HomeMy WebLinkAbout039-530-019BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT — Novernber 30, 2006
Baldwin Contracting . .
Applicant:- ',.Company (Rene
Vercruyssen, representative)
Owner: Pacific Realty
Lease Area: 627 acres.
Project Site: 235 acres
File #: MIN •96-03
Parcel Size: Mined Area: 193 acres
_
Equipment Area: 40 acres
Topsoil Stockpile: 2 acres
a
Supervisor
Orchard and Field Crops
General Plan:
Plan -
District:
A -40 (Agricultural, 40 -acre
Zoning:
Pete Calarco
parcel)
Assistana_ Director
Planners:
Dan Breedon, AICP
Principal Planner
APN: 039-5307019 & 020
Attachments:
A: Reclamation Plan
Discussion
Resolution Certifying EIR
B: Exhibit 1 — Findings of Fact -
Exhibit 2— Mitigation
Monitoring Plan
Resolution Approving. Mining
Use Permit, Reclamation
Plan, Financial Assurance
C: Exhibit 1 - Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Exhibit 2— Conditions of
Approval
Public Works Nov. 20 2006
D: Memo regarding revised_
road condition
Draft EIR, Final EIR
Separate including updated response
Transmittal to the Williamson Act.issue.
and Redamation Plan
■ Butte County Department of Development Services n Planning Division
® M & T Nfine'MIN 96-03 o Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page I. of 13® ,
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report as consistent
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Oct (CEQA)
including the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Adopt resolution approving the .Mining Permit 96-03 including the_ reclamation
plan, financial. assurance cost estimate and a statement of overriding
considerations
SUMMARY"
The Mining Use Permit and the Reclamation Plan pertain to a 193 -acre long-term
off -channel mining operation to extract high quality construction aggregate over a
20-30 year period on the M & T Ranch property. The applicant 'has been in
process. since 1996. In 2005, the applicant filed an immediate _cancellation
request from the Williamson Act contract for a portion of the property.
This staff report and the attachments contain the information necessary to
consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report under the
California Environmental Quality Act and consider approving the project. Project
approval can only occur after the Final Environmental Impact Report is certified.
Certification does not constitute approval or endorsement of the project. The
Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment of the
County.
The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies impacts from the project,
mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant and lists those
impacts that cannot be reduced to less than significant. There are two
environmental impact categories that cannot be reduced to a level of less than
significant: Air Quality and Traffic.
After certification of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission can co-Isider action
on, the project. The project isa mining permit and a reclamation plan with a
financial assurance estimate. The mining permit is the authorization to mine and
the reclamation plan is the plan for preparing the site for the intenjed end use
after mining ceases for each phase. If the County chooses to approve the
project, then it must make certain findings that there is a public benefit that
outweighs the impacts and therefore the Air Quality and Traffic impacts are
considered acceptable. These findings are called .the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
This application has been processed under a number of state and local codes
including but not limited to the Butte County Code, the state Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act, the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) and the
California Environmental Quality Act.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 s Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 13■
CEQA BACKGROUND
This item has been scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider.
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report as consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to take action on the project. The first
part of this discussion will focus on the CEQA process. The second will discuss
the project with a lead in to the findings. The reason for .this is that the
Commission must first consider certifying the EIR before it can consider
approving the project. Each of these actions requires certain findings.
The EIR process typically begins with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated
through the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) from their State
Clearinghouse (SCH). A Notice of Preparation is used as review process after
the initial study to determine the impacts and issues that resource agencies
would like addressed in the EIR in order to adequately analyze the project.
The lead agency compiles those written responses it has received from agencies
and prepares the scope of, study for the EIR. In the case of Butte .County, staff
then begins the consultant selection process to prepare the EIR. CEQA requires
that the EIR reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency. The, local
guidelines require that the County select the consultant and prepaTe a contract
for reimbursement of the applicant to the County for the costs associated with
preparation of the EIR.
County staff works closely with selected consultant in preparing the Draft EIR for
circulation and review. Again, the County sends copies of the Draft EIR through
the State Clearinghouse with a Notice of Completion (NOC) and to local
agencies for review. Additionally, a public notice is circulated and -a hearing to
receive comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR is conducted by the Planning
Commission.
