Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout039-530-018 (2)Memorandum TO: Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee Members Meeting of April 18, 2006 FROM: Steve Troester, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Supplemental Report to Memorandum of February 14, 2006, regarding Request for Immediate Partial Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract of M&T Incorporated, 1976. APNs: Portions of: APN 039-530-018 and 020. Project Size: Two sites, 106.6 acres and 43.76 acres, adjacent to Little Chico Creek. Location: Approximately 5 miles southwest of the City of Chico Urban Limits on River Road, approximately 2.6 miles south of the intersection of Chico River Road and River Road, Butte County. Landowner/Petitioners: Pacific Trust Realty Associates L.P. (Pac Trust) Department of Development Services Planning Division EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The February 14, 2006 staff memorandum to the LCA Committee provided analysis and proposed findings regarding the Pacific Trust Realty/ M & T Ranch Williamson Act cancellation application. At the February 21 2006 meeting, the Committee received a staff report and held public hearing and discussions on this application. Following the recommendation of County Counsel, the Committee passed a motion of intent to bring this issue back to the Committee for consideration at the April 2006 meeting with finalized findings recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the cancellation, subject to conditions. The applicant was directed to work with staff to research and provide additional supporting evidence for the required findings. On March 16, Development Services and County Counsel staff met with representatives of the applicant who directed County staff to m Butte County Department Of Development Services ®. ■ Supplemental Report to LCA Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 1 of 6 ■ • references in the Draft EIR that provided additional information. These references within the EIR (see below) provide additional supporting evidence for the required finding regarding available and suitable proximate noncontracted land. The information and analyses of the February 14, 2006 staff memorandum to the LCA Committee regarding this cancellation application is also here incorporated by reference into this supplemental report. Staff recommends that the Committee take action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors make the required findings detailed herein and approve the tentative partial cancellation of the December 11, 1975 M & T Inc. Williamson Act. One member of the public, Mr. Ron Jones of 3202 Hudson.Ave. in Chico provided a letter of comments (copy here attached) to the Commission regarding this application. Supplemental Information Regarding Proximate Non -contracted Available Land: Section 5.2 Alternative Project Locations, page 5-3 of the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Draft EIR (September 2002) provides discussion of the limitations to alternate proximate lands available for the proposed mining use. The EIR states that the objective of the proposed project is to provide aggregate for the City of Chico and Butte County consumption area. The distance to these markets is important in determining the feasibility of an aggregate mine. Other potential aggregate mine sites have not been identified in close proximity to the M&T Chico Ranch site." The EIR states that the nearest alternative mining sites are located approximately 10-20 miles west of the site, in Glenn County. The EIR goes on to describe the prohibitive and environmentally disadvantageous constraints to using Glenn County sites to satisfy the Butte County demand. Table 5-2 (page 5-25) of the EIR details how the • proposed project site is consistent with the project objectives stated above, in terms of proximity to Chico, financial feasibility of the operation, anticipated approval and operations periods, and lands with high quality aggregate reserves already secured by the applicant. Staff has incorporated this information into Public Interest Finding 2 GC 51282 (c)(2) and Consistency Finding 5 GC 51282 (b)(5). Gravel Processing Area: Discussions by the LCA Committee on February 21 2006 also raised concerns about the compatibility of the proposed aggregate processing (crushing and screening) operations on the 44 -site (APN: 039-530-018) directly north of the mining area. This area was non - renewed but was not included in the cancellation requested. This processing area is separated from the 106 -acre mining area by approximately a 500 foot gap that is proposed to be spanned by a conveyor system (see attached Exhibit 1). In its November 19, 2004 letter (see Exhibit 2) to the applicant, the DOC determined that, "the underlying contractual commitment to preserve prime land will not be significantly impaired if the acreage proposed for the processing facility is immediately non -renewed and the Reclamation Plan for the project reflects reclamation of that acreage to prime agricultural land." It is staff's assessment that this DOC interpretation and determination applies equally to the 500 -foot span of conveyor system linking the mining area with the processing area. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Supplemental Report to LCA Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)0 April 18, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 6 0 • L� RECOMMENDED FINDINGS SUPPORTING CANCELLATION: The Department of Development Services staff analysis concludes that it is possible to make the "consistency" findings required for approval of this .cancellation request. Staff has prepared the following findings for LCA Committee adoption and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors: Consistency Findings: Based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, GC 51282 (b) in that: Consistency Finding 1: a) A notice of non -renewal was provided on October 17, 2005 by the applicant in accordance with the Government Code. Consistency Finding 2: That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use, in that: a) The Draft EIR prepared for this project imposes seven mitigation measures (4.5-1b through 4.5-1h) to reduce fugitive dust emission from the gravel operations to a less than significant level. b) All of the parcels immediately adjacent to the project are zoned Agricultural 40 -acre minimum, and are located outside of the Chico urban sphere of Influence. The project would not extend any urban services to this area that would encourage non-agricultural development resulting in removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. C) In general, the nature of sand and gravel operations discourages urbanization on adjacent lands, thus reducing the threat of conversion of adjacent agricultural lands due to possible urban uses. d) The project will be required, by way of the Surface Mining and Reclamation. Act (SMARA), to reclaim the area that is mined to re -use as open space land. Creation of open space land is compatible with adjacent agricultural operations and is not likely to result in removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. e) The adjacent prime agricultural lands are not likely to be removed from agricultural production because those lands to the north, south and east are under Williamson Act contract. ` The 173 -acre parcel (APN .039-020-005) directly to the west of the project site is not restricted by the Williamson Act, but is bisected by River Road and Little Chico Creek, and contains orchards only on the northwest side of Little Chico Creek. f) The Draft EIR specifically states that the project will result in the conversion of non -prime agricultural farmland on the project site to open space, but that the amount of agricultural land surrounding the site is abundant. In terms of ® Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ Supplemental Report to LCA Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)0 April "18, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 6 0 • prime agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected to result from this project (Draft EIR, § 6.1.2; p. 6-3). g) The Draft EIR states that proposed mining and reclamation activities, would be similar in scope and equipment used when compared to ongoing large-scale agricultural operations on other portions of the project site and surrounding areas. It also states that the dust generated by the gravel mining would be less than the dust generation associated with agricultural operations. The impact of the gravel mining operation would generate no greater impact than that of the existing agricultural operations on adjacent land. (Draft EIR, § 4.2.3, p. 4.2-7). h) The DOC November 28, 2005 comment letter concluded that the proposed mining operation is unlikely to result in urban development leading to the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. Consistency Finding 3: That cancellation is for an alternative. use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the county general plan, in that: a) The subject property proposed for cancellation carries the General Plan designation of OFC Orchard and Field Crops. One of the allowed "secondary uses" within the OFC is resources extraction and processing. Therefore, the proposed gravel mining use is consistent with the allowable uses for this land. b) Policy 2.6.a. of the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element states: • Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of building materials and other valued mineral resources. Policy 2.6.b. also states: Encourage the reclamation of lands subject to mineral extraction. The proposed alternative use for the lands on which cancellation are requested is consistent with both of these policies. C) Policy 6.6.a. of the Butte County General Plan Land Use ' Element states, "Encourage the creation and expansion of natural and wilderness areas." The project proposes that mined areas will be reclaimed incrementally to high- quality open -water, wetland wildlife habitat and agriculture. Concurrent reclamation will begin after the first five years of mining. Approximately 600 linear feet of lake perimeter will be created each year. Creation of new wildlife habitat is consistent with this policy of the General Plan. Consistency Finding 4: That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development, in that: a) The majority of the adjacent property is farmland enrolled in the Williamson Act. The proposed land use following the partial cancellation is for a sand and gravel operation. Once mining is complete, the land will be reclaimed as open space (Draft EIR, § 4.2.2, p. 4.2-6, Reclamation Plan, p. 10). The processing area will be reclaimed for agricultural uses (Draft EIR, § 4.2.2, p. 4.2-6). There is no anticipated actual or pending urban development in the • project area. ® Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ Supplemental Report to LCA Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)■ April 18, 2006 0 Page 4 of 6 0 • b) The cancellation and alternative use will not generate "discontiguous urban development" because there is no evidence that adjacent properties will be developed in the foreseeable future. Prime agricultural lands enrolled in LCA contracts surround the parcel to be removed from the LCA contract. These surrounding prime agricultural properties act as a "buffer," preventing discontiguous urban development for the foreseeable future, as discussed in the M&T Chico Ranch Draft EIR cumulative impact analysis. In terms of prime agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected to result as a result of this project (Draft EIR, § 6.1.2, p. 6-3). C) The cancellation and alternative use will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development by way of "significant growth -inducting impacts" (Draft EIR, § 6.2, p. 6-4). The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in employment or any increase in housing. No new roads or public services would be installed as a result of the project that will -remove obstacles to growth. The project would make available aggregate materials used in a variety of activities, including road buildings and maintenance and construction. While the project will make these materials available, it cannot be considered to be facilitating the activities using aggregate materials. The project is not the only source of these materials, and these activities will occur regardless of the availability of the additional resources made available in this project. Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects other than those addressed in the Draft EIR (DEIR, § 6.2, pp. 6-4 — 6-5). • d) The proposed use of the cancelled property as a sand and gravel mining operation would discourage urban development in the immediate area surrounding the project site, and thus, actually assist in the preservation of the prime agricultural land surrounding the sand and gravel operation. e) DOC's letter of November 28, 2005 takes the position that the M&T Chico Ranch Mine will not generate urban development, stating that: "The proposed mining operation is unlikely to result in urban development leading to the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. The proposed mining operation is consistent with the County's General Plan." Consistency Finding 5: That there is no proximate,' noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). a) The stated objective of the proposed project is to provide aggregate for the City of Chico and Butte County consumption area. The distance to these markets is important in determining the feasibility and environmental impacts of an aggregate mine. No other potential aggregate mine sites have been identified in close proximity to the M&T Chico Ranch site that could serve the Chico and Butte County market demand. The nearest alternative mining sites are located approximately 10-20 miles west of the site, in Glenn County. • ® Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Supplemental Report to LCA Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 5of6■ . b) Use of these Glenn County aggregate reserves to serve the City of Chico and Butte County demand would be cost prohibitive and environmentally disadvantageous due to the increased haul distance, resulting in increased air pollutants generated. c) The proposed project site is consistent with the stated use objectives, in that it contains high quality aggregate reserves that are already secured by the applicant. The proposed project site is also consistent with project objectives in terms of anticipated approval and operation periods. ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION Staff recommends that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee take the following action: • Move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the tentative partial cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for M&T Ranch Inc. (Assessor's Parcel Number: 039-530-019, 020, Instrument No. 23188, recorded February 26, 1976) with the findings detailed above, subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, approval of a mining permit and reclamation plan application for the proposed sand and gravel operation, certification of the project EIR by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Government Code Section 51282, based on the preceding • findings of fact detailed herein. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 Processing Area Diagram Exhibit 2 DOC Letter of November 19, 2004 Letter of comment dated April 8, 2006 from Mr. Ron Jones of 3202 Hudson Ave., Chico. • ® Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ Supplemental Report to -LCA Committee_— M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)0 April 18, 2006 0 Page 6 of 6 ■ • Jeff One of the issues that came to our attention as we prepared the staff report for the LCA Committee on Fe. 21 was the proposed LCA status of the area • • Legend E*fing Topography Roads Uftc" Cx4* Lease Boundary MIn_ - RaskWM Processtng Area Proposed�. �;;; ®Wgqfion = i +�+' 0Scale: I `--Z000 Feet I00 SOUROD .� Figure 3-3 Overall Mine Plan M&T CHICO RANCH MINE BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA M&T Chico Bauch Mine Project Draft EM 3-9 29 Uftc" Cx4* RaskWM Figure 3-3 Overall Mine Plan M&T CHICO RANCH MINE BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA M&T Chico Bauch Mine Project Draft EM 3-9 lu Uttle ChlCo Creek Crosses ,.t 1 _ . Gas Well +/-500 • ,� `sem r RW)cer \� Exhibit 1 44 -acre G rave l Processing Area Diagram (APN: 039-530-018) 44 -acre Processing Area f Gs • 9 Conveyor i Mining Parcel... . 7 Stora9e Argo 801 K STREET MS 2400 SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE 916/322-1080 FAX 916/445-0732 TOD 916/324-2555 INTERNET consrv.ca.goV ■ i ■ HOLD HWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR �31 DEPARTMENT O F CONSERVATION STATE OF CALIFO RNIA. ^November 19, 2004 Via FAX and U.S. Mail Fax: (916) 446-4535 Mr. Jeffrey Dorso The Diepenbrock Law Firm 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: M & T Chico Ranch Mine Dear Mr. Dorso: I was glad to meet with you, Mr. Harrison, and your client on November 8; 2004, to discuss this project. As you know, mining projects on Williamson Act contracted land pose unique and oftentimes difficult issues to resolve. I have thoroughly reviewed the, project and your position on the 45 -acre processing area.. Due to the unique circumstances of this project, the - Department of Conservation has determined that the underlying contractual commitment to preserve prime land will not be significantly impaired if the acreage proposed for the processing facility is immediately. non -renewed (Government Code section 51245), and the Reclamation Plan for the_project reflects reclamation of that acreage to prime agricultural land. This determination Is. conditioned upon the partial cancellation of 106 acres that will be utilized for mining during the next ten years and the non -renewal of the remainder of the acreage proposed for mining that is restricted by a Williamson Act contract. I appreciate your willingness, and that of your client, to find a workable solution. to the issues involved so that the project may proceed without compromising the integrity of the Williamson Act contracts both at issue here and across the state. Should you have any questions or require clarification, please call Dennis O'Bryant, Acting Assistant Director, Division of Land Resource Protection at 324-0850. Sincerely, Debbie Sareeram Interim Director cc: Mark Harrison Dennis O'Bryant �10 April 8, 2006 Le ffei. FXd M R®ot James Land Conservation Act Committee members, The M & T Ranch has petitioned Butte County and the Board of Supervisors for a partial cancellation of their Williamson Act agreement. However, it doesn't appear to me that they have met many of the requirements that would allow them out of their contract with the County, and I would like to explain why I think that. First, there is a provision that the cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adiacent land from agricultural use. According to the latest M & T Chico Ranch Mine reclamation map, Baldwin Construction is proposing to put the gravel pit lake 25 feet from our. property line. Then they plan to put a bypass channel between the lake and the property line. At least this is what I think they are proposing because on the map they actually show the bypass channel straddling the property line. The Department of Conservation told the Planning Department in an October 22, 2003 letter that the proposed reclamation plan was incomplete and that it needed to have a lot more detail before it could be approved. However, when the Planning Department received the new reclamation plan in late 2005, the bypass channel was still shown straddling our property line. I assume that this is a mistake and they actually don't pian to put the channel partly on our property as shown on the map; however, it appears that both the lake and the bypass channel would be well within 100 feet of our property line because they haven't told us differently. There is a lot of concem in California right now about pesticides getting into rivers and streams, and the State has mandated that this situation be studied by different water quality coalitions set up around California'. At the present time we are not allowed to spray dormant spray within 100 feet of irrigation ditches, drainage canals, or water bodies that may drain into a river or tributary (see highlighted areas Califomia Dept. of Pesticide bulletin in the appendix). In the regulations it doesn't even say that there has to be water in the drainage •ditch, or in this case bypass channel, for this restriction to apply. All it says is that you cannot spray within 100 feet of a drainage ditch.. And, as I said, the gravel pit lake and the bypass channel would both be well within 100 feet of our property line in an area which is in a flood plain. Every five years or so we have substantial flooding in this area flooding which would definitely be of sufficient magnitude that the flood waters would pour into the gravel pit lake and wash any sprays that have accumulated there out of the lake and into the streams. Dormant spray is used to control scale, mites, and other insect pests in almonds, and if we were not allowed to spray the first five or six rows of trees which are with this 100' area next to the M & T property line that could cause all sorts of problems. Because of the increasing concern over pesticides and chemicals getting into the water supply, I suspect that over time. regulations might be put in place which would ban other chemicals (besides dormant sprays) from being sprayed within a certain distance of waterways and that distance could easily be much less than the current 100 feet in the future. Would allowing the cancellation of this Williamson Act contract result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use? Over time it certainly appears that it would, or it would at least seriously impair our ability to farm almonds along` the M & T property line. Another problem with the cancellation petition is Baldwin's statement that the land in the gravel pit site is non -prime farmland. For Williamson Act purposes the agency that decides if land is considered prime or not is the National Resource Conservation Service. After going to the gravel pit site, the NRCS said that the EIR was wrong when it stated that this was non -prime farmland and they explained why it should have been rated as prime farmland. Also, in an October 10, 2003 letter to Development Services, the Butte County Assessor gave a detailed explanation of how he determined that this was prime farmland. (This letter is in the appendix.) I was stunned when I saw the Planning Department's memorandum to you stating that this land was non -prime. I -asked Dan Breedon why they did this, and he said it had something to do with. the man who. did the EIR soil study giving a lengthy explanation at the Planning Commission meeting about why they classified it as non -prime. Then l reminded him that both the Assessor and the NRCS said it was prime, and Dan agreed to give, you these facts at your next meeting. As you know,.the people doing the EIR are being paid by whoever hires them to do • this report; in this case it is Baldwin: If they come up with a lot of findings that make Baldwin look bad then no other companies would ever want to hire this company to do an environmental impact study for them. So they are naturally biased and, as a result, the report is not necessarily factual. At one of the Planning Commission meetings I pointed out the errors in the hydrology -flooding report. And later I'll explain how the person who did the gravel availability study was also mistaken, just as this guy who did the soil study came up with the wrong findings. It's probably not too difficult to find someone who can make the EIR say whatever you want it to say if you're willing to pay them enough. This is very obvious when you read through this Environmental Impact Report. Nothing is ever a problem. It is worth noting, though, that the only two unbiased people to report about the soil, the Assessor and the NRCS, both came to the conclusion that it was prime soil. Another requirement for the M & T to be allowed out of their Williamson Act contract is that the proiect is in compliance with the Butte County General Plan, The General Plan says, "Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of building materials and other valuable mineral resources". It goes onto say, °Encourage the reclamation of land. subject to mineral extraction." According to a February 21, 2006 memorandum from the Butte County Development Services Department, leaving a 70 foot hole in the ground with a mosquito -invested swamp along the edges would be in compliance with the reclamation standards as envisioned by the writers of the General Plan. So what does the General Plan have to say about the conversion of ag land? The Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan says, "Provide a definitive purpose section for the agricultural zones and a list of agricultural uses, including, but not limited to crop production, orchards, aquaculture, animal husbandry, and agricultural industries, and the like, which preserve, promote, and support agricultural areas" (pg. AE —14). The General Plan seems to be saying that in an agricultural area like this one, the only acceptable alternate land uses are those that promote agriculture, which, the gravel pit lake would not. (Agricultural Element of the General Plan is in the appendix.) When I read the General Plan, there didn't seem to be any exceptions to the list of alternate land uses listed above. So what else does the General Plan Agricultural Element . have to say about agriculture in Butte County? (1) "The County is committed to protecting and maintaining agriculture as a continuing major part of the local economy and way of life." (AE —1) (2) "To protect the natural resources that sustain agriculture in Butte County." (AE -1) I assume farmland would be the natural. resource that the County is trying to protect here in the