1. Jesse Morrow Mountain Mine and Reclamation Project PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING February 9, 2012

2. EIR PRESENTATION OVERVIEW CEQA Process Overview Environmental Impact Report ‐ Project Description ‐ Resource Evaluation Summary (Draft EIR) ‐ EIR Comments and Responses (Final EIR) ‐ Reduced Alternative 4

3. CEQA Process Overview

4. Late 2002 Spring 2005 to 2009 Oct 2009 to Jan 2010 to Dec 2010

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Project Description Project Objectives Site Plan & Operations ‐ Mining Operations ‐ Processing Operations ‐ Additional Details Reduced Alternative 4

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Project Description

7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Objectives Project Objectives Are Provided In Section 2.3 of the EIR Define Range of Alternatives Understanding of the Applicant’s Objectives Used by County in its CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

8. SITE PLAN AND OPERATIONS Jesse Morrow Mountain Quarry Mine and Reclamation Plan Data Design/Operating CharacteristicsDescription/Parameter/Assumptions OPERATION ACTIVITIES MiningExcavation through drilling, blasting, and heaving equipment (e.g. dozers, haul trucks, and conveyor). ProcessingAggregate processing plant, asphalt batch plant, ready-mix plant, overburden, topsoil, and material stockpile areas, and settling ponds. ReclamationGrading, overburden/topsoil replacement and revegetation. MINE AND RECLAMATION DATA Acreages Total Parcel(s) Processing Plant Facility Acreage to be Mined Acreage to be Reclaimed 824± acres 40± acres 400± acres 440± acres Operations Period Mining Final Reclamation 100 years 3 years Mine Excavation Area Dimensions Approximate Maximum Length Approximate Maximum Width 4,100 feet 4,700 feet Reclamation Areas Open Space/Grazing Land 440± acres

9. RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) Reduced Alternative 4 Summary and Comparison To Project Project ElementProposed ProjectReduced Alternative 4 Acreage Total Surface Disturbance440 acres195 acres Mined Acreage400 acres100 acres Processing Acreage40 acres Other Acreage0 acres55 acres (fill, material storage, and berms) Production Total Aggregate Reserves Mined200 million tons75 million tons Maximum Annual Production2 million tons1.5 million tons Operations Period Mining100 years50 years Final Reclamation3 years End Use Reclaimed Slope Angle (Overall)2:11:1 Lowest Elevation500 feet amsl (75 feet bgs)375 feet amsl (200 feet bgs) Reclaimed End UseOpen Space/ Grazing

15. SITE PLAN AND OPERATIONS (cont.) Processing Operations Aggregate Plant Asphalt Batch Plant Ready-mix Plant

17. SITE PLAN AND OPERATIONS (cont.) Typical Hours of Operation OperationsDaily Hours Mining and Quarrying OperationsWinter (Dec. – Feb.): 7:00 am – 5:00 pm Normal (Mar. – Nov.): 7:00 am – 7:00 pm Crushing, Processing and Plant Operations6:00 am – 7:00 pm Blasting8:00 am – 4:00 pm Asphalt Plant Operations5:00 am – 5:00 pm Ready-Mix Plant Operations3:00 am – 5:00 pm Load-out: Aggregate Ready-Mix Asphalt 6:00 am – 10:00 pm 3:00 am – 5:00 pm 5:00 am – 5:00 pm Staging and Queuing: Aggregate Ready-Mix Asphalt 5:30 am – 6:00 am 3:00 am – 5:00 am 5:00 am – 5:00 am Maintenance: Weekdays Weekends 6:00 am – 6:00 pm 6:00 am – 5:00 pm