The public and agency comments are compiled for inclusion in what will be the
Final EIR. The Final EIR contains the draft, comments on the draft and proposed'
responses to those comments. The EIR is not complete, however, antil the lead
agency determines that the Final EIR is consistent with CEQA with the
certification. Only after certification, may the agency consider approval of the
project.
An EIR includes a discussion of the project, discussion of impacts the level of
significance of the impact, mitigation measures and the level of significance after
the mitigation measure. There are times when a mitigation measure cannot
reduce an impact to a level of less than significant. The phrase, significant and
unavoidable is used to describe such an impact. If the lead agency chooses to
approve a project with significant unavoidable impacts,. it must include a
statement of overriding consideration. This is discussed further in the following
sections.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
■ M &T Mine MIN 96-03 s Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 13■
THE M & T CEQA PROCESS
The applicant filed the mining permit and reclamation plan application in 1996
under case number MIN 96-03. As lead agency under CEQA, the County
prepared an Initial Study and identified potentially significant environmental
impacts that could result from the proposed project. On February 28, 1997, Butte
County. distributed a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR b the State
Clearinghouse, Responsible Agencies, and the public. The County retained the'
services of a consultant firm to prepare the EIR under the standard county
contract process.
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from May 12, 1998 to July 2, 1998.
A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held by the Butte County Planning
Commission on June 11, 1998. Extensive comment was received. —he Planning
Commission continued the proposed project off agenda for further staff
evaluation. Staff decided to update and recirculate certain sections of the Draft
EIR (including the Traffic, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise sections) in.
order to update technical data. In addition, Staff required the completion of a
pedestrian level archaeological survey at the Project site. Staff then decided to
recirculate the entire Draft EIR to ensure consistency and accuracy (between the
new and old sections, 'and to maximize the opportunity for public comment on the
Project and the Draft EIR. The County hired a new consultant, Resource Design
Inc., to prepare the revised Draft EIR. The particular modifications to the original
May 1998 Draft EIR are outlined on page 1-3 of the revised Draft EIR.
On September 30, 2002, the County filed a Notice of Completion fof the revised
Draft EIR with the State of California Clearinghouse and circulated it for a.45 -day
public review/comment period commencing October 12, 2002 throuch November
25, 2002. These comments are responded to within the Final EIR Response to
Comments document. On. October 24, 2002, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing in Oroville to receive public comment on the Project. ?ublic notice
of this meeting was provided by the County. These comments are also
responded to within the Final EIR Response to Comments document
In October 2003, the County released a Final EIR, consisting of the -evised Draft
EIR and a Response to Comments Document, to the public. The County
provided notice of the availability of the Final EIR to agencies, organ.zations, and
the public. On October 23, 2003, the Planning Commission held a hearing ' to
solicit public comment on the Final EIR. The Planning Commission held
additional hearings to solicit public comment on the Project on January 22, 2004,
March 11, 2004, April 8, 2004, and August 26, 2004.
A comment from the Department of Conservation was received during this
process regarding the proposed project's Williamson Act compatibility and
reclamation plan contents. Addressing the Williamson Act issue was, in a large
e Butte' County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
s M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 m Pale 4 of 13■
part, the reason for the more than two-year time period when the Final EIR was
last presented to the Planning Commission. Baldwin responded to _his issue by
applying for immediate cancellation from the Williamson Act contract. for a portion
of the property. This issue is discussed further in the next section. Additionally,
revisions to the reclamation plan were prepared for further review by the Office of
Mine Reclamation, another division of the Department of Conservation. A phone
conversation on November 16 between County staff and the Department of
Conservation/Office of Mine Reclamation staff confirmed that the reclamation
plan issues had been addressed.
An updated response has been prepared that discusses the Wi liamson Act
issue. This has been inserted into the Final EIR for the Planning Commission's
consideration to certify the Final EIR.
One of the purposes of an EIR under CEQA is to outline all of the impacts,
mitigations and the level of impact after mitigation. As discussed in the previous
section, there can be circumstances where impacts remain significant even after
all feasible mitigation measures are applied. These are called significant
unavoidable impacts. The. Final EIR determined there would be significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts in the following areas: Air Quality and
Traffic.
