JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2007042002

Volume 2 – Appendices

Prepared for November 2010 Amador County Planning Department

JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2007042002

Volume 2 – Appendices

Prepared for November 2010 Amador County Planning Department

2600 Capitol Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com

Los Angeles

Oakland

Olympia

Petaluma

Portland

San Diego

San Francisco

Seattle

Tampa

Woodland Hills

207443

TABLE OF CONTENTS Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page

Executive Summary ES-1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report 1-1 1.2 Project Overview 1-1 1.3 Type of Environmental Impact Report 1-2 1.4 Range of Alternatives 1-2 1.5 Use of this Environmental Impact Report 1-3 1.6 CEQA Environmental Impact Report Process 1-3 1.7 Public Participation 1-4 1.8 Organization of this Environmental Impact Report 1-5 1.9 SMARA/Financial Assurances 1-5 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Land Use and Agricultural Resources 3.1-1 3.2 Traffic and Circulation 3.2-1 3.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 3.3-1 3.4 Noise 3.4-1 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.5-1 3.6 Biological Resources 3.6-1 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3.7-1 3.8 Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation 3.8-1 3.9 Cultural Resources 3.9-1 3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.10-1 3.11 Aesthetics 3.11-1 4. Alternatives 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR 4-5 4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-16 5. Other CEQA Considerations 5-1 5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts 5-1 5.2 Cumulative Impacts 5-2 5.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 5-9 5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 5-11 5.5 Effects Not Found To Be Significant 5-11 6. List of Preparers 6-1

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project i ESA / 207443 Draft EIR November 2010 Table of Contents

Page

Appendices A. Notice of Preparation (NOP) A-1 B. NOP Comment Letters B-1 C. Traffic Impact Study C-1 D. Air Quality Data D-1 E. Biological Resources Data E-1 F. Use Permit & Reclamation Plan Application F-1

List of Figures 2-1 Regional Locator Map 2-2 2-2 Project Location 2-4 3.1-1 FMMP and Williamson Act near the Project Site 3.1-5 3.2-1 Study Area 3.2-2 3.2-2 Lane Configurations at Study Intersections 3.2-4 3.2-3 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Existing Conditions) 3.2-5 3.2-4 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Project Trips) 3.2-12 3.2-5 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Near-Term Baseline Conditions) 3.2-14 3.2-6 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Near-Term Baseline Plus Project Conditions) 3.2-15 3.2-7 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Cumulative Baseline Conditions) 3.2-20 3.2-8 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Cumulative Baseline Plus Project Conditions) 3.2-21 3.4-1 Effect of Noise on People 3.4-2 3.4-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment 3.4-7 3.4-3 Noise Measurement Locations 3.4-10 3.4-4 Long Term 1: North of site on CA88 Thursday October 30, 2008 3.4-11 3.6-1 Habitats and Wetlands within the Project Site 3.6-3 3.11-1a View of the Project Area 3.11-3 3.11-1b View of the Project Area 3.11-4 4-1 Alternative Sites 4-6 4-2 Assessor’s Parcel Map 4-9 4-3 Amador County Zoning Map 4-11 4-4 Amador County General Plan Map 4-12

List of Tables ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ES-3 2-1 Jackson Valley Quarry Material Sales 2-3 2-2 Jackson Valley Quarry Typical Equipment 2-9 3.1-1 Amador County Agricultural Production Summary, 2005 to 2006 3.1-2 3.1-2 Farmland Conversion from 2004–2006 in Amador County 3.1-3 3.1-3 Land Capability Classification Definitions 3.1-6 3.1-4 Project Consistency With Relevant Amador County General Plan Policies 3.1-11 3.2-1 Existing Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service 3.2-7

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project ii ESA / 207443 Draft EIR November 2010 Table of Contents

Page

List of Tables (continued) 3.2-2 Existing Daily Roadway Levels of Service 3.2-8 3.2-3 Collision History on Major Roadways in Project Area 3.2-8 3.2-4 Project Trip Generation Estimates 3.2-11 3.2-5 Trip Distribution Patterns – Proposed Project 3.2-11 3.2-6 Near-Term Baseline Plus Project Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service 3.2-16 3.2-7 Near-Term Baseline Plus Project Daily Roadway Levels of Service 3.2-18 3.2-8 Cumulative Baseline Plus Project Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service 3.2-22 3.2-9 Cumulative (2025) Plus Project Daily Roadway Levels of Service 3.2-27 3.2-10 Calculated Traffic Index for Project Haul Routes 3.2-29 3.3-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2005–2007) for the Project Area 3.3-2 3.3-2 State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources 3.3-7 3.3-3 Amador County Attainment Status 3.3-8 3.3-4 List of Recommended Actions By Sector 3.3-11 3.3-5 Existing and Proposed Project Quarry Operational Air Pollutant Emissions 3.3-18 3.3-6 Existing and Proposed Project Quarry Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.3-22 3.4-1 Acceptable Noise Levels 3.4-9 3.4-2 Existing Noise Environments at Project Locations 3.4-11 3.4-3 Typical Construction Noise Levels 3.4-14 3.4-4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment 3.4-14 3.4-5 Existing and Existing Plus Project AM Peak-Hour Traffic Noise Levels along Roadways in the Project Vicinity 3.4-18 3.4-6 Cumulative AM Peak-Hour Traffic Noise Levels along Roadways in the Project Vicinity 3.4-19 3.6-1 Project Site Vegetation Communities 3.6-2 3.6-2 Potentially Jurisdictional Features within the Stud Area 3.6-6 3.6-3 Regionally Occurring Special-Status Species 3.6-8 3.7-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 3.7-5 3.7-2 Peak Ground Motions at the Project Site 3.7-6 3.7-3 Regional Fault in the Vicinity of the Project Site 3.7-7 3.9-1 Identified Potential Cultural Resources within Study Area 3.9-6 4-1 JGO Deposit Property Owners 4-7 4-2 Comparison of Alternatives 4-16 5-1 Surrounding Proposed and Approved Projects 5-4

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project iii ESA / 207443 Draft EIR November 2010

Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP)

Appendix B NOP Comment Letters

STAFF REPORT TO: AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 12,2006:

Item 7 - Public Comment - Environmental Document Determination for proposed Use Permit Amendment to allow the expansion of the existing Jackson Valley Quarry mining operation onto an adjacent 85.73* acre parcel (APN 005-230- 073). Applicant: Reed Leasing Group, LLC Supervisorial District I1 Location: On the south side of Hwy. 88 approximately '/z mile east of the most westerly junction of Jackson Valley Rd. and Hwy 88 in the Ione area. Environmental Document: Pending Planning Commission action.

A General Plan: A-G, Agricultural General (one family per forty acre population density)

B. Present Zoning: "X,"Special Use District

C. Acreage Involved: 85.7+ acres

D. Description: This Use Permit application and Reclamation Plan proposes the expansion of the Jackson Valley Quarry. The existing quarry consists of a 74 acre parcel containing the quarry, processing plant, scale house, storm water ponds, parking and loading areas and stockpiles. The existing permit allows for 500,000 tons per year production. The proposed expansion includes the 85.7_+acres located to the east of the existing quarry with an increase in production to 2 million tons per year over a 25 year period. The proposal would result in the removal of the ground in the center of the project, leaving an open pit surrounded by 1.1: 1 slopes with a 100' undisturbed setback on the north, east, and south boundaries. This pit would fill with both ground and surface water with concurrent reclamation being proposed in the 100 foot setback. The proposed end use for this property is Agricultural. The existing reclamation plan will remain unchanged for the existing 74 acre portion of the quarry.

E. TAC Review: The Amador County Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed this application for completeness, at their October 04, 2006 meeting. The Planning Department indicated that conditions regarding blasting would likely be required as part of the Use Permit. The Planning Department also indicated there may be a need to require the merger of the two parcels due the proposed pit/pond crossing property lines and due to limited surface area of the parcels remaining for a viable agricultural use. The Public Works Agency indicated they had not had sufficient time to review the Traffic Study, however, they may require some revisions as the Traffic Study does not propose any mitigations as outlined in the September 27,2006 Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) memorandum. On October 24, 2006 the Public Works Agency issued a memorandum (see attached) which indicates the need to revise the Traffic Study. On October 24,2006 the Planning Department issued a letter requesting the applicant enter into a Suspended Time Period which would allow them to make the necessary corrections to F:\ WPDOCS\Staff Reports\2006\SR-121206-007.doc Page 1 of 2 the Traffic Study. The applicant agreed to enter into Suspended Time for a period of only 30 days. During that 30 day period the applicant did not provide the County with a revised Traffic Study therefore the Planning Department requested the applicant enter into another period of Suspended Time. The applicant declined and therefore the County is required to make a determination as to whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will need to be prepared to address the project potential environmental impacts. On December 05,2006 the Planning Department received the applicant's response to the Public Works Agency's October 24 memo (see attached). F. Planning Commission Action: With input from County Staff, the applicant, the public, and the Planning Commission the environmental checklist will be completed at which time the Planning Commission will provide staff with direction to prepare either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report. A decision on the project will be made at a future date after the appropriate Environmental Document is completed.

F:\ WPDOCS\Staff Reports\2006\SR-121206-007.doc Page 2 of 2 ATTACHED IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WHICH INCLUDES RESPONSES FROM PUBLIC WORKS, FOR THEIR ITEMS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 1

Project Title: Jackson Valley Quarry Use Permit and Reclamation Plan Lead Agency Name and Address: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation(s): Zoning: Contact Person: Phone Number: Date Prepared:

Project Description: Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist and corresponding discussion on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology I Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology 1 Water Quality Land Use 1 Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Transportation I Public Services Recreation Traffic Utilities 1 Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

Page 1 of 17 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Plannina Commission Printed Name For

Page 2 of 1 7 PURPOSE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY

This Initial Study has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, to determine if the EMC Campground Use Permit Amendment, as proposed, may have a significant effect upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained within this report, the Initial Study will be used in support of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1) A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the information shows that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. ldentify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Page 3 of 17 I. AESTHETICS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant lmpact lmpact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? CI

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime El views in the area?

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant lmpact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Page 4 of 1 7 Ill. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

potentially Than Less Than No Significant With Significant Significant Mitigation lrnpact Impact Would the project: Incorporated lrnpact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Result in significant construction-related air quality impacts? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Page 5 of 1 7 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Significant Significant With No Mitigation :cii:zntImpact Would the project: lmpact Incorporated Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Page 6 of 17 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant lmpact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant lmoact Mitiaation., lmoact Would the project: Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Page 7 of 17 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated - The project site is composed of Auburn- Argonaut very rocky silt loam with moderate to severe erosion hazard. With implementation of NPDES Stom Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) requirements, erosion would be minimal.

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan No Significant Significant With Mitigation lmpact Would the project: Incorporated a] Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Page 8 of 1 7 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially lhan Significant Less Than No Significant With Mitigation Significant lrnpact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) 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?

Page 9 of 1 7 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? (Source: h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Page 10 of 17 The project shall contain storm water on site through the implementation of a valid Storm Water Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The project site is located outside of Zone A, areas of 100 year flood as identified in the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps dated 6-6-00.

There is no known dam or levee that could affect the project site.

The project site would not be affected by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan No Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, cx zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Page 1 1 of 1 7 [ Project Name: I lNlTlALSTUDY/NEGATIVEDECLARATION I

X. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With Significant No Significant Mitigation lrnnnrt ~rnnmrt 8,' ',.,.A"' Impact Would the project: Incorporated ""r""' a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the a a region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

XI. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant With NO Significant Mitigation k?ipa",t Impact lmpact Would the project result in: Incorporated lmpact 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 a 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?

Page 12 of 1 7 1 Proiect Name: 1 lNlTlALSTUDY/NEGATlVEDECLARATlON I

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant lmpact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: lncorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for • • • • example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)8

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement 17 housing elsewhere8 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere8

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES potentially lessThan Less Than No Significant Significant With Mitigation Significant lrnpact lrnpact lrnpact Would the project result in: lncorporated Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection8 c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities?

Page 13 of 1 7 I Projecf Name: I INITIAL STUDYINEGA TIVE DECLARATION I

XIV. RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Mitigation Significant lmpact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the 0 facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No Significant With Mitigation Significant lmpact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the El volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for El designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm Ed equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Ed f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? IX]

Page 14 of 17 r Project Name: I INITIAL STUDY/NEGA TIVE DECLARA TlON I

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact lrnpact Would the ~roiect: Incorporated g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation El (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation: A. Potentially Significant Impact - The proposed expansion anticipates an increase of 350 trucks per day. This is an increase of 700 passenger car equivalents per day. The Amador County Traffic Study Guidelines require a Traffic Impact Study be prepared when a project would generate 350 or more daily trips. These Guidelines provide the required contents of a Traffic Impact Study. The Traffic Impact Study provided in the Use Permit and Reclamation Plan Application Package needs to be revised to conform with the County Guidelines.

The project does not involve air traffic patterns.

The County has no policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant With Mitigation Significant lrnpact Impact Impact Would the prolect: Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

Page 15 of 17 I Proiect Name: I INITIAL STUDY/NEGA TlVE DECLA RA TlON I

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact lrnpact lrnpact Would the project: Incorporated f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid . El waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The project shall contain storm water on site through the implementation of a valid Storm Water Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

There is sufficient capacity in the current operation of the Transfer Station for this project.

Page 16 of 17 I Project Name: I INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ]

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

NOTE: If there are significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and no feasible project alternatives are available, then complete the mandatory findings of significance and attach to this initial study as an appendix. This is the first step for starting the environmental impact report (EIR) process.

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant With Significant Impacl Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Does the ~roiect: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

REFERENCES

ATTACHMENTS

Page 1 7 of 1 7 Attachment A

SOURCE: Amador Coun~General Plan Safety and Seismic Safety Element (1 974) Attachment B

SOURCE: Amador County General Plan Safety and Seismic Safety Element (1974) SOURCE: AnladorCounty General Plan Safety and SeismicSafety Elenlent (1974) PRELIMINARY MAP OF MAXIMUM EXPECTABLE EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY

@[IG3UBB1180ENBB D1180101001E BNEB 4*UlCb*LC QLIto LOW-Rlll YIIOlll bl* w00n-r~AYt.UIL*llOI

't @[IClUBB[180E888 D[I86363063ffi88[38 h\ EXPANSIVE SOIL MAP .I .\ I

AttachmentK

Attachment N

SCALE 1 : 16,103

P-H I I 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 FEET

ie bun& dhdtlsde~mmes ))(I ~oopeAo(Wqh9ky hmuoo ofiblc MmotleR, flWE AllB AEEmWll WAAWE tW10WlTWOltt WARRANTY OF RtMQ, ulcprc#id ar Irydlrl, I~dtMngClr( MH Wlte, fhkn(rlle11 wrRW el ~r&antaBIII %ill br a pa#wlar prpm DI nH mak a~yWR~ dsMm bessll s~ tMil I& bow val#ahfl yeur &@I rM $8 appnpla~E@u@ el#=. Thursdav. December 07 7nnR 0.92 Ann

JOINS 1100

FEDERALEMERGENCYMANAGEMENTAGENCY APPROXIMATE SCALP c.L 2000 0 20M1 4000 6000 FElT ti H H S t i U1 AMADOR CO., CA (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) YAP REVISLO FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP JUNE 6 2000 ~napter1Y.L4 UlS'l'KLCT REGULATIONS Page 1 of 1

19.24.030 X district regulations. A. Uses permitted include all uses not otherwise prohibited by law, subject to securing a use permit as specified in this title; provided, however, that agricultural uses as defined in this title, shall not be subject to a use permit. B. Building Site Area Required. Six thousand square feet; C. Building Site Width Required. Sixty feet at the front setback line; D. Minimum Front Setback Required. Twenty-five feet, but in no case shall the front setback be less than fifty feet from the centerline of any street, highway or road; E. Side and rear yard setbacks, building height, and lot coverage shall be as specified in the use permit. (Ord. 351 910.2, 1962). Lnapter 1.36 S UKk ACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 1 of 13

Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION1

Sections:

--7.36.010 - Purpose. 7.36.020 Findings.

--7.36.030 -- Definitions.

-7.36.040 - -- Scope. 7.36.050 Use permit required.

--7.36.060 -- Reclamation plan-Submission and approval. 7.36.070 Reclamation plan-Exemption. 7.36.090 Reclamation plan-Review fee. 7.36.100 Reclamation plan and use permit-Number required for noncontiguous parcels. 7.36.1 10 Reclamation plan and use permit-Run with the land. 7.36.120 Reclamation plan and use permit-Financial assurances.

-7.36.1 -- 30 Reclamation plan-Required information and documents.

----7.36.140 Review procedures. 7.36.1 50 Review procedure-Generally. 7.36.160 Plans, reports, applications are public record. 7.36.170 Periodic review requirements.

-7.36.180 --- Amendments to plan.

-7.36.185 --- Interim management plans.

--a7.36.1 -90 - Appeal and variance procedure.

--7.36.200 -- Enforcement. 7.36.21-- 0 Revocation of plan. 7.36.220 Penalties for noncompliance.

-7.36.230 --- Unlawful operation a nuisance. 7.36.240 Enforcement of violation.

7.36.010 Purpose. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, being Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2710) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and in compliance with the provisions set forth by the state Board of Mines and Geology, being Section 3500 et seq. of Chapter 8, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.020 Findings. A. The board of supervisors finds and declares that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well-being of the county and to the needs of the society, and that the reclamation of mined lands is necessary to prevent or minimize adverse effects on the environment and to protect the public health and safety. Each county is required to adopt ordinances for the review and approval of permits for mining operations and plans for reclamation of mined lands within its jurisdiction. B. The board further finds that the reclamation of mined lands as provided in this chapter will permit the continued mining of materials and will provide for the protection and subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. C. The board further finds that surface mining takes place in diverse areas where the geologic, topographic, climatic, biological, and social conditions are ~napter/ .36 S UWACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 2 of 13

significantly different and that reclamation operations and the specifications therefore may vary accordingly. D. The provisions of the California Surface and Mining Act of 1975 (PRC Section 2710 et seq.), PRC Section 2207, and the California Code of Regulations (Section 3500 et seq.) implementing the Act, as either may be amended from time to time, are made a part of this chapter by reference with the same force and effect as if the provisions therein were specifically and fully set out herein, excepting that when the provisions of this chapter are more restrictive than conflicting state provisions, this chapter shall prevail. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter: "Area of regional significance" means an area designated by the State Mining and Geology Board, pursuant to Public Resources Code 2790, which is known to contain a deposit of minerals, the extraction of which is judged to be of prime importance in meeting future needs for minerals in a particular region of the state within which the minerals are located and which, if prematurely developed for alternate incompatible land uses, could result in the permanent loss of minerals that are of more than local significance. "Area of statewide significance" means an area designated by the State Mining and Geology Board, pursuant to PRC Section 2790, which is known to contain a deposit of minerals, the extraction of which is judged to be of prime importance in meeting future needs for minerals in the state and which, if prematurely developed for alternate incompatible land uses, could result in the permanent loss of minerals that are of more than local or regional significance. "Exploration" or "prospecting" means that search for minerals by geological, geophysical, geochemical and other techniques, including, but not limited to, sampling, assaying, drilling, or any surface or underground works needed to determine the type, intent, or quantity of minerals present in total amounts of less than one thousand cubic yards in any one location of one acre or less. "Idle" means to curtail for a period of one year or more surface mining operations by more than ninety percent of the operation's previous maximum annual mineral production, with the intent to resume those surface mining operations at a future date. "Interim management plan" is the plan which the operator of an idle mine shall submit in accordance with PRC 2770 (h) (1) to (i) and gain approval for, in order to assure that the site shall be maintained in compliance with the approved reclamation plan, use permit, and applicable conditions, until the mine operation is resumed or the mine is fully reclaimed in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. lntermittent Operation. A surface mine that is operated only periodically, where one or more years of inactivity between operating periods may occur because needs for the minerals produced at such mine maybe supplied from stockpiles, market conditions may require only an intermittent supply of these minerals, or physical conditions may preclude continuous operations. An example of the latter could be the natural buildup of a gravel bar in a stream or river. lntermittent operations must be identified in the determination of vested rights, use permit, and/or reclamation plan. "Mined lands" includes the surface, subsurface, and groundwater of an area in which surface mining operations will be, are being, or have been conducted, including private ways and roads appurtenant to any such area, land excavations, ~naprer1.50 s UKPACL:MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 3 of 13

workings, mining waste, and areas in which structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other materials or property which result from, or are used in, surface mining operations are located. "Minerals" means any naturally occurring chemical element or compound, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances, including, but not limited to, coal, peat, and bituminous rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas, and petroleum. "Mining waste" includes the residual of soil, rock, mineral, liquid, vegetation, equipment, machines, tools, or other materials or property directly resulting from, or displaced by, surface mining operations, excluding stockpiles as defined in this chapter. "Operator" means any individual, firm, association, corporation, organization, or partnership, or any city, county, district, or the state or any department or agency thereof who is engaged in surface mining operations himself, or who contracts with others to conduct operations on his behalf, except a person who is engaged in surface mining operations as an employee with wages as his sole compensation. "Overburden" means soil, rock, or other materials that lie above a natural mineral deposit or in between deposits, before or after their removal by surface mining operations. "Reclamation" means the combined process of land treatment that minimizes water degradation, air pollution, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, flooding, erosion, and other adverse effects from surface mining operations, including adverse surface effects incidental to underground mines, so that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternate land uses and create no danger to public health or safety. The process may extend to affected lands surrounding mined lands, and may require backfilling, grading, resoiling, revegetation, soil compaction, stabilization, or other measures. "Reclamation plan" means the plan required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, and meeting all the requirements thereof, administrative guidelines and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, Public Resources Code 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and ordinances of Amador County adopted in accordance therewith. "Stockpile" means a volume of stored mined material which is residual or secondary material extracted during a surface mining operation and which has a demonstrated future economic value sufficient to warrant its protection and preservation. "Surface mining operations" means all, or any part of, the process involved in the mining of minerals on mined lands by removing overburden and mining directly from the mineral deposits, open-pit mining of minerals naturally exposed, mining by the auger methods, dredging and quarrying, borrow pitting, streambed skimming, segregation and stockpiling of mined materials (and recovery of the same) or surface work incident to an underground mine. Surface mining operations include, but are not limited to: 1. In place distillation, retorting or leaching; 2. The producing and disposal of mining wastes; 3. Prospecting and exploratory activities. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.040 Scope. A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all surface mining operations, as defined by PRC Section 2735 and CCR Section 3501, in the unincorporated area of Amador County including to the extent allowed by law surface mining ~niip~er1 .m ~uKTACL~,MlNlNCi AND RECLAMATION Page 4 of 13

operations on federal land. California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Company (1987) 480 US 572 establishes limited county jurisdiction over an operation on federal land. Such limited jurisdiction allows environmental regulation, including the imposition of conditions to mitigate the environmental impacts of such an operation, but does not allow the county to prohibit such an operation by refusing to issue a permit therefor or otherwise through application of the county's land use laws. B. The provisions of this chapter are not applicable to: 1. Surface mining operations that are required by federal law in order to protect a mining claim if such operations are conducted solely for that purpose. 2. Excavations or grading conducted for farming or on-site construction or for the purpose of restoring land following a flood or natural disaster. 3. On-site excavation and on-site earth-moving activities which are an integral and necessary part of a construction project that are undertaken to prepare a site for construction of structures, landscaping, or other land improvements, including the related excavation, grading, compaction, or the creation of fills, road cuts, and embankments, whether or not surplus materials are exported from the site, subject to all of the following conditions: a. All required permits for the grading, construction, landscaping, or related land improvements have been approved by Amador County and any other public agency in accordance with any other applicable provisions of state law and county adopted plans and ordinances, including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC Section 21000 et seq.). b. The county's or other lead agency's approval of the construction project included consideration of the on-site excavation and on-site earth-moving activities pursuant to the CEQA. c. The approved construction project is consistent with the general plan, and with the zoning district of the site. d. Surplus materials shall not be exported from the site unless and until actual construction work has commenced and shall cease if it is determined that construction activities have terminated, have been indefinitely suspended, or are no longer actively pursued. 4. Operation of a plant site used for mineral processing, including associated on-site structures, equipment, machines, tools, or other materials, including the on-site stockpiling and other on-site recovery of mined materials, subject to all of the following conditions: a. The plant site is located on lands designated for industrial or commercial uses in the general plan. b. The plant site is located on lands zoned industrial or commercial, or are contained within a zoning category intended exclusively for industrial activities and the landowner indicates the minerals processing structures and/or equipment have post-mining uses consistent with the zoning. c. None of the minerals being processed are being extracted from within the plant site. d. All reclamation work has been completed pursuant to the approved reclamation plan for any mineral extraction activities that occurred on-site after January 1, 1976. 5. Prospecting for, or the extraction of, minerals for commercial purposes and the removal of overburden in total amounts of less than one thousand cubic yards in any one location of one acre or less; 6. Flood control activity being conducted as described in Attorney LII~PLCT I .30 ~UKTAL~:MlNlNCi AND RECLAMATION Page 5 of 13

General's Opinion No. 95-502 (November 25, 1995). (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.050 Use permit required. Any person, except those exempt by having demonstrated to the satisfaction of the county as having a vested right, shall, prior to the commencement of mining operations, obtain a use permit as provided in Chapter 19.56 of this code. A person shall be deemed to have such vested rights if, prior to January 1, 1976, he has, in good faith and in reliance upon a permit or other authorization, if such permit or other authorization was required, diligently commenced surface mining operations and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. Expenses incurred in obtaining the issuance of a permit for a particular operation shall not be deemed liabilities for work or materials. Inactivity after January 1, 1976, of a surface mining operation in which the operator has a vested right shall not by itself cause the lapse of the vested right. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.060 Reclamation plan-Submission and approval. All active or idle mining operations shall have approval by the planning commission of a reclamation plan as defined in this chapter including completion of all financial assurance requirements in accordance with PRC Sections 2770 (a) and 2773.1. Any person who is determined to hold a vested right to conduct surface mining operations shall submit and obtain approval of a reclamation plan for all operations proposed to be conducted after January 1, 1976. In those cases where an overlap exists (in the horizontal and/or vertical sense) between pre- and post- SMARA mining, the reclamation plan shall call for reclamation proportional to that disturbance caused by the mining after the effective date of the SMARA (January 1, 1976). (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.070 Reclamation Plan-Exemption. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring the filing of a reclamation plan for or the reclamation of mined lands which were disturbed by surface mining operations conducted prior to January 1, 1976. (Ord. 1426(~artj, 1996).

7.36.090 Reclamation plan-Review fee. The fee for review, approval, monitoring and enforcement of reclamation plans, amendments to reclamation plans, verification of the amounts of financial assurances, and interim management plans required by this chapter shall be the amount specified by board of supervisors resolution. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.100 Reclamation plan and use permit-Number required for noncontiguous parcels. Applicants having a surface mining operation which involves separate, noncontiguous parcels of land may file one use permit andlor reclamation plan for the entire operation covering each parcel of land. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.1 I0 Reclamation plan and use permit-Run with the land. Reclamation plans and use permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall run with the land affected thereby and shall be binding on all successors, heirs, and assigns of the permittee. Failure of landowners within ninety days from cessation ~nap~erI .jo suKTACb MlNlNCi AND RECLAMATION Page 6 of 13

of operations to assume responsibility for mines where their lessee-permittee (s) have ceased surface mining operations shall be cause for revocation of the use permit and enforcement of the reclamation plan. All persons who lease their land to an operator or otherwise allow a second party to be an operator thereon shall acknowledge hidher responsibilities pursuant to this section and this chapter in a document or memorandum which shall be recorded by the county along with the use permit and reclamation plan. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.120 Reclamation plan and use permit-Financial assurances. To guarantee mine site reclamation, use permit condition compliance or CEQA mitigation and monitoring, surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, trust funds, or other forms of financial assurances adopted for use by the state Mining and Geology Board in accordance with PRC Section 2773.1(a)(l) and Section 2773.1 (e) in an amount determined by a professional with the qualifications of the type approved by the state Mining and Geology Board are required to be approved as part or condition of any reclamation plan and/or use permit required by this chapter. Financial assurance must be submitted by the planning department to the State Department of Conservation for review forty-five days prior to formal approval by the planning commission. If the operator is not the landowner, a copy of the cost estimates (together with any supporting documentation) shall also be forwarded to the landowner forty-five days prior to formal approval by the planning commission. Any changes or amendments required by the county as a result of the comments from the state must be completed prior to commencement of operations. Nothing in this section shall require financial assurances in the reclamation plan for the removal of structures otherwise lawfully permissible after completion of mining activities, unless removal is required as a condition of the use permit. Financial assurances shall be made payable to "County of Amador and the State Department of Conservation." Financial assurances shall not be of a type which can lapse at the discretion of the operator and shall be written so as to stay in force until an amended financial assurance amount is approved by the county and provided by the operator or the reclamation has been completed to the satisfaction of the county. If a mining operation is sold, or ownership is otherwise transferred including reversion to an underlying fee owner, the existing financial assurance shall remain in force and shall not be released by the planning department until new financial assurances are secured by the new owner or operator and have been approved by the planning commission, in accordance with PRC Section 2773.1(c). Financial assurances shall be released upon written notifications by the planning department, which shall be forwarded to the operator and property owner and the State Department of Conservation, that the reclamation or other performance guaranteed conditions of the use permit and CEQA mitigation program have been completed in accordance with the approved reclamation plan, in accordance with PRC Section 2773.1(c) and other use permit conditions. Any disagreements shall be referred to the planning commission utilizing the appeal process in Title 19 of this code. By July 1st of each year, the planning department shall submit to the State Department of Conservation for each active or idle mining operation a copy of any substantial amendments to the operation use permit or reclamation plan, as applicable, or a statement that there have been no changes during the previous year. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996). Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 7 of 13

7.36.130 Reclamation plan-Required information and documents. Pursuant to PRC Section 2772, the reclamation plan required by this chapter shall include at least the following information and documents: A. The name and address of the operator and the names and addresses of any persons designated by the operator as agents for the service of process; B. The anticipated quantity and type of minerals for which the surface mining operation is to be conducted; C. The proposed dates for the initiation and termination of such operation, including any intermittent operations which may occur; D. The maximum anticipated depth of the surface mining operation; E. The size and legal description of the lands that will be affected by the surface mining operation, a map that includes the boundaries and topographic details of such lands, a description of the general geology of the area, a detailed description of the geology of the area in which surface mining is to be conducted, the location of all streams, roads, railroads and utility facilities within, or adjacent to, such lands, the location of all proposed access roads to be constructed in conducting such operation, and the names and addresses of the owners of all surface and mineral interests of such lands; F. A description of and plan for the type of surface mining to be employed and a time schedule that will provide for the completion of surface mining on each segment of the mined lands, including periods of intermittent operations identified in the project description so that reclamation can be initiated at the earliest possible time on those portions of the mined lands that will not be subject to further disturbance by the surface mining operation. Each phase of reclamation shall be specifically described, including periods of intermittent operations identified in the project description, in the reclamation plan and shall include: the beginning and expected ending dates for each phase; all reclamation activities required; criteria for measuring completion of specific reclamation activities; and, estimated costs for completion of each phase of reclamation; G. A description of the proposed use or potential uses of mined lands after reclamation and evidence that all owners of a possessory interest in the land have been notified of the proposed use or potential uses; H. A description of the manner in which reclamation, adequate for the proposed use or potential uses will be accomplished, including: 1. A description of the manner in which contaminants will be controlled, and mining waste will be disposed; and 2. A description of the manner in which rehabilitation of affected streambed channels and streambanks to a condition minimizing erosion and sedimentation will occur; 3. A description of the reclamation methods and procedures and how each meets or exceeds the respective reclamation standards regulations adopted by the state Mining and Geology Board in accordance with PRC Section 2773, otherwise known as the Reclamation Standards, CCR Section 3700 et seq. I. An assessment of the effect of implementation of the reclamation plan on future mining in the area; J. A statement that the person submitting the reclamation plan accepts responsibility for reclaiming the mined lands in accordance with the reclamation plan; K. Site-specific criteria shall be established for evaluating compliance with the approved reclamation plan, including topography, revegetation, and sediment and erosion control; Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 8 of 13

L. An estimate of the cost of reclaiming the site in accordance with all the provisions of the reclamation plan at any time during the first year of operation under that plan, formulated to allow for annual revisions of the reclamation costs. Said cost estimates shall be submitted in a format capable of being reviewed and understood by the planning commission and be expressed in terms of the cost for hours of labor, supplies, materials, and equipment to perform the work as if the county were to have to complete the reclamation at the end of the reporting year. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.140 Review procedures. Pursuant to PRC Section 2770(d), the county's review of reclamation plans is limited to whether the plan substantially meets the applicable requirements of PRC Sections 2772, 2773, 2773.1 and this chapter. Reclamation plans and financial assurances determined to substantially meet these requirements shall be approved by the county. Proposed reclamation plans, amendments to reclamation plans, interim management plans for idle mines, or financial assurances which do not meet the requirements of this chapter must be returned to the applicant or operator within sixty days of receipt. The applicant or operator shall either revise the proposed reclamation plan or financial assurances to address any identified deficiencies or, file an appeal in accordance with the appeal procedures in Title 19 of this code. The plan or financial assurances must then be submitted by the planning department to the State Department of Conservation for review thirty days prior to formal approval by the county (forty-five days if the financial assurance estimate is included in the tentative reclamation plan). Whenever mining operations are proposed in the 100year floodplain of any stream as shown in Zone A of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and within one mile, upstream or downstream, of any state highway bridge, the planning department shall also notify the State Department of Transportation that the application has been received. Applications for new or revised mining use permits and reclamation plans shall be circulated to state agencies through the state clearinghouse for review by state responsible and trustee agencies. Any changes or amendments required as a result of the comments from the various state agencies must be either completed prior to approval by the county or, the applicant must have exhausted any available administrative remedies with the state agencies. The time taken to complete the review process may be increased if additional time is needed to complete review under the CEQA. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.1 50 Review procedure-Generally. A. An applicant shall submit all information requested on the standard application form, adopted by the county. B. Processing and issuance of use permit and reclamation plan applications shall follow file procedures for use permits as specified in Chapter 19.56 of this code and shall require at least one public hearing. In addition to the required findings in Chapter 19.56, such applications must be found to be in accordance with the purposes and provisions of this chapter and the requirements of CEQA prior to approval. Any proposal for intermittent operations as defined in this chapter must have been approved as part of the use permit and/or reclamation plan to avoid the mine becoming an idle mine as defined in this chapter. Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 9 of 13

C. Whenever feasible, use permits and reclamation plans and their accompanying environmental documents shall be processed concurrently before the technical advisory committee and planning commission, and if appealed, before the board of supervisors. However, complicated environmental documents and reclamation plans may cause hearings and decisions on the various stages of a use permit application to be separated into manageable phases. For example, the exploratory stage and operational stage may be separated into distinct phases of the application. Tiered, focused, or program environmental documents as described in the State CEQA Guidelines may be utilized by the county in the processing of these incremental phases of a surface mining use permit application. Conceptual or tentative reclamation plans may be reviewed as part of the CEQA and use permit hearing process which are not completed to the degree of specificity necessary for a future final or issued reclamation plan. These conceptual or tentative reclamation plans shall be specific enough for the planning commission to make decisions on the use permit and the State Department of Conservation to review and make recommendations which adequately take into account the impact on the environment and, which meet the state criteria and standards in effect at the time for reclamation plans. Conditionally approved use permits and conditionally approved reclamation plans may be approved by the county which may not be issued and mining not commenced until said conditions have been met or satisfactory assurances agreed to by the county; including any mitigation monitoring plan as required by the CEQA. When a substantial change, as determined by the lead agency, has been proposed to a tentative or conceptual reclamation plan which the Department of Conservation has reviewed, the reclamation plan shall be submitted to the State Department of Conservation for an additional review. No surface mining operation shall ever commence without a full and complete approved reclamation plan in place. D. Staff Reports-State Department of Conservation Notification-Findings- Annual Status Reports to the State. The planning department shall prepare a staff report with recommendations for consideration by the planning commission. Said staff report shall describe the disposition of the major issues raised by the state for the planning commission's review; in particular when the staffs position is at variance with the recommendations and objections raised in the state's comments on the tentative reclamation plan. The staff report shall address, in detail, why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. In any final decision made by the county with regards to the reclamation plan which is at variance with the state recommendations, the county shall prepare findings in support of that decision and forward a copy of said findings to the State Department of Conservation prior to any appeal period expiration or CEQA statute of limitations having passed. The planning department shall forward a copy of each approved use permit for surface mining operations and/or approved reclamation plan, and a copy of the approved financial assurances to the State Department of Conservation. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.160 Plans, reports, applications are public record. Reclamation plans, reports, applications and other documents submitted pursuant to this chapter are public records unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the land use director after review by the county counsel that the release of such information, or part thereof, would reveal trade secrets, location of deposits, production, reserves, or rate of depletion entitled to protection as Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 10 of 13

proprietary information. The county shall identify such proprietary information as a separate part of the application. Proprietary information shall be made available only to the State Department of Conservation and to persons authorized by the operator and by the owner, and shall be returned to the operator and owner following review of the application by the planning commission. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.170 Periodic review requirements. A. Annual Reports. The operator of any surface mining operation not exempt from this chapter shall forward every year not later than the anniversary date established by the State Department of Conservation, upon forms furnished by the state, an annual report which meets the requirements of PRC Section 2207. A copy of the annual report shall be provided to the planning department within the same time-frame. B. Annual Inspection. The county shall cause an annual inspection to be conducted of all surface mining operations. The first inspection shall occur within six months of receipt of the first annual report, or six months following commencement of surfacing mining operations pursuant to a new use permit, whichever comes first. Subsequent inspections shall occur at least once every twelve months thereafter. The inspection shall be conducted using the "Surface Mining Inspection Report" form supplied by the State Department of Conservation. The inspection can be conducted by either county staff or private consultant approved by county. Private consultants shall be qualified to make inspections in accordance with PRC Section 2774 (b). The inspection may not be conducted by a person who has been employed by or has contracted with the surface mining operation in any capacity in the previous twelve months. Operators have the choice of the two methods of inspection, and operators shall be responsible for all costs of the inspection. If an operator opts for inspection by a private consultant, the consultant shall be approved by the planning department. Operators opting for consultant inspection shall notify the planning department of their choice prior to the consultant doing the inspection. After the consultant's estimated fees have been agreed to by the planning department and reported to the operator, the operator shall have fourteen days to provide one hundred percent of the estimated costs to the planning department to be placed in a deposit account created by the county for that purpose. If the operator does not provide the required deposit within the fourteen-day time period, the inspection shall be caused to be conducted by the planning department at operator expense. Any uncommitted funds remaining in the deposit after the termination of consultant's contract shall be immediately refunded to the operator. Any operator who does not provide the required inspection fees by the time specified by the planning department or prevents or impedes the actual inspection in any manner, is considered in violation of hislher use permit and the provisions of this chapter, and subject to the use permit revocation or other enforcement provisions of this chapter; including but not limited to administrative penalties. C. Review of Financial Assurances. The financial assurances required by this chapter shall be subject to annual review and, if appropriate, adjustment to account for new lands disturbed by surface mining operations, anticipated sales of minerals for the following year, inflation, completed reclamation of lands accomplished in accordance with the approved reclamation plan, or other factors related to the cost Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 11 of 13

of reclamation. The annual review of financial assurances shall be conducted during the annual inspection procedure. At the time of the annual inspection, the mine operator shall make available to the inspector an updated reclamation cost estimate using the guidelines and format established by previous reclamation cost estimates. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.180 Amendments to plan. Amendments to an approved reclamation plan may be submitted detailing proposed changes from the original plan. Substantial deviations from the original plan shall not be undertaken until such amendment has been filed and approved, in the same manner as established herein for an original application; provided, minor amendments may be recommended by the land use director after consultation with the board of supervisors agriculture and natural resources committee. Said committee recommendations shall be placed on the consent agenda for approval by the full board of supervisors. The foregoing notwithstanding, in emergency situations where irreversible physical damage to the environment may occur, an operator may take such action which is necessary to prevent such damage and shall forthwith report the taking of the action to the county. Applications for an amendment are subject to review fees based upon the actual costs of county review. An interim management plan for an idle mine is considered an amendment. The annual review of financial assurances is not considered an amendment. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.185 Interim management plans. A. Within ninety days after a surface mining operation which is required by law to have an approved reclamation plan becomes idle, the operator shall submit to the planning department a proposed interim management plan (IMP). The proposed IMP shall fully comply with the requirements of SMARA, including but not limited to all use permit conditions, and shall provide measures the operator will implement to maintain the site in a stable condition, taking into consideration public health and safety. The proposed IMP shall be processed as an amendment to the reclamation plan. IMP'S shall not be considered a project for the purposes of environmental review. B. Financial assurances for idle operations shall be maintained as though the operation were active, or as otherwise approved through the idle mine's IMP. C. Upon receipt of a complete proposed IMP, the planning department shall forward the IMP to the State Department of Conservation for review. The IMP shall be submitted to the State Department of Conservation at least thirty days prior to approval by the planning commission. D. Within sixty days of receipt of the proposed IMP, or a longer period mutually agreed upon by the planning department and the operator, the planning commission shall review and approve or deny the IMP in accordance with this chapter. The operator shall have thirty days, or a longer period mutually agreed upon by the operator and the planning director, to submit a revised IMP. The planning commission shall approve or deny the revised IMP within sixty days of receipt. If the planning commission denies the revised IMP, the operator may appeal that action to the board of supervisors. E. The IMP may remain in effect for a period not to exceed five years, at which time the planning commission may renew the IMP for another period not to exceed Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 12 of 13

five years, or require the surface mining operator to commence reclamation in accordance with its approved reclamation plan. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.190 Appeal and variance procedure. Any decision of the planning commission or the planning department required by this chapter may be appealed in the manner set forth in Chapter 19.56 of this code. Variances must be processed in accordance with Chapter 19.52 of this code. An applicant whose request for a use permit to conduct surface mining operations in an area of statewide or regional significance has been denied by county action, or any person who is aggrieved by the granting of a use permit to conduct surface mining operations in an area of statewide or regional significance, may appeal to the state Mining and Geology Board in accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 2775. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.200 Enforcement. The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced by the planning department and the county's code enforcement division. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.210 Revocation of plan. The approval of the reclamation plan may be revoked by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures for revoking use permits described in Chapter 19.56 of this code under the following conditions: A. A violation of the provisions of this chapter or of the approved reclamation plan has occurred as determined by the land use director; B. Notice by personal service or certified mail has been given the operator, allowing thirty days from receipt of such notice to correct violations; C. The operator fails to correct violations within the above notice period; D. An order has been given the operator, delivered by personal service or certified mail. The order requires the operator to comply, or if the operator does not have an approved reclamation plan, cease all further mining activities and commence reclamation as required or directed in the order. The order defines the nature of the noncompliance, specifies a reasonable time for compliance, and sets a date for a public hearing. E. Not sooner than thirty days after the date of the order, a public hearing is held by the planning commission for which ten days' notice has been given pursuant to Government Code Section 6061 and at least ten days' written notice has been given to the operator, and the board of supervisors may uphold, modify or reject the planning commission's determinations and may revoke the plan or otherwise take action to enforce the plan's provisions. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.220 Penalties for noncompliance. As an alternative to revoking the approval of a reclamation plan, an operator still in noncompliance after the effective date of an order as described in this chapter is subject to an order imposing an administrative penalty in accordance with PRC Section 2774.1, assessed from the original date of noncompliance. The planning commission may issue an order setting administrative penalties, which shall become effective upon issuance thereof. Payment shall be made to the planning department, unless the operator files an appeal with the board of supervisors within thirty days. Such an appeal would be scheduled and heard by Chapter 7.36 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION Page 13 of 13

the board of supervisors in the manner set forth in Chapter 19.56 of this code. If after hearing, the board affirms the order, the operator shall pay the administrative penalties set by the board's order within thirty days of the service of that order. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.230 Unlawful operation a nuisance. The conducting of any surface mining operation which requires a reclamation plan, financial assurance, and/or a use permit pursuant to this chapter without such an approved reclamation plan, financial assurance, and/or use permit is unlawful and constitutes a public nuisance, and an action or proceeding for abatement, removal, or injunction may be commenced by the county. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996).