18. SITE PLAN AND OPERATIONS (cont.) UsesAxles Daily Trips AMPM EnteringExitingEnteringExiting INTERIM PHASE (650,000 tons/year) Ready Mix Employees 2140000 Asphalt Employees 22000 Aggregate Employees 2100000 Ready Mix Trucks 3/4826622 Asphalt Trucks 5663311 Aggregate Trucks 51247722 Cement Trucks 581100 Liquid Asphalt/ Propane Trucks 540000 Fuel Trucks 500000 Outside Services 220000 Interim Phase Total -31217 55 BUILD-OUT (2 million tons/year) Ready Mix Employees 2440000 Asphalt Employees 26000 Aggregate Employees 2300000 Ready Mix Trucks 3/425018 22 Asphalt Trucks 520010 11 Aggregate Trucks 538021 22 Cement Trucks 5262200 Liquid Asphalt/ Propane Trucks 5120000 Fuel Trucks 520000 Outside Services 240000 Build-Out Total -95451 55 Project Trip Generation Information for the Project

20. SITE PLAN AND OPERATIONS (cont.) Water Supply and Demand –Dust control, processing of rock, and manufacture of concrete –Total net annual water demand is approximately 164 acre feet (AF) with approximately 117 AF from stormwater runoff collection and 47 AF from onsite wells –Approximately 85-90 percent of water used in processing operations is recycled Power and Other Utilities –Power available via existing power line Work Force –Employ between 20-40 people (20-30 for Reduced Alt 4)

21. SITE PLAN AND OPERATIONS (cont.) Reclamation Plan Post-mining Land Use: Grazing and Open Space Slopes 2:1 (overall) Concurrent reclamation Financial Assurance Estimate updated annually County and Office of Mine Reclamation annual inspections, FAE review, and concurrence prior to closure and release of financial assurance mechanism

23. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resource Evaluation Summary (DEIR)

24. RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) Environmental Setting Form basis for impact evaluation Based on conditions as they exist at time of the issuance of the NOP (CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a)) Project impacts delta between environmental setting and implementation of the Project

25. RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.) Impacts, Mitigations and Significant Determination Issue Potential Impacts Evaluated Mitigation Measures Applied Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Aesthetic/Visual Resources 421 Agricultural Resources3-- Air Quality732 Biological Resources95- Cultural Resources341 Geology and Soils73- Hazards and Hazardous Materials 61- Hydrology53- Land Use and Planning51- Noise76 Traffic and Transportation 642 Cumulative Impacts105- Totals72376

26. Aesthetics Four potential aesthetic impacts identified and analyzed in EIR Analysis and conclusions based on site visits, photo simulations, and document review Identified five “key observations points” as basis for impact determination Impact 3.1-2, “Effect on Visual Character of Site and Surroundings” identified as significant and unavoidable Impact 3.1-3, “Project’s Effects on Scenic Resources for a State Scenic Highway” less than significant after recommended mitigation RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

31. Aesthetics (cont.) – Reduced Alternative 4 Reduced aesthetic impacts as a result of: –Reduced area of surface disturbance –Maintain ridgeline –Surface disturbance lower on mountain and shielded by topography and site design Difference in overall slope angle from 2:1 to 1:1 (both DEIR Ridgeline Preservation and Reduced Alternative 4) RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

32. Air Quality Seven potential air quality impacts were identified and analyzed in EIR Analysis and conclusions based on San Joaquin Valley APCD guidance and Project specific technical analysis Impact 3.3-2, “Long Term Operations Emissions” identified and analyzed emissions associated with Project mining and processing operations –Project emissions compared against SJVAPCD thresholds –ROG, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 less than significant –Project NOx emissions exceed SJVAPCD threshold and identified as significant and unavoidable RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

33. Air Quality (cont.) Impact 3.3-3, “Creation of Objectionable Odors” identified as significant and unavoidable Impact 3.3-5, “Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants,” analyzed potential impacts to human health –Included analysis of lifetime excess cancer risk, chronic hazard, and acute hazard for both residents and workers –Maximum predicted results did not exceed thresholds of 10 in a million for cancer risk or 1 in a million for acute and chronic hazard RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

34. Air Quality (cont.) – Reduced Alternative 4 Reduced Alternative 4 does not include a reduction in daily production Annual production is reduced from 2 million tons per year to 1.5 million tons per year resulting in a reduction in annual air emissions Total life of mine production is also reduced from 200 million tons to 75 million tons resulting in a life of Project decrease in emissions RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