CEQA allows for project approval with the adoption of overriding considerations
for projects with significant and unavoidable impacts. If the specifc economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects
may be considered "acceptable." In order to approve a statement of overriding
considerations, the Planning Commission must state in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in
the record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by
substantial evidence in the, record. r Given the shortage of a local supply of
aggregate, the property's status as a significant mineral resource (i.B., MRZ-2a),
and other considerations, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Statement of Overriding Considerations. These are outlined further in
the attached resolution of approval including the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
THE PROJECT -
The project is a request for a Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan for an
aggregate mining operation on a 235 -acre portion of the M&T Cihico Ranch,
approximately 1.5 acres east of the Sacramento River and 5 miles -southwest of
the City of Chico.
e Butte'County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
e M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006- ■ Pa;e 5 of 13■
Due to a comment from the Department of Conservation regarding incompatibility
with the Williamson Act, the project also includes a request, for immediate
cancellation from the Williamson Act contract. Consideration of the immediate
cancellation is not under the authority of the Planning Commission as delegated
the Board of Supervisors. It is important to discuss in the Final EIR for the
purposes of the Board's decision on immediate cancellation consistent with the
requirements of CEQA.
The project is located in the A-40 (Agricultural — 40 -acre minimum parcel size)
zone and is designated OFC (Orchard and Field Crops) by the Butte County
General Plan. The proposed use is a conditionally permitted use in the A-40
zone (Section 24-90 (c) (5) of Butte County Code).
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) is the state mining law that
regulates mining activities. SMARA identifies three requirements prior to
conducting mining activities: 1) Authorization/permit to mine; 2) An approved
reclamation plan; and 3) A financial assurance mechanism. Attachment A gives
a detailed discussion of the applicable requirements for the reclamaf on plan.
The applicant proposes to mine up to 250,000 cubic yards of aggregate material
annually in phases over a 20 — 30 year period for a total removal Y 5.5 million
cubic yards over the life of the mine. At the conclusion of mining operations, the
end use of the property will be reclaimed to open space/wildlife -labitat uses.
Surface mining and reclamation will be required to meet the requirements of
Article II of Chapter II of Butte County Code (Surface Mining and Reclamation)
and Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq. (California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 as amended.
Baldwin proposes to mine identified deposits of sand and gravel, and
subsequently process the extracted materials onsite into high qual-ty aggregate
for road and building construction. The California State Geologist has
designated the Project site as MRZ 2a (area where significant mineral resources
are present). Land included in MRZ-2a is important because it co-itains known
economic mineral deposits (e.g., construction aggregates). Total Prcject reserves
are estimated at over 5.5 million yards. Improvements on the site would include
an aggregate processing facility (rock crusher, screen, and aggregate washer),
office, scales, diesel fuel storage tank, settling ponds, drainage system, and an
improved road crossing over Little Chico Creek.
The `project consists of a long-term, off -channel gravel mining operation. The
mining would take place on 193 -acres of. a 235 -acre site over a 20 to 30—year
period. Reclamation would occur incrementally and would consist of the creation
of open -water wetland wildlife habitat and agricultural uses. The aggregate.
would be processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site. The
project is located on a portion of the M&T Chico Ranch approxima-ely 1.5 miles
east of the Sacramento River and approximately 5 -miles southwest of the City of
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division e
0
M& T'Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 6 of 13■
Chico in -an area north of and adjacent to Ord Ferry Road, east.of.and partially
adjacent to' River Road. Access to the site would be provided by River Road.
The project -1s, located on County Assessor's. Parcel numbers 039--330-019 and
.039-530-020: .
The Project site is located on a large ranch, surrounded by othef agricultural.
uses. The. site is approximately 1.5 miles south, of the Chico Wastewater Plant.
The Project site has been infrequently farmed for many years, sometimes
grazed, - other times. fallowed. The site is unleveled and unirrigated. The site
topography, is rolling,; unleveled agricultural land dissected by stream channels
and swales. Little Chico Creek is the primary drainage feature .onrsite, flowing
along the' northern edge of the proposed mine site, and along the western edge
of the proposed plant site. A total of six houses are located along River Road to
the west of the Project site, and along Old Ferry Road to the south of the Project
site. The closest house is located 300 feet west of.the project site.