Agricultural Element of the General Plan. (3) "Allowing "a wide range of additional land uses in agricultural areas create conflicts for farmers and ranchers. Some uses, such as water-ski lakes....can diminish productive agricultural operations". (AE -5) How is this lake any different than a water ski lake? (4) "Conversion of quality agricultural land to non-agricultural uses has other significant adverse effects. One of these is simply the physical loss of productive land to uses that could be located on non-agricultural land". (AE -S) We have repeatedly said that operations like this should be put in the foothills or in areas where the gravel is right on the surface, not where you have to dig through 15 feet of prime farmland to get to the gravel. Nothing in the General Plan seems to allow for a project's approval on farmland in the County other than to return it to an agriculture use or to approve some 'use that would preserve, promote, and support agriculture. So it's hard to understand how anyone can read the General Plan and come to the conclusion that.ruining good farmland is in accordance with the Butte County General Plan. Next. I would like to examine if there is indeed a -gravel shortage in Butte County and thus cancellation would be in the public interest. In the M & T Ranch DEIR dated October 2003 on page 4.0-20 current Butte County aggregate production figures are given. On this page it says that there are 54 million tons of permitted aggregate available in Butte County and that in the next 50 years we will need 127 million tons -of aggregate. If we look only at these figures it would certainly seem that we have a 73 million ton shortage of gravel in Butte County. The writer who did the gravel availability study in the EIR got a lot of his data and other information from the Department of Conservation's Aggregate Availability in California Study by Susan Kohler that was in the agenda. materials you received before, your February 21st meeting. According to this report, the statewide average of aggregate used in California was seven tons per person, and the person doing the gravel availability study for the EIR used this number to figure the yearly and 50 -year aggregate needs for Butte County. He also quoted from this same study several times. He seems to have done an accurate job of determining that Butte County will need 127 million tons of gravel in the next 50 years and that the total permitted reserves for the County is 54 million.. It was at this point, though, that he made one huge mistake in determining whether or not Butte County actually has a gravel shortage. , The Department of Conservation's Aggregate Availability in California Study says, "The per capita consumption model has proven to be effective for prediction of aggregate demands in the major metropolitan areas.......". "However, the model may not work well in county aggregate studies where the boundaries have little correlation to the aggregate market area and in P -C (Production -Consumption). regions that import or export a large percentage of aggregate. In such cases, projections were based on a modified per capita consumption model. For example, if a P -C region imports,30% of its aggregate, the total 50 - year projected aggregate demand for the P -C region may be decreased by 30%."(pg. 5) (This page of her report is included in the appendix.) What they are talking about here is exactly what we have in Butte County. Much of the gravel used in Butte County comes from outside the County, so when you do an aggregate availability study you have to take into consideration all the gravel we get from other counties. One word from the quote in the previous paragraph bothered me. It says the demand "may" be decreased. I wondered what Ms. Kohler meant by this. Should a person doing an aggregate availability report lower the 50 -year demand by the percentage of gravel 41 being imported or did the word "may' mean that this was optional, so I decided to call Ms. Kohler and ask her. She said when she originally wrote that statement she used the word "should", but she said that for legal reasons when someone else working for the State edited her study the word "should" was changed to "may". She said in all of the 32 areas they studied in this report if gravel was imported or exported, then the 50 -year demand figures were either raised or lowered accordingly. The purpose of doing an aggregate availability study is not to find out how much gravel is available in the County but to find out how much gravel is available to the County. The writer of the Environmental Impact Report did not take into consideration any gravel being imported into Butte County from other counties, and this oversight led to his incorrect conclusion that we have a gravel shortage in Butte County. According to Ms. Kohler, if gravel is being imported then the 50 -year demand figures should be lowered, which the person doing the EIR report on gravel availability did not do. So just how much gravel is imported, into Butte County? In the Glenn County Resource Report (1997) the State Division of Mines and Geology states that 55% of the aggregate mined in Glenn County is exported to Butte County. Now the problem was figuring out how much gravel is produced in Glenn County in a year.. Each year in Glenn County the gravel companies are charged a per ton fee by the County based on how many tons of gravel they produce each year. I called the Glenn County Assessor's office and talked to Mardy Thomas, and he told me he didn't have the figures for 2005 but in 2004 the gravel companies produced 1,252,000 tons. If the 55% figure quoted above.is about right that would be about 688,600 tons of gravel coming from Glenn County into Butte County each year. Next I tried to figure out how much gravel was coming from Tehama County. Just about 10 miles north of Chico right next to Highway 99 there are two gravel pits within a few miles of each other. Both are just over the Butte -Tehama county line. I asked the owner of the 7-11 Pine Creek Gravel Pit how much gravel he thought came from his gravel pit into Butte County last year and he said about 250,000 tons. Next I called the Deer Creek Gravel. Pit and they told me they ship about 40,000 tons a year into Butte County. Then I called several gravel operations in Yuba County but they didn't think that very much of their gravel went to Butte County. This seemed to concur with the Aggregate Availability Study done for Yuba City -Marysville area in which they said that only 1.8% of the gravel mined there ends up in Butte County. So it appears that there is about 978,600 tons of gravel being imported each year into Butte County from Tehama and Glenn Counties (688,600 from Glenn County, and 290,000 from Tehama County). According to the M & T Ranch FEIR (October 2003 - pg. 4.0-18) the estimated use for Butte County for 2005 should have been about 9,560,000 tons. We know that this figure is arrived at by multiplying the number of people in Butte County by 7 tons, which is the average amount of aggregate used by everyone in Cal ifomia each year. As read the aggregate availability studies for surrounding counties, I noticed that the amount of aggregate used in a county can vary dramatically from one year to another since housing booms or major road projects can cause the actual yearly amounts to fluctuate wildly. However,' this figure of 1,560,000 tons should fairly well approximate the average usage in the County over a period of several years. When we subtract the two numbers (1,560,000 — 978,600) we find that, in an average year Butte County probably produced about 581,400 tons of gravel, meaning that the County actually imported more gravel in than we actually produced in the County. If we divide 581,400 tons by 1,560,000 tons we get a figure of 37%. This means that in an average year about 37% of the gravel used in Butte County is produced within the County. We can then multiply the 50 -year aggregate need for the County (127,682,670 million tons as found in the FEIR on pg.4.0-2) by 37% and we will come up with the.actual 50=year aggregate needs of. the County, which would be 47,242,587 million tons. If you compare this to the 54,437,000 tons presently permitted in Butte County, then we already have more tons of aggregate permitted than we will need for the next 50 years. Then I decided to find out if there'were any more gravel pits that are close to being permitted in the County at this time. I was told that the Cherokee Mine is probably within a year of being permitted and they estimate that they will have 100 million tons of sand and gravel and 40 million tons of hard rock. Also the Green Rock — Marietta mine may be close to getting a permit for an addition 60 million tons of aggregate. If both of these get permitted, we would have about 254 million tons of gravel permitted in the County which would be more than 5 times as much gravel as we will need in the next 50 years. Do we have a gravel shortage in the County? It sure doesn't look like it, especially if either or both of these mines get permitted. In fact, if both of these mines get permitted we would have twice as much gravel permitted as we would need in the County over the next 50 years — even if you don't figure in all the gravel coming in from outside the County! There's another way to tell if we have a shortage of gravel in the County. According to Susan Kohler's Aggregate Availability in California Study, the average cost of aggregate in California is between $8 and $10 per ton (pg. 12). In areas such as the North San Francisco Bay Region where. gravel is in short supply the cost is $20 per ton. The amount charged in any one region is a direct result of the law of supply and demand. If there is more gravel than there is demand, the cost of gravel is low and the opposite is true as seen in the Bay area. In Butte County gravel is selling for around $5.30 per ton (pg. 14 Mineral Land Classification of the M & T Ranch - 2000), which is well below the State average and is probably a pretty good indication that we do not have a supply shortage in the area. Another thing Susan Kohler said in her gravel availability study is that the supply of gravel in your area can be depleted very quickly if the gravel in surrounding counties were to run out. So is this something Butte County should be concerned about? According to Ms. Kohler's study, the Yuba City -Marysville area has permitted aggregate* reserves of 2,000 million tons (pg. 8). This is 34 times as much as we would need in Butte County for the next 50 years and 66 times as much as Yuba County will need in the next 50 years. . In the Department of Conservation's Report on Concrete -grade Aggregate in Glenn County it was established that a large portion of the land area of Glenn County contains aggregate 0 f 0 resources of regional significance with a potential supply of 1,031 million tons of aggregate which is about 17 times the total we will need in Butte County for the next 50 years. The Department of Conservation's Aggregate Availability study for Tehama County indicated a huge amount of'gravel (I can't remember the exact number but it was similar to Glenn County's). I say all this just to say that there is no chance anytime soon that any of the counties around us are going to be running out of gravel, and these surrounding counties should be able to keep supplying us with a continuous stream of gravel well into the foreseeable future. You might ask if it is really economical to ship gravel from Glenn County? Well, if it isn't economical there sure is a lot of gravel coming in. As a matter of fact, it was from their Stony Creek pit in Glenn County that Baldwin has gotten most of their gravel for many years. Also the two gravel pits I mentioned which are in Tehama County are only about 10 miles north of Chico on Highway 99, and this is well within the 30 -mile range that they say gravel'has to be in order to be economical. The chart on page 4.0-20 of the EIR says that Butte County will need 18 million tons of gravel over the next 10 years but, of course, the person doing the aggregate availability study didn't take into account the gravel coming from outside the County. According to Ms. Kohler we need to multiply the 18 million tons by 37% in order to arrive at the true aggregate needs for Butte County for the next 10 years. By doing this, we find that the aggregate availability study in the EIR should have actually shown a total of 6.66 million tons 'of aggregate needed in the County over the next ten years, and we already have permitted 54 million tons in the County. We have more than 8 times as much gravel permitted in Butte County at the present time than we will need for the next 10 years. If both the Cherokee Mine and the Green Rock Mine get permitted we will have 38 times as much gravel permitted as we will need for the next 10 years. What is the urgency to let Baldwin out of their Williamson Act contract? Where is the pressing public need? Are we going to run out of gravel in the next 10 years if we don't approve this cancellation? Absolutely not!l If the average gravel needs of the