7.36.240 Enforcement of violation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a violation of this chapter, including but not limited to operation without an approved reclamation plan, financial assurance, annual inspection or continued opera5on with a revoked reclamation plan, may be enforced by the county by the use of any legal or equitable remedy the county may have. In addition, any use permit required by this chapter may be revoked pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.56 of this code. (Ord. 1426(part), 1996). ACTC ilECElVED rr~SPORTATIO CO MISSION ,Llrador County SEP 2 8 2006

AlUWn CIW SUl-TER CR PLANNING Ut?AH'iMEN'C .MNE *JKK

MEMORANDUM

'So: Planning Department Amador Count

Date: September 27,2006 Subject: Jackson Valley Quarry Use Permit

Wehave reviewed the Jackson Valley Quarry Use Permit. The Project would expand the Jackson Valley Quarry and increase in rock production fiom 500,000 tonslyr to 2,000,000 tons/yr over a 35-year period. The Project site is located east of the existing Jackson Valley Quarry between SR 88 and Jackson Valley Road (west).

The following are our comments on the traffic impact analysis for the Project for your consider- ation in finalizing the Project's environmental impact documentation:

Scope of Analysis The scope of analysis appears to have been arbitrarily limited to one intersection - SR 88 & Jackson Valley Road (West). Other key intersections along SR 88 should also be included. The project access point(s) should also be analyzed to determine operational conditions and to determine if additional turn lanes or acceYdece1 lanes are needed. The operational conditions of key segments of SR 88 west of Jackson Valley Road and SR 88 east of Jackson Valley Road should be analyzed. These segments are already expected to have adverse conditions in the future, even without the project's proposed added truck traffic. The impacts of added truck traffic on traffic flow for the key highway segments (some with grades) need to identified and mitigated. Particularly, consideration needs to be given to the need for turnouts, and passing lanes, and truck climbing lanes. The scope items provided below are typical of analysis that has been included in the traffic impact assessments of aggregate quarry project. We provide these for your consideration for inclusion in a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis for the project.

Safety A safety assessment should be included to look at the potential haul routes to perform:

11400 AMERICAN LEGIONDRIVE, JACKSON, CA 95642-9525 PHONE(209) 267-2282 (ACTC) Jackson Valley Quarry Use Permit September 27, 2006 Pago 2

An evaluation of turning radii relative to Amador County design standards, the 40' minimum from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and AASHTO's Green Book (A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004). An evaluation of roadway widths. An evaluation sight distance, including vertical sight distance, to determine if unsafe conditions exist. An evaluation of collision history over the past three years and an assessment of the potential that project traffic could aggravate any observed collision patterns. SWITRS collision reports for the county will be used for this analysis. Safe sight distances shall be based upon the appropriate truck percentages and the performance characteristics of loaded aggregate trucks. Mitigations shall be proposed such as roadway widening, striping, speed restrictions, safety signing and delineation, and curve adjustments to address potential impacts.

PavementIRoadbed Life An assessment of pavement and roadbed life should be performed based on available as-built drawings, available test data, and field inspection of surface conditions. Estimates need to be made of equivalent single axel loads (ESAL) and resulting traffic index (TI). Those data need to be used in conjunction with Amador County design standards, and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual to determine the adequacy of the existing roadway structure and the potential need for upgrades. These should include: A summary of the existing roadway design and the present condition of the pavement. ESAL and TI estimates. Estimate of an appropriate flexible pavement cross section for the roadbed. These calculations will be camed out at a level of detail appropriate to estimate if the project would be expected to have an impact on the pavement and roadbed life, rather than at the detailed level required for construction design and costing of such roadway improvements.

Scattering of Aggregate on Roadway There are several portions of the California Vehicle Code that relate to scattering of aggregate from haul trucks (e.g., 23 1 14(e)(l), 23 114(e)(4), 23 1 14(b)(1), and 23 114(a)). Generally the company hauling the aggregate is responsible rather than the company that extracts the aggregate. Local agencies and aggregate facilities confithat spilling of aggregate and aggregate hitting windshields does occasionally occur, and generally inspection of roadways in the vicinity of aggregate extraction sites yields confirmation of this. Traffic consultant should: Contact local agencies, aggregate extraction companies, and California Highway Patrol to gather information about the scattering of aggregate by haul trucks. Document existing laws, policies, and mitigations related to the spilling of aggregate from haul trucks. Propose recommended mitigations that can be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY Quu/i~service ... first

0 10 Court Street Jackson, CA 95642 Phone: 209-223-6429 Fax: 209-2236395 E mail: [email protected]. us Website: www.co.amador. ca. us

l!: l!: I 2006 MEMORANDUM 2 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Heather Anderson, Planner I I FROM: Roger A. Stuart, Senior Project Engineer I DATE: October 24,2006 I SUBJECT: Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Use Permit I The proposed expansion of the existing quarry is estimated to result in an additional 1,500,000 tons of crushed rock per year for 25 years. The Traffic lmpact Study prepared by PRISM ENGINEERING indicates project traffic will increase from the existing level of 115 ADT to 465 ADT (Table 1 Trip Generation, page 7). This is an increase of 350 ADT for trucks, or an increase of 700 passenger car equivalents.

The Amador County Traffic Study Guidelines require a Traffic lmpact Study be prepared when a project would generate 350 or more daily trips. These Guidelines provide the required contents of a Traffic lmpact Study.

The Jackson Valley Quarry Traffic lmpact Study needs to be revised to conform with County Guidelines. The revised study, should also incorporate the comments and issues raised in the September 27,2006 Memorandum by the Amador County Transportation Commission's Consulting Transportation Planner, Joseph Holland. (Attached)

The Traffic lmpact Study needs to be revised into an acceptable document prior to CEQA review. I Cc: Joseph Holland mCEAND YAW: MAILING ADDRESS: 140 EMPIRE AVENUE BOX4760 P.0 GEORGE REED, Inc. MODESTO, CA 95354 MODESTO, CA 9952 TatEPHc-xne C2W GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACI'o~ Pa(269) 5233927 ~~- Modesto Sonora San Andteas Lodi - - - CaIifimia 9k4r Gmtractofs Uchlre No. 211337 A

November 29,2006

We m inmcbiptoftht~sletttr~fNov~k21,2~,nqu~an&anal~on~a Suspmzsicm of Time to allow b County time to dcta Sc6ping scssion. It qpxm fraan the in.fdrm prwontd intblettrathntthcCatmty's immcditmqueryie ~~whattypufEnvirddocnmr;ntto pnpm. lhc letter adreasat for a suspmdad time pariod wmto iudicata &at tbs Ccmty SWsdacisian will be predicated on the Trafiic Study and a Scqsing Stssioa We am Mtmt to authorizb any artlitid Uh tune" based upan thE fbllowing points:

1. Iti~~~rbaliafMhT&cSQL#lyprssantly~a~~amdbfWoa&thc~ rclndea a dekmdmtion I.bgarding &e level of significance dabd to tbia project. We mcoguize that Public Wo&s basthepm@veto requost sapp1cmuntal~0~1.Wve~tha T&c Study. Howvar, any ~~daCasabmatadshauldnnt~thtcomdacaile~pmantbdin~Stmty.

Sub~&towhmwaax#;crtedfhe~mTimaS~m~~rdtcmptswafamadq anda ~~&$hCa~toacquiTB~dc~~hPnblicWcrrks~spao~cataaswithintha TrafficS~~~balicvwart~eatsndinnbadof~~mmo~~~ document to be considered accephrble. Z)urbng this heit bamm ayparent that the Thparba has not yat fully rcvit~cdZhostudy. hqently,they haw bwn unable to provide spscific guidance and easatdly deferred to the ~rmmenk~provided by th ACTC- In &tat to reccmcilo tbis matter in a timcly fashion, we bave~~at9xta6ivtmactingfirDec~ber61h~oiththaA~Ctodiscussthtpm~s~;mdco~ ofthe shady, and to verify thcs scmdntes rbgarding additimal specific details ~~d (and / or mpkd) to &em 0t Stlldy complctt.

2. From aur limiebd exposure to Scaping session protocol, we an ofthc impms~nthat thase typas of rneuhgs are gmdyscheduled only when an ERdekmidm (va. a Negative Dockrration debrmimxtion) has been tnada and a c.amdhd h;u been appohbi by the Carny- bmer,we realize the timing and schedubg of such aa trcba session is strictly an -e: dcoision.

3. The mpstfor Suspemded Time Paiod document dmw an '%nd End of February 28,2006, which has already transpired. George Rifead, Inc 394 E. St. Charles Street P.0. Box 251 Weber, Ghio & Associates, Inc. San Andreas, CA 95249 (209) 754-1 824 professional engineers FAX (209) 754-1092

December 4,2006

Charles Field, Executive Director Amador County Transportation Commission 1 1400 American Legion Drive, Suite A Jackson, CA 95642

RE? Jackson Valley Quarry Use Permit

At the request of Jeff Welch of George Reed, Inc., I called and spoke with Roger Stuart of Amador County Department of Public Works regarding the referenced project's use permit. The use permit applicant has tried to complete its response to traffic issues, but needs clarification from Amador County Public Works. Response hmPublic Works was as follows:

1. Jackson Valley Road impacts and intersection at State Route 88 will be mitigated as directed by the Amador County Department of Public Works and the information within the Prism traffic study is adequate for their needs at this location.

2. Intersection impacts beyond Jackson Valley Road are regional in nature and Public Works defers to ACTC comments. Exception to or clarification of their comments should be directed to them.

The following are issues Jeff Welch and Don Deem (representing George Reed, Inc.) have requested clarification of. These issues are based upon premises germane to the ACTC September 27,2006 memorandum as follows:

A. The expansion of the Jackson Valley Quarry does not increase delivery of construction materials to Arnador County.

B. Approval of construction projects by public agencies dictates demand for aggregate.

Engineers Surveyors Planners Arbitrators Weber, Ghio & Associates, Inc. engineers

C. Project approvals include, where appropriate, consideration of construction material delivery.

D. Quarry processed construction materials will be delivered to project sites from one source or another whether the Jackson Valley Quarry Use Permit is issued or not.

E. Construction projects are short term and their locations are beyond the control of the permit proponent.

F. Traffic studies and traffic projections by ACEare based on anticipated growth and include truck traffic that delivers construction materials.

Specific issues where clarification and an understanding of the proponent's perspective is needed are:

County adopted Traffic Guidelines mandate that the Jackson Valley Road-State Highway 88 intersection be studied, and it is the only intersection within the one mile guide line. Eother intersections in close proximity to the quarry require study, please spec@ which intersections.

The ACTC memo infers that there are other "assessments of aggregate quarry project(s)" that apparently satisfied them. The proponent researched county records and was provided with only one recent project, Arkansas Creek. If the Arkansas Creek report was adequate, the Prism report, which meets or exceeds the contents of the Arkansas Creek report, should also be deemed adequate.

Can you provide a copy of the Eland Construction quarry project (in Sutter Creek) assessment.

The 'Safetyn section of the refmced memorandum is inappropriate to this permit for roadways other than Jackson Valley Road from State Route 88 to the quarry entrance. Safety issues for this area will be included in the road maintenance agreement between Amador County and project proponent. Safety issues for all other roads are important and may be a transportation permit issue, but are not a quarry permit issue.

Pavementlroadbed life issues relative to Jackson Valley Road limits noted above will be mitigated by a road maintenance agreement with the Amador County Department of Public Works.

scatter in^ of Aggre~ateon Roadway is not a quarry permit issue. Aggregate spilled on Jackson Valley Road limits noted can be included in the road maintenance agreement as required by County Public Works. Debris on state highways and county roads is an old and on-going concern of most citizens, but is not relevant to quarry use permit issuance. Webar, Ghio & Associates, Inc. professional engineers

We believe that understanding and clarification of these issues will provide the direction needed to com~letean appropriate traffic analysis for the Amador County Department of Public Works and Planning. We look forward to our December 6,2006, 1 p.m. meeting to discuss these issues with ACTC staff and establish specific resolution.

cc Larry Peterson, ACDPW Roger Stuart, ACDPW Susan Grijalva, ACPD Jeff Welch, GFU Don Deem Prism Engineering, Traffic Consultants

#2076/nlm ACTC Lena.wpd From: "george lambert" To: Sent: Sunday, December 03,2006 10: 17 AM Subject; Jackson Valley Quarry I live at 4100 Jackson Valley Road a few hundred feet east of the proposed quarry expansion. I received your notice of intent to file a negative declaration. The notice does not indicate the date of the planning commission hearing. I checked the County web site and found no information regarding the hearing on this matter, The last Planning Commission meeting shown was for Nov. 14th.

I am formally requesting to be placed on the public distribution list for any notices of meetings or notices of the circulation of the proposed negative declaration or any other environmental or planning documents.

It is my position that an environmental impact report should be prepared for this project and that a negative declaration is inadequate for at least the following reasons: 1. Potential for increased noise and duct. With the existing quarry operation, I can hear the blasting and see the clouds of dust. Obviously, expanding the quarry easterly will result in a greater impact on my home.

2. The loss of oak woodland habitat would be impossible to be replaced and cannot be mitigated.

3. A negative declaration cannot possibly evaluate and properly mitigate for the loss of mature trees, sensitive habitat for nearby raptors, marsh dwelling birds(egrets, blue heron, canada geese, bittern, woodpecke r, woodchuck, western bluebird, kingbird to name a few that we have observed in the area), beaver, river otter, coyote, bobcat, possum, racoon, deer and many other wildlife that we have seen.

4. The additional truck traffic in combination with the traffic that would result from the proposed Buena Vista casino cannot be properly evaluated with simply a negative declaration. A cumulative impact traffic analysis would be essential to understand the traffc impacts.

5. An evaluation of the greenstone rock formations underlying this property to determine ,if asbestos is present is essential given the recent issues regarding asbestos in foothill locations in El Dorado, Amador and Calaveras County. This 12/4/2006 Page 2 of 2 is a serious concern that needs review that cannot possibly be understood with a simple negative declaration.

The Notice is confusing. The title states the intent to file a negative declaration. The body of the Notice states that the County has received an application for the project and the paragraph Environmental Review Process implies that the County has not yet determined the level of environmental review required. I sincerely urge the County to require an EIR if no decision has yet been made regarding compliance with CEQA. If the decision has been made to recommend a Negative Declaration, I request that the Planning Commission review these comments and require an EIR.

You can reach me at 274-4353 if you would like further clarification regarding my corn ments. LSI D E E bl ]E] - HININGTRE--- ,

Use Permit & Reclamation Plan Application Package George Reed Inc. Jackson Valley Quany Expansion Amador County, California

Prepared by:

D. E. Deem RG, REA September 1 2006

Environmental Services P.O.Box 1875 - Murphys, CA 95247 (209) 728-2519 Fax (209) 728-2533 Earth Sciences EXPANDED USE PERMIT & RECLAMATION PLAN APPLICATION George Reed Im. Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion

Table of Contents

SECTION

Checklist of Attachments

Environmental Information Form

SMARA Checklist

Reclamation Plan

Maps- Regional, Vicinity, Site Topographic Map, Aerial Photograph

APPENDIX A - Waste Discharge Requirements & Well Report

APPENDIX B - Amador County Air Permit

APPENDIX C - Traffic Report

APPENDIX D - Cultural Resources Report

APPENDIX E - Biology Report

APPENDIX F - Parcel Map

APPENDIX G - Deeds

APPENDIX H - Existing Use Permit

APPENDIX I - Existing Reclamation Plan

APPENDIX J - Example Blast Report 3/1/06

APPENDIX K - Reclamation, Plan View & Sections

APPENDIX L - Reclamation Bond Estimates

H ININGT R E Env~ronrnentalServ~ces .Earth Sc~ences CHECKLIST OF ATTACHMENTS

> MAPTHAT IDENTIFIES HOW TO ACCESS THE MINE SITE FROM THE HIGHWAY

k TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF LANDS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY MINIbiG OPERATION

CCYPY OFTHE PROPOSED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

a CCJPY OFTHE APPROVED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

EVIDENCE ALL OWNERS OF A POSSESSORY INTEREST IN THE LAND TO BE MINED HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE END LAND USE TO POGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING THE CO7 FIGURATION OFTHE SITE ONCE RECLAIMED J/' a OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY LEAD AGENCY'S SMARA ORDINANCE - DESCRIBE:

a GEOLOGIC REPORT

OTHER REPORTS OR DOCUMENTS

DESCRIBE:

Reclamation Plan Page 12 ENVIROMENTAL PNFORMATION FORM AMADOR COUNTY FORMAT JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY EXPANSION GEORGE REED INC. GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Name: Jackson Valley Quatry Expansion (CUPISMARA Amendment) Date Filed: Applicant: George Reed Inc. Landowner: George Reed Inc.Khe Reed Leasing Group Address: PO Box 3191 Modesto, CA 95353 Phone Number: (209) 52 1-9771 (Jeff Welch)

Assessors Numbers: 005-230-016 (Existing Permit) ,005-230-007 (Expansion) Existing Zoning: X , General Plan: Agricultural

Related Permits required: Amendments to: Amador County Air Pollution Permit, Reclamation Plan Amendment

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Site Size: 73.6 acres existing + 85.7 acres expansion = 159 acres. 2. No proposed new structures. 3. No proposed new structures. 4. Off-street parking on existing permitted portion exists. 5. Source of Water: Existing storm water pond & Jackson Valley Irrigation District 6. Sewage Disposal: Existing on site septic system. 7. Plans Attached: Site Plan, Reclamation Plan 8. Proposed scheduling: Project has existed for more than 26 years, expansion will allow for approximately 25 additional years of operation. 9. Project phasmg does not apply. 10. No associated projects. 1 1. Industrial Project: Expansion of existing rock quarry, four to 12 employeedshift, loading facilities already approved and existing 12. Institutional projects: N/A 13. No variances required.

Jackson ValIey I1 Quarry APN 05-23-07 1 Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion (CWSMARA Amendment)

Are the following items applicable to this expansion? 14a. Change in existing feature, lakes.. ... No 14b. Change in existing feature, hills and ground contours.. . Yes Project involvt& mining of rock aggregates I 15a. Change in scenic views or vistas fiom -existing residential areas...... No -public lands...... No I -roads...... Yes Expansion will be visible from Jackson Valley Road. 16. Ckange in: - pattern and character of general area of project...... No -scale of project...... Yes Expansion by 85.7 acres. 17. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter...... No 18. Change in vicinity: -odors,fiunes,ash...... No 19. Change in: -lake, stream, groundwater quality or quantity...... No -alteration of on site existing drainage pattern...... Yes Minor change to interior drainage.

20. Substantial change- in existing- noise or vibration levels in levels in the vicinity...... No 2 1. Site on: FilledlandoflOpercentormore ...... No I Slope of 10 percent or more...... Yes 22. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials: Toxic substances ...... No Flammables...... Yes Existing fuel usage. Explosives ...... Yes Existing use of rock blasting technology 23. Substantial change in demand for municipal services...... No 24. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption...... No 25. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects...... Yes Expansion in acreage of dingquarry.

Jackson Valley I1 Quarry APN 05-23-07 2 Jackson Valley Quany Expansion (CUPISMARA Amemt)

PROPOSED PROJECT EXPANSION DESCRIPTION

The existing project consists of a 74-acre parcel containing a quarry, processing plant, scale house, storm water ponds, parkmg and loading areas and stockpiles. The existing permits allow for 500,000 tons per year production examined under a 1983 EIR, SCH 83120506. Since 1983 a large compendnun of compliance information and measured environmental performance has accumulated.

The proposed project expansion includes the addition of an 86 acre parcel to the east and an escalation of production fiom 500,000 tons per year to 2 million tons per year over roughly a 25- year period. The increase in production is predicated by an increase in local and regional market demand This demand is generated by an increase in region population and regional development projects. Consumption of rock products in the U.S. has a roughly linear relationshq, with population. The increase in population and consumptive projects is due to a number of factors, chiefly project approvals by the County, as well as infi.astructure upgrades by tbe County, State and, to a lesser extent Federal govermmts.

Given the linear relationship between population and demand for aggregates, the market ded will in one way or another, be met. The extent to which this demand is met versus the impacts to traffic load is either mitigated or aggravated by the number and locations of available sources. Nodal analysis demonstrates that an even and adequate distriiution of aggregate sources, unhindered by arbitrary production limits, serve to lower actual todmiles hRllled within a market area. Approval of this expansion and similar projects would serve to fill existing and growing market demand, reduce consumer and agency costs through reduced todmiles hauled, and the action of a normal unhindered, competitive market.

The advantage of this proposed expansion, versus a new site, is that much is known regarding the history of actual impacts and compliance versus speculation.

The proposed expansion would remove the high ground in the center of the project, laving an open pit surrounded by 1.1 :1 slopes gradmg into a 100' undisimbed setback on the north, east and south perimeter. The pit would eventually slowly fill part way with water, partly &om groundwater seepage, but chiefly &om surface flow. Concurrent eminent reclamation is proposed in the 100-foot setback. Final reclamation is proposed for the balance of the property at the end of the project. To accommodate this feature a new two tier reclamation plan and bond is proposed for the expansion area. An existing reclamation plan and bond for the permitted portion of the project would remain unchanged.

Jackson Valley 11 Quarry APN 05-23-07 3 Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion (CUPISMARA Amendment)

26. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project lies within an unsurveyed portion of Lot 37 Rancho Arroyo Sew, T5N,R9E MDB&M as depicted on the USGS Ione California 7.5 minute quadrangle. State Route 88 and Jackson Valley Road border the project to the north and south respectively. The project to be expanded consists of two parcels. The existing quarry is on the west parcel and the proposed expansion is on the east pceL Wiesand vineyards border the project to the west. Agricultural lands in Jackson VaJley border to the south. Undeveloped wooded land lies to the East. Wooded agricultural parcels with singular residences lie to the north. The proposed expansion parcel may be accessed fiom State Route 88 by way of a dirt road through a locked gate.

Elevations within the proposed project range fiom 236 feet to 449 feet above sea leveL The rock deposit consists of a metavolcanic nose st- NW-SE bounded by vaJley sediments to the west and south, and an erosional break to the north. The surfhe has been modified by the quarry to the west. The surfke of the proposed expansion consists of a NW-SE ridge with two hills and a saddle in the center.

Vegetation on the north half of expansion area consists of marginal Bhe-oak woodland (28%) oak cmopy, which lacks normal oak-woodland under story. Competitive introduced grasses and legumes now dominate the ground cover. This coupled with past grazing has wtmlly eliminated regeneration of oaks since the early 1900's. Management of the setback areas, and subsequently the final reclamation wiU remove the barriers to oak regeneration. The site and surrounding countryside do not reflect the typical tree coverage befbre 1849. A pine/oak mix was altered in the late 1880's due to European cultural demand for softwoods.

The south half of the expansion is classified as oak savannah (40%) oak canopy.

Studies ofwater, air, noise, tra€Eic, biology, archaeology, geology, soils and blasting have been performed and are included within this package. A reclamation plan has been prepared and is also incMed in this package.

Jackson Valley I1 Quarry APN 05-23-07 4 Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion (CUPISMARA Amendment)

27. The land to the north consists of agricultural parcels with isolated residences. The land to the east consists of undeveloped oak-woodlands. The land to the south consists of agricultural lands in Jackson Valley. The land to the west consists of wineries and vineyards.

Studies of water, air, noise, traffic, biology, archaeology, geology. soils and blasting have been performed and are included within this package. A reclamation plan for the expansion parcel has been prepared and is also included in this package.

28. The proposed expansion contains no mining hazards such as shafts or tunnels.

Certification: I hereby certifjr that the statements fUrnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and iaformation required for this initial evah~ationto the best of my ability, and that the fkcts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 Date: 7/1/66 Signature For Georne RekdInc .

Jackson Valley 11 Quarry APN 05-23-07 5 Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion (CUPISMARA Amendment)

Water Quality & Quantity

The existing and proposed project expansion is an aggregates quarry within interbedded Theolitic Basalts and Andesites which strike NW-SE and dip near to vertical. Groundwater on the site is confined to low yield fracture systems. An 803 foot well drilled near the truck scale and office yielded only % gallons per minute. (Well completion report #563079, Amador County Environmental Health permit #W0283 1).

Lands to the west have wells, which tap near horizontal deep Valley sediments on different aquifers. Lands to the east have wells which tap water in the near horizontal Ione formation overlying, unconformably, undifferentiated greenstones.

Surface water fiom the existing project drain to, and are stored in, zero discharge ponds. These ponds have been monitored since the mid 1980's. These ponds support aquatic I&. Monitoring of project water over the last 20 years have demonstrated no signiscant impact to water quality. Runoff and groundwater resources on site are insuI3jcient to meet future project requirements. Therefore water would be purchased fkom Jackson Valley Irrigation District.

The project expansion will generate an internally drained system. Surface water, and minor groundwater seepage from the project will be contained in zero discharge ponds. Pond water is used for dust control hdcleaning of aggregates. Mer reclamation and closure, the final use of the expansion area will be water storage.

The project holds a valid storm water permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Jackson Valley I1 Quarry APN 05-23 -07 6 Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion (CUPISMAmendment)

Air Quality

The project excavates, processes, stores and ships rock products for local and regional use. The Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) inventories air impacts. The project holds current, valid county APCD air permits #'s 06- 181 thru 06-185.

The chief sources of project air pollutants are rnobile equipment, processing, mining, and stockpdmg. The APCD inventories mobile equipment emissions, but actual regulation of mobile equipment emission design is accomplished by Federal controls at the manuf8cture point, and limits of significance are set by Federal and State standards. Mining and processing emissions are permitted by the APCD and are chiefly in the form of PMl 0, dust particles having a diameter of less than 10 microns.

Of the mining, processing and storage emissions, storage emissions substantially dominate the overall PMlO contribution. Stockpile emissions are calculated based on acres of active and inactive storage. The existing and proposed project expansion will not significantly alter the number of acres of storage. The existing project is not and the amended project will not meet the criteria for a Federal Major Source. The project modification will not constitute a sigruficant increase in PMlO emissions.

Noise

The project has been monitored for noise impacts since the mid 1980's. The project meets the requirements of the county noise ordinance and permit conditions. Nothing in the project modification entails an increase in the existing noise proaes. The expanded project will continue to comply with the county noise ordinance.

Traffic Impacts

A td5c study has been prepared by Prism, and is inchded in Appendix C. The traf£ic study concludes that there are and will not be a significant impacts to traf£ic inhstructure and therefore no mitigation is proposed.

Cultural Resources

AS1 prepared a cultural resources study for the inclusion of the expansion area. This study is included as Appendix D. The only feature of concern is a rock wall on part of the eastern property line. The project involves a 100' setback on the North, east and south edges.

Jackson Valley I1 Quarry APN 05-23-07 7 Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion (CUP/SMARA Amendment)

Biology A plant and wildlife study was prepared by Trayner Forestry under the supervision of a Registered Forester. No special species of concern were found on the site. Measures to address oak woodland issues are addressed in the reclamation plan The biology report is included in Appendix F.

Geology & Soils

The bedrock resources of this project are resistant NW-SE trending, near vertical dipping metabasic igneous rocks. Specifically, interbedded andesite (10- 15% Si02), quartz andesite ( 35-45% Si02), and Ws(1-7% Si02). The dominant minerals are quartz, Sodic and Calcic feldspar, and chlorite. The bedrock has no overprinted cleavage or fohage. Vertical quarry walls show no evidence of wedge Wesor low angle wall Mures. The material must be first drilled and blasted prior to processing. The rocks are of Mesozoic age and originated as submarine volcanics subjected to slight to moderate alteration, no higher than greenschist hies.

The soils per the USDA Soil Conservation Service are described as:

(AxD) Auburn-Argonaut veTy rocky silt loams- 3 to 31 percent slopes, well drained. Derived3om basic igneous rocks. Cultivation of these soils is deemed impractical due to rocky nature.

The site soils are thin, fiom 0 feet to a few feet deep in pockets between outcrops. For these reasons, removal, storage and re-use of topsoil is not practical or recommended. The negligible amount of topsoil has been historically incorporated into the aggregate product.

Jackson Valley I1 Quarry APN 05-23-07 8 Jackson Valley Quiury Expansion (CUPISMARA Amendment)

Blasting Issues

The existing and proposed project utilizes biastihg as the primary step in excavation The principal adverse impacts of blasting are ground vibration, air blast, and fly rock. Mitigation includes: blast design, recordkeeping, and monitoring under certain conditions. Blasting can generate effects, which can be objectionable to neighbors, even when those effects are nominalh perceptible. Elimination of all blast related complaints can not be entirely avoided. However, industry standards set by government testing programs have defined limits, below which no significant adverse structural effects were observed.

The most important mitigating aspects of a properly engineered blast include: -Proper stemming to reduce air blast -Use of 8 miliseconds delays between charges -Use of the "Scaled Distance Table" or formula to limit the size of charges. -Identi@ the distance to the nearest receptor(s) -Record keeping to document blast conditions and effects associated with each blast.

The Jackson Valley quarry employs a specialist iirm to design, supervise and implement blasting. This: firm uses the industry scaled distance formula, w=fD/Ds12 where: D==Distance to nearest receptor(s) W= Weight of explosives in pounds per delay DsScaled distawe &or, (55) in use by Jackson Valley Quarry.

A copy of a recent blast report is attached as Appendix J.

When conditions warrant approaching or exceeding the Scale Distance Table, monitoring of peak particle velocity (ground vibration) and air blast should be conducted, in-line and near to the most proximate receptor(s).

The nearest receptors since 1983 have been structures to the NW. As the project progresses east, the nearest receptors are emerging as structures to the NE of the existing project and North of the proposed parcel expansion.

Jackson Valley I1 Quarry APN 05-23-07 9 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. SECTION 2710 et seq. ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS. SECTION 2725 et seq. ARTICLE 3. DISTRICT COMMITTEES. SECTION 2740 - 2741. ARTICLE 4. STATE POLICY FOR THE RECLAMATION OF MINED LANDS. SECTION 2755 et seq. ARTICLE 5. RECLAMATION PLANS AND THE CONDUCT OF SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS. SECTION 2770 et seq., as amended.

CCR TITLE 14 (REGISTER 85, NO. 184-485) CHAPTER 8. MINING AND GEOLOGY SUBCHAPTER 1. STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD ARTICLE 1. SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION PRACTICE. SECTION 3500 et seq. -- ARTICLE 9. RECLAMATlON STANDARDS. SECTION 3700 et oeq. PROJECT u'4C-Lfdd f&LdCy ~~AA/~S/LX/!/~J;~JA)A~M~OS-~V-~~

SCH#ICUP# LEAD AGENCY ,9/vl,.0 n~htour, Ty

CHECKLIST BY: p. E. DCcfl R6 &&;Q DATE updated 6/27/05 by LGM

YES NO 3 NIA Mlnlna O~eratlonand Closure --- 1 SMARA2770.5 100-year flood, ~altranscontact. x--- SMARA 2772(c)(1) Name and address of operatorlagent. x--- SMARA 2772(c)(2) Quantity & type of minerals to be mined. %--- SMARA 2772(c)(3) Initiation and termination date. k--- SMARA 2772(c)(4) Maximum anticipated depth of mining.

V--- SMARA 2772(c)(5) Size, legal description, including map with boundaries, topography, geology, streams, channel cross-sections, topsoil stockpiles, roads, equipment storage, RR, utilities within or adjacent to mine.

----X SMARA 2772(c)(6) Mining plan and time schedule that provides for completion of mining on each segment so that reclamation can be concurrent or phased ASAP.

X--- SMARA 2772(c)(9) Impact of reclamation on future mining. X--- CCR 3502(b)(2) Publlc health and safety (exposure). x--- CCR 3713(b) All portals, shafts, tunnels, or openings, gated or protected from public entry, but preserve access for wildlife.

--- A CCR 3502(b)(5) Disposition of old equipment. ---k CCR 3709(a) Equipment stored in designated area and waste disposed of according to ordinance.

---)c CCR 3709(b) Structures and equipment dismantled and removed.

---A Y CCR 3713(a) Drill holes, water wells, monitoring wells completed or abandoned in accordance with laws. YES NO ? NIA End Land Use x---- SMARA 2772(c)(7) Description of proposed subsequent use or potential use. ----k SMARA 2772(c)(8) Description of reclamation measures adequate for proposed end use. --- X CCR 3707(a) Return prime ag to prime ag, unless exempted. --- x CCR 3707(c) Productivity rates equal pre-project or similar site for two consecutive years. Rates set forth in plan. --- X CCR 3708 Other ag capable of sustaining crops common to area.

Geotechnicai Reauirements

CCR 3502(b)(3) Final siopes: consider physical properties and landscaping. --7-X Stability anaiysis for final siopes that approach critical gradient. r 7' J!L-cX- - CCR 3704(f) Finai cut slopes have minimum factor of safety for end use and conform with surrounding topography c -+d) ----X CCR 3502(b)(4) Disposition of fill materials considered. Foundation fills for end use in conformance with current engineering technology.

--- k. CCR 3704(a) For urban use, fill compacted in accordance with UBC, local grading ordinance, or other methods approved by the iead agency. --- x CCR 3704(b) For resource conservation, compact to standa_rdfor that end use. ---- CCR 3704(d) Final reclamation fill slopes not excee when ailowed by site-specifc engineering analysis, and can be revegetated.

J!?L-- CCR 3704(e) At closur final landforms f fills(onform with surrounding topograp+oend use d

Hvdrolosv and Water Quality

Y--- CCR 3710(a) Surface and groundwater protected in accordance with Porter- Cologne and Clean Water Acts (RWQCBISWRCB). x--- CCR 3706(b) Water quality, recharge, and groundwater storage that is accessed by others shall not be diminished, except as allowed by plan.

%--- CCR 3503(b)(2) Substantially prevent siltation of groundwater recharge areas. YES NO 7 NIA Environmental Settinq and Protection of Fish and Wildlife -Habitat CCR 3502(b)(1) Environmental setting and impact of reclamation on surrounding land uses. (Identify sensitive species, wildlife habitat, sensitive natural communities, e.g. wetlands, riparian zones, etc.)

CCR 3705(a) Vegetative cover, suitable to end use, self-sustaining. Baseline studies documenting cover, density and species richness.

CCR 3503(c) Protection of fish and wildlife habitat (all reasonable measures).

CCR 3703(a) Sensitive species conserved or mitigated.

CCR 3703(b) Wildlife habitat at least as good as pre-project, if approved end use is habitat

CCR 3703(c) Wetlands avoided or mitigated at 1: 1 minimum.

CCR 3704(g) Piles or dumps not placed in wetlands without mitigation.

CCR 37 10(d) In-stream mining not cause fish to be trapped in pools or off-channel pits, or restrict migratory or spawning activities.

CCR 37 13(b) All portals, shafts, tunnels, or openings, gated or protected from public entry, but preserve access for wlldllfe.

Resoilina and Reveaetatlon

--- k CCR 3503(f) Resoiling (fine material on top plus mulches). --- x CCR 3704(c) Mine waste stockpiled to facilitate phased reclamation and separate from growth media.

CCR 37 1 1(a) All salvageable topsoil removed. Topsoil and vegetation removai not proceed mining by more than one year.

CCR 371 1(b) Topsoil resources mapped prior to stripping, location of stockpiles on map. Topsoil and growth media in separate stockpiles.

CCR 371 1(c) Soil salvage and phases set forth in plan, minimize disturbance, designed to achieve reveg success. ----'x, CCR 3711 (d) Topsoiling phased ASAP. Topsoil stockpiles not be disturbed until needed. Topsoil stockpiles clearly identified and planted with vegetation or otherwise protected. ----'%. CCR 3711 (e) Topsoil redistributed in stable site and consistent thickness.

----)I( CCR 3707(b) Segregate and replace topsoil by horizon.

----x CCR 3705(e) Soil altered or other than native topsoil, requires soil analysis. Amend if necessary.

CCR 3707(d) Fertilizers and amendments not contaminate water. YES NO ? NIA ----X SMARA 2773(a) Site-specific sediment and erosion controi criteria for monitoring compiiance with approved reclamation pian. --- k CCR 3503(a)(3) Erosion control facilities constructed and maintained where necessary. k--- CCR 3503(b)(l) Settling ponds used where they will provide significant benefit to water quality.

CCR 3503(e) Grading and revegetation to minimize erosion and convey surface runoff to natural drainage courses or interior basins. Spillway protection. x--- CCR 3706(c) Erosion and sedimentation controlled during all phases of construction, operation, reclamation, and closure of surface mining operation to minimize siltation of lakes and water courses per RWQCBISWRCB. k--- CCR 3706(d) Surface runoff and drainage wntroiled to protect surrounding land and water resources. Erosion control methods designed for not less than 20 year11 hour intensity storm event. k--- CCR 3706(e) Altered drainages shall not cause increased erosion or sedimentation. --- _Zr SMARA 2773(a) Sediment and erosion control monitoring plan specific to property. x--- SMARA 2772(c)(S)(A) Description of contaminant controi and mine waste disposal. --- 2, CCR 3503(d) Disposal of mine waste and overburden shall be stable and not restrict natural drainage without suitable provisions for diversion. --- x CCR 3503(a)(2) Overburden stockpiles managed to minimize water and wind erosion. ---x CCR 3712 Mine waste and tailings, and mine waste disposal units governed by SWRCBIIWMB (Article 1, Subchapter 1, Chapter 7, Title 27, CCR). --- &- CCR 3710(b) in-stream mining conducted in accordance with Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq, Section 404 of the Ciean Water Act,, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. --- Ir, SMARA 2772(c)(8)(B) Rehabilitation of streambankslbeds to minimize erosion. ---k CCR 3502(b)(6) Temporary stream and water diversions shown. ---= CCR 3710(c) In-stream channel elevations and bank erosion evaluated annually using extraction quantities, cross-sections, aerial photos.

)r--- CCR 3706(a) Mining and reclamation to protect downstream beneficial uses. ----)C CCR 3706(f)(1) Stream diversions constructed in accordance with Fish and Game Code --k CCR 3706(f)(2) Stream diversions constructed in accordance with Federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

CCR 3706(g) All temporary stream diversions eventually removed. YES NO 3 NIA x--- SMARA 2773(a) Revegetation plan specific to property. Monitoring plan. k--- CCR 3503(a)(1) Removal of vegetation and overburden preceding mining kept to a minimum.

CCR 3503(g) Revegetation and plant survival (use available research).

CCR 3705(a) Vegetative cover, suitable to end use, self-sustaining. Baseline studies documenting cover, density and species richness.

CCR 3705(b) Test plots if success has not been proven previously.

CCR 3705(c) Decompaction of site.

CCR 3705(d) Roads stripped of roadbase materials, resoiled and revegetated, unless exempted.

CCR 3705(f) Temporary access not bladed. Barriers installed.

CCR 3705(g) Use native lant species, unless exotlc species meet end use. RNA~-YLJ U~h-2N3 CCR 3705(h) Plant during correct season.

CCR 3705(1) Use soil stabilizing practices and irrigation, when necessary to establish vegetation.

CCR 37050) If irrigated, demonstrate self-sustaining without for two year minimum.

CCR 3705(k) Weeds managed.

CCR 3705(1) Plant protection measures, fencing, caging.

CCR 3705(m) Success quantified by cover, density and species-richness. Standards proposed in plan. Sample method set forth in plan and sample size provide 80 percent confidence level, as minimum.

Admlnistratlve Requirements %--- SMARA 2772(c)(10) Applicant statement accepting responsibility for reclamation per the reclamation plan.

g--- SMARA 2773.1 Performance (financial) assurances. X--- SMARA 2774(b) Annual inspection. Y--- SMARA 2776 All mining operations since 1/1/76 included in reclamation plan. k---SMARA 2777 Amended reclamation plans required prior to substantial deviations to approved plans.

Public Resources Code

EIR required for cyanide heap leaching. RECUMATION PLAN FOR MINING OPERATION Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion I George Reed Inc Parcel #05-2367

CALIFORNIA MINE ID#:

GENERAL OWNERSHIPIOPERATION INFORMATION:

MINE NAME: Jackson Valley II

LOCATION OF MINE: Amedw County Parcel #05ZM7, within an unswveyed portion of Lot 37 Rancho Arroyo Seco, T5N, R9E, MDBBM

LOCATION MAP IS ATTACHED

MINE OPERATOR (S): George Reed Inc.

TELEPHONE NUMBER (S): (209) 521-9771

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 3191 Modesto, CA 95353

MAILING ADDRESS: : P.O. Box 3191 Modesto, CA 95353

Jackson Valley Quarry II APN 0523-07 Reclamation Plan Page 1 GENERAL MINING OPERATION INFORMATION b p' MINED MINERALCOMMODIM (IES): Aggregates

ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION: 500,000to 2,000,000tons per year

ESTIMATEDTOTALPROWCTION: 500,000to 2,000,000tons per year

APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NEW ACRES TO BE DISTURBED BY THE EXPANDED SURFACE MINING OPERATION: 7 1

TOTAL NUWROF ACRES TO BE RECWMED or ENHANCED: 85.7

UMUMAHnClPATED DEPTH OF MINING: FEET; 75 F~WA~(msensee~

(1) DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SE-mffi OF WEMINE, SE: FbfW to Appendix E, Bidogy and Appendbc D

(2) PRESENCEIABSENCE OF SENSITIVE SPECIES, SWSlTNE HABITATS : None Present Pbsrs &or to Appadbc E.