As mentioned previously in this report, staff had a conversation on November 16;
2006 with the Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR)
staff regarding the changes to the reclamation plan that were made in response
to OMR's comments. OMR staff indicated that their commen.s had been .
addressed in the current version of the reclamation plan.
As mentioned, in the previous section, the Department of Conservation had
indicated that the project was not compatible with the Williamsor Act. There
were a few options for the applicant in response to the Department of
Conservation's position on compatibility with the Williamson Act: challenge the
Department of Conservation, file for cancellation of a portion of tl-e Williamson
Act lands or withdraw the . project. Baldwin decided to file for immediate
cancellation from the Williamson Act contract. The chronology below shows -the..
process relative to the Williamson Act issue.
On April 22, 1996 Baldwin Contracting Company and the owner of the
M&T Chico Ranch, Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. executed a, lease for a
portion of the property on the M&T Chico Ranch.
On August 30, 1996 Baldwin filed a use permit and reclamation plan
application.
In 2000, the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) approved a petition
by KRC Holdings, Inc., and ordered the Department of Mines and Geology
(DMG) to assess and classify mineral resources on the M&T Chico Ranch,
including the land to be cancelled.
In September 2002 the County released the Draft EIR and received the
November 18, 2002 comments from the Department of Conservation
■ Butte -County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
■ M & T- Mine MIN 96-03 m Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 76f 13m
(DOC) stating that the proposed mining project was incompa-ible with the
Williamson Act.
On October 11, 2005 Pac Trust filed a Notice of Partial Nonrenewal for the
106 acres to be cancelled and voluntarily submitted a Petition of Partial
Cancellation.
On November 28, 2005 DOC commented on the applicant's Petition for
Partial Cancellation and concurred that the "consistency" findings required
for cancellation could be met.
February 21, 2006 the Butte County Land Conservation Act (Williamson
Act) Committee (also known as the LCA Committee) met and the
applicant was directed to work with.staff to research and provide additional
support for the cancellation findings.
April 18, 2006 the LCA Committee met again on this continued item and
made the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for denial of the
tentative contract cancellation, with the Committee unanimously agreeing
that Findings 1-4 could be met, and the majority unable to support Finding
5.
While it is not the role of the Planning Commission to take action on the
cancellation request, it is a required component of CEQA review. An additional
response has been prepared for inclusion in the response to comment section of
the final EIR. This response discusses the applicant's decision to file an
immediate cancellation request and the review required for that cancellation.
Under the requirements of Butte County, Williamson Act immediate =cancellations
are' reviewed by the Land Conservation Act Committee (LCA) serving in an
advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors: Immediate cancellations are
consideration by the Board after the LCA review. Consideration of immediate
cancellation, is a discretionary action by the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning- Commission is required to certify the Final EIR is in compliance
with. CEQA and that it has been reviewed before consideration of the project.
The Commission also must certify that the Final EIR, including responses to
comments, reflects the independent judgment of the County.
To support a decision approving the project, CEQA requires that the County must
make findings for each significant environmental impact that the project has
been: (1) changed.or altered, including adoption of mitigation measures, to avoid
or substantially lessen the significant impact as identified in the Firal EIR. The
County may make findings that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the Final EIR. Required findings must be supported by substantial
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Di-ision ■ ,
s M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report .m November 30, 2006 ■ Page 8 of 13 ■
evidence in the record. In making findings on the significant impacts identified in
the Final EIR, the Planning Commission must also adopt a program for reporting
on the changes and mitigation measures that it has required. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091 is shown below:
15091: Findings
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental -effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of these significant
effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible
findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Droject which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdictior of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have peen adopted
by such other. agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including.
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision. (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding
has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasi ale mitigation
measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific
reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through Dermit
conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
CEQA requires the Planning Commission to balance the economic, .legal, social,
technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in considering its approval. If the project is approved, the
Commission must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that states the
specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR or other information
in the record. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 is provided below., The attached
project approval resolution to this report contains findings for project approval
including the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
e Butte County. Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report m November 30, 2006 ■ Pa.,;e 9 of 13m
15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may
be considered "acceptable."