35. Biological Resources Nine potential biological impacts were identified and analyzed in EIR Analysis and conclusions based on five sets of site visits, State database searches, and literature review Impact analysis focused on listed special status species including: –Special status plants, –Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, –California tiger salamander, –Migratory birds and raptors, –Burrowing owls, and –Riparian habitat and wetlands RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

36. Biological Resources (cont.) No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified Impacts to special status species were avoided through site design or reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation, including: –Pre-construction surveys, –Setbacks, –Seasonal avoidance; and/or –Habitat preservation for “take” RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

37. Biological Resources (cont.) – Reduced Alternative 4 Total surface disturbance reduced from 440 acres to 195 acres Impacts to biology proportional to surface disturbance All mitigation measures outlined in EIR would remain unchanged RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

38. Cultural Resources Three potential cultural resource impacts were identified and analyzed in EIR Analysis and conclusions based on records search, field survey, subsurface testing, and significant Native American consultation efforts Native American consultation efforts included the following: –October 2004: meeting with members of Kings River Farm Choinumni Tribal Council –NAHC comment in 2005 –January 2006: additional meeting to include members of other tribes in area –Comments were solicited over received from over 300 Native Americans throughout consultation process RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

39. Cultural Resources (cont.) Nine potential cultural resource sites were identified onsite –Two sites are outside surface disturbance boundaries –Six determined not eligible for the listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) –One, Jesse Morrow Mountain as a whole, was identified as potentially eligible for listing on the CRHR Surface disturbance on Jesse Morrow Mountain was considered a significant and unavoidable impact –Consultation revealed two differing opinions among Choinumni as to the cultural significance of Jesse Morrow Mountain –Mitigation is recommended setting aside 40 acres on north side of Jesse Morrow Mountain and donation Mitigation Measures have been provided in the event unidentified subsurface cultural resources and human remains are encountered RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

40. Cultural Resources (cont.) – Reduced Alternative 4 Total surface disturbance reduced from 440 acres to 195 acres Impacts to unidentified cultural resources reduced proportional to surface disturbance Impacts to Jesse Morrow Mountain as whole would remain All mitigation measures outlined in EIR would remain unchanged RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

41. Noise Seven potential noise impacts were identified and analyzed in EIR Analysis and conclusions based on noise surveys and estimates, County noise standards, and application of noise prediction and sound propagation equations Analysis conservative and does not take into account topography changes or proposed berms Closest residential receptor is 1,500 feet from proposed mining and 4,000 feet from the processing area RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

42. Noise (cont.) Impact 3.10-2, Noise Level Increase from Traffic, identified as less than significant Impact 3.10-3, Noise from Plant Operations, identified as potentially significant –Expected to occur when all processing activities occurring at once –Mitigation requires noise monitoring –Less than significant after mitigation Impact 3.10-4, Noise from Quarry Operations, identified as potentially significant –Only occur when mining westernmost portion of site –Mitigation requires noise monitoring –Less than significant after mitigation RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

43. Noise (cont.) – Reduced Alternative 4 Reduced Alternative 4 does not include a reduction in daily production Annual production is reduced from 2 million tons per year (tpy) to 1.5 million tpy Total life of mine is also reduced from 100 years to 50 Mining will occur within a pit, not hillside, providing further shielding of equipment RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

44. Traffic and Transportation Six potential traffic impacts were identified and analyzed in EIR Analysis and conclusions based on consultation with County Public Works, Caltrans, and a Project specific Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Two production scenarios were analyzed: –Interim phase production of 650,000 tons, and –Build-out phase production of 2 million tpy Project trip distribution assumed majority of trips would travel west on SR 180/Kings Canyon Road RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

45. Traffic and Transportation (cont.) Impact 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 analyzed Project traffic impacts on existing and cumulative levels of service (LOS) –Included analysis of thirteen intersections and six road segments included: – Impacts identified at nine intersections –Mitigation depends on intersection but may include “fair contribution” to signalize and/or restripe/widen approach lanes –Significant and unavoidable Opening day Project entrance improvements are provided to reduce traffic hazard impacts (Impact 3.10-3) to a less than significant level RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

46. Traffic and Transportation (cont.) – Reduced Alternative 4 Reduced Alternative 4 does not include a reduction in daily production Annual production is reduced from 2 million tons per year (tpy) to 1.5 million tpy resulting in a reduction in annual traffic Total life of mine is also reduced from 100 years to 50 years resulting in a life of Project decrease in total Project traffic Mitigation measures would remain unchanged RESOURCE EVALUATION SUMMARY (DEIR) (cont.)

47. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Comments and Response (FEIR)

48. EIR COMMENTS & RESPONSES (FEIR) Draft EIR circulated from October 5, 2009 to December 1, 2009 –Comments accepted through January 15, 2010 Notice of Availability and/or copies of Draft EIR were provided to agencies and community Comment letters received: –20 public agencies –38 organizations and businesses –391 private citizens

50. EIR COMMENTS & RESPONSES (FEIR) (cont.) Approach to Comment Responses: Collective Individual ‐ Agencies ‐ Organizations & Businesses ‐ Individuals

51. EIR COMMENTS & RESPONSES (cont.) Geographic Scope of Environmental Evaluations Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Native American Consultation Hydrology Land Use Noise Traffic Alternative Project Locations Financial Assurance for Completion of Reclamation Mitigation Monitoring Non-EIR/Administrative Issues Project Objectives and Aggregate Demand & Availability Collective Responses

52. EIR COMMENTS & RESPONSES (cont.) Agencies: 18 agencies commented on Draft EIR Key commenting agencies included: ‐ San Joaquin Valley APCD ‐ California Department of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ‐ City of Reedley

53. EIR COMMENTS & RESPONSES (cont.) Organizations & Businesses 23 organizations & businesses commented on Draft EIR Commenter's included local businesses, law firms, and local and regional environmental groups Individuals Almost 400 individuals commented on Draft EIR

54. FINAL EIR 7 Volumes Volume 1: Executive Summary Volume 2: Project Description & Resource Evaluations Volumes 3 & 4: Response to Comments & Responses Volumes 5-7: Appendices A-L

55. FINAL EIR (cont.) Volume 2: Project Description & Resources Evaluation Underline/Strikethrough format Not required by CEQA Key Revisions: ‐ Section 3.3 Air Quality ‐ Water Demand/ Water Supply Assessment ‐ Additional biological surveys ‐ Aggregate Demand ‐ Reduced Alternative 4

56. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Reduced Alternative 4

57. REDUCED ALTERNATIVE 4 Reduced Alternative 4 Overview Comparison with proposed Project Analysis of Environmental Impacts

58. REDUCED ALTERNATIVE 4 (cont.) Alternative Analysis Overview: Proposed by Applicant in response to comments received on Draft EIR A further reduction to Alternative 4: Ridgeline Preservation Alternative in the DEIR Applicant has submitted the following documents to support Reduced Alternative 4: –May 2011 memorandum outlining details of Reduced Alternative 4 –Slope Stability Analysis –Visual Simulations –Reclamation Plan, FAE, and Operational Statement

59. REDUCED ALTERNATIVE 4 (cont.) Reduced Alternative 4 Summary and Comparison To Project Project ElementProposed ProjectReduced Alternative 4 Acreage Total Surface Disturbance440 acres195 acres Mined Acreage400 acres100 acres Processing Acreage40 acres Other Acreage0 acres55 acres (fill, material storage, and berms) Production Total Aggregate Reserves Mined200 million tons75 million tons Maximum Annual Production2 million tons1.5 million tons Operations Period Mining100 years50 years Final Reclamation3 years End Use Reclaimed Slope Angle (overall)2:11:1 Lowest Elevation500 feet amsl (75 feet bgs)375 feet amsl (200 feet bgs) Reclaimed End UseOpen Space/ Grazing

64. REDUCED ALTERNATIVE 4 (cont.) Reduced Alternative 4 disturbance and associated impacts within envelope analyzed for proposed Project Geology & Soils and Hydrology Environmental Resource Reductions: ‐ Aesthetics ‐ Traffic ‐ Air Quality ‐ Noise ‐ Agriculture and Biology