to this DREIR and hard copies are available for viewing at the

Madera County Planning Department at the following location:

Madera County Planning Department

2037 W. Cleveland Avenue, Mail Stop G

Madera, California 93637

(559) 675‐7821

Site Location

The Project site is located in central Madera County, California, about 2 miles west of

State Route (SR) 41, 4 miles north of SR 145, and 16 miles northeast of the City of

Madera (Figure S‐1, Site Location). It lies in Section 4 of Township 10 South, Range 20

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. S-1

MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Summary

East of the Little Table Mountain, California 7.5 U.S. Geological Service (USGS)

topographic map. The realignment and improvements to County Road 209 will also

affect portions of Sections 9, 16, 21, 28, and 33 of the previously identified township and

range. The Project/Quarry site, including processing facilities, would be located entirely

within the boundaries of the Madera Project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 050‐

082‐007. The owner of record for the Madera Quarry property is Madera Quarry, Inc.,

P.O. Box 994248, Redding, California 96099‐4248.

Project Overview

Madera Quarry, Inc. proposes to develop a new hard rock quarry and associated

aggregate processing facilities in central Madera County. The processing facilities will

be located on a 28‐acre portion of one of Madera Quarry, Inc’s parcels, while the

aggregate material will be mined from an approximately 77.8‐acre portion of the same

parcel (these acreages are the net acres to be disturbed in the construction of the mine

and processing areas). Table 2.0‐1 of the Project Description of the previously circulated

DEIR provides a detailed description of the processing facilities. The Project will be

located on a 540‐acre parcel, being one of the four owned by Madera Quarry, Inc, which

total approximately 1,000 acres. The entire property is currently primarily used for

rangeland cattle grazing. The Project is located about 16 miles northeast of the City of

Madera in the lower granitic foothills of the western slope of the southern Sierra

Nevada Mountains. The topography is variable, ranging from flat and gently rolling

hills to steep, boulder‐strewn fields. The area has some history of rock quarries, the

most visible of which can be seen to the east of County Road 209 just south of the

Project site.

As proposed, the Project would result in the mining, processing, and off‐site transport

of a maximum of 900,000 tons of aggregate material annually for up to 50 years. Project

support facilities associated with the quarry would include aggregate processing

equipment, a hot mix asphalt plant, an administration complex and various stockpiles,

sediment ponds, etc. A two‐lane paved mine access road would be constructed from

the processing area to County Road 209 (a distance of about ¼ mile). Substantial

upgrading, reconstruction, and realignment of County Road 209 from the mine entrance

south about 4.5 miles to the intersection of Highway 41 would also be a component of

the Project. Further, the Applicant will construct left‐turn, acceleration, and

deceleration lanes at the intersection of County Road 209 and Highway 41. The

Applicant will perform improvements on Highway 41 between County Road 209 and



Highway 145 and on County Road 209 from the Project Site to the intersection

of County Roads 209 and 406 as more fully discussed in Section 2.2.4 of this Draft

Revised Environmental Impact Report.

Need and Objectives

The availability, consumption, and demand for aggregate resources in California are

issues of concern and interest to planning and transportation agencies and industries

throughout the state. Aggregate resources provide the construction aggregate

necessary for a wide range of public works and private‐sector construction projects.

Because the cost of aggregate is largely dependent on the distance the material must be

hauled from where it is mined and processed to where it is sold, local sources of

aggregate play a major role in maintaining reasonable costs to the consumer.

California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires the State

Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on the known or

inferred mineral resource potential of that land. The process is based solely on geology,

without regard to existing land use or land ownership. The primary goal of mineral

land classification is to help ensure that the mineral resource potential of lands is

recognized and considered in the land‐use planning process. The Project site has not

been designated at this time.

The overall goal of the Project is to develop the maximum known aggregate reserves

which can feasibly be mined within the current design plan area. Specific Project

objectives include:

Location: Secure approvals to mine the reserves on site, which are located

within central Madera County, thus providing a reliable and economic source to

meet current and projected demand in the region.

Profit: Responsibly operate a profitable aggregate mine and processing facility.

Period: Provide for approximately 50 years of approved aggregate extraction, in

accordance with availability of known resource reserves, mining and reclamation

plans, and foreseeable market demands. Implementation and monitoring of final

reclamation activities would be completed within three years of exhaustion of

reserves or expiration of the permit.

Production: Provide for an annual maximum permitted production level of

900,000 tons (about 533,000 cubic yards); with sequencing broken into several

mining phases dependent on geology, terrain, current technological capabilities,



and the intent to incorporate the visual screening provided by the existing

terrain.

Employment: Provide on‐site staffing of between 15 and 20 employees

throughout the production life of the mine. Two shifts could be employed when

special night operations are needed and three to five workers would be added to

the labor force.

Site Conservation: Avoid sensitive natural resources to the extent possible and

provide adequate mitigation when avoidance is not feasible; minimize aesthetic

impacts through site design, phasing, and concurrent reclamation; and

implement reclamation concurrently with mining operations throughout the life

of the mine to return the site to a productive post‐mining open space land use.

Use of PCC Grade Material: Maximize the use of on‐site PCC grade aggregate

sources to service the Applicant’s current and future construction industry

clients that require strict adherence to specifications of federal, state, county and

city standards.

Operational Flexibility: Secure permission to occasionally operate at night and

during early morning hours to better serve existing and future clients that

require early morning and nighttime deliveries to meet project schedule and

traffic mitigation requirements.

Market Share: Increase company position and market share as a leading

regional aggregate provider in the San Joaquin Valley market area.

Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report Scope (DREIR)

Background

The initial application was submitted in October 2002. The County conducted a Public

Scoping Meeting on October 27, 2003. The County then circulated the DEIR for public

review from late June through early August 2005. The FEIR (consisting of the DEIR,

minor revisions thereto, and the Responses to Comments) was prepared in February

2006. After a series of Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor hearings, the

County’s Board approved the Project and certified the FEIR as adequate.

Opponents to the Project filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for

Injunctive and Declaratory Relief regarding the adequacy of the FEIR. The County

prevailed in the Madera County Superior Court. However, on October 24, 2008, the

Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District (Court of Appeal) reversed the

judgment and remanded the matter to the Madera County Superior Court. The Court



of Appeal concluded that there were deficiencies in the FEIR’s hydrology mitigation

measures, traffic mitigation measures, cumulative noise impact evaluation, cumulative

impact evaluation, and required that the County to consider whether it was obligated to

provide an SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) to the extent the Project, as

mitigated, involved the construction and operation of a public water system. A copy of

the Court of Appeal’s opinion (Opinion) is provided in Appendix A‐1.

A detailed discussion of the Court of Appeal’s opinion and the trial judge’s

implementing judgment (Judicial Decisions) is provided in Section 1.1.3 in the

Introduction to this Draft Revised EIR. Further, Section 1.1.4 of this DREIR provides a

description of changes to the Project since certification of the EIR and Judicial Decisions.

County Approach to DREIR

As discussed above in Section 1.1.3, Judicial Decisions determined that only limited

portions of the Final EIR were inadequate. The County and the EIR author have

accepted the direction of the Appellate Court, and the subsequent Writ issued by the

Trial Court, as set forth in the Judicial Decisions. This DREIR will address the

deficiencies outlined above, minor revisions in background conditions and components

of the Project. Based on a review of the previously circulated FEIR, the County

determined to evaluate those issues outlined in the Judicial Decisions, any changes to

the Project which resulted from the studies undertaken to address the Judicial Decisions

and anything mandated by changed legislation, such as the Project’s impacts on

greenhouse gas emissions. Other sections of the FEIR which were found to be adequate

in the Judicial Decisions are anticipated to be largely left intact.

On December 23, 2008, the County circulated a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Revised

Environmental Impact and Notice of Scoping Meeting. A scoping meeting was held on

January 16, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Coarsegold Community Center. A brief summary of

the NOP and Scoping Process is provided below.

Notice of Preparation

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was distributed to the State

Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, interested groups and individuals, and

surrounding property owners on December 23, 2008, for a 30‐day comment

period. Copies of the NOP and mailing list are included in Appendix B‐1, Notice

of Preparation and Mailing List. One‐hundred and thirty letters were received in



response to the NOP and are included as Appendix B‐2, Written NOP and

Scoping Comments.

The NOP advised:

“The Court of Appeal concluded that there were deficiencies regarding

specified EIR’s hydrology mitigation measures, traffic mitigation

measures cumulative noise impact evaluation, cumulative impact

evaluation, and whether SB 610 was applicable to hydrology mitigation

measures.

A summary of the Final EIR’s impact evaluations and mitigation

measures are provided in Table S‐1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation

Measures Attachment A, hereto. However, based on the Court of Appeal’s

decision discussed above, the nature and extent of impacts and mitigation

will be updated consistent with the decision in the revised EIR, and

therefore could be different than provided in Attachment A.”

The Court of Appeal determined that many of the sections of the EIR were not

defective. It was expected that any comments would be limited to areas noted by

the Court of Appeal to be deficient in the EIR, or matters of changed

circumstance or law (i.e., AB 32, mandatory greenhouse gas analysis). Based on

a review of comments submitted during the NOP review period, aside from

addressing changes discussed above, the County has determined that the

previously circulated EIR adequately addresses NOP comments and this DREIR

will not address comments that address matters 1) not raised by the Project

Opponents in the Superior Court and Court of Appeal, and 2) for which the

courts determined either the EIR to be adequate and/or the actions of the Madera

Board of Supervisors to be proper. At the time of the Scoping meeting, the

Amended Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate had not yet been

entered, but it incorporated the directions of the Court of Appeal.

Public Scoping Meeting

A Public Scoping Meeting was held at 6:00 p.m. on January 16, 2009 at the

Coarsegold Community Center in Coarsegold, California. The EIR Consultant

described the Project. County staff and its EIR Consultant then solicited public

comments and concerns to be considered in the analysis for this EIR. Thirty‐four

people signed the attendance list, and approximately 80 people attended.



Written comments were accepted from governmental agencies, a non‐profit

organization and various private parties.

DREIR Scope

The Judicial Decisions outlined those matters of which this DREIR would need to

adequately address to comply with CEQA requirements. Based on a review of

the previously circulated FEIR, the County determined to evaluate the issues

outlined in the Judicial Decisions as well as the Project’s impacts on greenhouse

gas emissions. An overview of the scoping process completed for this Project is

provided in Sections 1.1.6 and 1.1.7.

This DREIR contains the following sections:

Summary (substantially revised since the FEIR);

Section 1.0: Introduction (superseding 2006 DEIR);

Section 2.0: Revisions to Project Description in Response to Judicial

Decisions, Entitlements, and Contracts Subsequent to the FEIR

(amendment to DEIR and FEIR);

Section 3.1: Revisions to Hydrology and Water Quality Section in

Response to Judicial Decisions (replaced previous version);

Section 3.2: Revisions to Noise and Vibration Section in Response to

Judicial Decisions (replaced previous version);

Section 3.3: Revisions to Traffic Section in Response to Judicial Decisions

(replaced previous version);

Section 4.0: New Legislative Mandate; and

Section 5.0: List of Preparers.

Impacts Found to be Significant and Unavoidable

After applying CEQA standards of significance to the entire range of adverse impacts

that would result from implementation of the Project, 7 significant and unavoidable

impacts have been identified through systematic analysis of potential Project effects.

These impacts are related to air quality (2), off‐site traffic noise (2), land use, and

traffic (2).

Air quality emissions from the Project will contribute to a net increase of criteria

pollutants including NOX and ROG within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Engine



exhaust emissions will contribute to the net increase in criteria pollutants, including

NOx and ROG. The Project would generate criteria pollutants that would result in

levels of NOX and PM10 emissions exceeding the threshold of significance established by

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Therefore, this air quality

impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, as project‐specific impacts related to the criteria pollutants of NOx and

PM10 exceed applicable thresholds of significance, it is anticipated that impacts related

to NOx and PM10 will be cumulatively considerable. While mitigation will be

incorporated to reduce such impacts, cumulative air quality impacts are still considered

to be significant and unavoidable.

There is one residence identified adjacent to Road 209 between Highway 41 and the

Project site. This residence will be exposed to a project‐related traffic noise level

increase of approximately 16 dB Ldn following commencement of operations at the

Project site. Mitigation measures have been identified that may reduce this impact to

below a level of significance. However, it is not possible to state with certainty that the

property owner will use the funds to mitigate any noise impacts. To the extent the

owner of the residence located approximately 300 feet from the centerline of CR 209

chooses not to spend the money for the purposes for which it was intended, the impact

would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Project could be inconsistent with the Noise Element of the Madera County General

Plan. The Noise Element, of the General Plan, establishes standards to protect the

public from harmful noise levels. General Plan Policy 7.A.2 requires that transportation

noise sources be mitigated so as not to exceed 60dB Ldn within outdoor activity areas

and 45 dB Ldn in interior spaces of existing or planned noise sensitive land uses. Project

traffic is expected to exceed this standard at one existing residence on County Road 209.

All feasible mitigation will be incorporated into the Project to meet the County’s

standards. It is unknown at this time whether such noise impacts will be reduced to a

less than significant level. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and

unavoidable.

The Project will exacerbate an existing substandard LOS at the intersection of SR 41 and

Avenue 15. There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the Project’s impact at

the intersection of SR 41 and Avenue 15. Installation of all‐way stop control is not

feasible due to the significant delays that would result on SR 41. The addition of lanes

is not feasible since it would not alleviate the delays for stop‐controlled vehicles turning

across traffic from Avenue 15 to SR 41. Finally, traffic signal warrants are not clearly



satisfied and would cause new delays on the SR 41 mainline, rendering the installation

of traffic signals an infeasible mitigation. Therefore, this impact is considered

significant and unavoidable. Eventually, as traffic volumes in the region increase as a

result of further development, warrants for traffic signals are expected to be satisfied

and traffic signals will be required to be installed by future development projects. The

Project can mitigate its equitable share of the impact with payment of an equitable share

contribution as discussed later in this report. The Project might also be subject to the

Fee Program, discussed in the Introduction. At locations other than the intersection of

SR 41 and Avenue 15, the impact of the projected Project traffic is less than significant.

To mitigate the impacts of traffic, County and Applicant have entered into the Road

Construction, Maintenance and Reimbursement Agreement, Madera County Contract

No. 8511‐C‐2008 (see Appendix P). This Agreement obligates MQI to pay the costs of

reconstructing and maintaining 209 (subject to the right of partial reimbursement

should County create an “Area of Benefit” whereby properties generating traffic having

a per‐vehicle certified gross vehicle weight of 80,000 lbs or greater, will be assessed their

fair share of costs). In addition the agreement obligates MQI to pay $0.05 per ton of

shipped material toward road maintenance costs for roads other than 209.

The Agreement fully mitigates the impacts to reconstruct, repair and maintain 209.

However, as to any other roads impacted by the Project, as the County is required to

give ‘primary consideration’ to spending these maintenance funds on roads in the area,

but is not required to do so, the wear and tear impact on local roads, other than 209,

remains significant and unavoidable.

The Applicant shall contribute an equitable share of the cost of construction of future

improvements as required under the Fee Program (if applicable), which is attached in

Appendix N to the DREIR. If the Fee Program is not applicable, equitable share

percentages are presented in the traffic impact study included in Appendix D. Cost

estimates for improvements shall be provided by Caltrans or Madera County.

The Project will contribute traffic to cumulative significant impacts to road segments

that will require equitable fair share regarding the following mitigations:

SR 41 between Road 209 and Road 406: widen to four lanes;

SR 41 between SR 145 and Road 209: widen to four lanes;

SR 41 between Avenue 15 and SR 145: convert to four‐lane freeway;



SR 41 between Avenue 12 and Avenue 15: convert to four‐lane freeway; and

SR 145 between SR 41 and Road 400: widen to four lanes.

All of these improvements have been identified in the County’s recently adopted Fee

Program (Appendix N, see Tables 1, 2, and 3). The County is committed to ensuring

that those improvements coincide with the Project’s anticipated contribution to traffic

on these segments, to the extent feasible.

If mitigation measures are implemented, this impact will be less than significant.

However, it cannot be determined at this time whether these measures will be fully

funded; therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Detailed evaluations were completed for a wide array of environmental issues

identified for study through the scoping process. The previous EIR evaluated each

potential impact to the environmental resources, identified significance relative to

established standards, and determines appropriate mitigation as necessary to avoid

impacts or reduce them to less than significant levels. As discussed above, the DREIR

evaluated those impact results from Changes to the Project, the Judicial Decisions, and

New Legislative Mandate regarding greenhouse gases. Table S‐1, Summary of Impacts

and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the results of these evaluations. Changes that

have been made to the Impacts and Mitigation Measures in the DREIR to the prior

Impacts and Mitigation Measures are shown as underlined (new text) and strike‐out

(deleted text).



TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Level of Significance

Impacts and Mitigation Measures Before

Mitigation After

Mitigation AESTHETICS Impact 3.2-1: The Project Could Have an Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1

To minimize an engineered appearance, final slopes of the high wall at the

north wall of the Quarry shall not be graded to a uniformly flat surface. A

plan shall be submitted showing areas of planned aggregate material

removal from the north wall of the Quarry slopes and showing the

proposed mined surface and the rock material to remain in place. A plan

shall be submitted to the Planning Director sixty (60) days before

operations begin and material is removed from the North Wall. The Plan

shall include a written description of areas planned for aggregate removal,

operation and final slopes, areas to remain in place, and a graphical

depiction of final slopes. Operations shall not begin on the North Wall

until the Operator has received approval from the Planning Director.

LS LS

Impact 3.2-2: Proposed Mining and Processing Operations Could Result in Both Temporary and Permanent Alteration of the Visual Quality or Character of the Site and its Surroundings

Mitigation Measures 3.2‐2a

All processing facilities and asphalt silos shall be painted to conform to the

color of the existing environment. All colors and materials shall be subject

to review and approval by the Planning Director. The processing plant

and associated facilities shall maintain the designated color throughout the

life of the mine.

Mitigation Measures 3.2‐2b

To blend with the rural character of the site, the office and storage tanks

shall be painted an earthtone color blending with the natural environment.

All colors and materials shall be subject to review and approval by the

Planning Director. The colors shall be submitted to the Planning director

for approval 60 days before construction or placement of the silos, office,

and storage tanks.

Mitigation Measures 3.2‐2c

Upon inspection by the County, if it is determined the approved paint has

deteriorated to a point where the underlying material or base paint is

visible, the Applicant shall repaint that portion of the structure or the

entire structure depending on the severity of the deterioration with the

approved paint color.

PS LS






Mitigation After

Mitigation Impact 3.2-3: The Project Could Result in Extended Lighting from Nighttime Loading and Hauling

Operations Mitigation Measure 3.2‐3

Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in a manner such that

glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel, and

shall be hooded and directed downward and away from adjoining

properties and public rights‐of‐way. The use of blinking, flashing or

unusually high intensity or bright lights shall not be allowed. All lighting

fixtures shall be appropriate to the use they are serving, in scale, intensity

and height. Further, all exterior lighting will be designed, installed and

operated as required by the Planning Director. Lighting plans and design

shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval 60 days prior to

installation and use of exterior lighting fixtures on the Project site.

PS LS

Impact 3.2-4: The Project, in Combination with other Cumulative Development, could Contribute to an Alteration of the Visual Character of the Project Site, and to Visual Incompatibility with Surrounding Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project Site

None required. LS LS

Impact 3.2-5: The Project, in Combination with other Cumulative Development, could have a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista

See Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1. LS LS

Impact 3.2-6: The Project, in Combination with other Cumulative Development, could Create Nighttime Light and Glare that may Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area


AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.3-1: Conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide

Importance None required. LS LS

Impact 3.3-2: The Project Could Be Inconsistent With Agricultural General Plan Policies and Agricultural Zoning


Impact 3.3-3: The Project Would Contribute to the Premature Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract

Mitigation Measure 3.3‐3

The Applicant shall rescind Land Conservation Contract Number 2350‐C‐

76 in accordance with Government Code §§ 51256, 512561 and 51282 and

simultaneously place the conservation easement parcel under a

conservation easement.

On October 24, 2006, pursuant to Board of Supervisor’s Resolution No.

2006‐225, the County approved a cancellation of the Williamson Act

contract on a 52.29‐acre portion of the Project site. The balance of the

Project site remains subject to a Williamson Act Contract, for which a

Notice of Non‐Renewal was recorded on November 29, 2003, and

therefore, on March 1, 2014, the balance of the property will no longer be

encumbered by the Williamson Act contract. In addition, on August 28,

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation 2008, the California Department of Conservation entered into a Williamson

Act Cancellation Agreement with the Applicant and notified Madera

County of the Agreement and the agreed valuation (see Appendix E).

Impact 3.3-4: Changes in the Environment That Could Adversely Affect the Productivity of Agricultural Lands

Dust Emissions

See Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5a through 3.4‐5q

Stormwater Runoff

See Mitigation Measures 3.9‐5a and 3.9‐5b

Groundwater

See Mitigation Measures 3.9‐5a and 3.9‐5b

PS LS

Impact 3.3-5: The Project, In Combination with Other Cumulative Development, Could Result in the Conversion of Agricultural Lands

See Mitigation Measures 3.3‐3, 3.4‐5a through 3.4‐5q, 3.9‐5a, and 3.9‐5b PS LS

AIR QUALITY Impact 3.4-1: The Project Could Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air

Quality Plans as Provided in the SJVUAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts


Impact 3.4-2: The Project Could Violate Air Quality Standards or Contribute Substantially to Existing or Projected Air Quality Violations for ROG, NOx Emissions

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2a

The asphalt plant shall meet Best Available Control Technology (BACT),

including incorporating a low NOx burner with flue gas recirculation, or

meeting any more stringent requirement of the SJVUAPCD’s Rules and

Regulations, including achieving the lowest achievable emission rate for

propane‐fueled asphalt plants of a similar BTU rating. The purpose of this

mitigation measure is to ensure that assumptions used to estimate Project

emissions are incorporated into the Project, and to ensure that the Project

reduces combustion emissions to the extent feasible. The Applicant shall

demonstrate compliance by submitting a copy of the Authority to

Construct permit to the Planning Director within 30 days of receipt.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2b

A fabric filter shall be installed to control PM10 emissions from the asphalt

batch plant and meet the BACT requirements of the SJVUAPCD. The

purpose of this mitigation measure is to ensure that assumptions used to

estimate Project emissions are incorporated into the Project, and to ensure

that the Project reduces PM10 emissions to the extent feasible. The

Applicant shall demonstrate compliance by submitting a copy of the

Authority to Construct permit to the Planning Director within 30 days of

receipt.

SU SU





Mitigation After

Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2c

A pollution control system that controls fugitive emissions from the silos

on the asphalt batch plant during silo filling operations shall be installed.

The purpose of this mitigation measure is to ensure that assumptions used

to estimate Project emissions are incorporated into the Project, and to

ensure that the Project reduces PM10 emissions to the extent feasible. The

Applicant shall demonstrate compliance by submitting the Authority to

Construct to the Planning Director within 30 days of receipt.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2d

CARB diesel fuel shall be used for all vehicles. The purpose of this


emissions are incorporated into the Project, and to ensure that the Project

reduces combustion emissions to the extent feasible. The Applicant shall

maintain records of all fuel purchases, and submit certification of

compliance in writing to the Planning Director annually. Records shall be

maintained for five years and provided to the Planning Director upon

request.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2e

The Operator shall obtain emission offsets for stationary source emissions

over the applicable emissions offset thresholds for the SJVUAPCD. The

Operator shall obtain emission offsets from a location near the project site

or considered acceptable by the SJVUAPCD. The purpose of this


emissions are incorporated into the Project. The Applicant shall

demonstrate compliance by submitting the Authority to Construct to the

Planning Director within 30 days of receipt.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2f

The Operator shall only use heavy‐duty off road equipment (such as

bulldozers) that meet vehicle emissions standards in effect at the time of

issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the Madera County Planning

and Building Inspection Department. The purpose of this mitigation

measure is to ensure that assumptions used to estimate Project emissions

are incorporated into the Project, and to ensure that the Project reduces

combustion emissions to the extent feasible. The Operator shall submit a

vehicle inventory and submit certification of compliance in writing to the

Planning Director annually.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2g

All vehicles shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’

recommendations, and all stationary equipment maintained in compliance

with emissions limitations established by a permit issued by the





Mitigation After

Mitigation SJVUAPCD. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to ensure that

assumptions used to estimate Project emissions are incorporated into the

Project, and to ensure that the Project reduces combustion emissions to the

extent feasible. The Applicant shall maintain records of equipment

maintenance activities, and submit certification of compliance in writing to

the Planning Director annually. Records shall be maintained for five years

and provided to the Planning Director upon request.

Impact 3.4-3: The Project Could Increase CO Concentrations Above the Applicable Standard for CO Emissions


Impact 3.4-4: The Project Could Have the Potential to Expose the Public to Toxic Air Contaminants None required. LS LS

Impact 3.4-5: The Project Could Generate Additional PM10 Emissions from Fugitive Dust Emissions and Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations


All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively

utilized for mining or processing purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of

dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with

a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.


All on‐site unpaved roads and off‐site unpaved access roads shall be

effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical

stabilizer/suppressant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5c

All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading,

cut and fill activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust

emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.


When materials are transported off‐site, all material shall be covered, or

effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of

freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.


All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of

mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The

use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or

accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use

of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5f

Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from,

the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized

of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical

stabilizer/suppressant.


Trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet

from the site and at the end of each workday.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5h

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5i

Install erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways

from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5j

Suspend excavation activity when winds exceed 20 mph.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5k

Regardless of windspeed, Applicant must comply with Regulation VIII’s

20 percent opacity limitation.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5l

Use of alternative fueled or catalyst equipped diesel construction

equipment, as feasible.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5m

Minimize idling time (i.e., 10 minute maximum).

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5n

To the extent practicable, limit the hours of operation of heavy‐duty

equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use.

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5o

If feasible, replace fossil‐fueled equipment with electrically driven

equivalents (provided they are not run via a portable generator set).

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5p

Curtail excavation activities during periods of high ambient pollutant

concentrations; this may include ceasing of excavation activity during the

peak‐hour of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways.





Mitigation After

Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5q

Implement activity management (e.g. rescheduling activities to reduce

short‐term impacts).

Impact 3.4-6: The Project Could Create or Subject Sensitive Receptors to an Objectionable Odor Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6

Prior to constructing the asphaltic batch plant, the Applicant shall obtain

permits to construction and operate from the San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District and incorporate best available control

technology (BACT) in accordance with SJVUAPCD regulations Toxic Air

Contaminants. These BACT’s may include the installation of blue smoke

filters.

PS LS

Impact 3.4-7: The Project-Related Traffic, in Conjunction with Other Cumulative Development, Could Increase CO Levels at Local Intersections


Impact 3.4-8: Implementation of the Project, in Combination with Other Projects, Could Result in an Increased Toxic Air Contaminant Risk Level for Sensitive Receptors


Impact 3.4-9: Project Emissions, in Combination with Other Development in the County, Could Contribute to the Degradation of Air Quality

See Mitigation Measures 3.4‐2a through 3.4‐2g, 3.4‐5a through 3.4‐5q, and

3.4‐6.

SU SU

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 3.5-1: Implementation of the Project could Result in the Loss of Valley Elderberry Longhorn

Beetle and their Habitat Mitigation Measure 3.5‐1

Prior to any ground disturbing activities within the 100 foot buffer zone,

the Applicant or their representative shall initiate consultation pursuant to

the Federal Endangered Species Act with USFWS. Section 7 Consultation

shall occur if the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is involved with

this Project through a section 404 permit. Section 10 Consultation will be

required if there is no ACOE involvement with this Project. Specific

mitigation measures on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle will be

developed during this process, but may include the following:

A qualified biologist shall survey all Elderberry shrubs with one or

stems measuring one inch or greater in diameter at ground level for

the presence of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle and beetle

exit holes.

Elderberry shrubs with one or more stems measuring one inch in

diameter must be transplanted if they cannot be avoided.

Each Elderberry stem measuring one inch in diameter or greater at

ground level that is adversely affected (transplanted or destroyed)

must be replaced, in the conservation area, with Elderberry

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation seedlings or cuttings at a ration designated in the 1999 USFWS

Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.

Elderberry plants with no stems measuring one inch or greater in

diameter at ground level may be removed with mitigation.

These matters are addressed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404

Permit, dated January 12, 2009, 2005‐673 (See Appendix H), which

incorporates provisions of the July 1, 2008 U.S. Department of Interior Fish

& Wildlife Service Biological Opinion.

Impact 3.5-2: Implementation of the Project could Result in the Loss of the special status plant species Ewan’s Larkspur


The Operator shall implement an education program for all on‐site

personnel. Prior to commencement of operations on the site and thereafter

on an annual basis, training shall include: a) how to identify sensitive

biological resources likely to be found on the site and b) how to implement

appropriate measures to protect said resources. The Operator shall

maintain a record of compliance with this mitigation measure and submit

annually a record of compliance to the Madera County Planning

Department.


The Operator shall retain a qualified botanist to map and quantify

populations of special status plant species located within areas that would

be disturbed during the subsequent five‐year period. Surveys have been

conducted during the appropriate season and three known populations of

Ewan’s larkspur (two adjacent to County Road 209 and one located

adjacent to the proposed mine access road) have been mapped. Cover and

density data shall be collected prior to disturbance and these populations

shall be transplanted to a similar habitat in the proposed Conservation

Easement parcel in consultation with the California Native Plant Society

and CDFG. The Operator shall monitor and document the success of

transplantation for five years. These data shall be included in the annual

and five‐year monitoring reports, required in Mitigation Measures 3.5‐34a

and b, to be submitted to the Madera County Planning Department.

PS LS

Impact 3.5-3: Direct and Indirect Impacts to the Western Pond Turtle and other Listed Reptiles and Amphibians


A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted three

days prior to the onset of construction activities in Hildreth Creek and

every subsequent day while activities occur in Hildreth Creek. The survey

area shall encompass a 100‐foot radius of the area to be effected. If juvenile

or adult turtles are found within the survey area, the individuals should be

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation moved at least 500 feet downstream in suitable habitat. If a turtle nest is

found within the survey area, construction activities shall not take place

within 30 meters (100 feet) of the nest until the turtles have hatched, or the

eggs have been moved to an appropriate location. Furthermore, one‐way

barrier fencing shall be constructed within 100 feet of Hildreth Creek to

prevent turtles from moving into the construction area to nest, hibernate,

or aestivate, while allowing turtles already in the construction area to

move back to water. Placement of the fencing shall occur during mid‐

summer in the year prior to construction activities being initiated if

schedule allows (i.e., some activities such as construction of the new arch

culvert and lengthening of the culvert 1.5 miles south of the mine entrance

may occur during year 2006, precluding placement of the fencing during

the prior summer.

Impact 3.5-4: Direct and Indirect Impacts to the Golden Eagle and its Habitat Mitigation Measure 3.5‐4a

Prior to the commencement of construction or quarry activities within 0.25

mile of any cliffs or escarpments located on or adjacent to the Project site,

the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a raptor survey

of potential nesting sites. Surveys shall be conducted within the nesting

season (January‐August) and no more than 30 days prior to

commencement of activities. If an active nest is found to be present, the

Applicant shall confer with CDFG to establish an avoidance and

monitoring program.


If any raptor nests are observed, the Applicant shall maintain a 0.25 mile

buffer area around the nest. No construction, operation of heavy

equipment, machinery, mining, or blasting shall take place within the 0.25

mile buffer until the biologist has determined that all young have fledged,

are capable of foraging independently, or the nest has been abandoned.