(b) When . the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially
lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based
on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding
considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations that is included in the attached
resolution includes the findings necessary to approve the project. with significant
unavoidable impacts. The key project benefits related to CEQA section 15093
are summarized below and detailed in the attached resolution (Attachment C,
Exhibit 1).
A. Continued supply of readily available high quality aggregate for use in
local public and private construction projects. At present, the County
only has approximately 40 percent of its 50 -year demand for aggregate
permitted. The State Geologist/Division of Mines and Geology
conducted a Mineral Land Classification Study for the Project site in
2000 and determined the land was a significant mineral deposit and
classified the land at MRZ-2a (Draft EIR, section 4.2.2, p. 4-2.1).
B. Generation of employment opportunities associated with mining of
aggregates, required monitoring and reporting, construction associated
with on site facilities and improving and maintaining roadway facilities,
and restoration of wildlife areas.
C. Generation of employment opportunities for a locally based company
Baldwin Contracting, which employs approximately 200 people. during
peak construction season (approximately 80 employees are employed
year round) and has an annual payroll of more than 9 million dollars.
D. Protection and development of a significant aggregate resource
designated under the Mineral Land Classification. system by the.
California Department of Conservation as a MRZ-2a. As explained in
Draft EIR Section 3.4.3, the M&T Chico Ranch Site has been classified
by the State. Geologist. This report classifies the site as MRZ-2a. for.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 10 of 13■
construction aggregates. Mineral Resource Zone 2a is specifically
defined as:
Areas. `underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data
indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are
present. MRZ-2.is divided into MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b on the
basis of degree of knowledge and economic factors. Areas
classified MRZ-2a contain discovered mineral deposit; that
are either measured or indicated reserves as determined by
such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface
exposure, and mine information. Land included in MRZ-2a
is of prime- importance because it contains known economic.
mineral deposits.
Total Project reserves are estimated at over 5.5 million cubic yards .
(approximately 8.25 million tons). The resources identified , on the
Project site are considered by the State to be excellent potential
aggregate sources for use in both ready -mix concrete and asphaltic
concrete product. There is no other land, proximate or otherwise, in
Butte County that the State Geologist has classified as a significant
mineral resource.
E. The Project will include fair share monetary contributions to improve
and maintain transportation facilities in the area including road
pavement, intersection safety, -and . Little Chico Craek Bridge
reconstruction. Mitigation' Measure 4.6-1 requires Baldwin to
contribute a fair share contribution to reconstruct the Ord Farry Road at
Little Chico Creek. Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 requires' Baldwin to
contribute a fair share of the cost to improve the pavement on River
Road Between Chico River Road and the Project access with a two-
inch asphalt overlay. Mitigation Measure 4.6-9 requires Baldwin to
contribute a fair share of the cost to install a traffic signal and improve
lane configurations at the Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway
intersection.
F. Potential decrease- in the use of fuels and transportation costs for
trucking aggregate to markets in Butte County and Chic -D compared
with the current Baldwin Contracting Company aggregate source on
Stony Creek. Section 4.3.2 of the Final ' EIR cites that transportation
costs are a significant part of aggregate prices. In areas lacking
nearby aggregate sources, delivery charges may be grealter than the
sale price of the material at the plant site. Transportation is a key
factor in underscoring. the economic importance of maintaining local
aggregate sources. In many cases, for each 30 miles of haul distance,
the price penton of delivered aggregate doubles. Since much of the
statewide use of aggregate is for public works projects (see Figure 4.0-
.1) each doubling of the price of the construction aggregate means less
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
e M & T Mine MIN96-034 Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 11 of 13■
• . - - ? ,
`tea• --5:) , ' C .. I.• � _�
public improvements (e.g., roadway maintenance projects,; public
•building'construction) can be accomplished for each public dollar.'