County are computed correctly and if these two additional gravel pits get permitted we can see that there is already more than enough gravel in Butte County to last us for the next 200 years. If the M & T applies for non -renewal, then in 10 years they could start mining gravel. In the meantime their gravel isn't going to go anywhere. It will still be there waiting for any future need the County might have. In order to assess whether there's a public need for this project, itis important to look at the whole picture, not just one little piece of the puzzle. As far as the public is concerned, is this project going to create more problems than it cures? One very important issue conceming public safety deals with mosquitoes and the potentially fatal diseases that they may carry. Baldwin would need to remove 15 feet of topsoil to get to the gravel strata they want to mine, and they had to figure out what to do with all this dirt so they decided to push it along the edges of the pit to form a 501 -foot wide shelf around the lake, and they are calling this shelf a wetland area. The water table in this area usually varies from about 7 to 11 feet throughout the year. They want to design this shelf so that.as the water table goes up and down a portion of shelf would be at the edge of the lake at all times and they say that native grasses and trees would grow in this area. The problem is that this would provide a perfect habitat for mosquitoes, and even if the Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control did put mosquito fish into the lake, the fish wouldn't be able to get to the mosquitoes because of the dense vegetation. For the first few years the County might be able to spray repeatedly to keep the mosquito population down, but they could only do this for a while because once the willows, cottonwoods, and other trees started growing along the edges they probably wouldn't be able to get close enough to spray. The mosquito abatement people wrote a letter to the Planning Department explaining that the design of the shelf was very problematic because it would actually encourage a population of the types of mosquitoes that most often cause West Nile Virus and Encephalitis. (Letter in appendix) Another concern is the amount of damage the 33.000 trucks pulling out of this proiect each year would do to area roads. River Road and Chico River Road are already torn up. and if this project is approved there could be millions of dollars of damage done to area roads. For years I've heard that Chico River Road and River Road were not built to handle this kind of truck traffic but I didn't know'if this was true or not, so in order to find this out went to the Butte County Department of Public Works and talked to two gentlemen there, Jack Warson and Stu Edell. They told me that when River Road and Chico River Roads were being built that they usually used eight inches of base and two inches of asphalt in the construction of the roads. They said., though, that the roads were built in about ten sections and that it would take a while to look all this up, so I asked them if they could look up just a couple of sections to see what was used. They looked up three sections that they felt would ;be representative of the area (the print-outs for these areas are in the appendix in the back of this report) and this is what they found. On either side of the bridge over the M. & T Parrott Canal on Chico River Road they used 10 inches of base and 2 inches of asphalt. This may be one of the newest sections of that road and it was probably replaced when this bridge was rebuilt. Then they checked another section of Chico River Road just past the city limits of Chico. This was built with 8 inches of base and 2 inches of asphalt. The last section they looked up was a section of River Road just past Chico River Road, and on this section they only used 4 inches of base and 2 inches of asphalt. So I asked them if they thought these roads could withstand'a lot of .heavy truck traffic and they just shrugged their shoulders and didn't seem to want to commit themselves on this one. They did say, .though, that one section of River Road about a mile northeast of the proposed processing area was already starting to fall apart. So I asked them if these roads did fall apart and needed to be rebuilt just how much base and asphalt they would use to rebuild them, knowing that there might be a lot of truck traffic out on these roads. They said if these roads fell apart they would use 14 inches of road base and 5 inches of asphalt to rebuild them. As you can see there is quite a difference between how these roads were built and what would be needed to build these roads strong enough to withstand this much heavy -truck traffic. They also said that they would put wider shoulders on the road. I asked how much it would cost to rebuild these roads and they said about $400,000 per mile. There are approximately 10 miles of road from Chico to Ord Ferry Road and if they had to be replaced it would cost the County about $4,000,000. Would heavy truck traffic cause these roads to fall apart? It seems very likely. It doesn't sound like these roads have nearly enough base or asphalt to stand up to the pounding they would get from 33,000 gravel trucks a year. Does the County want to be stuck with the cost of rebuilding these roads? Four million dollars is a lot of money, and all Baldwin would be contributing towards the road maintenance for all the roads they would be using in the County is about $23,000 a year for 10 years or a total of about $230,000 (FEIR pg. 4.0-25). If these trucks do tear up the roads, roads which were clearly not constructed to handle this kind of truck traffic, then the County would be stuck with paying the other $3,770,000 needed to fix them, and this amount is only for one section of the roads. I didn't even ask about Ord Ferry Road or any of the other roads they would be using. . I am including an article in the appendix from the Chico News and Review dated April 13, 2000 in which Mike Crump tells how in just a couple months' time heavy gravel trucks /0. going over County roads that weren't built to handle them caused over $600,000 in damages to those roads during two different winters. Apparently in the wintertime the ground under some low-lying roads can become saturated with water and cause the roads to break down more quickly. In the vicinity of the proposed processing plant, even during a minor flood, several miles of the roads can be covered or almost covered with water. This means that allowing a plant like this to be built in a flood plain would only accelerate the destruction of these roads. In the News and Review article, Mike Crump said the $600,000 it was going to cost to fix these roads out around the town of Nord was going to be a huge hit to the County coffers, but that amount would pale in comparison to the almost $4,000,000 the County would have to spend to fix roads damaged by Baldwin's gravel trucks. It's also important to think about all the traffic problems this proiect would cause. By their own estimates 85% of the 33,000 trucks leaving this plant will be going right through the middle of Chico in order to get to where they need to go. (In the appendix I have included a map of the proposed routes these trucks will take.) If you count the trucks leaving as well as the trucks returning to the plant, there would be about 59,400 trucks going right through the middle of Chico each year. Most of these trucks would come into Chico on West 5"' Street and from there they would fan out to West 8th and West 9t' Streets or Nord Avenue -city streets which are currently heavily congested. The mayor of Chico has already written to the Planning Department saying that he's opposed to this project because of traffic concerns, and the Durham School Board wrote a similar letter voicing their opposition to this project. (Letters included in appendix) In a December 3. 2003 letter the Highway Patrol addressed another public safety concern. They stated that because of how narrow both River Road and Chico River Road are that "the additional truck traffic would create an unacceptable safety hazard for the motoring public..." and to "slow moving agricultural equipment and bicyclists".' They said that the design of River Road "makes it difficult for commercial vehicles to safely. and legally negotiate". They also said that having this many trucks going into and out of the Skyway asphalt plant would "create an unacceptable safety hazard" and would "increase the probability for a high speed collision to occur". (Highway Patrol letter.is in the appendix) By Baldwin's own estimates, there would be one truck every four minutes going up and down West 51' Street, a very narrow street which is used by hundreds of college students and kids from Rosedale School as they make their way to and.from school each day. Rosedale School is just three blocks north of West 5th and many children attending this school have to cross it to get to school each day. This seems like an unacceptable risk. In the Chico News and Review article I mentioned earlier, Mike Crump said that having 109 trucks a day going within a block of the Nord School for just a few months caused him to have deep concerns for the safety of the children on foot, using bicycles, or vehicles to get to school. With the M & T's project there would be 120 trucks a day going up and down West 51"' Street for 30 years. This is a huge reason for public concern, not just to the elementary school children but also to everyone using this road. Compare this scenario to the one of having gravel pits up in the foothills like the two on Highway 99 just north of Chico. Trucks pulling out of these locations would cause only a small fraction of the traffic problems that the Baldwin site would cause. When these trucks need to go somewhere they won't have to use city streets to get to the freeway. They would be able to get directly onto the freeway and use designated truck routes to get to most of their'destinations. Also, none of Butte County's tax revenues would be used to repair Hwy 99 — any damage the trucks coming from these gravel pits might do would be paid for by the 1S State. We wouldn't have to spend millions of County tax dollars to repair the rural roads because, for the most part, these trucks wouldn't need to use those roads. We are already losing thousands of acres of agricultural land in California each year to different forms of development, either houses, roads, or projects like this. The real pressing public need is to preserve as much farmland as possible. Projects like this should not be put on prime agricultural land such as this. There are hundreds of acres of land in Glenn County that have been identified by the Department of Conservation,as being areas of regional significance where the gravel is right on the surface and they wouldn't have to dig through 15 feet of prime topsoil just to get to the gravel like they would in this project. Wally Roney, owner of Pine Creek Gravel plant north of Chico, told me that for over 10 years he's been trying to get another 800 acres permitted to mine, but With no success. This 800 -acre site is adjacent to the Pink Creek plant which is in Butte County right on Hwy. 99. One of the rules that must be met in order to get out of a Williamson Act contract is that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable. Although, Mr. Roney's 800 acres may not be considered in close proximity to the River Road site, it is only about two or three miles further from Chico than their proposed mining operation on the M & T Ranch. I realize that Mr. Roney's land is also under a. Williamson Act contract, but jZ where would you rather see a gravel pit located? Which would be a better_option for Butte. County? To have: a gravel pit located on prime land, which will be ruined when they are done, and where the County will need to spend $4,000,000 to repair the roads? or one on land that's not prime, which will be returned to grazing land when they are done mining, and where the County probably won't have to spend.a dime on road repairs? Obviously, this decision should be based completely on what is best for Butte County — not what is best for Baldwin. If the County is convinced that we need another gravel pit it just makes sense to locate it where prime farmland wouldn't be ruined and where the cost of repairing damaged roads wouldn't bankrupt the County The true intent of the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract seems to be best summed up in the landmark court case of Honey Springs Homeowners Assn. V.. Board of Supervisors which said, "The court concluded the Legislature intended the cancellation provision be available only in extraordinary situations.in which ordinary non -renewal and expiration procedures would pose insurmountable obstacles to the accomplishment of pressing public need". It is obvious that there is not a pressing public need to allow this project to go forward either in the next 10 years or for the next 50 years, for that matter. In fact, when you weigh all the pros and cons of this project, not