PS LS

Impact 3.5-5: Direct and Indirect Impacts to the Red Tail Hawk and its Habitat None required. LS LS

Impact 3.5-6: Direct and Indirect Impacts to the Merlin None required. LS LS

Impact 3.5-7: Direct and Indirect Impacts to Protected Species of Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure 3.5‐7

Tree removal shall not occur during the nesting season (March through

August). If tree removal is planned during the nesting season (March

through August), the Applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct

preconstruction surveys for nesting and feeding areas raptors, migratory

bird species, and other wildlife species no more than thirty (30) days prior

to construction in or removal of areas containing Blue or Interior Live

Oaks. The surveys shall be conducted during the nesting season (March

through August). If any protected species are observed, the qualified

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation biologist, shall recommend a buffer area around the nest. No construction,

operation of heavy equipment, machinery, mining, or blasting shall take

place within the buffer until the biologist has determined that all young

have fledged and are capable of foraging independently. The buffer area

shall be delineated with orange construction fencing.

Impact 3.5-8: Direct and Indirect Impacts to Protected Species of Migratory Birds See Mitigation Measure 3.5‐7. PS LS

Impact 3.5-9: Direct or Indirect Impacts to Upland Habitat Areas Adjacent to Wetlands and Riparian Areas that are Critical to the Feeding and Nesting of Wildlife Species

See Mitigation Measure 3.5‐7 and Mitigation 3.3‐3. PS LS

Impact 3.5-10: Direct or Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Plants not Observed Within the Project Site During the Biological Assessments


Impact 3.5-11: Direct and Impact Impacts to “Waters of the U.S.” Located Within the Project Site Mitigation Measure 3.5‐11a

The appropriate Clean Water Act section 404 permit shall be obtained from

the ACOE prior to the discharge of any dredged or fill material within

jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the U.S. The Project shall comply with

any compensatory mitigation for loss of wetlands and waters of the U.S.

required by the ACOE.

These matters are addressed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404

Permit, dated January 12, 2009, 2005‐673, under its Special Condition 3

(see Appendix H).


Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification shall be obtained

from the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to Project

construction.

See the CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section 401 Water

Quality Certification, dated July 17, 2008 (see Appendix K).


Notification of Streambed Alteration shall be submitted to the California

Department of Fish and Game and a Streambed Alteration Agreement

shall be obtained prior to any modification of drainage channels.

See the CA Department of Fish & Game Section 1602 Stream Alteration

Agreement No. 2007‐0209‐R4, Hildreth Creek ‐ Madera County, dated June

13, 2008 (see Appendix L).

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.5‐11d

Construction activities that will impact drainages and other waters of the

U.S. shall be conducted during the dry season (typically May to

November) to minimize erosion.


Appropriate sediment control measures shall be in place prior to the onset

of Project construction and shall be monitored and maintained until

construction activities have ceased. Temporary stockpiling of excavated or

imported material shall occur only in approved construction staging areas.

Excess excavated soil shall be used on site or disposed of at a regional

landfill or other appropriate facility. Stockpiles that are to remain on the

site through the wet season shall be protected to prevent erosion (e.g. silt

fences, straw bales).

Stormwater runoff and erosion from overburden and aggregate stockpiles,

quarrying areas, construction activities, and any other ground disturbing

activities shall be controlled through the implementation of a program of

erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) and engineered

sediment control structures. Erosion control BMPs may include, but are

not limited to, the application of straw mulch; seeding with fast growing

grasses; and the construction of berms, silt fences, hay bale dikes,

stormwater detention basins, and other energy dissipaters.


The Applicant will create riparian protection zones, including the bed and

bank of both low and high flow channels and associate riparian vegetation,

surrounding Hildreth creek and drainages within the Project site. The

buffers, as measured from the top of the bank of unvegetated channels,

will be 100 feet in width and 50 feet in width as measured from the outer

edge from canopy of riparian vegetation. Impacts to riparian habitat shall

also be mitigated on a 3‐to‐1 basis consistent with Madera County General

Plan Policy. (See Madera County General Plan policy 5.D.4.)


If Mitigation Measure 3.5‐11f is not feasible (i.e., in areas where the Project

encroaches within 100 feet of the creek bank), the Operator shall replace or

restore any wetlands, streams or associated vegetation damaged as a result

of Project activities. The Operator shall replace or restore disturbed

wetlands and streams as near to the Project area as feasible on no less than

a 1.2‐to‐1 basis. Future Corps permits or CDFG Streambed Alteration

Agreements may require higher replacement ratios. Prior to disturbance of

any wetlands or streambeds, the Operator shall submit a restoration plan.

The Plan shall be consistent with any required Corps permits and CDFG





Mitigation After

Mitigation Streambed Alteration Agreements. The compensatory wetlands/

streambeds shall be constructed, per the requirements of the submitted

Restoration Plan, as soon as possible, but no later than one year after the

disturbance occurs, unless a qualified biologist determines that this will

not be feasible and proposes an alternative timeframe acceptable to the

Director of the Madera County Planning Department. Compensatory

wetlands/streambeds shall be similar in scope and biological complexity to

the original wetlands/streams. The design and construction of these

wetlands shall be performed under the supervision of a qualified biologist

or wetlands restoration specialist. Compensatory wetlands shall be

monitored by a qualified biologist or wetlands restoration specialist for a

period of up to five years or until it is determined by said biologist or

restoration specialist that restoration is complete and self‐sustaining. The

Operator shall be responsible for all restoration and monitoring costs. (See

Madera County General Plan policy 5.D.6.)

Impact 3.5-12: Over The Projected 53-Year Life of the Project, it is Estimated 993 Trees will be Removed as a Result of Quarry and Construction Activities


Removal of oak trees shall limited to the minimum number as feasible,

defined more specifically as those trees occurring within the direct impact

area of the Quarry, plant site, and roads associated with the mine

construction and operation. Trees outside of the direct impact zone shall

be protected.


To protect oak trees intended to remain undisturbed during vegetation

clearing, a 4‐foot‐tall, brightly colored (usually orange or yellow),

temporary fence shall be installed at a distance of 1.5 times the distance

from the trunk to the outer extent of the canopy or drip line of the tree. No

encroachment into the fenced areas shall be permitted and fencing shall

remain in place until all vegetation‐clearing activities have ceased.


Any tree roots to be severed should be the maximum distance from the

trunk. Any roots over one inch in diameter that are damaged as a result of

construction activities should be traced back and cleanly cut behind any

split, cracked, or damaged area.


Oak trees to be removed shall be replaced according to an oak tree

replacement program developed by a qualified International Society of

Arboriculture Certified Arborist. An oak tree replacement assessment and

plan for the Madera Ranch Project is included as Appendix D of the FEIR,

and recommendations developed therein shall be adhered to and shall

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation include the establishment (i.e. planting, monitoring, maintenance) of native

oak trees in the proposed 132 acre Conservation Easement parcel discussed

in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR at a ratio of 2.7 to 1 of planted and preserved

trees to trees removed as a result of Project activities.

Impact 3.5-13: Quarry and Construction Activities will Disturb Cumulatively Approximately 130 Acres of Vegetation Over the 53-Year Life of the Project


CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.6-1: Disturbance of Subsurface Archaeological, Historic, or Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.6‐1a

The Applicant shall train field personnel in identification procedures, prior

to implementing the quarry operation. The training materials shall be

prepared by a professional archaeologist and shall provide a review of the

natural and cultural history of the Project area, archaeological sensitivity,

most likely locations of buried cultural materials, and specific instructions

on how to address such discoveries and what immediate actions to take in

the event that materials are, in fact, unearthed. Instructional materials or

artifacts are to be kept on‐site and under direction of identified specific

individuals. Part of the annual report shall identify the responsible

individuals.


If buried resources, such as chipped stone, historic debris, building

foundations, or human bone are inadvertently discovered during ground‐

disturbing activities, work should stop in that area and within 100 feet of

the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the

find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in

consultation with appropriate agencies.

LS LS

Impact 3.6-2: The Project Could Disturb Human Remains Mitigation Measure 3.6‐2

If human remains are discovered during Project construction, work will

stop at the discovery location and any nearby area reasonably suspected to

overlie adjacent to human remains (Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5).

The Madera County coroner will be contacted to determine if the cause of

death must be investigated.

If the coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, it

is necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native

American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public

Resources Code, Section 5097). The coroner will contact the NAHC. The

descendants or most likely descendants of the deceased will be contacted,

and work will not resume until they have made a recommendation to the

landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of

treating and disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains

LS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code,

Section 5097.98. Work may resume if NAHC is unable to identify a

descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation.

Impact 3.6-3: The Project, in Conjunction with the Expected Future Buildout in Madera County, could Significantly Impact Historic, Archaeological, Paleontological, Geologic or Human Resources


GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 3.7-1: Ground Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault or Liquefaction None required. LS LS

Impact 3.7-2: Ground Shaking None required. LS LS

Impact 3.7-3: Erosion and the Loss of Topsoil See Mitigation Measures3.5‐11a through 3.5‐11g PS LS

Impact 3.7-4: Landslide and Slope Stability Mitigation Measure 3.7‐4

The purpose of this mitigation measure is to ensure that the Project will not

create unstable slopes that could adversely affect neighboring properties,

reclamation of the site, or endanger quarry employees. An engineering

geologist, meeting Madera County qualification requirements, shall be

retained, at the Applicant’s expense, to implement a slope stability

monitoring and testing program. This program shall be implemented

concurrent with the initiation of Phase 2 quarrying. Said geologist shall

evaluate the stability of each quarry face, prior to the operator proceeding

to the next face. Further quarrying below the existing bench shall not be

allowed until evidence, meeting the satisfaction of the Planning Director, is

submitted that demonstrates that the proposed final slopes of 1:1 will be

globally stable. If the evidence is inconclusive, quarrying shall only

proceed in a manner that allows final reclamation slopes of an overall

slope angle not to exceed 2:1 (overall slope is the combined average slope

of benches and faces). This mitigation measure shall remain in effect for the

life of the Project or until the Planning Director, based upon substantial

evidence, determines that additional monitoring is no longer warranted.

PS LS

Impact 3.7-5: Expansive Soil None required. LS LS

Impact 3.7-6: The Project, In Combination with Other Cumulative Projects, Could Result in Soil Erosion

See Mitigation Measures 3.5‐11a through 3.5‐11g PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 3.8-1: The Project Could Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment Mitigation Measure 3.8‐1a

The Applicant will use above ground storage tanks that have been

approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency when storing all

petroleum products and other regulated substances. The above ground

tanks shall be double walled and meet all ballistic and flame impingement

requirements in CFC Article 79. The containment structures shall not be

equipped with any valves or drains.


Project site equipment and servicing materials shall be maintained in a

neat and orderly manner to aid in accounting for and detecting potential

sources of contamination. Non‐functional equipment, scrap metal,

construction debris (other than material intended for use in the recycling

plant), used batteries and tires, and similar objects shall be removed from

the site on a regular basis and disposed of at appropriately licensed

facilities. Spare equipment such as heavy equipment parts, conveyor belts,

tires and other replacement or extra equipment pieces, shall be stored

indoors whenever possible to avoid surface water contamination. Spare

parts containing petroleum products (i.e., lubricants, hydraulic oil, etc.)

shall be stored using Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to prevent

contamination of soil or storm water runoff. Storage areas shall be

inspected by the Operator monthly. Any petroleum leaks shall be

documented and cleaned up. Leaking equipment shall be repaired.

Inspection and monitoring documentation shall be retained for a minimum

of five years and be available to County staff during site inspections.


An impervious concrete washout area shall be used to collect washout

from haul trucks. The silts and mud from the washout shall be recycled.

Only the designated washout area shall be used for this purpose. The

washout area shall be constructed in such a manner that storm water,

beyond the immediate washout area, shall not flow into or out of this

facility. It shall be of adequate size to contain all washout material plus the

maximum amount of rain expected to fall in a three‐day period. Trucks

shall not track washout material beyond the impervious containment area.


All delivery, maintenance, and repair trucks containing petroleum

products will be required to comply with the Department of

Transportations regulations for transport of hazardous materials. All

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation trucks carrying petroleum products will be equipped with quick connect

couplings and automatic shut‐off valves to prevent spills, and will carry

appropriate absorbent materials to contain and recover spillage.


A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) will be developed for

the Project site to address the potential hazards to the public and

environment associated with the transport, use or storage of these

hazardous materials. The Business Plan will be submitted to the Madera

County Environmental Health Division and Madera County Fire

Department for approval.

Business identification form that provides information of the

Applicant, type of business, and contact persons for the Project

site;

A Chemical Inventory that lists the names, uses, forms, quantities,

storage locations, and physical and health categories of the

chemicals stored on‐site; and

Emergency Response Plan and Procedures, including:

‐ Notification procedures in the event of a release of hazardous

material that causes a present or potential hazard to public

health or the environment

‐ Procedures for mitigation the release or potential release of

hazardous materials to minimize the harm or damage to

persons, property, or environment

‐ Creation, training and implementation of evacuation plans and

procedures

‐ Detailed facility map.


Spare equipment such as heavy equipment parts, conveyor belts, tires, and

other replacement or extra equipment pieces will be kept within the plant

area. Parts containing or coated with petroleum products will be stored

using Best Management Practices to prevent soil or storm water

contamination. All used oil and similar petroleum products or spent

solvents will be collected and transported in accordance with the

applicable Madera County Department of Environmental Health Services,

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control

Board and Integrated Waste Management Board regulations.


Upon completion of the Project, all hazardous materials and above ground

storage tanks will be removed and the site will be cleaned of hazardous

material as part of the Reclamation Plan.





Mitigation After

Mitigation Impact 3.8-2: The Project Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through the

Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials See Mitigation Measures 3.8‐1(a‐e). PS LS

Impact 3.8-3: The Project Could Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School


Impact 3.8-4: The Project Could Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan


Prior to the initiation of mining or operational activities, the Applicant

shall contact the local Madera County Sheriff, who serves as Madera

County Emergency Services Director,Fire Department regarding an

adopted Emergency Response or Emergency Evacuation plan. The

Applicant shall develop a site specific Emergency Response and

Emergency Evacuation Plan that will be submitted to the Fire Department

for review and approval.

PS LS

Impact 3.8-5: The Project Could Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands are Adjacent to Urbanized Areas or Where Residences Are Intermixed With Wildlands


Maintain around and adjacent to such building or structure a firebreak

made by removing and clearing away, for a distance of not less than 100

feet on each side thereof or to the property line, whichever is nearer, all

flammable vegetation or other combustible growth. This subdivision does

not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar

plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of

rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any building or

structure.


Maintain around and adjacent to any such building or structure additional

fire protection or firebreak made by removing all brush, flammable

vegetation, or combustible growth which is located from 30 feet to 100 feet

from such building or structure or to the property line, whichever is

nearer, as may be required by the director if he finds that, because of extra

hazardous conditions, a firebreak of only 100 feet around such building or

structure is not sufficient to provide reasonable fire safety. Grass and other

vegetation located more than 30 feet from such building or structure and

less than 18 inches in height above the ground may be maintained where

necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.8‐5c

Remove that portion of any tree which extends within 10 feet of the outlet

of any chimney or stovepipe.


Maintain any tree adjacent to or overhanging any building free of dead or

dying wood.


Maintain the roof of any structure free of leaves, needles, or other dead

vegetative growth.


Provide and maintain at all times a screen over the outlet of every chimney

or stovepipe that is attached to any fireplace, stove, or other device that

burns any solid or liquid fuel. The screen shall be constructed of

nonflammable material with openings of not more than one‐half inch in

size.


Except as provided in Section 18930 of the Health and Safety Code, the

director may adopt regulations exempting structures with exteriors

constructed entirely of nonflammable materials, or conditioned upon the

contents and composition of same, he may vary the requirements

respecting the removing or clearing away of flammable vegetation or other

combustible growth with respect to the area surrounding said structures.

No such exemption or variance shall apply unless and until the occupant

thereof, or if there be no occupant, then the owner thereof, files with the

department, in such form as the director shall prescribe, a written consent

to the inspection of the interior and contents of such structure to ascertain

whether the provisions hereof and the regulations adopted hereunder are

complied with at all times.

Impact 3.8-6: The Project Could Have a Cumulative Impact on Public Health and Safety, Hazardous Materials, and Hazardous Waste Management


HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 3.9-1: The Project Could Cause the Water Levels and Pumping Rates in Adjacent Private Wells

to Decline During the Operational Life of the Quarry None required.Mitigation Measure 3.9‐1a

Monitoring of water levels will be conducted by the Applicant on a

semiannual basis for two three‐year periods during the operational life of

the Quarry. The first three‐year period will occur at the beginning of the

Project. The second three‐year period will occur when the rate of Quarry

dewatering exceeds the rate of water production from the wells. Based on

PSLS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation the aquifer test data previously measured at the site (Cleath & Associates,

2001), a three‐year period should be sufficient to identify any potential

effects on the water levels in surrounding wells from Quarry operations.

Semiannual monitoring of water levels will occur in each of the Madera

Ranch wells and in private wells adjacent to the Project boundary for

which the owners agree to participate in the mitigation monitoring

program. An impact will be considered to have occurred if the water level

data in any private declines to a level where insufficient water can be

produced for the normal, pre‐impact uses of the property owner. To

demonstrate an impact, the water‐level decline must be shown to be

related to quarry operations (i.e. groundwater pumping or pit dewaering)

and not related to other outside influences (e.g. drought, increased

pumping by a neighbor, or a subsequent project in the area that also

potentially affects groundwater resources) by a qualified registered

professional. If an impact occurs and is demonstrated to be related to the

Project, then Madera Ranch, Inc. will provide the affected well owner or

well owners with replacement water equivalent to the loss of production in

the private well or wells.

The owner or operator at the time the impact occurs may implement one or

more of the following, as appropriate and at its discretion, to provide the

replacement supply:

1. Rehabilitate or deepen the private well, and/or install a new pump,

to restore the prior pumping rate; or

2. Provide an incremental replacement of water equivalent to the

amount of the reduced rate of pumping by the affected party, by

providing a connection to the water system for the Project; or

3. Provide a full replacement water supply to the affected party by

providing a connection to the water system for the Project.

Based on the previously‐collected aquifer test data (Cleath & Associates,

2001), pumping rates in the Madera Ranch wells may decline some over

time. However, adequate volumes of water will be available from the

existing Madera Ranch wells and/or from future Quarry dewatering to

replace any lost production from adjacent private wells. Due to water‐

quality issues, however, the replacement water can only be used for non‐

consumptive uses, such as landscape irrigation, clothes and car washing,

bathing for adults and similar uses. Water for consumptive uses must

come from the remaining production of the private well or, if inadequate,

through Mitigation Measure 3.9‐1b, described below.





Mitigation After

Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.9‐1b

If Mitigation Measure 3.9‐1a is implemented, and any remaining

production from an affected private well is insufficient for consumptive

uses, then Madera Ranch, Inc. shall provide the affected party, or parties,

with bottled water or potable water from some other source that is verified

to meet state and federal drinking water standards to supply the

consumptive use. Consumptive uses are considered drinking, food

preparation and cooking, and bathing of infants and young children that

may ingest water while bathing.

Impact 3.9-2: The Project Could Cause the Water Levels and Pumping Rates in Adjacent Private Wells to Decline After the Operational Life of the Quarry

None required.Mitigation Measure 3.9‐2a

After the completion of the Quarry operations, the Applicant or then‐

current Operator will conduct monitoring of water levels on a semiannual

basis for a period of three years. Based on the aquifer test data previously

measured at the site (Cleath & Associates, 2001), a three‐year period should

be sufficient to identify any potential effects on the water levels in

surrounding wells after Quarry operations have ceased. The semiannual

monitoring of water levels will occur in any remaining Madera Ranch

wells and in adjacent private wells for which the owners agree to

participate in the mitigation monitoring program. In addition, the

Applicant or subsequent owner will provide a mechanism to provide a

replacement supply of water to a private well owner if an impact is

demonstrated to occur to any private well. An impact will be considered

to have occurred if the water level data in any private declines to a level

where insufficient water can be produced for the normal, pre‐impact uses

of the property owner. To demonstrate an impact, the water‐level decline

must be shown to be exclusively or primarily related to evaporation from

the reclaimed Quarry lake and not related to other outside influences (e.g.

drought, increased pumping by a neighbor, or a subsequent project in the

area that also potentially affects groundwater resources) by a qualified

registered professional. If an impact occurs and is demonstrated to be

related to evaporation from the reclaimed Quarry lake, then Madera

Ranch, Inc. or any subsequent property owner will provide the affected

well owner or well owners with replacement water equivalent to the loss

of production in the private well or wells, or will establish a fund

accessible to the County to provide replacement water, using one of the

following measures, at the Owner’s or Counties discretion:

1. Rehabilitate or deepen the private well, and/or install a new pump, to restore the prior pumping rate; or

2. Provide an incremental replacement of water equivalent to the

amount of the reduced rate of pumping by the affected party, by

providing a connection to the water system for the Project; or

PSLS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation 3. Provide a full replacement water supply to the affected party by

providing a connection to the water system for the Project.

Adequate volumes of water are anticipated to be available from any

remaining Madera Ranch wells or from the future reclaimed Quarry lake

to replace any lost production from adjacent private wells. Due to water‐

quality issues, however, the replacement water can only be used for non‐

consumptive uses, such as landscape irrigation, clothes and car washing,

bathing for adults and similar uses. Water for consumptive uses must

come from the remaining production of the private well or, if inadequate,

through Mitigation Measure 3.9‐2b, described below.


The Applicant shall provide a mechanism such that, if Mitigation Measure

3.9‐2a is implemented, and any remaining production from an affected

private well is insufficient for consumptive uses, then the affected well

owner, or owners, will be provided with bottled water or potable water

from some other source that is verified to meet state and federal drinking

water standards to supply the consumptive use. Consumptive uses are

considered drinking, food preparation and cooking, and bathing of infants

and young children that may ingest water while bathing.

Impact 3.9-3: The Project Could Cause an Increase in Surface-Water Runoff That Could Cause an Increased Potential for Flooding in Areas Downstream of the Quarry During the Operational Life of the Quarry

None required. Mitigation Measure 3.9‐3a

Any increases can be mitigated by diverting a portion of the runoff from

the Plant area into the Mine. The diversion can be effected by placing a

multiport orifice plate in the excavated channel to meter the continuing

flow in the channel to stock pond. An overflow weir can then be set to

divert the excess flow rate in the channel down a pipeline to the Mine.

LSPS LS

Impact 3.9-4: The Project Could Cause an Increase or Decrease in Surface-Water Runoff That Could Affect Areas Downstream of the Quarry After the Operational Life of the Quarry


Impact 3.9-5: The Project Could Cause a Permanent Pond to be Created in the Mine Excavation Area after the Operational Life of the QuarryDegradation of Groundwater and/or Surface-Water Quality


The site is to be reclaimed using native vegetation along with a minimum

of 1 foot of overburden and 4 inches of topsoil shall spread on all benches

and the excavation floor. A performance standard of not more than 22

acre‐feet per year of infiltration, through water‐bearing fractures, will be

monitored by the County.As part of the Project approvals and permitting,

the Applicant shall be required by the Central Valley Regional Water

PS

LS

LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation Quality Control Board to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

to comply with Basin Plan limits for water quality and discharge of

sediment and suspended solids. Compliance with the requirements in the

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, along with Mitigation Measure 3.9‐

5b, will prevent any future degradation of surface‐water quality related to

the Project. To verify compliance with this mitigation measure, the

operator will be required to conduct monitoring and sampling as required

in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The monitoring results must

be reported to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County.


All fuel and chemical storage areas and all equipment maintenance areas

should be placed on bermed concrete surfaces. If the bermed concrete

surfaces drain to a sump, the sump should be cleaned and the waste fluids

handled and disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and

regulations. If the bermed concrete surfaces do not drain to a sump,

routine cleaning should be conducted to prevent the surface from

becoming slippery. The cleaning solutions and wash water should be

handled in the same manner as the sump fluids. Verification of

compliance with this mitigation measure will occur through routine

inspections by the County.

Impact 3.9-6: The Project Could Cause Degradation of Groundwater and/or Surface-Water Quality Mitigation Measure 3.9‐6a

As part of the Project approvals and permitting, the Applicant shall be

required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to

prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to comply with Basin Plan

limits for water quality and discharge of sediment and suspended solids.

Compliance with the requirements in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Plan, along with Mitigation Measure 3.9‐6b, will prevent any future

degradation of surface‐water quality related to the Project. To verify

compliance with this mitigation measure, the operator will be required to

conduct monitoring and sampling as required in the Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan. The monitoring results must be reported to the Regional

Water Quality Control Board and the County.


All fuel and chemical storage areas and all equipment maintenance areas

should be placed on bermed concrete surfaces. If the bermed concrete

surfaces drain to a sump, the sump should be cleaned and the waste fluids

handled and disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and

regulations. If the bermed concrete surfaces do not drain to a sump,

routine cleaning should be conducted to prevent the surface from

becoming slippery. The cleaning solutions and wash water should be

handled in the same manner as the sump fluids. Verification of

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation compliance with this mitigation measure will occur through routine

inspections by the County.

LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact 3.10-1: The Project will not Physically Divide an Established Community None required. LS LS

Impact 3.10-2: The Project may be Inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the Madera County General Plan

See Mitigation Measures 3.3‐3, 3.4‐2 and 3.4‐9 of Air Quality and 3.11‐3 of

Noise and Vibration.

PS LS

Impact 3.10-3: The Project may be Inconsistent with the Transportation and Circulation Element of the Madera County General Plan

See Mitigation Measures 3.12‐1 and 3.12‐2 of the Traffic section of this

Draft EIR.

PS LS

Impact 3.10-4: The Project may be Inconsistent with the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Madera County General Plan


Impact 3.10-5: The Project may be Inconsistent with the Cultural and Recreational Resources Element of the Madera County General Plan

See Mitigation Measure 3.6‐1 of the Cultural Resources section of this Draft

EIR.

PS LS

Impact 3.10-6: The Project may be Inconsistent with the Agricultural and Natural Resources Element of the Madera County General Plan

See Mitigation Measures 3.4‐2 through 3.4‐6 of the Air Quality section of

the Draft, Mitigation Measures 3.5‐11, 3.5‐12, 3.5‐13 of Biological Resources

section of this Draft EIR and Mitigation Measure 3.11‐3 of the Noise and

Vibration section of this Draft EIR.

PS LS

Impact 3.10-7: The Project may be Inconsistent with the Health and Safety Element of the Madera County General Plan

See Mitigation Measure 3.7‐4 of Geology and Soils section of this Draft EIR. PS LS

Impact 3.10-8: The Project may be Inconsistent with the Noise Element of the Madera County General Plan

Mitigation Measure 3.11‐3 SU SU

Impact 3.10-9: The Project may be Inconsistent with O’Neal Area Plan Goals and Policies Mitigation Measure 3.3‐3 of the Agricultural Resources section of this Draft

EIR.

PS LS

Impact 3.10-10: The Project may be Inconsistent with Certain Zoning Ordinance Regulations None required. LS LS

Impact 3.10-11: The Project Could Result in Cumulative Growth Impacts None required. LS LS

NOISE AND VIBRATION Impact 3.11-1: The Project Could Result in Excessive Noise fromNoise Impacts Associated with On-Site

Activities (Mining, Processing, Asphalt, and Load Out) None required. LS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation Impact 3.11-2: The Project Could Result in Excessive Blasting Noise and VibrationNoise and Vibration

Impacts Associated with Blasting Mitigation Measure 3.11‐2

The Operator shall hire a blasting consultant to develop a blasting program

that provides for minimum off‐site noise and vibration levels, in addition

to conducting blasting during a recurring mid‐day period. If blasting loads

exceed 7,000 pounds of ANFO, or the equivalent, a blasting consultant

shall develop a blasting program which results in vibration levels of less

than 0.1 inches per second and noise levels of 80 dBA Lmax or less at the

nearest residences. The plan shall be submitted to the County for review

prior to commencement of blasting activities on the Project site.

LSPS LS

Impact 3.11-3a: The Project Could Result in anNoise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels


Prior to off‐site sales of material, to the extent feasible, the Applicant shall

implement adequate noise reduction measures, including but not limited

to setbacks, barriers, vegetation, sound absorbing materials, and/or

rubberized asphalt, to reduce potential noise impacts to the one residence

identified adjacent to Road 209 between Highway 41 and the Project site to

below the level of significance.

There is one receptor, a residence on the Wagner Family Trust (Wagner)

property, which could be impacted by the Project. In an effort to mitigate

any noise impact at the residence to a less than significant level, the

Applicant entered into a “Compensation and Grazing Agreement Waiving

Potential Noise Impacts to Residents for Mining and Asphalt Project Truck

Traffic, between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family Trust”, dated

February 2009 (see Appendix F).

SU

S

SU

Impact 3.11-3b: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels None required. LS LS

Impact 3.11-4a: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Cumulative Increase in Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels


See Mitigation Measure 3.11‐3

There is one receptor, a residence on the Wagner Family Trust (Wagner)

property, which could be impacted by the Project. In an effort to mitigate

any noise impact at the residence to a less than significant level, the

Applicant entered into a “Compensation and Grazing Agreement Waiving

Potential Noise Impacts to Residents for Mining and Asphalt Project Truck

Traffic, between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family Trust”, dated

February 2009 (see Appendix F).

SU

S

SU

Impact 3.11-4b: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels






Mitigation After

Mitigation TRAFFIC Impact 3.12-1: The Project Could Result in Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion, Including

Substandard LOS Mitigation Measure 3.12‐1a

Intersection improvements shall be constructed by the Applicant with

oversight by Caltrans or by Caltrans at the Applicant’s expense prior to

opening day at the intersection of State Route 41 and Road 209. The

required improvements shall include:

a) Separate eastbound left‐turn and right‐turn lanes;

b) A northbound left‐turn lane with a minimum of 280 feet of storage

plus deceleration distance;

c) A northbound receiving/acceleration lane for eastbound left turns,

the length of which shall be determined based on design‐level

studies; and

d) A southbound receiving/acceleration lane for eastbound right

turns. All improvements shall be designed in accordance with

Caltrans standards and will require a Caltrans encroachment

permit.


a) Readable signs shall be installed for trucks leaving the site stating

the truck route that is required to be utilized upon exiting the

project site.

b) If the County requires, the Applicant has agreed to pay for signs

located on public roads specifying the designated haul route.

PS LS

Impact 3.12-2: The Project Could Result in Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion During Reconstruction of Road 209


Traffic control shall be implemented by the Applicant with oversight by

the County of Madera at the Applicant’s expense during construction.

a) Traffic control plans conforming to the most recent County of

Madera and Caltrans standards shall be implemented during

construction;

b) Access for local traffic (residents) shall be maintained at all times.

At least one lane of travel shall be maintained in each direction, or

traffic control shall provide for one lane of travel controlled by

flagmen or pilot car;

c) Signs should be installed prior to construction informing drivers of

the pending construction and possible closure dates; and

d) Access for regional traffic (non‐local/non‐resident) shall be provided

via alternate routes, including Roads 208, 400, and 406.

PS LS





Mitigation After

Mitigation Impact 3.12-3: The Project Could Result in Truck Trips on Roads That Are

Not Suitable For Heavy Truck Traffic


The Applicant shall inform and/or post warning signs at the exit of the

Project site that inform all transporters and delivery vehicles that Road 406

and Road 208 shall not be utilized to transport any material to and from

the proposed Project site.


If the County requires, the Applicant has agreed to pay for signs located on

public roads specifying the designated haul route.