(1) DESCRlBE THE GEOLOGY OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE MNE SITE: Mssoroic Meta-Voiceniics, induding Andssi and Thokitto BaPe&

(2) DESCRIBE THE GEOLOGY OF THE AREA TO BE MINED: AAesozoic Meta-Vokmlcs, induding Andasi and TMiBas&

DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF MINING TO BE EMPLOYED: QuerryI Drill, BW, Load, Haul.

Jackson Valley Quany II APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 2 GENERAL LEAD AGENCY INFORMATION

[GENERAL LEAD AGENCY INFORMATION con't]

A COPY OF THE PROPOSED FlNANClAL ASSURANCE CALCULATION IS ATTACHED AS APPENDIX L.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES [attach additional sheets, if needed] [Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 27721

DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED USE OF ME SITE ONCE MINING CEASES AND RECLAMATION IS COMPLETED: Wsta !3tcrap Basin sunwndedbytranSiskpssplantedinkgumss,s~byahencedoek/pins woodlands

AU OWNERS Of A POSSESSORY INTEREST IN THE IAND TO BE MINU) HAMBEEN NOTIFIED OF THE PROPOSED END USE. Land awnen are George Reed IndReed Leasing Group, same aa qm-&w and appli

TIME SCHEDULE FOR MERECLAMATKIN OF EACH AREA DISTURBED BY MINING:

Short Term 2-4 yaars, 100 Fod North, East and Sarth 100 fod setbadc per Appendix E. +paimMy 25 yews, pit cmwted to water st-, and pit slopes &mm line planted in legume commwrity. See Appendix

Jackson Valley Quany I1 APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 3 DISCUSS HOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECLAMATION PLAN WILL AFFECT FUTURE MINING : Fmal Conversion d Pit to rmla rtorage basin win predude Mure vartical mining. Redamabjar d slopes and &bds will del- maximum mining hitsto North and South betwean p# and Hi88,and pit and Jedrclon Vsllay Road respectivaly. Plesse see Appsndi K - ExhibiEa R1, R2 8 R3.

HOW THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION OF THE MINE SITE WILL AFFECT WBUC HEALTH AND SAFETY: The site is fenced prWe propsrty and contains no mining hazards.

PETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES con't] HOW CONTAMiNAKTS WILL BE CONTROLLED AND MlNE WASTE WILL BE DISPOSED: No wntrminatss are storad on this pad, Masthg makaid8 are not st& tm thii pard. No mine wastes WB gme&d by this type d mining.

SMARA ORDINANCE.

Jackson Valley Quarry I1 APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 4 RECLAMATION STANDARDS

PURSUANT TO SMARA SECTION 2773, OUR RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES WILL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS PROVIDED IN THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 14, ARTICLE 9, SECTIONS 3700-3710.

TOPSOIL SALVAGE, MAINTENANCE, AND REDISTRIBUTION: Topsdl on disturbed mem crs too thin end bedrodc surfacs is too irreguk b sahregs soits. sstbackaree(lWNorth, Emt8South)wiHbsldtwithsoilnintadSssAppendbtEand &pmdixKExhibitR3Amel PY slq>ss&mmweteriinswin beBssdsdwithsubkmma~onfreshrodcswfems,atechniqwusadsincs1980onwiarelfodhi# quanies~~ithsuccess.SeeAppendbtKMR3ArsaZ

Jackson Valley Quarry II APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 5 REMGETATION - REVEGETATION WILL BE A PART OF THE APPROVED RECWTIONPLAN, Pet Appendi K Exhibit R3 Area 2. 1 AGREE TO CONDUCT MY REVEGETATlON ACTIVITIES IN CONK)fWVVJCE WITH CCR SECTION 3705, on pit S- abave waterlevdinpkto#pdpiL

NONNATIVE SPECIES SUCH AS s&xkmm and dry land psstuke hybrids WILL BE USED on p# slcpes fran wata kie to @, Area 2 Exhibit R3AppandiK.

Blue oak NATM SPECIES stands THAT OCCUR ON SITE WILL BE enhmxd within the 1W setback wem per Appendb E, and ~iK~R3Amal

THE END USE PRECLUDES REVEGETATION OR THE CULTNATION Of the pit belaw the w&f lina SeQ K EXhW R3.

PROPOSEDREVEGETATlONPLAN:PawiE, and AppsndiDcKExlWt R3h1,SeLbadcareawiUbeundisturkd bymining butwill undsrgo~ndastay~toprovkbMuaoeklbgensrationandhPitat-.

PaAppsndbc K ExhM R3 Ama 2, find pit slopes will be seeded and fert&ed using a mk high in s- dcmm, with IIemnial gr8Sses and rase cbwm. These am dry land foothill adaptsd spocbY3 which have besn s~fuay85Wihed and sustained on fresh Millbedrock surfaces after mining.

PROPOSED REVEGETATION MIX PaWi K Exhibit R3 Aree 2, camwcid miws variwsly merketed as 'Dryland Pasture MW , or 'Matherlode W, (Produd nane and supplier will vary sue# next 25 ptu period).

Muwarkl cadain: apprcauneteiy 50% subclmsuch as: Canpida sub-ckmr, Nungerin srtbck\mr, Denmtk 8- a other aquM wiethes d subclo\ren, available at the tins d seeding. The bdma d the mbc can indude annual rycrgreso and Har$ing grass, and a rose ~varisties.Applicationrate=minkrmm20patnds/acmThedou#sarsbadsria~fanitrogenfbcatlon.

Fertilizer: A hgh phosphaus, pdetizd canmerciai fediisuch as NPK 16-20-0 or @2M)a 04-0 applied at 50 patnds per acm

Jackson Valley Quarry I1 APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 6 SUCCESS OF REVEGETATION WILL BE JUDGED UPON:

Area 1, Appendix K Exhibit R3 : Performance will be monitored and success determined by a California Registered Forester, using Appendix E "Proposed management of buffer zone" section and protocols therein.

Area 2, Appendix K Exhibit R3: Performance success will be considered achieved when combined sub-clover and accessory hybrids reach 25% ground cover.

THE MINING OPERATION WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED ON PRlME AGRICULTURAL LANDS, BUT THE SITE'S END USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WlTH AGRICULTURE.

OTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND RECLAMATION - THE MINING OPERATION WILL BE CONDUCTED ON NOKPRlAlE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHERE THE SITE'S END USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH AGRICULTURE. THUS, IAGREE TO RECWM NONPRlME AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN CONFORMANCE WITH CCR SECTION 3708.

THE MINING OPERATION WILL BE CONDUCTED ON NON-fRIhE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, BUT MESITE'S END USE WILL NOT BE DEDtCATED TO DIRECT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. THE SITE WILL PRINCIPALLY PROVIDE WATER STORAGE WHICH IS A BENEFICIAL SUPPORT FEATURE FOR ADJOINING AGRICULTURE.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION - IAGREE THAT ALL WILOUFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT IN THE SETBACK AREA 1. WILL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CCR SECTION 3703.

Jackson Valley Quarry II APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 7 BACKFILLING, REGRADING, SLOPE STABIUM, AND RECONTOURING: Badddli, regrading, and mcmtwring ere not applito this site. The type d bsdrock (mkmAndesits and BaWt) in this pit are stebb at the proposed find averags slape d 1.1:1

FINAL REUMEDPIT SLOPES WILL EXCEED 2:l SLOPES (1.1:l IN STABLE BEDROCK), NO PERMANENT PILES OR DUMPS OF MINE WASTE ROCK AND OVERBURDEN ARE FEATURES OF THlS PROJECT.

NO DRAINAGE, DIVERSION STRUCTURES, WATERWAYS, AND EROSION CONlROL FEATURES ARE REQUIRED. THE PIT WILL PROVIDE COMPLETr INTERNAL DRAINAGE TO THE RNAL WATER CONTAINMEKT BASIN END USE.

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND EQUIPMENT REMOVAL: THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES EXISTING OR PROPOSED FOR THlS SITE.

Jackson Valley Quarry II APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 8 CLOSURE OF SURFACE OPENINGS: THE PIT WILL NOT BE BACKFILLED. THE END USE, WATER STORAGE FACIm, WILL OCCUPY THE FOMER PIT.THE smDOES NOT CONTAIN ANY msnw MINING FEATURES.

STREAM PROTECTION, INCLUMNG SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER - IAGREE STREAMS, INCLUDING SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER WIU BE PROTECTED IN ACCOROANCE WITH CCR SECTlON 3710. The pfaject hdds a veFd Waste Wscharge Pumit fmn the Carbal Vdky Rsgionei Wata Qudii Cartrd Board. All cmdiiof thet WDR haw been, and wlll be, ar@#d with.

THE MINING OPERATION IS NOT CONDUCTED IN A STREAM OR OTHER WATERWAY.

Jackson Valley Quarry II APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 9 MONITORING

Pursuant to CCR Section 2773(a), the success of reclamation will be monitored for three years, or until performance standards are met, provided that, during the last two years, there has been no human intervention, including, for example, inigation, fertilization, or weeding. Remedial measures will be implemented as necessary to achieve the performance standards.

LEAD AGENCY CERTIFICATION

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that this redamation plan complies with the applicable requirements of Articles 1 and 9 (commencing with Sections 3500 et seq, and 3700 et seq., respectively) of Chapter 8 of Division 2 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, and with the requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, Sections 2710 et seq.

Signed this day of , zoo-.

Planning Director

STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES

I, the undersigned, hereby agree to accept full responsibility for reclamation of all mined lands as described and submitted herein and in conformance with the applicable requirements of Articles 1 and 9 (commencing with Sections 3500 et seq. and 3700 et seq., respectively) of Chapter 8 of Division 2 of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Surface Mining and Redamation Act commencing with Section 2710 et seq., and with any modifications requested by the administering agency as conditions of approval. Signed this / day of S.,2006

Mine Operator or Operator's Agent

APPROVED u

Jackson Valley Quany II APN 05-23-07 Reclamation Plan Page 10

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX A

Waste Discharge Requirements & Well Report STAI E U! (:AL IFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Govrrrtor = .r . " ,, I_-.- . -- ---. ..- *.I .. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 1 S 5T1lEET ) -llfiMfNTO.CALlFORNIA 95816.1090 PHOF4k I9t61 445.0270

3 November 1986 CERTIFIED #P 457 294 613

C 1 aude C . Wood Company Post Office box 599 Lodi, CA 95241

TRANSMITTAL OF ADOPTED WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS - GREENSTONE QUARRY ,i Enclosed is an official copy of Order No. 66-178 as adopted by the Cal i-

fornia Regional Water Qua1i ty Control Board, Central Valley Region, at

I( its last regular meeting.

H. J: LEE, JF~ Chief Sierra Regulatory

RJB :gs

Enclosures - Adopted Order Standard Provisions (discharger only)

c-+encl: Department of Health Services, Sacramento Department of Fish and Game, Region 11, Rancho Cordova Department of Nater Resources, Central District, Sacramento Mrs. Betsy Jennings, Office of the Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento Amador County Health Department, Jackson Amador County Planning Department, Jackson CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION

ORDER NO. 86-178

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAUDE C. WOOD COMPANY CLAUDE C. WOOD GREENSTONE QUARRY AMADOR COUNTY

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, (here- after Board) finds that:

1. C1 aude C. Wood Company (hereafter Discharger) submitted a Report of Waste /1 'I Discharge, dated 3 April 1986, and a site evaluation report, dated April #I 1986. The property is owned by Claude C. Wood Company.

The Claude C. Wood Company has recently purchased and proposes to develop an existing open quarry from which aggregate material will be mined, processed, and temporarily stockpi 1ed. A rock processing plant and asphalt hot-mix pl ant wi1 1 be constructed. The quarry wi 11 be operated for approximately 25 to 30 years. Annual production will depend on market demand, but will be approximately 250,000 tons per year of aggregate, and 30,000 tons per year of asphaltic concrete. The rock plant wi11 be constructed immediately, and the asphalt plant later, when the need develops.

3. Open pit mining with bench style excavation will be used. The extracted rock material will be crushed and screened. This material will then be used as aggregate or further processed into sand and gravel.

4. Hot-mix asphaltic concrete will be produced from stockpiled aggregate by mixing aggregate and ashpalt in a hot-mix drier drum. The. hot asphaltic concrete wi11 be temporarily stored in a bin before being loaded onto a transport truck.

5. Process water for rock washing, and for dust control will be purchased froin Jackson Val ley Irrigation District. Stored winter runoff will supplement this source. Runoff from the active quarry and processing area will be stored on-site in two settling ponds. Drainage from the undisturbed portions of the site will be diverted off-site.

6. Process water will be recirculated through the two settling ponds in series prior to its reuse. The first pond will be dredged every year, and the second will be dredged every two to five years. The dredged material will be sold as product. Maximum summer water use will be 0.36 mgd.

7. Quarry operations will be conducted in four phases. The first three phases wi 11 be the actual quarrying, and the fourth phase wi 11 be used to co~nplete on-site reclamation. As each phase is completed, the overburden from the next phase will be placed in the completed phase quarry floor and revege- tated. Final contouring and restoration of the processing area will occur following completion of the quarry reclamation. WASTE D ISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS CLAUDE C. WOOD COMPANY rr AUCE C . WOOD GREENSTONE QUARRY %OR COUNTY

8. The rock to be quarried is generally greenstone. Two samples of the green- stone were analyzed for leachable metal 1ic constituents and general minerals. No designated 1eve1 s for these constituents were exceeded. 9. Cl aude C. Wood Greenstone Quarry is in projected Section 22, T5N, R9E, MDB&M, with surface water drainage to Jackson Creek. 10. The beneficial uses of Jackson Creek are agricultural supply; recreation; esthetic enjoyment; navi gati on; ground water recharge; fresh water rep1 end sh- ment; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife and other aquatic resources. 11. The beneficial uses of the ground water are municipal, industrial, and agrlcul tural supply.

-. 12. The Board, on 25 July 1975, adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Basin (5B) which contains water quality objec- tives for a1 1 waters of the Basin. These requirements are consistent with ' that Plan. 13. Amador County has adopted a final environmental impact report in accordance with the California Envi ronmental Qua1ity Act, (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.), and the State Guidelines. 14. The Board has reviewed the EIR and concurs there are no significant impacts on water qua1 ity. 15. The Board has notified the Discharger and interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe waste discharge requirements for this discharge. 16. The Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the discharge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claude C. Wood Company, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, and the provisions of the Clean Glater Act and regulations and guide1 i nes adopted thereunder, shall comply with the following:

A. Di scharge Prohi bi tions: 1. The direct discharge of wastes to surface waters or surface water drainage courses is prohibited. 2. The by-pass or overflow of untreated or partially treated waste is prohibited. C;-94 ,.

"ASTE 0iSCHARGE REQUIREMENTS CLAUDE C. WOOD COMPANY CLAUDE C. WOOD GREENSTONE QUARRY I MADOR COUNTY

B. Di scharge Speci fications: 1. Neither the treatment nor the discharge shall cause a pollution or nuisance as defined by the California Water Code, Section 13050.

2. The discharge shall not cause degradation of any water supply. 3. The discharge shall remain within the designated disposal area at a1 1 times.

4. The 30-day average daily dry weather discharge flow to the settling ponds shall not exceed 0.36 million gallons. .;-

5. All runoff from the active quarry and processing area shall be contained on-site in the settling ponds. - -. .. . - -. - - - - . -..- .------. . - 6. Drainage channeled off-site from the inactive portions of the quarry property shall not cause turbidity increases in Jackson Creek in excess of the followi ng: a. 20 percent - if background turbidity is between 0 and 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). b. 10 NTU - ifbackground turbidity is between 50 and 100 NTU. c. 10 percent - if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTU. C. Provisi ons:

1. The Discharger may be required to submit technical reports as directed by the Executive Officer.

2. The Discharger shall comply with the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 86-178.

3. The Discharger shall comply with the Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements, dated 1 September 1985, which are a part of this Order.

4. The Discharger shall report promptly to the Board any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.

5. In the event of any change in control or ownership of land or waste discharge f ac i1 i ti es presently owned or control 1ed by the Discharger, the Discharger shall notify the succeeding owner or operator of the existence of this Order by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to this office. w

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS CLAUDE C. WOOD COMPANY CLAUDE C. WOOD GREENSTONE QUARRY I AMADOR COUNTY

6. The Board wlll review this Order periodically and may revise requirements when necessary.

I, WILLIAM H. CROOKS, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Qua1f ty Control Board, Central Valley Region, on 26 September 1986.

Q4&JMr, WILLIAM H. CROOKS, Executive Officer

Revi sed: 9/09/86: RJB

Attachments CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 86-178 FOR CLAUDE C. WOOD COMPANY ' CLAUDE C. WOOD GREENSTONE QUARRY AMADOR COUNTY

The Discharger shall submit an annual status report which shall include, at a minfmum, the follawing:

1. The dates, duration, location, and volume of any accidental overflows from the settli ng ponds,

2. Any changes in the locations of the settl ing ponds.

3. Significant changes in the amounts of water used or materials processed. i- 4. Any other significant events or changes .which may have water qua11 ty imp1 ications.

The annual report shall be submitted to the Board by 30 January of each year. The Discharger shall implement the above monitoring program as of the date of this Order.

Ordered by WI\CLIAM H. CROOKS, Executive Officer

26 September 1986 (Date)

Revised: 9/09/86: RJB: gs INFORMATON SHEET

CLAUDE C. WOOD COMPANY CLAUDE C. WOOD GREENSTONE QUARRY

AMADOR COUNTY d

The Cl aude C. Wood Greenstone Quarry wlll be approximately 12 mlles west of Jackson off Hlghway 88 In Amador County. There -is an exlstlng quarry In that locatfon whlch operates only occasionally ; however, Claude C, Wood has acqui red the property and wlll develop It Into a large scale quarry operatlon. The green- stone to be mlned has been determl ned not to contaln leachable pollutants in quantities which could adversely affect water quallty. Approxfmately 250,000 tons per year of rock will be mlned and processed, and 30,000 tons per year of asphaltic concrete wlll also be produced if and when an asphaltic plant is constructed. Winter runoff from the actlve quarry and pro- cesslng area wlll be-stored In two-settllng ponds. It Is antlctpated that stored runoff will meet winter process1ng demands, but purchased water from Jackson Valley Irrlgatlon Dlstrict wlll be added to the system to meet water demand during the summer. Process water wlll be reclrculated through the two settling ponds In serles prlor to Its reuse. The flrst pond wlll be dredged every year, and the second wlll be dredged every two to five years, The dredged materlal wlll be sold as product. The maximum summer water use wlll be 0.36 mgd.

Rev1sed :9/09/86: RJ8 :gs

Briski Well Drilling Co. Inc. P.0.Box 1539 Invoice No.: 5339 2918 Highway 12 San Andreas, CA 95249 CEO REE JV

GEORGE REED, INC JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY P 0 BOX 1630 L001, CA 95241

VLILJIULC HARRY RRlSKl

140 140' OF DRILLING, (STEEL) 18.50 2590.00

623 623' (140' TO 763') OF DRILLING 9.00 5607.00 REDUCED BY t3/FT 1 SO' PUBUC SEAL 975.00 975.00 1 DRIVE SHOE 87.95 87.95 1 AMADOR COUNTY WEU PERMIT 150.00 150.00

Invoice aubtotai 9408.99

Invoice total 9409.95 WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS1

Thank You WR use ONLY -DO NOT I.ICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - ,111er'acopy WELL COMPLETION REPORT LIIIIIIIII R~frrto Ir~trur~ion?omphl#t ! ! ! sT,Am,ri y./,aT;Tto; ram-N;. , ~ng.l.--- ofl- , , , , ~wr;ar'sWell NO, i,a63079 Date Work Began 92/0u2004,Ended Locnl Permit Agency mVImFALTH t$ Permit No. WQ2831Permit Date 17/15/2QQ3 GEOLOGIC LOC ,W,ELJ. OWNER

DEPTH TO FIRST WA~(Ft) BELOW SURPACB P T) BOX 1630 DESCRIPTION LODI .. . . CA 41 m SThTe UP PI. 10 PI. 1 Danibt mouriol, pain riu, cola. ae. ' ' i WELL LOCATION O.lQ1 QVFBBURaEN hddrav A-SQN VALLEY ROAO 10 1 140 ! CLAY City ION€ . . 140 ; 200 : GREENSTONE County AMADOR 200 : 400 : GRFENSTONF WIBRFAKS APN ~ook05 Page LParcel 016 ol. 400 . 600 GREFNSTQNE Tow2hip -Range -Section 0 1 803 ! NSTONE WIBREAKS N- Longitude I I ... I .. ' \ Mew weu LWM*ICAnonIRVrm - D.8V.n - ah# (So+)

- DEBTUOV fowcrl~ Pfoc&oo end Mef.rru: U~UN+*O~OLQO~LOQ~ -PLANBED USZ(S)

WIXRSUPPLY

I I I Iu trot# or DdDeronce of Well from &dinarb ,OTWR ts~.cHI) I I I .us a~ Roa& Bu&hgv Fa*. Rlaem PLEASE BE ACCVRA~6 COMPL~~E. t I I I

I DRRLWQ

QMETHoO AIR FLU0 WATER t WATER LEVEL a YIELD OF COMPLETED WELL - -om - .. . nm-. sranc- .- .. - . WATER LEML (Fr.) L OAT€ MEASURED I I ESTIMASD YIELD *--I121;PWw h TEST NPE .A TOTAL DEmOF BORING A0.7 (Feat) TEST LGNCTH~- WW.)TOTAL DRAWDOWN -(FI.) I TOTAL DEm01 COMPLETED WELL AO.? (Feet) t DEPTH CASINC(S) DEPTn ANNULAR MATERIAL FROM SURFACE NPE (L) FROM SURFACE TYPE INTERNAL OAUGB SLOT DlA. Y SIZE 0RWN.L CM cE- BEK ,.,, :'stEz DWM MENT TONm FILL ER/&j( . (0 PI. 2 ZsZg (Inchem) THICKNESS (inches) Ft. lo Ft. F&T,"2, (L) (L) (L) I D 150 X -0- ian x

b I , I I I I I ATTACHMENTS (5) CERTlFICA TION STATEMENT -11 1, the under8lpnad1 cenlfy 1h.1 thla rapon la cmr ete end accurate lo the beet of my knowledge and beller. I-Gmobmi~Leg - Wall Conuruoion Diagram NAME IN(? Gmophy*ical Log(*) - P.O. BOX 1539 SAN ANDREAS CA. 95249 - SoUIWalet Charnkal Anefysee ClTl ZIP - oLhe1 ./aZtfW AWACM AOOITIONAL INFORhUnON. b I7 EXl3T9. 6kned II WELL WtlLLlR/MmYIAIZfD REPRE5ENTATlrZ DATE SIGNED C-$7 LICCW NUMBEP DWR \mnzv TW IF ADOmONAL SPACE IS NEEDED. USE NEXT CONSECUTIVELY NUMBERED FORM Jackson Valley Quany Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX B

Amador County Air Permit :c&l' Mr. Faln:~.:

I 'T!~ef.e wjl; J,: 54:urc.:. +.?E.-. 1:,:1r 3.iiCl~~\%tg 1;~%t'l.2! [~r!,.r t~,?.:e .::...~:l~-~~:o,-~>f i:k1,> Fg-.-::,;k, :-r,- &i,- ed5l;i 5:-1~:L:.!z:4-'4j!,Yr. E:\f.,

,Ll:!i;::,'-) ,:~;.;~,-,:::~l!:,r,~[#I,F kt,* :.:lAr.L.? \.>P%.,. c14:,:.2 -,:, -r 2 r4i,L1

, i- ' !-. .=.Vifitlo:-l n:.f ily,.-fl ..sr~t: [:.?tef ..i.;.;;.r:l;:~n} i :I:#:? I:: r C.h.2 jlsrr li-t.

i' ~;,:IJ~~,~?.2y4.- :.II::c~~ :,l.;fl,t .j<,?::: ~,,,:--ciJ kt!,: ?.!;21

I I :I~I~I:;1 by IJI~{a:.: I;I~:, c:)lltracI. k)th 1rl.:er.erldent tesil;. 2 t'irfll t:, rner tl?rrrl th:; icsl., or. ?lay

cLO- - it!,. :he fest wlt1.1 Al:- B

use ;rl ir,,-Ji.;~~~~;l~:~r~tt.:c.t;.r~~: iirm, r~,+ r.rquir.e a ~:?r:f.>ri.r~,-e1dLth ~;IIJ 'I,- ..:,: lp r. c .- ,: b-:rt-,:{:i;s;. %rlo: 3 ~:~r:~~~~e~.~~~~.$~#:of *,PI+ f:r~l to:,

d 15 i. IJ 5 :: t !: <= f: e 5 t 1rl 02 1a r I:: t 0:: ,: ? 3 rl t: EI ? 1-L rl t 010 1.0 2 7 z+:1 rl 12 - 01,r I .j 1t 1 :.: : 4 t least thirty (30) days priljr tl the tzsl-,

07 lf ?t~etect r.esult:. or. any sp13t c!leci.:ing toy tkac ulstr'.ict irlojiiat+z that the cllant could be c~?rltributlr~~to or calislng a ~violatlcn#:of

+.;.I arr~k~~trl~:air. o~~~il~tvrt2ndar.d dilwr;yinlj, tt~eLiil;rrlrt may reaLllre

t n e P 1 a n t C. 17 IJ 1-1 0: e I- t a l.:03 a lil I:' rl i t $11r irl l_: CI r. #:I 011- 3m 3 rl d t 00 ~j03 c u m e r; t t ti e effect iver~rss.:~f any mitigation rneasurrs.

1:) 1:) A wel!!h belt scale shall be irlstal led and l?per.&ted at a location representat zve lrlf m.i::,:lrrlurn thr~:ll~~tlputleve\ 5 for the crushing plant. The scale shal 1 tle cal it1rati.d uul:ln instal lation arld at l east biennual ly thereafter.

0 Water cclrajrs designed fur dust contr 031, such as Sclrayco HI:I~low con^ nozzles or-. equival;.n'i, shall be installed a:-ld ilper3ted at the jaw crusher, the stanaard cone crustier, the shilrthsad cone crusher, and the prildl.lct pile tlel t transfer points. If the aggregate clraduction rats e:~:ceeds :375 til.ilc; per. hl:lur., water sprays shal l be instal led ant! operated at the dump hoppel- and the feed and product belt transfar- poirlts for. the doutlle and triple deck screens.

111 A1 1 lother candlti~ar~sas nclti-d on the Permits. & If yol~have any quest11:lns. dl:ln"t hesitate to call me, ~:,r.Mr. Wtthycon~be 3 t 's 10-~/j2-1233.

Depf~ty17ir. P,:,llutir.ln/ v Lontr.l:ll Officer att. c c . : Dr.. .-lami- s McC. 1 enallan, HPC.0 P11-. Ear. l Cli t hyc ~:~rr~:le,FCFiE AMADOR COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT PERMIT

IS HEREBY GRANTED TO 1::LAI-JDE I:. WOISD C:I:I~~F'ANY

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS - OPERATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT MUST BE CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE wlTn ALL DATA AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBM~EDWITH THE APPLICATION UNDER WHICH THlS PERMIT IS ISSUED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW.

THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES.

i l't~lsf-'srrrtit expires six rill:lni-hs; after the date below, 1:lr when per.rn;%ne~-~C- f'ermit is isslrcd, whichever. comes first.

t:. T'he applicw~ist.~all rrcltify the District no less than five (5) days wittill-I crlrr~rr~er~cerrlentof operations.

THlS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE EMISSION OF AIR CONTAMINANTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES OF THE STAS OF CALIFORNIA OR THE RULES AND REQUUTIONS OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. THlS PERMIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PERMISSION TO VIOLATE EXISTING LAWS, ORDINANCES. REGULATIONS OR STATUTES OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.

DATE /-. S--K Air F'ollution Control Officer

PERMIT NO. &I: :3:3 -- 1 17 L PAGE 1 OF - .'.* PAG E(S) BY

REVOCABLE AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

CONTINUATION OF PERMIT NO. c.. ileasures shal 1 t~etaker1 tl:~contrc?I fugitive ~.Aust at a1 1 times.

1. I-I-~eapp l icant sha'l 1 r11:ltify the District I:I~ any occl~r-rencewhich c~:~nst.itutesa rr~alfur~cti~:~rtI:I~ L.~rcai::Jc~wn 01: equipment resulting in err~issior~sin c;:.::cess I:IY tl'~l:lse r~rescrit~edin Ljistrict reljulation. a ':.t~-rcI.~nl:~tificati~:~rI sha1 1 1-1.~' ~:~ri.lvidc.dwithin twl:~ t113l~r.sof. the 1.t~cu;.rer~ce during ni:~r~rlalLli st r ict business hl:lurs, or within the t'i~-.st.twl:~ hi~urr(:If tl~ernes.::l: rili.;trict Lusir~essday if otherwise.

t:. 1r1 the event crf any ct~anqcsin ~:lwnershiI or. ccrntr.01 nt: facilities I I;I t~eLI:I~I~~PIJC~C.I~ and operated, this &ukhority to ~-.~:~r~~str~~~ct/Ten~p~:~r..~r.yPermit tl:~1-iperate tl:lgethi-r with i.ts cl:~r~ditil:lr~s 11'.~e Gir~dir~l?i:lrl a1 1 subsequent clwners and operators. 'The app l icanfi stla1 1 r11:1t1f the sl~cceeljingowner ar~d~:~peratl-ir of the i::-rist*rice of this AIJ~~l:lrity t 1:. ilanst ~uct/Tesg 1orar.r Permit tn ~j~:~~_jl-.at.e;ir~iJits c~:~rlljitil:lr~~Lly ,letter, a cl:lpy I:I~ w~ichshall toe I .:~r.:~ar..delL(~CI the Uistr.ict.

F, t.:eorel;i-ntatlver of the Lllr-.trjct shal 1 be per.mitted to enter upuo the cll-.errlises ull- ere the sr.luv.ce is 11:lcated or in which any-recclres a.r..e ret~uir..edto:, Isc kept' under the terms an13 cl:lr~diti~:lr~r;1:lt t'bis ti~I:I13orlst1...uct/Tcn1~1 ..~~-.:ir..y Permit trs I:lper.ati-; and to irlspact .~r-~diirrlpyc- ernis!si~r,$s?~IV equipment listed within thi.5 c'l~~.t.I-,~:~i..ltyto i;~:.nst.r~~c~iTerr~pi~~-arF'er.~r;it tr:~ cilp~_jr.ate. The Cl~~er.atc~r. r ha1 1 r~ruvidea rc-r~resentat ive Yo accorr~panythe District repr.i-c.:..=ntative dlir.ing any ~r~~pectil:lr~. .,. IJ . ~b,lr; f"er.l~~i,t~I:I tJpc.r,ate shall t~&disfilsyed whcr* it ii~visitale t~l t h cj I:I FI c r at I:I r .

OATE /-5-'f" AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

- PAGE - OF PAGE(s) ~I~[IIJ+y i:lr

REVOCABLE AND NON - TRANSFERABLE -. -.Lawe 4- AMADOR COUNTY r,--- AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT -,- .,L-t --+ 108 Court Street Jackson, CA 95642 (209) 223-3230

AMADOR COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT PERMIT

IS HEREBY GRANTED TO CLAI-IDE C. WI:I~:I~I C:lZlMPANY

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS

OPERATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT MUST BE CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WlTH ALL DATA AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMllTED WlTH THE APPLICATION UNDER Wt+ICH THlS PERMIT IS ISSUED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW.

THE EOUIPMENT MUST BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES.

. -l't.~i.. F'erl~~itexpires si;.:: rnl>r~tt~safter the date tlelow, or when permanent Permit 1s issued, whichever. comes first.

R. The 3ppl icant shal 1 r~iltifyth~ Llistr.ict r10 le55 than five (5) days. within corr~rr~encerr~entof clpcr-ra.til:~r~s.

THlS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE EMISSION OF AIR CONTAMINANTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES OF THE STATE OF WLlFORNlA OR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. THlS PERMIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PERMISSION TO VIOLATE EXISTING LAWS. ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS OR STATUTES OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.

DATE /-J=J~

PERMIT NO, :~:s.- 118

PAGE 1 OF . PAGE(S) + - REVOCABLE AND ~0t5If AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Al-: :3:3 - 1 1" C' CONTINUATION OF PERMIT NO. Irleasures shal 1 toe taken to control fugitive dust at all tin~es. The ap 1 icant shall notify the Isistrict of any occurrer~cewhich c lsrlst i! utes a mlal,f~~r~ctirlr~ 031.. tlreakij~~wr~l:~f ui n~entresul t ing in rn~issionsin ei:.cess 13f th~:~sepr-e5cribed ir1~8isfrict rea1~1at11:ln. ':.l-~ct~~.~~tificat~.ilr~ shal 1 tic. ~.lr,svid&dwithin twl:l hclur.5 06 the o.0~c;ur.rence durrr~qnl:~i'.rnal Uist'rict business ~OIJ~E., within the i-i~..st.twtj 1-1ourl; of tile 1sc':::t Qistrict to~jsir~ess,jay if iltherwise.

irt the event ~i3r.1~ C~~I-I~CS ir.1 ~:*t~~r~er.sl-.ior c~:lr~trolof facilit'ier. ( cl be cunstructed and uparated this kufhority to lI.i~r~str.uct/'ri-rt~p~jravyP'er.n.~it to ~!l~ertitrc;to~~ethcr wlth i.ts cor~diti~~~r~s <.llal1 he t~jr~dir~qI:O~I all sl~l'lseql~c-~-~t~:lldr~er.z ar1l3 oper-atclrs. The .ipp I icar~tshal l not if the succeeding rlwner. an13 operator of the t5:;c:i.t arlce ef this RIJ~Kov it to:, IJonstr.uctiiemp~rar. Permit t 0:. 1-lpc-rate ar~ci its c~:onciitlor~sty ita r~:lpy ctf uKich shall toe r1zlr.war13c.dto the L1istric.t.

I.OLL a pri'~,er~tatives ,sf the Distric t sl..~ill1 toe permitted to enter 1~pl:~n kP,e ~lr.emiseswhere the svurce is 1 clcetted ,:or. in which any recores 1.e reql-rired to:, toe kept under the terms arllll clsr~diticlr~s of this ij 1, t h o I-. j. t t o I: 02r~ 5 t r. IJ c t ,/ Te ITI p 0:~ r ;A 1.. v Iz'e I-. ITI it t 011 17 p e r at e ; and t CI ir1.5 p ec + .II,o:' 5ampYr err1is5il:~r15~QI- dril i.uulrmc.r~t listi-d within this Ci 1-1 t I-, O:O r ;t y t 1::s rl E. ti r. IJ c t /Terrlp <:I r. +l;..y I-'crrr~tto:# 111perate- The Operatt:tr 1.l.ral 1 provije i r-~i:~:~rs.;er~kxtiv,?tl:~ acccllnpany the Llistrict I- e p ~'.e5; cjnt a11 ive IJ r i r~9 FLI-I y L r1 s pe c t i110 r~.

DATE /-5

m PAGE -0 OF PAGE(s)

REVOCABLE AND NON -TRANSFERABLE AMADOR COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 108 Court Street Jackson, CA 95642 - -- (209)223-3230

AMADOR COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT PERMIT

IS HEREBY GRANTED TO i;:LAUJJE 1'1:. WOi:ID COMPANY

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS

OPERATION OF THlS EQUIPMENT MUST BE CONDUCTED IK COMPLIANCE WlTH ALL DATA AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMIUED WlTH THE APPLICATION UNDER WHICH THlS PERMIT IS ISSUED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW.

THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES

. Tl-lis F'.'er.nlit e:.::pil-,,~~*- si::.:: ml:lr.lt.l.~r. after the date below, 13r when permanent Permit is issl~ed, wt.~icklevc-r. comes first.

E. The applicant shall r11:ltify the Uir-trict no less than five (5) Jays

within cor~rni-nci-mer~tI:I~' ~:~perati~.r.~s.

THlS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORUE THE EMISSION OF AIR CONTAMINANTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR THE RULES AND REGULAIIONS OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. THlS PERMIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PERMISSION TO VIOLATE EXISTING LAWS, ORDINANCES. REGULATIONS OR STATUTES OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.

DATE /-5--ff .- . IYc1.i: I enahan, M. D. PERMIT NO. QC ;3Q - lzr:) PAGE 1 OF PAGE(S) - -,. .. - . BY' - REVOCABLE AND Gi: 88 - 120 -- CONTINUATION OF PERMIT NO, C.. shal 1 toe taken t 03 control f clgit ive dust at a1 1 t inles.

D. I Ill? ;.kppl icant shal 1 notify the District of arly occurrence which 1.1.11.1stltutss a lt~all~~nctiunor ijrealrdc~wn nfrlea l~i ~rrlaer~t resl~l t 1r1q in ~~r~i.-sil:lrlsL~I r:.. t1l:ll~r.s o? the . c JIII IILlistvict business h~:lur,c., ~:#rwithin the I i I ~1 twi-0 hou~,..; ::of the ~'le:..::t Clistrict tous ine-s day if ot her.wise.

f- -3 tt~l-~~l-v.?rlt I:I?' i.!..ly chal.lqes in ~::wr~er.shipor cilr1tr,ol of raciliticjs : 0.1 Lot; c:i-~llsJlr.~~cte~! t-.tper..atedz t1.1j.s Qtjtf,~t:~r.:.tytrl I 44r-~zsl:~..~~ct/'re~~p~-~r;iv P~jr.wlit ti:, 1-lperat.2 t,:~gether. with its cor1ditil:~rls !1.%11 I ~IIJI 1 1 c.l-ltlseqt~ent uwners and opcrator~. Tho; +A~!..I. I c-lrlt !stla I 1 I-II:~~ifv the succeedin~qowner arid ilpcrator of the :-. i~.~:*lsce#:of tkli!; fiuttI~jr.i.ty to:, ll:onstr.~jct/-l'prr~p~:~raryPermit to l:~~ll?r.~:ite.>.I.I~? its c~:lnditilsrlc toy latter., a cr~py~-.f which ha1I toe ',.~l'.w.rl?dp~Jto:, tfle JJistr..ict.

f.'- !X,~,;:I I..L..~~?~I~:,.,~iv*~12f ?.(..18I:listrict stla1 1 toe pernlitted to er1ti.r +;p~:~rl. ' t p1-+111iscswhere the sl:~IJrce is 1 cleated #:or in t1.1t1icI-1arly -r.i.cl:lr.es ,,.I L: riql-*~redtor, Loi. L:.ept ur~ds-jr.the ter.1~15and clr~r.~ditic~rlsilr. tt.lie F, ~+t~.:..;.iV.j)-I:# Fberll:lit to:: !?ppl:.atc.; al-l~j.to:# irlspect I : I I 1 I!. : I 1 , i : , , 5 1- ~0 r. a 1.1 y e 07u L ::oVI e r.1 .l- 1 i s !: .? iil 19i t h irl t h i; .. ;;I.I~ !.:,..r !. ! v. c,:, f:.orl~': I- :~c{;/T(?rrlc.~-~r.a.r.F'ermlt t. 111per.;ite; Oper.&t~c

1 1 : ::I, :.o %, 1 ,je :% !. 1- ez

i I.I :I I-1 Llct- displayed wl-tc+re ~t is \/lsik:~l~ti-1 I., 1 , .! ,-, :-,'2 r., :+ I: o:, r 5 .

DATE /--5,& AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

REVOCABLE AND NON- TRANSFERABLE - - - -- AMADOR COUNTY - -ItTq-POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT ------. -- . ..._- 108 Court Street - - Jackson, CA 95642 -- - (209) 223-3230

AMADOR COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT . • , PERMIT

IS HEREBY GRANTED TO C~lil-lLiE I:. WI:ICI:ID C:I:IMFANY

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS

OPERATION OF THlS EOUIPMENT MUST BE CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WlTH ALL DATA AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED WlTH THE APPLICATION UNDER WHICH THlS PERMIT IS ISSUED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW.

THE EOUIPMENT MUST BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES

I:,. T'tiic; Permit e:::;~ire~ sl.:.:: rr:oiitf.~safter the #date toelow, ctr. when permanent Permit is issued, whichevel- comes iirst.

. Tt~eappl icant shall hilt ify .the District no less than five (3) days within commencement of ctper:-lt ions.

THlS PERMIT qOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE EMISSION OF AIR CONTAMINANTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. THtS PERMIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PERMISSON TO VIOLATE EXISTING LAWS, ORDINANCES. REGULATIONS OR STATUTES OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.

DATE /-dFfl Air Pol lutiort 1l:ontrc11 1,7tficer- .-lan~c-sU. PlcC.lenahan, M. LS. PERMIT NO. fii; ~~3 -- 121 *

PAGE 1 OF - .:a -.PAGE(S)

REVOCABLE AND NON-TRANSFERABLE -.---- AMAUUR-.-: .. ----- COUN'I'Y .- : . -.SF Tr -----'- .-. . ..-&%A=-. --$-I. :R~pc)7~~~l~ -:,,-&---:. .. . - 'w - NTRO~D~~~~~~~-. - . --.-. -....- -,,. -. --+AN,TcO i-* *.L.ICI+-- - ~.Y.LAk.==vra*-:i-.c~n~n~*-~~...a&&%-.. ---';--t"-& 4.* - .. . n- - - '..-- --* .&*.--.-&. ..-.- ,,*- . ., .-.---- ." .;:---LA-- '- '- - ~---.' - , . -1.-.- - , .-, ye*.e-v.- .&,,,--- -:: -, ,*- -'.-L,.-z - .. - -. ------. - d>----- . . .- - - --,*A. - .-- =3:7 z--.:&e=- - , -.:I- 'IE5

CI. TI-I~appl icant shall notify the District of arly occurrence which L ,:lr-lr;C itute.; a ma1 function or breakdown of e ui merit result inq, in ~rt-~is~.iiilr~sin e::.::cess 01' tht:lse prescritled in Lis9 !, rict regulation. '-.oJc~'Inotificat~~:~n shall t:le provided witllir~twcl hours ot. the * 1.1 c cur,.rer~cc.jurir'lq normal District trl~sir~ess~II:IIJ~S, or wit hirl the I- x.l--at twirl hl:ll~rc: i~fthe r~e.;..:t District tlur.iness day if uthevwise.