G. ,Maintenance of -adequate aggregate reserves available for future use
in Butte -County to account for population growth. .Final IEIR Section
provides a collective response concerning -comments received
regarding the -necessity of additional aggregate resources in Butte ,
County. ,F In the next 30 years (the maximum permit time ' frame
requested by Baldwin), the -City of Chico will consume over 20' million .
.-tons of aggregates (four times the total reserves at the M&T Chico
• Ranch Mine site) while the County as a whole will consume over 60
'million -tons. Over the next 50 years, Chico will require more.than 45
million' tons, and the County will need nearly 130 million =ons. . When
" compared to the current estimates of supply, the County may currently
have approximately 40 percent of its 50 -year demand and', without
permitting of, additional reserves for development,, could exhaust
aggregate -. supplies before 2030. While actual conditions will vary
based on a number of factors, including actual unreported supplies and
production. levels (which .vary in response- to, the economy and local
growth), it is clear that the County will need new aggregate production ".
if demand is to be met. _ H. Extraction of a known valuable aggregate resource consistent with
local and statepolicy: ;
1. Potential to reduce impacts on transportation systems and reduce air
" quality impacts. , if Baldwin Contracting Company's Stony Creek
operation is replaced by this facility, since the aggregate resource- will
be closer to the Chico and Butte County markets. ,
J. Highly . regulated,' responsible .mining under ,carefully controlled
conditions, with -the ability to revoke the individual permit at any time
after due.process,.for failure to comply with'the terms and conditions of
the permit.
K. Creation of :an opportunity for open space and new wildlife habitat
areas after Reclamation Plan implementation., The end use of the r
mine site will include an .over -wintering pond'• for waterfowl and
associated aquatic and wetland fauna. The pond area shall become a .f
managed wildlife preserve. Shallow cuts along the perimeter, of- the
pond will result in the creation of wetland areas along the pond.
L. Maintenance of 100 -year flood plain, increased storage of floodwaters
and improved flood protection. As discussed under Final EIR 4.7.4
and Impact 4,4-8 (Page 4.4-76 of the Draft EIR); the creation of the
proposed pond/pit will result, at the end of operations, in approximately
1;000 acre-feet"Of available floodwater. storage .and the same amount _
-of groundwater recharge. This will be a sustained beneficial impact of
the . Project. Mitigation Measures 44=7a, b, and c ;provide
f approximately ten-year.flood protection for the created lake from „
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■.Planning Division ■
■ M & T Mine,MIN, 96-03 i Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 12 of 13 ii� . .
overflows of. Little Chico Creek and from local agricultural runoff. For
flows in. Little Chico Creek exceeding approximately 2,000 cfs, or: for
flooding from the Sacramento. River which yields equivalent flood
stages,. floodwaters will flow into the pond/lake, serving to reduce flood
depths.
M. Protection of adjacent wells and generation of data relevant -to-
groundwater
togroundwater quality and quantity over a period of. up to 30 years (life of
operation) for use by the State and County in gaining a greater
understanding of groundwater resources in the area. Mitigation
Measures 4.4-3e and. 4.4-2c require that --Baldwin develop' .a
groundwater monitoring program, approved by the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board and by Butte County.
N. Avoidance and reduction in reliance upon highly disturbing in -stream -
mining and related environmental concerns associated with in -stream
mining. `Baldwin Contracting Company's. closest available source of
aggregate is its mining operation at Stony Creek near Hamilton City in
Glenn County (located on SR -32). This site is nearing depletion and is
considered an. in -stream mining operation. The proposed M&T Chico
Ranch Mine is considered an "off channel" mine, meaning that it is not.
located within a stream. The M&T Chico Ranch. Mine is instead
located on alluvial terraces away from environmentally sensitive in- .
stream mine sites.
O. Generation of property and sales tax revenues.
The above discussion and the attachments to the report have been.prepared in
support of staffs recommendation to certify the Final EIR and approve the
project.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■-Planning Division ■
■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ November 30, 2006 ■ Page 13 of 13
V17'Sacramento A -111
V kz IQq ••
VICINITY MAP
e
Mo�eBa PJ
e
•,p • - � — / O avian Av
oStanlev Ave
Project Lo:attioni
Sd
e
d .