only is there clearly no pressing public need for this project, the real pressing public need is to reject this project, especially when you realize that a gravel shortage in Butte County simply does not exist. The Williamson Act was adopted with the specific intent of conserving prime farmland. If. Baldwin is allowed to mine on land designated as prime then not only would 193 acres of ag land be lost forever, but it could open the door for many other gravel- companies to ask that similar projects be approved all over the County. Baldwin would need to remove 15 feet of topsoil to mine the gravel on the M & T Ranch. Any gravel company that's willing to remove that much topsoil could probably find gravel stratas similar to this all over the area, near the river. Other companies might say, "If Baldwin was allowed to put a mine in the middle of some the best ag land in the County — land that was classified as prime farmland — then I should be able to put a gravel pit just about anywhere in the County I want". , The approval of this project could set a precedent and send a message that there isn't anyplace in the County that would be off limits to future gravel mining operations no matter how prime • the soils were. Permitting this project could eventually lead to thousands of acres of farmland being destroyed in the future. There are hundreds of people in the Durham -Chico area who have written or voiced their opposition to the proposed M,& T gravel mine. The Planning. Department has probably received more letters opposing this project than just about any other on record. In the front of the DEIR 12 pages of businesses and individuals are listed who have written to the County about this project, and almost all them -were in opposition to it_ And what did most people object to? The three main reasons were the destruction of prime farmland, traffic, and public safety. The M & T's gravel mining project.would be a disaster for Chico and Durham. F There are many reasons why the M & T should not be allowed out of their Williamson Act contract? Because: (1) There is no gravel shortage and therefore no pressing public need. (2) This project is diametrically opposed to everything the General Plan says about projects which are approved for prime ag land in Butte County. (3) The gravel pit lake and bypass channel would destroy our ability to farm almonds along the M & T property line. (4) There is plenty of land in Glenn County as well as in Butte County that would be much more suitable for operations like this. (5) The negatives far outweigh the positives. The negatives being too much traffic right through Chico and Durham; danger to school children in Durham and Chico; road repair costs bankrupting the County, dangerous conditions on area roads for cars, bicycles, and farm equipment, the expense of continual spraying for mosquitoes and the diseases they carry, and the destruction of prime farmland Thank you, Ron Jones 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico 95973 345-4286 Appendix Pesticide — Dormant Spray Bulletin Assessor's Letter concerning land being prime Agricultural Element pages from the County General Plan Page 5 from the Department of Conservation Gravel Availability report Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District letter • Three "As-Builts" for sections of Chico River and River Road Mike Crump's Chico News and Review article Map showing routes gravel trucks will be using Mayor Scott Gruendl's Letter Durham Unified School District Letter Highway Patrol letter O Proteq;lg.i.ng rive_ rfrom dormant s .r residues' p Y Pesticide applications to orchard crops during. two watersheds. State and federal laws winter, when the trees are dormant, kill prohibit discharge of substances that make overwintering arthropod pests (such as scales our rivers toxic to aquatic life. and mites) and diseases. The treatment is The detections led the Central Valley Regional more effective because there are no leaves on Water Quality Control Board to declare this the trees and later helps to. keep these problem a violation of its Basin Plan water destructive pests under control through the - quality standard for toxicity. In 1998, the . growing season. State placed the two rivers and the associated But the organophosphate (OP) pesticides Delta/Estuary on the Clean Water Act 303(d) (such as diazinon, methidathion and chlorpy- list of impaired waterways, partly because of rifos) used as dorinant sprays can cause elevated OP levels originating from dormant problems when drift occurs, or when rain spray runoff or drift. These listings require washes residue's into Central Valley rivers and that specific measures be to eliminate streams. The Department of Pesticide harmful residues in the.watersheds. To do this Regulation's (DPR) Dormant Spray Water requires that we understand the specific Quality Initiative, which began in 1996, works agricultural production practices that contrib- to prevent aquatic toxicity from pesticide ute to the problem, how,pestiddes are moving residues in the Sacramento and San Joaquin into waterways, and alternative practices that r Rivers. DPWs efforts to reduce problems caused_ will reduce pesticide runoff and drift to a level . by dormant sprays will now be augmented by that eliminates toxicity in surface water. - use restrictions. • _ Woricing toward a solution About the pal Under a 1996 settlement agreement between _ DPR scientists analyzed data from 22 surface the Sacramento Valley Toxics Campaign and water studies conducted between 1991 and the State and Central Valley Water Boards, DPR 2001 by the Department, other government agreed to resolve water quality problems agencies; and private companies. We found caused by dormant sprays. Rather than . that dormant spray insecticides were fre- immediately move to mandatory restrictions, quently detected in the watersheds of the DPR launched a five-year plan working with ' Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, particu- growers to see if voluntary practices could be " lady in tributaries. The highest detections developed and adopted to reduce the move-. , were of diazinon, and coincided with flooding ment. of these pesticides to surface waters. of orchards by winter rains. Small aquatic test DPR agreed to periodically evaluate the invertebrates are killed when exposed for even success of these voluntary efforts toward short periods to the OP levels detected in the achieving water quality compliance_ �...�`".ISL . ..?• S P 1,ai ..' Y' r During that time, DPR worked with commodity Diazinon residues R r, groups, pesticide registrants, growers, DPR"s review of monitoring data indicated that M ^ agricultural advisors, County Agricultural diazinon residues were particularly problem- . Commissioners, Resource Conservation atic and must be reduced to meet water . Districts and others. The Department awarded quality' standards. When data indicate an ' - $1.2 million in grants to develop pest unacceptable risk to human health or the management practices that could reduce environment, regulations require DPR to discharges of dormant sprays into surface initiate a formal reevaluation of a product's water. Registrants also did outreach to raise registration. grower awareness and suggest "best manage- a ment practices" to use when applying In February 2003, the Department placed - - _ pesticides. DPR also conducted or funded $2.6 diazinon dormant spray products into million in water monitoring studies between reevaluation. DPR has directed the registrants ' 1991 and 2001. of this OP to'conduct studies that will identify the processes by which dormant spray Under the settlement agreement, if improve= diazinon products are contributing to con' ments were not made in water quality, DPR tamination of rivers and streams. The ' DPR will continue to would initiate regulatory measures. A DPR registrants must also, identify mitigation analysis of monitoring done between 1991 strategies that will reduce or eliminate monitor progress ,, t and 2001 found little progress in reducing diazinon residues in surface water. The toward ®laminating •• aquatic toxicity. (This report, EH-01-01, is on , measures must be feasible and supported by t DPR's Web site, www cdpr.ca.gov, click on scientifically valid studies. If no solution can ' problems in surface- t "Programs and Services," "Dormant Spray be found, the Department can ban sales and Water Quality Initiative," then "Reports.") use of dormant spray diazinon products. water from dormant ray residues. Should , What's next? Monitoring compliance + y Unfortunately, although progress was made, DPR will periodically evaluate water quality additional measures be , . voluntary measures were not sufficient to.. data to determine progress toward eliminating �' resolve the problems.. As a result, DPR: plans: toxicity problems in surface water from needed, the Department , mandatory controls to reduce" dormant spray dormant spray pesticides. Should additional. has a wide range of �� residues to acceptable levels. DPR is develop-- steps need to be taken; the Department has a ing regulations to require buffer zones (where wide,range of regulatory options: regulatory options ! dormant spray applications would be prohib-' J ' ited) around irrigation ditches, drainage ° Designate dormant sprays "restricted ' canals; or water bodies that may drain into a materials." Under this option, peimits •river or tributary. This is intended to reduce •_ would be required to use the pesticides, ' problems caused both by runoff and drift. As and local use restrictions imposed. - - _ an alternative to buffer zones, DPR will allow • Request registrants to amend pesticide growers to implement best management product labels to specify a variety of practices. Growers who believe buffer zone mitigation measures, for example, buffer restrictions are not appropriate given their. zone requirements, the establishment of ; situation may develop alternative water vegetative filter strips, contoured orchard ` quality management plans to address runoff perimeters, of mix/load containment pads. J and drift. For assistance on voluntary conservation planning, you may wish to Develop a licensing category for commercial' r , _ contact the federal Natural Resources Conser- applicators applying dormant spray - vation Service (MRCS) at (530) 792-5600, or materials, and require training.. get the number of your local NRCS center at Adopt additional regulations to mitigate <www.nres.usda gow.. adverse effects of dormant sprays. For information on DPR s dormant spray •. Suspend or cancel the registration (or initiative, contact Marshall Lee of DPR's certain uses) of specific dormant spray ' •• ,, , Environmental Monitoring Branch, , chemicals or products. (916)324-4269,e-mail <mlee&dpr.ca.gov>. y1.,s,, t}•~ �• . DS March03 Oct 16 03 10:36a • �J `Dev`Svcs & Env Health Memorandum 530 538-7785 . P.i. 1'0: Dcvcloprr+ent Services C/O Dan Breedon (CC: Yvonne Christopher) From, Butte County Assessor's Office Re: M&T Ranch Proposed Mine Land Designation Date: October 10, 2003 OCT 10 2003 IRU1TE COU�dTY KRC Resources acquired a long; terns lease (50 years) on April 22, 1996 front•Pacific IZculty Associates (.,,.k.a. M&T). As of that date, Clic property was reassessed and given•a new Proposition 13 base value. Since the lease described two distinct arcus (not confontting to existing parcel boundaries), the Assessor's Office wits requi red to map the two described areas. These areas became Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-530-019 and 039-530-020 (see map on page 3). Currently, all of parccl 020 and approximately 240 acres of the 405.01 acres of parcel 019 i�> being assessed as prime land (under Williamson Actdcfinitions and by Government Code Provision 51201(c)1 through 5 as follows): 51202(c) "Prime agricultural land" means any of the following: •- (1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class 11 in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications. (2) Land which qualities for rating $0 through 100 in the Storie Indcx Rating. (3) Land which supports INestock used for the production, of food and fiber and which hays an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. (4) Land Planted with fruit- or nut-bearing1rees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbcarinfi period of less than five ycwq and which will normallyretum during the commercial bearing period on art annual basis front the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. Until this week, the bast soil data reference used in the Assessor` Office has been the 1925/6 U.S.. Department of Chemistry and soils map. Apparently, a new soil survey conducted by the Natural Resources C'onscrvation Service (N1tCS) is just now bc;ina completed• Actually, some of the data ,s so new that final results have not been published. Per the 192516 DCS map, the Assessor's Office had delineated four distinct soil types on the proposed mine arca (each of which would be affected by the mining opc:ration)..They were Stockton Clay Adobe (designated on the neap by Sa) with a Slorie index of t34% and a soil class of V, Sacramento Clay (designated by Sy) with a Storie index of t53% and a classification of 11, Landlow ((lesignated by Lc) with a Storie indcx of 19-22% and classification V, and Columbia Loam Shallow Phase (designated by Cl) with a Storie index of 91 % and classification of I (see the map nn the following page for locations). According to the data the Assessor's OfTce had, there arc areas considered prime under #I & N2 of 51201(c) where soil classifications are required to he I or 11 or the Storic index being between 90 and 100. Per field visit, areas being farmed were determined to he. the areas deemed Prime (somewhat conforming to the Columbia Loam areas). The fallow slough and jungle areas were deemed nonprime. With new soil data from the NRCS, there are significant changes to the soil make-up of the proposed mine site, The proposed site now has Farwell Silt Loam (40.3% Storie and III Classification), Dodgeland Silty Clay Loam (24.7% Storie and 111 Classification), and Parrott Silt Loam (aka Horst Silt l..oam; sec cl:rsif ication an(t Storie index comments following). Oct 16 03 10:3Ga , Dev Svcs .