. 1 I-: the event of any trhanges in clwnership or cljrltr-01 1:1f facil ities t 111 tle ci-tnstructed ?.I-I~~lperated, this Auth~>rityto ~-~snst:~-uct:/'Ti-rr~pol-.:~rvF'e!.rr~it to Upel-.:~tc together with its cclr~clitil:lr.~s L.I-I~~1 tle t~ir~dinq~1i-1 ?I 1 sl~tjseql~erltowl-lrrs and operators. The ipplicant rhal 1 rlnt iiy the 5~ccerdingowner and operator of the c:.::ist;llice cti thls r3ut ,112rity to Construct/Terny;111rar~ : F'errit to 1"lpcrat.e al-119 its c~:l~-~ciitil:tnsby letter, a copy of,w ich shall be tl:~r.war*decl tt:l ttse tlic;trict. * I . i'epr..eser~tatives or the District shall tle permitted to enter upilrr !hc pr.emices wl-lerc the s1:lurce is 1 cleated or in which arty r-ccc#rcs .~r'.e~'.eq~ir..';.d L'te l:ept. urlcler the terms clr~ilct:~r~ditior~s of this r I, t : ~:~l-lstl-uct/T'~;~~npi~rar'.y Fz'c-rnlit to Operate- and t 11, in.zpec.t z ,kt-: J +arnl:~(c. e,ilir>slq>llr :: any equil,f!~ent 1isted within this &;tjtl.~(-~r~~yti:, J)~~~:~.~~~jct,~'i-;~~~p~r:~r.~ .-rmit t,:, Operite. lLlper-dt~:.r. ..;.,a'/1 ~,ri-,~ii-Jea l..eL,l-.Q--nt -,- at ive o arrc~:~nlpar~ythe District r c pl-.e~;rrlt.atzv.~ ~UI- LTI~ any inrspection.

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

A

6 2 PAGF OF PAGE(s) tleputy Air

REVOCABLE AND NON-TRANSFERABLE Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX C

TrScReport Page 1

JACKSON QUARRY Final Traffic Impact Study

Prepared for Weber Ghio and Associates by PRISM Engineering, Grant P. Johnson, PTOE, PE

w Certificate No. PTOE0063 K I \(.I\! I received May 1999 alifomla Traffic. . Erlgineer (T F 1 Expires 2008 ~ftcaeNo. TR001453

July 3, 2006

w 7'. - -. -w.~mOr~.com Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 , -(, k e -'.' voice: (559) 437- 7300 fax: (559) 437- 7304 Page 2

Executive Summary

Jackson Quarry is located on the north side of Jackson Valley Road and west of SR 88 within the County of Amador, CA. The project plan is to expand the existing quarry to four times its current output of about 500,000 tons per year to 2,000,000 tons per year. The existing quarry generates on average 138 trips per day. The proposed project is expected to generate 449 daily trips that will utilize the adjacent street network external to the project site. Because the project traffi,~is distributed immediately on SR 88, no one road segment is over capacity based on its existing or planned cross-section (width). The A.M. peak hour represents the worst-case scenario in all cases and was used as the analysis scenario for this study.

Year 2006 Existing Conditions without the Project

The intersection analyzed in this study is SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road. The study intersection experienced satisfactory conditions of LOS A without the addition of the proposed project traffic in the pm peak hour.

Year 2025 Future Conditions with and without Project

Future growth rates obtained from the 2025 Amador County Traffic Model were calculated and applied to the study intersection in order to analyze future conditions. The intersection was found to experience satisfactory conditions in the Year 2025, and will not need to be mitigated.

w.prismd.com Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1 304 Page 3

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ,...... 2 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4 Figure 1 Vicinity Map...... 4 Figure 2 Project Area Intersection Photos ...... 5 Figure 3 Project Area Intersection Photos ...... 6 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION...... 7 Table 1 Trip Generation...... 7 Table 2 Trip Distribution of Project Traffic ...... 8 Figure 4 Trip Distribution of Project Traffic ...... 9 AMADOR COUNTY TRANSCAD MODEL RUNS ...... 10 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations...... 11 Figure 6 Turning Movements AM Peak 2006 & 2025 All Scenarios ...... 12 ANALYSIS ...... 13 Table 3 Level of Service Analysis Summary 2006 & 2025 A.M. Peak Hour. LOS Conditions ...... 14 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 15 APPENDIX ...... 16

www.ptismwdd.com Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street. Suite 480. Fresno. California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1 300 fax: (559) 437-1 304 Page 4 Introduction and Project Description

The purpose of this study is to establish existing and expected levels of traffic with and without the proposed project, and relate this traffic to level of service and delay for surface street traffic operations. Any needed improvements related to intersection operations or street segment design are identified in this report.

Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the project parcel site in relation to the surrounding street system. The project site has access to the adjacent street system via a driveway on Jackson Valley Road as shown in Figure 1.

I Project Site

www.prisrnworhj.com> Corporate Ofice: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 m voice: (559) 437-1 300 fax: (559) 437-1 304 Page 5

7 ?)- -wnv,prisdb~com~ Corporate Ofice: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 :-f?. & #- voice: (559) 437-1 300 fax: (559) 437-1 304 Page 6 I 1

9-ll www.prismworMorMcom> Corporate Omce: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1 300 fax: (559) 437- 1304 Page 7

Trip Generation and Distribution

The trip generation totals for this project were developed using information obtained from the project applicant. The project applicant supplied charts containing projected annual tonnage produced by the quarry and a sample of the monthly volumes. This was used to determine the volume of traffic that would be generated by the project.

Table 1 documents the trip rates used for the various traffic assignment scenarios using information supplied by the applicant. The a.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic is generally between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on a weekday. The peak hour trip rates listed in the table represent the amount of traffic that is expected to take place in and out of the project site during the adjacent street peak hour time period.

As most of the vehicles accessing the project site are heavy vehicles a Passenger Car Equivalent was used to calculate an accurate LOS for the intersection that is affected by the proposed project. Passenger-Car Equivalent is defined as the number of passenger cars that are displaced by a single heavy vehicle of a particular type under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions1. The passenger-car equivalent in this case is 2 cars per truck2. Table 1 Trip Generation

Tons Per Passenger Adjusted Tons Per Average AM Trip Trips (AM Car Trips (AM Dav Trip Daiiy Trips Rate Average Peak) Equivalent Peak)

Existing Quarry 22 '115 0.25 29 2 57 22 465 0.25 116 2 233 Source: PRISM Engineering

' HCM Manual A-3 * HCM Manual 8-9, table 8-6, Average Passenger-Car Equivalents for Trucks, RV's and Buses on Two-Lane Highways- Over General Terrain Segments.- www.prismw0rld.com> Corporate Omce: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 Page 8

The trip generation rates shown in Table 1 were utilized in the analysis of each scenario, documented in the section that follows. Table 2 shows the trip distribution percentages for the project as determined from the Amador County T~~~SCAD'model. Table 2 shows the trip distribution near the project site, and Figure 4 defines the same data graphically..

Table 2 Trip Distribution of Project Traffic - Destination / Origin Percentage of Project Total

West on SR 88 55 O/O East on SR 88 40 O/O North on Jackson Valley Road 5'10

I 1 Total 100% 1 Source: County's TRANSCAD trafic model, select link analysis, and PRISM Engineering

Amador County TransCAD Traffic Model

www.prismworld.cm> Corporate OtEce: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 1 I- voice: (559) 437-1 300 fax: (559) 437-1 304 Page 9

Project Trip ((40'' Distribution

Prefect Area I \

Source: County'straffic model, select link analysis for project zones.

w~pn'd~FOm~ Corporate Ofice: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1 304 Page 10

Amador County TRANSCAD Model Runs

The County's traffic model was used to develop existing and future conditions background traffic for the street network in the vicinity of the project site. Specifically, SR 88 traffic volumes, SR 49 traffic volumes, and Martell Road traffic volumes from the model were used to develop pm peak hour turning movements for the Year 2006 and Year 2025 conditions. A growth rate was developed for the project study area using the Amador County model for existing and future conditions, and this growth rate was applied to the peak hour traffic counts taken in the field to develop future background cumulative traffic. Once these background traffic volumes were developed, the projected traffic from the project was assigned onto the surrounding street system.

Figure 5 has been prepared to illustrate the intersection lane configuration geometry at each study intersection. Figure 6 has been prepared to document the intersection turning movement volumes at the study intersection corresponding to the scenarios listed above. Included in these figures are the current traffic counts obtained by PRISM Engineering for this analysis. Each figure shows the existing lane configuration used in the analyses, as well as the a.m. peak hour turn volumes. Figure 6 shows the level of service in 2006 existing conditions with and without the Project as well as Year 2025 conditions with and without the Project.

9-- www.prismworld..com3 Corporate OMce: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 q. r #- voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304

Page 12

------2006 Existing 2006 Existing 2025 Cumulative 2025 Cumulative Conditions with Conditions Wii Conditions with Conditions Wi

-+"- www.prisrnworld.com> Corporate Olfice: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1 300 fax: (559) 437- 1304 Page 13 ANALYSIS

Existing and Future Conditions with and without Project Analysis

Traffic counts were obtained by PRISM Engineering at the study intersections for the a.m. peak hour. The counts were taken for the a.m. peak hour time periods on June 8, 2006, a weekday (Thursday). The study intersection is identified in Figure 6. Also shown on this figure are the existing field count data turning movements.

Figure 6 shows the actual or expected lane configurations and turn volumes for the study intersection along with the Project scenarios. Also shown are the lane configurations used in the analysis for the future Year 2025 scenarios along with corresponding traffic projections and turning movements in Figure 6. Summaries of the actual turning movement counts recorded by PRISM Engineering are given in the Appendix. The trip generation of the project was calculated for the projected project site increase as shown in Table 1. The trip generation was assigned to the surrounding street system using trip distribution patterns shown in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 4.

All capacity calculations were conducted using the industry standard HCM 2000 methodologies. The HCM analysis methodology is based on calculating a "level of service" for an intersection based on the amount of delay that is expected to take place, on the average, for each motorist at an intersection during the peak hour time period. The definition for level of service is limited to average delay, and has no application to other factors such as sight distance, horizontal or vertical curvature, pavement condition (such as pot holes), etc. These other items can be addressed in a traffic study in a qualitative manner, but have no bearing on the levels of service calculated in this chapter of this traffic study, which are entirely based on average delay to motorists.

The HCM 2000 methodology is used for intersection capacity analyses in this report for the intersection of SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road. All analyses are enhanced with more sophisticated micro-simulation to aid in determining left turn pocket lengths, the adequacy of and/or need for intersection signal operations, etc. The project traffic was assigned as shown in Table 2 and Figure 4 to the study intersection. A summary of the LOS conditions is given in Table 3 for Year 2006 Existing Conditions with and without the Project, and Year 2025 Future Conditions with and without the Project.

Q-- www.prismw0rhf.com Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1 300 fax: (559) 437-1 304 Page 14

All intersection levels of service are measured in terms of average overall intersection delay, and the corresponding level of service ranking is given as follows:

For Unsignalized intersections the following average delays apply: LOS A c 10 seconds LOS B > 10 seconds and c20 seconds LOS C 220 seconds and c35 seconds LOS D >35 seconds and c55 seconds LOS E >55 seconds and c80 seconds LOS F >81 seconds

Table 3 Level of Service Analysis Summary 2006 & 2025 AmMm Peak Hour, LOS Conditions SR 88 At Jackson Valley Unmitigated Road Average LOS Scenario Delay 2006 Existing Conditions with 2, I A Existing Quarry 2006 Existing Conditions with 6-8 2 Projected Quarry- - -- 2025 Cumulative Conditions 2, 3 A with Existing Quarry ------2025 Cumulative conditions 4 B with Projected Quarry Source: Synchm Software output Definitions: LOS- Level of Service Page 15 RECOMMENDATIONS

Year 2006 Existing Conditions with and without Project

No Mitigations Necessary

The existing road conditions and lane configurations are satisfactory for traffic increases caused by the addition of the project.

Year 2025 Future Conditions with and without the Project

No Mitigations Necessary

The same road conditions are found to be acceptable for all future as well as current conditions. Each of the study intersections successfully experience a LOS of B or better condition even with the project, and therefore no mitigations are necessary. Page 16

APPENDIX Page 17

2006 Existing Conditions Without the Project H CM Unsignalized lntersection Capacity Analysis 1 : Int 7~/2008

~~vamprjt"*.~FY~an$ i?%.v1%e4i FBXT~~~EB~R~~:~ :-.~-.NBR~I Lane Configurations 1 % 'I ?B 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Sto p Stop G rade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume [vehih) 4 213 43 2 281 4 40 9 24 5 3 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate [vph) 4 232 47 2 305 4 52 10 28 5 3 Q P adcstrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Rightturn flare [veh) Median type None None M cdian storage vch) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflidlng volume 310 278 584 578 255 583 599 308 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 310 278 584 578 255 583 599 308 tC, single [s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 8.5 8.2 7.1 8.5 6.2 tC. 2 stage [s) tf 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 87 98 97 99 99 99 cMcapacity[veh/h) 1251 1284 414 425 784 401 413 732

Volume Left 4 Volume Right 0 cSH 1251 Volume to Capacity 0.00 Queue Length 95th [ft) 0 Control Delay [s) 7 .Q Lane LOS A Approach Delay [s) 0.1 Approach LOS

Intersection Capaciv Utilization 30.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period [min) 15

Baseline Synchro 8 Report Prism Engineering Page 1 Page 18

2006 Existing Conditions With the Project HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1 : Int 7~~006

M**Tm " ,-* ? @bri* & f$V~e~~~$~$~~,~~~#~ -. Lane Configurations 1 "tt 'I b 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume [vehlh) 4 213 43 2 281 4 144 18 94 5 3 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate [vph) 4 232 47 2 305 4 157 20 102 5 3 9 Pedestrians Lane Width [ft) Walk~ngSpeed [fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare [veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal [ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 310 278 584 578 255 664 599 308 vC1. stage Iconf VOI vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 310 278 584 578 255 664 599 308 tC, single (s) 4. I 4. I 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 8.2 tC. 2 stage (s) tF 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pD queue free % I00 I00 62 95 87 98 99 99 cM capacity [ve hlh) 1251 1284 414 425 784 313 413 732

~~tj'n~$~~~~~~~~.@ 9- .:.:., j , Volume Total 4 278 2 310 278 17 Volume Left 4 Volume Right 0 cS H 1251 Volume to Capacity 0.00 Queue Length 95th [ft) 0 Control Delay (s) 7.9 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.1 Approach LOS

-- -- Average Delay 6.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Sewice A Analysis Period [min) 15

Baseline Synchro 6 Report Prism Engineering Page I Page 19

2025 Future Conditions Without the Project HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1 : Int 7~~006

.. ,-*- ,, -,I * - - F hrlovrmrnf * c ' , '~rl'C:.r~mig R;TWf -M7 ;T"&#jFIITg;ilT~~~fi@j~~~jX$8~ Lana Configurations 1 b li % 4 sP, Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehih) 6 296 60 3 391 6 54 11 24 7 4 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.02 Hourly flow rate [vph) 7 322 65 3 425 7 50 12 26 8 4 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Waking Speed (ft/s) Perorant Blodcage Right turn flare (veh) Median lypa Nona None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblodred vC, conflicting volume 432 387 813 805 354 802 835 428 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblodcad vol 432 387 813 805 354 802 835 428 tC. single (s} 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC. 2 stage (s) tF 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 99 100 79 96 96 97 99 98 cM capacity (vehih) 1 128 1172 286 313 689 281 301 627

Volume Left 7 0 3 0 59 8 Volume Right 0 65 0 7 26 12 cS H 1128 1700 1172 1700 344 394 Volume to Capadty 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.25 0.28 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ffj 0 0 0 0 28 5 Control Delay (s) 8.2 0.0 8.1 0.0 19.5 14.7 Lane LOS A A C 0 Approach Delay[s) 0.1 0.1 19.5 14.7 Approach LOS C 0 I nidvw7... .<:,+. .. - ..,. 43. Average Delay 2.4 Intrrrection Capacity Utilization 36.8% ICU Level of Sewice A Analysis Period (min) 15

Baseline Synchro 6 Report Prism Engineering Page 1 Page 20

2025 Future Conditions With the Project H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1 : Int 7~9.2006

~*&~*~t. ' " --'~~~~~tS'~fg@jq~~jj"licvojq-. "* Lane Configurations 1 % 1 B 4 4 Sign Control Frta Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 8 20 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.02 0.02 0.02 Hgurly flow rate (vph) 7 22 4 Pedestrians La n e Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC. conflicting volume 432 805 835 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf uol vCu, unblocked vol 432 805 835 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.5 tC. 2 stage (s) tF is> 2.2 4.0 4.0 pO queue free % Q0 03 00 cM capacity (ve hlh) 1128 313 30 1

Volume Left 7 0 3 0 163 8 Volume Right 0 65 0 7 102 12 cS H 1128 1700 1172 1700 365 348 VolumetoCapacity 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.25 0.70 0.07 Queue Length 05th (l't) 0 0 0 0 165 6 Control Delay (s) 8.2 0.0 8.1 0.0 43.1 16.2 Lane LOS A A E C Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 43.1 16.2 Approach LOS E C

~;g$"g&?>~.-' -4 ;:= Average Delay 11.3 Intesection Capacity Utilization W.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Baseline Synchro 6 Report Prism Engineering Page 1 Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX D

Cultural Resources Report AS1 Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management 11 17 Aberdeen Avenue, Stockton, California 95209

3 July 2006

George Reed, Inc. Att. Bill Fens, Vice President P.O. Box 4760 Modesto, California 95354

Roger H. Werner, Principal R. Paul Harnpson, Field Archaeologist hn

A Cultural Resources Investigation Jackson Valley Quarry 11, Jackson Valley, ~rnadorCounty, California

Introduction

This report summarizes the results of a cultural resources investigation conducted in May 2006 by Roger H. Werner and R. Paul Hampson representing AS1 Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management. Mr. Werner has a Master of Arts degree in Cultural Resources Management and more than 30 years of California field experience. Mr. Hampson has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology; he has completed all coursework towards a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology and he is listed on the Registry of Professional Archaeologists with more than 35 years of experience in California.

The Study Area consists of approximately 87 acres within a rural area of Arnador County known as Jackson Valley. The investigation, performed at the request of Don Deem of Shinningtree Environmental Services, was mandated by use pennit conditions stipulated by the Amador County Planning Department pursuant to Sections 5020.1(j), 5024.1, 21083.2, and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code, and, Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 4850 et seq, 15064.5, and 15 126.4. The purposes of the investigation were to: (1) identify and record any cultural resources, prehistoric or historic, that might be located within the Study Area; (2) make preliminary evaluations regarding the significance of identified cultural resources using surface observations; and (3) propose recommendations for further evaluating cultural resources or mitigating significant adverse changes to historical resources judged eligible for the California Register or that meet the criteria of unique as defined by the California Public Resources Code. In its current format, this report is not suitable for meeting the requirements of federal permits.

Voice 209-4743121 fax 2094741952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com The field investigation, completed over three days, employed generally parallel 30-m wide east west transects that followed natural contours. Identified cultural resources were located with a hand held global positioning system or GPS with an indicated accuracy of approximately 10 feet; each resource was narratively described and photographed. Investigation coverage was complete and intensive for the entire Study Area.

Results of the Investigation

Prefield Research

The record search indicated that one cultural resource (P-03-000430), a hexagonal-shaped concrete pillar, was recorded within the state right of way immediately north of the Study Area. No cultural resources have been recorded within one half mile of the subject parcel and it has not been previously inspected for cultural resources; the state right of way immediately to the north has been inspected four times by Napton (1993), Wulf (1999), Ziesing, et al. (2000), and Caltrans 2000). The concrete pillar was described as:

a hexagonal cement pillar with a single piece of rebar protruding from each end, measuring 8 ft. 4 in.12.54 meters by 16 in.140 cm, with no associated structures or features. The pillar is lying on its side in the Caltrans right-of-way on the eastern slope of a fairly steep (35 degree) drainage) and may simply be roadside trash.

Because the Study Area lies entirely within the Arroyo Seco land grant there is no General Land Office survey plat available. A map prepared by Deputy Surveyor A.W. Von Schmidt dated 1858defined the legal boundaries of the land grant and although it shows few internal landscape features, it depicts the Ione and Stockton Road in the approximate location of modem State Route 88. The Study Area is within Lot 37 of the grant.2 An 1888 USGS topographic map for the Jackson sheet indicates that modem State Route 88 did not exist at the time. The main road from Stockton to Ione extended north from a point east of the modem intersection of State Route 88 and Jackson Valley Road. The Stockton to Jackson Road headed east past Buena Vista generally following Jackson Valley Road. The modem state highway replaced the old main highway sometime before 1962.

Review of aerial photographs for years1 962, 1971, and 1993 indicate that alignments for roads bordering the Study Area have remained unchanged. The 1962 image shows a quarry west of the Study Area but encompassing less than a quarter of-its present area. Within the Study Area, the 1962 image depicts two east west oriented parallel berms in the approximate center of the parcel, a single east west oriented berm in the southeastern comer (with the outline of a reservoir up hill from the berm), and a fence along the eastem boundary. The Study Area was unoccupikd in 1962. The 1971 image indicates that water had impounded behind both berms and that the parcel remained unoccupied. The berms and ponds noted in 1962 and 1971 appear on a July 1993 image along with a smaller pond located immediately west of the berm in the southeastern comer of the Study Area; a second small pond was present in the northeastern comer of the parcel. The 1993 image is available at htt~://terraserver.microsofi.com/imae;e.aspx?T=l&S=l0&2=1 O&X=3393&Y=2 12 10&8W=3&qs =%7cBuena+Vista%7California%7c and at http:/lcasil- mirror.ceres.ca.nov/casivusns.~ov/doqq/38 20103 8 120c8sw.tif and it is interesting (and

The map of the Arroyo Seco grant was filed with the U.S. Surveyor General's oftice in San Francisco on 29 May 1863.

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com as 75 percent of the prehistoric population of the Central Valley had died. Many native village groups lost so many inhabitants they were no longer capable of independent survival and so they merged with larger neighboring groups not as severely affected by epidemics to form composite tribelets often speaking more than one language. When John Sutter and Charles Weber established settlements at Sacramento and Stockton respectively, interior native populations had already been drastically decreased3 and Weber found the former Yokuts inhabitants of Stockton living among the Miwok near Knight's Ferry. Native groups from Ione and Buena Vista survived the ravages of diseases and they continue to live on traditional lands to the present day.

After 1848, European and Latin American immigrants rapidly descended into and occupied the Sierra Nevada foothills, which had been largely ignored by the Spanish and Mexican occupants of pre-Gold Rush Provincial California. Gold seekers arriving in California in the 1949 displaced interior native Californians from their ancestral villages, often aggressively, occupied native lands and denied former inhabitants access to traditional resource gathering areas. Gold miners were especially vicious and any native who refused to give up land willingly was driven away or often killed outright. By the end of the Gold Rush period, there were few native Californians living outside of reservations or rancherias anywhere in California. Some of those who refused to move onto rancherias retreated to and occupied inhospitable refuge areas, which typically included locations undesirable for mining or agriculture. The Study Area does not appear suitable for year round occupation by California natives but it may have been subject to limited seasonal uses.

Western Amador County was too dry to sustain large-scale agricultural activity but grazing and dry land farming was viable. Since it was not located within the public domain, being part of Arroyo Seco land grant, it was often sold in large tracts and the land remained closely held by a few families at least until the twentieth century. The subject parcel was never patented except as part of the Arroyo Seco land grant. Although never an important gold camp, Ione was the scene of substantial hydraulick mining in the 1860s and 1870s. The community of Ione experienced a coal boom in the 1870s, and, for many years, clay extraction was an important economic activity. The Foothill Copper Belt lies a few miles east of the Study Area and beginning in the 1860s this area was mined sporadically through the mid-twentieth century. The focus of western Arnador County population in the nineteenth century was Ione but until recently, the community never had - a substantial population. In the mid-nineteenth century, Buena Vista was an important gold camp on Jackson Creek at the intersection of the roads to Lancha Plana, Ione, Jackson, and Stockton. The population of Jackson Valley remains low while Ione is experiencing something of a population boom owing to its equidistant location to both Stockton and Sacramento.

A number of different types of historic era cultural resources have been reported in western Arnador County and most of these may be grouped under the categories of ranchinglfarrning and mining. The principal cultural resource relating to agricultural endeavors is the ranch complex or farmstead but inasmuch as the parcel was never homesteaded, this type of historical site is not likely to exist in the Study Area. The Study Area was used for ranching and remains of ranching activities could exist including corrals and fencing (stone of barbed wire), wells and windmills, trash deposits, and possibly temporary shelters. Sometimes ranch-related features appear as individual features but after archival research, their relationship to less obvious cultural features or to each other is often identifiable. Corrals and fences may be barbed wire or more substantial fieldstone. Unmortared fieldstone outdoor ovens appearing as amorphous stacks of natural rock are also found in the vicinity.

3 Charles Weber for example found no inhabitants along any of the waterways within the mapped area of the future City of Stockton but he did not several mounds along Stockton and Mormon Sloughs.

Voice 209-4743121 fax 209-4741952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com Previously recorded cultural resource P-03-000430 could not be relocated at the location recorded with the North Central Information Center.

Expectations

Generally, results of this investigation met expectations. We failed to locate prehistoric sites probably owing to a lack of reliable surface water and the proximity of more suitable locations nearby. This does not mean that prehistoric people did not use or visit the Study Area only that they did not use it with sufficient intensity to leave behind archaeological materials that might be found employing standard archaeological methods.

With respect to historical sites, evidence for domestic ranching activities or mining was not expected and we failed to identify any features relating to these activities. We did identify two recent feature groups that appear to relate to recent habitation. Stone walls, and, water impoundment and water conveyance features probably relating to mining and or ranchinglfarming were expected and we found five of them.

Evaluations and Recommendations

Seven cultural resources have been identified within the Study Area. Six of them may be affected by the proposed expansion of the existing quarry. We evaluate cultural resources for their eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources and for their uniqueness as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

Evaluation Criteria

The California Public Resources Code (Title 14 Chapter 11.5) established the California Register of Historical Resources. In order to be eligible for the California Register, a cultural resource must possess physical and locational integrity and meet one or more of four (4) criteria (Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code):

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values, and

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria 1 and 2 are applicable to the built environment (structures and engineering/construction features) and archaeological sites, Criterion 3 to the built environment, and Criterion 4 to archaeological resources. Integrity and Criteria 1,2, and 4 are considered below.

Voice 209-4743121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com our opinion, this cultural resource is not eligible for inclusion on the California Register under Criterion 4.

ASI-S-06: Cultural resources of this type, stone walls, occur widely in the Sierra Nevada foothills and to date we are not aware of any study that has attempted to understand their function. Some of these walls extend for many miles and form intricate patterns on the landscape. Clearly, some walls were boundary markers; others were used for livestock enclosures, while other bordered roads. We suspect that this wall was part of a larger complex of similar features dating to the nineteenth century. Examination of a 1962 aerial photograph suggests similar features adjoining ASI-S-06 and so we suspect it has a larger association with walls in western Amador County. The study of stone walls can be useful for identifying former patents and parcels, the configurations of which no longer correspond with modem parcel boundaries. In our opinion, ASI-S-06 is eligible for inclusion on the California Register under Criterion 4.

Uniqueness

In order to be considered unique, an archaeological resources must meet a series of criteria listed in Sections 21083.2 and 201084.1:

A. Is the site associated with an event or person of: 1. Recognized significance in California or American History, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory

B. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions.

C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind;

D. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or

E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.

Clearly, ASI-S-03, -05, and -07 are not more than 100 years and are therefore not unique. ASI-S- 01 and -02 may be more than 100 years old and ASI-S-04 and -06 are probably of nineteenth century vintage and over 100 years of age but since ASI-S-06 is judged eligible for the California Register, we need not consider it under the uniqueness criteria. ASI-S-01, -02, and -07 do not appear to meet any of the remaining uniqueness criteria as they lack known historical and archaeological associations; they have no recognized historical significance; they are not in our opinion the best, or largest, or last surviving examples of their resource type; and they lack any clear association with important archaeological data beyond that of their description and location. In our opinion, ASI-S-01, -02, and -07 are not unique.

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail roaer8backdirt.com www.backdirt.com Ziesing, Grace H., Judith Marvin, Elaine-Maryse Solari, and Kimberly Wooten 2000 Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Proposed Road Rehabilitation and Widening on California State Highway 88 from the AmadorISan Joaquin County Line to State Highway 124 in Amador County, California (10-AMA-88 PM 0.015.5. Report on file at the Central California Lnformation Center, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock.

Voice 2094743121 fax 209474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX E

Biology Report AS1 Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management 11 17 Aberdeen Avenue, Stockton, California 95209

3 July 2006

George Reed, hc. Att. Bill Feris, Vice President P.O.Box 4760 Modesto, California 95354

Roger H. Werner, Principal R. Paul Harnpson, Field Archaeologist h/C

A Cultural Resources Investigation Jackson Valley Quarry 11, Jackson Valley, Amador County, California

Introduction

This report summarizes the results of a cultural resources investigation conducted in May 2006 by Roger H. Werner and R. Paul Hampson representing AS1 Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management. Mr. Werner has a Master of Arts degree in Cultural Resources Management and more than 30 years of California field experience. Mr. Hampson has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology; he has completed all coursework towards a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology and he is listed on the Registry of Professional Archaeologists with more than 35 years of experience in California.

The Study Area consists of approximately 87 acres within a rural area of Amador County known as Jackson Valley. The investigation, performed at the request of Don Deem of Shinningtree Environmental Services, was mandated by use permit conditions stipulated by the Amador County Planning Department pursuant to Sections 5020. le), 5024.1,21083.2, and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code, and, Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 4850 et seq, 15064.5, and 15 126.4. The purposes of the investigation were to: (1) identify and record any cultural resources, prehistoric or historic, that might be located within the Study Area; (2) make preliminary evaluations regarding the significance of identified cultural resources using surface observations; and (3) propose recommendations for further evaluating cultural resources or mitigating significant adverse changes to historical resources judged eligrble for the California Register or that meet the criteria of unique as defined by the California Public Resources Code. In its current format, this report is not suitable for meeting the requirements of federal permits.

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1 952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com Three water storage impound features (including dams, berms, and ponds), a privy and tree house, a residential complex of probable recent age (elements of these features may be 45 years old and we have therefore recorded them), a stonewall, and a water conveyance feature lie within the Study Area. The stone wall is judged eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 4 while remaining cultural features are judged not eligible and not unique as defined by the Califomia Public Resources Code.

Project Location and Description

The Study Area lies within an unsurveyed portion of Lot 37 Rancho Arroyo Seco, T5N, R9E MDB&M as depicted on the Ione, Calif. 7.5 minute quadrangle (USGS 1962; Figure 1). State Route 88 and Jackson Valley Road border the Study Area on the north and south respectively. An existing gravel quany is immediately to the west and undeveloped land lies to the east. All Study Area boundaries were fenced at the time of this investigation. The parcel may be accessed from State Route 88 by way of a dirt road through a locked gate.

Elevations within the Study Area range from 236 ft above mean sea at the southeastern comer to a maximum elevation of 449 ft along the center western boundary. A hill with a slightly lower elevation is immediately to the southeast and there is another low hill along the center eastern boundary with an elevation of 429 ft above mea sea level. These hills are separated fkom each other by a north south transecting saddle. The presence of three hills in the middle of the parcel means that ground sloped to the north and to south with the former being steeper. The Study Area is characterized by blue oak woodland with some bull pine and other unidentified species including brush. Grass cover was generally dense but surface visibility was adequate for the types of cultural resources expected. Disturbed portions of the Study Area were characterized by star thistle and nettles. Except for the artificial ponds, the Study Area lacked surface water at the time of the investigation. Numerous outcrops of a metavolcanic greenstone rock were noted within the Study Area.

Project Methods

The cultural resources investigation consisted of two components: Prefield research and a records search followed by field inspection. Prefield research included a records search of the cultural resource site records and base maps, and, prior cultural resource investigation reports on file at the North Central Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus (Record Search #AMA-06-17; see Appendix 1) to determine if (1) previously recorded historic or prehistoric cultural resources have been recorded within in the Study Area and (2) the Study Area had been subject to previous investigation. Additional prefield research involved a review of published geological reports, published and unpublished information on local and regional ethnography and history, relevant historical maps, and modern aerial photographs', the General Land Office Master Title plat for the township and range, and the U.S. government patent filed for the Arroyo Seco land grant.

' Cartwight Aerial Surveys black and white image AMA-5-06 scale 1:1,600 dated I8 September 2006 and 294-27-003 scale 1:2,000 dated 16 June 1971; California Spatial Information Library (htto:Ncasil- mirror1 .cercs.ca,aov/casiWusas.nov/doaa/381201038 120o8sw.tif--sourcpimage PAPP 0360-202 dated 9 July 1993).

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com The field investigation, completed over three days, employed generally parallel 30-m wide east west transects that followed natural contours. Identified cultural resources were located with a hand held global positioning system or GPS with an indicated accuracy of approximately 10 feet; each resource was narratively described and photographed. Investigation coverage was complete and intensive for the entire Study Area.

Results of the Investigation

Prefield Research

'The record search indicated that one cultural resource (P-03-000430), a hexagonal-shaped concrete pillar, was recorded within the state right of way immediately north of the Study Area. No cultural resources have been recorded within one half mile of the subject parcel and it has not been previously inspected for cultural resources; the state right of way immediately to the north has been inspected four times by Napton (1 993). Wulf (1 999), Ziesing, et al. (2000), and Caltrans 2000). The concrete pillar was described as:

a hexagonal cement pillar with a single piece of rebar protruding from each end, measuring 8 ft. 4 id2.54 meters by 16 in./40 cm, with no associated structures or features. The pillar is lying on its side in the Caltrans right-of-way on the eastern slope of a fairly steep (35 degree) drainage) and may simply be roadside trash.

Because the Study Area lies entirely within the Arroyo Seco land grant there is no General Land Office survey plat available. A map prepared by Deputy Surveyor A.W. Von Schmidt dated 1858defined the legal boundaries of the land grant and although it shows few internal landscape features, it depicts the Ione and Stockton Road in the approximate location of modem State Route 88. The Study Area is within Lot 37 of the grant.2 An 1888 USGS topographic map for the Jackson sheet indicates that modem State Route 88 did not exist at the time. The main road fiom Stockton to Ione extended north from a point east of the modem intersection of State Route 88 and Jackson Valley Road. The Stockton to Jackson Road headed east past Buena Vista generally following Jackson Valley Road. The modem state highway replaced the old main highway sometime before 1 962.

Review of aerial photographs for years1962, 1971, and 1993 indicate that alignments for roads bordering the Study Area have remained unchanged. The 1962 image shows a quarry west of the Study Area but encompassing less than a quarter of-its present area. Within the Study Area, the 1962 image depicts two east west oriented parallel berms in the approximate center of the parcel, a single east west oriented berm in the southeastern comer (with the outline of a reservoir up hill from the berm), and a fence along the eastern boundary. The Study Area was unoccupied in 1962. The 197 1 image indicates that water had impounded behind both berms and that the parcel remained unoccupied. The bms and ponds noted in 1962 and 1971 appear on a July 1993 image along with a smaller pond located immediately west of the berm in the southeastern comer of the Study Area; a second small pond was present in the northeastern comer of the parcel. The 1993 image is available at http://terraserver.microsofl.corn/imane.as~x?T=1 &S= 1 0&2= 1 0&X=33 93&Y=2 12 1 0& 8W=3 &qs =%7cBuena+Vista%7California%7c and at http://casil- mirror.ceres.ca.gov/casil/usns.aov/doqq/38120/038120c8sw.tif and it is interesting (and

The map of the Arroyo Seco grant was tiled with the U.S. Surveyor General's office in San Francisco on 29 May 1863.

Voice 209474-3121 fax 2094741952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com inexplicable) that while both images appear to represent the same source aerial photograph the structures appear on the terraserver photograph but not on the image at the California Spatial Information Library (CASIL).

Prefield research suggests that speakers of the Sierra and or Plains Miwok occupied the Study Area vicinity in late prehistory. Ethnographic data suggest that the Study Area vicinity was located east of the border between the Sierra and Plains Miwok and the two groups might have used the Buena Vista area on a more or less year round basis. The Sierra Miwok maintained a tribelet center at Buena Vista and possible Ione while the Plains Miwok lived along the Mokelumne below Mehrten Dam. Before the arrival of ethnographic Native American groups, prehistoric occupation in the Buena Vista vicinity may have been focused on the Mokelumne River, and, archaeological research undertaken in the 1960s at Camanche Lake suggests a few thousands years of occupation. Few cultural resource investigations have been completed in the Ione-Buena Vista but the types of prehistoric sites that are likely to occur are known from archaeological investigations in the Sierra Nevada foothills north and south of Amador County. Likely prehistoric sites include:

Prehistoric occupation sites: These archaeological sites sometimes occur as open encampments with locally darkened surface sediments (sometimes called midden and or anthrosols, dense scatters of chipped and ground stone, fragmented animal bone, shellfish detritus, and frequently human remains. These locations sometimes occur in association with rock shelters and bedrock milling features (see below). Occupation sites usually occur in close proximity to reliable surface water.

Prehistoric Camps or Special Use Sites: These archaeological sites typically consist of a scattering of chipped silicate stone with occasional non-local obsidian, deposited on flat or slightly sloping ground near a reliable permanent or seasonal water source. These are the difficult archaeological sites to find owing to dense surface vegetation and their discovery is often predicated on the presence of indicator attributes such as bedrock milling stations or level or near- level terrain near permanent water.

Bedrock Milling Features: These features, consisting of one or more depressions, may occur in any naturally occurring bedrock surface. They are found often but not always along or within permanent or seasonal drainages and sometimes they may be associated with camps or villages sites.

Isolated Finds: These items represent fortuitously discovered prehistoric artifacts dropped by native inhabitants as the moved around their environment during their daily round of activities; they might include single artifacts or small groups of artifacts found in isolation and lacking a clear cultural context.

Beginning in the late 1700s, Spanish exploration and punitive expeditions to the interior of California directly affected native populations along the San Joaquin River and the lower reaches of the major Sierran rivers such as the Mokelumne: Village inhabitants were captured and taken to coastal valleys as Christian converts and mission workers and after 1790 interior populations west of the San Joaquin River were affected by diseases. After 1825, Hudson's Bay Company trapping parties arrived from Fort Vancouver, Washington fiu-ther spreading infectious disease including measles, malaria, and small pox, among populations lacking natural immunity on both sides of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and it has been estimated that, by 1833 as much

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com as 75 pcrcent of the prehistoric population of the Central Valley had died. Many native village groups lost so many inhabitants they were no longer capable of independent survival and so they merged with larger neighboring groups not as severely affected by epidemics to form composite tribelets often speaking more than one language. When John Sutter and Charles Weber established settlements at Sacramento and Stockton respectively, interior native populations had already been drastically decreased3 and Weber found the former Yokuts inhabitants of Stockton living among the Miwok near Knight's Ferry. Native groups from Ione and Buena Vista survived the ravages of diseases and they continue lo live on traditional lands to the present day.

After 1848, European and Latin American immigrants rapidly descended into and occupied the Sierra Nevada foothills, which had been largely ignored by the Spanish and Mexican occupants of pre-Gold Rush Provincial California. Gold seekers arriving in California in the 1949 displaced interior native Californians from their ancestral villages, often aggressively, occupied native lands and denied former inhabitants access to traditional resource gathering areas. Gold miners were especially vicious and any native who refused to give up land willingly was driven away or often killed outright. By the end of the Gold Rush period, there were few native Californians living outside of reservations or rancherias anywhere in California. Some of those who refused to move onto rancherias retreated to and occupied inhospitable refuge areas, which typically included locations undesirable for mining or agriculture. The Study Area does not appear suitable for year round occupation by California natives but it may have been subject to limited seasonal uses.

Western Arnador County was too dry to sustain large-scale agricultural activity but grazing and dry land farming was viable. Since it was not located within the public domain, being part of Arroyo Seco land grant, it was often sold in large tracts and the land remained closely held by a few families at least until the twentieth century. The subject parcel was never patented except as part of the Arroyo Seco land grant. Although never an important gold camp, Ione was the scene of substantial hydraulick mining in the 1860s and 1870s. The community of Ione experienced a coal boom in the 1870s, and, for many years, clay extraction was an important economic activity. The Foothill Copper Belt lies a few miles east of the Study Area and beginning in the 1860s this area was mined sporadically through the mid-twentieth century. The focus of western Arnador County population in the nineteenth century was lone but until recently, the community never had a substantial population. In the mid-nineteenth century, Buena Vista was an important gold camp on Jackson Creek at the intersection of the roads to Lancha Plana, Ione, Jackson, and Stockton. The population of Jackson Valley remains low while lone is experiencing something of a population boom owing to its equidistant location to both Stockton and Sacramento.

A number of different types of historic era cultural resources have been reported in western Arnador County and most of these may be grouped under the categories of ranchindfarming and mining. The principal cultural resource relating to agricultural endeavors is the ranch complex or farmstead but inasmuch as the parcel was never homesteaded, this type of historical site is not likely to exist in the Study Area. The Study Area was used for ranching and remains of ranching activities could exist including corrals and fencing (stone of barbed wire), wells and windmills, trash deposits, and possibly temporary shelters. Sometimes ranch-related features appear as individual features but after archival research, their relationship to less obvious cultural features or to each other is often identifiable. Corrals and fences may be barbed wire or more substantial fieldstone. Unrnortared fieldstone outdoor ovens appearing as amorphous stacks of natural rock are also found in the vicinity.

3 Charles Webcr for example found no inhabitants along any of the waterways within the mapped area of the future City of Stockton but he did not several mounds along Stockton and Mormon Sloughs.

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com Western Amador County was crossed with dirt wagon roads and trails and while many of these longer exist, and, others have been incorporated into modem ranch roads or the modem highway system such as State Route 88 and Jackson Valley Road, abandoned sections of road often occur parallel to existing highways. These flattened strips of ground occasionally yield nineteenth century artifacts and wagon ruts may occur on bedrock outcrops. Although remains of roadhouses may occur adjacent to major roads, no such operations are known to have existed within or near the Study Area.

Field Investigation

Seven cultural resources were identified during the field investigation (see Appendix 2 for Primary record form updates; Figure 2 depicts locations of cultural resources):

ASI-S-01-Earthen berm and pond. This feature consists of a short section of berm behind which a seasonal pond forms and a small seasonal pond immediately to the west. The berm is approximately 245 ft long and the small pond and benn 240 ft long. Examination of aerial photograph suggests the longer berm retains a seasonal pond during wet weather and it was present before 1962.

ASI-S-02-Pond and Two Berms. This feature, located in the middle of a natural saddle, is defined by two berms approximately 140 ft apart. The southem berm is approximately 240 ft long and the northern approximately 275 ft long. The northern berm has been breached to drain the pond. This feature is clearly depicted on a 1962 aerial photograph.

ASI-S-03-Probably recent privy and tree house platform. This feature includes a piece of plywood with two toilet openings and a poorly constructed tree house platform.

ASI-S-04--Water Conveyance Feature of ditch. A faint ditch that could not be traced beyond the location indicated on the primary record form.