PS LS

Impact 3.12-34: The Project Contributes Traffic to Intersections and Road Segments That Will Require Upgrades With or Without the Project


Contribute an equitable share of the cost of construction of future

improvements if requested by Caltrans or Madera County. Equitable share

percentages shall be calculated using the equation presented above and the

traffic volumes presented in the Figures included in this report. Cost

estimates for improvements shall be provided by Caltrans or Madera

County. Contribute an equitable share of the cost of construction of future

improvements as required under the Fee Program (if applicable), which is

attached in Appendix N to the DREIR. If the Fee Program is not

applicable, equitable share percentages are presented in the traffic impact

study included in Appendix D. Cost estimates for improvements shall be

provided by Caltrans or Madera County.

The Project will contribute traffic to cumulative significant impacts to road

segments that will require equitable fair share regarding the following

mitigations:



SR 41 between Avenue 15 and SR 145: convert to four‐lane

freeway;

SR 41 between Avenue 12 and Avenue 15: convert to four‐lane

freeway; and


All of these improvements have been identified in the County’s recently

adopted Fee Program (Appendix N, see Tables 1, 2, and 3). The County is

committed to ensuring that those improvements coincide with the Project’s

anticipated contribution to traffic on these segments, to the extent feasible.

PS LSSU





Mitigation After

Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.12‐4b

In order to mitigate the impacts of traffic, County and Applicant have

entered into the Road Construction, Maintenance and Reimbursement

Agreement, Madera County Contract No. 8511‐C‐2008 (see Appendix P).

This Agreement obligates MQI to pay the costs of reconstructing and

maintaining 209 (subject to the right of partial reimbursement should

County create an “Area of Benefit” whereby properties generating traffic

having a per‐vehicle certified gross vehicle weight of 80,000 lbs or greater,

will be assessed their fair share of costs). In addition the agreement

obligates MQI to pay $0.05 per ton of shipped material toward road

maintenance costs for roads other than 209.

The Agreement fully mitigates the impacts to reconstruct, repair and

maintain 209. However, as to any other roads impacted by the Project, as

the County is required to give ‘primary consideration’ to spending these

maintenance funds on roads in the area, but is not required to do so, the

wear and tear impact on local roads, other than 209, remains significant

and unavoidable.

NEW LEGISLATIVE MANDATE Impact 4.0-1: Project Actions Could Conflict with Implementation of State Goals for Reducing GHG

Emissions and Thereby Have an Adverse Effect on Global Climate Change Mitigation Measures

See Mitigation Measures 3.4‐3 and 3.5‐12d of the DEIR and FEIR. These

measures are also provided in the Summary section of this DREIR.

PS LS

Impact 4.0-2: Project Emissions, in Combination with Other Development in the County, Could Contribute to Greenhouse Gases


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 EIR PURPOSE, USE, AND SCOPE

This Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) has been prepared in

accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resource

Code, Section 21000, et. seq.) and the State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA

(Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq.). This DREIR will be

used by Madera County (County) in its consideration of the Madera Quarry Project

(Project) as proposed by Madera Quarry, Inc. (Applicant or Operator). Except as

modified by this DREIR, this document incorporates the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final EIR

(FEIR), dated June 2005 and February 2006, respectively. Digital versions of the DEIR

and FEIR are attached to this DREIR and hard copies are available for viewing at the

Madera County Planning Department at the following location:




(559) 675‐7821

Another unrelated entity named Madera Ranch has been involved in litigation with

Madera County (County). Therefore, the Applicant changed its name and the name of

the Project to avoid confusion with the other entity. The Madera Ranch name was

accidentally utilized in some of the Scoping materials prepared and circulated as part of

the DREIR preparation process. However, the County and environmental consulting

firm informed the public of the mistaken nomenclature during the public scoping

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.0-1

MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.0 Introduction


meeting, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 1.1.6, below. The Applicant is

now called Madera Quarry Inc., and the Project name is Madera Quarry Project.

1.1.1 Purpose and Use

The purpose of an EIR is to provide objective planning and environmental information

to guide and assist decision makers, lead agency staff, responsible agencies, and the

public in their evaluation of the potential environmental effects that may result from the

implementation of the Project and in the evaluation of alternatives and mitigation

measures that may reduce or eliminate those impacts. This DREIR, together with the

previously circulated EIR: (1) provide a detailed project description; (2) discuss the

existing environmental setting; (3) identify and evaluate potential environmental

impacts of the Project, the cumulative effects of the Project, and other existing or

proposed activities in the vicinity; (4) provide feasible mitigation measures to

substantially lessen or avoid environmental impacts; and (5) identify various

alternatives to the Project to substantially lessen or avoid environmental impacts.

Madera County is the CEQA Lead Agency, and carries primary responsibility for

preparing this EIR. The County is also responsible for the implementation of the

California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the approval of proposed

projects in accordance with Section 19.01 of the Madera County Code. The County will

use this document in its consideration of the primary land use entitlements needed for

implementation of the Project. Other agencies could also use this document in

consideration of various permits, as needed.

1.1.2 Nature and Background of Project

Madera Quarry, Inc. proposes to develop a new hard rock quarry and associated

aggregate processing facilities in central Madera County. The processing facilities will

be located on a 28‐acre portion of one of Madera Quarry, Inc’s parcels, while the

aggregate material will be mined from an approximately 77.8‐acre portion of the same

parcel (these acreages are the net acres to be disturbed in the construction of the mine

and processing areas). Table 2.0‐1 of the Project Description of the DEIR provides a

detailed description of the processing facilities. The Project will be located on a 540‐acre

parcel, being one of the four owned by Madera Quarry, Inc, which total approximately

1,000 acres. The entire property is currently primarily used for rangeland cattle grazing.

The Project is located about 16 miles northeast of the City of Madera in the lower

granitic foothills of the western slope of the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. The



topography is variable, ranging from flat and gently rolling hills to steep, boulder‐

strewn fields. The area has some history of rock quarries, the most visible of which can

be seen to the east of County Road 209 just south of the Project site.

As proposed, the Project would result in the mining, processing, and off‐site transport

of a maximum of 900,000 tons of aggregate material annually for up to 50 years. Project

support facilities associated with the quarry would include aggregate processing

equipment, a hot mix asphalt plant, an administration complex and various stockpiles,

sediment ponds, etc. A two‐lane paved mine access road would be constructed from

the processing area to County Road 209 (a distance of about ¼ mile). Substantial

upgrading, reconstruction, and realignment of County Road 209 from the mine entrance

south about 4.5 miles to the intersection of Highway 41 would also be a component of

the Project. Further, the Applicant will construct left‐turn, acceleration, and

deceleration lanes at the intersection of County Road 209 and Highway 41. The

Applicant will perform improvements on Highway 41 between County Road 209 and

Highway 145 and on County Road 209 from the Project Site to the intersection

of County Roads 209 and 406 as more fully discussed in Section 2.2.4 of this Draft

Revised Environmental Impact Report.

1.1.3 CEQA and Litigation Process

The initial application was submitted in October 2002. The County conducted a Public

Scoping Meeting on October 27, 2003. The County then circulated the DEIR for public

review from late June through early August 2005. The FEIR (consisting of the DEIR,

minor revisions thereto, and the Responses to Comments) was prepared in February

2006. After a series of Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor hearings, the

County’s Board approved the Project and certified the FEIR as adequate.

Opponents to the Project filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for

Injunctive and Declaratory Relief regarding the adequacy of the FEIR. The County

prevailed in the Madera County Superior Court. However, on October 24, 2008, the

Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District (Court of Appeal) reversed the

judgment and remanded the matter to the Madera County Superior Court. The Court

of Appeal concluded that there were deficiencies in the FEIR’s hydrology mitigation

measures, traffic mitigation measures, cumulative noise impact evaluation, cumulative

impact evaluation, and required that the County to consider whether it was obligated to

provide an SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) to the extent the Project, as



mitigated, involved the construction and operation of a public water system. A copy of

the Court of Appeal’s opinion (Opinion) is provided in Appendix A‐1.

The Court of Appeal upheld the County’s actions on the following matters:

The FEIR was not required to assess economic impacts on neighboring

landowners due to the potentially significant impact on the water levels in

private wells.

Adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of the impacts on biological resources and

wildlife habitat due to an alleged incorrect methodology relation to California

Tiger Salamander.

Adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of impacts on air quality due to an alleged

incorrect methodology.

Adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of impacts on aesthetics due to an alleged

improper deferral of a mitigation relating to lighting and glare.

Adequacy of the analysis of growth‐inducing impacts.

Finding of general plan consistency regarding no substantial adverse effect on

property values; and

SMARA determinations.

On January 20, 2009, Judge Charles A. Wieland of the Superior Court for Madera

County issued the Judgment Granting Petition for a Writ of Mandate (Judgment). A

copy of the Judgment is provided in Appendix A‐2. The Judgment ordered the County:

To vacate its approval of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2002‐20 and 2006‐001;

To vacate its certification of the Final EIR and to revise those portions of the EIR

(including sections describing impacts to surface water and groundwater, noise,

traffic, and cumulative impacts) which were found to be inadequate by the Court

of Appeal, consistent with the Opinion;

To determine whether SB 610 applies in the context of any mitigation measures

which may be proposed for the Project in the Revised EIR;

To update any of the remaining chapters or portions of the EIR as may be

necessary, using the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (14 CCR

Section 15162);

To recirculate a revised draft Environmental Impact Report as required by

CEQA, and to provide responses to comments within a revised Final EIR prior to

re‐approving the Project; and



To evaluate the Project’s consistency with the Madera County General Plan and

zoning ordinance(s) prior to any re‐approval of the Project.

Finally in the Judgment, the trial court:

Upheld the County’s Williamson Act determinations; and

Retained jurisdiction over the County’s proceedings.

The Opinion and the Judgment shall collectively be referred to as the Judicial Decisions.

1.1.4 Changes to the Project Subsequent to Prior EIR Resulting from the Applicant’s Consultants’ Studies Done in Response to the Judicial Decisions

Water for the Project will now come from two wells, Well No. 1 and Well No. 10

(constructed in 2008), and when available, from dewatering the excavation site. To limit

dewatering to the inflow of 22 acre‐feet per year, fractures in the mine area will be

grouted.

In response to the Judicial Decisions, described in Section 1.1.3, above, substantial

additional hydrology studies have been completed. These included a groundwater

study by Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (KDS) and a surface water report, by Blair,

Church & Flynn (BCF). In addition, the groundwater analysis was peer‐reviewed by

Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineering (LS). These studies took into account

actual groundwater pumping information from wells on the Project site, as well as

information from monitored wells on‐site and off‐site.

The DEIR and FEIR concluded that when the mine site was reclaimed, a permanent lake

would be created in the prior excavation area. Based upon the KDS and LS reports, this

DREIR concludes that when the mine site is reclaimed, no permanent lake will be

created in the prior excavation area, as evapotranspiration and evaporation will

consume all surface and groundwater coming into the reclaimed excavation area. Both

during and after mining, surface water (but not process water which will be retained

on‐site) coming across the plant area, will be directed to the mine area where it will be

captured by a channel and directed to the existing stock pond. A diversion feature will

be made part of this bypass channel so that there will be no significant increases to

downstream run‐off volume of surface water. Figure 3.9‐3 shows the approximate

location of the Plant bypass channel. As before, no processed water, either from the

plant or mine areas, will be discharged from the Project.



While the mine reduces operations during the winter months, water may accumulate in

the excavation site from winter rains. In that event, when the mine increases operations

in the spring, any standing water will be pumped to the adjoining stock pond, with any

excess over historical flows being used to irrigate adjoining pasture land.

On October 24, 2006, pursuant to Board of Supervisor’s Resolution No. 2006‐225, the

County approved a cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on a 52.29‐acre portion

of the Project site. The balance of the Project site remains subject to a Williamson Act

Contract, for which a Notice of Non‐Renewal was recorded on November 29, 2003, and

therefore, on March 1, 2014, the balance of the property will no longer be encumbered

by the Williamson Act contract.

When the Project was first processed with the County, the Applicant’s engineers had

provided an estimate of the acreage to be encompassed by the mine and plant areas.

The engineers ‘squared off’ any areas to be disturbed. This resulted in the mine area

and plant areas being listed as 86 and 32 acres, respectively. The disturbed areas for

each have now been calculated to be 77.8 acres for the mine and 28 acres for the plant

and administration site. The project site had been listed as 108 acres (which includes 1.7

acres for the on‐site access road). However, construction and operation of the Project

will include the disturbance of 121 acres. If 131, 86, and 35 acres are referenced in the

original EIR, it is to refer to the gross acreage and not the areas permitted to be

disturbed, which are 121, 77.8, and 35 acres (see Figure 1.0‐1, Current Acreage

Calculations).

As noted in Section 1.1.3, the original project’s approval was vacated. Actions by

various agencies, agreements between the Applicant and private parties and

governmental agencies, the judicial decisions and reports of consultants have been

issued all of which affect the consideration of the Project, as modified. Those

documents are referenced in Table 1.0‐1, Table of Appendices.

See Section 1.1 for the location of hard copies of the appendices. A CD containing all of

the appendices is included with this DREIR.

The Court of Appeal found deficiencies in four general areas, hydrology, traffic, noise

and cumulative impacts. As to hydrology, the court found the 3‐day pump tests

described in the DEIR to be adequate. It then found certain mitigation measures to be



infeasible or ineffective. The most significant deficiency in the FEIR, as identified in the

Opinion, was in regard to hydrology. The following summarizes what has occurred in

response and modifications made as a result of any subsequent studies.

First, in accordance with its existing monitoring program, the Applicant has monitored

22 wells in the vicinity of the Project. Eight of the monitored wells are located on the

Project Site,1 while 12 wells are owned and operated by private parties, each of whom

consented to the monitoring program.2 By undertaking 18‐, 16‐, and 35‐day pumping of

Ranch Wells No. 1, 5 & 10 for aquifer testing, and pumping Ranch Well No. 1 for 17

months of irrigation, the Applicant was able to obtain significantly better data as to the

effects of groundwater pumping than was previously available from the 3‐day aquifer

pump tests undertaken by Cleath and Associates.

The results of the KD study, which was peer‐reviewed by LS, demonstrate that there

will be no adverse impacts to neighboring private wells. With the incorporation of three

mitigation measures, the Project will not have a significant environmental effect on

groundwater or surface water. The mitigations are to: 1) keep downsteam areas from

being adversely affected from surface water run‐off by limiting the run‐off to pre‐

project volumes; 2) during reclamation, overburden, topsoil, and planting will occur

within the quarry to enhance evapotranspiration that will be undertaken to prevent the

creation of a permanent lake within the quarry; and 3) manage water on‐site so that it

does not become contaminated with processing and blasting chemicals (this mitigation

is unchanged from the FEIR).

Mitigation Measure 3.9‐2 of the FEIR called for the possible creation of a water system

to serve one or more property owners. The Court of Appeal determined that if a water

system was to be created, the Board would need to decide whether a SB 610 water

supply assessment should be undertaken. As the Project no longer contemplates the

establishment of a community water system, there is no need for an SB 610 Water

Supply Assessment.

1 Two of the wells are non‐operating without any pumps. When constructed by Madera Quarry’s

predecessor, they were mistakenly believed to be on the Madera Quarry property. 2 After 15 and 17 months of monitoring, two of the private parties withdrew their consent to have their

wells monitored.



TABLE 1.0-1 TABLE OF APPENDICES

No. Description A‐1 Fifth District Court of Appeal Opinion, Case No. F053661, Gray v. County of Madera

A‐2 Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate on Remand, Madera Co. Case No.

SCV005567, Gray v. County of Madera

B‐1 Notice of Preparation

B‐2 Scoping letters

C‐1 Technical Memorandum, Review of ʹHydrogeologic Conditions At and Near the Proposed

Madera Quarry,ʹ Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers, dated October 28, 2009

C‐2 Hydrogeologic Conditions At and Near the Proposed Madera Quarry, Kenneth D. Schmidt

and Associates, Groundwater Quality Consultants, Fresno, California, dated October 2009

C‐3 Madera Quarry Surface Water Hydrology Report, Blair, Church & Flynn, Consulting

Engineers, dated October 2009

C‐4 Wellco Drilling, Inc., Letter to Madera Quarry, Inc, dated September 23, 2009

D Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Madera Quarry, Peters Engineering Group, dated

October 13, 2009

E Department of Conservation Letter to Madera County Assessorʹs Office, with Williamson

Act Cancellation Valuation Agreement Attached, all dated August 28, 2008

F Compensation and Grazing Agreement Waiving Potential Noise Impacts to Residents for

Mining and Asphalt Project Truck Traffic, between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner

Family Trust, dated February 2009

G Conservation Easement Deed, Madera County Contract No. 8512‐C‐2008, dated

January 15, 2008

H U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit, dated January 12, 2009, 2005‐673 (includes July 1,

2008 U.S. Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion)

I U.S. Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Comments on Avoidance

Minimization and Compensation Measures, dated December 17, 2007

J‐1 CA Office of Historic Preservation, Historic Properties Comment Letter to USACOE, dated

November 13, 2008

J‐2 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for The Madera Ranch Quarry

Project, Madera County, California, Pacific Legacy, dated June 2008

J‐3 Supplemental Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for The Madera Ranch

Quarry Project, Pacific Legacy, dated September 2008

K CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section 401 Water Quality Certification, dated

July 17, 2008

L CA Department of Fish & Game Section 1602 Stream Alteration Agreement No. 2007‐0209‐

R4, Hildreth Creek ‐ Madera County, dated June 13, 2008

M Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Madera Quarry, Inc., Madera County, California,

October 1, 2009

N Madera County Road Impact Fee Program Update, November 2009

O‐1 Acoustical Terminology

O‐2 Continuously Measured Hourly Noise Levels



No. Description O‐3 Madera Quarry Noise Source Data

O‐4 FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model

P Road Construction, Maintenance and Reimbursement Agreement, Madera County

Contract No. 8511‐C‐2008,dated January 15, 2008

Q Traffic Mitigation Agreement Capital Deferment, Madera County Contract No. 8513‐C‐

2008,dated January 15, 2008

1.1.5 County Approach to DREIR

As discussed above in Section 1.1.3, Judicial Decisions determined that only limited

portions of the Final EIR were inadequate. The County and the EIR author have

accepted the direction of the Appellate Court, and the subsequent Writ issued by the

Trial Court, as set forth in the Judicial Decisions. This DREIR will address the

deficiencies outlined above, minor revisions in background conditions and components

of the Project. Based on a review of the previously circulated FEIR, the County

determined to evaluate those issues outlined in the Judicial Decisions, any changes to

the Project which resulted from the studies undertaken to address the Judicial Decisions

and anything mandated by changed legislation, such as the Project’s impacts on

greenhouse gas emissions. Other sections of the FEIR which were found to be adequate

in the Judicial Decisions are anticipated to be largely left intact.

On December 23, 2008, the County circulated a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Revised

Environmental Impact and Notice of Scoping Meeting. A scoping meeting was held on

January 16, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Coarsegold Community Center. A brief summary of

the NOP and Scoping Process is provided in Section 1.1.6, below.

1.1.6 Notice of Preparation

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse,

responsible agencies, interested groups and individuals, and surrounding property

owners on December 23, 2008, for a 30‐day comment period. Copies of the NOP and

mailing list are included in Appendix B‐1, Notice of Preparation and Mailing List. One‐

hundred and thirty letters were received in response to the NOP and are included as

Appendix B‐2, Written NOP and Scoping Comments.



The NOP advised:

“The Court of Appeal concluded that there were deficiencies regarding specified

EIR’s hydrology mitigation measures, traffic mitigation measures cumulative

noise impact evaluation, cumulative impact evaluation, and whether SB 610 was

applicable to hydrology mitigation measures.

A summary of the Final EIR’s impact evaluations and mitigation measures are

provided in Table S‐1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Attachment A, hereto. However, based on the Court of Appeal’s decision

discussed above, the nature and extent of impacts and mitigation will be updated

consistent with the decision in the revised EIR, and therefore could be different

than provided in Attachment A.”

The Court of Appeal determined that many of the sections of the EIR were not

defective. It was expected that any comments would be limited to areas noted by the

Court of Appeal to be deficient in the EIR, or matters of changed circumstance or law

(i.e., AB 32, mandatory greenhouse gas analysis). This DREIR will not address

comments that address matters for which the courts determined either the EIR to be

adequate and/or the actions of the Madera Board of Supervisors to be proper (at the

time of the Scoping meeting, the Amended Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of

Mandate had not yet been entered, but it incorporated the directions of the Court of

Appeal).

1.1.7 Public Scoping Meeting

A Public Scoping Meeting was held at 6:00 p.m. on January 16, 2009 at the Coarsegold

Community Center in Coarsegold, California. The EIR Consultant described the

Project. County staff and its EIR Consultant then solicited public comments and

concerns to be considered in the analysis for this EIR. Thirty‐four people signed the

attendance list, and approximately 80 people attended. Written comments were

accepted from governmental agencies, a non‐profit organization and various private

parties.

1.1.8 DREIR Scope

The Judicial Decisions outlined those matters of which this DREIR would need to

adequately address to comply with CEQA requirements. Based on a review of the



previously circulated FEIR, the County determined to evaluate the issues outlined in

the Judicial Decisions as well as the Project’s impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. An

overview of the scoping process completed for this Project is provided in Sections 1.1.6

and 1.1.7.

This DREIR contains the following sections:

Summary (substantially revised since the FEIR);

Section 1.0: Introduction (superseding 2006 DEIR);

Section 2.0: Revisions to Project Description in Response to Judicial Decisions,

Entitlements, and Contracts Subsequent to the FEIR (amendment to DEIR and

FEIR);

Section 3.1: Revisions to Hydrology and Water Quality Section in Response to

Judicial Decisions (replaced previous version);

Section 3.2: Revisions to Noise and Vibration Section in Response to Judicial

Decisions (replaced previous version);

Section 3.3: Revisions to Traffic Section in Response to Judicial Decisions

(replaced previous version);

Section 4.0: New Legislative Mandate; and

Section 5.0: List of Preparers.

1.1.9 Effects Found Not to be Significant

As required by CEQA, this DREIR focuses on expected significant or potentially

significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15143). As previously

stated, a previous EIR was prepared for the Project to identify issues to be evaluated.

The Judicial Decisions refined the list of environmental issues to be evaluated in this

DREIR.

Some of the impacts analyzed in this DREIR are considered to be less than significant

and require no mitigation. Other impacts (i.e., those that are considered to be

potentially significant) can be reduced to a less than significant level with the

implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Seven impacts are considered

significant and unavoidable. All of the impacts analyzed in this DREIR, including those

considered to be less than significant, are summarized in Table S‐1, Summary of

Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in the Summary section of this document.



1.1.10 Areas of Controversy

CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires a discussion of areas of controversy

known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. While

many of the issues raised during the scoping process may be considered controversial

to the public, the following are the primary areas of controversy for this Project:

Aesthetics: Impacts associated with the visual quality and character of the site

and its surroundings were evaluated in the previous EIR. The Judicial Decisions

upheld the FEIR’s evaluation of aesthetics issues. Further, the County has

carefully evaluated the comments made during the NOP and scoping process on

the DREIR and has determined that the previous EIR adequately evaluates the

Project’s impacts regarding aesthetics issues. No changes to the Project are

proposed that would alter the analysis or conclusions of the FEIR.

Agricultural Resources: The significance of potential agricultural resources

impacts and appropriate mitigation measures were reviewed in the FEIR. The

Judicial Decisions upheld the FEIR’s evaluation of agricultural resource issues.

Further, the County has carefully evaluated the comments made during the NOP

and scoping process on the DREIR and has determined that the DEIR and FEIR

adequately evaluate the Project’s impacts regarding agricultural resource issues.

No changes to the Project are proposed that would alter the analysis or

conclusions of the FEIR.

In addition, on August 28, 2008, the California Department of Conservation

entered into a Williamson Act Cancellation Agreement with the Applicant and

notified Madera County of the Agreement and the agreed valuation (see

Appendix E).

Also, on January 15, 2008, a Conservation Easement Deed was executed and

presented to the County of Madera as Madera County Contract No. 8512‐C‐2008

(see Appendix G).

Air Quality: The significance of potential air quality impacts and appropriate

mitigation measures were evaluated in the FEIR. The Judicial Decisions upheld

the FEIR’s evaluation of air quality issues. Based on a desire to evaluate the

Project’s impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, the County has decided to

prepare a new section to address AB 32/SB 375, containing a Greenhouse Gas



CEQA evaluation. Section 4.0, New Legislative Mandate includes the

Greenhouse Gas analysis as part of this DREIR.

Biological Resources: The significance of potential biological resources impacts

and appropriate mitigation measures were reviewed in the DEIR and FEIR. The

Judicial Decisions upheld the FEIR’s evaluation of biological resource issues. No

changes to the Project are proposed that would alter the analysis or conclusions

of the FEIR.

Further, the County has carefully evaluated the comments made during the NOP

and scoping process on the DREIR and has determined that the FEIR adequately

evaluates the Project’s impacts regarding biological resource issues.

As the Project affected Waters of the United States, it was required to obtain a

Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers, and as a condition of

issuance, the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion on the

Project. On January 12, 2009, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued its Section

404 permit SPK‐2005‐673.

On December 17, 2007, the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

issued its Biological Opinion regarding Avoidances, Minimization, and

Compensation Measures for Madera Ranch Quarry Project (see Appendix I).

Cultural Resources: The FEIR performed an extensive cultural resource site

review at two sites affected by the Project. Potential impacts to these sites were

evaluated in the previous DEIR and FEIR. The Judicial Decisions upheld the

FEIR’s evaluation of cultural resource issues. No changes to the Project are

proposed that would alter the analysis or conclusions of the FEIR. Further, the

County has carefully evaluated the comments made during the NOP and

scoping process on the DREIR and has determined that the FEIR adequately

evaluates the Project’s impacts regarding cultural resource issues.

However, to obtain the Section 404 permit from the USACOE, an approval of a

cultural resources analysis was required from the State of California Office of

Historic Preservation, which issued its approval letter on November 13, 2008 (see

Appendix J‐1).



The reports are a Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the

Madera Ranch Quarry Project, and a supplemental report, issued in June 2008

and September 2008, respectively (see Appendices J‐2 and J‐3).

Geology and Soils: Impacts and subsequent mitigation measures regarding

geology and soils were evaluated in the FEIR. The Project opponents did not

challenge issues related to geology and soils issues. Further, the County has

carefully evaluated the comments made during the NOP and scoping process on

DREIR and has determined that the FEIR adequately evaluates the Project’s

impacts regarding geology and soil issues. No changes to the Project are

proposed that would alter the analysis or conclusions of the FEIR.

Hazards and Hazardous Material: The significance of potential impacts and

appropriate mitigation measures for hazardous and hazardous materials were

evaluated in the FEIR. The Project opponents did not challenge issues related to

hazards and hazardous materials issues. Further, the County has carefully

evaluated the comments made during the NOP and scoping process on the

DREIR and has determined that the FEIR adequately evaluates the Project’s

impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials issues.

However, regarding Mitigation Measure 3.8‐4, by letter of December 29, 2008, the

Madera County Fire Department noted that the County Emergency Services

Director should have been noted in place of the Fire Department. Accordingly,

this mitigation measure will be modified to read as follows:


Prior to the initiation of mining or operational activities, the Applicant shall

contact the Madera County Sheriff, who serves as Madera County Emergency

Services Director, regarding an adopted Emergency Response or Emergency

Evacuation plan. The Applicant shall develop a site specific Emergency Response

and Emergency Evacuation Plan that will be submitted to the Fire Department

for review and approval.

Hydrology and Water Quality: To address the matters noted in the Judicial

Decisions, substantial additional testing and analysis was undertaken by the

Applicant. The revised Hydrological analysis contained in Appendices C‐1, C‐2



and C‐3 is contained in Section 3.1, Revisions to Hydrology and Water Quality in

Response to Judicial Decisions.

When the Project was initially approved, one of the mitigations provided for the

establishment of a water system to supply water from the Project to affected

neighboring properties. Through the litigation, petitioners asserted both that the

Project itself and the potential construction of a public water system to provide

replacement water to neighboring properties necessitated the preparation of a SB

610 Water Supply Assessment. The Court of Appeal rejected the former

argument, noting:

“Finally, appellants contend that the County violated Water Code,

sections 10910‐10914, otherwise known as Senate Bill No. 610 (“SB

610”) by failing to prepare a water supply assessment for the Project. SB

610, however, requires a water supply assessment only if a “public water

system” is impacted by the Project. A “public water system” is defined to

mean “a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human

consumption that has 3000 or more service connections.” (Wat. Code, §

10912, subd. (c).) Here, the water that will be used for the mine is not part of a public water system.

As to the argument that the potential replacement public water supply system

would trigger the requirements of SB 610, the Court concluded:

“Appellants also contend that the amendment to Mitigation Measure 3.9‐

1b, which could require the construction of a water system for use by

affected neighbors would require a water supply assessment under SB 610.

We agree… Thus, the County must do a water supply assessment or

provide substantial evidence to explain why it did not have to comply with

SB 610.”(App. A‐1, pp.36‐37)

As a result of the expanded analysis contained in the Subsequent Hydrology

Reports, this DREIR concludes that impacts to neighboring wells will be less than

significant. Therefore, no water system is proposed, and no water supply

assessment need be prepared.

Land Use: Impacts associated with the land use were evaluated in the previous

DEIR and FEIR. The Judicial Decisions upheld the FEIR’s evaluation of land use



issues. Further, the County has carefully evaluated the comments made during

the NOP and scoping process on the DREIR and has determined that the

previous EIR adequately evaluates the Project’s impacts regarding land use

issues. No changes to the Project are proposed that would alter the analysis or

conclusions of the FEIR.

While upholding the CEQA evaluation regarding land use issues, the Judgment

required the County to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the Madera

County General Plan and zoning ordinance(s) prior to any re‐approval of the

Project. The County will perform this evaluation and include in its staff

presentation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Noise: Section 3.2, Revisions to Noise Section in Response to Judicial Decisions,

is a part of this DREIR. The Project’s impacts were evaluated in terms of

potential impacts from on‐site mining and processing activities and off‐site

traffic. The Project will comply with County on‐site noise and vibrations

standards. However, there will be a noise impact to one residence on County

Road 209, which is presently owned by the Wagner Trust. The Owner of the

subject property has entered into a recorded agreement with the Applicant in

which the Owner has been compensated in connection with the noise impacts of

the Project. However, it is not possible to state with certainty that the property

owner will use the funds to mitigate any noise impacts. To the extent the owner

of the residence located approximately 300 feet from the centerline of CR 209

chooses not to spend the money for the purposes for which it was intended, the

impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

There are no other potential significant noise impacts and reference is made to

Section 3.2 for a full discussion of all noise issues.

Traffic: On October 13, 2009, Peters Engineering Group prepared a Traffic

Impact Study (see Appendix D). The results of the study are incorporated in

Section 3.3, Revisions to Traffic Section in Response to Judicial Decisions. The

study notes impacts in the future from increased traffic for which there might not

be feasible mitigation measures. If not mitigated, those impacts will be

significant and unavoidable. These include the possibility that funds collected

from the Project for its fair share of any future improvements might not be

expended. In addition, there will be a lowering of Level of Service to an

unacceptable level at intersections where traffic warrants will not be met to allow



for signalization. The County recently adopted the “Madera County, Road

Impact Fee Program Update, November 2009”. A full discussion of these matters

is provided in Section 3.3.

