SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Munn&Perkins Quarry Excavation Permit • The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a"no project"alternative and to identify an"environmentally superior" alternative in addition to the no project alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). In consideration of the factors presented above,the following alternatives were selected for evaluation in this EIR: • Alternative 1 —No Project Alternative • Alternative 2—West Only Haul Route Alternative • Alternative 3—East Only Haul Route Alternative 4.1 .2. Alternatives Identified but Rejected as Infeasible A lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and merit in-depth consideration and which do not. Alternatives that are remote or speculative or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted need not be considered.However,alternatives may not be rejected merely because they are beyond an agency's authority,would require new implementing legislation, or would be too costly (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(f)(2)). The following alternatives were considered by the Lead Agency but rejected as infeasible. Offsite Alternatives In the process of identifying feasible alternatives,alternative locations were considered. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)specifically addresses the requirements for consideration of alternate locations.The offsite analysis should consider two key issues.First,would a different location avoid or substantially lessen a potentially significant impact?Second,is an alternative location feasible, based on the project objectives and the factors discussed in Section 4.1.1? The applicant currently owns and operates three facilities that were considered as potential off-site alternatives to the proposed project,including facilities in Marysville,Clements,and Table Mountain. However,each of these offsite alternatives was found to be infeasible for the reasons described below. The applicant could theoretically provide material from their asphalt plant in Marysville as it is the only other plant controlled by the applicant that is equipped with the Caltrans approved Recycled Asphalt Pavement technology,which is typically mandated for Caltrans projects. However,the resulting haul costs and increased criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from hauling material such a long distance make this alternative infeasible.The applicant also owns and operates asphalt plants in Clements and Table Mountain,which are 48 miles and 35 miles away from the Munn&Perkins facility respectively. One of the project's objectives is to compete for roadway project work within the region of the Munn&Perkins facility;however,like the facility in Marysville, the facilities in Clements and Table Mountain are at too great a distance to make hauling material into the area economically feasible.Hauling material from these facilities into the project area would also result in increased criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions due to their distance from the region. In addition, the applicant's facilities in Clements and Table Mountain are not equipped with Recycled Asphalt technology that meets Caltrans requirements,which increases waste from Munn&Perkins Quarry Excavation Permit 4-2 ESA 7211086 Draft EIR April 2011