ASI-S-05-Recent occupation site (features do not show up on 1962 or 1971 aerial photographs but are evident on a 1993 image). The structures were probably removed relatively recently. The site includes a short segment of road and embankment, trash scatters, probably structure platform, non-native vegetation, and a power pole alignment.

ASI-S-Oti-Loose laid stone wall composed of native rock located extending along the eastern boundary of the parcel for some 1,280 feet. The wall is intermittent in some places and it varies from a single course high nearly hidden by grass to as much as 4 ft to 5 ft high. This feature is evident on a 1962 aerial image.

ASI-S-07-Small pond and berm. This berm feature is approximately 45 ft long. This feature does not appear on either the 1962 or 1971 aerial photograph and we presume it is recent.

Voice 209-4743121 fax 209-4741952 e-mail roaerQ)backdirt.com www.backdirt.com Previously recorded cultural resource P-03-000430 could not be relocated at the location recorded with the North Cenh-a1 lnfonnation Center.

Expectations

Generally, results of this investigation met expectations. We failed to locate prehistoric sites probably owing to a lack of reliable surface water and the proximity of more suitable locations nearby. This does not mean that prehistoric people did not use or visit the Study Area only that they did not use it with sufficient intensity to leave behind archaeological materials that might be found employing standard archaeological methods.

With respect to historical sites, evidence for domestic ranching activities or mining was not expected and we failed to identify any features relating to these activities. We did identify two recent feature groups that appear to relate to recent habitation. Stone walls, and, water impoundment and water conveyance features probably relating to mining and or ranchindfarming were expected and we found five of them.

Evaluations and Recommendations

Seven cultural resources have been identified within the Study Area. Six of them may be affected by the proposed expansion of the existing quany. We evaluate cultural resources for their eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources and for their uniqueness as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

Evaluation Criteria

The California Public Resources Code (Title 14 Chapter 11.5) established the California Register of Historical Resources. In order to be eligible for the California Register, a cultural resource must possess physical and locational integrity and meet one or more of four (4) criteria (Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code):

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values, and

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria 1 and 2 are applicable to the built environment (structures and engineering/construction features) and archaeological sites, Criterion 3 to the built environment, and Criterion 4 to archaeological resources. Integrity and Criteria 1,2, and 4 are considered below.

Voice 2094743121 fax 2094741952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com Culijornia Register of Historic Resources Evuluation

Age and Integrity

ASI-S-03, -05, and -07, recent residential and related features, and, a small pond, do not appear to be at least fifty years old. Consequently, they are not eligible for the California Register.

ASI-S-02 and portions of AS]-S-Ol-water impound features-are clearly visible on a 1962 aerial photograph. It appears that between 1962 and 1993, a small reservoir was added to the larger one visible in 1962 at the location of ASI-S-01 . Except for this recent addition, both of the recorded \vater impoundment features appear reflective of the two that were present in 1962.

Both are ! 1~~i-r45 years old and probably more than 50 years old and both have reasonable .nysicai .~itegnty.

ASI-S-06, a sep- -ent ,: >newall, is visible on a 1962 aerlal photograph and we surmise that it is ?ore >an '0 . rhile we cannot be certain of the condition of this wall when it was 2pe o have sufficient physical integrity to at least merit consideration for 7,. -1.. .. . IP '-2 !i4 .ha Register.

. , '4 IS - nt of ditch that we could not discern on either the 1962 or the 1971 -ran' ~hr~togr,~..oi features are not always visible owing to many factors. Many of the SIL "- water conveyance features were built in the nineteenth century and we suspect that inls featli, 3 remnant of one from that era. We were unable to trace this feature's origin east and west 01 ;tudy Area and suspect ~t IS a ditch remnant. One reason why this feature could not be discerned on aerial photography is that it is largely in-filled with sediments. As such, we feel that the ditch lacks sufficient physical integrity to warrant listing on the California Register.

California Register Evaluations

ASI-S-01, -02, and -06 require evaluation according to the noted eligibility criteria. These features do not appear to be associated with significant events or individuals important in the history and they lack notable architectural and engineering elements; we therefore conclude that Criteria 1, 2, and 3 are not applicable. We evaluate these cultural resources under Criterion 4. These cultural features do not appear to be associated with archaeological deposits and so they have limited data potential that may be hlly realized by documenting their description and location.

ASI-S-01: This cultural resource does not appear to be associated with a larger water impound system and beyond recording its physical elements and location, this cultural resource has little archaeological data potential. It does not appear to be associated with a residence lying within the Study Area and it has no associations, historical or archaeological, that we could identify. In our opinion, this cultural resource is not eligble for inclusion on the California Register under Criterion 4.

ASI-S-02: This cultural resource does not appear to be associated with a larger water impound system and beyond recording its physical elements and location, this cultural resource has little archaeological data potential. It does not appear to be associated with a residence lying within the Study Area and it has no associations, historical or archaeological, that we could identify. In

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com our opinion, this cultural resource is not eligible for inclusion on the California Register under Criterion 4.

ASI-S-06: Cultural resources of this type, stone walls, occur widely in the Sierra Nevada foothills and to date we are not aware of any study that has attempted to understand their function. Some of these walls extend for many miles and form intricate patterns on the landscape. Clearly, some walls were boundary markers; others were used for livestock enclosures, while other bordered roads. We suspect that this wall was part of a larger complex of similar features dating to the nineteenth century. Examination of a 1962 aerial photograph suggests similar features adjoining ASI-S-06 and so we suspect it has a larger association with walls in western Amador County. The study of stone walls can be useful for identiFying former patents and parcels, the configurations of which no longer correspond with modem parcel boundaries. In our opinion, ASI-S-06 is eligible for inclusion on the California Register under Criterion 4.

Uniqueness

In order to be considered unique, an archaeological resources must meet a series of criteria listed in Sections 21083.2 and 201084.1:

A. Is the site associated with an event or person of: 1. Recognized significance in California or American History, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory

B. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions.

C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind;

D. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or

E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.

Clearly, ASI-S-03, -05, and -07 are not more than 100 years and are therefore not unique. ASI-S- 01 and -02 may be more than 100 years old and ASI-S-04 and -06 are probably of nineteenth century vintage and over 100 years of age but since ASI-S-06 is judged eligible for the California Register, we need not consider it under the uniqueness criteria. ASI-S-01, -02, and -07 do not appear to meet any of the remaining uniqueness criteria as they lack known historical and archaeological associations; they have no recognized historical significance; they are not in our opinion the best, or largest, or last surviving examples of their resource type; and they lack any clear association with important archaeological data beyond that of their description and location. In our opinion, ASI-S-01, -02, and -07 are not unique.

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail ronerdbackdirt.com www.backdirt.com Recommendations

Six of the seven identified cultural resources are judged not eligible for the California Register and not unique. Site-specific recommendations for these resources are unnecessary. ASI-S-07 is judged eligible for inclusion on the California Register under Criterion 4 but since this resource lies on the Study Area's eastern boundary within a parcel boundary setback, it shall not be disturbed by proposed quarry expansion. No construction of ground disturbances shall occur along the alignment of the stone wall.

If, during project-related construction, any structural remains composed of rocks, bricks, or highly deteriorated concrete or other materials are found below the immediate surface, excavation or construction in the inimediate vicinity of the find(s) shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can be retained to evaluate the find(s) and make recommendations as necessary. If, during project-related construction, artifacts such as glass or ceramic pieces, metal, obsidian, chert (flint), or grinding rocks are found, construction in the immediate vicinity of the find(s) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the finds and make recommendations as necessary. Buried cultural resources are unlikely. However, if any material such as obsidian, bone, or shell, is found below the surface the same procedures shall be followed.

If human remains or bones of any type are found, the stipulations set forth in Section 15064.5 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed. Work shall cease in the area of the find(s) until qualified individuals (County Coroner by law, in practice a qualified archaeologist or forensic anthropologist working with the local Indian community) have determined that the bone is human and archaeological in nature. If the bone is human and archaeological, the project applicant shall consult with a representative of the local Native Americans (as stipulated by the Most Likely Descendants list maintained by the Native American heritage Commission) in order to ascertain appropriate treatment of the human remains.

References Cited

CalTrans 2000 Historic Property Survey Report for a Proposed Road Rehabilitation and Widening on California State Highway 88 between the ArnadorISan Joaquin County Line and State Highway 124 in Amador County (10-AMA-88 PM 0.012.78 and 3.3515.5). Report on file at the Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock.

Napton, L. Kyle 1993 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed Pacific Bell Fiber Optic Cable Installation Project, Amador, Calaveras, and San Joaquin Counties, California. Report on file at the Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock.

Wulf, Eric 1999 Supplemental Negative Archaeological Survey Report State Route 88 PM 0.015.5. Report on file at the Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock.

Voice 209-474-3121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail ro~erQbackdirt.com www.backdirt.com Ziesing, Grace H., Judith Marvin, Elaine-Maryse Solari, and Kimberly Wooten 2000 Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Proposed Road Rehabilitation and Widening on California State Highway 88 from the AmadorISan Joaquin County Line to State Highway 124 in Amador County, California (10-MA-88 PM 0.015.5. Report on file at the Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock.

Voice 209-4743121 fax 209-474-1952 e-mail [email protected] www.backdirt.com I Figure 1. Study Location. 1 Irayner Forest ry- -Excellem in Consulting -

Don Deem Deem Shiningtree P.O. Box 1875 Murphys, CA 95247

Dear Don,

I have completed the oak woodlands and biological surveys for the Jackson Valley 11 expansion project. You will find the details of my survey and results in the attachment. To summarize my report: The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on oak woodlands. The biological surveys did not turn up any plant or animal species of special concern, so there are no additional mitigation measures required for biological protection. I have included some recommendations for the long-term maintenance of oaks on the property, I hope you find them useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely, &%&/- Adam Deem RPF#2759 Trayner Forestry

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] Jackson Valley I1 Oak Woodlands Analysis

General Description

The project is located in Amador County, southwest of the town of Ione. It is bordered on the north by highway 88 and on the south by Jackson Valley road. The project area is 85.73 acres in size, being trapezoidal in shape and having the dimensions of 33 10 feet in the north-south direction and 1110 feet in the east-west. The topography is rolling with native slopes ranging from 5-40%. There are no permanent watercourses on the property and only two seasonal drainages were noticed, with only the southern showing any signs of riparian vegetation. The remainder of the property is populated with a varying density of blue oak woodlands (Quercus douglasii) with a scattering of foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana) as well as a variety of non-native grasses.

Past Uses The property has been used primarily for grazing in the past due to the rolling nature of the terrain. The surrounding properties also show both a mixture of grazing and agricultural operations, the most noticeable being vineyard lands to the south. Through communication with the client and other consultants, it also appears that the site also contained few mobile homes, but no permanent foundation structures. The only evidence of these occupations are a few minor debris fields and one well head near the southern seasonal watercourse. It is also evident that tbis land has been used for oak firewood production, due to stumps in varying stages of decomposition.

Oak woodland inventory

A field inspection of the property discovered that the site contains approximately 550 blue oaks (Quercus Douglasii) and 50 to 60 foothill pines (Pinus Sabiniana). Most of the oaks are between 7 and 20 inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) with only 14 exceeding 24 inches DBH. Oak regeneration on the site is almost nonexistent, probably due to the intense competition from non-native grasses.

As part of the field inventory, two blue oaks were selected for age sampling. These trees were 14 and 26" in DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) each and had estimated ages of 80 and 120 years, respectively. It would appear from this and other observations that a

1424 Pinon Ave Andemn, CA 96007 (530)-949-1703 [email protected] Irayner Porest ry -Excellence in Comultfng - majority of the trees on the property were removed sometime around the early 1900's, most likely for fuelwood or to clear land for agricultural uses.

In order to determine the wildlife species that can potentially be sustained within the project area, a suitability analysis was conducted using best available iafomafion. To determine a baseline of species which could be supported on the landscape, a preliminary study was conducted using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) program version 8.0, produced by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Interagency Task Group in 2002.

To determine which habitats would be suitable for inclusion, field inspections were carried out to determine distributions of vegetative cover, as well as a determination of the relative density within the property. From this field visit, and subsequent analysis of aerial photography, three areas were determined to be wfiiciently distjnct to warrant subsequent analysis. Each of the three areas were analyzed using a simple area point count method to determine the relative canopy closure by species. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis:

South NW% NE% Blue Oak Canopy % 8.1 24.4 25.6 Foothill Pine Cano~v% 0.9 2.7 2.8 Total Canopy % 9.0 27.1 28.4 Acreage 43 21.5 21.5 Table 1: Tbe three initial CWHR analysia areas

As a result of the point count analysis and subsequent field verification, the NW and NE subdivisions were grouped into one area., Subsequent fiel'd studies also characterized the diameter distribution and age as well as the presenceJabsence of specific habitat components that are indicators for specific wildlife. Table 2 summarized the CWHR classifications.

Sooth NW% NE % Average DBH 14-20 14-20 14-20 CWHR Classification AGS2D BOW4P BOW4P Table 2: CWHR classifications for the project area based upon analysis

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] T;ayner Forestry -ExelIe~)~e in Consulting -

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Classifications

Classification: AGS2D

Definition: Annual grassland, with average heights in excess of 12 inches with at least 60% of the area covered.

Habitat Notes (From the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System): The annual grassland are comprised primarily of non-native grass species, which have invaded areas once predominated by perennial species of bunchgrass. These areas are also associated with the presence of Blue Oak, Valley Oak and Foothill Pine.

Classification: BOW4P

Definition: Blue Oak Woodland, where the trees have an average diameter of 11 to 23.9 inches and have a canopy range of 25-39.9% of the area covered.

Habitat Notes (From the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System): Blue Oak Woodland are mostly comprised of Blue Oak and can also be found in the presence of Foothill Pine and a wide variety of brush and herbaceous species.

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949-1 703 adam@calrpf. corn Wildlife Associated with CWHR According to the CWHR software, taking into consideration the habitat types and elements present on the property, the following wildlife species are indicated to potentially occur on this property. Subsequent surveys will determine the presence or absence of these species hmthe property.

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] Blue Oak Woodland (BOWQP)

SHORT-EARED OWL I

SWAINSON'S HAWK ( mswainsord I SLT TOWNSENDS BIG-EARFD BAT ~Corymllmwtownsmdii ICSSC

IM I l cssc Protection StatudNotes Field: CSSC: California Special Coocan spcciee. USFWS BCC: Fish d Wildlife Seavice: Birds of Conservetic DM; FP: California Dtpmimmt of Fish end Game Fully Protecttd. SLT: Califwnia state listed as theatad

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949-1703 [email protected] WldlMe Survey Resulfs Of the species listed in the above CWHR types, only 1 was observed. Wild turkey was spotted on the property during surveys. Additionally, a pair of red-tailed hawks were seen on multiple occasions circling the property, but no nesting site was found.

Biological Survey Results

A survey of plant species was also conducted across the project area to determine the presence/absence of any ran, threatened or endangered specimens. The survey was conducted in a meander fashion, targeting areas most likely to contain species of concern. The surveys were completed between April 6& and June 16', 2006. Table 5 details plants found on the property during the survey.

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] Iraynerhrestry -ExcelIer~e in Consulting -

Table 5: Results of plant survey.

After consultation with state resources relative to the locations of threatened, endangered or rare plants, surveys were also conducted to determine the presence/absence of key species listed for special protection (see table 6). Field surveys found no species of plant that require special protection.

the project

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] Special protection and mjtjgafian measures

Due to the absence of any species of special concern, there are no specific mitigation measures proposed, relative to the protection of plant or animal species on the project.

Proposed Actions

The project will involve the removal of 3 10-350 oaks, seven of which are greater than 24" DBH. The remainder trees are included in a 100 foot buffer around the property, which will be used for mitigation and setbacks.

Proposed management of buffer zone

The buffer zone located on the north, south and eastern boundary of the project area will be maintained for the maintenance and recruitment of oak woodland characteristics. Oaks in this area will be preserved and large downed woody debris @WD) will be recruited for wildlife habitat. The density of DWD will be an average of 2 pieces per acre larger than 16 inches in diameter on the large end and at least 10 feet in length. Downed woody debris will be comprised of oak with large cavities and rot, where possible.

A secondary objective to the buffer zone will be to promote the establishment of oak regeneration. According to research by the US Forest service, successful germination of blue oak acorns require either a thick oak leaf layer or loose mineral soil. The presence of numerous non-native grass species hamper the reproduction of oaks. It is recommended that the dacearound the remaining oaks be cleared to encourage regeneration. The non-native grasses should be cleared and the soil should be loosened to a depth of 3 to 6 inches. Clearing should be performed in around the oaks starting at least 3 feet fiom the root crown and extending 10 feet beyond the dripline (see figure 1). The operator performing the clearing should be watchful for roots near the daceand avoid damaging the residual oaks. It is expected that the operator will take careful and prudent measures to assure that the oaks are not damaged.

The clearing operations should be competed by the last week in August, expecting that acorns will be dropped fiom the trees between mid September and the end of October. Success of the regeneration efforts should be visible the following year, but results may vary depending on the acorn crop. Unfortunately, acorn production is variable from year to year, with bumper crops on individual trees appearing every 3 to five years.

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] Figure 1. Clearing diagram for oak regeneration

Statement regarding potential adveme impacts on oak woodlands

This project is not expected to have an adverse impact on oak woodlands and their associated values. The proposed oak conversion area, roughly 43 acres, comprises only 0.0225% of the oak woodland area in Amador County, according to the 2003 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Resource Assessment Project. In addition, the spatial location of this woodland acts to isolate this area fiom other contiguous habitat., making it less suitable than other parcels.

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] 7kynerForestt-y -Excellence in Consulting -

References

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Database: California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Task Group, 2002. CWHR 8.0 personal computer program, Sacramento, CA

Annual Grasslands (Article). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System California Department of Fish and Game California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. John G Kie. April 2005

Blue Oak Woodland (Article). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System California Department of Fish and Game California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Lyman V. Ritter.

SPECIAL ANIMALS (824 taxa). State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database, February 2006.

STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED ANIMALS OF CALIFORNIA. State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database, April 2006.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Resource Assessment Project. State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION. 2006.

Hickman, J.C. (ed) The Jepson Manual the Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley

California Native Plants Society www.cnps.org lone Quadrangle California Natural Diversity Database www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/htmVcnddb.html

Philip M. McDonald. Blue Oak (article). Silvics of North America, US Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654. December 1990.

1424 Pinon Ave Anderson, CA 96007 (530)-949- 1703 [email protected] Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX F

Parcel Map

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX G

Deeds Pronerty Detail Amadar, CA JAMES B. ROONEY, ASSESSOR

Parcel # (APN): 005-230-01 6-000 Use Description: Parcel Status: ACTWE Owner Name: GEORGE REED INC

Maillng Address: PO BOX 31 91 MODEST0 CA 95353 Sltus Address: 3421 JACKSON VALLEY RD IONE CA 95640 Legal Description: POR RANCHO ARROYO SECO 38M73 PAR1 ASSESSMENT Total Value: $871,901 Use Code: II Zoning: Land Value: $791,796 Tax Rate Area: 052046 Census Tract: 3.0213 Impr Value: $63,946 Year Assd: 2006 Improve Type: Other Value: $16,160 Property Tax: PriceiSqFt: % Improved 7% Delinquent Yr Exempt Amt: HO Exempt?: N SALES HISTORY Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Transfer Recording Date: 0410211 993 0410211993 Recorded Doc #: 1993R003345 Recorded Doc Type: Transfer Amount: Sale 1 Seller (Grantor): 1st Trst Dd Amt: Code1: 2nd Trst Dd Amt: Code2:

Lot Acres: 73.630 Year Buitt: Fireplace: Lot SqFt: 3,207,322 Effective Yr: AIC: Bldglliv Area: Heating: Units: Total Rooms: Pool: Buildings: Bedrooms: Stories: Baths (Full): Park Type: Style: Baths (Half): Spaces: Construct: Site Inflnce: Quality: Garage SqFt: Building Class: Timber Preserve: Condition: Ag Preserve: Other Rooms:

'" The information provided here is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. Propertv Detail Amador. CA JAMES 0. ROONEY, ASSESSOR

Parcel # (APN): 005-230-007-000 Use Description: Parcel Status: ACTIVE Owner Name: REED LEASING GROUP UC

Malling Address: PO BOX 3191 MODEST0 CA 95353 Situs Address: 3874 STATE HIGHWAY 88 IONE CA 95640-9740 ROO2 Legel Description: RANCHO ARROYO SECO 12WPAR B ASSESSMENT Total Value: $673,200 Use Code: Al Zoning: Land Value: $648,720 Tax Rate Area: 052046 Census Tract: 3.0212 Impr Value: $24,480 Year Assd: 2006 Improve Type: Other Value: Property Tax Price/SqFt: % Improved 3% Delinquent Yr Exempt Amt: HO Exempt?: N SALES HISTORY Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Transfer Recording Date: OW2005 0711 212004 1 1I1 011 997 W2005 Recorded Doc #: 2OO5R007922 20014R009663 1997R009081 2005R007922 Recorded Doc Type: Transfer Amount: S660,OOO Sale 1 Seller (Grantor): KRJSTOFFERSEN GERARD H & 1st Trst Dd Amt: Code1: 2nd Trst Dd Amt: Code2:

PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS

Lot Acres: 85.730 Year Built: Fireplace: Lot SqFt: 3,734,398 Effective Yr: AIC: BldgILiv Area: Heating: Units: Total Rooms: Pool: Buildings: Bedrooms: Stories: Baths (Full): Park Type: Style: Baths (Half): Spaces: Construct: Site Inflnce: Quality: Garage SqFt: Building Class: Timber Preserve: Condition: Ag Preserve: Other Rooms:

"'The information provided here is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. RCCaRDlNPi RCOULCICD BY l'OWNERSHIP CHANGE RECEIVED" Igg 0 0 3 3 4 5 REWADED AT RMUEST Of WmERNLANDrnECO, uo wncw maewoca -11. rnlm atm ANQ u~uama *US @MOWN .CLOW. MAIL TAR .TMTCMCYTe for I at.&uin. put 2-p M *-rn P.O. Box3191 Modeato. CA 95353 ."L Titla Order KO. 29687 &row So. 3\Q.O6~7 SPACE ABOVf THIS UNC FOR GRANT DEED

I Th. undmigncd dKhra thd tha Jocurnmtrry trun*k tax h ~....-.1~215:50.. ..-..-.-...... -. --.---..-.. md ia 81 computed on the fun value of tba intern1 or Irmptip canrw)rJ. or i* 0 compvred on cha full wlw h tha valve of lie- or eacudrancor rcmai~~in#thereon at Ik time d I&. Thc Inad. lcncmcnu or rally h loated in unimorpom~eduru 0 city of ...... --,-...-....".. "--...... md 1 FOR A VALUABLE CONIDERATION, mi* of which ir hcrd~yncknowhdgd., ycl CLAUDE C. WOOD CO., 4 C.1iEomia Corporation bereby CWT(S) to George Raed, Inc.

tha fo1)owiog ddbdrut property in tl~a EOUII~J of Amador . rltlts of ralirornio:

Schedule A attached hereto and by refarance made a part hereof. ,

Dated April 1, 1993 - - Claud. C. Wood CO. a California corporation

STATE OF CAUFORMA ...... ------. ~ourrnOF Stani@lails-- ...... onhbh -.----.-.-. . dwd April 19 93. bolorm ma om vndadpnod r NWPublkhmd(orl.ldCowdyandSwte.petronolly.ppoual R. T. Taylor ...... FOR HOTARY SWOR STAMP

~tt~~tt~~~t~ttttttttttttttttttttt~ttttttttttttttttttttltt~ OfFlClAL SEAL LEATHS M. WILSON 1 *or*tr ruit~c.olllosnlr - nlYclmt 01r1:t U( SI*NItlAUt CDUIlfr - COkrM. EXP. APRIL 6. 1993 Q~~~ttttttttttttt~ttttttttttttttttttttttt~ttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A-w-III.. IBarrA SII. :~>..:~..%'L>!.k~. ... '.-

CAPACIM CLAIMED BY SIGNER

-. omcur@,

prrronatty appeared C] AllORHnWAW QlpersonaBy known lo me - OR. 0 proved lo ma on Ihe bash ot satlslacloy wldmce to be ~hpenon(o) whose name(s) 1uan -Eels) subscribed to the wlUIln Inslrumerd end QU*~~sWAToR acknowledprd lo ma lhat helsha/lhey 0 OWRr txeculad tho Bams In hlslherfiheir

I

I e~awr~mw~m~.~~~~,m~ol~u.~~~m~~~~ - -... .- -...... NO. 29687 hUENDED

Tho Eotate or Intareat in tie land deoarib~dor raferrod to in thie sohdul. .owwed by this report 18: I A FES

Title to said artata or lnderart at the date hereof la vested in!

I CL~UDI C* WWD COXPAB&, mu., a California corporation

Th. land rafrrred to in thin mport: im situated in the State of California, County of Alpador, md im doncribad a8 folloW8~ I Pareal. 1 am shown and,I dmlineated on Pmroal Map NO* 2071 for Nozman D. Borth, mt ux, fi ed in tha off iaa of the County Roeorder of -.do. County 0. O~tob.) 24 , 1984 in Book 3. of Yaps and PI.-, at Page 73. 1 W&PTMQ FROM that 98 am shown by

rXCXm0 FROX tho1 remainder tbweof, a11 tho min.rale beneath the' aurfnco of said -act or land and of all and wry of them and e~pooiallytho oohl, alay and other like sublrtanaam with thm full ri t, power and 1 privllrgm to Work at and mine for and take out an 8" sxtraat tha game, all am more particularly provided in deed from David D. colfon to David aoodtaan, recrorclad June 2, 1877 in BOOX "'1 of Deeds,. page 422, Recorde of Amador County.

"END OF DOCUMENT' RECORDING REQUESTED BY Rador htyReewder First Amerkan Tttle Company Shelh 0, Joh AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: DOC- 2805-0807922-00 The Reed Leasing Group, UC Ckct 2-Flrnt Clrmrlaan Title Co PO BOX 3191 Friday, JUH 24, 2005 09:57:00 Modesto, CA 95353 TtlPd fTI4.R Nbr4Wifl7773 SDJ/Rl/l-5

A. P. N. : 005-23M)07-000 File No .: 0301-1679705 (AF)

GRANT DEED THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED INCOUNTER-PART AND WHEN RECORDED WILL CONSIST AS ONE DOCUMENT. fhc Un&@@ted Gmbr(s) fkdm(s> DOCUMNTARY TRANKER TAX $726.Oa; CITY TRANSFER TAX $0.00; SURVEY MONUMENT FEE $10.00 [ X ] ~mthe~tbnafu~vakradproperty~IOR [ 1 cMnpltedontha~tlonafulvdua~viducofilenrWaenamkaoesdlnpatBmadsle, [ X ] unlmwpmatdarea; []atyofImeIand

FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Gsrard H. Kristoffersen, a single man and Robert KrOstoff@rsen,an unmarried man, who aquired Weas Robert Kristoffersen, a married man and Janet Susan Kristoffersen,an unmarried woman who aquired title as Janet Sue Mstoffersen, a married woman and Joy Chadwlck, a married woman as her sole and separate property who aquired tltle as Joy Kristoffersetn, a single woman

hereby GRANTS to The Reed Leasing Group, LLC, a Canfomia Umfted Liability Company

the following described property in the Unincorporated Area of Ions, County of Amador, St& of California:

PARCEL B, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN "RECORD OF SURW BAMERT PROPERTY," LOCATED INRANCHO ARROYO SECO, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL MAP THEREOF FILED FOR RECORD JUNE 12,1966 INBOOK 12 OF MAPS AND PLATS, PAGE 43, AMADOR COUNTY RECORDS.

EXCEPT AUMINERALS AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONTAINED INDEED FROM SAMUEL HART, El AL, TO LONE COAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DATED MAY 27,1876 AND RECORDED AUGUST 12,1876, INBOOK *Ia OF DEEDS, PAGE 55, RECORDS OF AMADOR COUNTY, AND XN DEED FROM DAYID D. COLTON TO DAVID GOODMAN, DATED MAY 2,1877 AND RECORDED JUNE 2,1877, INBOOK "Pw OF DEEDS, PAGE 422, RECORDS OF AMADOR COUNTY.

Dated: 5/13/05

Mail Tax Statements To: SAME AS ABOVE Grant Deed - continued File No.:0301-1679705 (AF) Date: 05/13/2005

Robert Kristoffersen

Joy Chadwick Janet Sue Kristoffersen

) ss. 1

In his/haltheir authorized capaclty(1es) and that hk/her/their r(g~ture(s)on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument.

WITNESS my hand and oRial seal.

- My Commission Expires:

Notary Nam Notary Phone:@Q- 233-0740 Notary Regisbation Number: j'%d~/l ) County of Principal Mae of Business: Am m)f-2 A.P. fiJ.: 005-23P007-000 Grant Deed - continued Fiie No.:0301-1679705 (AF) Date: 05/13/2005

Gerard H. Kristoffersen

Joy Chadwick Janet Sue Kristoffersen

STATE OF w. COUNTY- OF( Q DO^ )1 On , before me, personany appeared '' J personally *me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and Mknowiedged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capadty(ies) and that his/her/thek slgnature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of whkh the pem(s) acted, executed the instrumnt.

WITNESS my hand and official seal. nZis area for oiRiar nota&/sea/

Signature

Notary PhoneZ~'(- 223 -07L-I-O County of Principal Place of ~usiness'=GOO@ 1 c ... a A.P. N. : 005-230-007-000 Grant Deed - contlnved Flle No.:0301-1679705 (AF) Date: 05/20/2005

Gerard H. Kristoffersen

Joy Chadwick

) ss. 3 , before Notiny Wlic penonally a I .s ~~crr- I personally known to me (or pmved to me o of satfsfactoFy evidence) to be the person(s) whose name@) Ware subxribed to the within instnrment and admwkdged to me that he/she/they executed the same In hfs/her/their authorized capaCrty(Zes) and that hls/her/thelr signatues) on the Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the pwson(s) acted, executed the Instrument.

WllNESS my hand and omclal seal.

SIA nature n

My Commission Expires:

Notary Name: A n k bt2-C+L Notary Phone: 51,J'4'-4 - fs * Notary Registration ~urnk&fbd-?~- b County of Prlnclpal Place of Business: WL111 WQ , . A.P. N.: 005-230-007-000 Grant Deed - aontlnued File No.:0301-1679705 (AF) Dab: 05/13/2005

Robert Kristoffersen Gerard H. Kristoffersen

Janet Sue Kristoffersen

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Notary Phone: Notary Registration Number: county of Principal place of BU~I~~:~~S Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX H

Existing Use Permit -FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CLAUDE C. WOW COMPANY - JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY (BORTH PROPERTY) SCH 83120506

CONTENTS:

1) Board of Supervisor's 'Notice of Determination' and 'Report of Findings' w i th cond i t l ons of approva 1.

2) Board of Supervisor's minutes of July 25, 1984.

3) Staff Report to Board of Supervisors.

4) Planning Cmission 'Notice of Determination' and 'Report of Findfngs' with cond itions of approval .

5) Addendum to the Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Report: a) Cmnt letters; b) Technical Advisory Committee minutes of May 17, 1984; c) Technical Advisory Commi ttee minutes of May 24, 1984; d) Staff Report to Planning Commission; e) Planning Commission minutes of June 6, 1984; f) Appeal letters,

6) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. NOTICE OF L~CTLKMINATION

Project Title a nmp._ fl tn+,tv *Qi l:.tull~v rfa,k "&.b9,4 ~6~ ,, , JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY USE PERMIT (CLAUDE C. WOOD CO., NO. UP-84 ,~-&A$QHJ&)& -- _ ... I

Sta ce clearinghouse Number (1f submitted to.State Clearinghouse) SCH8 3120506

Conracc Person Gary Clark, Amador County Planning Telephone Number Director, 217 ~.xAvenue, Suite 10Jackson. U\ 95642 209 223-3230, Ext. 3; Pro gect Location NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JACKSON VALLEY ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 88, AMADOR COUNTY. Pro ject Description ROCK QUARRY AND CRUSHING, ASPHALT/CONCRETE BATCH PLANT OPERATION OF A MAXIMUM 500,000 TONS, YEAR TO A MAXIMUM 25,000,000 TONS (ESTIMATED 25-30 YEAR OPERATION). USE PERMIT RESTRICTED TO A 5-YEAR TERM BEFORE REQUIRED RENEWAL. This is toadvise that the AMADOR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) has approved the above-described project and has made the following deterrninatlon~regarding the above-described project: 1. The project -will have a significant adverse effect on the -X will not environment. 2. -x An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. * A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant -to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: Amador County Planning Department, 217 . B~~ llyer., s,,ttp l~~Jackson,California 9S642. 3. Mitigation measures x were. were not, trade a condition of the approval of the project.- 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations X was not, adopted for thlr project. -was * BEFORE THE BOARD CF SUPERVISORS OF TfIE COUNTY OF AMADOR, STATE OF CALIFORI4IA

IN THE MATTER OF:

CLAUDE C. WOOD USE PERMIT ) FOR ROCK QUARRY AND ASPHALT ) RESOLUTION 1.10. 84-275 BATCH PLANT )

WHEREAS, the Claude C. Wood Co. (hereinafter "Wood") filed an application on January 13, 1583, for a use permit to operate a rock quarry, processing plant, and asphalt hot-mix plant (hereinafter "project") on a parcel of land near the

intersection of Jackson Valley Road and State Highway 88 in Amador County; and WHEREAS, a supplemental environmental impact report (hereinafter "supplemental EIRH) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality

Act (hereinafter "CEQA" ; and WHEREAS, the supplemental EIR indicated that significant environmental impacts would result from the project; and WHEREAS, the Amador County Planning Commission has certified that the supplemental EIR complies with the provisions of CEQA and all applicable State and County guidelines, and has approved the use permit; and WHEREAS, timely appeals of said certification and approval have been filed with the Board of Supervisors (hereinafter

"Board" ) ; and WHEREAS, the Board has conducted a de novo public hearing on the supplemental EIR and the use permit application; and

WHEREAS, the supplemental EIR has been reviewed and considered by the Board prior to its approval of the use pernit application; and WHEREAS, the Board has certified that the supplemental EIR complies with the provisions of CEQA and all applicable State and County guidelines; and WHEREAS, the supplemental EIR, in conjunction with the draft EIR on the Kristofferson parcel, has been adopted as the final environmental impact report for the project; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the state guidelines adopted pursuant thereto require the Board to make findings where the final EIR identifies one or more significant effects which would, or would likely, result from the approval of the use permit for the project; and WHEREAS, in accordance therewith, the Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the final EIR; and WHEREAS, these environmental effects and mitigation measures are specified in the Board's findings which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 'AH; and WHEREAS, some of the changes or alterations are within the responsibility of public agencies other than the Board and such changes either have been adopted by such agencies or can and should be adopted by them; and WHEREAS, these agencies include, but are not limited to, those identified in Attachment "A"; and WHEREAS, the statement of environmental effects, findi~gs, and facts supporting each finding are set forth in Attachment "A"; and

WHEREAS, the conditions governing the 1Ase permit for the

project are set foth in Attachment "B" which is attached hereto

and incorporated herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal from the

decision of the Planning Commission has been denied and a use

permit for the project has been issued subject to the findings

and conditions set forth in Attachments "A" and "B",

respectively; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the final EIR for the project

has been completed in compliance with the California

Environmental Quality Act.

The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the

Board of Supervisors of the County of Arnador at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of September , 1984, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Deaver, Davenport, Summers, Begovich

NOES: Supervisor Bamert

ABSENT: x- ,4 lL..&-- Chairman, Board of Supervisors

ATTEST :

CATHERINE FONTGOMERY, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Arnador County, California FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CLAUDE C. WOOD USE PERMIT APPROVAL

1, Significant Effect: There will be significant increases in the noise levels at several residences near the project due to tirilling, blasting, and the increased truck traffic on Jackson Valley Road. CJhen the asphalt plant j.s operating, there will be zr significant increase in noise levels. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or i.ncorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially Lessen the significant environmental effects of said noise levels. Statement of Facts: The following noise abatement conditions will be attached to the use permit: a. On-site equipment shall be equipped at all times with noise attenuation equipment. Haul trucks shall not exceed the standards for maximum permitted noise established in Article 2.5 of Chapter 5 of Division 12 of the California Vehicle Code. b. All feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise and vibration effects of blasting shall be utilized, including, but not limited to the following: electronic detonator instead of Primacord; milli-second delays; appropriate stemming of charges; avoidance of blasting during adverse weather conditions; management of charge size consistent with particular stage of quarry development. Blasting shall only be done Monday through Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Blasting periods shall be limited to 80 times per year. In each case, neighbors requesting notification of blasting must be notified before blasting. c. The following noise standards shall not be exceeded at the boundary line of Permittee's property: Time Period Noise Standard 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. 65 decibels (A-weighting) The above standards shall not be exceeded except by the following allowed decibels (A-weighting) for the duration of time set forth as follows: Cumulative Duration of the Intrusive Sound Allowance Decibels

(a) Cumulative period of 30 minutes/hour (b) Cumulative period of 15 minutes/hour (c) Cumulative period of 5 minutes/hour (dl Cumulative period of 1 minute /hour (e) Level not to be exceeded

ATTACHMENT "A** :;aid noise level requirements shall be cumulative and apply to ,t 11 equipment on Permittee's property (except blasting) , j ncluding but not limited to the crushing/screening equipment, trucks, and other equipment that may be owned by the Permittee or ,kny other person. The use of loud sound signals shall be avoided 1x1 favor of visual (flashing light) warnings except for those 1-oud signals required by safety laws for the protection of 1) ersonnel . d. Upon the request of the County of Amador the Permittee shall provide for the measurement of decibels at Permittee's property lines. e. Hours of operation, other than maintenance and repair work, shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Days of operation, other than maintenance and repair work, shall be limited to Monday through Friday. Maintenance and repair work of a low-noise level may be made outside the foregoing working hours and days of operation. The operational noise level outside normal working hours and days shall not exceed 45 dba at the property line. The above limitations on working.hours and days may be waived by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or his designee, in case of emergency. f. Quarry and rock-processing employees shall be exposed to noise levels no higher than standards established by OSHA. g. Off-site noise levels shall be maintained at the standards specified in the condition set forth in finding (c) above. If necessary to reduce noise levels to meet these standards, Permittee shall employ muffling, construction of berms or noise deflection walls, or enclosing equipment within structures. h. Permittee shall not allow the use of jake brakes on Jackson Valley Road by trucks entering or exiting the,project site. Permittee shall place a sign on the project site, at a place which is conspicuous to truck traffic, stating that "the use of jake brakes is prohibited on Jackson Valley Road." 2. Significant Effect: There is a potential for increased dust and other air pollutant emissions from the operation of the quarry and associated equipment. Potential levels of pollutants will not exceed ambient air quality standards. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on air quality if air pollution emissions do not exceed said standards. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which'will avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental effects of air pollution. Statement of Facts: The following conditions relating to air quality will be attached to the use permit: a. Prior to commencing construction, the Permittee shall obtain from the hador County Air Pollution Control District ( "APCD" hereinafter) an "Authority tc> Construct" for each point source. b. Storage of petroleum (e.g., diesel and asphalt) products :;hall meet the requirements of the APCD and Health Department. :;pill or other accident catch basins shall be constructed a.round :;torage tanks that are capable of preventing any liquid material from entering any drainage channel.

c. Wet suppression shall be used to reduce to the extent feasible air pollution resulting from the crushing/screening (>peration. Said wet suppression shall commence at the point the ore enters the primary crusher and continue at each phase thereafter. Wet suppression shall be used to control to the extent feasible dust created by quarrying activity. The installation of the apparatus to be used for said dust control, and the operation thereof, shall meet the requirements of the APCD and all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

d. Storage piles of quarry rock, sand gravel, and/or banked overburden shall be stabilized with water spray, crusting agents, revegetation, or other method as approved by the APCD. Dust from haul truck movement and interior roads shall be controlled to the extent feasible through surface wetting, surface stabilization by chemical means, sealants, or paving, together with regular maintenance and cleaning, or as may be required by the conditions hereof and otherwise approved by the APCD.

e. Power supplies for the project shall be obtained from Pacific Gas and Electric unless another source of power is reviewed and approved by the APCD. Finding: Mitigation measures are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the Board. Such measures should be adopted by such other agency.

Statement of Facts: Wood will be required to obtain an authority to construct from the APCD for each emission point source. The APCD should attach conditions to ensure that air pollution emissions do not exceed state and federal standards.

3. Significant Effects: The average daily vehicle traffic on Highway 88 and Jackson Valley Road will increase bv 400 vehicles. his will represent an 8 per-cent increase over 1981 conditions and 6 per cent increase over projected 1995 conditions on Highway 88. The volume of truck traffic on Highway 88 will increase by 78 per cent over 1981 conditions and 59 per cent over projected 1995 conditions. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental effects of increased truck traffic.

Statement of Facts: The following conditions relating to traffic will be attached to the use permit:

a. Any spced limits, traffic control regulations, and load limits as established from time to tine by the Eoarci, and all ,~pplicableprovisions of the California Vehicle Code snd the California Streets and Highway Code, shall be obeyed at all times 1)y all persons operating haul trucks: to and from Permittee's property. Permittee shall carry public liability insurance covering its quarry operations as hereinafter set forth. If necessary, a special truck speed I-imit shall be mandated between r;ubject quarry and State Ilighway 88 along Jackson Valley Road.

b. A maximum of 500,000 tons of material shall be hauled from the project site in any calendar year during the term Ilereof.

c. Material may be hauled in trucks operated by persons other than the owner of the property and lessee; trucks shall be of legal load limit capacity.

d. The only approved access to this project is via Jackson Valley Road at the existing driveway encroachment. Any access to the project from State Highway 88 must be approved by the California Department of Transportation.

e. Truck traffic shall be routed westerly from the project along Jackson Valley Road to State Highway 88 since Jackson Valley Road east of the site is posted with a load limit.

f. Permittee shall improve the commercial driveway approach per County standard 24 feet minimum width (obtain an encroachment permit for said construction and provide County with certificate of Workmen's Compensation Insurance) . g. Permittee shall enter into a maintenance agreement with Arnador County for Jackson Valley Road from the encroachment to the intersection of Highway 88 ensuring that Permittee shall be responsible for all maintenance necessitated by its use of said road.

h. Permittee shall ensure that each load from the project carried by a transport truck is weighed prior to travel on a public thoroughfare. Permittee shall not allow a load to leave the project unless it conforms to applicable state load limit requirements. Permittee shall maintain those weight records necessary to dacument cornpli3.nce with this conditicn for a reasonable period of time and shall permit the County to inspect said records upon request.

i. Permittee shall not allow the use of jake brakes on Jackson Valley Road by trucks entering or exiting the project site. Permittee shall place a sign cn the project site, at a location which is conspicuous to truck traffic, stating that "the use of jake brakes is prohibited on Jackson Valley Road."

