SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

With a deeper excavation below the groundwater level, the mining pits would be filled with water and the ability to reclaim the mined areas as agricultural land would be eliminated. This would result in a greater loss of productive agricultural land than the project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) Due to the potentially significant environmental impacts to groundwater hydrology, exceeding those associated with the proposed project, as well as the inability to reclaim the mined areas as agricultural land, this alternative was not evaluated as a viable alternative. (Draft EIR,p. 5-5.) E.1.3. Processing Material Extracted at the Project Site at the Existing Cemex Tracy Facility This alternative would have assessed the potential of extracting aggregate at the project site and then transporting the raw or semi-processed material to the existing and/or new plant located at the Applicant's Tracy Facility. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) The Applicant stated in their updated application (December 2003)that the proposed project is a replacement facility for their Tracy Plant. The Tracy Facility will be depleted of reserves in three to ten years. According to the Division of Mines and Geology, 82 percent of the material produced in the TracyNernalis area satisfies market demand to the north in the Stockton area. This alternative was considered during the scoping process to determine whether utilizing an existing facility closer to the market, potentially reducing traffic,noise, air quality, and visual impacts at the project site may be a more environmentally sensitive alternative. (Draft EIR,p. 5- 6.) The material extracted at the project site would be taken to an existing facility that is already processing material. The visual impacts would be reduced to residents near the project site and those traveling along Blewett and Koster Road. The construction and operations emissions would be reduced by not having a processing facility at the project site. The noise impacts from processing materials at the site would be eliminated with this alternative. (Draft EIR,p. 5-6.) However, there would still be truck traffic in the Vernalis area due to the trucks taking the extracted material to the existing Tracy Facility. Haul truck traffic would be increased because the trucks would then need to make additional trips when traveling to the Tracy Facility to pick up and deliver the material after it has been processed. (Draft EIR,p. 5-6.) This alternative was rejected because it would be inefficient and increase truck traffic. E.2. Alternatives Evaluated in Detail in the EIR Three alternatives were evaluated in detail in the EIR as alternatives to the proposed project and include: Alternative 1—No Project Alternative–Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain as agricultural land and rural residential in its existing condition. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.) Alternative 2—Reduced Project Production–The Reduced Project Production Alternative considered two scenarios: Scenario 1 would reduce the rate of extraction to 1.7 to 2.85 (instead of 4.0)million tons per year. Scenario 2 would eliminate mining in Phases IV and V (Draft EIR, p. 5-9; Final EIR, p. 4-1 (discussion of revised phasing).) 43