& Env Health 530 538-7785 • The L1[Z and tile., soils report by Davi B. 1�elly iaate that the Strn ie index for l acro±l. Silt Loam is 5 i_2°/n and haS a classifica:tton of 11 as irrigated and Ill as unirnl;ated. However, per Man at.the C:bico braanch of MRCS, the Storic index for the Parrott Sift loam is approximately 76% (factor A (r� 95%, i1 {u? 100%, C ra? 100% and X (, 80%). • P.3 The cbange from the 81 % Ston.e index shown previously as Columbia Shallow Phase, to 76% as Parrot[ Silt Loam, was as the result of the X factor beim; changed from 85% to 80%_ Per a conversation between Duan at Nltt.;S and the Assessor, the factor was changed because all areas with potential flooding got un 901% X factor (regardless if they were in the bottom of a deep slough or. "high and dr✓" )• Dean stated than areas above ti)c (food channels were not delineated and may have a higher X factor (potentiatl)y resembling the previous 85% by DCS). Since all the surrounding properties arc irrigated, it follows that scncible agricultural development of the Parrott Silt Loarn sites could be irrigated crops as wc11: Since the bighest probable use of the Pa1Yot. Silt Loam. sites is assumed to be irrigated crops, then the soil classification of 11 would apply Claris it soils are deemed prin)e per III of Section .51201(c) previously stated. With the new soil survey currently being completed in Buttc County, it is possible that soiree properties once ified as nonprime upon review. The M&T proposed mine site, which the called primc maty be reclaass Asscssor called a portion prime. (240 acres of the total); may not cictrly be considered prime to some observers. Previously, the areas deemed prime were Class 1 soils with a Storie index of Al pervcnt (Columbia Loam Shallow phase). Now, the Storic index is said to be 76% and the classification is either 11 or Ill, depending on irrigation (availability) or not. Unfort.unately, the island-, of farmland were not delineated from those areas within drainage channels. So the true Storic index Is in qucstrolt. It is fully tap to the discretion of the Assessor, and finally the Department of Conservation, to determine what land classification should be placed on a Williamson Act property. Abuses have been viewed in other counties that have not only resulted in penalties assessed by the DOC, but jeopardized future suhvelttion Funding (itmounting to t$650,000/yr in Buttc.C.ounty) if abuses continued. 'i4 � I 1-' Sa �o C>> 56 9.89 A: ClLt '1 . h 25 - 36 Soils by DC'S 1925/6 U'z-d by Butte Chung Ass Wir r'1= calumbin J,oam 1 81 "/o l.c= Layland V 22% sy- S; crw:rcnw Clay 1T $i% S,, - Stockton AOobc v 34% 23 24 9 25 36 NKCS S009RU-TY Showing Parrott Soil l.oc:4dinn a AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT a • INTRODUCTION Agriculture for Butte County represents the largest lard use in terms of area It has been the principal economic base and accounts for 20 percent of the County's workforce. While the County has taken leadership to ensure agriculture's future, there are increasing pressures on prime agricultural areas for conversion to incompatible uses. Land divisions are gradually reducing the future security of those who want to continue to commercially farm. It is apparent that more effective controls are now needed than those contained in either the County General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Through preparation of an Agricultural Element, and the adoption of fair but effective controls, agriculture's true importance to the County's future can be fully recognized and ensured. The County is committed to protecting and maintaining agriculture as a corrtinuing major part of the local economy and way of life. To that end, the Board of Supervisors in 1994 directed the preparation of a separate Agricultural Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Agricultural Element establishes policies designed to achieve four main purposes: ■ To preserve agricultural lands for continued agriculture -uses ■ To strengthen and support the agricultural sector of the economy ■ To protect the natural resources that sustain agriculture in Butte County ■ To consolidate agricultural policies required in mandated general • plan elements into one document This element outlines policies and programs that address issues identified by members of the local farm community and professionals in the agricultural industry. Agricultural policies and programs provide clear guidance for the public and decision -makers. The Agricultural Element is the County's commitment to specific policies, programs, and strategies to ensure continued agricultural productivity unhindered by development pressures. This Element does not include the timber lands or issues related to the timber industry; timber Is covered by other Elements of the General Plan. Legislative Authority Section 65303 of the California Government Code (CGC) permits a general plan to: °Include any other elements or address any other subject, which in the judgment of the legislative body, relates to the physical development of the jurisdiction.` ti The elements required by state law, i.e. Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space, each require discussion of agricultural issues. An Agricultural Element has been created to recognize the importance of agriculture in the Comprehensive Plan and to stress the Importance of agriculture to our local economy. • e BUTTE COUtM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ■ EXHIBIT A -Adopted May 9, 1995 AE - . a AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT � Development pressure presents a challenge to agriculture in Butte County. Pressure for housing developments for workers in Yuba City, Marysville, and Sacramento is starting to appear in the southern portion of the County. Development pressures continue to increase on the rural lands surrounding Chico, Oroville, Gridley, Biggs, and Durham. General plan and zoning regulations in effect in 1994 allow new parcels to be subdivided into parcels more conducive to non-agricultural than agricultural uses. As a result, the larger agricultural land holdings are slowly being divided. This is a trend that perpetuates itself. As properties break down to the point they are marginally sufficient for commercial farming or ranching, the argument is made that they are now committed to rural residential or urban uses and, therefore, should be allowed to be subdivided further. - A critical consideration in.the definition of agricultural viability is the scale or the size of an individual operation. There is no standard acreage that will automatically result in economic success. An economically viable agricultural unit is dependent upon a myriad of factors, such as soil type, water, type of crop, or the type of grazing. However, in terms of commercial agriculture, the larger the parcel, the greater the opportunity is to take advantage of economies of scale. The smaller the parcel, the greater the potential for non-agricultural uses, ranchettes and increased conflicts with agricultural uses. It should be noted however, that small scale agriculture is a vital part of the overall agricultural economy of Butte County, and for many, is a desired lifestyle. • Allowing a wide range of additional land uses in agricultural areas create conflicts for farmers and ranchers: Some uses, such as water-ski lakes, equestrian centers and some types of hunting can diminish productive agriculture operations.. Some ' agricultural processing operations may also result in conflicts with adjoining farming and ranching operations. Conversion of quality agricultural land. to non-agricultural uses has other significant adverse effects. One of these is simply the physical loss of productive land to uses -that could be located on non-agricultural land. Secondly, owners of productive agricultural land adjacent to the path. of urban development begin to feel that their agricultural options are limited. . Agricultural land owners in these situations have found their competitiveness is affected by the encroachment of urban uses. Urban development adjacent to agricultural land also puts an inflated value on the agricultural land so that it may appear uneconomical to continue to farm it. This situation is compounded when the farmer or rancher faces major reinvestment decisions such as replacing an orchard where the return on investment may be years in the future. Economic capability is subject not only to the uncertainties of climatic conditions but also to such influences as interest rates, global markets, energy costs, and the general economy. Typically, during periods when there is a downturn in the profitability of agriculture, there is increased pressure to convert agricultural land to more profitable ■ BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN a MIBTT A -Adopted May 9, 1995 AE - 5 a AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT a Issue: Too many unrelated uses allowed in current agricultural zones result in land nese conflicts with axis&4 agricuffural operations. Goal 3 Support the management of agricultural lands in an efficient, economical manner, with minimal conflict from non-agricultural uses. Policies - 3.1 Apply the County's- Right to Farm Ordinance to all non-agricultural land use approvals, inducting budding permits, within or adjacent to designated agricultural areas. 3.2 In order to preserve the maximum amount of land for commercial agricultural production and to avoid conflicts, restrict non-agricultural uses in the Zoning Ordinance; including, but not limited to, water ski lakes, riding stables, golf courses, residential subdivisions; and industrial and commercial uses not directly related to agriculture on agricultural lands. Public uses, including but not limited to, sewer treatment plants, drainage facifi ies, and energy generating facilities shall • . be perm tted subject. to a Use Permit. Such facilities shall be carefully located so as not to unduly interfere with existing or planned agricultural activities. 3.3 Discontinue Agricultural Segregations for homesites (life estates serve the same purpose) - 3A Continue Agricultural Segregations for agricultural processing while requiring an agricultural conservation easement on the remaining land, a vegetation buffer of 6 to 8 feet at full growth around the processing use, and a 2W foot setback from the agricultural area 3.5 The primary purpose of the Orchard and Field Crop and Grazing and Open Lands land use categories shall be for agricultural production, related processing, and services in support of agriculture. Residential uses, such as the farmer's home, in these categories are secondary uses and are permitted on a limited basis to assist and support agriculture. 3.6 Carefully kx=e residential lands where limited. agricultural uses and farm animals are allowed, to avoid conflicts with agricultural operations. This includes, but is not limited to; commercial stables, and the raising of exotic animals. . auiTE cqutm compmimsrvE PLAN E*IM A - Adopted May 9, 1.995 AE - 13 • Q AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT • 3.7 Ensure that pre-existing lots, uses, and buildings which were legal prior to the adoption of the Agricultural Element are permitted to continue. Programs 3.1 Require recordation of the County's Right to Farm agreement as a condition of all residential land divisions in areas adjacent to or designated for Orchard and Feld Crops and/or Grazing and Open Lands. Promote a general public awareness and understanding of the special requirements of commercial farming, ranching, and agricultural practices associated with normal farm activities. Additionally, provide the County Recorder's Office with copies of the County's Right -to -Farm Ordinance and copies of the County prepared written explanation. 3.2 Require sellers or any fiduciary agents to provide a County prepared written explanation of the County's Right -to -Farm Ordinance as part of the notice package to prospective buyers in areas adjacent to and within Orchard and Field Crops and/or Grazing and Open Lands areas. 