Durham -Dayton H
ARI
t CO
\` j• ./ I_ ... _... _t d (• 3 !. Burdick Rd
:, i ;: Rai •t: -
. • r ' i d eta`!
't I
0. _ r
4J /.
t
MIN 96-03
039-530-019 & 020
eOto Rivef
I
Project Location
W� — 01
F -T]
----
-
A-40
OFC
A-40
Sr
V
"
OFC
h?
�Xl) N4
DAYTON
-T�
I
I
ilt, -11.J
, 1
-w.
R
F1
X51
Q)
>
P
OFC
2,800 1,400 0 2.800 5,600 8,400 11,200 14,000 16.800 19,600
22.400 25,200
NENE6 ---------- d —
Feet
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant: M & T Chico Ranch-Mine:]-�wner: Pacific Realty Associates, LP
Hearing Date:November 30, 2006 @ 1:30 p.m. 1 Existing Zone: A-40 (Agricultural, 40 acre minErnum)
Supervisorial
Request:
Mining & Reclamation plan for a 193 acre parcel over a 20 to 30 year period.
District #4
=Assessor Parcel No: 039-530-019 & 020
File: MIN 96-03
ATTACHMENT A — Reclamation Standards Discussion
RECLAMATION STANDARDS
Reclamation 'activities must comply with the reclamation standards found in
California Code. of Regulations, title 14, sections 3700-3713. The fJllowing is a
discussion of how the project will comply with each of these standards.
§ 3702 Financial Assurances
Sections 2770 and 2773.1 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975,
Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq. ("SMARA") require surface mining
operators to obtain lead agency (city or county) approved financial assurances
for reclamation. To this end, the County annually requires Baldwin tD update the
existing financial assurances to ensure there are adequate financial assurances
in.place for all costs related to completing the reclamation. The current financial
,.assurances cost estimates for the Project are $103,526.93. (See Reclamation
Plan, Attachment 4.)
§ 3703 Performance Standards for Wildlife Habitat
The Reclamation Plan for the Project meets the requirements of Seclion 3703.
Baseline conditions are described in Section 4.6. (Biological Resources) of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). (See Reclamation Plan,
Attachment 15.) As discussed in the revised Reclamation Plan dated September
2004 ("Reclamation Plan"), shallow wetlands will be established along ' the
margins of a reclaimed lake. A combination of shallow and deep wat3r habitat for
a variety of wildlife species will be created using the best managemE-nt practices.
Further, a nesting island will be constructed using excess overburden. (See
Reclamation Plan, pp. 18-19, Attachments 7, 13.) Native vegetation will be
established on reclaimed area by a combination of natural revegetation and
plantings. Topsoil will be respread on the margins of the lake and it the shallow
wetlands areas to enhance the establishment and growth of native vegetation.
(Reclamation Plan, pp. 18-19, 22-23.)
Baldwin will retain an expert in wildlife habitat reclamation to implement the
revegetation plan and monitor success. Performance standards for the shallow
wetlands and lake perimeter will be evaluated based on the effectiveness of the
vegetation for wildlife habitat by comparing appropriate measured of cover,
density and species richness for the reclaimed lands to similar parameters on
reference areas and the baseline conditions put forth in the Draft EIR Methods of
monitoring and assessment will be based on guidelines provided in the
Department of Conservation's recently published manual on the rehabilitation
process for disturbed lands (Newton and Claassen, 2003). (Reclamation Plan,
PP. 22-23.)
§ 3704 Performance Standards for Backfilling, Regrading, Slope Stability,
and Recontouring
A comprehensive slope stability study was prepared .for ,the Project by AGRA
Earth & Environmental, Inc.; Excavation Stability: M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Reclamation (See Draft EIR, Appendix E; Reclamation Plan, Attachment 8.) The
study found that 3:1 is an appropriate factor. of safety for slopes a`V the Project
site. Therefore, Baldwin has incorporated a 3:1 slope for all final slopes. into the
Project design. In . addition, the design of any structures proposed onsite,
including batch plants; offices, and other ancillary facilities will be -egulated by
the Butte County .Building Division of the Development Services Department.
(See Draft EIR, Section 4.3, p. 4.3-16.)