On January 15, 2008, Applicant and County entered into two agreements (see

Appendix P and Q), being the 1) Road Construction, Maintenance and

Reimbursement Agreement (Construction Agreement), and 2) Traffic Mitigation

Agreement Capital Deferment (Mitigation Agreement), respectively. The

Construction Agreement pertains to the obligations to pay for the reconstruction

and maintenance of County Road 209, and the payment of a $0.05 per ton fee

with the proceeds being used by the County for the maintenance of roads other

than 209. The Mitigation Agreement pertains to the construction of

improvement on State Hwy. 41 south of its intersection with County Road 209.

Mandatory Findings of Significance: The Project was evaluated in terms of the

mandatory findings of significance, particularly with regard to impacts that are

individually limited, but potentially “cumulatively considerable”, as defined by

CEQA.

1.1.11 Disposition of Issues Raised and Remaining Areas of Controversy

After applying CEQA standards of significance to the entire range of adverse impacts

that would result from implementation of the Project, seven significant and

unavoidable impacts have been identified through systematic analysis of potential

Project effects. These impacts are related to air quality, noise, land use, and traffic.

1.1.12 Document Availability The basic Project CUP Application (No. 2002‐20) and technical documents that were, in

part, used in the preparation for this DEIR and FEIR were submitted by the Applicant

to the County in October 2002, January 2003, and June 2004. In 2009, the Applicant also

submitted technical reports that were prepared in response to the Judicial Decisions

Additionally, more detailed design information has been recently submitted. The

Application and supporting documents, as well as the June 2005 DEIR and February

2006 FEIR, are on file and available for public review at the following location:



Madera County

Planning Department



1.2 DREIR PUBLIC REVIEW

This DREIR is distributed for a 45‐day period of review and comment by the public,

responsible agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. All comments or

questions about the EIR should be addressed to:

Matthew Treber




(559) 675‐7821

Comments may also be received by e‐mail at: matthew.treber@madera‐county.com.

Following the public review period, comments and written responses on the DREIR

will be used to prepare a Final Revised EIR and made available for public review prior

to consideration of the Project by the County. One or more public hearings will be held

by the County prior to certification of the Final EIR.

2.0 REVISIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS, ENTITLEMENTS, AND CONTRACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FEIR

2.0 REVISIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS, ENTITLEMENTS, AND CONTRACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FEIR

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR (DEIR) contains a detailed project description. The basic

components of the Project have not changed in any significant manner. However, as a

result of the Opinion of the Court of Appeals and Judgment of the Superior Court

(Judicial Decisions), additional technical reports have been prepared in the areas of

hydrology, traffic, and noise. The noise technical information appears in Section 3.2 and

its appendices. The hydrology and traffic technical reports are included as Appendices

C‐1, C‐2, C‐3, and D. Due to the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375, Section 4.0, New

Legislative Mandates, has been added. This new section contains an analysis of

greenhouse gas (GHG) pertaining to the Project. The consultant’s report is included as

Appendix M.

In addition, since the original approval of the Project and before the entry of the

Judgment, additional entitlements and contractual rights all to facilitate the Project have

been obtained. They are referenced below in Table 2.0‐1, Contracts and Entitlements.


MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.0 Project Description

This section will provide information on those minor changes to the Project and will

enumerate the above‐referenced entitlements and agreements, which are reproduced in

the appendix to the Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (DREIR). For a

complete description of the Project, this section should be read in conjunction with

Section 2.0 of the June 2005 DEIR.

2.2 MINOR CHANGES TO PROJECT AS DEFINED IN DEIR

2.2.1 Affected Acreage Recalculated

When the Project was first processed with the County, the Applicant’s engineers

provided an estimate of the acreage to be encompassed by the mine and plant areas.

The engineers ‘squared off’ any areas to be disturbed. This resulted in the mine area

and plant areas being listed as 86 and 35 acres, respectively. The disturbed areas for

each area have now been more precisely calculated to be 77.8 acres for the top of the

mine, and 28 acres for the plant and administration site. The Project site had previously

been listed as 131 acres. However, construction and operation of the Project will

include the disturbance of 121 acres. If 131, 86, and 35 acres are referenced in the

original EIR, it is to refer to the gross acreage and not the areas permitted to be

disturbed, which are 121, 77.8, and 28 acres (see Figure 1.0‐1).

2.2.2 Modifications Resulting from Hydrology, Groundwater, and Surface Water Studies

The Final EIR (FEIR) presumed, on the basis of limited 3‐day aquifer pump tests, that

there was a possibility of a potential significant impact on the production of

neighboring wells. To mitigate what could be a significant decline in water, mitigation

measures were adopted. For various reasons set forth in the Opinion, the Court of

Appeal rejected these measures. Therefore, additional extensive hydrology studies

were commissioned.

These additional hydrology studies included a groundwater study by Kenneth D.

Schmidt and Associates (KSD) and a surface water report by Blair, Church & Flynn

(BCF). In addition, the ground water analysis was peer‐reviewed by Luhdorf &

Scalmanini, Consulting Engineering (LS) (see Section 3.2 and its referenced appendices

for a full discussion.)



As a result of these studies, the following modifications have been added:

1. Water from the Project will come from Ranch Wells Nos. 1 and 10 (constructed in

2008), rather than from Nos. 1 and 5. As before, when available, water will come

from dewatering from the quarry;

2. Fractures within the quarry will be grouted, as needed, to limit water infiltration

to 22 acre‐feet per year; and

3. A small channel will be constructed on a north bench to capture rain runoff and

direct it to the existing stock pond.

In addition, there will be no permanent lake formed after mining activities cease. As a

result of these modifications and more detailed analysis, the KDS, LS, and BCF reports

concluded that will be no adverse impact to the production of neighboring wells.

However, the FEIR concluded that the development and operation of the Project could

have a potentially significant effect on neighboring domestic wells and the supply of

available water to neighboring agricultural properties. The FEIR then listed a series of

mitigation measures (see DEIR p. 3.9‐36), including improving (deepening) the well,

replacing equipment, and, if necessary, providing a replacement water supply from

project wells or another source of water. Both the methodology of the FEIR’s hydrology

analysis and the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation measures were

challenged during the public hearing process and in the ensuing litigation.

This DREIR contains an entirely new and expanded groundwater hydrology evaluation

(see Section 3.1). This analysis concludes that the Project will have less than a

significant affect on neighboring domestic wells, on both an individual project and

cumulative level.

Where it is properly determined that there are less than significant impacts from a

project, CEQA does not require the identification or imposition of mitigation measures.

Nonetheless, due to the concerns of neighboring property owners, to determine

whether impacts to neighboring domestic wells and water supplies occur due to Project

operations, the Applicant suggests that the County include the following use permit

condition:

Adopt a well monitoring program similar to that proposed by KDS at pp.106‐

108. In general, this would be a continuation of the well monitoring program

that has been in effect during the testing by KDS. This includes continuing to




use flow meters on the 10 private wells previously monitored, as well as adding

transducers to 4 of these wells. Pumping rates, pumpage and well water levels

will be monitored. Consent of the private owners would be required. Costs of

the monitoring shall be borne by the Operator. The frequency of the monitoring

would be reconsidered after two years and be subject to modification by the

County Director of Resource Management.

An impact will be considered to be deemed imminent if there has been, or

threatens to be, a substantial reduction in the water level or well production for

the normal, pre‐Project uses of the property owner. To demonstrate a substantial

reduction, the water‐level decline must be shown, or threatened, to be related to

quarry operations and not related to other outside influences (e.g. drought,

increased pumping by a neighbor, or a subsequent project in the area that also

potentially affects groundwater resources) by a qualified registered professional.

If a substantial reduction occurs, or appears imminent, and is demonstrated to be

related to the Project, then the Operator shall take the following serial actions to

restore the quantity and quality of production that existed before commencement

of the Project.

- Undertake to determine if the well is functioning properly;

- Rehabilitate by lowering the existing pump, or installing a new pump;

- Deepen the well; and if still not successful; and

- Construct a new well.

If at anytime during the above actions it appears likely that there will be

insufficient yields of water from the existing owner’s well, then the Operator

shall provide interim water by having BeZak Water1 or other licensed company

deliver potable water to the owner’s water tank. If the owner does not have a

water storage tank, the Operator shall cause a 2,500‐gallon tank to be delivered

for water storage while the restoration actions are being undertaken. Bezak

Water presently procures water from the Hillview Water Co., which supplies

water to Oakhurst, CA.

A September 23, 2009 letter to Madera Quarry, Inc., by Wellco of Raymond, CA, is in

Appendix C‐4. It notes that in the 10 years since Wellco has constructed 18 wells within

3‐mile radius of Madera Quarry, it has always been successful in constructing wells

sufficient for the needs of his customers. Wellco notes that it will take between 2 to 4

1 State Lic. No. 84284, P.O. Box 541, Mariposa, CA 95338, (209) 966‐4244


days “to successfully drill a well with the 3 mile radius of the Madera Quarry property,

which would yield adequate volumes for domestic use.”

2.2.3 Modified Phasing Plan

Phasing, as noted in the FEIR, is modified to limit mining until March 1, 2014 to a 52.29‐

acre portion of the Madera Quarry property. Pursuant to County action, a 52.29‐acre

portion of the Project was approved for termination of the Williamson Act contract,

pursuant to a cancellation procedure. Until contract is terminated on March 1, 2014,

pursuant to the Notice of Non‐Renewal recorded on November 29, 2003, mining and

processing will occur only from this 52.29‐acre portion of the Project. Figure 2.0‐1,

Mining Plan Alternate 2, depicts the 52.29 acres within the 121‐acre quarry and plant

site, and Figure 2.0‐2, Assessor’s Parcel, depicts that parcel as it will be noted as a

separate assessor’s parcel.

2.2.4 Additional Traffic Contributions Resulting from 2006 Hearing Process

Based on commitments made by the Applicant during the 2006 public hearing process,

the Applicant will perform the following:

Highway 41 Improvements

The Applicant will increase Highway 41 improvements above and beyond what

is adequate in mitigating the traffic concerns on Highway 41 to a level that is less

than significant. The Applicant will construct a south bound lane on Highway

41 from its intersection with Road 209 to the intersection of Highway 41 and 145.

This improvement is in addition to what the Department of Transportation

required for this Project. Applicant shall undertake this construction after

County has obtained any required clearances. The Applicant will also post lights

if permitted under the Department of Transportation warning travelers about

slow moving trucks exiting Road 209 onto Highway 41.

County Road 209 Improvements

The Applicant will increase mitigation above and beyond what was adequate

and sufficient under the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The

Applicant has agreed to resurface Road 209 from the entrance of the Project site

up to its intersection with Road 406.



2.3 ENTITLEMENTS AND CONTRACTS OBTAINED SUBSEQUENT TO THE FEIR

Table 2.0‐1 itemizes those agreements and entitlements entered into and obtained, as

the case may be, from the prior approval of the Project until the issuance of this DREIR.

Several of these are permits which were originally listed in DEIR Table 2.0‐3, Potential

Permits, Approvals and Processes, Madera Ranch Quarry Project.

TABLE 2.0-1 CONTRACTS AND ENTITLEMENTS

Agreements and Entitlements Date 1 Department of Conservation Letter to Madera County Assessorʹs

Office, with Williamson Act Cancellation Valuation Agreement

(Appendix E).

August 28, 2008

2 Compensation and Grazing Agreement Waiving Potential Noise

Impacts to Residents for Mining and Asphalt Project Truck Traffic,

between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family Trust,

(Appendix F).

February 2009

3 Conservation Easement Deed, Madera County Contract No. 8512‐

C‐2008, (Appendix G).

January 15, 2008

4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit, 2005‐673 (includes July 1,

2008 U.S. Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Biological

Opinion), (Appendix H).

January 12, 2009

5 U.S. Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Comments on

Avoidance Minimization and Compensation Measures, (Appendix

I).

December 17, 2007

6 California Office of Historic Preservation, Historic Properties

Comment Letter to USACOE, (Appendix J‐1).

November 13, 2008

7 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section 401

Water Quality Certification, (Appendix J‐2).

July 17, 2008

8 California Department of Fish & Game Section 1602 Stream

Alteration Agreement No. 2007‐0209‐R4, Hildreth Creek ‐ Madera

County, (Appendix J‐3).

June 13, 2008

9 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section 401

Water Quality Certification, (Appendix K).

July 17, 2008

10 California Department of Fish & Game Section 1602 Stream

Alteration Agreement No. 2007‐0209‐R4, Hildreth Creek – Madera

County, (Appendix L).

June 13, 2008

11 Compensation and Grazing Agreement Waiving Potential Noise

Impacts to Residents for Mining and Asphalt Project Truck Traffic,

between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Family Wagner Trust,

(Appendix F).

February, 2009




Agreements and Entitlements Date 12 Road Construction, Maintenance and Reimbursement Agreement,

Madera County Contract No. 8511‐C‐2008, (Appendix P). January 15, 2008

13 Traffic Mitigation Agreement Capital Deferment, Madera County

Contract No. 8513‐C‐2008, (Appendix Q). January 15, 2008

3.0 REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL SECTIONS

3.1 REVISIONS TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SECTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS


3.1 REVISIONS TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

SECTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS1

3.9.1 Summary

Upon reviewing the Court of Appeals Opinion and the Judgment of the Superior Court

(Judicial Decisions) regarding hydrology, the Applicant devised a plan that would

attempt to definitively determine what impact, if any, quarry pumping would have on

neighboring wells. The plan, by necessity, involved extensive testing that went far

beyond the limited 3‐day pump test upon which earlier determinations in the 2006

Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were made. Kenneth D. Schmidt and

Associates (KDS) performed all testing with regard to groundwater issues. Blair,

Church & Flynn (BCF) undertook an analysis of Project impacts, if any, on surface

water. Finally, Luhdorff and Scalmanini (LS) peer‐reviewed all of the KDS

undertakings and findings, and performed independent modeling to verify the validity

of KDS’ findings.

The plan included the construction of a new 900 foot‐deep Project well. Ranch wells

and a sufficient number of neighboring wells were also constructed to determine

whether impacts would occur under Project operations were monitored under two

distinct pumping scenarios. First, in order to determine whether there would be

impacts, aquifer testing was performed while pumping from several ranch wells. Then,

1 These subsections will all reference 3.9 to keep this consistent with the numbering of the EIR.

MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.1 Revisions to Hydrology and Water Quality Section

during one 12‐month period, more water was pumped for irrigation purposes than

would be used for the Project.

KDS projected that potential neighboring well drawdowns during operations would be

small (compared to the feet of water standing in the wells, for example, one well would

have a drawdown of 20 feet and the rest between 13 and no effect (see Figure 3.9‐5,

Maximum Projected Drawdowns in Wells During Mining), with drawdowns during

reclamation being even smaller (the well with a drawdown of 20 feet during mining

will be between 5 and 13 feet; the rest will be less than 5 feet, with the vast majority of

them incurring no effect (see Figure 3.9‐6, Projected Drawdowns in Wells During

Reclamation Phase). KDS notes that even though the irrigation pumping during one

annual period was 110 percent of what would be pumped for the Project, no adverse

impacts were noted on any private wells in the vicinity. LS determined that wells on

adjoining property will “discharge at essentially the same capacities prior to, during,

and after the proposed project is operational.”

3.9.2 Introduction

When the Project was initially approved, the groundwater hydrology analysis was

primarily based upon a 3‐day pump test. Both the Judicial Decisions and LS found that

a 3‐day pump test is adequate. Based largely on the 3‐day pump test and an

extrapolation of its results, the DEIR author assumed that the Project would result in

potential significant impacts to adjacent wells. Accordingly, various mitigation

measures were adopted to reduce those impacts that were assumed to be potentially

significant to a less than significant level. The Court of Appeal ruled that 1) there was

no substantial evidence that the measures were feasible or effective; 2) the impacts

associated with implementing some or all of the mitigation measures were not analyzed

in the EIR; and 3) the measure which contemplated the possible formation of a water

system improperly deferred formulation of specific mitigation strategies until after the

Project was approved.

This section describes the hydrology information obtained since the publication of the

June 2005 DEIR. For more detail, please refer to:

Review of ‘Hydrogeologic Conditions At and Near The Proposed Madera Quarry’, October 28, 2009, Luhdorff & Scalmanini (see Appendix C‐1);

Hydrological Conditions at and Near the Proposed Madera Quarry, October 2009, Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (see Appendix C‐2); and



Madera Quarry Surface Water Hydrology Report, October 2009, Blair, Church & Flynn (see Appendix C‐3).

(Collectively, this DEIR refers to the above‐referenced studies and the

“Subsequent Hydrology Reports”).

As will be noted below, the Subsequent Hydrology Reports provide factual data from

pump tests, ranch and private well monitoring, and both groundwater and surface

water modeling supporting a determination that the Project, as described herein, will

not result in significant impacts to neighboring operating wells.

Ranch Well No. 10, a new Project supply well, was constructed in 2008. Well No. 10,

along with Ranch Well No. 1, and water which occurs from dewatering, will provide

water for the operations of the Project. Figure 3.9‐1, Locations of Wells Used For Well

No. 10 Aquifer Test, depicts the location of the following: 1) the entire 1,000‐acre

Madera Quarry, Inc. property in which the 121‐acre mine, plant site, and the proximity

of the Oakwood Subdivision is shown; 2) ranch wells 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10; and 3) the

neighboring private wells that were subject to the 2008 monitoring.

The location of the ranch and private wells that were monitored for the 2005 aquifer

tests is attached as Figure 3.9‐2, Locations of Quarry Wells and Wells Used for 2005

Aquifer Tests).

The Operator will grout water‐bearing fractures, as needed, to reduce the infiltration of

water into the quarry to no more than 22 acre‐feet per year. This will eliminate the

creation of a permanent lake during the post‐mining phase (see Section 3.9.3.3, “Inflow

Post Mining Will Not Cause Formation of Lake”). Grouting of water‐bearing fractures

is common in hard rock quarries, and provides reliable long‐term protection from water

infiltration. The specific grouting method and means of application will be determined

based upon information obtained during excavation, but a performance standard of not

more than 22 acre‐feet per year will be imposed and monitored by the County.

As initially proposed and approved, a bypass channel was included in the Project to

route surface run‐off, from the 275 acres (which BCF describes as Tributary No. 1)

around the mine and into its natural pre‐project drainage course. As will be noted

below, to mitigate against any impacts during the Project from surface water volumes

during 2‐year 24‐hour events, a plant bypass channel on a high bench on the south side

of the excavation would be constructed. There will be an overflow mechanism in this



channel that will divert excess surface runoff into the excavation site. The location of

the two bypass channels is depicted on Figure 3.9‐3, Plan View of Project Site.

These changes to the Project will eliminate the possibility of significant impacts to

neighboring wells and prevent excessive surface water being discharged off‐site. This

DREIR concludes, on the basis of minor changes to the Project and the Subsequent

Hydrology Reports, that there will not be significant impacts to groundwater supplies

at adjoining operating wells during either during or post‐mining. As a result, CEQA

does not require the identification and evaluation of mitigation measures.

3.9.3 Existing Setting and During and Post-Mining Conditions

The prior DEIR had a section under this heading. However, it included information

which also addressed during and post‐mining phases of the Project. For example, it

contained a discussion of the lake that was expected to be created. Based on the

Applicant’s plan to grout fractures as necessary to limit inflow to 22 acre‐feet per year,

and based further upon the results of the Subsequent Hydrology Reports, the DREIR

concludes that the Project will no longer cause a permanent lake to be created post‐

mining.

Where the prior DEIR’s extensive discussion of Existing Setting does not conflict with

the following, it is incorporated into this DREIR.

3.9.3.1 Surface Water Quantity

To analyze the surface water impacts of the Project, as it was revised to address the

Judicial Decisions, BCF undertook a surfacewater hydrology Report (Appendix C‐3,

Madera Quarry Surface Water Hydrology Report).

BCF analyzed two scenarios; the During Project and Post‐Project differences from the

Pre‐Project conditions. BCF determined discharge rates and volume rate changes for

average 2‐, 10‐ and 100‐year events, as well as the differences in annual base flow. Its

findings are noted as:

“During Project Compared to Pre‐Project Condition ‐ Except for the 2‐Year 24‐Hour event, the peak discharge rates increase when the during‐project condition is

compared to the pre‐project condition. For the 2‐Year 24‐Hour event, the peak discharge

rate decreases by 2‐percent. For the 10‐Year 24‐Hour event, the peak discharge rate

increases by 15‐percent and by 3‐percent for the 100‐Year 24‐Hour event.



The runoff volume for the 2‐Year 24‐Hour event increases by 22 ‐percent, the 10‐Year

24‐Hour event increases by 9‐percent, and the 100‐Year 24‐Hour event decreases by 1‐

percent.

The mean annual runoff volume will increase by 12‐percent due to the increased

imperviousness of the plant area.

The estimated base flow will decrease by 3‐percent as a result of an overall reduction in

the watershed area due to removal of the mine [sic: during the post‐reclamation

scenario].

Mitigation Measures ‐ The increases in the peak discharge rates and runoff volumes

that occur for the during project condition are the result of increased runoff rates and

volumes from the Plant area. These increases can be mitigated by diverting a portion of

the runoff from the Plant area into the Mine. The diversion can be easily effected by

placing a multiport orifice plate in the excavated channel to meter the continuing flow in

the channel to stock pond. An overflow weir can then be set to divert the excess flow rate

in the channel down a pipeline to the Mine.

Post Project Compared to Pre‐Project Condition ‐ The decrease in the peak

discharge rates of the post project condition compared to the pre‐project condition varies

from 2‐percent for the 2‐Year 24‐Hour event to 2‐percent for the 10‐Year 24‐Hour event

and to 3‐percent for the 100‐Year 24‐Hour event.

The decrease in runoff volume varies from 3‐percent for the 2‐Year 24‐Hour event to 3‐

percent for the 10‐Year 24‐Hour event and to 3‐percent for the 100‐Year 24‐Hour event.

The mean annual runoff volume will decrease by 4‐percent as a result of an overall

reduction in the watershed area due to removal of the mine [sic: during the post‐

reclamation scenario].

The estimated base flow will decrease by 3‐percent due to an overall reduction in

watershed area due to removal of the mine [sic: during the post‐reclamation scenario].”

(BCF 21‐22).



3.9.3.2 Surface Water Quality

As in the prior DEIR, which is included in Volume II to this DREIR in CD format,

available on the County’s website (http://www.madera‐county.com/rma/

planningdept/), and available in hard copy for viewing at:




(559) 675‐7821

3.9.3.3 Groundwater Quantity

For a discussion of groundwater conditions at the Project site, please see the prior DEIR,

which is attached to this DREIR in a CD format and available on the County’s website:

http://www.madera‐county.com/rma/planningdept/ and available in hard copy (as

modified as revised by Appendix C‐2 of this DREIR) for viewing at:




(559) 675‐7821

Pumpage (Domestic)

For 18 days in October 2005, a long‐term aquifer test was conducted on Ranch Well #1

(see Figure 3.9‐1 for the location of this well). It indicated a sustainable yield, absent

recharge, of 127 gpm. At that time, ten private wells were being monitored. The largest

drawdown of any of the private wells was less than 3 feet. This indicated a poor

hydraulic connection between Well #1 and all but two of the private wells. Eight of the

wells showed a drawdown of less than 1 foot. It was noted that there would have been

drawdown during the aquifer test in October, as well water levels decline in the fall.

From October 31 to November 15, 2005, a period of 16 days, a long‐term aquifer test

was conducted on Well #5. Well #5 is located in the intended excavation area as shown

on Figure 3.9‐1. This test indicated a long‐term yield of 23 gpm, absent recharge. Ten

private wells were monitored, with only one having a drawdown of over 1 ‐foot. This

was the Graham‐West well, indicating a drawdown of 2.1 feet. The other nine wells

indicated no hydraulic connection to Well #5.



Then, in 2008, for a period of 35 days, there was sustained pumping of a newly

constructed well, Ranch Well #10 (see Figure 3.9‐1 for the location of this well). The

results indicated that this well would have a 55 gpm sustainable yield, in the absence of

recharge. Twelve private wells were then monitored. However, one of those wells,

listed as Ranch Well #2, is a non‐operating well located on property owned by the

Wagner Family Trust, which has no pump in it. Other than Ranch Well #2, nine of the

private wells showed no observable drawdown. Two of the wells showed an

observable drawdown of 3 and 6 feet (see Figure 3.9‐2).

From April 16, 2008 to December 2, 2008, Harris flowmeters were installed on 11 private

wells. They indicated an average per‐day consumption of 1,250 gallons each. This

would further indicate a demand of 90 acre‐feet per year for the 63 developed lots in the

Oakview Subdivision (except where noted, all following numerical references in this

section are to the KDS report, which is attached to this DREIR at Appendix C‐2).

For a numerical summary of the Aquifer Tests for Wells No. 1, 5 & 10, see Figures 3.9‐7,

3.9‐8, and 3.9‐9 (Table 10 Summary of Aquifer Tests).

Appendix B of Appendix C‐2 contains the construction data for 50 area private wells

(see Figure 3.9‐4, Location of Private Wells in Vicinity). Five of them are in the range of

260 to 320 feet deep. The remaining 44 wells are between 400 and 1,175 feet deep.

This data regarding neighboring well depths is at variance with the DEIR, 3.9‐19, but

believed reliable as KDS had access to well driller information for the neighboring wells

on which he reported in KDS (Appendix C‐2 to this DREIR).

During the reclamation phase, there would be only two wells having a drawdown that

would exceed 5 feet. These would be drawdowns of approximately 7 and 13 feet. (104)

Pumpage (Irrigation)

During two drought years (2007‐08 and 2008‐09), portions of the ranch were irrigated

utilizing water from Well #1. During this time, various private wells were being

monitored.

Between July 2007 and December 2007, 32 acre‐feet were pumped from this well onto 20

adjoining acres. From August 2008 to July 2009, 61.7 acre‐feet was pumped from the

same well (see 76‐80).



These amounts represent 60 and 110 percent, respectively, of the 55 acre‐feet per year

water demand for the Project. The report notes that this pumpage occurred “with no

obvious adverse impacts on private wells in the vicinity.” (106)

Groundwater Inflow to Excavation Site

Dewatering During Excavation

Water producing fractures will be grouted to limit inflow to 22 acre‐feet per year.

During mining, groundwater inflow could accumulate in the winter when the

facility is closed. When the operations start up in the spring, any accumulation

of water can be pumped and used either as process water or pumped for use as

irrigation water. This is affirmed by LS, p.7:

“As noted above, KDSA concludes that grouting of fractures in the

proposed excavation will impede groundwater inflow to a rate of about

20,000 gpd (14 gpm), which could be used to meet some of the estimated

plant process water requirements during mining. Our understanding is

that the quarry could make use of some of all of that water for part of its

plant process water requirements; alternatively, it may simply discharge

the groundwater inflow, as well as any inflow from precipitation, to the

existing stock pond and then use it for irrigation on its lands adjacent to

the mining operation. In either case, there would not be a permanent

accumulation of ponded water in the bottom of the excavation during

mining.”

Inflow During Reclamation

“[T]he water coming into the grouted excavation (about 20 acre‐feet per

year) would be consumed by evapotranspiration of native plants. A

permanent lake would not form, because the plant evapotranspiration

would consume the precipitation and groundwater inflow, except for short

periods of high precipitation in winter. There would be some temporary

ponding in the bottom of the excavation in the winter.” (103‐104)



Intended Source of Project Water

Until dewatering occurs, pumping will be from a combination of Wells #1 and #10.

Although they have a sustainable yield of 127 gpm and 55 gpm, respectively, at startup

they will be pumped at 25 gpm and 10 gpm, respectively. This will supply the 55 acre‐

feet per year mine project consumption.

When dewatering commences, the 14 gpm and 20 acre feet per year yield from

dewatering will allow the pumping from Wells #10 and #1 to be reduced. (97)

Drawdowns in Wells

“Wells No. 1 and 10 would be pumped at a combined total of 35 gpm, until water

from the limited dewatering of the excavation becomes available. Because greater

drawdowns in private domestic wells in the vicinity would generally result from

pumping of Well No. 10 than from pumping of Well No. 1, more water would be

pumped from the latter well. In order to produce a total of 35 gpm, Well No. 1

would be initially pumped at 25 gpm, or about twenty percent of its long‐term

yield. Well No. 10 would be initially pumped at 10 gpm, also about twenty

percent of its long‐term yield. The results of the groundwater monitoring

program proposed in a later section of this report would be used to manage the

pumping rates from these wells, if necessary, so as to minimize drawdowns in

private wells in the vicinity …”

Any private well situated on a major lineament similar to Well No. 1 and No. 10 will,

prior to dewatering, have a projected drawdown of

“…30’ at a distance of 5,000’, and 20’ at a distance of 9,000’, from Well No. 1.

There is only one private well (Graham East) that is apparently located along the

same lineament as Well No. 1. A maximum drawdown of about 20 feet is

projected at this well.” (97‐99)

There will be smaller drawdowns “to the north that are not along major lineaments or

fracture zones that pass through Wells No. 1 or 10.” (100). Figures 3.9‐5 and 3.9‐6 show

the projected drawdowns both during mining and reclamation phases and the location

of neighboring wells. Figures 3.9‐7 through 3.9‐9, Table 10 Summary of Aquifer Tests,

shows a summary of the three above‐noted aquifer tests.



Inflow Post Mining Will Not Cause Formation of Lake

As noted in “Groundwater Inflow to Excavation Site”, above, KDS concluded that other

than for short periods of high precipitation during the winter when temporary ponding

might occur, standing water will not occur at the bottom of the pit. This condition, if it

occurs, will be temporary in nature. Thus, contrary to the conclusion of the DEIR, the

DREIR concludes that a permanent lake will not form at the excavation site after mining

activities cease because grouting and the reclaimed vegetative surface that will enhance

evapotranspiration, which has been calculated in Appendix C‐1.

Utilizing the groundwater inflow quantity provided by KDS and precipitation data at

the gauged rates at the Madera California Irrigation Management Information Service

(CIMIS), LS undertook to more extensively model whether a pond might form in the

excavation site after mining concludes. LS analyzed utilizing average annual data and

then performed a second calculation based upon monthly precipitation. LS conclusions

are that 1) on an annual basis there will be no surplus of water to allow for the creation

of a lake, but 2) there will a few months when up to 5 inches of water might pool before

it evaporates. LS calculations were modeled assuming “the excavation, covering a total

of about 78 acres, will be reclaimed by placing 12 inches of unconsolidated overburden

and 4 inches of topsoil on the entire area.” (For all references on this issue see LS, App.

C‐1)

“Within the excavation, most of that water (after interception of a small fraction

by the vegetation itself) will combine with groundwater inflow and tend to fill the

pore space of the reclaimed overburden and topsoil, up to the limits of their water

holding capacity, with any surplus then accumulating as ponded water on the

ground surface. A combination of evapotranspiration by the native vegetation

and evaporation from any ponded water surface will then tend to remove the

inflow from groundwater and precipitation. Two water budgets were prepared to

examine the balance, or imbalance, between inflows and outflows, one at the scale

of average annual conditions and a second on a monthly time steps to account for

seasonal variations in both precipitation and evapotranspiration, which in turn

can be expected to result in seasonal variations in soil moisture, ponded water,

and plant growth…

On an average annual basis, the combined inflows from groundwater (22 afy) and

total precipitation (105 afy) represent a total water supply of 127 afy for the

native vegetation to be planted on the 78 acres of reclaimed surfaces of the

excavation…



In summary, at the scale of total available water over a year, native vegetation can

be expected to consumptively use all the inflow, with the net result that no

surplus will remain to accumulate as a lake at the bottom of the excavation.”