3.3 - Utilize mitigation banks, environmental mitigation sites, wildlife refuges, and other natural resource preserves, within or adjacent to land designated or used for agricultural lands, to allow the continuation of standard fanning or ranching practices. 3.4 Enforce provisions of existing State Nuisance Law (California Civil Code Sub- section 3482.5). 3.5 When a request is made for a Use Permit on a lot(s) with existing agricultural operations, require the submittal of an agricultural maintenance. plan to provide for the continuation of existing agricultural activities. The plans shall. be reviewed for comments and conditions by the Agriculture Commissioner and Planning Services prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the Use Permit. 3.6 Provide a definitive purpose section for the agricultural zones and a list of agricultural uses, including, but not limited to, crop production, orchards, aquaculture, animal husbandry, agricultural industries, and the like, which preserve, promote, and support the agricultural area 3.7 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to recognize. the legal rights of existing legal lots, uses, and buildings which, as a result of the Agricultural Element, do not comply. Additionally, amend the Zoning Ordinance to exempt legal non -conforming lots, uses, and buildings, in Agricultural Zones, from the requirement of a Use Permit for expansions, additions and modifications that would normally be allowed for conforming lots, uses, and buildings in Agricultural Zones. a BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PIAN ■ EXWIBTT A - Adapted May 9, 1995. AE - 14 • ® AGRICULTURAL:. ELEMENT c� ® Drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer Mechanisms for maintenance 4.4 To address downstream flooding and to protect properties and the public from flooding, work with the cities, special districts, the farming community, and property owners to jointly prepare and implement a Countywide MasterPlan of Drainage. 4.5 To reduce soil erosion,, encourage the conservation of soil resources. 4.6 Participate with wastewater generators to establish programs for agricultural reuse of treated wastewater in a manner which would be economically beneficial to agriculture. 4.7 Work with state and federal representatives to amend or develop legislation which continues to promote and protect agriculture in California and the nation. 4.8. Adopt a comprehensive watershed protection plan which includes: Identification and protection of zones with high groundwater recharge potential Monitoring and regulation of groundwater extraction to prevent adverse effects of groundwater overdrafting. Issue: The abiifty to earn a reasonable living from farming is a predominant factor in a farmer's decision to farm or to convert the property to other uses Goal 5 Seek and support preservation policies and programs to protect long-term agricultural production. Poiicies 5.1 Encourage the use. of the Williamson Act as a means of 'preserving agricultural land. 5.2 Actively encourage the use of voluntary agricultural and open space easements with the County or appropriate private land trusts as a means of,preserving land in agricultural and open space use. 5.3 Use proactive incentives including but not limited to density bonuses, . clustered development, Transfer of Development Credits (TQC), Purchase of Development g B1TnF COWRY COPAPPJafiEAGW PLM EMfM T A - Adooed May 9, 1995 AE - 16 ® AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT Drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer Mechanisms for maintenance 4.4 To address downstream flooding and fia protect properties and the public from flooding, work with the cities, special dstr ctts, the farming community, and property owners to jointly prepare and implement a Countywide Master Plan of Drainage. 4.5 To reduce soil erosion, encourage the. conservation of soil resources. 4.6 Participate with wastewater generators to establish programs for agricultural reuse of treated wastewater in a manner which would be economically beneficial to agriculture. 4.7 Work with state and federal representatives to amend or develop legislation which continues to promote and protect agriculture in California and the nation. 4.8 Adopt a comprehensive watershed protection plan which includes: Identification and protection of zones with high groundwater recharge potential . : Monitoring and regulation of groundwater extraction to prevent adverse effects of groundwater overdrafting_ Issue: 'The ability to earn a reasonable living from farming is a predominant factor in a farmer's decision to farm or to convert the property to other uses- Goal sesGoal 5 Seek and support preservation policies and programs to protect long-term agricultural production. Policies 5.1 Encourage the use of the Williamson Act as a means ofpreserving agricultural land. 5.2 Actively encourage the use of voluntary agricultural and open space easements with the County or appropriate private land mists as a means of preserving land in agricultural and open space use. 5.3 Use proactive incentives including but not rimiied to density bonuses, clustered development, Transfer of Development Credits .UDC), Purchase of Development Bt/TM COUNfTY PIAN d E)Mff A - Adopted AW 9, 1995 AE - 16 The steps used for forecasting California's 50 -year aggregate needs entail: 1.) collecting yearly historical production'and population data for a period of years ranging from the 1960s through. 2000; 2) dividing yearly aggregate production by the population for that same year to determine annual historical per capita consumption; 3) determining an average historical per.capita consumption; 4) projecting yearly population for a 50 year period; and 5) multi 1 'n each projected population by the average historical per capita consumption rate to get aytottal 50 -year ear of aggregate demand. It should be noted that the years chosen to determine an average historical .per capita consumption differ. depending upon historical aggregate use for -that region. For example, in Shasta County, major construction projects from the 1940s through the 1970s caused historical per capita consumption rates to be extremely high and unrepresentative of firturee demand (Dupras, 1997). Consequently, an average historical per capita consumption rate for Shasta County was based on the years 1980-1995. Effectiveness of the Per Capita Consumption Model The assumption that each person will use a certain amount of construction aggregate every year is a gross simplification of actual usage patterns, but it is intuitively correct to assume that an .. increase in the number of people will lead to the use of more aggregate. Over�a long enough period, perhaps 20 years or longer, the random impacts of major public construction projects and economic recessions tend to be smoothed out and consumption trends become similar to historic per capita consumption rates; Per capita aggregate consumption p_ has, therefore, became a commonly used national, state, and regional measure for purposes of forecasting. •The Per capita consumption model has proven to be effective.for prediction of aggregate demand : in the major metropolitan areas. The Western, San Diego P C Region and the San Gabriel Valley P -C Region are examples of how well the model works having only a 2% and a 5%'difference respectively, in actual versus predicted aggregate demand (Miller, 1994, 1996). Howeyer,.the .model may not work well in county aggregate studies where boundaries have little correlation to . > the aggregate market area and in P -C regions that import or export. a large percentage of aggregate. . In such-c.ses, projections were based on a modified per capita consumption model For example, if a P -C region imports 30'/o of its aggregate, the total 50 -year projected aggregate demand far. the P. -C region may be decreased by 30%. Where no correlation could be made between population and historical use, 50 -year aggregate demand was based on projections of historical production. This lack of correlation can exist when a study area: has a large percentage of aggregate imported into the region such as in Orange Couirty (Muer, 1995) or when a large percentage of aggregate is exported from a region such as in the . Monterey Bay P -C Region (Kohler-Antablin, 1999). Perniitted Aggregate Resources . Permitted aggregate resources (also called reserves) are aggregate deposits that have been determined to be acceptable for commercial use, exist within properties owned-orleased by aggregate producing companies, and Lave permits allowing curring and processing of aggregate material. A "permit" means any authorization from or approval by'a lead agency, the absence of *which would preclude mining operations. In. California, mining permits are issued by local lead agencies (county or city governments) not by the state. Map Sheet 52 shows permitted aggregate . resources as a percentage of the 50 -year demand on each pie diagram (see Fifty-Yevr Aggregate 5 j 1. BUTTE CO VNd i MOSQMTO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 5117 LARKN ROAD OROVII-LE, CA. 95965=9250 June 30, 2003 Mr. Dan Breedon, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: M & T Chico Ranch Mine Dear Mr. Breedon: JAMES CAMP Manager Phone; (530) 533-6038 (530) 342-7350 FAX (530) 53¢9916 After reviewing the draft BIR for the above project we note that a large pond will replace what is now an area farmed for dryland crops. The large open water areas of the pond will provide, suffident wave acti 'n that when combined with predation from mosquito fish Ganbusia affinis should n iinimize mosquito breeding In most of the pond. We are; however, conoemed that the shallow sloped (3 to 1) edges of the pond will result in large areas of dense emergent vegetation, This dense aquatic vegetation will provide ideal harborage for the production of Culex tarsalis mosquitoes which are primary vectors of Western equine encephalitis, as well as, very competent vectors of West Nile Virus. As mitigation for the creation of this potentia) public health problem,'we request that all side slopes of the pond be increased to a minimum 2 to 1 slope and that the project proponent be finarrdally responsible for the reimbursement of the cost of mosquito controi'work perfbn4d by the District within the pond that may be necessary In the future. 'ncerely, C James A Camy Manager JAC:ds cc: Brian Grant Resources Design Technology 302 A South Lexington Drive Folsom, Ca 95630 IR N 1 I 6,19 *Z -C-/ ` \O � I b � 1'13 o€lo O IR N 1 I 6,19 *Z -C-/ :n ... _ _ ..... ...L.ro..ct _ .. �', . `�:'... :moi' ...: n,_... • ..�, .., s:-:-:,... -- c �'S:;"—L_._''_:.A — -- -. l(1 - - .. : . `,. LT PLAUS �uelatc,%�ae�LreRd::iaac:_ ' - 4S CJS •n BUI BUILT PLA f, .. — ` 1 � ''-(ar(:4i . :JG1Zc_i'XTd•" ' yr/ M-:• A Y Al "' i �.$ _ N,uuh n' retia °• 1 TYPICAL SECTIOAJ .: r t la..:: (SI' �N/�' :IIF➢ � � �j ES' ' Ju[l (bA.Ae•�O^O .l�:K, ���- / •by.- ''''/� ,• / S�i/"n .. �(+'. (;8 }Jr -l. - - �"\T�� _"._� sc((r ary nmrrvr ; ��b � uhwn�(r,rl ,"'('ren 4 ?y''•� r• "' ��„ ® �� _ _ � r '� • p Rlari.•er1 iv t / .� •, ' Nmslry u r!wre..N e. d �`Ti'• ` � _ - __' —'Q 'Y / rr /— �` ` _ = ('`^• my .r,. � l i rii .:srvm( , i C/ r n. IpM Y I :r Mn Y,YLWIe ..i � ' j / heT YN411 1_ ' �•'} -IY � ��•�_ � / _t' NN. ar,W nrfnrv( ' TYPICAL ORIYEWAY PLAN • / N V. yre / ' yyfor O,a (4 Y UNM1 K lUft PUBLIC RBXB rIPPRBACN , T / NOTE: y(• I A GfNY ui i0 0Y �! tpNrFaCNM1�'Urf(t' MOATM .6 RA Y£3 ADM L HENRY'S ADD. r yors: AS BUILT PL 7. _ 1 ... ._ .. _ .l - ... .5 �3 :.. ".i . .'r. ... nar, A Y 5C ALE T� .. ......... .... ..._ ___-..__ F1N/INFO:%PR4FLL£i ''GMO!' EWD.:.O T. 7. ci YI. .:: .. .. - 1 r i [ I.....,... _. _ .'.. _ I. .4 .. .. .r. .. ._ _ EMa. �- ST—._-.�; _ .. __ xt 41' J 7 nii-w Cep, the Butte county, told Crump they plan to haul " ager for the Army Corps; said he director of pdblic works, doesn't want to relive the aftermath of the ir8,000 tons of rock down High- „ way 99 to Hamilton Nord Cana is preparing a: response to Crumps's letter and understands by 1' !3" } f' �'S'fi - 4 '?+ H { X�Yv`.k SY' ,{F�e 5..x i\� •-+�'�- fr <� Y U 0 k \3t�� ). Y� 2 r Highway, then split the loads with fA. .`J CS Z[r?>'i 54.1"( r•. Matt when rock=laden trucks traveled up 70 percent going west on Wilson ' addressing those con and we are working -to p�eY , u t f8 �t Landing Road and jo percent con;.. tinuing on Cana Highway through l�aa y.'. 3"yst Y^..""�ii �: 1 v '� t °tc v-•� y iT Fv, ' ' 4 �! � �'-� y �>i'yGn' ,� �"� • 1` �' `i ''i`f y�:,•�i S�+sA� mattn� newsrev'iew:com W! ' xsr Wa i.9 -. Y es `4.Ci >y �• � )3 �'% K7�// � �l. `7C rj Nord to State Route 32 and'then the Sacramento River. j. 4sf..,ry St �a.5 '� .: -•S� h .. -/' �E.n,)"t'R• 3 "w.. \ S\ N'F'L,' W7 tliy"S'�r photo • > >;'y1.! r }C .,! iW :! � �� ` vvM�. ?A _ � west across The latest information from the " lye �' K' ^�.. n.%'i ...�\•Y w _ �. -")' b b �' d,,, by Tom !� l� CY 5✓. } t1i p V'•� Lrea,f �.+ j INN Foye (fi �i�..Y. y3. ,y �` F 3t ? •a+-.