SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

unavoidable impacts of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. This alternative eliminates the area of Hospital Creek from proposed mining activities. If Hospital Creek were to be mined out as proposed in the project (under Mining Plan Option 2), this would permanently remove surface water flows from the reach of Hospital Creek downstream of the proposed mining operations, leading to depletion of flows to downstream receiving water bodies, reduction of surface water available for localized infiltration, or elimination of adequate water flow for aquatic and riparian habitats. It should be noted; however, that the project could also be approved under Mining Plan Option 1, which would also avoid the significant impacts to Hospital Creek Therefore, the significant and unavoidable impact could also be avoided with implementation of the project itself if Mining Plan Option 1 is approved rather than Mining Plan Option 2. Scenario 2 also reduces the significant and unavoidable noise impacts to three sensitive receptors (RI, R2, and R3, although not to a less than significant level). Scenario 2 also substantially reduces the exposure of three sensitive receptors (RI, R2, and R3) to DPM, although not to a less than significant level. Alternative 2—Scenario 1 would result in similar impacts as the project, but to a lesser extent due to the decrease in the amount of material to be mined on a yearly basis. Transportation and circulation impacts and noise impacts would be less than the project due to a decrease in the amount of traffic on a daily basis over the life of the project. Therefore, Scenario 2 is considered the environmentally superior alternative. The significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project would not be reduced with this alternative. It should also be noted that Alternative 2-Scenario 2 would result in having to look for another site to mine aggregate sooner than with the project because the lifespan of the project would be reduced to 15 to 36 years instead of the 25 to 60 years of the project. Additionally, the Reduced Project Alternative would make this project economically infeasible for the project proponent. Therefore the Commission finds the Reduced Project Alternative is economically and socially infeasible, and is therefore rejected. E.3.3. Offsite Alternative Description The off-site alternative locations selected for review included the Tracy area and the Laguna Formation located along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. The CDMG, in its mineral land classification report (Special Report 160, dated 1988), classified several resource sectors in the Tracy area. Many of these sectors were not, in 1988, controlled by an aggregate company and were not encroached upon by a competing land use. This area is closer to the majority of the market as reported by the CDMG. Additionally,the CDMG reported that the Laguna Formation located along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada may meet PCC grade aggregate. These areas were looked at for availability and accessibility of PCC grade aggregate. The off-site alternative would assess whether these sectors are available today for aggregate extraction. If so,the closer proximity of an alternative site to the market may significantly decrease truck traffic. An off-site alternative in the Laguna Formation of the foothills was considered for inclusion in this EIR,but was rejected because of the lack of an adequate aggregate resource to meet the sponsor's basic objectives. The Laguna Formation off-site alternative is further discussed in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR, Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible. 52