“The monthly water budget was prepared to examine whether evapotranspiration

would cumulatively utilize all available water, as suggested by the average annual

budget above, and also to examine whether there would be seasonal periods when

surplus water would be expected to pond in the excavation…

Commencing in January:

“the combined inflows would exceed the combination of evapotranspiration by

native vegetation and the moisture holding capacity of the reclaimed overburden

and topsoil, resulting in a ponding of up to about 5 inches of water in March and

April. In subsequent months, the combined inflows would be less than

consumption by the native vegetation…”

3.9.3.4 Groundwater Quality The quality of the groundwater was analyzed for the original DEIR and afterwards

when the use of Project water was considered as a possible supply for neighboring

properties. However, as that is no longer part of the Project or any of its contemplated

mitigations, the subsequently obtained groundwater quality information is provided

only as non‐essential information.

Table 11 of KDS shows chemical analysis from ranch wells taken in 2001, 2004 and 2008

on Well Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 10. It does not include the analysis from the prior DEIR for the

following reasons. “BSK (2004) collected water samples from Quarry Wells Nos. 1‐8 on

June 10, 2004. However, only a small amount of water was pumped from each well,

and the results are not considered as representative as those provided on Table 11.”

As reported by KDS, arsenic levels were in excess of MCL for Well Nos. 4 and 10 and

fluoride exceeded MCL on wells 1, 5, and 10.

An analysis of various private wells was performed and those results are indicated on

Tables 12, 13, and 14. The 2004 BSK analysis was considered representative as those

“wells were in use and were pumped from about 10 to 15 minutes before collecting the

samples…” (84)



In the 2004 test, arsenic exceeded MCL on 2 of 10 wells and fluoride exceeded MCL on 1

well. For the 2009 test, arsenic was elevated on 2 of the 10 wells, fluoride on 1 of 10, and

alpha activity was elevated on 1 of the 10 wells.

3.9.4 Standards of Significance, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures

3.9.4.1 Standards of Significance

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides guidance for assessing the significance of

potential environmental impacts. Relative to hydrology and water quality, a Project

will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or

a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre‐

existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land

uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including

through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which

would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including

through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase

the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding

on‐ or off‐site;

Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or

planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources

of polluted runoff;

Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;

Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard

delineation map;

Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or

redirect flood flows;



Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving

flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or

Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Significant impacts could also result if Project elements conflict with adopted County

policies that relate to groundwater.

State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 68‐16 is also an applicable criterion for

assessing the impact of the Project on groundwater resources. This resolution requires

maintenance of existing water quality unless demonstrated that a change will benefit

the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect present or potential water users,

and will not result in lower water quality than prescribed by other state policies.

3.9.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 3.9-1: The Project Could Cause the Water Levels and Pumping Rates in Adjacent Private Wells to Decline During the Operational Life of the Quarry

Based upon the Subsequent Hydrology Reports, it is possible, that water levels in adjacent

private wells could decline. However, the level of decline would not cause a significant impact

on pumping rates to adjacent wells. This impact is less than significant.

The Applicant has estimated that Quarry operations will require 55 acre‐feet/year

of water for consumptive uses. An independent assessment of water usage

conducted as part of this analysis indicates that the Quarry operations will

require at least 30 acre‐feet/year of water.

Two types of ranch well pumping support the conclusion of less than significant

impact. KDS undertook constant head tests of Ranch Wells Nos. 1, 5 and 10

while monitoring several neighboring private wells. KDS determined that the

sustainable yield of No. 1 is 127 gpm and 55 gpm for No. 10. KDS then

determined the approximate effect on the selected private wells near the Project

that were made available for monitoring. They calculated a drawdown effect of

pumping 25 gpm and 10 gpm (the amount necessary to serve the Projects needs

of 55 acre‐feet/year) from Nos. 1 and 10. This was then plotted on a contour map

depicting all of the neighboring wells, not just those that were subject to the

monitoring. He undertook the same analysis considering the excavation site’s

dewatering of approximately 22 acre‐feet/year.



The wells were shown in proximity to the lineaments along which Nos. 1 and 10

exist. As indicated, the effects are expected to be larger to those private wells

more distant from the Project along those lineaments than those that are off to

the side of either lineament.

KDS concluded that the potential drawdown in each well to be anywhere from 1

to 13 feet, except the Graham East well, which could experience a drawdown of

up to 20 feet.

LS reviewed KDS and replicated the project impacts. In doing so, LS determined

that KDS’s determination was supported by the data.

“Thus, our independent assessment would be that the combined effects of

proposed project pumping and excavation dewatering, as presented by

KDSA in its Figure 31, and also as itemized (about 20 feet) for a single

well (Graham East) along the lineament associated with Quarry Well 1,

are notably conservative.” (LS 6)

In other words, LS believed the projected effect on the Graham East well would

most likely be less than 20 feet.

However, even using KDS’s ‘conservative’ results, LS noted that impacts of

“less than 10 feet in almost all cases and up to a maximum of about 20 feet in one

well, are not sufficient to cause a notable change in pumping capacity for the

types of typical deepwell submersible pumps that are used in private wells near

the proposed project site. Thus, the nearby private well owners could anticipate

their respective individual water supply wells to discharge at essentially the same

capacities prior to, during, and after the propose project is operational.” (LS 6)

LS did note that increasing the pumping depth by 20 feet would be expected to

occasion an increase in energy use of 50 kWh per year, or about $10‐15. This is

based upon the average of 1.4 acre‐feet/year water usage determined by KDS

from the meters in the Oakwood subdivision adjacent to the Project.

LS concluded on this topic with,

“The range of potential pumping and dewatering impacts presented by KDSA,

less than 10 feet in almost all cases and up to a maximum of about 20 feet in one



well, are not sufficient to cause a notable change in pumping capacity for the

types of deepwell submersible pumps that are typically used in private wells like

those near the proposed project site. . . As a closing comment on the topic of

pumping impacts on private wells, it is noteworthy that all the pumping impacts

estimated by KDSA are numerically small, leading to the expectation that private

pump capacities will be practically unaffected, and pumping costs will be

minimally increased as discussed above.” (LS 6)

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than Significant

Mitigation Measures: None Required

Impact 3.9-2: The Project Could Cause the Water Levels and Pumping Rates in Adjacent Private Wells to Decline After the Operational Life of the Quarry

Once excavation and mining ceases, there will no longer be Project demand for

55 acre‐feet/year of water. Water will continue to flow into the former excavation

site at the rate of 22 acre‐feet/year. As this draw on the groundwater is less than

during excavation and mining there will be no significant effect on the

neighboring wells’ water levels or pumping rates as a result of reclamation, or

after the operational life of the quarry.



Impact 3.9-3: The Project Could Cause an Increase in Surface Water Runoff That Could Cause an Increased Potential for Flooding in Areas Downstream of the Quarry During the Operational Life of the Quarry

The Project might result in more surface‐water run‐off in areas downstream of the Quarry

because, at times, there will be an increase in surface run‐off. This impact is potentially

significant.

As part of the Project, the intermittent stream that currently runs through the

Quarry area will be diverted through a bypass channel around the north side of

the Quarry pit. Therefore, normal surface flows from upstream of the Quarry

area will not be affected. A small bypass channel will be installed on a high



bench on the south side of the mining area to divert surface flows to the existing

stock pond, which pond, at times, then creates downstream surface run‐off. BCF

determined downstream discharge rates and volumes for mean conditions and

for 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year 24‐hour events. There is one situation which causes a

downstream impact from increased surface volumes. The 2‐year 24‐hour event

would cause a downstream increase of 22 percent of surfacewater volume.

”The envelope of precision of hydrologic modeling is approximately 10 to

20‐percent, meaning that numbers that fall within this range are generally

considered to be equivalent. All of these changes in flow rates or volumes

are at or within that envelope of precision except the increase in the 2‐year

24‐hour peak discharge rate in the during project condition, which can be

mitigated as discussed below. …These increases can be mitigated by

diverting a portion of the runoff from the Plant area into the Mine.ʺ (BCF

22).

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 3.9‐3

Any increases can be mitigated by diverting a portion of the runoff from the Plant area

into the Mine. The diversion can be effected by placing a multiport orifice plate in the

excavated channel to meter the continuing flow in the channel to stock pond. An

overflow weir can then be set to divert the excess flow rate in the channel down a pipeline

to the Mine.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant

Impact 3.9-4: The Project Could Cause an Increase or Decrease in Surface-Water Runoff That Could Affect Areas Downstream of the Quarry After the Operational Life of the Quarry

The Project might result in more surfacewater run‐off in areas downstream of the Quarry

because, at times, there will be an increase in surface run‐off. This impact is potentially

significant.

“The decrease in the peak discharge rates of the post project condition compared to the

pre‐project condition varies from 2 percent for the 2‐year 24‐hour event to 2 percent for

the 10‐year 24‐hour event and to 3 percent for the 100‐year 24‐hour event.



The decrease in runoff volume varies from 3 percent for the 2‐year 24‐hour event to 3

percent for the 10‐year 24‐hour event and to 3 percent for the 100‐year 24‐hour event.

The mean annual runoff volume will decrease by 4 percent as a result of an overall

reduction in the watershed area due to removal of the mine.

The estimated base flow will decrease by 3 percent due to an overall reduction in

watershed area due to removal of the mine.”


Mitigation Measure: None Required

Impact 3.9-5: The Project Could Cause a Permanent Pond to be Created in the Mine Excavation Area After the Operational Life of the Quarry

As needed to meet the performance standard, the Operator will grout the water‐

bearing fractures within the quarry. The performance standard of not more than

22 acre‐feet per year of infiltration, through water‐bearing fractures, will be

monitored by the County. KS noted that this volume of water coming into the

grouted excavation (about 20 acre‐feet/year) would be consumed by

evapotranspiration of native plants.

“A permanent lake would not form, because the plant evapotranspiration

would consume the precipitation and groundwater inflow, except for short

periods of high precipitation in the winter. There would be some

temporary ponding in the bottom of the excavation in the winter.” (103‐

104)

LS modeled the inflow of groundwater and surface water on an annual average

and then modeled based on monthly data. Using the monthly model, LS

determined that, with the site being reclaimed with 1 foot of overburden, 4

inches of topsoil and native vegetation, a permanent pond will not be created. At

most there might be temporary ponding of 5 inches of water in the excavation

floor from March until the water evaporates in May.






The site is to be reclaimed using native vegetation along with a minimum of 1

foot of overburden and 4 inches of topsoil shall spread on all benches and the

excavation floor. A performance standard of not more than 22 acre‐feet per year

of infiltration, through water‐bearing fractures, will be monitored by the County.


Impact 3.9-6: The Project Could Cause Degradation of Groundwater and/or Surface-Water Quality2

Activities such as blasting, ground disturbance, onsite storage of petroleum products, and

operation storage, maintenance, and repair of construction equipment could cause degradation of

groundwater and/or surface water quality. This impact is potentially significant.

The Project will involve the blasting of the bedrock to produce material suitable

to be crushed into aggregate. The blasting will typically involve the use of

compounds containing ammonium, nitrate, and fuel oils. These compounds

could migrate to groundwater through exposed fractures in the Quarry pit if not

stored, handled, and used properly. The Quarry dewatering will tend to draw

any compounds that reach groundwater back to the Quarry, where they will be

extracted during dewatering. Under certain conditions, however, such as heavy

winter rains or a curtailment of Quarry operations, these compounds could reach

groundwater and not be captured by the Quarry dewatering.

The Project includes extensive ground disturbance and onsite storage of

petroleum products and other hazardous materials. As discussed above, future

operations may also involve the operation of an asphalt batch plant. The asphalt

batch plant will use asphaltic tars, which are generally insoluble. Solvents and

cleaners may be used for cleaning and maintenance of the asphalt batch plant

operations and delivery trucks. These proposed operations increase the potential

for contamination of surface‐water runoff and groundwater. Operation, storage,

maintenance, and repair of construction equipment will occur as part of the

Project. These activities will require the use, transport, transfer, and storage of

fuels, lubricants, and cleaners. Spills or leaks of these petroleum products and

other hazardous materials could affect surface‐water or groundwater quality if

2 This impact statement is unchanged from the DEIR.


not properly stored and handled. California State Water Resources Control

Board Resolution 68‐16 requires that existing water quality be maintained and

that further degradation of water quality be prevented. This resolution is often

referred to as the “non‐degradation policy” and prohibits the degradation of

surface‐water or groundwater quality.


Mitigation Measures:


As part of the Project approvals and permitting, the Applicant shall be required

by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to prepare a

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to comply with Basin Plan limits for

water quality and discharge of sediment and suspended solids. Compliance with

the requirements in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, along with

Mitigation Measure 3.9‐7b, will prevent any future degradation of surface‐water

quality related to the Project. To verify compliance with this mitigation measure,

the operator will be required to conduct monitoring and sampling as required in

the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The monitoring results must be

reported to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County.


All fuel and chemical storage areas and all equipment maintenance areas should

be placed on bermed concrete surfaces. If the bermed concrete surfaces drain to a

sump, the sump should be cleaned and the waste fluids handled and disposed of in

compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. If the bermed concrete

surfaces do not drain to a sump, routine cleaning should be conducted to prevent

the surface from becoming slippery. The cleaning solutions and wash water

should be handled in the same manner as the sump fluids. Verification of

compliance with this mitigation measure will occur through routine inspections

by the County.





3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures

As of the time of issuance of the Notice of Preparation (December 23, 2008), there were

no pending applications for, nor any existing large‐scale aggregate mining or industrial

activities in the area near the Project that would utilize significant quantities of

groundwater, or result in significant surface‐water runoff. Therefore, there are no

cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality from the Project.

3.2 REVISIONS TO NOISE AND VIBRATION SECTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS


3.2 REVISIONS TO NOISE AND VIBRATION SECTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS1

3.11.1 Introduction

The revisions to the DEIR and FEIR were specifically undertaken to address and respond to

the Court’s opinion that the original noise evaluation did not consider the potentially

significant cumulative noise impacts associated with off‐site Project related traffic noise

increases.2 Figure 3.11‐1 (Site Plan, Noise Measurement Locations, and Receiver Locations)

shows the general orientation of the Project site and proposed on‐site uses. This section

also includes pertinent data regarding current baseline traffic and general ambient

conditions. The revisions to the original section include the following:

This section includes an updated Environmental Setting to discuss changes in land

use and noise environments since the original noise analysis was prepared for this

project. This update was based on review of the recent Tesoro Viejo Specific Plan

EIR, current aerial photographs, and discussion with Madera County Planning

Department Staff.

This section includes an expanded discussion of project significance criteria in

response to the Court’s ruling, with particular attention to the thresholds of

significance for findings of noise impacts related to Project‐related cumulative noise

1 These subsections will all reference 3.11 to keep this consistent with the numbering of the DEIR and FEIR.

2 This section is based on the previous noise analysis prepared for this project (Environmental Noise Analysis,

Madera Ranch Quarry Project, Bollard & Brennan, Inc., July 2004), with revisions by Bollard Acoustical

Consultants, Inc.

MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.2 Revisions to Noise and Vibration Section


level increases. Specifically, these revisions include a discussion of the thresholds

recommended by the Federal Interagency Commission on Noise (FICON) for

assessing impacts associated with Project‐related noise increases, and how the

FICON standards are more conservative than the standards previously utilized to

assess Project noise impacts.

This section includes an expanded discussion of applicable Madera County noise

standards. These revisions discuss the distinction between residences constructed

on residentially‐zoned properties versus residences constructed on agriculturally‐

zoned properties.

This section includes an expanded discussion of off‐site Project‐related traffic noise impacts

for both existing and cumulative conditions, and reassessment of the impact statements

contained in the previous study relative to the FICON standards and actual distances

between the roadway centerlines and residential structures. In the previous analysis,

impacts associated with the Project‐related traffic noise increases were assessed at a

standardized distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerlines, to generally reflect worst‐

case conditions. In response to the Court’s opinion that the FEIR failed to adequately

address Project traffic noise impacts, this section includes a more focused traffic noise

impact assessment at the actual distances to residences in cases where those distances are

greater than the 100‐foot reference distance. More specifically, the previous analysis

utilized a reference position of 100 feet from centerline to assess noise impacts to existing

residences located along Highways 41 and 145, and County Road 209, regardless of

whether there were any existing residences constructed that close to the roadway. This

section recognizes that along several roadway segments utilized by Project traffic, there is

either no residence at all, or the existing residential structures are located beyond the 100‐

foot reference distance. Review of aerial photographs within 10 miles of the intersection of

State Routes 145 and 41 indicated that there were no apparent residential structures within

100 feet of the roadway centerline. The traffic noise impact statements were revised, where

applicable, to account for these actual distances.

3.11.2 Noise and Vibration Fundamentals and Terminology

3.11.2.1 Background on Noise and Vibration

Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the

pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be

heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the



frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Appendix

O‐1, Acoustical Terminology, contains definitions of acoustical terminology used in this

section.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward

range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the

hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB.

Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is

taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million‐fold

increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB. Another useful aspect of the decibel scale is

that changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Figure 3.11‐2, Typical A‐Weighted Sound

Levels of Common Noise, illustrates common noise levels associated with various sources.

Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver.

While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that in that noise is generally considered to

be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the

excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and

frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual

sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the

response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be described in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common

practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per

second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been

developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities. For this Project,

vibration is a concern primarily during blasting and excavation. An assessment of mining‐

related vibration levels is contained within this section.

3.11.2.2 Effects of Noise on People

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound

pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental

noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by

weighing the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A‐

weighing network. There is a strong correlation between A‐weighted sound levels

(expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A‐weighted



sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise

levels reported in this section are in terms of A‐weighted levels in decibels.

FIGURE 3.11-2 TYPICAL A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS OF COMMON NOISE SOURCES

Loudness Ratio Level A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)

128 130 Threshold of pain

64

120 Jet aircraft take‐off at 100 feet

32

110 Riveting machine at operators position

16

100 Shotgun at 200 feet

8

90 Bulldozer at 50 feet

4

80 Diesel locomotive at 300 feet

2

70 Commercial jet aircraft interior during flight

1

60 Normal conversation speech at 5‐10 feet

1/2

50 Open office background level

1/4

40 Background level within a residence

1/8

30 Soft whisper at 2 feet

1/16

20

Interior of recording studio

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is

defined as the all‐encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A

common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent,

sound level (Leq) over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of



the Day‐Night Average Level noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with

community response to noise.

The Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24‐hour

day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to

7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to

nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures.

Because Ldn represents a 24‐hour average, it tends to disguise short‐term variations in the

noise environment. Ldn‐based noise standards are commonly used to assess noise impacts

associated with traffic, railroad, and aircraft noise sources.

The Madera County noise standards, which are discussed in detail later in this section, are

expressed in terms of the Ldn descriptor as well as in terms of hourly performance

standards. In addition to applying the County’s noise standards to this Project, the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that noise impacts be assessed

relative to ambient noise levels that are present without the Project. As a result, ambient

noise surveys were conducted, and comparisons of Project to No‐Project noise levels were

used to assess noise impacts (in addition to comparison to Madera County noise

standards). Specifically, individual maximum (Lmax) noise levels and hourly average (Leq)

noise levels, both with and without the Project, were compared so that the assessment of

noise impacts was not based solely on an assessment of Project‐generated noise in terms of

24‐hour averages (Ldn), but also on short‐term fluctuations in the ambient noise

environment.

It should be noted that audibility is not a test of significance according to CEQA. If this

were the case, any project which added any audible amount of noise to the environment

would be considered unacceptable according to CEQA. Because every physical process

creates noise, whether by the addition of a single vehicle on a roadway, or by a tractor in an

agricultural field, the use of audibility alone as significance criteria would be unworkable.

CEQA requires a substantial increase in noise levels before noise impacts are identified, not

simply an audible change. The discussion of what constitutes a substantial change in noise

environments, both existing and cumulative, is provided in the Regulatory Setting section

of this section.



3.11.3 Affected Environment

3.11.3.1 Project Location and Description

Please see the Project Description, Section 2.0 of the DEIR, for a comprehensive narrative on

the Project. In short, the Project proposes to develop the Madera Quarry property as a new

hardrock quarry. The Project site is located in central Madera County, California, about 2

miles west of State Highway 41, 4 miles north of State Highway 145, and 16 miles northeast

of the City of Madera. The Project would be located on approximately 125 acres of the 540‐

acre Madera Quarry, which is zoned for agricultural use. Associated with the Quarry

would be an aggregate processing facility, asphalt processing plant, administration

complex, parking areas, on‐site haul road, and various other stockpile and processing

areas. The Project would also include construction of a two‐lane paved haul road from the

processing area west about ¼‐mile out to County Road 209. As proposed, the Project also

would include substantial upgrading and realignment of Road 209 to meet County and

Caltrans standards.

The maximum proposed aggregate production during the Project life would be 900,000

tons per year marketed. Mining would continue for up to 50 years, through several mining

phases, with mining‐related noise levels decreasing with increasing depth into the mining

pit due to shielding by pit walls. A total of about 45 million tons of marketable material

would be mined over the life of the Project. At the conclusion of aggregate production, a

reclamation phase would extend the total Project lifespan to about 53 years.

Typical mine operating hours would be from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday (13 hours per day). Hauling of material from the processing facilities would also

take place Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The asphalt processing

plant would operate from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on normal operating days. Operations

would normally occur 5 days per week; however, extended operations, including

Saturdays, could occur sporadically to meet customer demands.

Certain public agency projects (such as Caltrans road improvement projects) may operate

during nighttime hours to prevent traffic congestion associated with lane closures and

heavy vehicle operations. In addition, emergency road repairs may be made necessary by

natural disasters (e.g., flooding), or other unforeseen events. These road improvement or

repair projects accordingly require materials to be supplied at night. The asphalt

processing plant and truck loadout could periodically operate 24 hours per day, and up to



7 days per week for limited periods to service these projects. The duration of these

expanded hours of operation would depend on the duration of the projects being supplied.

However, excavation from the mine area and rock crushing operations would occur only

during daylight hours.

Operations would take place year‐round. However, according to the Applicant,

construction tends to be slow during the months of December and January because of

seasonal storms and holidays. The Madera Quarry would be open to serve customer needs

during these months, but hours of operation and production rates would likely be less than

during the remainder of the year.

3.11.3.2 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity

Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site consist of primarily of open grazing

lands and large rural‐residential properties. Agricultural uses are not considered to be

noise‐sensitive. The nearest noise‐sensitive uses to the Project site consist of residences

constructed on agricultural properties to the west, north, and east of the Project site. The

approximate locations of the nearest identified representative noise‐sensitive areas are

identified on Figure 3.11‐1.

3.11.3.3 Description of Existing Ambient Noise Environment in 2004

The ambient noise environment in the immediate Project vicinity at the time the original

noise analysis was prepared for this Project was defined primarily by natural sounds,

(wind, cattle, birds, insects, etc.), but also by sporadic local traffic and occasional high

altitude aircraft over flights of the area.

To quantify the ambient noise environment in the Project vicinity in 2004, continuous and

short term noise level measurements were conducted at five locations on and around the

Project site on April 19‐20, 2004. That measurement period represented a typical weekday

period during normal spring/fall‐like atmospheric conditions. The noise measurement site

locations are identified in Figure 3.11‐1.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were

used for the noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after

use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the



measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American

National Standards Institute.

The numerical summaries of the ambient noise level measurements are provided in Table

3.11‐1, Ambient Noise Measurement Survey Summaries (April 19‐20, 2004). The Table

3.11‐1 data include daytime and nighttime, average and maximum noise levels, as well as

the Ldn values computed from the hourly average noise levels. Graphical depictions of the

2004 ambient noise environments at the measurement sites for the Sunday and Monday

periods monitored are shown in Appendix O‐2, Continuously Measured Hourly Noise

Levels.

TABLE 3.11-1 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY SUMMARIES (APRIL 19-20, 2004)

Daytime

(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime

(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)

Site Location Average

(Leq) Maximum

(Lmax) Average

(Leq) Maximum

(Lmax) Computed

Ldn A P/L next to Elevated Res. to West. 44 49‐71 45 42‐76 51

B 40762 Rd. 406 ‐ Pfoutz Residence 43 53‐79 37 42‐68 45

C 41259 Rd. 406 ‐ Harris Residence 49 58‐81 47 47‐83 54

D N/E Corner of Project Site ‐

White Residence 46 50‐80 34 34‐69 45

E Eastern Boundary of Project Site 40 54 – – –

Source: Bollard & Brennan, Inc.

Notes:

1. Noise measurement locations are identified on Figure 3.11‐1.

2. Averages shown are the logarithmic mean for the period.

3. Maximum levels shown are the range of maximum levels measured during each hour of the day or

nighttime period.

4. Site E was monitored as a short‐term site during daytime hours, so no nighttime data was collected

at this location.

The Table 3.11‐1 data indicate that the 2004 ambient noise environment on the Project site

and at the nearest residences during the survey period consisted of fairly low noise levels.

The measured levels are consistent with what would be expected of rural, agricultural

areas removed from major roadways, and which are not significantly affected by other

local noise sources.



The Table 3.11‐1 data indicate that the 2004 ambient noise environment on the Project site

and at the nearest residences during the survey period consisted of fairly low noise levels

with brief periods of elevated maximum noise levels. A wide range of measured

maximum noise levels were recorded at each site, indicating that during certain hours of

the day and night there were no appreciably loud events, while during other hours there

were. The measured levels are consistent with what would be expected of rural,

agricultural areas removed from major roadways, and that are not significantly affected by

other local noise sources.

3.11.3.4 Description of Existing Ambient Noise Environment in 2009

Review of current aerial photography indicates that no new noise‐sensitive receptors have

been constructed closer to the project site than those which existed during the 2004 ambient

noise surveys. This observation was confirmed by Madera County Planning Department

Staff (pers. comm., Matt Treber, January 28, 2009).

Because there have not been appreciable changes in land use in the immediate Project

vicinity, ambient noise conditions quantified through extensive monitoring in 2004 are

believed to remain representative of current conditions in the immediate Project vicinity.

Because ambient conditions general increase over time due to general increases in traffic

volumes associated with growth in the region, it is highly unlikely that ambient noise

conditions in the immediate Project vicinity decreased between the 2004 ambient noise

surveys and current conditions. As a result, the 2004 data likely provides a conservative

baseline condition against which current Project noise impacts are evaluated.

It is worthy of note that ambient noise monitoring data contained in Table 4.10‐4 of the

Tesoro Viejo Specific Plan EIR3 indicate that average and maximum noise levels were

generally similar to those shown above in Table 3.11‐1. Although the project sites are not

contiguous, they are in the same general region and provide additional context pertaining

to ambient noise conditions.

3 http://www.madera‐county.com/rma/archives/uploads/1221158005_Document_upload_15_

sec4.10_noise.pdf



3.11.3.5 Description of Current Ambient Vibration Environment

Because no significant vibration sources or industrial operations were identified within the

Project vicinity, the ambient vibration environment is considered to be negligible both at

the Project site and at the nearest sensitive land uses.

3.11.4 Regulatory Setting

3.11.4.1 Local Jurisdictional Guidelines

In California, cities and counties are required to adopt a noise element as part of their

general plan. Cities and counties can also adopt noise control requirements within their

zoning ordinances or as a separate noise ordinance. The Project is located in Madera

County, which has both a Noise Ordinance and a Noise Element.

3.11.4.2 Madera County General Plan Noise Element

County General Plan Noise Level Standards

The Madera County General Plan Noise Element establishes acceptable noise level limits

for both transportation and non‐transportation noise sources. The primary objective of the

noise element is to prescribe policies that lead to the preservation and enhancement of the

quality of life for the residents of Madera County by securing and maintaining an

environment free from hazardous and annoying noise.

For residential uses affected by transportation noise sources (off‐site traffic in this case), the

noise element identifies 60 dB Ldn as acceptable. This is consistent with State of California

standards recommended for transportation noise sources. Policy 7.A.1 specifically

prohibits the creation of new residences in areas where noise due to transportation noise

sources would exceed 60 dB Ldn in outdoor activity areas or 45 dB Ldn within residences.

It should be noted that many of the land uses located in the immediate Project vicinity are

agriculturally zoned, and agricultural uses are not considered to be noise sensitive. For the

purposes of assessing noise impacts for this Project, however, residences located on

agriculturally designated properties are considered to be noise sensitive. Even though the

residence is considered to be noise sensitive, the agriculturally zoned property containing

the residence is not, so noise impacts are evaluated in this study at the residences



themselves where the noise sensitivity exists, rather than at the property line of the

agriculturally designated parcel, which is not considered to be noise sensitive.

For residences affected by non‐transportation noise sources, such as noise‐producing

activities that will occur at the Project site, the County Noise Element establishes noise

standards. For this Project, the evaluation period is considered to be the worst‐case hour

during which all on‐site equipment would be operating, including maximum truck traffic

generation. The Madera County noise standards that may be applicable to this Project are

provided in Table 3.11‐2, Madera County Noise Element Performance Standards

Applicable to Land Uses Affected by Heavy Industrial Uses.

TABLE 3.11-2 MADERA COUNTY NOISE ELEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

APPLICABLE TO LAND USES AFFECTED BY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES

Land Use Daytime Standard

(7 am to 10 pm) Nighttime Standard

(10 pm to 7 am) Agricultural 65 60

Residential 60 55

Source: Madera County Noise Element Table 7.A.4

The recently updated Madera County noise standards summarized in Table 3.11‐2 are

ambiguous in that they do not specify the noise level descriptor associated with the

numeric standard. Given the magnitude of the standard, it is assumed that they are

intended to represent average noise levels (Leq) that are not to be exceeded at the property

line of the receiving use.

County General Plan Vibration Thresholds

Madera County is in the process of updating its General Plan Policies 7.A.9 and 7.A.10 to

establish a vibration level threshold of 0.1 inches per second at areas considered sensitive

to vibration. This level is considered the threshold at which annoyance can be expected.



3.11.4.3 Madera County Noise Ordinance

Section 9.58.020 of the Madera County Code contains general noise regulations for noise

sources located within Madera County. This section contains general regulations geared

towards residences, schools, generation of motor vehicles, horns, etc., but does not contain

numeric noise level standards for use in evaluating the compatibility of new projects with

its surroundings. Therefore, the County Noise Element standards (described above) and

the CEQA guidelines (described below) are used to assess noise impacts for this Project.

3.11.4.4 Noise Level Increase Significance Criteria

It is generally recognized that an increase of at least 3 dB for similar noise sources is usually

required before most people will perceive a change in noise levels, and an increase of 6 dB

is required before the change will be clearly noticeable (Egan 1988).

The Federal Interagency Commission on Noise (FICON) has developed a graduated scale

for use in the assessment of project‐related noise level increases. Table 3.11‐3, Significance

of Chances in Cumulative Noise Exposure, was developed by FICON as a means of

developing thresholds for impact identification for project‐related noise level increases.

The FICON standards have been used extensively in recent years by the authors of this

section in the preparation of the noise sections of Environmental Impact Reports that have

been certified in many California Cities and Counties.

The rationale for the graduated scale used in the FICON standards is that test subject’s

reactions to increases in noise levels varied depending on the starting level of noise.

Specifically, with lower ambient noise environments, such as those below 60 dB Ldn, a

larger increase in noise levels was required to achieve a negative reaction than was

necessary in more elevated noise environments.

It should be noted that the use of the FICON standards for this analysis represent a change

from the previous noise analysis. This change was implemented to provide more

conservative thresholds for assessment of significance of project‐related noise increases.