�"`".L i : >>S ri... ,I � '�.ry Army:Corps, Crump said, is that the..will begin April'15, but •,, s.! -a> �e >"" s t ''d `�f „t`,f< yu}' .t�-1'f ds t'aZ ,K3 a �, Jra+)�Jryryq y 4^Y ofd Angel a RN ��'� S.Jy a �4i � C yr Sl.y �3'Y/ lF^ }•L-�v"t'i}f �� f>Y• ��{ n•••YaYi � 1 'Y •� project he hasn't received final word. , ` x i S; }'i;`�' :4 �rcR �w.0 f �4 Yjt ' 7 `'f •fi Ft' Il -. Q� lr rt. Y!L''Y ? �..1 � tZ � -.Vt i^2^ "y �i^.. j. i��` jf. g.� AF e � s - ! ! xw ..{.{hA✓✓ 21 - �§ � _�; as - tiM {YFA T'w gS � m .) !� ""'�' ,'• Y`Y -.. �vx `4l �y � �•a. v d �b �,y,�i� �.t7•, (.7R^r� .- �if F t 411Nr9 xii 'i� F Lys Y r"+. ''r' � _ y' d"� 3>'7 �., ,�� Y✓� 'v`i Pif y � is''. \�•< !''£ 9` +.G it- '� a e"`i5.3 x' y Y'1�.+� �`\cb�,..F `'�dl.'c u''w�, �S moi' x,4�c R t 'F�•"Y. k�raad�5�ELefh:�'E4- •ti�a as Cynthia communications director fo[s are uncommon theseconcerns Cep, the Butte county, told Crump they plan to haul " ager for the Army Corps; said he director of pdblic works, doesn't want to relive the aftermath of the ir8,000 tons of rock down High- „ way 99 to Hamilton Nord Cana is preparing a: response to Crumps's letter and understands by floods'of;t99S and 1998. That's Highway, then split the loads with the Concerns presented. "We`are Matt when rock=laden trucks traveled up 70 percent going west on Wilson ' addressing those con and we are working -to p�eY and downc ' .i rbads;in efforts to W...p.ontain bulging e*:` as Landing Road and jo percent con;.. tinuing on Cana Highway through ceras resolve them;" Rairden-said 'It': mattn� newsrev'iew:com 'flooded -fields caused road damages Nord to State Route 32 and'then the Sacramento River. a very timely matter_". Rairden said• ultimately itis d photo uiEt#temillions of dollars. So�vtien a proposed project to west across The latest information from the " contractors responsibility to coot by Tom haul more than ioo,000 tons of the same coun- Army:Corps, Crump said, is that the..will begin April'15, but dinale"the truck routes with the counties,. though the Army Corp: Angel rock down some of ty roads crossed Crump's desk, it project he hasn't received final word. , is helping to.mediaie the concern . , raised a red flag. Ttte project calls for the trans- as Cynthia communications director fo[s are uncommon theseconcerns ` port'of los truck loads of heavy. Glenn Irrigation District, is concerned because the ; Clump said that similar�ks hauls .in 95 9��; ' boulders every day, on two sepa- rate routes, to barrel down Hamil- ' who also truck route may go thiough . in se. ton Nord Cana Highway (through Hamilton City in Glenn County. r 'There seetivti� bwa}'s `causeki Ci?! f::, ,... 4 stderable�daiiiage the community of Nord)'and Wil- son Landing Road on the way to are no definite routes, and it is a concern being discussed. °Tfieie:wece.hiige othoks. ' the Sacramento River, which divides Butte and Glenn'counties. with the contractor," Davis said. The tiucking contractor hired The - fell apart, 'Crump said Cnir The tock is needed to complete a by the Army Corps is' John .. roads. wren t builto withstand th $go million fish screen project by the Army Corps of Engineers for McAmis Enterprises, which , couldn't be -reached for comment:' amount of traffic As of press tune, Crump: the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Dis- Crump wrote a passionate letter he has not received -a forrnal-traf trrc " 'take facili is to Col_ Michael Walsh of the Army Corps expressing his deep " plan from the contractor, John , or the Ar '� McAmismy Corps: Bat members the $618,000 " airs that concerns for the safety of children Crurrp.has received .a prelimina� had to be one along the s at Nord Elementary School which Environmental Impact Report,'b nothing about the ' ' stret' s of road in'105 and i99g. rump spoke wirh;Ahe project's is a half block from the proposed truck route. Crump. is also worried it mentions impact analysis of trucks passin; resident engineer, Larry Smith, ' about the roads sthat will carry.the " ' through Nord:.-.- "The Notd Elementary Scha ` . and the project's superintendent, Chartrand, on April 7, about trucks because they were not ] designed for such heavy use. ' is.,only a half block from Hamill " .Craig sthe proposed hauling routes. They. Charles Rairden, project man- Nord Cana Highwa y and school c' ->y!J}\%�.'.�^_S?%{:...?:.'w:r��:l•:.::1�'v=i}.^^''.�.': :��?v.".=%ii^. �''.���:�_?Tji: 'a:?\'J:�::S:c'i}^?.•"':^yc=,yt . 66This road damage and road fail- ures are not only a, monetary con- cern but also a, real safety issue that cannot be ignored." Mike Crump Butte County director of public works children on foot, bicycle or vehi- cles mus[ use this road to get to and from school if they live on the , west side of the tracks,". Crump wrote in his letter - Crump also pointed out that the Wilson Landing Road has only oil and chip'on a rbinimum road base, and could sustain-mai of damage.. 'This-road'd.a ge and road failures'are bot only a monetary . concern but=also a: real safety issue that cannot be` -I -:red;' Crump's . letter continued: Crump has spoken with county counseltabout-the proposed project and counsel met with the Butte County Board of Supervisors on April it to discuss options should the board decide to take action., The massive amount of rock will be used for one component of ' :: •.. e fishscreen pro�ec ,hichw pro. ....... .. . -.. .... .. :..... .::.:.: -.: .. � leets fish from being. pulled into the imgation-district's,intake- - ' • - .. valves, Davis .saicl.`-The rock will. line theboltorn of the -Sacramento : to put "a hard point" in the river to help prevent it from ineandering around the screens on either side of the pump. ..,or else you'll have a $5o or $6o millhon•frsh screen with no A- 1.es• D vs sad "It proper y au , " a gives the project integrity.." • - ' - The fish screen, which will primarily protect the winter run of Chinook Salmon, has been under construction, since'the spring of 1998 and, as far as Davis knows, ` Will be the largest flat plate screen inexistence when completed. 0 e s 0 DAYTON HWY. a 15% 0 10°i° RD. Nn T° Scala Distribution of Project Trips LILBUM M&T CHICO RANCH MINE Figure 4.6-3 CORPORATION Riate County. California CHICO EAST AVE 32 25% Hamilton� 20% 30% 15% Qty W. SACRAMENTO RD. � O 9 W 60% t0% 55% 10° 20° . 15% 30°/, •� PROJECT SITE UR AYT N HWY-. 45 Dayton s L o Durham '100 30% < cc •� o a 40% a° Q-dbend 3 0 �+ J GRAINLAND RD. 5 2 W Y c LL W y N � Q LEGEND: DISTRIBUTION WITH FULL OPERATIONS 5% DISTRIBUTION WITH MINING ONLY SOURCE: FEHR 6 PEERS ASSOCIATES AND BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS s 0 DAYTON HWY. a 15% 0 10°i° RD. Nn T° Scala Distribution of Project Trips LILBUM M&T CHICO RANCH MINE Figure 4.6-3 CORPORATION Riate County. California FROM FR)( 144. 530 345 1117 "ter. 05 2004 09:411 II P1 (W tll i - I C_IfY�CHICh Al' , 4F,S Ca February 20, 2004 Mr. Dan Breedon Planning Division, County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 96965, RE: Ail A T Ranch .Gravel Mine Dear Mr. Breedon, The staff from the City of Chino provided comment on a proposed gravel mine west of the city. After careful review of the information available on this proposed project I am concerned with potential impacts on my community. I believe that the provision of rock materials is critical to commerce and the economy, but I think that the location of this mine is ill conceived. The mine will create heavy truck traffic that must travel through urban and highly populated _ areas. This traffic will impact the safety of my constituency, contribute to congestion within the Chico urban area, and increase noise levels in several neighborhoods. Although state.highways will be utilized, proposed truck routes include city maintained roadways. Project documentation indicates that most of the trucks traffic will be routed through the urban area and will cause negative impacts that cannot be mitigated. It appears that quality rock material is available throughout the Sacramento River region. An alternate location that would cause less traffic and safety impacts on densely populated areas should be utilized. Therefore. I oppose the proposed location of this mine. Sir rely, Scott Gruendl Council Member CC: Board of Supervisors City Council November 16; 2002 DURHAM UNIMD SCk.00L DISTRICT Penny Chennell, Ed_D., District Superintendent P.O. Boz 300 Durham, California 95938 Telephone (530) 8954675 Facsimile (530) 8954692 ' http://www.bcoe.butte.kl2.ca.us/durhan�/ BOARD of TRUSTEFS: Linda Bola Michael McDonald Bill Oahe[ Tom Simmons Donna Killocad Dan Breedon Butte County Planning Office 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca. 95965 Dear h4r. Breedon: ' The Durham Unified Board of Education and Superintendent Penny Chennell want to express our strong opposition to the proposed gravel pit on River Road At this time, our district has.serious traffic congestion along Durham Dayton Highway during the i beginning of school, lunch, and at the end of the school day: In addition to our school busses, there are many parent and student drivers who use the road to access both Goodspeed Avenue and Putney Drive. The community has vocally expressed concerns regarding theses traffic issues at school board meetings. It is our understanding that the proposed gravel pit could ultimately result in trucks along Durham Dayton Highway every four to five minutes. In addition to dust and noise, the slow-moving vehicles would add to an ahready difficult traffic congestion problem. Given our many student drivers, there are concerns with the increased potential for accidents. The Durham Unified School District Board of Education strongly urges the Butte County Planning Office to consider alternative sites for a gravel pit that would not add to an already overburdened traffic condition in the Durham Unified School District: Sincerely, Penny Chennell, Ed. D. Superintendent DURHAM DURHAM DURHAM MISSION ELEINRNTARY SCHOOL VGWAMIXTE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL ELIZABETH T. CAPEN S rznW J. FILUSO PAUL ARNOLD PAUL ARNOLD" PRINCIPAL Telephone (330) 8954695 Facsimile (530) 895466.5 PRINCIPAL Telephone (530) 89S-4690 Facsimile (530) 895-4305 PRINCIPAL Telephone (530) 8954680 Facsimile (530) 8954688 • PRINCIPAL , Telephone (530) 895-2602 State of CaliforniaBusiness, Trans( ation and Housitig Agency Ilex year ` .emoranduM YOWER " EE FE CE E.MT Date: December 3: 2002 To: State Clearing House 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, California 95814 From: DEPARTAMNI T OF CALIFORNIA TdJ[GHWAY PATROL Chico Area File No.: 241.10360 Subject: M & T CHICO RANCH MINE, SCH # 97022080 " Thank you for the opportunity to -review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ElR) for the M & T Chico Ranch Mine, State Clearing House # 97022080. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) Chico Area, is the primary agency that provides traffic law enforcement, -safety, and • management within the unincorporated portions of Butte county. Chico Area is responsible for River Road, Chico River Road, Ord Ferry Road, Hegan Road, Dayton Road, Durham Dayton I ighway-and the Skyway. We offer the following comments: The proposed project will have a significant adverse impacts on the roadways the project mentions that are under our command. These roads mentioned are also primary routes of travel for local commuters. The additional truck traffic would create an unacceptable safety hazard for the motoring public. In addition. to commuters these roads are used to transport slow moving agricultural equipment and bicyclists. �. ---d,(wR 32 to Chico River Road): This roadway is narrow in width, separated by double yellow lines- and has numerous curves. The design of this roadway makes it difficult for cora mercial vehicles to safely and legally negotiate.. The increased commercial traffic will create a potential safety hazard for the motoring public. River Road (Chico River Road to Ord Ferry Road): Truck traffic will be entering and exiting the project site slowly as well as crossing into the opposing lanes of traffic as they enter and exit the project site. This additional truck traffic will create a safety hazard for the motoring public. a Ord Ferry Road: The Little Chico Crpek Bridge is substandard and not wide enough to • accommodate opposing large commercial vehicles. Large commercial vehicles attempting to simult,ineously traverse the bridge would create a safety hazard for the motoring public. • State Clearin.g House Page 2 December 3, 2002 Skyway(Baldwin Plant Driveway: The additional truck traffic at this location would create an unacceptable safety hazard for the motoring public. Because this intersection is uncontrolled, trucks who would be slowing to enter or accelerating to leave the driveway would have to cross eastbound Skyway to go westbound. This maneuver is inherently unsafe due to the slow speeds large commercial vehicles travel. These above factors increase the probability for a high speed collision to occur: 17he traffic analysis for the Final EER, should consider these concerns and identify appropriate and adequate mitigation measures to alleviate these conditions. A. T. SME1111, Captain Commander Chico Area .•