4. Significant Effect: The cut face of the existing Greenstone [Juarry is currently visible from Highway 88 and Jackson Valley Road to the west of the project. The project will create a new cut face oriented in an east-west direction. This face will i.nitially be visible from Jackson Valley Road. The new cut face will become visible from Highway 88 as the project proceeds L,eyond the first phase. The project will therefore result in a r~iajor alteration in the landscape as a result of the removal of .!5,000,000 tons of agyregate over a 25-30 year period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen any significant aesthetic effects of the project. Statement of Facts: The following conditions will be attached to the use permit to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the project: a. Permittee shall plant and maintain trees along the property line to screen the project from Highway 88 and Jackson Valley Road to the extent feasible. Permittee shall submit a landscaping plan satisfying this condition to the Technical Advisory Committee for its review and approval. b. Artificial illumination of any area within Permittee's property shall be of a non-glare nature and shall be shielded to the extent feasible to prevent glare from affecting neighboring parcels of land from which direct visual contact with Permittee's property can be made. Finding: A reclamation plan for the project has been submitted by the Permittee and approved by the Amador County Planning Commission. Said plan requires staged reclamation which will avoid or substantially lessen any significant aesthetic effects of the project after particular stages of the project are completed. Said plan was submitted to the State Division of Mines and Geology for review, comments, and recommendations pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The recommendations made as a result of said submittal were incorporated into the approved reclamation plan. 5. Significant Effects: The potential water quality impacts from the project include the transport of eroded materials to surface waters during quarry excavation, the transport of petroleum-based contaminants that will be used at the plant to surface waters, and the seepage of contaminants from the holding ponds into groundwater. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts on water quality resulting from the project. Statement of Facts: The following conditions will be attached to the use permit to mitigate any significant impacts on water quality resulting from the project: a. In addition to any of the terms of the approved l.!eclamation Plan which are not inconsistent with this condition, ;t 11 areas within Wood's property in which the natural vegetation i.s significantly disturbed, and which are not surfaced with (:rushed rock or more substantial paving, except for the active tluarry area and processing and stockpile areas, shall be revegetated annually if necessary to reduce erosion potential to c:he extent feasible. Native species shall be employed in revegetating to the extent feasible and Wood shall use the best i~vailablemethods in performing said revegetation. Wood shall r.~sespecies appropriate to the topography, soil characteristics, and climate of the property to ensure a good survival rate of material used in revegetating.

b. Used lubricants (for equipment maintenance or other purposes) shall be controlled to prevent their entry into the soil and any surface water body. Said used lubricants shall be stored in enclosed containers, such as barrels or closed tanks, and shall be removed from the site at least semi-annually.

c. All requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board" hereinafter 1 , including but not limited to a comprehensive erosion and drainage control plan and submittal of a report of waste discharge, shall be adhered to at all times. All water used in any part of Permittee's quarrying or processing of quarried materials, wastewater, and precipitation runoff polluted by contact with any materials used in quarrying, processing of quarried material, storage of any waste, ore, or other materials, and the hauling associated with the project shall be contained to the satisfaction of the Regional Board. d. In addition to the requirements set forth by the Regional Board, to the extent the provisions of this paragraph are not inconsistent therewith, Permittee shall install a drainage containment system so that the waters set forth in finding c. above shall be directed into a settling basin so that sediment contained in said water shall be removed. In addition, all water which has become contaminated or polluted from any source associated with Permittee's project shall have contamination or pollution removed by ponding, recycling, infiltration, or evaporation to prevent said contamination or pollution from leaving Permittee's property or entering the groundwater.

e. Any sewage disposal system installed by Permittee shall be approved by Arnador County Health Department prior to use and shall be otherwise subject to all health regulations contained in Title 14 of the Amador County Code and all relevant state law. Use of chemical toilets (portable sanitary facilities) is permitted as long as proof of contract with an acceptable pumping service is on file with the Arnador County Health Department.

f. Permittee shall provide potable water for use by employees at the project site. The source of said potable water shall be approved by the Amador County IIealth Depart~nentprior to rise and shall be otherwise subject to a11 health regulations contained in Title 14 of the Arnador County Code and a11 ,applicable state laws. g. Water for processing shall be from the Jackson Valley frrigation District. Any waterline extension to the project site :;hall be made available to adjacent landowners through a method acceptable to all concerned parties. If any other source of water is to be utilized, the source must receive review and approval of the Amador County Planning Commission or the Board. h. Storage of petroleum (e.g., diesel and asphalt-) products shall meet the requirement of the APCD and the fiealth Department. Spill or other accident catch basins shall be constructed around storage tanks that are capable of preventing any liquid material from entering any drainage channel. i. Permittee shall submit a plan by a registered civil engineer that demonstrates that the subject property has adequate positive storm drainage. Design shall be in conformance with criteria as designated in section 17.90.120 of the Amador County Code. j. Permittee shall provide a positive stormwater disposal system per section 17.90.120 of the Amador County Code, including rights-of-way, sewers, channels, swales, and appurtenances as needed to provide adequate drainage facilities to Jackson Creek. k. All revegetation shall be accomplished by Permittee prior to November 1 of each year. 1. Permittee shall install an oil sponge or similar type grease trap at the discharge point within the project property. m. Permittee shall file and have approved, a report of waste discharge with the Regional Board prior to project start. The Permittee shall pay the cost of subsurface water testing (i.e., three water wells in the immediate area), which testing shall be conducted in accordance with the memorandum of April 7, 1983, from Weatherby Associates, Inc., to the Board. n. Settling ponds shall be sized so that an adequate volume of runoff can be retained without causing the ponds to overflow (i.e., for a 100-year storm). Finding: Mitigation measures are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the Board. Such measures should be adopted by such other agency. Statement of Facts: F.Jood will be required to obtain a discharge permit from the Regional Board. It should issue the discharge permit subject to the condition that no off-site discharge occurs. 6. Siqnificant Effects: The existing vegetation at the site will be destroyed by the quarry operation. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially Lessen any significant effects on vegetation from the project.

Statement of Facts: The following conditions will be attached to the use permit to mitigate the project's impact on vegetation: a. In addition to any of the terms of the approved lieclamation Plan which are not inconsistent with this condition, a11 areas within Wood's property in which the natural vegetation is significantly disturbed, and which are not surfaced with crushed rock or more substantial paving, except for the active quarry area and processing and stockpile areas, shall be revegetated annually if necessary to reduce erosion potential. To the extent feasible, native species shall be employed in revegetating and Wood shall use the best available methods in performing said revegetation. Wood shall use species appropriate to the topography, soil characteristics, and climate of the property to ensure a good survival rate of material used in revegetating.

b. All revegetation shall be accomplished prior to November 1 of each year.

Finding: A reclamation plan has been submitted by the Permittee and approved by the Amador County Planning Commission. Said plan requires staged reclamation which will avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project on existing vegetation after particular stages of the project are completed.

7, The noise element of the Amador County General Plan contains "Land Use Classification Standards" which are to be used as "generally desirable ambient exterior noise level guides." The maximum standard for rural residential (agricultural) areas is 5C) dba. The recommended industrial level is 75 dba. The noise element also contains Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise level standards which are to be related closely to the Land Use Classification Standards. A noise level not exceeding 65 dba for more than 8 hours per 24 hours is "discretionary, normally acceptable" for new residential projects. The Land Use Classification Standards are intended to be applied with careful attention to the particular city or county area conditions, such as size and nature of development and expansion area, mixture of uses and spacing of mixed uses, present ambient levels, etc. The noise element does not provide any guidance regarding prescribed noise levels when two conflicting land uses are proposed to be adjacent to each other. The area of the project has historically been a mining area and the land-use element of the general plan gives it a mineral resource combining classification. The State Eoard of Mines and Geology and the County consider mining to be a compatible land use with agricultural and very low density residential uses (maximum 1 dwelling per 10 acres). Residential uses in the vicinity of the project do not exceed a density of 1 dwelling per 1-0 acres. A rock quarry currently exists and has existed on the property since approximately 1974. It presates most surrounding residential and commercial land uses. The approval of the project with a 65 dba noise limit therefore represents a 1- easonable compromise between competing land uses and is (7 onsistent with the land use, noise, and other relevant elements 0 f the general plan.

8 . The noise element of the County's general plan was adopted in 1. 974. Since the noise element was in existence prior to the canactment of Section 6.5 of Chapter 1124 of Statutes of-1975, the c'ounty is not required to resubmit a new noise element consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65302 or the (guidelines adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 46050.1. The County has not revised its noise element since its original adoption and said element is therefore not required to he in compliance with Government Code Section 65305 or the guidelines adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 46050.1 until it is revised.

9, Assuming arguendo, with actually admitting, that the County's noise element is required to comply with Government Code Section 65302 and the guidelines adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 46050.1, the Board finds the noise element is consistent with said provisions. 10. The Greenstone to be extracted from the quarry is of a high quality and is easily accessible. This greenstone is an important ingredient of construction materials and its production within Amador County will benefit construction activities within ~rnadorCounty. The asphalt which will be produced at the associated batch plant is also a vital commodity for construction activities within Amador County. The Board further finds that the project will generate additional employment and tax revenues in Arnador County. The Board therefore concludes that the project will further the general welfare of Amador County. 11. The conditions attached to the present use permit are essentially the same as those attached to the previously approved use permit. Any changes constitute refinements or clarifications of previously adopted conditions. 12. Only minor additions or changes were necessary in the supplemental EIR to make the EIR prepared for the Kristofferson site apply adequately to the project on the Borth site. CLAUDE C. PJOOD USE PERMIT CONDITIONS

1. In addition to any of the terms of the approved I.'reclamation Plan which are not inconsistent with this condition, all areas within Wood's property in which the natural vegetation j.s significantly disturbed, and which are not surfaced with (:rushed rock or more substantial paving, except for the active quarry area and processing and stockpile areas, shall be revegetated annually if necessary to reduce erosion potential to trhe extent feasible. Native species shall be employed in I.-evegetating to the extent feasible and Wood shall use the best available methods in performing said revegetation. Wood shall use species appropriate to the topography, soil characteristics, and climate of the property to ensure a good survival rate of material used in revegetating.

2. Any speed limits, traffic control regulations, and load limits as established from time to time by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Amador, and all applicable provisions of the California Vehicle Code and the California Streets and Highway Code, shall be obeyed at all times by all persons operating haul trucks to and from Permittee's property. Permittee shall carry public liability insurance covering its quarry operations as hereinafter set forth. If necessary, a special truck speed limit shall be mandated between subject quarry and State Highway 88 along Jackson Valley Road.

3. A maximum of 500,000 tons of material shall be hauled from the project site in any calendar year during the term hereof.

4. This use permit shall not run with the land and any assignment thereof by Permittee to any entity other than a subsidiary of Claude C. Wood Company, Inc. shall be prohibited unless and until the express written approval of the Amador County Board of Supervisors is obtained. 5. Adequately sized cross drains at appropriate spaces shall be installed together with headwalls at inlets and energy dissipaters at outlets of all culverts and drains. The approval of all said improvements by the County's Public Works Director shall be obtained.

6. Used lubricants (for equipment maintenance or other purposes) shall be controlled to prevent their entry into the soil and any surface water body. Said used lubricants shall be stored in enclosed containers, such as barrels or closed tanks, and shall be removed from the site at least semi-annually.

7. All requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board" hereinafter), including but not limited to a comprehensive erosion and drainage control plan and submittal of a report of waste discharge, shall be

ATTACHMENT "B" (kdhered to at all times. All water used in any part of Permittee's quarrying or processing of quarried materials, wastewater, and precipitation runoff polluted by contact with any materials used in quarrying, processing of quarried material, :;torage of any waste, ore, or other materials, and the hauling associated with the project shall be contained to the satisfaction of the Regional Board.

8. A building permit for each building constructed by Permittee at the project site shall be obtained from the Amador County Building Department.

9. The perimeter of the entire property shall be fenced with gates across access roads. Said fences shall be posted with "no trespassing" signs and other notices of dangerous conditions existing within the property. All said fences shall be maintained through the term hereof.

10. Artificial illumination of any area within Permittee's property shall be of a non-glare nature and shall be shielded to the extent feasible to prevent glare from affecting neighboring parcels of land from which direct visual contact with Permittee's property can be made.

11. In addition to the requirements set forth by the Regional Board, to the extent the provisions of this paragraph are not inconsistent therewith, Permittee shall install a drainage containment system so that the waters set forth in Condition No. 7 shall be directed into a settling basin so that sediment contained in said water shall be removed. In addition, all water which has become contaminated or polluted from any source associated with Permittee's project shall have contamination or pollution removed by ponding, recycling, infiltration, or evaporation to prevent said contamination or pollution from leaving Permittee's property or entering the groundwater. e

12. Any sewage disposal system installed by Permittee shall be approved by Amador County Health Department prior to use and shall be otherwise subject to all health regulations contained in Title 14 of the Amador County Code and all relevant state law. Use of chemical toilets (portable sanitary facilities) is permitted as long as proof of contract with an acceptable pumping service is on file with the Amador County Health Department.

13. Permittee shall provide potable water for use by eaploq'ecs at tke pro;ect site. The source of said potable water shall be approved by the Amador County Health Department prior to use and shall be otherwise subject to all health regulations contained in Title 14 of the Arnador County Code and all applicable state laws.

14. Water for processing shall be obtained from the Jackson Valley Irrigation District. Any waterline extension to the project site shall be made available to adjacent landowners through a method acceptable to all concerned parties. If any other source of water is to be utilized, the source must receive review and approval of the Amador County Planning Commission or t he Board.

15. Prior to commencing construction, the Permittee shall obtain from the Amador County Air Pollution Control District ( "APCD" hereinafter) an "Authority to Construct" for each point source.

16. Storage of petroleum (e.g., diesel and asphalt) products shall meet the requirements of the APCD and Health Department. Spill or other accident catch basins shall'be constructed around storage tanks that are capable of preventing any liquid material from entering any drainage channel. 17. Net suppression shall be used to reduce to the extent feasible air pollution resulting from the crushing/screening operation. Said wet suppression shall commence at the point the ore enters the primary crusher and continue at each phase thereafter. Wet suppression shall be used to control to the extent feasible dust created by quarrying activity. The installation of the apparatus to be used for said dust control, and the operation thereof, shall meet the requirements of the APCD and all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements. 18. Storage piles of quarry rock, sand gravel, and/or banked overburden shall be stabilized with water spray, crusting agents, revegetation, or other method as approved by the APCD. Dust from haul truck movement and interior roads shall be controlled to the extent feasible through surface wetting, surface stabilization by chemical means, sealants, or paving, together with regular maintenance and cleaning, or as may be required by the conditions hereof and otherwise approved by the APCD.

19. On-site equipment shall be equipped at all times with noise attenuation equipment. Haul trucks shall not exceed the standards for maximum permitted noise established in Article 2.5 of Chapter 5 of Division 12 of the California Vehicle Code.

20. All feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise and vibration effects of blasting shall be utilized, including, but not limited to the following: electronic detonator instead of Primacord; milli-second delays; appropriate stemming of charges; avoidance of blasting during adverse weather conditions; management of charge size consistent with particular stage of quarry development. Blasting shall only be done Nonday through Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Blasting periods shall be limited to 80 times per year. In each case, neighbors requesting notification of blasting must be notified before blasting.

21. The following noise standards shall not he exceeded at the boundary line of Permittee's property: Time Period Noise Standard

6 a.m. - 6 p.m. 65 decibels (A-weighting) 'rhe above standards shall not be exceeded except by the following ,I 1 lowed decibels (A-weighting) for the duration of time set forth 'IS follows: Cumulative Duration of the Intrusive Sound Allowance Decibels - (A-weightinp)

(a) Cumulative period of 30 minutes/hour (b) Cumulative period of 15 minutes/hour (c) Cumulative period of 5 minutes/hour (d) Cumulative period of 1 minute /hour (e)Level not to be exceeded Said noise level requirements shall be cumulative and apply to a11 equipment on Permittee's property (except blasting) , including but not limited to the crushing/screening equipment, trucks, and other equipment that may be owned by the Permittee or any other person. The use of loud sound signals shall be avoided in favor of visual (flashing light) warnings except for those loud signals required by safety laws for the protection of personnel. 22. Upon the request of the County of Arnador the Permittee shall provide for the measurement of decibels at Permittee's property lines. 23. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the appropriate state agencies. 24. Material may be hauled in trucks operated by persons other than the owner of the property and lessee; trucks shall be of legal load limit capacity. 25. The only approved access to this project is via Jackson Valley Road at the existing driveway encroachment. 26. Phasing of the project and location of facilities shall be as per plans approved. Any major revision of the plans shall he reviewed by the Amador County Planning Commission for a finding of whether the change is substantially the same as approved in the use permit. If the Planning Commission finds that any such revision of the plans is a substantial change an additional use permit shall be required. 27. Hours of operation, other than maintenance and repair work, shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Days of operation, other than maintenance and repair work, shall be limited to Monday through Friday. Maintenance and repair work of a low-noise level may be made outside the foregoing working hours and days of operation. The operational noise level outside normal working hours and days shall not exceed 45 dba at the property line. The above limitations on working hours and days may be waived by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or his designee, in case of emergency.

28. Blasting materials shall be kept in magazines approved by the Technical Advisory Committee or will be brought to the site in vehicles approved by the Technical Advisory Committee and transferred directly into the drill holes.

29. Power supplies for the project shall be obtained from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company unless another source of power is reviewed and approved by the APCD.

30. This use permit is granted for a five-year period and niay only be be renewed by a new use permit application.

31. Truck traffic shall be routed westerly from the project along Jackson Valley Road to State Highway 88 since Jackson Valley Road east of the site is posted with a load limit.

32. The County shall be furnished with a certificate of insurance evidencing Permittee's coverage for public liability and property damage in a sum not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence insuring against incidents arising out of quarry operations; said certificate shall list County as an additionally named insured on said policy.

33. An independent registered civil engineer shall be hired by the Permittee to make a study and report to the Amador County Planning Commission with regard to compliance by the Permittee with the conditions of approval and Reclamation Plan require- ments. The first report shall be completed within six months of the startup of operations. An annual report shall be completed thereafter. The results of the water testing required in Condition 41 shall be contained within these engineer's reports. The engineer shall conduct an unnoticed 24-hour noise test at the property line to determine compliance with the noise conditions.

34. A performance bond insuring compliance with the requirements of the Reclamation Plan in the amount of $70,000 shall be executed in favor of Amador County as the obligee of the use permit - Reclamation Plan. 35. Permittee shall submit a plan by a registered civil engineer that demonstrates that the subject property has adequate positive storm drainage. Design shall be in conformance with criteria as designated in section 17.90.120 of the Amador County Code.

36. Permittee shall provide a positive stormwater disposal system per section 17.90.120 of the Amador County Code, including rights-of-way, sewers, channels, swales, and appurtenances as needed to provide adequate drainage facilities to Jackson Creek.

37. Permittee shall improve the commercial driveway approach per County standard 24 feet minimum width (obtain an encroachment permit for said construction and provide County with t :e.rtif icate of \lorkrnclni x-; C(,mpcns~tlonrnsur~nce) . 38. Permittee shall enter into a maintendncc agreement with hmador County for Jackson Valley Road from the encroachment to tzhe intersection of Highway 88 ensuring that Permittee shall be responsible for all maintenance necessitated by its use of said r-oad.

39. All revegetation shall be accomplished by Permittee prior to November 1 of each year.

40. Permittee shall install an oil sponge or similar type grease trap at the discharge point within the project property.

41. Permittee shall file and have approved, a report of waste discharge with the Regional Board prior to project start. The Permittee shall pay the cost of subsurface water testing (i.e., three water wells in the immediate area), which testing shall be conducted in accordance with the memorandum of April 7, 1983, from Weatherby Associates, Inc., to the Amador County Board of Supervisors.

42. Settling ponds shall be sized so that an adequate volume of runoff can be retained without causing the ponds to overflow (i.e., for a 100-year storm) . 43. Permittee shall insure that each load carried by a transport truck is weighed prior to travel on a public thoroughfare. Said load shall conform to applicable state requirements.

44. Quarry and rock-processing employees shall he exposed to noise levels no higher than standards established by OSHA.

45. Off-site noise levels shall be maintained at the standards specified in Condition 21 above. If necessary to reduce noise level to meet these standards, Permittee shall employ muff ling, construction of berms or noise defection walls, or enclosing equipment within structures.

46. The use permit on the Kristofferson property shall be null and void.

47. Permittee shall make. all reasonable efforts to hire local residents.

48. Permittee shall not allow the use of jake brakes on Jackson Valley Road by trucks entering or exiting the project site. Permittee shall place a sign on the project site, at a location which is conspicuous to truck traffic, stating that "the use of jake brakes is prohibited on Jackson Valley Road."

49. Permittee shall plant and maintain trees along the property line to screen the project from Highway 88 and Jackson Valley Road to the extent feasible. Permittee shall submit a landscaping plan satisfying this condition to the Technical Advisory Committee for its review and approval.

50. Permittee shall pay to Amador County an in-lieu fee equal to the amount of sales tax avoided by Permittee by utilizing material from the quarry itself or selling it to persons or entities with a re-sale license. Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX I

Existing Reclamation Plan hdor County Planning Department 217 Rax Ale. Suit. 10 Jackson, ~allfornia 95642 phone: 209-223-2541 F m adopted by: A. ,dor corn ty Planning Comiss ion 3 August 1976

RECLAMTION PLAN FOW4 tor compliance with Section 2772 Y of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and Amador County Code Chapter 7.36 , filing date January 13, 1983 . public hearhg F-=V 72. 1983 approval date Fwrv22. 1983 mended date

2ENERAL DATA* t

La Nme of cdneral property JACK~~Ncnr.r.av OUARRY

Property owners, or owner of surface rights a

Name ~~~ 6 PATRICIA JANE BOR?H . , Address 3270 JACKSON VALLEY ROAD MUXlR (DuNlY, CALIFORNIA 9569 ~~,~~h~d209) 274-2601

3, Mining claimnnt, or owner(s) of mineral rights Name NoRMAN & P~TA,TA~m~nr . . Address

Telephone , Lessee I ! Name CLAUDE C, IVOOD CO. u Mdmss P- O* 599, Loor, CALIFORNTA 95241 (686 EAST FORD STREET) Telephone(209) 334-0790

Wsc additi-1 pages uhm necessary. PAGE TUO

Opera tor (3) )t-. OEC . wwn co. Address . * Telephone --- Agmt Lor process (persono designated by operator(~) as their agent for process) . ' u

P. .O: BOX 599. UIDI, CA 95241 Trl.mhanc_ (2'39) 334 - 0790 3POSEL) OPERATION* . . total area to be affected by this operation:SEE SWPL* acres. KG srx &odd e the J:~;A$gr$g i,oT;$ Ed,"R~Re$gD tf," kY this aperation t c - SHCWN IN THE ASSESSORS PARCEL W BCOK VOL. 5 -- Pap 23 - PARCEL 6 (LEGAL DESCRI ITION WILL RE PRUVIIIED -1

bucribe the access route to the 'operation site. E&TEFUY OW JAC~SON VALLFT ROAD FRCN ITS IKlFRSECTION IYIlH HIO WAY 88 ~P-Y 0.3MILETO'W ' EXISTING QUARRY EN^& Proposed rta+ting date or date operation began: JULY 1983 msedtermination date: I- Will operations be: continuous intermittent ' X (explain. PROOOCl DF,hWD

. r , 1...... seasonal x (explain)-s

other' (explain) ' a @

&se+ibe the general geology aE the area, briefly. UFJLIFT'ED . A ' ALTERED ANDESTE OF JURASSIC AGE WITH A 'THIN' LAYER OI; 0VE-N OF

, MOKELumE SOIL

0 I 8

se additional page3 when necessary. PAGE THREE - kctibe in detail the geology of the site of this mining operation. JURA-TRTAS METAVOWIC ROCK OF ne teiozorc EM rim TERTTARY DEPC~I~SOF KlNMARINE UNDIVIDED MIOCENE ON THE LDER SJ,OPES

, Nlneral comodity to be mined ~AVOLUWICF&XK , bcaerlbe the composition of the mineral meterialr to be mined (ore md ggl~e)and the.host rock. (briefly) * . NATIVE _ IN PUCE ROCK IGREENSTONE) e

. . Anticipstcd quantity of mineral materials to be mined: SEE tons SWPMm ,',,dS - .- 7%~srx d - : Anticipated total guantity of overburden to be mined: tons cu yds

htticipated total quantity of all earth materials to be mined or moved: tans; cu yds. If this is not the sum of nos. '-7 and 18 above, explain: SEE 3.JPPLFMENT - PAGE SIX

, Antictpated TIWC~BII depth of surface mining operafiian: 230 feet..

I Describe the mining method(s) to be used: (open-pit, solution extraction, dredge, square-set, block-caving., e tc. ) OpW PIT

. . , Describe the ldhg plan (briefly) r OPEN PIT MINING DRILLING, BLASTING AMD EXCAVATING IN PHASED BW' CONSnnr(JT1ON *

,&scribe all on-site processing, milling, beneficiatiun, md smelting activities, including the composition and disposal methods of all WLe 8nd ~liliTtg3~terials. ALL SOIL AND UNSUITABLE RCCK MAERIALS WILL BE USED FOR PLANT'SITE DEVELORENT OR STOCKPII.ED FOR FUTURE REHABILITATION WORK. SUITABLE RCCK WTLL BE CRUSHED SCREENED AND STOCKPILED READY FOR*SALE AM) -1. FRa4 'THE SITE.

Use ndditianal pages when necessei)..

. '4 1.1J MADOR COUNTY RECLAHATIt...*"lrr a FO~.' PACE FIvE recontouring (smoothing, shaping) of cut/ till slopes; sbbili=tion of mined slopes, w~stedumps, tailings, road cuts, and other excavations/embanlanent~; rehabilitation of pre-mining drainage affected the operation: tkamal, disposal, or uttlizatian of reridual equipment, a tmctures, refuse, e tc. z protecti~measure3 ' to ricure andvminimize precipitoU~ slopes, pits, shafts , or other hazardous conditions; control of cuntamfhts* protective measures aga!nst conternination of surface .md groundwater. Include our Regional Water Q~~lityConttol Waste Discharge Order Lber: b treatment of streambeds and strembanka to dank01 ehsion aird sedimentation reestabllsMent o Ivegetation and aquatic or wildlife habitats. . kscrik how reelmation of this site 'in this. mamer will a€feet future mining in thi3 area. IF QWIS EXCAVATED TO A LCmER Em AT ~R~~ MVLD HAVE TO BE MNED AMIN.

. Attach a map of the lands to be affected showing: , a. boundaries and topographic detafls of the sitel b. location of all streams, roads, railroads, und utility facilities within or adjacent to the site* em location of all proposed access roads to &! construct* in canducting the surface mining o eration(s)* d. indicate the source (VSCS, eec.!, series.(t.5 quadrangle, ete.), orientation (north arrow), and scale (I: 24000, etc.) of the map. . Attach detailed dia ams, maps, and cfosa-sections showin the nature md extent orthe proposed surface mining site incf uding the ge010 JNI~contours of the land (a) before mining and (b) after recP mtiun, . Statement of responsibility: ..- . I CLAUDE , the undersigned, hc=ebp subDit thts picm to the J!iz!nf.missian of hdor.Cmty and accept the responsibility for~recla~the mined lands in the mer '.'?'describedherel, and attached, formin the reclamation lan for the JACKSON V- mine (2 11, project, etc. P cum C. W CO, . (s) BY /l& Hs.HARRIS.:VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL WGf Dated ?WARY 13, 1983 . , 'Ihc foregoing reclamation plan was ap roved by the Arnahez Count). p-* cotd.s~i0n the 2Znd day ,Of February * t193~ . A ' . im,Amador Co 5,y Planning Comors~im Page Two - Jtcm 7 - Art.3~Affccted Phase 1 - 15 Acres (Ex is t ing Quarry) Phase LA- 20 Acrcs (Inc. Plant Site and Ponds) Phase 2 - 10 Acres Phase 3 - 10 Acrcs nase 4 - 10 Acres (Rehahilitation) Page Three - Itern 17 - Mincd Materials nase 1A- 5,000,000 Tons Phase 2 -10,000,000 Tons Phase 3 - 10,000,000 Tons

Phase LA- 150,000 cu.yd. Phase 2 - 150,000 cu.yd. Phase 3 - 150,000 cu.yd. Phase 4 - 200,000 cu.yd. (Rehabilitation) Page Four - Item 24 and Itcm 30 The existing "Greenstonc Qllnrry" opcratcs under conditional use pcrmit No. U.P.-81-7-1 Phase 1 includes the settling ponds, the processing plant and the first excavation area of the proposcd Claude C. Wood Co. operation. The ovcrburdcn from thc Phase 1 excavation area will be used to constn~ctpond levees, to level the plant site, to develop the stockpiling area or for other purposes in the initial site development, or stockpiled for future use in rchnbj1 itation. Phase 2 is the second excavation area. The overburden from the Phase 2 excav3tionwiTl be spread over the completed Phase 1A excavation area and will be revegitated. Phase 3 is the third cxcavatim area. Overburden from Phase 3 will be spread over the completed Phase 2 area and revegitated. Phase 4 is the final excavation and rehabilitation area and will include removal of all processing facilities which have no further use at this site and the final recontouring of the entire site. The ponds may remain if they can serve a useful purpose to the rehabilitated areas.

Note: There may be a Phase 3A which would complete the excavation of the ,existing quarry to bring it into conformity with the rest of the excavated areas. The storm water nmoff from the property will be diverted thmugh the settling ponds and then discharged into the presently existing stream channels during the life of the project. After completion of the rehabilitation the runoff will be less than pre-project runoff and will be carried by existing stream channels. Processing water will hc discharged into the settling ponds and recirculated to the processing plant. The Enstern limit of this quarry operation will be stcps or benches 20 fect wide scpriratcd by nearly verticle faces approximately 40 feet high. All bcnchcs will be covered with soil and planted prior to excavation of the next lower level. The rest of the perimeter of the quarry will be rounded and sloped to blend with adjacent terrain.

It is anticipated that ultimately this quarry will mrge with a quarry on the adjacent pmperty to the East thus eliminating the benched rise along the Eastern limit of this quarry. The presently projected schedule of operations contcrnplate beginning Phase 14 in 1983 beginning Phase 2 and ending Phase 1 about 1988. Beginning Phase 3 and ending Phase 2 about 1995. Ending Phase 3 about 2010 and completing Phase 4 within one year thereafter. raw w UI w From Jeff Welch To: Don Deem Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX J

Sample Blast Report 3/1/06 APC-Falrlield, CA 3872 Bltheil Lane, Bunker 3 Sulsun Clty, CA 94585

SERVlCE 'laat No.: 06-03 Blast type: Stone QuarryIStone Mine - DevelopmentlSie Cwtomec GEORGE REED, INC. Development (5 169O8-000) Datflmo: 03/01/06 1020 PWermit: JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY SHOT SERVICE Location: TOP CAP EAST SIDE

ENVIRONMENT Weather: Clear Terraln: Hilly Stwtun Name: GREEN STONE WINERY Compass Point: NW Temperature: 61 'F Stwtun Type: FOUNDATlON DlrectlordBearing: 307" Wlnd Fm: W Mahd Used: Lat./Long. Mstance: 2,195 ft WindVeloclty: 1-3 mph Blast bt&on(l.: 380 18' 32.800" N 1200 57' 35.600"W Sbuctum LaMong.: 38O 18' 45.900" N 1200 57' 57.600" W

LA YOUT No. d Holes: 83 Hole Depth: 21.0 R Burden: 6.0 R Water Depth: 2.0 ft No. d Rows: 3 Subdrilllng: R Spaclng: 6.0 R Stem Length: 8.0 ft Dluneter: 4.000 In Face Height: 21.0 ft Back Flll Depth: 0.0 R Stem Type: 34 MINUS MabUd: No Drilllng Angle: 0" Material Blasted: Greenstone

WEICHTS Scaled Dktanca Fedor Used:@ = 55 Electric: No Max. Allow. Chg. Wt per 8 ms wlo !bismograph: 1,592.7 Ib Vdume Produced: 672.0 yda FItin~Oovlce: Shot Shell Igniter Max. No. of HobPer 8 m Interval: 2.00 Wetght Produced: 1,512.0 t 0th~Mothod: Max. Wt. of Expl. Per 8 ms Interval: 96.2 Ib Powder Factor 1: 1.115 t/lb Mlg and Model: HR-3 EIT Max. Wt. of Explostve Per Hob 48.1 Ib PcwderFactor2: 2.0181btyd8 ~n~t~atl~ns.ttlngs: Actual ScaW Dktmw Factor: 223.79 Rock Density: 2.250 t/yda Serlu Real8tanC.a (ohms):

SEISMOGRAPH NO Data Seismograph Type: Date: Trfgger Level: inls dB Transverse: lnls Hz Tlme: Callbration Date: Vertical: inls Hz

P' -~nccrFrom Blast: R Callbration Signal: Longltudlnal: inls Hz ,tlm From Blast: Geophone Mln Freq: Hz Acwstlc: dB Readout Mlc. Mln Freq: Hz vector Sum: inls Location: LatRong.: Reader and Flrrn: Analyst and Flnn: Installer and Flnn: AUSTIN CREW Blast Occurred Other Than Scheduled Time: No Misfire Occurred: No Protecth Cover: LOADER ...... Last Name Flrst Name Llcense Number CerMcation In Charge Tied In Chk. Tle-In GRANGER JEREME No Yes Yes MCNULTY MIKE 8666lCA Yes Yes Yes SOUZA RUSSELL No Yes No ...... Other crew members company In Charge Tied In Chk. Tle-ln DANNY VUYOVICH george reed inc No No No johnHOLBERT george reed inc No No

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES Total Welght of Explosives (Include Primem): 1,356.00 Ib Product ~crfptfon QuanUty Welght (lb) Product Description Quantity Welght (Ib) 1000' SHOCK*STAR STD 3.0 ea 0.000 Austinite 15 50# Paper Valve Per Bag 10.0 bg 500.000 20' SHOCK'STAR Quick Relay 17 ms 33.0 ea 0.000 Emulex 927 2 x 16-Stk 352.0 st 800.000 24' SHOCK'STAR Dual-Delay 251500 27.0 ea 0.000 Orange Cap Boosters 56.0 ea 56.000 30' SHOCK'STAR In-Hole 500 ms 89.0 ea 0.000 Blast Service-CertifBlaster (Calif) 1.0 ea 0.000 Fuel Surcharge-Transportation 3.0% 1.0 ea 0.000

Sbnature of Blaster in Charge ~~rntID:rua)7118M-120 " 5.m.m 03/14/06 15:51 Page: 1 of 4 APC-FairReld, CA 3872 BMilam, Bunker 3 Suisun City, CA 94586 Psmlttee: GEORGE REED, SHOT SERVICE 'last No.: 06-03 Blast type: Stone QuanytStone Mine - De~elopmentl~te CmGEORGE REED, INC. Development (5 169o8-000) Datr/rmm: 03/01/08 10:30 PWennn: JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY SHOT SERVICE Ldm: TOP CAP EAST SIDE ------ComnuntdExpIanations DriU Log: Yes

Genonl Comnme-: 27 HOLES AT 21 FT DOUBLE PRIME 6HOLES WERE TRIPLE PRIMED, 56 EOULDER HOLES

Blart ID: nr00711602-120 V 5.*.m 03/14/06 15:51 Page: 2 of 4 l9 ~Lm*l027 lr lb 21 Stk- Typo A SllE DEVELOPMENT (48.1 tb)

0.1

Il 121 I

I I 16;

' 34MlNUS 3 8' 20- ,

SWBEHCH HoleDelay Deckl HoleDelay Deckl HoleDelay Deckl HoleDelay Deckl HoleDelay Deckl HoleDelay Deckl 1 0 500 14 42 542 27 326 826 40 0 500 53 0 500 66 0 500 20 500 15 67 567 28 0 500 41 0 500 54 0 500 67 0 500 3 25 525 16 92 592 29 0 500 42 0 500 55 0 500 68 0 500 4 50 550 17 117 617 300 500 43 0 500 56 0 500 69 0 500 Typo B BOULDERS(1 0 b) 5 75 575 18 142 642 31 0 500 44 0 500 57 0 500 70 0 500 6 100 600 19 167 667 32 0 500 45 0 500 58 0 500 71 0 500 7 125 625 20 192 692 33 0 500 46 0 500 59 0 500 72 0 500 8 150 650 21 217 717 340 500 47 0 500 600 500 73 0 500 9 175 675 22 242 742 35 0 500 48 0 500 61 0 500 74 0 500 10 200 700 23 267 767 36 0 500 49 0 500 62 0 500 75 0 500 11 167 667 24 234 734 37 0 500 500 500 63 0 500 76 0 500 12 192 692 25 259 759 38 0 500 51 0 500 64 0 500 n o 500 13 217 717 26 284 784 39 0 500 52 0 500 65 0 500 78 0 500

NPS wS-P(rrrtRonaaw OS-O~~IQ- Ppl3d4

AUSTIN POWDER COMPANY DRAY TICKET

7ellvsred To: Delivered From: "ustomer: GEORGE REED, INC. Location: APC-Fairfield, CA Plt (Pennlt): JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY (SHOT Address: 3872 Bithell Lane, Bunker 3 SERVICE) Suisun City, CA 94585 ela@tNo. (Type): 06-03 (DevelopmentISite Development) ~ocrtlon: TOP CAP #1 SOUTH SIDE Telephone: 707-429-6502 Datfllmo: 03/01/2006 10:30 Federal Llc. No.: 9CA09952 Cult Ref.: 516908-000 Federal Llc. No.: P.O. Number: Dray Number: 1 18071 16

Code Product Description DatelShift Code Quantity UIM 01020 30' SHOCK*STAR In-Hole 500 ms 17MY05Sl 89.0 EA 01291 1000' SHOCK*STAR STD 02SE05Sl 3.0 EA 0 1488 20' SHOCK*STAR Quick Relay 17 ms 18MY05S1 33.0 EA 05192 Orange Cap Boosters 15SE05E2 56.0 EA 10750 24' SHOCK*STAR Dual-Delay 251500 05SE05S1 27.0 EA 20037 Emulex 927 2 x 16-Stk 30AU05J1 352.0 ST 20237 Austinite 15 50# Paper Valve Per Bag 30AU05J1 10.0 BG A0076 Blast Sewice-Certif.Blaster (Calif) 1.0 EA AFT30 Fuel Surcharge-Transportation 3.0% 1.0 EA

Hand write date shift codes where necessary. Customer signed copy to be retained by Austin Powder. , . b~la\maCusttmer Authorized Signature ,/ 3~112008 2:46 pm Page 1 of 1 Jackson Valley Quany Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX K

Reclamation Plan View & Cross Sections

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion George Reed Inc

APPENDIX L

Reclamation Bond Estimates APPENDIX L REClAMATlON COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET FOR DETERMINING FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

Part L.l SHORT TERM CONCURRENT RECLAMATION BOI AREA 1 Appendlx K Exhlblt R3 DESCRIPTION Labor Equipment Materials

DWD Placement 2lAcre/l3acres $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 Scarification/Tillage 2 acres $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00

Subtotal $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $1,200.00

Insurance @ 1.5% $60.00 $52.50 $18.00 Contract Administration @15O/6 WOO.00 $525.00 $180.00 Bond (performance & payment @1.5%) $60.00 $52.50 $18.00 Profit 10% $400.00 $350.00 $120.00

Subsection TOTAL $5,120.00 $4,480.00 $1,538.00

Grand Total Short Term Bond $11,136.00

Part L.2 Long TERM COMPLETION RECLAMATION BOND AREA 2 Appendlx K Exhlbit R3 DESCRIPTION Labor Equlpment Materials

Seeding 25 acres Fertilizing 25 acres

Subtotal $2,200.00 $500.00 $1,405.00

Insurance @ 1.5% $33.00 $7.50 $21.08 Contract Administration @15% $330.00 $75.00 $210.75 Bond (performance & payment @1.5%) $33.00 $7.50 $21.08 Profit 10% $220.00 $50.00 $140.50

Subsection TOTAL $2,816.00 $640.00 $1,798.40

Grand Total Long Term Bond $5,254.40

Appendix C Traffic Impact Study

MEMORANDUM

TO • Nathan Lishman, Planner I Amador County Planning Department

FROM • Jack Hutchison, P.E. Brian Grattidge, Project Manager

DATE • April 4, 2010

SUBJECT • Responses to Agency Comments at March 3, 2010 Meeting (and via email after that meeting) on the Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Jackson Valley Quarry Use Permit Expansion Project

We have revised the TIS per comments by County PWA, ACTC, and Caltrans-District 10, except as noted below.

David Robinson (Fehr and Peers) – Comments contained in a March 3, 2010 email (forwarded by ACTC in a March 8, 2010 email):

Page 18 (Last Paragraph) – Comment: This discussion seems to contradict the discussion on Page 31 (last paragraph added text in blue). On Page 31, the text emphasizes the accident rate and not the number of collisions. On Page 18, the emphasis is on the number collisions and not the rate. Response: The discussion about collisions on these pages are not contradictory. On Page 18 (Setting), the TIS discusses the number of collisions on Jackson Valley Road (West) to put the collision rate in a context that ESA’s traffic engineer believes to be relevant to one’s understanding of the situation. On Page 31 (Impacts), the project’s potential effect on collision rates is the proper basis for impact determination, in the opinion of the TIS author, and therefore are emphasized.

Page 31 (Last Paragraph) – Comment: The discussion is not clear. Response: ESA’s traffic engineer respectfully disagrees with the comment.

Page 25 (1st Paragraph) – Comment: The near-term “no project” scenario only includes the Wildflower Subdivision. No approved projects in the Martel area are included. Response: It was agreed at the March 3, 2010 meeting that the Approved Project scenario in the TIS is the proper one.

Page 33 (5th Paragraph) – Comment: County and Caltrans should confirm that the Traffic Index significance criteria is appropriate. Response: The threshold of significance used for the project’s effect on roadway wear and tear has been used by ESA’s traffic engineer for EIRs in other jurisdictions, and it is on that basis that it is being used for this TIS. Participants at the March 3, 2010 meeting accepted that explanation.