The previous analysis utilized a 3 dB threshold for a finding of noise impact, whereas the

FICON standards, which are based on Federal research, utilize thresholds of 1.5 to 5 dB for

significance criteria, depending on no‐project noise environments. So where the lowest



threshold considered in the previous assessment was 3 dB, in this revised assessment using

the FICON standards, that threshold has been lowered to 1.5 dB.

The use of the FICON standards is also considered conservative relative to thresholds used

by other agencies in the State of California. For example, the California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans) requires a project‐related traffic noise level increase of 12 dB for

a finding of significance, and the California Energy Commission (CEC) considers project‐

related noise level increases between 5‐10 dB significant, depending on local factors.

Therefore, the use of the FICON standards, which set the threshold for finding of

significant noise impacts as low as 1.5 dB, provide a very conservative approach to impact

assessment for this Project.

TABLE 3.11-3 SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCES IN CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE

Ambient Noise Level Without Project (Ldn) Increase Required for Significant Impact

Less than 60 dB +5.0 dB or more

60 to 65 dB +3.0 dB or more

Greater than 65 dB +1.5 dB or more

Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)

Based on the FICON research, as shown in Table 3.11‐3, a 5 dB increase in noise levels due

to a project is required for a finding of significant noise impact where ambient noise levels

without the project are less than 60 dB Ldn. Where pre‐project ambient conditions are

between 60 and 65 dB Ldn, a 3 dB increase is applied as the standard of significance. Finally,

in areas already exposed to higher noise levels, specifically pre‐project noise levels in

excess of 65 dB Ldn, a 1.5 dB increase is considered by FICON as the threshold of

significance. This scale indicates that in quieter noise environments, test subjects tolerated

a higher increase in noise levels due to a project before the onset of adverse noise impacts

than did test subjects in louder environments.

According to the FICON Study, “if screening analysis shows that noise‐sensitive areas will

be at or above DNL 65 dB and will have an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more, further

analysis should be conducted”. The FICON Study also reported the following: “Every

change in the noise environment does not necessarily impact public health and welfare.”



3.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

3.11.5.1 CEQA Environmental Checklist for Noise

Criteria for determining the significance of noise and vibration impacts were developed

based on information contained in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines

(State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). According to those guidelines, a project may have

a significant effect on the environment if it will satisfy the following conditions:

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards

established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of

other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project?

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not

been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the

project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise

levels?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose

people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

3.11.5.2 Application of CEQA Guidelines to the Proposed Project – Standards of Significance

The following specific standards were applied to the CEQA guidelines shown above for the

assessment of project‐related noise and vibration impacts.

a. Exterior noise levels of 60 dB Ldn at the building facades of residences constructed on

agricultural properties for off‐site traffic noise sources, and the standards shown in

Table 7.A.4 of the Madera County Noise Element for on‐site activities, such as

excavation and processing.

b. Vibration impacts associated with blasting are considered significant if vibration

levels within existing residential structures exceed 0.1 in/sec (ppv).



c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels is defined in Table 3.11‐3

as being 1.5 to 5 dB, depending on pre‐project ambient noise levels. A statement

regarding the specific noise thresholds to use for finding of significant noise

increases due to the various aspects of the Project follows:

For the assessment of impacts at the nearest residences due to average noise level

increases associated with on‐site activities, Table 3.11‐1 indicates that existing

average noise levels at the nearest residences are relatively quiet, with average

daytime levels ranging from 43‐49 dB Leq, and nighttime average levels ranging

from 34‐47 dB Leq. Given these low ambient levels, the FICON thresholds for

finding of significant noise impacts indicate that a 5 dB increase would apply.

Given the low pre‐Project ambient noise levels, average daytime and nighttime

noise level standards of 45 dB Leq and 40 dB Leq, respectively, would be appropriate

for the assessment of noise impacts associated with on‐site activities affecting the

nearby residences. These standards are essentially 5 dB lower (more protective)

than those recommended by the County in Table 3.11‐2. Therefore, compliance with

these standards would ensure compliance with the County’s noise standards.

For the assessment of noise impacts at the nearest residences due to maximum noise

level increases associated with on‐site activities, Table 3.11‐1 shows that daytime

maximum noise levels at the nearest residences to the Project site routinely exceeded

70 dB, with maximum noise levels generated by existing local activities measured

in the mid to upper 70s and low 80s at some locations. As a result, it appears that

the application of the County’s 70 dB maximum daytime noise level standard and

65 dB maximum nighttime standard would be a conservative means of assessing

impacts associated with on‐site activities at the nearest residences, and those

standards are therefore applied to this Project.

For the assessment of noise impacts due to off‐site traffic increases, particularly

Project‐generated heavy truck traffic, the FICON standards shown in Table 3.11‐3

are also used, with the appropriate significance threshold determined by the pre‐

Project traffic noise levels along the various roadways.

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the Project, defined in Table 3.11‐3 as being

1.5 to 5 dB, depending on pre‐project levels. The thresholds for substantial



temporary increases are the same as those described above in Item “c” for

permanent increases.

e. Because this Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles

of a public airport or public use airport, item “e” of the CEQA guidelines shown

above would not apply to this Project. This approach is consistent with the DEIR

and FEIR.

f. Because this Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, item “f” of the

CEQA guidelines shown above would not apply to this Project. This approach is

consistent with the DEIR and FEIR.

3.11.5.3 Methodology for Assessing Noise Impacts Associated with On-Site Equipment

The major noise sources identified for this Project are the aggregate mining activities

(including blasting), aggregate crushing and screening activities (including truck load‐out),

asphalt processing plant operations, and off‐site truck traffic. The noise emissions of these

various noise sources were obtained from Bollard Acoustical file data for similar sources

and from published acoustical literature.

Table 3.11‐4, Major Noise Producing Equipment and Associated Noise Levels, shows the

noise levels for the various operations proposed at the Project site in terms of average and

maximum noise levels. These noise levels were obtained from Bollard Acoustical noise

level measurements conducted at the Baldwin Construction Stoney Creek and Hallwood

facilities, from file data for similar noise sources and from the Dry Creek Surface Mine Project

EIR (SC#94112033, 12/95), the Kaweah River Rock Company’s Surface Mining Permit Project

EIR (SC#89032709 4/98), and from the Kaweah River Basin Investigation Feasibility Study

DEIR (6/96) and the Teichert Lincoln Aggregate Facility EIR (12/2000). Appendix O‐3, Madera

Quarry Noise Source Data, contains the linear octave band sound power levels for each of

these operations.

Distances from the noise producing equipment shown in Table 3.11‐4 to the nearest

existing residence vary for each major component of the project. To predict Project‐related

noise levels at the nearest representative residences to the Project site, 14 representative

residential receiver locations were identified as shown in Figure 3.11‐1. Noise levels were

computed at those locations using the Environmental Noise Model (ENM), which is a

sophisticated three‐dimensional noise prediction model. The ENM takes into account



multiple noise sources and locations, topographic relief, vegetative ground cover, and

atmospheric effects, in predicting noise levels at multiple receiver locations.

TABLE 3.11-4 MAJOR NOISE-PRODUCING EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED NOISE LEVELS

Approximate Noise Level, dBA

@ 100 ft. Reference Dist. Equipment Type Maximum (Lmax) Average (Leq)

Excavation (including drilling but not blasting) 90 85

Processing Equipment 85 80

Asphalt Processing Plant 85 80

Truck Load Out: On‐Site Traffic 75 65

Notes: Average noise levels represent any 1‐hour period and assume continuous operation of the

excavation and plant operations and maximum truck loadout conditions (100 trips in the peak

hour).

USGS Topographic maps, aerial photographs, and project grading plans were used to

digitize the locations of proposed noise sources, sensitive receptors, and the ground in

between the sources and receivers. Because there is considerable topographic relief

between the noise sources (especially as the mining equipment descends into the mining

pit), the digitization of elevation contours was a critical component of this analysis.

Mining‐related noise levels were predicted for three scenarios; the equipment operating at

the existing elevation during initial excavation and site preparation, the mining equipment

operating half way into the pit, and the mining equipment operating near the base of the

pit. The asphalt and aggregate processing plants were located as indicated on the Project

site plans. As noted previously, the ENM Model can predict noise levels under a variety of

atmospheric conditions. A general description of the effects of varying atmospheric

conditions is provided below.

Atmospheric conditions can influence the transmission of sound over distance. Changes

in temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind, and temperature inversions can all affect the

propagation of sound from source to receiver. These effects become more pronounced

with increasing distance between the noise source and receptor, and were included in the

analysis of Project‐related noise sources associated with the Project.



Temperature and relative humidity affect the transmission of sound by influencing both

the density of air and the extent by which it is agitated. For example, in high heat and

humidity conditions, the air is dense and agitated, so it will absorb more sound.

Conversely, during cool and dry conditions, sound will encounter less resistance as it

passes through air, and therefore it will carry further. This explanation is a simplification,

as the relationship between temperature, relative humidity, and sound propagation is

more complicated, in addition to being frequency dependent.

During windy conditions over open level ground, wind gradients almost always exist.

This is due to the friction between the moving air and the ground. Due to these gradients,

the speed of sound varies with height above ground. This condition tends to refract, or

bend, sound waves upward or downward, depending on whether the receiver is upwind

or downwind from the source.

At locations upwind from the sound source, wind gradients bend sound rays upward,

thereby reducing sound levels at the receiver. Conversely, downwind locations will

experience higher sound levels due to wind gradients bending sound rays downward.

This analysis recognizes that wind speeds in the Project vicinity vary. During such windy

conditions, however, ambient noise levels in the community also increase. This increase is

due to the effects of wind passing through trees, over grasslands, and around structures.

Once wind speeds exceed 5 mph, these effects become apparent, and ambient noise levels

increase proportionately with wind speeds. This distinction is important in that noise

impacts evaluated for this Project are identified relative to ambient noise levels. So while

windy conditions will tend to increase Project‐related noise levels in the downwind

direction, at wind speeds exceeding 5 mph, this increase is expected to be masked by noise

generated by the wind itself.

Temperature gradients almost always exist due to heat exchange between the ground and

the atmosphere. As with wind gradients, temperature gradients tend to refract, or bend,

sound waves upward or downward, depending on whether the gradient is positive or

negative.

During normal temperature lapses, air temperature decreases with increasing elevation.

During these conditions, warmer air near the ground can cause sound waves to bend

upward, thus decreasing sound levels at the ground. Conversely, air temperatures can

become inverted, and sound will tend to focus and bend toward the ground.



It is recognized that temperature gradients can have a substantial effect on the propagation

of sound over large distances. The differences between a clear, calm summer day and

night can range from 5‐10 at distances in excess of 1,000 feet from the noise source under

ideal inversion conditions. However, the actual level will depend on the strength and

ceiling of the inversion.

Project‐generated noise levels associated with various combinations of the atmospheric

conditions described above were evaluated for various operating scenarios using the

ENM. Those operating scenarios are shown in Table 3.11‐5, Scenarios Evaluated for the

Madera Quarry Project.

The results of the ENM modeling effort are shown in Table 3.11‐6, Predicted Project Noise

Levels from On‐Site Sources. It should be noted that the Table 3.11‐6 data are intended to

be representative of worst‐case operating conditions with respect to noise generation. That

is because all equipment associated with the plant area was assumed to be operating

continuously and concurrently, and operations at the mining site were assumed to consist

of maximum equipment operating during excavation. These worst‐case operations are

expected to be present only for as long as it takes to clear a sufficient amount of material to

provide line‐of‐sight shielding to the operating equipment in the mining area. Once the

mining equipment is depressed in the pit, Project‐generated noise levels are predicted to

be substantially attenuated, as indicated by Scenarios 4 and 5.

TABLE 3.11-5 SCENARIOS EVALUATED FOR THE MADERA QUARRY PROJECT

Scenario # Operations

1 Processing Equipment

2 Asphalt Processing Plant

3 Mining Top Surface (Equipment at Elev 880)

4 Mining Mid‐Point (Equipment at Elev 600)

5 Mining Base of Pit (Equipment at Elev 350)

6 Load Out & On‐Site Truck Traffic

7 Combined Processing, Asphalt, Mining (880 ft), and Load Out



Source: Bollard Acoustical



TABLE 3.11-6 PREDICTED PROJECT NOISE LEVELS FROM ON-SITE SOURCES (LEQ, DB)

Scenario

Receiver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 22 25 25 14 6 6 29 27 27

2 18 20 24 14 6 6 26 23 22

3 26 24 11 11 11 12 28 28 28

4 26 28 28 19 12 16 32 31 30

5 14 15 20 12 3 4 22 19 18

6 18 24 18 13 7 10 26 25 25

7 19 26 26 18 14 12 30 27 27

8 12 14 14 15 14 4 18 19 18

9 13 12 17 15 15 0 19 18 18

10 14 13 18 15 14 0 20 19 18

11 18 16 21 18 17 0 24 22 22

12 18 17 23 17 15 4 25 22 22

13 24 33 36 30 17 15 38 35 34

14 20 28 34 24 15 15 35 30 29

Notes: A description of analysis scenarios is provided in Table 3.11‐5.

The Table 3.11‐6 data was generated assuming a typical spring/fall condition. Specifically,

the data were modeled assuming a 70 degree Fahrenheit (°F) average daytime temperature,

and 30 percent relative humidity. The model was also run with the above scenarios for

winter conditions at 40°F and 50 percent humidity, as well as summer conditions at 90°F

and 20 percent humidity. The results of that analysis indicate that the predicted noise

levels shown in Table 3.11‐6 are approximately 2 dB louder under winter conditions at the

nearest residences, and 2 dB quieter at those same positions under summer conditions.

Under low wind conditions, the noise levels shown in Table 3.11‐6 will be incrementally

higher downwind, and incrementally lower upwind. With higher winds, the wind will

create it own noise, thereby masking the downwind increase in noise from the Project.

Finally, Project noise levels are expected to be approximately 5 dB higher than those shown

in Table 3.11‐6 under typical temperature inversion conditions.

The Table 3.11‐6 data indicate that projected Madera Quarry noise levels would satisfy the

recommended daytime and nighttime 45 dB and 40 dB Leq exterior noise level standards,

respectively, at every identified existing noise‐sensitive area in the project vicinity under a

variety of operating scenarios.



The reasons the predicted noise levels are well below the project’s standards of significance

are due to the considerable distance between the proposed operations and noise‐sensitive

areas, and because of significant existing and proposed intervening topography between

the project site and those areas.

3.11.5.4 Methodology for Assessing Blasting Noise and Vibration Impacts

In addition to the aforementioned mining and processing noise sources, it will be necessary

to conduct blasting to free the aggregate resources for subsequent excavation. Noise

sources associated with blasting consist of rock drills and the shot itself. The noise levels

generated by the rock drills are dependant on drill type, but are predicted to be generally

similar to the noise levels generated by excavation equipment, and are included in the

levels described in the previous section pertaining to on‐site noise sources.

Noise generated by aggregate shots are more variable, depending on the amount of

charge‐material used, the number of holes and the depth of those holes, timing delays, and

other factors. There tends to be misconceptions regarding what an aggregate blast looks

and sounds like, due in part to the types of explosions which are frequently seen in movies.

In reality, aggregate shots are designed to transfer the energy of the shot into the ground,

rather than have it vent into the atmosphere sending rocks flying.

Based on Bollard Acoustical observations of various aggregate shots in recent years, it is

our opinion that aggregate shots are characteristic of muted thunder claps, rather than fiery

explosions. Based on BAC’s experience, maximum noise levels during blasting at the

nearest residences are expected to be in the range of the measured existing noise levels

reported in Table 3.11‐1 due to the considerable distances between the blasting areas and

nearest residences, and substantial topographic shielding.

With respect to blast induced vibration, the type, sizes, number, depth and timing delay

sequence of the charges, as well as the geology of the surrounding area, will all be

variables which will affect the transmission of that vibration from the site. Bollard &

Brennan Data collected at the San Rafael Rock Quarry of a blast in August of 2000, was

used to generally estimate the magnitude of vibration which can be expected off‐site. That

blast consisted of 7,000 lbs of ANFO distributed in 17 holes each timed to detonate in a

sequence, rather than all together. The measured Peak Particle Velocity of that shot at a

distance of 1,400 feet was 0.05 inches per second. Given the assumption that vibration

energy is radiating away from the blast site proportional to inverse square law, the level of



vibration energy present at 3,000 feet from the mining area would be less than it would be

at 1,400 feet. The resulting PPV then at the nearest identified sensitive areas is estimated to

be well below the thresholds for both annoyance (0.1 inches/second PPV), with even higher

levels required for damage to structures.

3.11.5.5 Methodology for Assessing Off-Site Truck Traffic Noise Levels

To assess Project‐related traffic noise impacts, traffic noise levels are predicted at the

nearest representative residential receptors in terms of distances from the centerlines of

the local roadway network to those nearest residences. This approach represents a change

in noise impact assessment relative to the previous noise analysis prepared for this Project

by providing a more focused impact assessment at actual residences. Noise impacts are

identified at existing noise‐sensitive areas if the noise level increases which result from the

Project exceed the significance thresholds described previously in this section.

To describe existing and projected noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway

Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD‐77‐108) was used.

The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium

trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway

configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The

FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic

conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input

volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic.

Traffic volumes for future conditions and scenarios are contained in the Transportation

Section of this EIR. A listing of the FHWA Model input data for future conditions is

provided in Appendix O‐4, FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.

Table 3.11‐7, Project‐Related Changes in Existing Traffic Noise Levels at Existing

Residences, and Table 3.11‐8, Project‐Related Changes in Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels,

show the predicted existing and cumulative traffic noise levels for the Project, respectively,

relative to no‐project conditions. This Table is provided in terms of Ldn at the approximate

distances (in feet from roadway centerline) to existing residences.



TABLE 3.11-7 PROJECT-RELATED CHANGES IN EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT EXISTING RESIDENCES

Ldn (dB)

Roadway Section Distance from C/L to

nearest Residence, Ft. Existing Existing

+ Project dB Road 209 SR 41 to Project Site 300 47.5a 55.8 +8.3

North of Road 209 100 67.9 68.1 +0.2

Road 209 to SR 145 No Residences along this segment N/A

SR 41

South of SR 145 100 67.2 68.4 +1.2

West of SR 41 100 62.7 64.8 +2.1 SR 145

East of SR 41 200 54.7 55.3 +0.6

Source: Bollard & Brennan, Inc., using FHWA RD‐77‐108 with inputs from the Traffic Section, updated for

distance by Bollard Acoustical Consultants.

Notes:

Existing no‐project noise levels at the nearest residence on Road 209 between SR 41 and the Project site are

predicted to reach a practical minimum of approximately 47.5 dB Ldn. This level is based on the measured

ambient noise monitoring results shown for remote receiver locations in the immediate project vicinity

(Table 3.11‐1) with consideration of the contribution of Highway 41 to background noise levels at this

location.

For example, the nearest identified residence to County Road 209 is located approximately

300 feet from the centerline of that roadway. As a result, noise impact assessment at that

location rather than at a theoretical distance of 100 feet provides a more accurate and

realistic assessment of Project noise impacts. Although noise levels from traffic on County

Road 209 without the Project would be below the indicated 47.5 dB Ldn value identified for

no‐project conditions at this residence, the level of 47.5 dB Ldn assumed for no‐project

conditions at that residence represents a practical minimum noise exposure for all sources

of ambient noise. The use of this level is supported by the noise level data shown in Table

3.11‐1 for remote locations removed from significant roadway noise sources, and

consideration of the contribution of Highway 41 traffic noise levels to the overall ambient

noise conditions at this residence.



TABLE 3.11-8 PROJECT-RELATED CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

Ldn (dB)

Roadway Section Distance (ft) Cumulative Cum. + Project Difference

Road 209 Nearest Residence to Roadway 300 47.5a 55.8 +8.3

North of Road 209 100 70.0 70.1 +0.1

Road 209 to SR 145 No residences along this segment N/A

SR 41

South of SR 145 100 69.6 70.3 +0.7

West of SR 41 100 64.7 65.3 +0.6 SR 145

East of SR 41 200 59.3 59.6 +0.3

Source: Bollard & Brennan, Inc., using FHWA RD‐77‐108 with inputs from the Traffic Section, updated for

distance by Bollard Acoustical Consultants.

Notes:

Cumulative no‐project noise levels at the nearest residence on Road 209 between SR 41 and the Project site

are predicted to reach a practical minimum of approximately 47.5 dB Ldn. This level is based on the measured

ambient noise monitoring results shown for remote receiver locations in the immediate project vicinity

(Table 3.11‐1) with consideration of the contribution of Highway 41 to background noise levels at this

location.

3.11.5.6 Methodology for Assessing Construction Noise Impacts

During the construction phases of the Project, including noise generated by the

reconstruction of portions of County Road 209, noise from construction activities would

add to the noise environment in the immediate Project vicinity. Activities involved in

construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance

of 100 feet. Construction activities, including construction of County Road 209, would be

temporary in nature and are reported to occur only during normal daytime working hours.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on

area roadways. A significant project‐generated noise source would be truck traffic

associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction

site. This noise increase would be of relatively short duration, and are proposed to occur

only during daytime hours.



3.11.5.7 Specific Project Impacts and Noise Mitigation Measures

Impact 3.11-1: Noise Impacts Associated with On-Site Activities (Mining, Aggregate Processing, Asphalt Processing, and Loadout)

Scenario 7 of Table 3.11‐6 indicates that average noise levels generated by

excavation (excluding blasting – see Impact 3.11‐2), aggregate processing, asphalt

processing, and heavy truck load out from the site, are predicted to range from 18

to 38 dB Leq during worst case mining operations (i.e., those at existing grade before

the equipment descends into the mine pit). Once the equipment descends into the

pit, average noise levels are predicted to be reduced as the excavation equipment

becomes shielded by the pit walls. Although noise from on‐site operations will

occasionally be audible at the nearest residences, the predicted noise levels would

not constitute a significant increase in ambient conditions. For this reason, and

because the predicted levels would satisfy the Noise Element standards of Madera

County, this impact is considered less than significant.



Impact 3.11-2: Noise and Vibration Impacts Associated with Blasting

Noise and vibration associated with blasting is dependant on several variables.

Based on the data used to assess impacts for this Project, and the substantial

distances between the area where the shots will occur and the nearest residences,

blasting noise and vibration levels are not predicted to significantly exceed

background noise levels or Madera County standards. Provided blast parameters

are of an equal or lower magnitude that those reported in the methodology section

(7,000 lbs of ANFO distributed in 17 holes each timed to detonate in a sequence,

rather than all together), this impact is considered to be less than significant. If,

however, more intensive blast parameters than those shown above are proposed,

this impact would be considered potentially significant.





If blasting loads exceed 7,000 pounds of ANFO, or the equivalent, a blasting consultant shall

develop a blasting program which results in vibration levels of less than 0.1 inches per

second and noise levels of 80 dBA Lmax or less at the nearest residences. The plan shall be

submitted to the County for review prior to commencement of blasting activities on the

Project site.


Impact 3.11-3: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels

The Table 3.11‐6 data indicate that the Project‐related traffic noise level increase

over no‐project levels will range from 0.2 to 3.8 dB Ldn. The FICON methodology

dictates that a finding of significant noise impact would be 5 dB where no‐project

noise levels are below 60 dB Ldn, 3 dB where no‐project noise levels range from 60 to

65 dB Ldn, and 1.5 dB where no‐project noise levels exceed 65 dB Ldn.

Noise Impacts Along State Route 145

Table 3.11‐6 shows that the SR 145 existing traffic noise levels without the Project

range from 60‐65 dB Ldn west of SR 41, and less than 60 dB Ldn at existing residences

east of SR 41. As a result, the Project would be subject to significance thresholds of 3

dB west of SR 41, and 5 dB east of SR 41. Because the predicted Project‐related noise

increases for this roadway are 2.1 dB west of SR 41, and 0.6 dB east of SR 41, which

do not exceed the above‐described significance thresholds, noise impacts along this

roadway for existing plus project conditions are predicted to be less than significant.

This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the previous noise analysis.


Table 3.11‐6 shows that the SR 41 existing traffic noise levels without the Project

exceed 65 dB Ldn at a 100‐foot reference distance from the centerline. Note that there

are no residences located along this roadway between SR 145 and County Road 209

to be affected, so there are no noise impacts along that segment of SR 41. At existing

residences north of CR 209, or south of SR 145, the Project would be subject to a



significance threshold of 1.5 dB. Because the predicted Project‐related noise

increases for this roadway range from 0.2 dB North of CR 209, and 1.2 dB south of

SR 145, which do not exceed the 1.5 dB significance threshold, noise impacts along

this roadway for existing plus project conditions are predicted to be less than

significant. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the previous noise

analysis.

Noise Impacts Along County Road 209

Finally, Table 3.11‐6 shows that the County Road 209 existing traffic noise level

without the Project would be less than 60 dB Ldn at the nearest residence located 300

feet from that roadway. As a result, the Project would be subject to a significance

threshold of 5 dB along this roadway. Although the predicted Project‐related noise

increase for this roadway segment were shown in the previous noise study to be

approximately 16 dB at a reference position 100 feet from the centerline, no noise‐

sensitive land uses exist at that distance.

Impact 3.11-3a: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels

At the nearest residence, located 300 feet from the roadway centerline, the predicted

Project‐related traffic noise level increase is estimated to be approximately 8.3 dB

Ldn, as indicated in Table 3.11‐6. Because this increase exceeds the 5 dB significance

threshold, noise impacts at this nearest identified residence to County Road 209 for

existing plus project conditions would have been predicted to be significant. This

conclusion is consistent with the findings of the previous noise analysis, but with a

diminished severity of impact.

However, a Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Noise Impacts and Covenant

Running with the Land became effective February 13, 2009 between the Applicant

and the owner of this small vacant residence (see Appendix F, Compensation and

Grazing Agreement Waiving Potential Noise Impacts to Residents for Mining and

Asphalt Project Truck Traffic, Between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family

Trust). The agreement underlying the memorandum will require the Applicant pay

to the owner the sum of $142,600 at such time as Applicant procures all entitlements

to undertake the Project.



Section 4.A of the agreement (see Appendix F of this DREIR) provides:

Waiver of Noise Impact, Creation of Noise Easement and Covenant

Running with the Land. The Grazing Consideration and Cash

Consideration are tendered in exchange for Trust agreeing that any noise

impacts to the Residence depicted on Exhibit ʺAʺ (or any replacement

residence constructed within a 100 foot radius of the Residence), in specific,

shall be deemed impacts for which it has been compensated. MQI and Trust

intend that this Agreement, and the covenants created herein, shall

constitute covenants running with the land (the Trust Property and Project

Site traffic), and/or an easement or servitude attached to the land as defined

in California Civil Code Section 1462, so as to bind and benefit successors,

heirs and assigns of the parties.

As long as the property owner either a) ceases using this building as a residence; or

b) uses the payment to attenuate any sound impacts that would be visited upon it,

then the Impact will be fully mitigated. ’Mitigation’, as defined in the CEQA

Guidelines (Section 15370), includes compensating for the impact by replacing or

providing substitute resources or environments. The funds payable to the property

owner under the agreement would, if properly utilized, provide the type of

compensation set forth in Section 15370. However, it is not possible to state with

certainty that the property owner will use the funds to mitigate any noise impacts.

To the extent the owner of the residence located approximately 300 feet from the

centerline of CR 209 chooses not to spend the money for the purposes for which it

was intended, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Significant

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 3.11‐3a

There is one receptor, a residence on the Wagner Family Trust (Wagner) property, which

could be impacted by the Project. In an effort to mitigate any noise impact at the residence to

a less than significant level, the Applicant entered into a “Compensation and Grazing

Agreement Waiving Potential Noise Impacts to Residents for Mining and Asphalt Project

Truck Traffic, between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family Trust”, dated February

2009 (see Appendix F).



Level of Significance After Mitigation: As there is no assurance that Wagner will

use the compensation to make noise reducing improvements to the residence, this

impact will remain as significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.11-3b: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels

The next closest residence to CR 209 was identified as being approximately 600 feet

from the centerline of that roadway. Due to this considerable distance, existing

County Road 209 traffic noise levels without the Project would be less than 60 dB Ldn

at that residence. As a result, the Project would be subject to a significance

threshold of 5 dB along this roadway. At the 600‐foot distance from the centerline,

the predicted Project‐related traffic noise level increase is estimated to be

approximately 3.8 dB Ldn. Because this increase does not exceed the 5 dB

significance threshold, noise impacts at this next nearest identified residence to

County Road 209, located approximately 600 feet from the roadway centerline, for

existing plus project conditions are predicted to be less than significant. This

conclusion is different from the findings of the previous noise analysis, which

assessed noise impacts at 100 feet, rather than at the actual location of the nearest

residences to CR 209.



3.2.5.8 Cumulative Noise Impacts

Impact 3.11-4: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels

The Table 3.11‐7 data indicate that the Project‐related traffic noise level increase over

no‐project levels will range from 0.1 to 3.8 dB Ldn. The FICON methodology dictates

that a finding of significant noise impact would be 5 dB where no‐project noise

levels are below 60 dB Ldn, 3 dB where no‐project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dB

Ldn, and 1.5 dB where no‐project noise levels exceed 65 dB Ldn.




Table 3.11‐7 shows that the cumulative SR 145 traffic noise levels without the Project

range from 60‐65 dB Ldn west of SR 41, and less than 60 dB Ldn at existing residences

east of SR 41. As a result, the Project would be subject to significance thresholds of 3

dB west of SR 41, and 5 dB east of SR 41. Because the predicted Project‐related noise

increases for this roadway are 0.6 dB west of SR 41, and 0.3 dB east of SR 41, which

do not exceed the above‐described significance thresholds, noise impacts along this

roadway for Cumulative Plus Project conditions are predicted to be less than


analysis.


Table 3.11‐7 shows that the cumulative SR 41 traffic noise levels without the Project

exceed 65 dB Ldn at a 100‐foot reference distance from the centerline. Note that there

are no residences located along this roadway between SR 145 and County Road 209

to be affected, so there are no noise impacts along that segment of SR 41. At existing

residences north of CR 209, or south of SR 145, the Project would be subject to a

significance threshold of 1.5 dB. Because the predicted Project‐related noise

increases for this roadway range from 0.1 dB North of CR 209, and 0.7 dB south of

SR 145, which are well below the 1.5 dB significance threshold, noise impacts along

this roadway for Cumulative Plus Project conditions are predicted to be less than


analysis.

Noise Impacts Along County Road 209

Finally, Table 3.11‐7 shows that the County Road 209 existing traffic noise level

without the Project would be less than 60 dB Ldn at the nearest residence located 300

feet from that roadway. As a result, the Project would be subject to a significance


increase for this roadway segment were shown in the previous noise study to be

approximately 16 dB at a reference position 100 feet from the centerline, no noise‐

sensitive land uses exist at that distance.



Impact 3.11-4a: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels

At the nearest residence, located 300 feet from the roadway centerline, the predicted


Ldn, as indicated in Table 3.11‐7. Because this increase exceeds the 5 dB significance

threshold, noise impacts at this nearest identified residence to County Road 209 for

existing plus project conditions would have been predicted to be significant. This

conclusion is consistent with the findings of the previous noise analysis, but with a

diminished severity of impact.

However, a Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Noise Impacts and Covenant

Running with the Land became effective February 13, 2009 between the Applicant

and the owner of this small vacant residence (see Appendix F, Compensation and

Grazing Agreement Waiving Potential Noise Impacts to Residents for Mining and

Asphalt Project Truck Traffic, Between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family

Trust). The agreement underlying the memorandum will require the Applicant

pay to the owner the sum of $142,600 at such time as Applicant procures all

entitlements to undertake the Project.

Section 4.A of the agreement (see Appendix F of this DREIR) provides:

Waiver of Noise Impact, Creation of Noise Easement and Covenant Running

with the Land. The Grazing Consideration and Cash Consideration are tendered in

exchange for Trust agreeing that any noise impacts to the Residence depicted on

Exhibit ʺAʺ (or any replacement residence constructed within a 100 foot radius of

the Residence), in specific, shall be deemed impacts for which it has been

compensated. MQI and Trust intend that this Agreement, and the covenants created

herein, shall constitute covenants running with the land (the Trust Property and

Project Site traffic), and/or an easement or servitude attached to the land as defined

in California Civil Code Section 1462, so as to bind and benefit successors, heirs and

assigns of the parties.

As long as the property owner either a) ceases using this building as a residence; or

b) uses the payment to attenuate any sound impacts that would be visited upon it,

then the Impact will be fully mitigated. ’Mitigation’, as defined in the CEQA

Guidelines (Section 15370) includes compensating for the impact by replacing or



providing substitute resources or environments. The funds payable to the property

owner under the agreement would, if properly utilized, provide the type of

compensation set forth in Section 15370. However, it is not possible to state with

certainty that the property owner will use the funds to mitigate any noise impacts.

To the extent the owner of the residence located approximately 300 feet from the

centerline of CR 209 chooses not to spend the money for the purposes for which it

was intended, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.


Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 3.11‐4a

There is one receptor, a residence on the Wagner Family Trust (Wagner) property, which

could be impacted by the Project. In an effort to mitigate any noise impact at the residence to

a less than significant level, the Applicant entered into a “Compensation and Grazing

Agreement Waiving Potential Noise Impacts to Residents for Mining and Asphalt Project

Truck Traffic, between Madera Quarry, Inc. and the Wagner Family Trust”, dated February

2009 (see Appendix F).

Level of Significance After Mitigation: As there is no assurance that Wagner will

use the compensation to make noise reducing improvements to the residence, this

impact will remain as significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.11-4b: Noise Impacts Due to Project-Related Increases in Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels

The next closest residence to CR 209 was identified as being approximately 600 feet

from the centerline of that roadway. Due to this considerable distance, existing

County Road 209 traffic noise levels without the Project would be less than 60 dB Ldn

at that residence. As a result, the Project would be subject to a significance


increase for this roadway segment was shown in the previous noise study to be

approximately 16 dB at a position 100 feet from the centerline, that increase would

not apply to this residence because it is located 600 feet, not 100 feet, from the

roadway centerline. At the 600‐foot distance from the centerline, the predicted


Ldn. Because this increase does not exceed the 5 dB significance threshold, noise



impacts at this next nearest identified residence to County Road 209, located

approximately 600 feet from the roadway centerline for existing plus project

conditions are predicted to be less than significant. This conclusion is different from

the findings of the previous noise analysis, which assessed noise impacts at 100 feet,

rather than at the actual location of the nearest residences to CR 209.



3.3 REVISIONS TO TRAFFIC SECTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISION


3.3 REVISIONS TO TRAFFIC SECTION IN RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS1

3.12.1 Introduction

This section presents the results of a traffic impact study performed for the proposed

Madera Quarry Project. The analysis focuses on the potential traffic impacts that may

be generated by the Project on nearby roads and intersections. This section was revised

to address the concerns expressed by the Court of Appeals and Superior Court (Judicial

Decisions), as noted in Section 1.0 of this DREIR. The Court of Appeal determined that

the mitigation measure for paying a ‘fair share’ impact fee was an improper deferral of

the mitigation of cumulative traffic impacts. As the baseline conditions had changed

since the certification of the EIR, it was necessary to undertake a new traffic analysis of

existing conditions as well as 2030 cumulative conditions.2

Recently the County adopted the “Madera County Road Impact Fee Program Update,

November 2009” (Fee Program), which is attached as Appendix N. The Fee Program

sets forth a methodology for identifying and prioritizing candidate projects; co‐

ordination with affected agencies; identifying improvement projects; and the

development of base road and highway segment data. Projects will be identified based

on various criteria which among other items will only consider projects having LOS E

or F.

1 These subsections will all reference 3.12 to keep this consistent with the numbering of the EIR. 2 The EIR considered year 2025 cumulative conditions.

MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.3 Revisions to Traffic

3.12.2 Affected Environment

3.12.2.1 Project Elements Affecting Traffic

Section 6.4, Mineral Resources, of the 1995 Madera County General Plan states: “The

most significant resources in terms of abundance, demand, and economic value, is

aggregate.” The Madera Quarry Project (Project) is an aggregate mine. The Project site

is located on Road 209 northeast of the City of Madera. The Project is also in close

proximity to the Fresno‐Clovis area by access of State Route (SR) 41. Road 209 starts

about a half mile from the intersection of SR 41 and SR 145, the Four Corners region of

Madera County. From the Four Corners region traveling north toward Oakhurst on SR

41, SR 41 curves to the northeast. At this curve, Road 209 starts and continues in a

northerly direction until it reaches the Hildreth Creek about two and half miles from the

intersection with SR 41. Road 209 then follows the natural streambed continuing in a

predominately northerly direction. The existing road and stream have gentle curves

and grades until the road crosses the creek approximately a mile along the streambed.

From this point, curves on Road 209 become sharper and the grades become steeper.

These geometric features continue to the Project site, approximately another mile from

the creek crossing. Road 209 then terminates approximately three‐quarters of mile

north of the Project site, at Road 406. Road 406 is a predominately east/west road with

its easterly connection at SR 41 and its westerly connection at Road 400, or River Road,

just south of Hensley Lake, (Madera County Resource Management Agency Road

Department, 2004).

The Project is an aggregate mining operation located on Road 209 approximately two

miles west of SR 41 and four miles north of SR 145 in Madera County, California. A

vicinity map showing nearby roadways is shown in Figure 3.12‐1, Vicinity Map. The

Project consists of a proposed 121‐acre hardrock quarry with processing facilities and

hot mix asphalt plant. Maximum output at the site will be 900,000 tons per year.

Typical operating hours will be from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The asphalt batch plant would operate from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. PG&E may, on

occasion, require nighttime operations to reduce peak power usage. The Project will

employ 15 to 20 persons. The Project is expected to realign and/or reconstruct a

majority of Road 209 between the site and SR 41.



3.12.2.2 Study Area and Time Period

The intersections chosen for analysis and discussed in this section were determined in

consultation with Madera County Road Department staff and Caltrans staff; the scope

of the traffic impact analysis was agreed upon and approved by County Road

Department staff prior to beginning the study. This section includes analysis of the

following intersections and road segments:

Study Intersections Study Roadway Segments

1. State Route 41 / Road 209 1. State Route 41 (Road 209 to Road 406)

2. State Route 41 / State Route 145 2. State Route 41 (SR 145 to Road 209)

3. State Route 41 / Avenue 15 3. State Route 41 (Ave 15 to SR 145)

4. State Route 41 / Road 204 / Avenue 14‐1/2 4. State Route 41 (Road 204/Avenue 14‐1/2 to Ave 15)

5. State Route 41 / Avenue 12 5. State Route 41 (Ave 12 to Road 204)

6. State Route 145 (SR 41 to Road 400)

The time periods of the analysis included the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which

typically occur within the time periods between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00

and 6:00 p.m. PG&E may, on occasion, require nighttime operations to reduce peak

power usage. In addition, the project may be required to serve jobs that do not take

place during typical hours of operation under either scenario; the background traffic

would be less than under peak traffic conditions. The peak‐hour scenarios were to be

analyzed for the following conditions:

Existing Conditions;

Existing Plus Project Conditions;

Cumulative Conditions Without Project (Year 2030); and

Cumulative Conditions With Project (Year 2030).

3.12.2.3 Existing Lane Configurations

The existing lane configurations at each of the intersections studied are shown on

Figure 3.12‐2, Existing Lane Configurations.



3.12.2.4 Planned Improvements

It is anticipated that SR 41 will eventually be converted to a freeway from the current

end of freeway north of Childrens Boulevard to north of SR 145. In the future it is

expected that new interchanges will be constructed along SR 41 at the following

locations: 1) Avenue 12, 2) Avenue 15, and 3) SR 145. With the construction of a new

freeway, access would not be provided from Avenue 14‐1/2. At the other study

locations, this report assumes that the existing lane configurations will be maintained

through the year 2030, unless specific impacts requiring mitigations are identified. The

assumed year 2030 lane configurations and intersection control are presented in Figure

3.12‐3, Cumulative Lane Configurations.

3.12.3 Traffic Methodology

Passenger car equivalents (PCE) represent the number of passenger cars displaced by a

single heavy vehicle (trucks with 3 axles or more) under certain roadway, traffic, and

control conditions. The use of PCEs compensates for the operational characteristics of

heavy vehicles as well as the roadway space displaced. Use of PCEs in the traffic

analysis generally results in recommendations for wider roadways and intersections,

which increase the capacity of the facilities and provide for better operating conditions

and enhanced safety for the traveling public.

The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual recommends a PCE factor of 2.0 for heavy

vehicles, which is an average for all heavy vehicle sizes. Based on the type of aggregate

transfer trucks that will be utilized for this operation (i.e. 25‐ton capacity 5‐axle truck), a

greater PCE factor is reasonable because these trucks are long, heavy, accelerate more

slowly, and require more distance to decelerate. A PCE of 2.5 was applied to the Project

traffic volumes. The project traffic volumes, adjusted for PCEs, are presented in Figure

3.12‐4, Opening Day Project Traffic Volumes, and Figure 3.12‐5, Ultimate Project Traffic

Volumes.

3.12.3.1 Level of Service

The Madera County General Plan Background Report provides further definition of

traffic impacts at signalized intersections and roadway segments. LOS for signalized

intersections is defined in terms of volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio as well as by delays

for vehicles at intersections as shown in Table 3.12‐1, Madera County Level of Service

Definitions for Signalized Intersections.



Since publication of the data provided in Table 3.12‐1, revisions in analysis techniques

and LOS definitions have been published in the 2000 version of the Transportation

Research Board Highway Capacity Manual for both signalized and unsignalized

intersections. LOS characteristics as currently defined by the Highway Capacity Manual

and utilized in current analysis software for both unsignalized and signalized

intersections are presented in Table 3.12‐2, Level of Service Characteristics for

Unsignalized Intersections, and Table 3.12‐3, Level of Service Characteristics for

Signalized Intersections, respectively.

Madera County has developed a technique of evaluating the LOS on the basis of

“segment capacity.” The segment capacity varies by roadway category, as shown in

Table 3.12‐4, Capacities per Hour per Lane for Various Highway Facilities in the

Madera County.

The County’s General Plan Policy Document provides further guidance on the

application of this information to the Project. According to LOS Policy 2.A.8 in the

Transportation and Circulation Section, the County shall develop and manage its

roadway system to maintain a minimum LOS of D on all State and County roadways.

LOS measured for roadway segments are based on the capacities shown in Table 3.12‐4.

In addition, if a project introduces more than 50 peak‐hour trips, then a more detailed

and focused traffic analysis would be required.

A traffic impact is considered significant if it renders an unacceptable level of service

(LOS) on a street segment or signalized intersection, or if it worsens already

unacceptable conditions on a street or at a signalized intersection. According to LOS

Policy 2.A.8 in the Transportation and Circulation Section of the General Plan Policy

Document, the County shall develop and manage its roadway system to maintain a

minimum LOS of D on all State and County roadways.

Caltrans typically requires that LOS C or better be maintained on State facilities.

However, where an intersection experiences a LOS below C, warrants for all‐way stop

control or traffic signals as described in the State of California Department of

Transportation California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and

Highways dated September 26, 2006 (CMUTCD) must be satisfied before such

improvements are allowed.



TABLE 3.12-1 MADERA COUNTY LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service Description V/C Ratio

A

Describes operations with very low delay; i.e., less than 5.0 sec per

vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and

most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not

stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

<0.60

B

Describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per

vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short

cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher

levels of average delay.

= 0.61 to 0.70

C


vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression

and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to

appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping at this level is

significant, although many still pass through the intersection

without stopping.

= 0.71 to 0.80

D


vehicle. At level “D,” the influence of congestion becomes more

noticeable. Long delays may result from some combination of

unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios.

Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping

declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

= 0.81 to 0.90

E


vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These

high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle

lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent

occurrences.

= 0.91 to 1.00

F

Describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle.

This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This

condition often occurs with over saturation; i.e., when arrival flow

exceeds the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c

ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor

progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing

causes to such delay levels.

>1.00

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 1980‐1985.



TABLE 3.12-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service Description Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)

A Little or no delay. 0‐10

B Short traffic delays. >10‐15

C Average traffic delays. >15‐25

D Long traffic delays. >25‐35

E Very long traffic delays. >35‐50

F Stop‐and‐go conditions. >50

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

TABLE 3.12-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service Description

Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)

A Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single cycle. <10

B Very light congestion; an occasional phase is fully utilized. >10‐20

C Light congestion; occasional queues on approaches. >20‐35

D

Significant congestion on critical approaches, but

intersection is functional. Cars required to wait through

more than one cycle during short peaks. No long‐standing

queues formed.

>35‐55

E

Severe congestion with some long‐standing queues on

critical approaches. Traffic queue may block nearby

intersection(s) upstream of critical approach (es).

>55‐80

F Total breakdown, stop‐and‐go conditions. > 80

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

TABLE 3.12-4 CAPACITIES PER HOUR PER LANE FOR VARIOUS HIGHWAY FACILITIES IN THE MADERA COUNTY

Level of Service Freeways

Two-Lane Rural Highway

Multi-Lane Rural Highway Expressway Arterial Collector

A 700 120 470 720 450 300

B 1,100 240 945 840 525 350

C 1,550 395 1,285 960 600 400

D 1,850 675 1,585 1,080 675 450

E 2,000 1,145 1,800 1,200 750 500

Source: County General Plan Policy Document, reference 22.



The CMUTCD presents criteria (warrants) for determining the need for traffic signals

and provides criteria for eight‐hour volume, four‐hour volume, peak‐hour volume,

pedestrian volume, coordinated systems, crash experience, and roadway network. The

CMUTCD also indicates that satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not

in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Significant engineering

judgment is required by the CMUTCD in the application of the warrants. A traffic

control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that

installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the

intersection.

Caltrans does not allow installation of a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection

operating at substandard LOS if traffic signal warrants are not satisfied. Under these

conditions, the only means to alleviate delays to stop‐controlled vehicles may be to

install a traffic signal. However, the unsatisfied signal warrants suggest that the

reduction in delay for the stop‐controlled vehicles does not justify the new delays that

would be incurred by the major street traffic (which at one‐way or two‐way stop‐

controlled intersections is not currently required to stop). Under these circumstances,

Caltrans does not recommend installation of a signal.

3.12.4 Traffic Impact Study

3.12.4.1 Project Traffic Volumes

The trip generation estimates originated with the Applicant and were provided to the

EIR preparer. Aggregate material produced at the Project site will typically be hauled

in 25‐ton‐capacity trucks. It is estimated that the Project will produce approximately

3,825 tons of material on the average weekday and 8,525 tons of material on the

maximum weekday. The trip generation information is provided in Table 3.12‐5,

Project Trip Generation. The values presented in Table 3.12‐5 include trucks accessing

the asphalt batch plant.

The peak hour estimates do not include employee traffic, which is expected to occur

during off‐peak hours. The estimated percentage distribution of annual average project

traffic is presented in Figure 3.12‐6, Project Traffic Distribution Percentage. The project

traffic volumes at each of the study intersections are presented in Figure 3.12‐7, PCE

Project Traffic Volumes, and Figure 3.12‐8, 2030 PCE Project Traffic Volumes. The trip

generation values represented in Figures 3.12‐7 and 3.12‐8 are the same. The difference

between the two figures is the configuration of future interchanges.



TABLE 3.12-5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

Time Period Entering Site Trucks Exiting Site

Average Workday 153 trucks

20 employee vehicles

153 trucks


Maximum Workday 341 trucks


341 trucks


Maximum Weekday AM Peak

Hour 50 trucks 50 trucks

Maximum Weekday PM Peak Hour 20 trucks 20 trucks

Construction activities to realign and/or reconstruct Road 209 between the project site

and State Route 41 are expected to generate up to 190 trucks per day entering the site

and 190 trucks per day leaving the site during construction. A majority of these trucks

are expected to travel only on Road 209 as the material will be generated at the project

site and delivered to the construction area. Few of the truck trips are expected to

impact State Route 41.

3.12.4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing traffic volumes were determined by performing manual turning movement

counts at each of the study intersections. Existing peak hour turning movement

volumes at the study intersections are presented in Figure 3.12‐9, Existing Traffic

Volumes. Existing‐plus‐Project peak hour traffic volumes with PCE adjustments are

presented in Figure 3.12‐10, Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes.

The results of previous 24‐hour counts were provided by Caltrans. The results of the

24‐hour counts are included in Attachment 3, Traffic Count Data Sheet of Appendix D

Traffic Impact Study.



3.12.4.3 Cumulative Traffic Volumes

Cumulative year 2030 traffic volume forecasts without the Project were estimated based

on the cumulative 2030 Madera County travel model maintained by the Madera County

Transportation Commission (MCTC) using an increment method. The MCTC is located

at 2001 Howard Road, Suite 201, Madera, California 93637. The documentation for the

Madera County travel model is presented in documents dated November 1, 2001 and

October 6, 2006 which are available from the MCTC by request. The increment method

projects future traffic volumes by adding the growth projected by the model to the

existing traffic volumes.

Printouts showing the travel model data at the study intersections are included in

Appendix D future turning movements were estimated based on the methods

presented in Chapter 8 of the Transportation Research Board National Cooperative

Highway Research Program Report 255 entitled “Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized

Area Project Planning and Design”. Projected future traffic volumes without the Project

are presented in Figure 3.12‐11, Cumulative 2030 No Project Traffic Volumes.

Cumulative‐with‐project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3.12‐12, Cumulative

2030 With Project Traffic Volumes.

3.12.4.4 Intersection Analyses

Intersection analyses were performed using the Synchro 6 software (Build 614) which

incorporates Highway Capacity Manual methods for determining intersection delays and

associated levels of service (LOS) for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Build 614 is listed among the analysis software considered acceptable to Caltrans in the

Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002. The

results of the analyses are presented in Tables 3.12‐6 through 3.12‐9, Intersection

Analysis Summary. LOS definitions are presented in Section 3.12.3 of this section. For

the existing conditions and cumulative no‐project conditions, deficient intersection

levels of service are indicated in bold type. For Project scenarios, only Project impacts

are indicated in bold type.

The Highway Capacity Manual does not define the overall intersection LOS for one‐

way stop‐sign controlled intersections. Therefore, the LOS for the approach with the

greatest delay is presented for one‐way stop‐sign controlled intersections.



TABLE 3.12-6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY - EXISTING CONDITIONS

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Intersection Control

Type Delay (sec) LOS

Peak Hour

Warrant Delay (sec) LOS

Peak Hour

Warrant SR 41 / Road 209 OWS 14.2 B n/r 11.1 B n/r

SR 41 / SR 145 Signal 15.6 B n/r 20.2 C n/r

SR 41 / Ave 15 OWS 42.6 E Not met* 81.7 F Not met*

SR 41 / Ave 14½ / Road 204 TWS 51.6 F Not met 53.8 F Not met

SR 41 / Ave 12 Signal 35.7 D n/r 50.5 D n/r

Notes: OWS: One‐way stop control; DNE: Does not exist; TWS: Two‐way stop control; n/r: Analysis

not required.

* See discussion regarding right‐turn volumes.

TABLE 3.12-7 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS




Peak Hour


Peak Hour

Warrant SR 41 / Road 209 OWS 22.7 C n/r 13.6 B n/r

SR 41 / SR 145 Signal 15.3 B n/r 19.3 B n/r

SR 41 / Ave 15 OWS 60.4 F Not met* 94.9 F Not met*

SR 41 / Ave 14½ / Road 204 TWS 55.9 F Not met 52.8 F Not met

SR 41 / Ave 12 Signal 37.0 D n/r 52.1 D n/r


not required.

* See discussion regarding right‐turn volumes.



TABLE 3.12-8 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY – 2030 CUMULATIVE NO-PROJECT CONDITIONS




Peak Hour


Peak Hour

Warrant SR 41 / Road 209 OWS 301.7 F 2/2 * F 2/2

SR 41 / SR 145 Signal 188.5 F n/r 283.3 F n/r

SR 41 SB / Ave 15 Signal 7.5 A n/r 8.7 A n/r

SR 41 NB / Ave 15 Signal 17.2 B n/r 31.0 C n/r

SR 41 / Ave 14½ / Road 204 DNE ‐ ‐ n/r ‐ ‐ n/r

SR 41 SB / Ave 12 Signal 29.3 C n/r 36.3 D n/r



not required.

* Excessive delays not reported.

TABLE 3.12-9 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY – 2030 CUMULATIVE WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS




Peak Hour


Peak Hour

Warrant SR 41 / Road 209 OWS * F 2/2 * F 2/2

SR 41 / SR 145 Signal 195.5 F n/r 285.6 F n/r

SR 41 SB / Ave 15 Signal 7.6 A n/r 8.8 A n/r


SR 41 / Ave 14½ / Road 204 DNE ‐ ‐ n/r ‐ ‐ n/r

SR 41 SB / Ave 12 Signal 29.6 C n/r 36.4 D n/r



not required.

* Excessive delays not reported.

3.12.4.5 Road Segment Analyses

Road segment analyses were performed by determining the road segment volumes and

the LOS based on definitions presented in Section 3.12.3 of this report. The results of

the analyses are presented in Tables 3.12‐10 through 3.12‐13, Road Segment LOS

Summary. For the existing conditions and cumulative Project conditions, deficient



intersection levels of service are indicated in bold type. For Project scenarios, only

Project impacts are indicated in bold type.

TABLE 3.12-10 ROAD SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY-EXISTING CONDITIONS


Road and Direction Facility Type Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS SR 41 NORTHBOUND Rd 209 to Rd 406 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 243 C 634 D

SR 145 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 316 C 920 E

Ave 15 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 264 C 815 E

Ave 14½ to Ave 15 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 344 C 1,045 E

Ave 12 to Ave 14½ 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 373 C 1,146 F

SR 41 SOUTHBOUND Rd 406 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 627 D 435 D

Rd 209 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 811 E 456 D

SR 145 to Ave 15 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 797 E 422 D

Ave 15 to Ave 14½ 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,013 E 520 D

Ave 14½ to Ave 12 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,195 F 554 D

SR 145 WESTBOUND SR 41 to Rd 400 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 138 B 177 B

SR 145 EASTBOUND Rd 400 to SR 41 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 179 B 302 C

TABLE 3.12-11 ROAD SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS


Road and Direction Facility Type Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS SR 41 NORTHBOUND Rd 209 to Rd 406 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 248 C 636 D

SR 145 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 361 C 938 E

Ave 15 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 296 C 828 E

Ave 14½ to Ave 15 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 376 C 1,058 F

Ave 12 to Ave 14½ 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 402 D 1,158 F

SR 41 SOUTHBOUND Rd 406 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 632 D 437 D

Rd 209 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 856 E 474 D

SR 145 to Ave 15 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 829 E 435 D

Ave 15 to Ave 14½ 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,045 E 534 D

Ave 14½ to Ave 12 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,224 F 566 D




A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Road and Direction Facility Type Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS

SR 145 WESTBOUND SR 41 to Rd 400 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 148 B 181 B

SR 145 EASTBOUND Rd 400 to SR 41 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 189 B 306 C

TABLE 3.12-12 ROAD SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY – CUMULATIVE 2030 NO-PROJECT CONDITIONS


Road and Direction Facility Type Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS SR 41 NORTHBOUND Rd 209 to Rd 406 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 686 E 1,409 F

SR 145 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 813 E 1,597 F

Ave 15 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,491 F 2,663 F

Ave 12 to Ave 15 Freeway 2 3,265 D 4,223 F

SR 41 SOUTHBOUND Rd 406 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,252 F 1,029 E

Rd 209 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,422 F 1,229 F

SR 145 to Ave 15 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 2,396 F 2,022 F

Ave 15 to Ave 12 Freeway 2 4,126 F 3,223 D

SR 145 WESTBOUND SR 41 to Rd 400 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 719 E 912 E

SR 145 EASTBOUND Rd 400 to SR 41 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 761 E 940 E

TABLE 3.12-13 ROAD SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY – CUMULATIVE 2030 WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS


Road and Direction Facility Type Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS SR 41 NORTHBOUND Rd 209 to Rd 406 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 691 E 1,411 F

SR 145 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 858 E 1,608 F

Ave 15 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,523 F 2,676 F

Ave 12 to Ave 15 Freeway 2 3,294 D 4,235 F

SR 41 SOUTHBOUND Rd 406 to Rd 209 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,257 F 1,031 E

Rd 209 to SR 145 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 1,467 F 1,224 F

SR 145 to Ave 15 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 2,428 F 2,035 F

Ave 15 to Ave 12 Freeway 2 4,158 F 3,234 D



A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Road and Direction Facility Type Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS

SR 145 WESTBOUND SR 41 to Rd 400 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 729 E 916 E

SR 145 EASTBOUND Rd 400 to SR 41 2‐Lane Rural Highway 1 771 E 944 E

3.12.5 Standards of Significance, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures

3.12.5.1 Standards of Significance

Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides guidance

for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Relative to traffic and

safety, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic

load and capacity of the street system (i.e., results in a substantial increase in

either the number of vehicles trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or

congestion at intersections);

Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the

County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;

Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);

Result in inadequate emergency access; or

Result in inadequate parking capacity.

3.12.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

3.12.6.1 Discussion of Existing and Existing-Plus-Project Analyses

The analyses indicated that three of the study intersections along SR 41 and all of the

study road segments currently experience a substandard LOS (LOS below C based on

Caltrans’ criteria). The deficient study intersections are the SR 41 intersections with

Avenue 15, Road 204 (Avenue 14‐1/2), and Avenue 12. This supports the need for the

planned freeway and interchange improvements on SR 41 and the need for widening

SR 145.


It is noted that the certain study locations that were included in the DEIR for Project

were previously determined to operate at deficient levels of service, but the affected

agencies did not require updated traffic analyses since the DEIR found no Project

impacts and the Project generates low traffic volumes at those locations. The previously

deficient locations are:

Intersection of SR 41 and Road 406;

Intersection of Cleveland Avenue and SR 99 northbound ramps;

State Route 41 road segment between Road 406 to Road 200);

State Route 145 (Road 400 to Cleveland Avenue); and

Cleveland Avenue (SR 145 to SR 99).

With the addition of the Project (existing‐plus‐project) conditions, the LOS remains

unchanged at all intersections except the intersection of SR 41 and Avenue 15. At this

location, a LOS F is expected for the eastbound approach.

Impact 3.12-1: The Project Could Result in Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion, Including Substandard LOS

At the intersection of SR 41 and Avenue 15, the Project will exacerbate an existing substandard

LOS. This impact is potentially significant.

The Project will exacerbate an existing substandard LOS at the intersection of SR

41 and Avenue 15. There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the

Project’s impact at the intersection of SR 41 and Avenue 15. Installation of all‐

way stop control is not feasible due to the significant delays that would result on

SR 41. The addition of lanes is not feasible since it would not alleviate the delays

for stop‐controlled vehicles turning across traffic from Avenue 15 to SR 41.

Finally, traffic signal warrants are not clearly satisfied and would cause new

delays on the SR 41 mainline, rendering the installation of traffic signals an

infeasible mitigation. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and

unavoidable. Eventually, as traffic volumes in the region increase as a result of

further development, warrants for traffic signals are expected to be satisfied and

traffic signals will be required to be installed by future development projects.

The Project can mitigate its equitable share of the impact with payment of an

equitable share contribution as discussed later in this report. The Project might

also be subject to the Fee Program, discussed in the Introduction.




At locations other than the intersection of SR 41 and Avenue 15, the impact of the

projected Project traffic is less than significant.


Mitigation Measures: No Feasible Mitigation

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable

Impact 3.12-3: The Project Could Result in Truck Trips on Roads That Are Not

Suitable For Heavy Truck Traffic3

County Road 208 and Road 406 are not suitable for the type of heavy truck traffic generated by

the Project. This impact is potentially significant.

Because County Road 208 and Road 406 are not suitable for heavy truck traffic,

they will not be part of the designated haul route unless specific County or local

projects are located on these County roads. Mitigation measures have been

established (see below) instructing haul trucks leaving the project site the

designated haul route.




The Applicant shall inform and/ or post warning signs at the exit of the Project

site that inform all transporters and delivery vehicles that Road 406 and Road 208

shall not be utilized to transport any material to and from the proposed Project

site.

3 This Impact is numbered 3.12‐3 as there is an Impact 3.12‐2 in the FEIR. The analysis contained in

Impact 3.12‐2 was upheld by the Judicial Decisions and after a careful review of NOP and scoping

comments, the County determined that the DEIR and FEIR adequately addressed the issue. The DEIR

and FEIR are contained in a disk attached to the RDEIR and can also be reviewed on the County’s

website: http://www.madera‐county.com/rma/planningdept/planning_dept_docs.html and hard copies

can be found at the Madera County Planning Department at 2037 W. Cleveland Ave., Madera, CA

93637.



If the County requires, the Applicant has agreed to pay for signs located on public

roads specifying the designated haul route.


3.12.7 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 3.12-4: The Project Contributes Traffic to Intersections and Road Segments That Will Require Upgrades With or Without the Project

The Project will contribute to intersections and road segments that are expected to require

upgrades prior to the Year 2030. This impact is potentially significant.

The future analyses without the Project (year 2030) indicate that all of the study

intersections and road segments are expected to require improvements to

operate at acceptable levels of service. Interchanges are expected to be required

on SR 41 at Avenue 12, Avenue 15, and SR 145. The intersection at Avenue 14½

will be closed.

The future analyses with the project added indicate that the LOS remains

unchanged at all of the study intersections and road segments

The Project will create a potentially significant impact at the intersection of SR 41

and Road 209 by exacerbating conditions that are expected to be deficient

without the Project. Since Caltrans has indicated that traffic signals are not

desirable at the intersection of SR 41 and Road 209 due to the close spacing

between Road 209 and SR 145, traffic signals are not recommended as a feasible

mitigation. Further, since the need for traffic signals at the intersection is caused

almost entirely by hypothetical commercial development near the intersection,

the Project’s share of the cumulative impact is minimal and will become

significant and unavoidable if the LOS at the intersection ever drops below LOS

C. The Project can mitigate its share of the cumulative significant impacts by

paying an equitable share of the cost of improvements required by Caltrans.

Further, the Fee Program specifies all potentially significant segments and

earmarks funding for required improvements.

The Project shall be responsible only for its equitable share of the cost of road

improvements.



The Project will be responsible to mitigate its equitable share of the cumulative

significant impacts that can be mitigated with construction of the future

interchanges on SR 41 at Road 209, Avenue 12, Avenue 15, and SR 145. The

Project can mitigate its equitable share by being subject to the Fee Program

and/or the payment of Caltrans traffic impact fees. The Project can also mitigate

its impact by constructing a portion of the improvements. The cost of the

construction shall be credited against the Project’s equitable share. If any of the

mitigations are not fully funded by the Fee Program or CalTrans equitable share

contribution then the impact at that location would remain significant and

unavoidable.

The project will contribute traffic to intersections and road segments that are

expected to require upgrades prior to the year 2030 whether or not the Project is

constructed. Caltrans may request that the project contribute an equitable share

of the cost of future improvements at these locations. Such contributions are

typically calculated using the following equation:

P = The equitable share of the project’s traffic impact;

T = The project trips generated during the peak hour of the adjacent

State Highway facility;

TB = The forecasted (future with project) traffic volume on the

impacted State highway facility;

TE = The existing traffic on the State Highway facility plus

approved projects traffic (cumulative).