Page 34 (3rd Paragraph) – Comment: The text identifies that segments of SR 88 have major structural damage. However, no mitigation is identified for improvements to SR 88. Response: The referenced text refers to existing conditions reported in the 2007 Pavement Conditions Survey, compiled by Caltrans District 10. No mitigation is required for structural improvements to SR 88 because the proposed project’s effect on those existing conditions is considered less than significant. ______

2 Final

JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT

Transportation Impact Study

PreparedPrepared for April 2010April 2010

Amador County Planning Department

Amador County Transportation & Public Works Department

Amador County Transportation Commission

California Department of Transportation – District 10

Final

JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT

Transportation Impact Study

PreparedPrepared for April 2010April 2010

Amador County Planning Department

Amador County Transportation & Public Works Department

Amador County Transportation Commission

California Department of Transportation – District 10

225 Bush Street Suite 1700Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 941049410494104 415.896.415.896.415.896.59415.896.59595900000000 www.esassoc.com

Los Angeles

OaklandOaklandOakland PetalumaPetalumaPetaluma

PortlandPortlandPortland

Sacramento San DiegoSan Diego

SeattleSeattleSeattle TampaTampaTampa

Woodland Hills

207443207443207443

JACKSON VALLEY QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / RECOMMENDATIONS 4

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS 11

A. Existing Roadway System 11 B. Existing Traffic Volumes 11 C. Level of Service Methodology 13 D. Current Traffic Conditions 18 E. Current Traffic Safety Conditions 18 F. Alternative Transportation Conditions 21

IV. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 22

A. Project Description 22 B. Project Trip Generation 22 C. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 23

V. NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS 25

A. Background 25 B. Near-Term Transportation System Improvements 25 C. Near-Term Intersection Impacts 25 D. Near-Term Roadway Impacts 27 E. Near-Term Impacts to Traffic Safety 31 F. Near-Term Impacts to Alternative Transportation 33 G. Near-Term Impacts to Roadway Structural Conditions 33

VI. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS 36

A. Background 36 B. Cumulative Transportation System Improvements 36 C. Cumulative Intersection Impacts 36 D. Cumulative Roadway Impacts 41 E. Cumulative Impacts to Traffic Safety 41

VII. MITIGATION MEASURES 43

A. Near-Term Plus Project Conditions 44 B. Cumulative (2025) With Project Conditions 44

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project ii ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

APPENDICES Appendix A – Traffic Count Data Appendix B – Intersection Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix C – Project Impacts/Mitigation Measures (Figure and Summary Table) Appendix D – Project Percent Contribution to Cumulative Traffic Volumes Appendix E –Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Regional Locator Map 2 2. Project Location (Aerial) 3 3. Study Area 12 4. Lane Configurations at Study Intersections 14 5. Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Existing Conditions) 15 6. Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Project Trips) 24 7. Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Near-Term Baseline Conditions) 28 8. Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Near-Term Base Plus Project Conditions) 29 9. Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Cumulative Baseline Conditions) 37 10. Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Cumulative Base Plus Project Conditions) 38

LIST OF TABLES

1. Intersection Level of Service Definitions 16 2. Roadway Level of Service Threshold Volumes 17 3. Existing Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service 19 4. Existing Daily Roadway Levels of Service 19 5. Collision History on Major Roadways in Project Area 20 6. Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates 22 7. Project Trip Distribution Patterns 23 8. Near-Term Plus Project Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service 30 9. Near-Term Plus Project Daily Roadway Levels of Service 32 10. Calculated Traffic Index for Project Haul Routes 34 11. Cumulative Plus Project Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service 39 12. Cumulative Plus Project Daily Roadway Levels of Service 42

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project iii ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 I. INTRODUCTION

This document has been prepared by Environmental Science Associates for Amador County to evaluate the potential traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed expansion of the Jackson Valley Quarry mining operation onto an adjacent parcel. The project applicant’s objectives for the proposed project include the following: provide for a continued annual production level of approximately 500,000 tons with a proposed expansion to 2,000,000 tons per year; continue to have 4 to 12 employees per shift working at the site; and provide for approximately 25 years of operation. The existing property and proposed expansion areas are on the south side of State Route 88 (SR 88) east of the most westerly junction of Jackson Valley Road and SR 88 in the Ione area of Amador County (see Figures 1 and 2). This document serves as a technical resource for the traffic/transportation section of the environmental evaluation prepared to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Study Scope. This traffic impact study was prepared, in accordance with requirements of the Amador County Department of Public Works, the Amador County Transportation Commission, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to adequately address potential impacts associated with the project-generated traffic volumes in the context of operational considerations (at intersections and on road segments), traffic safety concerns, and degradation to the roadways structural sections. [The scope and study area of the 2006 Prism final traffic impact study prepared for the project applicant has been expanded on the basis of agency comments.]

The following analysis scenarios are evaluated in the study1:

1. Existing (2008) Conditions 2. Near-Term Baseline Conditions (Existing plus Approved Developments) 3. Near-Term Baseline Plus Proposed Project Conditions 4. Cumulative (2025) Baseline Conditions (without Project) 5. Cumulative (2025) Baseline Plus Proposed Project Conditions

Cumulative conditions are assessed herein using the future no-project traffic volumes from the Wicklow Way Subdivision Traffic Impact Study (which came from the cumulative future regional transportation model as updated for that TIS), and traffic volumes generated by the Wicklow Way Subdivision, the Buena Vista Casino, and the Plymouth Casino. Some study locations included in this TIS were not included in the Wicklow Way Subdivision TIS, and traffic volumes were extended to those locations as needed.

1 The Amador County guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies stipulates that two additional scenarios are to be analyzed, but those scenarios (Near-term Baseline Plus Pending Projects, and Near-term Baseline Plus Pending Projects Plus Proposed Project) do not apply in this case because there are no pending projects (proposed but not approved) in the study area.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 1 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 AMADOR COUNTY

IONE

124 104

SACRAMENTO

B u e n a PROJECT LOCATION V i s

t a

R

o

a Ja d ck so n V alle y Road 88

AMADOR Pardee SAN JOAQUIN Reservoir

Camanche Reservoir

CALAVERAS

02

Miles

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project EIR . 207443 SOURCE: DeLorme Street Atlas USA, 2000; and ESA, 2008 Figure 1 Regional Locator Map . 207443 Figure 2 Project Location

AD

E

I LAN TIN

MARTIN LANE MARTIN MAR VALLEY ROAD

ON VALLEY RO Quarry Expansion Project EIR Valley Jackson S

JACKJACKS SITE ACCESS 88

1600

D D A A O O R R N N O O

T T

K K

C C

O O

T T

S S

D D

L L

O O Feet 0 Project Site Quarry Existing Jackson Valley SOURCE: NAIP, 2006; Amador County, 2007; and ESA, 2008 2007; Amador County, 2006; NAIP, SOURCE:

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / RECOMMENDATIONS

Existing Conditions. Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 88, a two- to three-lane highway in the vicinity of the proposed project, with at-grade intersections with other State highways (SR 12, SR 124, and SR 104) and local roads. These intersections are unsignalized (with stop signs on the side streets), except at the intersections of SR 88 / SR 12 and SR 88 / Ridge Road, which are signalized. SR 88 merges with SR 12 from Clements westward to east of Lodi, with SR 104 from Jackson Valley Road (East) eastward to Ridge Road, and with SR 49 from south of Martell Road to Peek Street in Jackson.

In the project vicinity, SR 12 has two travel lanes, with an eastbound left-turn lane at its signalized intersection with SR 88 near Clements. SR 124 is a two-lane rural road that extends from SR 88 north through Ione to SR 49. Two-lane SR 104 connects SR 99 near Galt to the project area.

Jackson Valley Road connects with SR 88 in two locations, the western junction about 0.5-mile northwest of the project site entrance, and the eastern junction at the intersection of SR 88 and SR 104. The section between the project site and SR 88 is about 24 feet wide with no shoulders; there is a 10-ton weight limit past the quarry entrance.

Eight intersections and ten roadway segments in the project area were selected for the assessment of potential traffic impacts. Existing traffic volumes at the study locations were collected in June- July 2008. To quantitatively evaluate traffic conditions and to provide a basis for comparison of operating conditions with and without project-generated traffic, Levels of Service (LOS) were determine at study area intersections and on study area roadway segments. LOS are calculated for intersections using methodologies contained in the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. A traffic signal warrant evaluation was conducted for unsignalized study intersections with specific movements or approaches that fail to meet a minimum LOS threshold. The LOS method for roadway segments is based on the methodology in the 2004 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan Update.

All of the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service during both analysis peak hours. All but one of the study roadway segments are currently operating at an acceptable level of service, the exception being State Route 88 between Eggiman Lane and State Route 104 (East Junction).

Three years of collision records (2005-2007) were obtained from the California Highway Patrol for SR 88, Jackson Valley Road (West), and Ridge Road (SR 104). All the study roadway segments have overall accident rates below statewide and County averages for two-lane roads in rural settings, except Jackson Valley Road (West). Although the accident rate is higher than expected on Jackson Valley Road, the absolute number of accidents is relative low, and of note, all but one of the eight collisions over the three-year period involved a single vehicle. There was a single accident involving a truck on Jackson Valley Road over the three-year period.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 4 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 There is limited public transit service in the project area. Amador Rapid Transit System (ARTS) provides fixed-route / demand responsive bus service. As in most rural areas, the existing road system in the project area has been created with very limited facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. However, the character of quarry operations does not generate demand for such transit service, or for bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Project Characteristics. The proposed project expansion would allow quarry production to gradually expand from an annual production level of approximately 500,000 tons to 2,000,000 tons per year over an approximately 25-year period; no phasing is anticipated for this property. The quarry would continue to have 4 to 12 employees per shift working at the site.

The average production rate would increase by about 6,000 tons per day, generating about 273 net new truck loads, or 546 net new one-way truck trips. Project-generated truck trips during the a.m. peak hour would average about 60 net new one-way truck trips. Few, if any, truck trips would occur during the p.m. peak-period commute.

Near-Term Conditions

Other Projects. In addition to the proposed project, the one approved development project that would add traffic to the project area road network is the Wildflower Subdivision (north of SR 88 in Ione), which would generate about 2,650 daily trips, 208 trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 130 trips during the midday hour. To present a conservative assessment of impacts under the Near-Term scenario, no transportation system improvements that the Wildflower Subdivision project could be required to implement or help fund were assumed.

Significance criteria (in the Amador County Transportation Commission’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines) are as follows:

Signalized intersections are subject to the following LOS operating thresholds:

1. State Route 12 at State Route 88 (LOS C) 7. SR 88 at Ridge Road / SR 104 (LOS D) 8. Ridge Road (SR 104) / SR 49 (LOS D)

Unsignalized intersections are subject to the following LOS operating thresholds:

2. SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road –West (LOS C) 3. SR 88 at Martin Lane (LOS C) 4. SR 88 at SR 124 (LOS C) 5. SR 88 at Buena Vista Road (LOS C) 6. SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road – East (LOS C)

Road segments are subject to the following LOS operating thresholds:

A. State Route 12 west of State Route 88 (LOS C) B. SR 88 between SR 12 and Jackson Valley Road (west) (LOS C)

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 5 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 C. SR 88 between Jackson Valley Road (west) and SR 124 (LOS C) D. SR 88 between SR 124 and Buena Vista Road (LOS C) E. SR 88 between Buena Vista Road and SR 104 (west junction) (LOS C) F. SR 88 between SR 104 (west junction) and the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Road) (LOS D) G. SR 88 between the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Road) and Eggiman Lane (LOS D) H. SR 88 between Eggiman Lane and SR 104 (east junction) (LOS D) I. SR 88 between SR 104 (east junction) and SR 49 (LOS D) J. Jackson Valley Road (west) between SR 88 and the quarry access (LOS C)

Traffic Impacts. Project impacts were identified by comparing the LOS results under Near-Term plus Project conditions to those under Near-Term Base conditions. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant near-term impact on traffic operating conditions at all of the study intersections and road segments. All but one of the study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS during both the a.m. and midday peak hours. The southbound (stop-sign controlled) side street approach to SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) would operate at an unacceptable LOS D during the midday peak hour, but the addition of project traffic would increase the average vehicle delay by less than the five-second threshold of significance. The addition of traffic generated by the proposed project would not cause the roadway levels of service to worsen, and would not increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.05 or more on the road segments operating at an unacceptable LOS under near-term baseline (without project) conditions.

Traffic Safety Impacts. The project would neither alter the physical configuration of the existing roadway network, nor introduce unsafe design features. Available sight distance for motorists wishing to turn from Jackson Valley Road (West) onto SR 88 would be sufficient. In addition, the project would cause a less-than-substantial change to the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream on area roadways. However, the existing deceleration lane for eastbound SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West) is not up to Caltrans standards, and truck drivers likely are beginning to decelerate in the through lane, creating a potential traffic safety hazard. On the basis of General Plan Policy 1B(15), which states that the County “may require that a developer construct improvements needed to address traffic congestion or safety concerns prior to or coincidental with project occupancy”, the project impact is considered significant.

Alternative Transportation Impacts. The current quarry (and the proposed changes to its operations) does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and is not inconsistent with planned bicycle/pedestrian/transit facilities within the study area. Given the nature of quarry operations, it is reasonable to expect that the project would not generate demand for transit service or pedestrian/bicycle facilities. There would be no impact.

Wear-and-Tear Impacts. Truck trips generated by the project would cause incremental damage and wear to roadway pavement surfaces along the haul routes. The capability of a roadway to handle a traffic load is measured by deflection testing, coring, and visual condition surveys of the road, as well as a roadway’s traffic index (TI) – a logarithm-based scale that indicates the ability of the

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 6 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 of the pavement structure to support the repetitive wheel and axle loads of large trucks. The estimated TI for current and project conditions was calculated for roadway segments on the project haul routes in accordance with the procedures specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. The project would increase the estimated TI for state highways, but by no more than 1.0 on SR 12, and no more than 0.5 on SR 88 (a less-than-significant impact). The project-generated increase in truck traffic would have a significant impact on the structural integrity of Jackson Valley Road from the Quarry entrance northwestward to SR 88.

Mitigation Measures.

Measure 1: Construct an eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection of SR 88 and Jackson Valley Road (West), in accordance with Caltrans standards (for deceleration lane length and storage length).

Measure 2: Reconstruct Jackson Valley Road (West) from the quarry access northwest to SR 88, in accordance with Amador County standards.

Measure 3: The quarry operator shall enter into a new long-term maintenance agreement with Amador County to maintain Jackson Valley Road (West) between the quarry access and SR 88.

Cumulative (2025) Conditions.

Traffic volume forecasts from the Amador County travel demand forecasting model, as updated for the Wicklow Way Subdivision traffic impact analysis, served as the baseline cumulative condition for the study locations in Amador County. The intersection of SR 88 / SR 12 (in San Joaquin County) is not included in the Amador County model, and cumulative traffic volumes for that intersection were derived from the Plymouth Casino traffic study. Traffic that would be generated by the Buena Vista Casino and Plymouth Casino was manually added on top of that baseline cumulative condition, resulting in the Cumulative (2025) Baseline for this analysis.

Assumed road improvements include the following (fully funded) Tier 1 projects in the 2004 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan:

• At the SR 104 (Ridge Road) / SR 49 intersection, provision of a dedicated right-turn lane on all approaches, and construction of a second northbound through lane. • Lower Ridge Road (SR 104) between SR 49 and SR 88, lane widening, shoulder widening, as well as turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes at driveway and roadway connections. • Completion of the SR 49 bypass project.

Traffic Impacts (Intersections). Based on the significance criteria, the proposed project would have a significant cumulative impact on traffic operating conditions at the following intersections:

#1 State Route 12 at State Route 88 – Project traffic would degrade the service level from an unacceptable LOS D to LOS E conditions during the AM peak hour.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 7 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 #2 State Route 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West) – Project traffic would degrade the service level on the northbound (stop-sign controlled) approach from an unacceptable LOS D to LOS F during the AM peak hour, and would worsen the prevailing unacceptable LOS F conditions during the midday peak hour (increasing the average vehicle delay by more than the five-second threshold of significance). This intersection is projected to meet the peak-hour volume warrant for traffic signal installation.

#5 State Route 88 at Buena Vista Road – Project traffic would worsen the prevailing unacceptable LOS F on the southbound (stop-sign controlled) approach during both the AM and midday peak hours (increasing the average vehicle delay in each case by more than the five-second threshold of significance). This intersection is projected to meet the peak-hour volume warrant for traffic signal installation under midday peak-hour conditions.

#6 State Route 88 at State Route 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) – Project traffic would worsen the prevailing unacceptable LOS F on the southbound (stop-sign controlled) SR 104 approach during both the AM and midday peak hours (increasing the average vehicle delay in each case by more than the five-second threshold of significance). This intersection is projected to meet the peak-hour volume warrant for traffic signal installation.

Traffic Impacts (Roadways). All of the study road segments, except for Jackson Valley Road, are projected to operate at an unacceptable (deficient) level of service under both Cumulative Baseline and Cumulative Base Plus Project conditions. Based on the significance criteria, however, the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project would neither cause the roadway levels of service to worsen, nor increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.05 or more on the road segments operating at an unacceptable LOS under cumulative baseline (without project) conditions, and would have a less-than-significant impact.

Traffic Safety Impacts. The proposed project would not alter the physical configuration of the existing roadway network serving the area, and would not introduce unsafe design features. The existing eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection of SR 88 and Jackson Valley Road (West) would be reconstructed (fully funded by the project applicant), in accordance with Caltrans standards, mitigating the project’s Near Term significant traffic safety impact (Measure 1). Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Alternative Transportation Impacts. Given the nature of quarry operations, it is reasonable to expect that the project would not generate demand for transit service or pedestrian/bicycle facilities. The cumulative impact to alternative transportation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures.

Measure 4: At the intersection of SR 88 / SR 12 (#1), widen the westbound SR 12 approach to provide a separate 100-foot-long right-turn lane, and modify the signal to provide overlap phasing for southbound right turns during protected eastbound left-turn phase.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 8 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 1.9% and 1.6% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS C during both the AM and midday peak hours. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement. However, as there is no assurance that this improvement would be implemented even with a fair-share contribution, and because it is not certain whether the above improvement could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 4 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Measure 5: At the intersection of SR 88 and Jackson Valley Road [West] (#2), install traffic signals, and associated geometric improvements (such as deceleration and turning lanes).

The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 7.6% and 5.2% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 (which is consistent with the 2004 Amador County RTP as a fundable (“Tier 1”) project, MINOR 12) would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS B during both the AM and midday peak hours. The Buena Vista Casino Final TEIR identified measures (signalization and turn lane) to mitigate the proposed casino’s significant impact, but those mitigation measures are not included in the final ISA, and therefore, the Buena Vista Rancheria can not be assumed to contribute to the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement. However, full funding is not assured, and for that reason and because it is not certain whether the above improvements could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 5 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Measure 6: At the intersection of SR 88 and Buena Vista Road (#5), install traffic signals, and associated geometric improvements.

The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 1.7% and 1.0% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 (which is consistent with the 2004 Amador County RTP as a fundable (“Tier 1”) project, MINOR 13) would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS C or better during both the AM and midday peak hours. The final ISA between Amador County and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians requires the Rancheria to fully fund installation of traffic signals and associated lane improvements at this intersection at the time when such improvements are required by Caltrans. However, the exact timing of implementation of this improvement has not been established. If the Buena Vista Casino project were to install traffic signals and lane improvements at the intersection of SR 88 and Buena Vista Road prior to the start of quarry operations on the proposed expansion site, then the Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion project’s impact would be less than significant. However, if development of the

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 9 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 Buena Vista Casino project were to lag behind, and the intersection of SR 88 and Buena Vista Road was unsignalized when mining were to begin on the proposed expansion site, then the project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement. Because full funding is not assured, and because it is not certain whether the above improvements could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 6 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Measure 7: At the intersection of SR 88 and SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road [East] (#6), install traffic signals, and associated geometric improvements.

The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 0.9% and 0.6% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour, and would improve the midday peak-hour service level to LOS E. Although the midday peak-hour level of service would be worse than the LOS C standard, the LOS E conditions would be better than under the Cumulative Baseline LOS F conditions, thereby mitigating the project’s impact. The Buena Vista Casino Final TEIR identified measures (signalization and turn lane) to mitigate the proposed casino’s significant impact, but those mitigation measures are not included in the final ISA, and therefore, the Buena Vista Rancheria can not be assumed to contribute to the implementation of Mitigation Measure 7. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement. However, as there is no assurance that this improvement would be implemented even with a fair-share contribution, and because it is not certain whether the above improvements could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 7 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 10 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS

This report section describes physical and traffic characteristics of the roadways that serve the project site. The study area for the traffic and circulation analysis is illustrated on Figure 3.

A. EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM

Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 88, which aligns generally southwest- northeast, from Stockton to the Nevada border. In the vicinity of the proposed project, SR 88 is a two- to three-lane highway (there are segments with two lanes in either the eastbound or westbound direction) with at-grade intersections with other State highways (SR 12, SR 124, and SR 104) and local roads. These intersections are unsignalized (with stop signs on the side streets), except at the intersections of SR 88 / SR 12 and SR 88 / Ridge Road, which are signalized. SR 88 merges with SR 12 from Clements westward to east of Lodi, with SR 104 from Jackson Valley Road (East) eastward to Ridge Road, and with SR 49 from south of Martell Road to Peek Street in Jackson.

As stated above State Route 12 merges with SR 88 east of Lodi to Clements, continuing east to SR 49 just north of San Andreas. In the project vicinity, SR 12 has two travel lanes, with an eastbound left-turn lane at its signalized intersection with SR 88 near Clements. SR 124 is a two- lane rural road that extends from SR 88 north through Ione to SR 49. Two-lane SR 104 connects SR 99 near Galt to the project area (passing through Ione and merging with SR 88 until Ridge Road, as described above, where it splits off to continue through Sutter Hill).

Jackson Valley Road connects with SR 88 in two locations, the western junction about 0.5-mile northwest of the project site entrance, and the eastern junction at the intersection of SR 88 and SR 104. The section between the project site and SR 88 is about 24 feet wide with no shoulders; there is a 10-ton weight limit past the quarry entrance.

B. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The following eight intersections and ten roadway segments in the project area were selected for the assessment of potential traffic impacts:

− Intersections 1. State Route 12 at State Route 88 (signalized) 2. SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road –West (side-street stop controlled) 3. SR 88 at Martin Lane (side-street stop controlled) 4. SR 88 at SR 124 (side-street stop controlled) 5. SR 88 at Buena Vista Road (side-street stop controlled) 6. SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road – East (side-street stop controlled) 7. SR 88 at Ridge Road / SR 104 (signalized) 8. Ridge Road (SR 104) / SR 49 (signalized)

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 11 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 SOURCE: ESA Study RoadSegments Study Intersections NORTH A Liberty

SR88 1

SR12

San Joaquin County Amador County B 2 J C 3

Martin

ckson Valley ckson Ja

4

124 D SR 5

E SR104 Buena Vista Buena 6 F

Brook Ranch G

SR88 Eggiman H Jackson Valley QuarryExpansion.207443 7

SR104

8 I SR49 Study Area Figure 3 − Roadway Segments A. State Route 12 west of State Route 88 B. SR 88 between SR 12 and Jackson Valley Road (west) C. SR 88 between Jackson Valley Road (west) and SR 124 D. SR 88 between SR 124 and Buena Vista Road E. SR 88 between Buena Vista Road and SR 104 (west junction) F. SR 88 between SR 104 (west junction) and the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Road) G. SR 88 between the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Road) and Eggiman Lane H. SR 88 between Eggiman Lane and SR 104 (east junction) I. SR 88 between SR 104 (east junction) and SR 49 J. Jackson Valley Road (west) between SR 88 and the quarry access

Existing traffic volumes at the above-listed study locations were collected in June-July 2008.2 See Figure 4 for the intersection lane configurations, and Figure 5 for existing intersection volumes.

C. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY

To quantitatively evaluate traffic conditions and to provide a basis for comparison of operating conditions with and without project-generated traffic, Levels of Service were determine at study area intersections and on study area roadway segments. Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measure of traffic flow whereby letter grades LOS A through LOS F are assigned to the operation of various components of the circulation system (e.g., intersections and roadways). LOS A represents the best operating conditions, while LOS F is the worst.

Levels of Service are calculated for different intersection control types (signalized and unsignalized) using the applicable methodology contained in the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with the Synchro computer analysis software. Characteristics associated with the various LOS for intersections are presented in Table 1.

Signalized Intersections. The level of service calculation methodology for signalized intersections is based on the average control delay per vehicle for the overall intersection. Factors affected LOS include lane geometries and signal timing.

Unsignalized Intersections. The level of service calculation methodology for unsignalized intersections is based on the control delay for the stop-controlled movement(s) expressed in seconds per vehicle. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Like signalized analyses, the LOS method for all-way stop-control intersections is based on delay per vehicle for the overall intersection. However, for

2 Automatic machine counts were conducted on roadway segments for 72 hours (Tuesday through Thursday). Manual traffic turning movement counts were conducted at intersections on midweek days from 5:30 to 7:30 a.m., and from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. These two-hour periods were selected on the basis of the temporal distribution of road volumes to capture the a.m. peak-hour volumes and volumes during a second analysis period with quarry traffic. A recent (March 2009) machine count on SR 88 west of Jackson Valley Road-West is consistent with the volumes collected in June 2008.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 13 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 8

SR49

SR104 Eggiman I 7 ook Ranch H Br G

F SR88 SR124 SR104

E Amador County San Joaquin County 5 6 4 3 C Buena Vista 2 D

J Martin B Jackson Valley

Liberty

SR88

1 SR12

NORTH A

1 Signal 2 Stop Signs on 3 Stop Sign 4 Stop Sign Jackson Valley on Martin on SR 124 SR88 SR 124

SR12 SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 Martin Jackson Vly

Stop Signs on Stop Signs Signal Signal 5 Buena Vista 6 on SR 104 7 8 SR 104 SR 104

SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 104

Buena Vista Jackson Vly SR 49

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion . 207443 SOURCE: ESA Figure 4 Lane Configurations at Study Intersections 8

SR49

SR104 Eggiman I 7 H Brook Ranch G

F SR88 SR124 SR104

E Amador County San Joaquin County 5 6 4 3 C Buena Vista 2 D

J Martin B Jackson Valley

Liberty

SR88

1 SR12

NORTH A

1 Signal 2 Stop Signs on 3 Stop Sign 4 Stop Sign Jackson Valley on Martin on SR 124

SR88 (241) (64) (3) (1) (1) 0(3) (76) (1) 305 71 4 3 4 252(216) 238(210) 101 1 SR 124 78(73) 4(5) 0(4) 15(26) SR12 257(175) SR 88 152(160) SR 88 (240)173 SR 88 (236)179 (7)11 (0)1 (156)116 24 6 5 0 44 (58)101 (238)177 (36) (3) (2) (2) (20) (34)47 (202)116 Martin Jackson Vly

Stop Signs on Stop Signs Signal Signal 5 Buena Vista 6 on SR 104 7 8

(0) (36) (1) 4(5) (2) (4) (126) 148(138) (176) (37) (36) (475) (82) 117(100) SR 104 1 20 2 154(160) 1 18 121 SR 104 164(190) 184 8 41 225 73 150(127) 15(41) 8(28) 25(34) 116(206) 157(252) SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 104

(1)1 (10)2 1 2 44 (201)145 (58)21 13 152 56 (1) (9) (54) (49) (374) (208) (200)114 1 73 42 (254)154 (289)164 (151)88 (2)2 (5) (50) (65) (2)2 (53)13 Buena Vista Jackson Vly SR 49

XXX(XXX) AM(Midday) Volumes Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion . 207443 SOURCE: ESA Figure 5 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Existing Conditions) TABLE 1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS

LOS Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersection Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single signal cycle Little or no traffic delay A Delay < 10.0 sec. per vehicle Delay < 10.0 seconds per vehicle Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single signal cycle Short traffic delays B Delay >10.0 and < 20.0 sec. per vehicle Delay >10.0 and < 15.0 sec. per vehicle Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches Average traffic delays C Delay >20.0 and <35.0 sec. per vehicle Delay >15.0 and < 25.0 sec. per vehicle Substantial congestion on critical approaches, but intersection is Long traffic delays functional. Some queues do not clear in a single signal cycle D during short peak periods, but no long queues form Delay >35.0 and <55.0 sec. per vehicle Delay >25.0 and <35.0 sec. per vehicle Severe congestion with some long standing queues on critical Very long traffic delays, with extreme approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal congestion E does not provide for protected turning movements. Queues may block nearby intersection(s) upstream of critical approach(es) Delay >55.0 and < 80.0 sec. per vehicle Delay >35.0 and < 50.0 sec. per vehicle Total breakdown; stop-and-go operation Intersection blocked by external causes F Delay >80.0 sec. per vehicle Delay >50.0 sec. per vehicle SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 ______side-street stop-control intersections, LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or movements.

A traffic signal warrant evaluation was conducted for unsignalized study intersections with specific movements or approaches that fail to meet a minimum LOS threshold. Installation of traffic signals is one of the typical mitigation measures considered for a stop-controlled intersection. The need for a traffic signal is evaluated according to a series of “traffic signal warrants,” as defined by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).3 Eight independent warrants have been established; Warrant 3 is the peak hour warrant. The peak hour volume warrant for “rural” areas was used for the unsignalized study intersections. The fact that a particular location meets the minimum requirements of one or more of the warrants does not necessarily justify the installation of a signal. Other factors must also be considered, including safety, intersection spacing, and nearby traffic control devices.

The LOS method for roadway segments is based on the roadway classifications and the daily traffic volumes. The 2004 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan Update describes the methodology used and the LOS thresholds for each roadway type. The LOS thresholds are summarized in Table 2.

The Policy Element of the Amador County Regional Transportation Plan and Circulation Element 2004 Update gives guidance in developing the evaluation criteria to determine traffic impacts. Key goals and policies applicable to this study are summarized below.

3 Caltrans. 2006. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. (FHWA’s MUTCD 2003 Edition, Revision 1, as amended for use in California).

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 16 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 TABLE 2 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD VOLUMES

Maximum Daily Volume a Facility Type LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E

Arterial, Class I 2,600 5,900 10,300 16,900 20,200 Arterial, Class II 2,200 5,200 9,300 15,300 18,900 Arterial, Class III 1,600 4,500 8,600 14,200 18,600 Arterial, Class IV 1,200 3,300 6,400 11,000 15,500 Arterial, Class V 1,000 3,000 5,900 10,200 14,300 Arterial (with climbing lane) N/A 12,200 16,500 22,200 25,100 Arterial (with two lanes in each direction) N/A 24,900 30,800 32,700 34,900 Collector, Class I – III 1,300 3,900 7,500 12,600 16,900 Collector, Class IV 1,000 3,000 5,500 8,750 11,200 Collector, Class V 600 2,000 3,500 4,900 5,500

SOURCE: Amador County, 2004 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan ______

Roadway System Goal 1A (2) – Maintain LOS C or better for average daily conditions on all State highways and local roads outside of incorporated cities and other developed communities. LOS C may not be achievable on certain sections of the State highway and local road system because of prohibitive costs and/or environmental impacts, and a service level worse than LOS C shall not require denial of any development project, provided the County finds that a project’s benefits are sufficient to override the project contribution to a LOS worse than LOS C.

Roadway System Goal 1A (5) – Maintain the safety and operational integrity of the road system resulting from the cumulative traffic increases from both large and small development projects by properly mitigating impacts.

Roadway System Goal 1A (9) – Obtain new funding needed to establish and maintain a countywide average pavement conditions rating (APCR) above 75 and to complete the cities’ and County’s short-range transportation capital improvement programs.

Roadway System Policy 1B (10) – Support the maintenance of a regional traffic mitigation fee for improvements to State highways and other components of the regional roadway system adversely affected by new development.

Roadway System Policy 1B (11) – In addition to the countywide regional traffic mitigation fee, support a policy requiring new development projects to determine and mitigate any impacts they may have on the system beyond the limits of the mitigation fee program. It is Amador County’s policy that new development projects that may have a significant impact upon the road and highway systems should be analyzed with a traffic study, which would use the countywide traffic model to determine and mitigate the impact they will have on the system. Traffic studies shall include recommended mitigation measures intended to help maintain the County’s adopted LOS goal consistent with requirement concerning “nexus” and “rough proportionality”.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 17 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 Policies for Developments that are Consistent with the Local General Plan:

Roadway System Policy 1B (16) – If a new development project would create an impact that would not otherwise occur, the project should pay for the full cost of the improvement needed to mitigate that impact and achieve the level of service objectives set forth in Goal 1A (2).

Roadway System Policy 1B (17) – If a new development project would contribute to the need for previously identified improvements that are included in the Tier 1 funding plan of the RTP, their impacts shall be mitigated through payment of the regional traffic mitigation fee.

Roadway System Policy 1B (18) – If a new development project would contribute to the need for previously identified improvements that are included in the Tier 2 funding plan of the RTP, their impacts shall be mitigated through payment of the regional traffic mitigation fee.

Roadway System Policy 1B (19) – If a new development project would contribute to the need for improvements that are not included in either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 funding plan of the RTP, their impacts shall be mitigated through a fair-share contribution toward those new improvements needed to achieve the level of service objectives set forth in Goal 1A (2). The project’s fair-share contribution shall be computed in accordance with the most recent version of Caltrans’ Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

D. CURRENT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Intersection Levels of Service. All of the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service during both analysis peak hours (see Table 3).

Roadway Levels of Service. As shown in Table 4, all but one of the study roadway segments are currently operating at an acceptable level of service. The following segment is currently operating at an unacceptable service level (i.e., LOS deficiencies):

• State Route 88 between Eggiman Lane and State Route 104 (East Junction)

E. CURRENT TRAFFIC SAFETY CONDITIONS

Three years of collision records (2005-2007) were obtained from the California Highway Patrol for SR 88, Jackson Valley Road (West), and Ridge Road (SR 104). As shown in Table 5, all the study roadway segments have overall accident rates below statewide and County averages for two-lane roads in rural settings, except Jackson Valley Road (West). As shown in the table, the latest published accident rate for two-lane rural roads in Amador County was 1.21 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT), while the statewide average for two-lane rural roads was 1.09 accidents/MVMT. As also shown in the table, there were few accidents involving a truck.

Although the accident rate is higher than expected on Jackson Valley Road, the absolute number of accidents is relative low, and of note, all but one of the eight collisions over the three-year period involved a single vehicle. There was a single accident involving a truck on Jackson Valley Road over the three-year period.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 18 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 TABLE 3 EXISTING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)

Weekday AM Weekday Midday Traffic Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersection Control Delay a LOS Delay a LOS

State Route 12 at State Route 88 Signal 25.0 C 17.8 B

State Route 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West) SSSC 14.6 B 15.7 C

State Route 88 at Martin Lane SSSC 9.4 A 10.0 A

State Route 88 at State Route 124 SSSC 9.8 A 9.8 A

State Route 88 at Buena Vista Road SSSC 11.4 B 13.2 B

SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) SSSC 15.7 C 19.4 C

State Route 88 at Ridge Road (State Route 104) Signal 13.0 B 13.7 B

Ridge Road (State Route 104) at State Route 49 Signal 22.5 C 29.7 C a The LOS/Delay for Side-Street Stop-Control (SSSC) intersections represents the worst movement or approach; for Signalized and All-Way Stop-Control (AWSC) intersections, the LOS/Delay represent overall intersection. SOURCE: ESA, 2009 ______

TABLE 4 EXISTING DAILY ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)

Roadway Daily Roadway Location Classification Volume LOS

State Route 12 West of State Route 88 Arterial Class I 7,700 C

State Route 88 Between SR 12 and Jackson Valley Road (West) Arterial Class I 9,800 C

State Route 88 Between Jackson Valley Rd (West) and SR 124 Arterial Class I 9,100 C

State Route 88 Between State Route 124 and Buena Vista Rd Arterial Class I 7,900 C

Between Buena Vista Rd and State Route 104 State Route 88 Arterial Class I 9,350 C (West Junction) Between State Route 104 (West Junction) and the State Route 88 Arterial Class I 14,300 D Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Rd.) Between the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing State Route 88 Arterial Class I 14,300 D (Brook Ranch Road) and Eggiman Lane Between Eggiman Lane and State Route 104 State Route 88 Arterial Class I 17,000 E (East Junction) Between State Route 104 (East Junction) and State Route 88 Arterial Class I 16,000 D State Route 49 Jackson Valley Between State Route 88 and the Quarry Access Collector Class II 1,700 B Road (West)

Bold signifies unacceptable LOS

SOURCES: ESA, 2009, based on traffic volume data obtained from Caltrans-District 10 and collected for this study, and 2004 Amador County 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Update

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 19 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 TABLE 5 COLLISION HISTORY ON MAJOR ROADWAYS IN PROJECT AREA a

Distance 2005-2007 Accident Rate Roadway Segment (miles) 2005 2006 2007 Average (per MVMT) b

State Route 88 12 9 8 9.7 0.52 (SR 12 to Liberty Road; SJ Co.) 2.9 (0) (2) (3) (1.7)

State Route 88 33 14 19 22.0 0.64 (Liberty Road to SR 124; SJ-AMA Co.) 8.8 (1) (2) (0) (1)

State Route 88 8 7 6 7.0 0.96 (SR 124 to SR 104-West) 1.9 (2) (0) (0) (0.7)

State Route 88 23 18 22 21.0 0.75 (SR 104-West to SR 104-East) 5.3 (1) (0) (0) (0.3)

State Route 88 9 13 11 11.0 0.64 (SR 104-East to SR 49) 1.6 (0) (0) (1) (0.3)

Jackson Valley Road (West) 2 2 4 2.7 9.68 (SR 88 to Quarry Access) 0.44 (0) (0) (1) (0.3)

Ridge Road (State Route 104) 4 2 5 3.7 0.88 (SR 88 to SR 49) 1.7 (0) (0) (1) (0.3)

Accident Rates – 2006 (accidents per million vehicle miles traveled) Amador County Average (rural areas): 2-lane roads 1.21 San Joaquin County Average (rural areas): 2-lane roads 0.99 Caltrans District 10 (rural areas): 2-lane roads 1.20 Statewide Average (rural areas): 2-lane roads 1.09

______a The total number of accidents, for each year, are shown, with accidents involving trucks shown in parenthesis. b MVMT = Million Vehicle Miles Traveled

SOURCES: ESA 2009, using data from California Highway Patrol, 2008; Caltrans 2006 Accident Data on California State Highways, 2007.

The intersections of SR 88 / Jackson Valley Road (West) and SR 88 / Buena Vista Road each had a relatively low number of collisions (including those occurring within 500 feet of the intersection) during the three-year period.4

• SR 88 / Jackson Valley Road (West): Number: 9 total (3 per year); none involved a truck Type: 5 Broadside, 1 each (head-on, hit object, overturn , other) Primary Factor: 4 failed to yield right-of-way, 2 DUI, 1 wrong side, 1 other

• SR 88 / Buena Vista Road: Number: 6 total (2 per year); one involved a truck Type: 6 Broadside Primary Factor: 5 failed to yield right-of-way, 1 DUI

4 These intersections were selected in consultation with staff at the Amador County Public Works Agency and the Amador County Transportation Commission.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 20 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 F. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

Transit Service. There is limited public transit service in the project area. Amador Rapid Transit System (ARTS) provides fixed-route / demand responsive bus service, there are scheduled stops, and if a safe stop is possible, then all buses will stop for flag-down passengers. However, the character of quarry operations does not generate demand for such service.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. As in most rural areas, the existing road system in the project area has been created with very limited facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. As stated above, the character of quarry operations does not generate demand for such facilities.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 21 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010

IV. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project consists of rock and gravel extraction in a manner similar to that currently performed at the Jackson Valley Quarry. The mined materials will be processed at the existing aggregate plant, which is immediately east of the project site. This project is considered an expansion of an existing quarry. The proposed project expansion would allow quarry production to gradually expand from an annual production level of approximately 500,000 tons to 2,000,000 tons per year over an approximately 25-year period; no phasing is anticipated for this property. The quarry would continue to have 4 to 12 employees per shift working at the site. The existing property and proposed expansion areas are on the south side of SR 88 east of the most westerly junction of Jackson Valley Road and SR 88 in the Ione area of Amador County.

B. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

Project-generated trip generation was estimated on the basis of proposed increases in the quarry’s production level (annually, daily, and hourly) and the average load capacity of trucks hauling aggregate from the quarry. On a daily basis (250 days per year), the average production rate would increase by about 6,000 tons. As shown in Table 6, using a composite truck haul load of 22 tons, these conditions would generate about 273 net new truck loads per day, or 546 net new one-way truck trips. Peaking characteristics of the quarry will be used to estimate hourly truck trips under project conditions, but the highest hourly truck trip generation would occur during the morning hours, with the peak hourly rate occurring outside the a.m. peak-period commute on area roads. It is estimated that project-generated truck trips during the a.m. peak hour would average about 11 percent of the daily trips (i.e., about 60 net new one-way truck trips). Few, if any, truck trips would occur during the p.m. peak-period commute. Employee trips would remain unchanged from current conditions.

TABLE 6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES

AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour Average (6:30-7:30AM) (11:30AM-12:30PM) Tonnage Tons Daily Daily Percent One-way Percent One-Way Increase Per Truck One-Way of Truck of Truck Land Use (per day) Truck Loads Truck Trips Daily Trips Daily Trips Quarry Expansion 6,000 22 273 546 11% 60 9% 50

SOURCE: ESA, 2009

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 22 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 C. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

The travel patterns for the proposed project were estimated based on information provided by the project applicant about current trip distribution of trucks traveling to and from the quarry, obtained from the project applicant. Trip distribution percentages for this analysis are shown in Table 7. Figure 6 shows Project Trips at the study intersections.

TABLE 7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS – PROPOSED PROJECT

Direction Percent To/From West on SR 88 (west of Jackson Valley Road) 70% (to/from west on SR 12 (65%) (to/from east on SR 12) (5%) To/From East on SR 88 (east of Jackson Valley Road) 30% (to/from north on SR 124) (8%) (to/from south on Buena Vista Road) (2%) (to/from north on SR 49) (6%) (to/from south on SR 88 / SR 49) (6%) (to/from east on SR 104) (8%)

TOTAL 100%

SOURCE: Basic Resources, Inc.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 23 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 8

SR49

SR104 Eggiman I 7 ook Ranch H Br G

F SR88 SR124 SR104

E Amador County San Joaquin County 5 6 4 3 C Buena Vista 2 D

J Martin B Jackson Valley

Liberty

SR88

1 SR12

NORTH A

1 Signal 2 Stop Signs on 3 Stop Sign 4 Stop Sign Jackson Valley on Martin on SR 124

SR88 (11) (1) (2) 14 2 2 SR 124 2(1) 9(8) 9(8) SR12 SR 88 7(6) SR 88 (8)9 SR 88 (11)14 (13)15 15 9 (2)2 (13) (8) (6)7 Martin Jackson Vly

Stop Signs on Stop Signs Signal Signal 5 Buena Vista 6 on SR 104 7 8

(4) (2) SR 104 SR 104 6(5) 4 2 6(5) 2(2) 2(1) SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 104

(5)6 (5)6 (4)4 (2)2

(1)1 1 (1)2 (2)2 (1) Buena Vista Jackson Vly SR 49

XXX(XXX) AM(Midday) Volumes Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion . 207443 SOURCE: ESA Figure 6 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Project Trips)

V. NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS

A. BACKGROUND

In addition to the proposed project, there is one approved development project that would add traffic to the project area road network. This reasonably foreseeable, but not constructed, project is the Wildflower Subdivision (a 277-house subdivision, north of SR 88 in Ione), which would generate about 2,650 daily trips, 208 trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 130 trips during the midday hour. 5

B. NEAR-TERM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

The above-referenced approved development project would be required to implement (or contribute fair-share funding toward) off-site roadway and intersection improvements. To present a conservative assessment of impacts under the Near-Term scenario, however, no transportation system improvements were assumed.

C. NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION IMPACTS

As stated above, the Policy Element of the Amador County Regional Transportation Plan and Circulation Element 2004 Update gives guidance in developing the evaluation criteria to determine traffic impacts. Roadway System Goal 1A (2) states that the threshold for acceptable intersection/roadway operations is LOS C outside of incorporated cities and other developed communities. LOS D is considered acceptable within incorporated cities and other developed communities.

Significant project impacts were determined on the basis of the following criteria (as set forth in the Amador County Transportation Commission’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, as updated February 2009):

Signalized Intersections:

1. Would project–generated traffic cause an intersection to degrade from an acceptable LOS (based on RTP policy or General Plan policies) to an unacceptable level?, or

2. Would project–generated traffic cause an increase in delay at an intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS under near-term baseline (without project) conditions by five or more seconds?

5 Trip generation estimates for daily and a.m. peak-hour conditions were calculated using trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition). Midday trip generation was derived on the basis of hourly traffic volumes counted on area roads for this report.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 25 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 The three signalized study intersections are subject to the following LOS operating thresholds:

1. State Route 12 at State Route 88 (LOS C) 7. SR 88 at Ridge Road / SR 104 (LOS D) 8. Ridge Road (SR 104) / SR 49 (LOS D)

Unsignalized Intersections:

1. Would project–generated traffic cause a minor street approach to degrade from an acceptable LOS (based on RTP policy or General Plan policies) to an unacceptable level, and the intersection is projected to meet the MUTCD peak-hour volume warrant for traffic signal installation?, or

2. Would project–generated traffic cause an increase in delay at an intersection with a minor street approach operating at an unacceptable LOS under near-term baseline (without project) conditions by five or more seconds, and the intersection is projected to meet the MUTCD peak-hour volume warrant for traffic signal installation?

The five unsignalized study intersections are subject to the following LOS operating thresholds:

2. SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road –West (LOS C) 3. SR 88 at Martin Lane (LOS C) 4. SR 88 at SR 124 (LOS C) 5. SR 88 at Buena Vista Road (LOS C) 6. SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road – East (LOS C)

Near-Term Base plus Project conditions are defined as Near-Term Baseline plus traffic added by the proposed project (as adjusted to reflect increased quarry production levels at time when intersection traffic counts were conducted).6 Estimated vehicle trip generation for the proposed project is presented under Project Trip Generation, above. Project impacts are then identified by comparing the LOS results under Near-Term plus Project conditions to those under Near-Term Base conditions. In accordance with intersection LOS analysis methodologies in the 2000 HCM, passenger car equivalents (PCE) were not applied to project-generated trips, but rather the levels of heavy vehicles as a percentage of total traffic volumes were increased to reflect the heavy truck traffic that the project would add to the intersections.

Near-Term Baseline traffic volumes were derived by adding traffic generated by the above- referenced reasonably foreseeable, but not constructed, project to existing traffic volumes (see

6 At the time when the intersection traffic counts were conducted for this study (June-July 2008), the Jackson Valley Quarry was providing aggregate material for emergency work (e.g., for levee repairs) at a rate equivalent to 800,000 tons per year (i.e., 300,000 tons more than the usual production level). The destination of that extra amount was areas west of the project site (i.e., outbound trucks traveled southwest-bound on SR 88, and continued westbound on SR 12). In order to provide an accurate assessment of the effects of the proposed project, truck trips associated with the elevated production rate were subtracted from the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections of SR 88 / Jackson Valley Road (West) and SR 88 / SR 12, as well as the study road segments of SR 88 between Jackson Valley Road (West) and SR 12, and SR 12 west of SR 88.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 26 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 Figure 7). Figure 8 shows Near-Term plus Project traffic volumes, at the study intersections, respectively. Table 8 presents changes in peak-hour levels of service (and average vehicle delay) due to project-generated traffic at study intersections under near-term conditions. Under Near- Term Baseline conditions, seven of the eight study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during both analysis periods, and all but one intersection would operate acceptably during the midday peak hour. The stop-sign controlled side street approach to SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) would worsen to an unacceptable LOS D during the midday peak hour.

Addition of project-generated traffic would not change the above-described Near-Term Baseline conditions. That is, all study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS during the a.m. peak hour, and all but one intersection would operate acceptably during the midday peak hour. Based on the significance criteria described above, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact on traffic operating conditions at all of the study intersections. Intersection LOS calculation worksheets are in Appendix B.

State Route 88 at State Route 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) – As stated above, the stop- sign controlled side street approach to SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) would operate at an unacceptable LOS D during the midday peak hour under Near-Term Baseline conditions. The addition of project traffic would increase the average vehicle delay on the southbound (stop-sign controlled) SR 104 approach by less than the five-second threshold of significance, and the project impact would be less than significant.

D. NEAR-TERM ROADWAY IMPACTS

As stated above, the Policy Element of the Amador County Regional Transportation Plan and Circulation Element 2004 Update gives guidance in developing the evaluation criteria to determine traffic impacts. Roadway System Goal 1A (2) states that the threshold for acceptable intersection/roadway operations is LOS C outside of incorporated cities and other developed communities. LOS D is considered acceptable within incorporated cities and other developed communities.

The ten study road segments are subject to the following LOS operating thresholds:

A. State Route 12 west of State Route 88 (LOS C) B. SR 88 between SR 12 and Jackson Valley Road (west) (LOS C) C. SR 88 between Jackson Valley Road (west) and SR 124 (LOS C) D. SR 88 between SR 124 and Buena Vista Road (LOS C) E. SR 88 between Buena Vista Road and SR 104 (west junction) (LOS C) F. SR 88 between SR 104 (west junction) and the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Road) (LOS D) G. SR 88 between the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Road) and Eggiman Lane (LOS D) H. SR 88 between Eggiman Lane and SR 104 (east junction) (LOS D) I. SR 88 between SR 104 (east junction) and SR 49 (LOS D) J. Jackson Valley Road (west) between SR 88 and the quarry access (LOS C)

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 27 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 8

SR49

SR104 Eggiman I 7 H Brook Ranch G

F SR88 SR124 SR104

E Amador County San Joaquin County 5 6 4 3 C Buena Vista 2 D

J Martin B Jackson Valley

Liberty

SR88

1 SR12

NORTH A

1 Signal 2 Stop Signs on 3 Stop Sign 4 Stop Sign Jackson Valley on Martin on SR 124

SR88 (266) (64) (3) (1) (1) 0(3) (101) (1) 345 71 4 3 4 292(241) 278(249) 141 1 SR 124 78(73) 4(5) 0(4) 15(26) SR12 257(175) SR 88 152(160) SR 88 (249)188 SR 88 (245)194 (7)11 (1)1 (156)116 24 6 5 0 44 (67)116 (247)192 (36) (3) (2) (0) (20) (34)47 (202)116 Martin Jackson Vly

Stop Signs on Stop Signs Signal Signal 5 Buena Vista 6 on SR 104 7 8

(0) (36) (1) 4(5) (2) (4) (151) 163(147) (181) (37) (37) (475) (82) 117(100) SR 104 1 20 2 154(160) 1 18 161 SR 104 164(190) 192 8 41 225 73 156(131) 15(41) 8(28) 25(34) 116(206) 164(256) SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 104

(1)1 (10)2 1 2 44 (212)163 (60)24 13 152 56 (1) (9) (54) (49) (374) (208) (200)114 1 73 42 (254)154 (303)186 (159)101 (2)2 (5) (50) (65) (2)2 (54)15 Buena Vista Jackson Vly SR 49

XXX(XXX) AM(Midday) Volumes Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion . 207443 SOURCE: ESA Figure 7 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Near-Term Baseline Conditions) 8

SR49

SR104 Eggiman I 7 ook Ranch H Br G

F SR88 SR124 SR104

E Amador County San Joaquin County 5 6 4 3 C Buena Vista 2 D

J Martin B Jackson Valley

Liberty

SR88

1 SR12

NORTH A

1 Signal 2 Stop Signs on 3 Stop Sign 4 Stop Sign Jackson Valley on Martin on SR 124

SR88 (276) (65) (3) (1) (1) 0(3) (103) (1) 359 73 4 3 4 292(241) 287(243) 143 1 SR 124 80(74) 4(5) 9(12) 15(26) SR12 257(175) SR 88 159(166) SR 88 (257)197 SR 88 (256)208 (7)11 (1)1 (156)116 39 6 14 0 44 (69)118 (247)192 (49) (3) (10) (0) (20) (47)62 (208)123 Martin Jackson Vly

Stop Signs on Stop Signs Signal Signal 5 Buena Vista 6 on SR 104 7 8

(0) (36) (1) 4(5) (2) (4) (151) 163(147) (185) (37) (39) (475) (82) 117(100) SR 104 1 20 2 160(165) 1 18 161 SR 104 170(195) 196 8 45 225 73 158(133) 15(41) 8(28) 25(34) 116(206) 166(257) SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 104

(1)1 (10)2 1 2 44 (216)167 (62)26 13 152 56 (1) (9) (54) (49) (374) (208) (205)120 2 73 42 (259)160 (304)188 (161)103 (3)3 (6) (50) (65) (2)2 (54)15 Buena Vista Jackson Vly SR 49

XXX(XXX) AM(Midday) Volumes Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion . 207443 SOURCE: ESA Figure 8 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Near-Term Baseline Plus Project Conditions) TABLE 8 NEAR-TERM BASE PLUS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday Midday Peak Hour Near-Term Near-Term Base Near-Term Near-Term Base Traffic LOS Baseline Plus Project Baseline Plus Project Intersection Control Standard Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS

State Route 12 at State Route 88 Signal C 21.4 C 23.2 C 18.7 B 20.0 B

State Route 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West) SSSC C 15.9 C 18.1 C 16.6 C 18.8 C

State Route 88 at Martin Lane SSSC C 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.8 A 9.8 A

State Route 88 at State Route 124 SSSC C 10.1 B 10.2 B 9.8 A 10.0 A

State Route 88 at Buena Vista Road SSSC C 11.4 B 11.6 B 13.1 B 13.3 B

SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) SSSC C 17.4 C 17.9 C 25.5 D 26.3 D

State Route 88 at Ridge Road (State Route 104) Signal D 13.0 B 12.8 B 13.5 B 13.7 B

Ridge Road (State Route 104) at State Route 49 Signal D 23.1 C 24.5 C 30.5 C 30.9 C a The LOS/Delay for Side-Street Stop-Control (SSSC) intersections represents the worst movement or approach; for Signalized intersections, the LOS/Delay represents the overall intersection.

SOURCE: ESA, 2009.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 30 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 Project trips were added to Near-Term Baseline daily traffic volumes to form the basis of the Near-Term Base plus Project analysis. Project-generated trips were converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) using a PCE factor of 3.0 to reflect the heavy truck traffic. Table 9 presents changes in roadway traffic volumes and levels of service between Near-Term Baseline and Near- Term Base Plus Project conditions.

As shown in the table, prior to addition of project-generated traffic, the following road segments are projected to operate at an unacceptable (deficient) level of service:

• State Route 88 between State Route 12 and Jackson Valley Road (West) (Segment B) • State Route 88 between Eggiman Lane and State Route 104 (East Junction) (Segment H)

The 2004 Amador County RTP indicates that widening SR 88 to provide four travel lanes from the San Joaquin County Line to SR 104 (Lower Ridge Road) would be necessary to achieve LOS C operations in the future, but no funding has been identified for this improvement.

Significant project impacts were determined on the basis of the following criteria:

1. Would project–generated traffic cause a road segment to degrade from an acceptable LOS (based on RTP policy or General Plan policies) to an unacceptable level?, or

2. Would project–generated traffic increase the volume-to-capacity ratio on a road segment operating at an unacceptable LOS under near-term baseline (without project) conditions by 0.05 or more?

The addition of traffic generated by the proposed project would not cause the roadway levels of service to worsen, and would not increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.05 or more on the road segments operating at an unacceptable LOS under near-term baseline (without project) conditions. Based on the significance criteria described above, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on traffic operating conditions at all of the study roadway segments.

E. NEAR-TERM IMPACTS TO TRAFFIC SAFETY

The project impact on traffic safety on area roadways was assessed in terms of project-caused changes to roadway configurations and/or to the characteristics of traffic flow, and in terms of the effect of introducing added traffic volumes with the prevailing roadway and traffic features (e.g., available sight distance and presence of traffic signals and stop signs). A key consideration when judging traffic safety impacts is whether the project would change the rate of accidents, not the number of accidents. Without a change to the physical character of a roadway, or to the mix of vehicles (autos and trucks) on a roadway, the accident rate (i.e., accidents per number of vehicles) will not change. The proposed project would neither alter the physical characteristics of the existing roadway network serving the area, nor generate traffic that is incompatible with existing traffic patterns. Available sight distance for motorists wishing to turn from Jackson Valley Road (West) onto SR 88 would be sufficient.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 31 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 TABLE 9 NEAR-TERM BASE PLUS PROJECT DAILY ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)

LOS Near-Term Conditions Near-Term + Project Conditions Roadway /Location Classification Standard Volume LOS Project Volume a Total Volume LOS

State Route 12, west of State Route 88 Arterial Class I C 8,360 C 734 9,094 C

State Route 88, between SR 12 and Jackson Valley Road (West) Arterial Class I C 10,460 D 816 11,276 D

State Route 88, between Jackson Valley Road (West) and SR 124 Arterial Class I C 9,760 C 492 10,252 C

State Route 88, between State Route 124 and Buena Vista Road Arterial Class I C 7,900 C 360 8,260 C

SR 88, between Buena Vista Road and SR 104 (West Junction) Arterial Class I C 9,350 C 328 9,678 C

State Route 88, between State Route 104 (West Junction) and the Arterial Class I D 14,960 D D Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing (Brook Ranch Road) 328 15,288

State Route 88, between the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing Arterial Class I D 14,960 D D (Brook Ranch Road) and Eggiman Lane 328 15,288

SR 88, between Eggiman Lane and SR 104 (East Junction) Arterial Class I D 17,660 E 328 17,988 E

State Route 88, between SR 104 (East Junction) and SR 49 Arterial Class I D 16,340 D 98 16,438 D

Jackson Valley Rd (West), between SR 88 and the Quarry Access Collector Class II C 1,700 B 1,638 3,338 C

a Project-generated trips were converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) using a PCE factor of 3.0 to reflect the heavy truck traffic, adjusted to be consistent with adjustments made to intersection volumes (see Footnote 6, page 26).

SOURCE: ESA, 2009, based on near-term projects’ trip generation and 2004 Amador County 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Update

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 32 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 Up to about 4 to 9 percent of the existing traffic on the state highways in the study area are trucks (inclusive of 2-axle/6-wheel to 5+-axle trucks), and the proposed project would increase that percentage to up to about 11 percent. A change from 91% autos / 9% trucks to 89% autos / 11% trucks would be a less-than-substantial change to the mix of vehicle types that use the area roadways (i.e., automobiles would continue as the predominant vehicle type, with a very similar influence from trucks on traffic flow). As described on pages 18 and 20, based on the recorded collision data, the accident rate on all those state highway segments is below both County and statewide average for two-lane roads in rural areas, and there have been a relatively low number of collisions on Jackson Valley Road (West), and at the intersections on SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West) and Buena Vista Road. In addition, there have been very few accidents involving trucks on area roads.

The primary, over-arching goal of the Amador County Regional Transportation Plan / Circulation Element Update is to “provide a transportation and circulation system that is safe, efficient, convenient, comfortable, and that meets the transportation needs of people and goods, and that is compatible with other scenic, historic, economic, environmental and recreational resource values”. Policy 1B(15) states that the County “may require that a developer construct improvements needed to address traffic congestion or safety concerns prior to or coincidental with project occupancy”. Caltrans has expressed concerns about traffic safety related to the project-generated increase in the number of quarry trucks making right turns from eastbound SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West). The existing deceleration lane for that turn movement is not up to Caltrans standards, and truck drivers likely are beginning to decelerate in the through lane, creating a potential traffic safety hazard. On the basis of General Plan Policy 1B(15), the project impact on near-term traffic safety conditions is considered significant. See Chapter VII Mitigation Measures for recommended measures to mitigate this significant impact.

F. NEAR-TERM IMPACTS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION

The current quarry (and the proposed changes to its operations) does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and is not inconsistent with planned bicycle/pedestrian/transit facilities within the study area. Given the nature of the proposed project (i.e., increased production level at the existing quarry), it is reasonable to expect that the project would not generate demand for transit service or pedestrian/bicycle facilities. There would be no impact.

G. NEAR-TERM IMPACTS TO ROADWAY STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS

The truck trips generated by the project would cause incremental damage and wear to roadway pavement surfaces along the haul route. The degree to which this impact would occur depends on the roadway’s design (pavement type and thickness) and its current condition. State highways, such as SR 88 and SR 12, generally are designed to handle a mix of vehicle types, including heavy trucks.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 33 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 Significant project impacts were determined as the basis of the following criterion:

1. Would the project increase the Traffic Index (TI) by more than 1.5 on roadways built to accommodate heavy truck traffic.

The capability of a roadway to handle a traffic load is measured by deflection testing, coring, and visual condition surveys of the road. These methods allow the roadway’s traffic index (TI) to be assessed. The TI is a logarithm-based scale that indicates the ability of the pavement structure to support the repetitive wheel and axle loads of large trucks, given a sound structural roadway sub base. Typically, TI ratings of 7.0 to 9.0 are calculated for roadways that are not expected to carry appreciable amounts of truck traffic. Higher TI values of 9.0 to 10.0 are typical of major arterial roadways with heavy truck traffic, and values of 10.0 or more are common for freeways and freeway ramp systems. The effects on pavement life from passenger cars, pickups, and two-axle, four-wheel trucks are considered to be negligible.

To evaluate the potential project impact on roadway condition and maintenance, the estimated TI for current and project conditions was calculated for roadway segments on the project haul routes. The TI was calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual on the basis of a 20-year roadway design period (the standard period used by Caltrans) and average daily truck traffic volumes.7 A summary of the TI calculations for roadways on the project haul route are presented in Table 10.

TABLE 10 CALCULATED TRAFFIC INDEX (TI) FOR PROJECT HAUL ROUTES a

Roadway Segment Existing Existing plus Project

State Route 12 west of State Route 88 10.7 11.7 State Route 88 North of State Route 12 12.4 12.9 West of State Route 124 11.6 11.9 East of State Route 104 (West Junction) 10.2 10.7 West of State Route 49 11.2 11.2

a Traffic Indices in this table represent values calculated on the basis of existing and project truck traffic volumes, and Equivalent Single-Axles Load factors in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

SOURCES: ESA (2009) and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Traffic Index methodology.

The 2007 Pavement Condition Survey, compiled by Caltrans District 10, indicated that there are areas on SR 88 with major structural damage identified (high Alligator B Cracking), including near the San Joaquin / Amador county line, and near the SR 88 / SR 124 intersection.

Current truck traffic volumes on the primary project haul routes reveal that existing TI values range between 10.2 and 12.4. As Table 10 shows, the project would increase the estimated TI for all the haul routes, but by no more than 1.0 on SR 12, and no more than 0.5 on SR 88. Based on

7 Caltrans, Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, last updated July 1, 2008.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 34 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 the significance criteria, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on State Highways in the study area.

Currently, the only road maintenance agreement between the quarry operator and Amador County covers Jackson Valley Road from the Quarry entrance northwestward to SR 88. The project-generated increase in truck traffic would have a significant impact on the structural integrity of this road segment. See Chapter VII Mitigation Measures for recommended measures to mitigate this significant impact.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 35 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010

VI. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS

A. BACKGROUND

The cumulative impact of implementing the proposed project was evaluated within the context of long-term (2025) traffic conditions that assume regional and local development. Traffic volume forecasts from the Amador County travel demand forecasting model, as updated for the Wicklow Way Subdivision traffic impact analysis, served as the baseline cumulative condition for the study locations in Amador County. The intersection of SR 88 / SR 12 (in San Joaquin County) is not included in the Amador County model, and cumulative traffic volumes for that intersection were derived from the Plymouth Casino traffic study. Traffic that would be generated by the Buena Vista Casino and Plymouth Casino was manually added on top of that baseline cumulative condition, resulting in the Cumulative (2025) Baseline for this analysis.

B. CUMULATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

Assumed road improvements that were included in the Cumulative 2025 Baseline Conditions include the following (fully funded) Tier 1 projects in the 2004 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan:

• At the SR 104 (Ridge Road) / SR 49 intersection, provision of a dedicated right-turn lane on all approaches, and construction of a second northbound through lane. • Lower Ridge Road (SR 104) between SR 49 and SR 88, lane widening, shoulder widening, as well as turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes at driveway and roadway connections. • Completion of the SR 49 bypass project.

C. CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION IMPACTS

Figures 9 and 10 show Cumulative Baseline and Cumulative Baseline plus Project traffic volumes at the study intersections, respectively. Project-generated traffic was manually added to baseline traffic volumes at study intersections. Table 11 presents changes in peak-hour levels of service (and average vehicle delay) due to project-generated traffic at study intersections under cumulative conditions. Under Cumulative Baseline conditions, the study intersections generally would operate at unacceptable levels of service during both analysis periods, with the exception of the intersections of SR 88 at Martin Lane and at SR 124 (acceptable LOS C or better during both periods), and the intersections of Ridge Road (SR 104) at SR 49 and at SR 88 (acceptable during the AM peak hour).

Based on the significance criteria described on page 25, the proposed project would have a significant cumulative impact on traffic operating conditions at the following intersections:

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 36 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 8

SR49

SR104 Eggiman I 7 H Brook Ranch G

F SR88 SR124 SR104

E Amador County San Joaquin County 5 6 4 3 C Buena Vista 2 D

J Martin B Jackson Valley

Liberty

SR88

1 SR12

NORTH A

1 Signal 2 Stop Signs on 3 Stop Sign 4 Stop Sign Jackson Valley on Martin on SR 124

SR88 (1001) (66) (3) (2) (3) 0(3) (166) (1) 1012 68 3 3 3 470(530) 468(563) 119 1 SR 124 78(76) 1(16) 0(23) 17(19) SR12 286(268) SR 88 367(418) SR 88 (665)562 SR 88 (813)802 (7)8 (2)2 (364)384 28 4 6 2 50 (157)119 (658)555 (43) (3) (2) (2) (55) (76)94 (565)493 Martin Jackson Vly

Stop Signs on Stop Signs Signal Signal 5 Buena Vista 6 on SR 104 7 8

(1) (40) (213) 52(158) (0) (18) (563) 416(353) (504) (343) (761) (1904) (171) 71(127) SR 104 6 50 75 353(411) 0 18 500 SR 104 417(623) 339 232 421 1057 95 416(751) 507(750) 11(56) 26(35) 414(745) 376(558) SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 104

(0)0 (79)8 0 7 76 (1016)685 (457)253 60 581 237 (0) (44) (62) (108) (1046) (426) (539)497 8 94 64 (809)628 (707)477 (437)243 (34)7 (35) (85) (140) (1)1 (165)92 Buena Vista Jackson Vly SR 49

XXX(XXX) AM(Midday) Volumes Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion . 207443 SOURCE: ESA Figure 9 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Cumulative Baseline Conditions) 8

SR49

SR104 Eggiman I 7 ook Ranch H Br G

F SR88 SR124 SR104

E Amador County San Joaquin County 5 6 4 3 C Buena Vista 2 D

J Martin B Jackson Valley

Liberty

SR88

1 SR12

NORTH A

1 Signal 2 Stop Signs on 3 Stop Sign 4 Stop Sign Jackson Valley on Martin on SR 124

SR88 (1012) (67) (3) (2) (3) 0(3) (168) (1) 1026 70 3 3 3 470(530) 477(571) 121 1 SR 124 80(77) 1(16) 9(31) 17(19) SR12 286(268) SR 88 374(424) SR 88 (673)571 SR 88 (824)816 (7)8 (2)2 (364)384 43 4 15 2 50 (159)121 (658)555 (56) (3) (10) (2) (55) (89)109 (571)500 Martin Jackson Vly

Stop Signs on Stop Signs Signal Signal 5 Buena Vista 6 on SR 104 7 8

(1) (40) (213) 52(158) (0) (18) (563) 416(353) (508) (343) (763) (1904) (171) 71(127) SR 104 6 50 75 359(416) 0 18 500 SR 104 423(628) 343 232 423 1057 95 418(753) 507(750) 11(56) 26(35) 414(745) 378(559) SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 104

(0)0 (79)8 0 7 76 (1020)689 (459)255 60 581 237 (0) (44) (62) (108) (1046) (426) (544)503 9 94 64 (814)634 (708)479 (439)245 (35)8 (36) (85) (140) (1)1 (165)92 Buena Vista Jackson Vly SR 49

XXX(XXX) AM(Midday) Volumes Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion . 207443 SOURCE: ESA Figure 10 Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes (Cumulative Baseline Plus Project Conditions) TABLE 11 CUMULATIVE BASE PLUS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday Midday Peak Hour Cumulative Cumulative Base Cumulative Cumulative Base Traffic LOS Baseline Plus Project Baseline Plus Project Intersection Control Standard Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS

State Route 12 at State Route 88 Signal C 53.4 D 61.9 E 65.7 E 70.5 E

State Route 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West) SSSC C 34.9 D 50.3 F 73.3 F 121.1 F

State Route 88 at Martin Lane SSSC C 13.4 B 13.5 B 15.1 C 15.3 C

State Route 88 at State Route 124 SSSC C 12.0 B 12.2 B 13.6 B 13.8 B

State Route 88 at Buena Vista Road SSSC C 96.2 F 103.0 F >180 F >180 F

SR 88 at SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) SSSC C >180 F >180 F 174.1 F >180 F

State Route 88 at Ridge Road (State Route 104) Signal D 50.2 D 51.8 D 147.1 F 150.2 F

Ridge Road (State Route 104) at State Route 49 Signal D 52.5 D 53.4 D >180 F >180 F a The LOS/Delay for Side-Street Stop-Control (SSSC) intersections represents the worst movement or approach; for Signalized intersections, the LOS/Delay represents the overall intersection.

Bold signifies significant cumulative impact

SOURCE: ESA, 2009.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 39 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 1. State Route 12 at State Route 88 – The addition of project traffic would degrade the service level from an unacceptable LOS D (under Cumulative Base conditions) to LOS E conditions during the AM peak hour (increasing the average delay by about 8.5 seconds). This is considered a significant cumulative impact.

2. State Route 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West) – The addition of project traffic would degrade the service level on the northbound (stop-sign controlled) approach from an unacceptable LOS D (under Cumulative Base conditions) to LOS F during the AM peak hour, and would worsen the unacceptable LOS F conditions that would exist under Cumulative Base conditions during the midday peak hour (increasing the average vehicle delay by more than the five-second threshold of significance). Installation of traffic signals is one of the typical mitigation measures considered for a stop-controlled intersection. A signal warrant evaluation indicates that this intersection is projected to meet the peak-hour volume warrant (Warrant 3 for “rural” areas) for traffic signal installation (see Appendix E). This is considered a significant cumulative impact.

5. State Route 88 at Buena Vista Road – The addition of project traffic would worsen the unacceptable LOS F that would exist under Cumulative Base conditions on the southbound (stop-sign controlled) approach during both the AM and midday peak hours (increasing the average vehicle delay in each case by more than the five-second threshold of significance). Installation of traffic signals is one of the typical mitigation measures considered for a stop- controlled intersection. A signal warrant evaluation indicates that this intersection is projected to meet the peak-hour volume warrant (Warrant 3 for “rural” areas) for traffic signal installation under midday peak-hour conditions, though not under AM peak-hour conditions (see Appendix E). This is considered a significant cumulative impact.

6. State Route 88 at State Route 104 – Jackson Valley Road (East) – The addition of project traffic would worsen unacceptable LOS F that would exist under Cumulative Base conditions on the southbound (stop-sign controlled) SR 104 approach during both the AM and midday peak hours (increasing the average vehicle delay in each case by more than the five-second threshold of significance). Installation of traffic signals is one of the typical mitigation measures considered for a stop-controlled intersection. A signal warrant evaluation indicates that this intersection is projected to meet the peak-hour volume warrant (Warrant 3 for “rural” areas) for traffic signal installation (see Appendix E). This is considered a significant cumulative impact.

See Chapter VII Mitigation Measures for recommended measures to mitigate these significant impacts. See Appendix C for a figure showing the locations of the project impacts, and a summary table of project impacts and recommended mitigation measures. Project impacts at the other four study intersections would be less than significant because either the LOS would remain acceptable under Cumulative plus Project conditions (at SR 88 / Martin Lane, and SR 88 / SR 124) or the addition of project-generated traffic would not cause an increase in delay of five or more seconds at the intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS under Cumulative Baseline (without project) conditions (SR 88 / Ridge Road [SR 104], and Ridge Road [SR 104] / SR 49). Intersection LOS calculation worksheets are in Appendix B.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 40 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 D. CUMULATIVE ROADWAY IMPACTS

Project trips were added to Cumulative Baseline daily traffic volumes to form the basis of the Cumulative Base plus Project analysis. Project-generated trips were converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) using a PCE factor of 3.0 to reflect the heavy truck traffic. As shown in Table 12, all of the study road segments, except for Jackson Valley Road, are projected to operate at an unacceptable (deficient) level of service under both Cumulative Baseline and Cumulative Base Plus Project conditions. Based on the significance criteria described on page 31, however, the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project would neither cause the roadway levels of service to worsen, nor increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.05 or more on the road segments operating at an unacceptable LOS under cumulative baseline (without project) conditions, and would have a less-than-significant impact.

E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO TRAFFIC SAFETY

The relative impact of the project on traffic safety under cumulative conditions was assessed in terms of the effect of project-generated traffic added to cumulative traffic volumes on area roadways and at area intersections. The proposed project would not alter the physical configuration of the existing roadway network serving the area, and would not introduce unsafe design features. However, as described on page 33 (Near-Term Impacts to Traffic Safety), and page 44 (Mitigation Measure 1), the project applicant would provide full funding for the construction of an eastbound right-turn lane, in accordance with Caltrans standards, in the Near Term. While implementation of Measure 1 is contingent upon Caltrans approval, the fact that Caltrans requested this improvement, its implementation is assumed, and is assumed to be in-place in the cumulative context. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 41 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE (2025) PLUS PROJECT DAILY ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)

Cumulative Baseline Cumulative Base + Project Conditions Roadway /Location Classification Volume LOS Project Volume a Total Volume LOS

State Route 12, west of State Route 88 Arterial Class I 22,300 F 734 23,034 F

State Route 88, west of Jackson Valley Road (West) Arterial Class I 22,000 F 816 22,816 F

State Route 88, between Jackson Valley Road (West) and SR 124 Arterial Class I 21,400 F 492 21,892 F

State Route 88, between State Route 124 and Buena Vista Road Arterial Class I 25,200 F 360 25,560 F

State Route 88, between Buena Vista Road and State Route 104 Arterial Class I 30,400 F 328 30,728 F

State Route 88, east of State Route 104 (West Junction) Arterial Class I 29,100 F 328 29,428 F

State Route 88, east of the Sunnybrook Railroad Crossing Arterial Class I 29,100 F 328 29,428 F

State Route 88, west of State Route 104 (East Junction) Arterial Class I 27,800 F 328 28,128 F

State Route 88, west of State Route 49 Arterial Class I 22,500 F 98 22,598 F

Jackson Valley Road (West), between SR 88 and the Quarry Access Collector Class II 2,700 B 1,638 4,338 C

a Project-generated trips were converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) using a PCE factor of 3.0 to reflect the heavy truck traffic, adjusted to be consistent with adjustments made to intersection volumes (see Footnote 6, page 26).

SOURCES: ESA, 2009, based on the Amador County travel demand forecasting model, as updated for the Wicklow Way Subdivision traffic impact analysis, traffic that would be generated by the Buena Vista Casino and Plymouth Casino, and 2004 Amador County 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Update

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 42 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010

VII. MITIGATION MEASURES

The Intergovernmental Service Agreement (ISA) between Amador County and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians will provide for off-reservation mitigation measures related to the Tribal gaming facility to be built on Rancheria land. A list of mitigation measures identified in the ISA that are relevant to the analysis of the proposed quarry expansion includes:

• Fully fund installation of a traffic signal and associated lane improvements at SR 88 / Buena Vista Road (when signal and lane improvements are required by Caltrans)

• Fully fund installation of traffic calming measures along Jackson Valley Road, consisting of stop signs at three (unidentified) intersections and needed advisory signs. [This measure is related to the ISA-stated commitment by the Tribe to use Buena Vista Road as access road from SR 88 to the casino, discouraging use of Jackson Valley Road.]

• Payment to the County at the time of commencement of casino construction the then-current traffic mitigation fee (estimated $1.4 million)

The above-cited ISA off-reservation mitigation measure for the intersection of SR 88 and Buena Vista Road would benefit the Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion project analyzed in this TIS, and the other two measures also could improve traffic conditions in the project area. However, the exact timing of implementation of these improvements has not been established, and is tied to the timing of development of the casino. The discussion of mitigation measures for any intersection adversely affected by the Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion project (under Mitigation Measures 3, 4, 5, and 6, below) includes references to Buena Vista Casino situation, and to funding options for improvements in the area.

For information purposes within this TIS, the following mitigation measures were identified in the May 2007 Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California Gaming and Entertainment Facility (TEIR), but are not included in the final ISA, and therefore their implementation can not be assumed:

Mitigation Measure T-2: Fund improvement of Jackson Valley Road from SR 88 (west) to Buena Vista Road to Amador County Class III Collector standards.

Mitigation Measures T-4a and 4b: Fund installation of a traffic signal and eastbound right-turn lane at SR 88 / Jackson Valley Road-West (when signal and lane improvements are required by Caltrans)

Mitigation Measure T-8: Contribute funds toward installation of a traffic signal at SR 88 / SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road-East, and left-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches (when signal and lane improvements are required by Caltrans)

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 43 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 A. NEAR-TERM PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAYS As described on pages 27 and 31, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts at study intersections and on study roadway segments under Near-Term conditions, and no mitigation measures are required.

TRAFFIC SAFETY

Mitigation Measure 1: Construct an eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection of SR 88 and Jackson Valley Road [West] (#2), in accordance with Caltrans standards (for deceleration lane length and storage length).

As described on page 33, Caltrans has expressed concerns about traffic safety related to the project-generated increase in the number of quarry trucks making right turns from eastbound SR 88 at Jackson Valley Road (West). The existing deceleration lane for that turn movement is not up to Caltrans standards, and truck drivers likely are beginning to decelerate in the through lane, creating a potential traffic safety hazard. General Plan Policy 1B(15) states that the County “may require that a developer construct improvements needed to address traffic congestion or safety concerns prior to or coincidental with project occupancy”. On that basis, the project applicant would provide full funding for the construction of an eastbound right-turn lane, in accordance with Caltrans standards, in the Near Term rather than in the Cumulative context. While implementation of Measure 1 is contingent upon Caltrans approval, the fact that Caltrans requested this improvement, its implementation is assumed, and the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

ROADWAY STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS

Mitigation Measure 2: Reconstruct Jackson Valley Road (West) from the quarry access northwest to SR 88, in accordance with Amador County standards.

The details of the road cross section (e.g., pavement width and thickness, drainage improvements, etc.) would be determine per County standards. The reconstruction of the road segment would be completed prior to the start of the proposed increase of truck traffic.

Mitigation Measure 3: The quarry operator shall enter into a new long-term maintenance agreement with Amador County to maintain Jackson Valley Road (West) between the quarry access and SR 88.

B. CUMULATIVE (2025) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS

INTERSECTIONS

Mitigation Measure 4: At the intersection of SR 88 / SR 12 (#1), widen the westbound SR 12 approach to provide a separate 100-foot-long right-turn lane, and modify the signal to

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 44 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 provide overlap phasing for southbound right turns during protected eastbound left-turn phase.

As described on page 40, the addition of project traffic would degrade the service level from an unacceptable LOS D (under Cumulative Base conditions) to LOS E conditions during the AM peak hour (a significant cumulative impact per the County significance criteria and LOS objectives set forth in RTP Goal 1A [2]). The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 1.9% and 1.6% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively (see Appendix D for calculations).8

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS C during both the AM and midday peak hours. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement to Caltrans or San Joaquin County, and would contribute to the preparation of a circulation plan for the area that identifies the ultimate improvements needed for this intersection, as well as preliminary engineering drawings and preliminary cost estimates. However, as there is no assurance that this improvement would be implemented even with a fair-share contribution, and because it is not certain whether the above improvement could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 4 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Mitigation Measure 5: Install traffic signals, and associated geometric improvements (such as turning lanes), at the intersection of SR 88 and Jackson Valley Road [West] (#2).

As described on page 40, the addition of project traffic would degrade the service level on the northbound (stop-sign controlled) approach from an unacceptable LOS D (under Cumulative Base conditions) to LOS F during the AM peak hour, and would worsen the unacceptable LOS F conditions that would exist under Cumulative Base conditions during the midday peak hour (increasing the average vehicle delay by more than the five-second threshold of significance). This intersection is projected to meet Warrant 3 for “rural” areas for traffic signal installation (see Appendix E). This is considered a significant cumulative impact per the County significance criteria and LOS objectives set forth in RTP Goal 1A (2). The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 7.6% and 5.2% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively (see Appendix D for calculations).

8 The calculation of the project’s equitable contribution to the funding of mitigation measures used Equation C-1 in Caltrans’ Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Appendix B), for which the numerator is the net new vehicle trips generated by the project, and the denominator is the difference in traffic volumes under Cumulative With Project and Near-Term Baseline conditions.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 45 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 (which is consistent with the 2004 Amador County RTP as a fundable (“Tier 1”) project, MINOR 12) would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS B during both the AM and midday peak hours. As stated above, the Buena Vista Casino Final TEIR identified measures (signalization and turn lane) to mitigate the proposed casino’s significant impact, but those mitigation measures are not included in the final ISA, and therefore, the Buena Vista Rancheria can not be assumed to contribute to the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement (in the form of the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee [RTMF]), and would contribute to the preparation of a circulation plan for the area that identifies the ultimate improvements needed for this intersection, as well as preliminary engineering drawings and preliminary cost estimates. However, full funding is not assured, and for that reason and because it is not certain whether the above improvements could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 5 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Mitigation Measure 6: Install traffic signals at the intersection of SR 88 and Buena Vista Road (#5).

As described on page 40, the addition of project traffic would worsen the unacceptable LOS F that would exist under Cumulative Base conditions on the southbound (stop-sign controlled) approach during both the AM and midday peak hours (increasing the average vehicle delay in each case by more than the five-second threshold of significance). This intersection is projected to meet Warrant 3 for “rural” areas for traffic signal installation under midday peak-hour conditions (see Appendix E). This is considered a significant cumulative impact per the County significance criteria and LOS objectives set forth in RTP Goal 1A The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 1.7% and 1.0% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively (see Appendix D for calculations).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 (which is consistent with the 2004 Amador County RTP as a fundable (“Tier 1”) project, MINOR 13) would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS C or better during both the AM and midday peak hours. As stated above, the final ISA between Amador County and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians requires the Rancheria to fully fund installation of traffic signals and associated lane improvements at this intersection at the time when such improvements are required by Caltrans. However, the exact timing of implementation of this improvement has not been established. If the Buena Vista Casino project were to install traffic signals and lane improvements at the intersection of SR 88 and Buena Vista Road prior to the start of quarry operations on the proposed expansion site, then the Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion project’s impact would be less than significant. However, if development of the Buena Vista Casino project were to lag behind, and the intersection of

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 46 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 SR 88 and Buena Vista Road was unsignalized when mining were to begin on the proposed expansion site, then the project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement (in the form of the RTMF), and would contribute to the preparation of a circulation plan for the area that identifies the ultimate improvements needed for this intersection, as well as preliminary engineering drawings and preliminary cost estimates. Because full funding is not assured, and because it is not certain whether the above improvements could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 6 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Mitigation Measure 7: Install traffic signals at the intersection of SR 88 and SR 104 – Jackson Valley Road [East] (#6).

As described on page 40, the addition of project traffic would worsen unacceptable LOS F that would exist under Cumulative Base conditions on the southbound (stop-sign controlled) SR 104 approach during both the AM and midday peak hours (increasing the average vehicle delay in each case by more than the five-second threshold of significance). This intersection is projected to meet Warrant 3 for “rural” areas for traffic signal installation under midday peak-hour conditions (see Appendix E). This is considered a significant cumulative impact per the County significance criteria and LOS objectives set forth in RTP Goal 1A (2). The project’s contribution to the need for this cumulative mitigation measure would be 0.9% and 0.6% of the traffic volume growth between the Near-Term Baseline and Cumulative With Project conditions during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively (see Appendix D for calculations).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 would improve operating conditions to an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour, and would improve the midday peak-hour service level to LOS E. Although the midday peak-hour level of service would be worse than the LOS C standard, the LOS E conditions would be better than under the Cumulative Baseline LOS F conditions, thereby mitigating the project’s impact. As stated above, the Buena Vista Casino Final TEIR identified measures (signalization and turn lane) to mitigate the proposed casino’s significant impact, but those mitigation measures are not included in the final ISA, and therefore, the Buena Vista Rancheria can not be assumed to contribute to the implementation of Mitigation Measure 7. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share to the funding of this improvement, and would contribute to the preparation of a circulation plan for the area that identifies the ultimate improvements needed for this intersection, as well as preliminary engineering drawings and preliminary cost estimates. However, as there is no assurance that this improvement would be implemented even with a fair-share contribution, and because it is not certain whether the above improvements could be made (i.e., because Amador County, as lead agency, could not implement Measure 7 without the approval of Caltrans), the project impact is considered significant and unavoidable until such mitigation is fully funded and approved by Caltrans.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 47 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010 ROADWAYS As described on page 41, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on study roadway segments under Cumulative conditions, and no mitigation measures are required.

TRAFFIC SAFETY As described on page 41, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on study roadway segments under Cumulative conditions, and no mitigation measures are required.

Jackson Valley Quarry Expansion Project 48 ESA / 207443 Final Transportation Impact Study April 2010