In the FEIR, the Applicant agreed to enter into a long‐term maintenance

agreement with Madera County to mitigate for the Project’s impacts to County

roads. The Applicant and County were to agree on a fee based on cents per ton

of aggregate sold and other Applicant commitments to ensure that the Project’s

impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.

The Court of Appeal noted, as follows:

“……intent to make improvements but no definite commitment on when

the improvements will take place. Moreover, there is no substantial

evidence that Caltrans is committed to scheduling the improvements to SR

41 in a way that would mitigate the increase in vehicle traffic, for example

by scheduling the improvements earlier and more often. Furthermore,



there is no evidence that the County has a mitigation plan in place

involving the improvement or maintenance of the various local roadways

because of the increased vehicle traffic. Thus, the mitigation measures

relating to traffic impacts are inadequate.” Opinion pp. 26‐27

On January 15, 2008, the Applicant and County entered into the Road

Construction, Maintenance and Reimbursement Agreement (Construction

Agreement) (see Appendix P). In addition to various construction obligations,

the Construction Agreement requires the Applicant, or its successor, to (1)

construct improvements to County Road 209 (209) (2) maintain 209 for a distance

of approximately 4.5 miles, commencing at its intersection with State Route 41

and terminating at Project Site entrance, and (3) pay a maintenance fee of $0.05

per ton, with the proceeds being used by the County for the maintenance of

roads other than 209. Although County is required to give “primary

consideration” to utilizing the funds “for other roads in the general vicinity of

the quarry, such as Road 208, 406, etc.” it is not required to spend the funds in

that area.




The Applicant shall contribute an equitable share of the cost of construction of

future improvements as required under the Fee Program (if applicable), which is

attached in Appendix N to the DREIR. If the Fee Program is not applicable,

equitable share percentages are presented in the traffic impact study included in

Appendix D. Cost estimates for improvements shall be provided by Caltrans or

Madera County.

The Project will contribute traffic to cumulative significant impacts to road

segments that will require equitable fair share regarding the following

mitigations:



SR 41 between Avenue 15 and SR 145: convert to four‐lane freeway;




SR 41 between Avenue 12 and Avenue 15: convert to four‐lane freeway; and


All of these improvements have been identified in the County’s recently adopted

Fee Program (Appendix N, see Tables 1, 2, and 3). The County is committed to

ensuring that those improvements coincide with the Project’s anticipated

contribution to traffic on these segments, to the extent feasible.


To mitigate the impacts of traffic, County and Applicant have entered into the

Road Construction, Maintenance and Reimbursement Agreement, Madera

County Contract No. 8511‐C‐2008 (see Appendix P). This Agreement obligates

the Applicant to pay the costs of reconstructing and maintaining 209 (subject to

the right of partial reimbursement should County create an “Area of Benefit”

whereby properties generating traffic having a per‐vehicle certified gross vehicle

weight of 80,000 lbs or greater, will be assessed their fair share of costs). In

addition the agreement obligates the Applicant to pay $0.05 per ton of shipped

material toward road maintenance costs for roads other than 209.

The Agreement fully mitigates the impacts to reconstruct, repair and maintain

209. However, as to any other roads impacted by the Project, as the County is

required to give ‘primary consideration’ to spending these maintenance funds on

roads in the area, but is not required to do so, the wear and tear impact on local

roads, other than 209, remains significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: If mitigation measures are

implemented, this impact will be less than significant. However, it cannot be

determined at this time whether these measures will be fully funded; therefore,

this impact remains significant and unavoidable.

4.0 NEW LEGISLATIVE MANDATE

4.0 NEW LEGISLATIVE MANDATE

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO GREENHOUSE GAS (AB 32, SB 375)

Subsequent to the certification of the FEIR, California passed the Global Warming

Solutions Act of 2006. This section addresses the analysis undertaken to comply with

the legislation.

The Impacts and Mitigation Measures appearing in 4.1.6 will be in addition to those

already referenced in the DEIR as 3.4‐1 to 3.4‐6 (Air Quality).

4.1.1 Greenhouse Gases

Green House Gas (GHG) emissions refer to a group of emissions that are generally

believed to affect global climate conditions. The glass panes in a greenhouse allow

radiant energy from sunlight in and reduce the amount of heat that escapes. Similarly,

atmospheric gases such as CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) keep the

average surface temperature of the Earth at inhabitable levels. However, excesses in

GHGs may amplify the greenhouse effect increasing the surface temperature and

potentially affecting climatic conditions around the planet. The scientific community

largely agrees that human activities that cause emissions of GHGs have and will

continue to contribute to global warming, although some uncertainty exists concerning

the rate and magnitude of global warming.

In addition to CO2, methane, and N2O, GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and water vapor. Of all the GHGs,

CO2 is the most abundant climate change pollutant resulting from human activities,


MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4.0 New Legislative Mandate


with CO2 from fossil fuel combustion comprising 81 percent of the total GHG emissions

in California in 2002 and non‐fossil fuel CO2 emissions comprising 2.3 percent.1 The

other GHGs are less abundant, but have higher global warming potential than CO2. To

account for this higher potential, emissions of other GHGs are frequently expressed in

the equivalent mass of CO2, denoted as CO2e. The CO2e of methane represented 6.4

percent of the 2002 California GHG emissions, N2O represented 6.8 percent, and the

other high global warming potential gases represented 3.5 percent of these emissions.

In addition, there are a number of man‐made pollutants, such as CO, nitrogen oxides,

non‐methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and SO2 that have indirect effects

on terrestrial or solar radiation absorption by influencing the formation or destruction

of other climate change emissions.

4.1.2 Existing Greenhouse Gases

In December 2006, the California Energy Commission (CEC) published the Inventory of

California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Gases that trap the heat of

the sun in the Earth’s atmosphere, producing the green house effect, are called

greenhouse gases (GHG). The two major greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon

dioxide (CO2). Other GHG include methane, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous

oxide. This report indicates that California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the

United States next to Texas. This is largely a result of the number of people living in the

state, as opposed to a small state such as Rhode Island. California is second lowest in

the nation in per capita CO2 emissions, with only the District of Columbia lower.

Between 1990 and 2000, California’s population grew by 4.1 million people and during

the 1990 to 2003 period, California’s gross state product grew by 83 percent (in dollars,

not adjusted for inflation). However, California’s GHG emissions grew by only 12

percent between 1990 and 2003. The report concludes that California’s ability to slow

the rate of growth of GHG emissions is largely due to the success of its energy

efficiency, renewable energy programs, and commitment to clean air and clean energy.

4.2 REGULATORY SETTING

California has responded to the issue of global climate change by adopting a series of

laws to reduce GHG emissions from various sources within the State. These efforts

began in September 2002 when then‐Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill (AB)

1493 requiring the development and adoption of regulations to achieve “the maximum

1 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006, p. 11.


feasible reduction of greenhouse gases” emitted by noncommercial passenger vehicles,

light‐duty trucks, and other vehicles used primarily for personal transportation in the

state. In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law AB 32, the

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires the CARB to adopt

regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions and to

monitor and enforce compliance with that program. As part of this effort, the CARB

will adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide GHG

emissions levels in 1990, to be achieved by 2020. The CARB will adopt rules and

regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost‐effective GHG

emission reductions. These are expected to include regulations for certain refrigerants,

a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and market‐based compliance mechanisms. The statute

further requires the CARB to monitor compliance with and enforce any rule, regulation,

order, emission limitation, emissions reduction measure, or market‐based compliance

mechanism that it adopts.

In October 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an Executive Order in which he

designated the Cal EPA Secretary with the primary responsibility for implementing AB

32. In late December, the Governor announced the members of a blue‐ribbon Market

Advisory Committee board to devise approaches to develop a market for carbon

trading. More developments are likely as the Governor and the Legislature determine

who has primary responsibility for implementation and the relationship between

regulations and market‐based mechanisms. Because the intent of AB 32 is to limit 2020

emissions to the equivalent of 1990, and the present year (2009) is near the midpoint of

this timeframe, it is expected that the regulations would affect many existing sources of

GHGs and not just new general development projects.

In October 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 97, which requires

the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare CEQA guidelines for

the mitigation of GHG emissions. OPR is in the process of preparing formal CEQA

guidelines and requirements pursuant to SB 97, to be promulgated by January 2010. In

the meantime, OPR has published a Technical Advisory (June 2008) that is an “informal

guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in

their CEQA documents.” The Technical Advisory recommends that in the absence of

regulatory standards for GHG emissions, individual agencies may conduct each

analysis on a project‐by‐project basis, consistent with existing CEQA practices and

guidance.

In January 2009, the state of California, through the OPR/SCH (Office of Planning and

Research/State Clearinghouse), published its Interim Greenhouse Gas thresholds (see



Table 4.0‐1, CARB’s Interim GHG Significance Standards for Industrial Projects, located

in subsection 4.1.4 Standards of Significance, below). On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed

amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions, as required

by Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007). These proposed CEQA Guideline amendments

would provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the

effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. The Natural Resources

Agency will conduct formal rulemaking in 2009, prior to certifying and adopting the

amendments, as required by Senate Bill 97.

On November 5, 2009, the SJVAPCD issued its draft Guidance for Valley Land‐use

Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. If and when

adopted, the Guidance may be implemented by Valley land‐use agencies, should they

elect to adopt it. As currently drafted the Guidance contemplates 1) the development of

Best Performance Standards (BPS) as a means of reducing or limiting GHG emissions,

and 2) the establishment of BPS for specific categories of stationary sources and

development projects. It is anticipated that there will be a period of time before BPS are

adopted for projects such as the Madera Quarry, even if the Guidance is adopted in the

near future by the SJVAPCD and then applied to Madera Quarry. For development

projects, the guidance focuses on reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an

important objective.

4.3 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

With respect to Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions (OPR 2009) the Project will have a

significant air quality impact based on:

The extent to which the project could help or hinder attainment of the state’s

goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 as

stated in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006;

The extent to which the project may result in increased energy efficiency of and a

reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions from an existing facility;

The extent to which the project impacts or emissions exceed any threshold of

significance that applies to the project ; and

The extent to which the project may increase the consumption of fuels or other

energy resources, especially fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas

emissions when consumed.



Thresholds of significance illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which

to apply mitigation measures. In October 2008, CARB released preliminary draft

Interim GHG thresholds for industrial projects and residential and commercial projects.

CARB’s policy objective is to develop a threshold of significance that will result in the

vast majority (about 90 percent statewide) of GHG emissions from new industrial

projects being subject to CEQA’s requirement to impose feasible mitigation. The

threshold consists of a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per

year (MTCO2e/yr) for operational emissions (excluding transportation), and a

performance standard for construction and transportation emissions (see Table 4.0‐1).

TABLE 4.0-1 CARB’S INTERIM GHG SIGNIFICANCE STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS

CEQA Category Proposed Criteria

Exemption Apply applicable exemption.

Regional GHG Reduction Plan N/A.

Thresholds Project < 7,000 MTCO2eq/yr from non‐transportation

operational sources

Meets construction & transportation performance standards.

Performance Standards See above.

Offsets Off‐site substitution allowed.

Determination GHG emissions significant, EIR is prepared, if meeting none of the

above.

Notes: These standards have been developed for industrial sources, but will be used as significance

criteria for this project in the absence of other appropriate criteria.

4.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 4.0-1: Project Actions Could Conflict with Implementation of State Goals for Reducing GHG Emissions and Thereby Have an Adverse Effect on Global Climate Change

Mining and transport of materials associated with the Project would produce various greenhouse

gases, which could conflict with implementation of State goals for reducing GHG emissions and

thereby have an adverse effect on global climate change.

The Quarry would use various types of diesel powered mining equipment

including drill rig, bulldozers, haul trucks, hydraulic shovels and excavators.

The overburden would be transported to an aggregate processing area where the



rock is crushed and screened. The aggregate would be shipped to customers in

Fresno‐Madera consumption region. Transportation costs associated with

delivering aggregate to the end user is one of the largest components of

aggregate pricing (California Department of Conservation, “Aggregate

Availability in California,” (2006), p. 15 (”DOC Aggregate Report”)).

The process of producing and transporting the aggregate and asphaltic concrete

would produce various greenhouse gases. These emissions occur from two main

categories of sources:

Combustion of diesel fuel in trucks and on‐site equipment

- On‐site equipment and mining trucks;

- Off‐site haul (transport) trucks;

- Employee vehicles and travel;

- Delivery vehicles; and

Use of electric power from the local grid.

GHG emissions consist primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2) and much smaller

amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O2) and methane (CH4). The greenhouse gas

potential of these gases varies substantially. However, only trace amounts of

N2O2 and CH4 are released from diesel combustion. Therefore, the current

analysis focuses on CO2 emissions.

The CO2 emissions are summarized below in Table 4.0‐2, Summary of GHG

Emissions from On‐Site Equipment and Quarry Trucks. The results indicate that

approximate 1,216 tons of CO2 would be released annually from the on‐site

equipment, including trucks that would haul rock from the mine to the aggregate

processing area.

In addition to the emissions summarized in Table 4.0‐2, the facility would

employ temporary electric generators. These generators would be on‐site for

approximately six months. As a result, their contribution to GHG emissions

would negligible over the lifetime of this project.



TABLE 4.0-2 SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM ON-SITE EQUIPMENT AND QUARRY TRUCKS

Equipment Number HP Annual Hours Capacity Factor CO2 (tons/yr)

Dozers 1 370 1,800 55% 210.6

Backhoe 1 375 1,800 55% 213.5

Motor Grader 1 225 1,100 61% 98.4

Hydraulic Shovel Scraper 1 450 1,800 55% 256.2

Blast Hole Drill Rig 1 265 1,000 40% 61.0

Water Trucks 1 300 1,800 40% 124.2

Front‐End Loaders 3 325 1,800 55% 555.

Misc. Accessory Equip. 1 250 1,000 40% 57.5

Quarry Trucks 2 400 9.6

Total 1,574

Notes:

1. CO2 Emission Factor: 1.15lbs; CO2/bhp‐hr Ref: EPA, AP‐42, Sec. 303, Oct. 1996 and data from Caterpillar,

Inc.

2. Capacity Factor data from URBEMIS 2007 for construction equipment.

3. Quarry Truck CO2 Emissions

4. No. of truck trips based on 900,000 tons/yr production, 40 tons/truck load = 22,500 trips/yr

5. 0.2 miles per round trip, total 4,500 miles/yr

6. Emission factor (from EMFAC): 1,930 grams CO2/mile

7. Annual emissions = (4,500 miles/yr x 1,930 gram/mi)/(454 gram/lb x 2000 lb/ton) = 9.56 tons/yr

Off‐site emissions consist of transportation related GHG emissions and emissions

associated with off‐site electrical power generation. These emissions consist of:

Transportation Related Emissions

- Haul trucks transporting material to customers off‐site;

- Employee vehicles;

- Delivery vehicles for supplies, fuel, etc.; and

Emissions from off‐site electric power generation.

Not all of these emissions are “new” emissions. This is because if Madera

Quarry were not built, production and transport of aggregate and asphalt would

be shifted to other, more distant quarries. Consequently, the Project would shift

some of the GHG emissions from other quarries.

GHG emissions from the three categories of vehicles are summarized in Table

4.0‐2. The traffic and mileage data are from the February 2006 Final EIR. The




Project’s traffic trip generation is not expected to change under the Revised EIR.

The emissions estimate is based on average emissions for vehicles in the 2000 to

2008 model year using the EMFAC model2. This model is used to calculate

emissions from light duty passenger cars, medium and heavy duty trucks. A

copy of the EMFAC output is provided in Attachment 1.

The results indicate that 3,383 tons of GHG would be released annually and is

summarized in Table 4.0‐3, Summary of Transportation‐Related Emissions.

Madera Quarry would use electric power to run the rock crushers and

conveyors. In addition the office buildings and facility lighting would all use

electricity. The generation of electric power would result in GHG emissions at

the point of generation. A modern natural gas fired power plant releases 0.5

pounds of GHG emissions per kilowatt hour (kwh) of electric power generated.

It is estimated that 3,700,000 kilowatts (kw) of power would be used annually at

the Madera Quarry. This translates to approximately 925 tons of GHG emissions

annually and is summarized below in Table 4.0‐4, CO2 Emissions from Electricity

Generation.

TABLE 4.0-3 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION-RELATED EMISSIONS

Maximum

Annual Trips Round Trip

Length (mile) Annual

Miles (mile) CO2

(gram/mile) (tons/yr) Employee Vehicles 10,000 20 400,000 305.0 134.4

Haul Trucks (note 4) 36,000 49 1,764,000 1611 3129.7

Delivery Trucks 2,250 46 207,000 521.0 118.8

Total 3,383

Notes:

1. Annual tons/year = (gram/mile) x (annual miles) / (454 grams/lb)(2000 lbs/ton)

2. Gram/mile data based on EMFAC model run for Madera County for 2000 to 2008 fleet mix. Copy of

EMFAC model provided in the Attachment.

3. Traffic and mileage data from Appendix D of this DREIR, Table 16, of Traffic Study (Peters Engineering

Group, October 13, 2009)

4. Trip length for haul trucks based on average one‐way trip length to Madera (23 miles) and Fresno (26

miles) per the traffic study = 24.5 miles or 49 miles round‐trip

2 CARB (2007) Emission Model, California Air Resources Board. Available from:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm


TABLE 4.0-4 CO2 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Source Usage CO2 Conversion Rate Emissions

Electricity Generation 3,700,000 kw/year

(3.7 x 106 kw/year) 0.5 lbs/kwh 925 tons/yr

Total 925 tons/yr

Notes:

1. CO2 conversion rate from PG&E 2004Second Annual Corporate Responsibility Report, Page 66.

2. Emissions (tons/yr) = 3.7 x 106 kwh/yr x 0.5 lb/kwh/(2000 lbs/ton)

As part of the mitigation related to agricultural impacts, Madera Quarry Inc. will

establish a conservation easement area to offset the loss of trees and agricultural

use at the Project Site. The mitigation includes the development of a tree

replacement program and maintenance of existing trees. A quantitative

assessment of this preserve and the tree replacement program were included in

the June 2005 DEIR. This assessment demonstrated that loss of trees at the study

impact area would be offset by a ratio of 4.8 to 1 as measured on an aggregate

diameter at breast height (dbh) of trees.

While a detailed analysis of CO2 absorption in the impact portion of the study

area or at the preserve was beyond the scope of this analysis, we note that a

single oak tree 18” in DBH would absorb 17,800 pounds (8.9 tons) of CO2 over 50

years or 350 pounds per year per tree. The aggregate DBH at the impact portion

of the study area has been estimated to be 10,355.5”. This is equivalent to 575

trees of 18” DBH and would have the potential to remove 201,250 pounds of CO2

per year. This loss is CO2 absorption capacity would be offset by an aggregate

DBH of 49,772.5” at the preserve. This translates into an equivalent of 2,765 trees

(18” DBH) which equals a gain of 981,952 lbs/yr of CO2 absorption with the net

reduction of 389 tons/yr of CO2 as a result of the preserve easement. This

calculation is shown in Table 4.0‐5, Estimate of CO2 Sequestration.



TABLE 4.0-5 ESTIMATE OF CO2 SEQUESTRATION

Notes Units Impact Area Preserve

Total Diameter at Breast

Height (DBH) 1 10,355.5 49,772.5

Equivalent Number of 18”

DBH Trees 2 575.3 2,765.1

CO2 sequestration per 18” DBH

tree over 50 years 3 Lbs 17,756 17,756

4 Lbs/yr per tree 355.1 355.1

Amount of CO2 sequestered 5 Lbs/yr 204,302 981,952

6 Tons/yr 102 491

Net Mitigation Tons/yr ‐389

Notes:

1. Data from Appendices D and H, DEIR Madera Ranch Quarry

2. Number of equivalent 18” DBH trees = Total DBH/18

3. CO2 sequestration calculated using a logarithmic regression models as described by Jenkins et al.

“National‐Scale Biomass Estimators for United States Tree Species”, Forest Science, Vol. 49, No. 1,

Feb. 2003. Copy attached.

Generalized Regression Equation for Total Above Ground Biomass (bm) from oak/hardwood

trees is:

bm=exp(b0 + b1ln(dbh))

bm = total aboveground biomass (kg) for trees 2.5 cm or higher

b0 , b1 emirical constants

dbh = diameter in cm

4. CO2 sequestration calculated for 50 years (from note 3) / 50. Assume growth rate = 0.25ʺ diameter per

year. Below ground biomass = 0.2 x above ground biomass.

5. CO2 sequesteration (lbs/tree per year) x number of equivalent 18ʺ DBH trees (from note 2)

Conversion pounds/year to tons per year

While the operation of Madera Quarry would result in a local increase in

greenhouse gases the combined emission totals from on‐site, off‐site, and electric

power generation would be well below California’s OPH/SCH published interim

thresholds for green house gas of 7,000 metric tons/year. Total anticipated

emissions associated with the Project are 5,882 tons/year and would be further

reduced with CO Sequestration to 5,493 tons/year. Therefore, this impact is less

than significant.

Level of Significant Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant




Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures 3.4‐3 and 3.5‐12d of the DEIR

and FEIR. These measures are also provided in the Summary section (Table S‐1)

of this DREIR. Level of Significant After Mitigation: Less than Significant

4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 4.0-2: Project Emissions, in Combination with Other Development in the County, Could Contribute to Greenhouse Gases

Emission from mining and transportation resulting from implementation of the Project, in

combination with other cumulative development, has the potential to contribute to greenhouse

gas.

The operation of Madera Quarry would result in a local increase in greenhouse

gases. Regionally, however, the operation of the Quarry would result in a net

reduction in greenhouse gases.

The demand of aggregate is driven by the population. This demand is reflected

in the number and location of aggregate plants. According to the 2008 California

Geological Survey, the average per capita demand is between 5 and 7 tons per

person3 for the period 2003 through 2007. This means that the operation of

Madera Quarry would not create new demand for aggregate or asphaltic

concrete. Rather, the Quarry is being built in response to increased demand due

to increased population.

According to studies4 on the environmental costs associated with delivery of

aggregate, it is estimated that transportation costs will exceed production costs if

travel distances exceed 20 miles. Therefore, if aggregate cannot be procured

locally, it would have to be procured from other, more distant sources. This

3 The California Dept. of Conservation notes that for the Fresno P‐C Region the average annual per

capita consumption rate from 1960 to 1997 was 6.5 tons. Ref: “Update of Mineral Land Classification:

Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production‐Consumption Region, California”. Dept. of

Conservation, Div. Of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Report 99‐02 (1999) of attached DOC letter

dated 4/1/1999. 4 Peter Berck, “A Note on the Environmental Costs of Aggregate” Working Paper No. 994, Dept. of

Agricultural and Resource Economics Policy, University of California, Berkeley, January 2005.



would lead to higher truck miles and higher emissions of various air pollutants,

including GHG emissions.

Madera Quarry will provide aggregate within the Fresno Production‐

Consumption (P‐C) Region, primarily to Madera County and Northern Fresno

County. Currently, Madera County and Northern Fresno County are served by

four existing quarries in Fresno County. A new quarry which is scheduled to

open in the summer of 2009, CMI, Sanger and the Madera Quarry are shown in

Figure 4.0‐1, Location of Alternate Sources of Aggregate in Madera County,

along with existing quarries. According to Department of Conservation,

Division of Mines and Geology5, the current supply of aggregate in Fresno

Production‐Consumption Region was projected to be totally exhausted by 2011.

However, in light of the recent economic recession, it is expected that the supply

may last as long as 2014.

Specifically, the current permitted supply is as follows:

Vulcan San Joaquin: 1.6 million tons per year;

Vulcan Sanger: 2.5 million tons per year;

Cemex San Joaquin: 1.2 million tons per year;

Granite Coalinga: No Specific Limit;

Air permit allows 11 million tons (not in Fresno P‐C);

LeGrand Asphalt: 0.5 million tons (not in Fresno P‐C); and

CMI Sanger: 1.0 Million tons per year (scheduled to open in Summer

2009).

When the supply of material at Vulcan San Joaquin and Cemex San Joaquin is

exhausted, the remaining permitted annual production from these other

(excluding Coalinga) permitted facilities will total 4 million tons per year. In

1997, there was a 500,000 tons shortfall in the Fresno P‐C area. This shortfall is

based on a demand of 4.7 tons per year and a production rate of 4.2 million tons

per year. In 1998, this shortfall was satisfied by 500,000 tons of material being

shipped from Coalinga6.

5 DOC Report 99‐02 (1999), page 2 of cover letter dated 4/1/1999. 6 Ibid.



In 2006, the DOC updated its data regarding permitted aggregate availability in

California7. The DOC noted that the Fresno P‐C had only 11 percent of the next

50 years demand under permit, making it one of the 4 lowest of the 31 regions.

The reserves were less than 10 years of demand. This represents a 27 percent

drop from the DOC’s 2002 calculations. DOC acknowledged “Aggregate

shortages in the Fresno area have resulted in rock being imported from Coalinga,

a 60 mile haul.”8

Once the Vulcan and Cemex San Joaquin facilities are exhausted and after CMI

Sanger opens for business, there will only be 4.0 million tons per year of

permitted supply9 from Le Grand to the North and CMI Kings River to the

South.

The DOC has previously estimated the following average annual demand for the

respective time periods:

2003 to 2007: 6.48 million tons;

2008 to 2012: 7.42 million tons; and

2013 to 2017: 8.48 million tons.

If these estimates are accurate, without other permitted facilities coming to

market, the production from Madera Quarry would serve to reduce the quantity

of material being transported from Coalinga by 900,000 tons per year. This is not

to say that all of Madera Quarry’s customers would otherwise transport material

from Coalinga. However, whether it is Madera Quarry’s or other facilities’

customers, Madera Quarry coming on‐line will reduce the quantity of import to

the Fresno P‐C Region by 900,000 tons per year.

Scenario 1 – 2009 to 201110

If we assume that for the period 2009 to 2011, the majority of Madera Quarry’s

customers are located primarily in Madera County, then aggregate shipped from

7 Map Sheet 52, Aggregate Availability in California 2006, Department of Conservation 8 Aggregate Availability in California, 200, Map Sheet 52, Dept. of Conservation, pg. 15. 9 LeGrand’s production is primarily consumed in that immediate area, but for the purposes of this

analysis all of it is assumed to be available for the Fresno P‐C Region. 10 It is recognized that the production at the Cemex and Vulcan San Joaquin facilities might not be

exhausted until 2014 due to the economic downturn, this report continues to use the data from the

DOC that indicates the production at these two facilities would cease by 2011.



Madera Quarry would result in a saving of 25 miles per trip as compared to

aggregate shipped from Fresno County. Shipments to customers in Central

Madera would reduce truck travel by approximately 10 miles per the October 13,

2009 traffic study11 included in the EIR. This would lead to a net reduction on

GHG emissions by a minimum of 386 tons per year as shown below in Table 4.0‐

6, Summary of Avoided Emissions – Scenario 1 (2009 to 2011). This estimate

assumes no change employee vehicle or delivery traffic volume or miles driven.

Scenario 2 – Beyond 2011

Beyond 2011, the only source of material will be the Coalinga facility. In this

scenario, the material would be transported approximately 65 miles (one‐way).

However, a detailed analysis that takes into account the location of population

the net savings would be 35 miles per one‐way trip12. In this scenario, the

avoided GHG emissions would be 4,218 tons per year a shown in Table 4.0‐7,

Summary of Avoided Emissions – Scenario 2 (Beyond 2011).

TABLE 4.0-6 SUMMARY OF AVOIDED EMISSIONS – SCENARIO 1 (2009 TO 2011)

CO2

Maximum


Length (mile) Annual Miles (gram/mile) (tons/yr) Employee Vehicles 10,000 20 400,000 305.0 134.4

Off‐Site Haul Trucks 36,000 10 360,000 1611 639

Delivery Trucks 2,250 46 207,000 521.0 118.8

Total 386

Notes:

1. Annual tons/year = (gram/mile) x (annual miles) / (454 grams/lb)(2000 lbs/ton).


EMFAC model provided in the Appendix.


Group, October 13, 2009).

11 “Traffic Impact Study, Proposed Madera Quarry”, October 13, 2009, Peters Engineering Group, Clovis,

CA. 12 Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Madera Quarry, Peters Engineering Group, October 13, 2009.



TABLE 4.0-7 SUMMARY OF AVOIDED EMISSIONS – SCENARIO 2 (BEYOND 2011)

CO2

Maximum


Length (mile) Annual Miles (gram/mile) (tons/yr) Employee Vehicles 10,000 20 400,000 305.0 134.4

Haul Trucks (note 3) 36,000 70 2,520,000 1,611 4,471

Delivery Trucks 2,250 46 207,000 521.0 118.8

Total: 4,218

Notes:

1. Annual tons/year = (gram/mile) x (annual miles) / (454 grams/lb)(2000 lbs/ton).


EMFAC model provided in the appendix.


Group, October 13, 2009).

Material supplied by Madera Quarry to job sites in Central Madera County to

Southern Merced County would lead to a net savings of between 386 to 4,289

tons/year of greenhouse gases from avoided transportation related emissions.

To place the above emission in perspective, the statewide CO2 emissions in 2004

were approximately 390 million tons. The project emissions represent less than

0.001 percent of statewide emissions. In addition, in January 2009, the state of

California through OPH/SCH published interim thresholds for greenhouse

gases. The interim threshold for GHG is 7,000 metric tons of GHG equivalents.

Using this threshold, GHG emissions are less than significant when compared on

project basis or compared with regional emissions.

Level of Significant Before Mitigation: Less than Significant


5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 LEAD AGENCY STAFF

Madera County Planning and Building Inspection Department 2037 West Cleveland Avenue


Matthew Treber, Planner III

5.2 CONSULTANTS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE EIR

5.2.1 Applicant Team

Madera Quarry, Inc. P.O. Box 994248

Redding, California 96099

Leonard Bandell, Esq., Vice President

Kim Enderson, Executive Assistant


MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.0 List of Preparers

5.2.2 Applicant Team Technical Consultants

Greenhouse Gas:

Air Permitting Specialists

12247 Welch Road

Wilton, California 95693

Ray Kapahi, Principal

Hydrology:

Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers

500 First Street

Woodland, California 95695‐4026

Joseph C. Scalmanini, Principal

Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates

600 West Shaw, Suite 250

Fresno, California 93704

Kenneth D. Schmidt, Certified Hydrogeologist

and Professional Geologist

Blair Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers

451 Clovis Avenue, Suite 200

Clovis, California 93612

Cordie R. Qualle, Project Engineer

and Registered Professional Engineer

Noise:

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

455 Main Street, Suite 3

Newcastle, California 95658

Paul Bollard, President

Transportation:

Peters Engineering

952 Pollasky Ave.

Clovis, California 93612

John Rowland, Civil Engineer


MADERA QUARRY DRAFT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.0 List of Preparers


5.2.3 Peer Review, Editorial, and Formatting

RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. 4990 Hillsdale Circle, Suite 400

El Dorado Hills, California 95762

David E. Brown, Principal

Bruce Steubing, Project Director

Andrew White, Project Manager

Jesse Hall, Graphics

Gian Duong, Document Control Manager

Katharina McKillip, Document Preparation

www.resourcedesign.bizResource Design Technology, Inc. 4990 Hillsdale Circle, Suite 400, El Dorado Hills, California 95762

madera quarry project

Documents