§ 3705 Performance Standards for Revegetation
Section 3705 measures success of revegetation "based upon the effectiveness
of the vegetation for the approved end use, and by comparing the quantified
measures of vegetative cover, density, and species -richness of the reclaimed
mined -lands to similar parameters of naturally occurring vegetation in the area."
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 3705(m).)
The Reclamation Plan provides for a detailed and exhaustive revecetation plan.
The Reclamation Plan's revegetation standards track the .statutory requirements
mandated by. SMARA and its associated regulations.
California Code of Regulations, section 3705(m) states the following::
Success of revegetation shall be judged based upon
the effectiveness of the vegetation for the approved
end use, and by comparing the quantified measures
of vegetative cover, density, and species -richness of
the reclaimed mined -lands to similar parameters of
naturally occurring vegetation in the area.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 3705(m).)
The Reclamation Plan tracks these requirements. The Reclamation Plan states:
"Performance standards : '.. will be evaluated based on the effectiveness of the
vegetation for wildlife habitat by comparing appropriate measures of cover,
densityand species richness of the reclaimed lands to similar parameters on
reference areas."
Further, the Reclamation Plan -specifically provides that revegetation monitoring
will take place for five years. During the five-year monitoring period, annual
reports will be submitted to the Butte County Planning Division. Th= reports will
describe the success of the revegetation plan and will include recommendations
for how to improve, if possible, the plan's success in the follovving year. In
addition, -the reclamation plan requires that "[m]ethods for monitoring and
assessment will be based on guidelines provided in' the Department of
Conservation's recently published manual on the rehabilitation process for
disturbed lands (Newton and Claassen, 2003)."
§ 3706 Performance Standards for Drainage, Diversion Structures,
Waterways, and Erosion Control
The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements of Section 3706. Baldwin will
obtain coverage under a general stormwater control permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board before initiating onsite activities. The stormwater
permit will require the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution
prevention plan ("SWPPP"). By complying with the requirements of the
stormwater permit and SWPPP, Baldwin will necessarily control runoff to ensure
that discharge of surface flows from the site meet stormwater pollution control
permit requirements, and will comply with applicable erosion control and
sediment control requirements. Further, as indicated in the excavation stability
study (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 8), the 3:1 final slopes incorporated into the
final Project design will stabilize the reclaimed area, allowing most- onsite runoff
to, remain onsite, thereby minimizing contribution of sediment to nearby streams
and limiting erosion.
The streambed and streambanks of Little Chico Creek will not be disturbed
except for road and conveyor crossings. Stanchions supporting the conveyor will
be footed in nonsensitive areas, and the road crossing of the stream will be
improvements on an already existing crossing, thus resulting in ro increased
impact: There will'be no in -stream mining. (Reclamation Plan, p. 13.)
§ 3707 Performance Standards for Prime Agricultural Land Reclamation
This performance standard does not apply to the project because it is not located
on Prime Agricultural Land.
§ 3708 Performance Standards for Other Agricultural Land
The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements of Section 3708. As discussed in
Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project's ensured use will be re:1amation to
agricultural uses for the plant area (40 acres), while the mining area (193 acres)
will be reclaimed as open water and wetlands.
The revegetation scientist that Baldwin will retain for the Project will set up
appropriate reference areas for both the plant site agricultural reclaimed, area, as
well as the perimeter of the lake/wetland area. Productivity of the irrigated,
agricultural land at the reclaimed plant site will be compared. to thal of adjacent
irrigated agricultural land on the M&T Ranch. The plant site will revert to become
a part of a larger field on the M&T Ranch, and will be managed the same as the
rest of the land in .that field. Performance standards for the shallow 'Netlands and
lake perimeter will be evaluated based on the effectiveness of the vegetation for
wildlife habitat by comparing appropriate measures of cover, density° and species
richness of the reclaimed lands to. similar parameters on reference. areas
approved by County staff. . . J
§ .3709 Performance Standards for. Building, Structure and Equipment
Removal
There are currently no buildings or structures within the proposed permit area.
Buildings and structures associated with the aggregate processing plant will be
removed when mining is completed.
§ 3710 Performance Standards for Stream Protection, Including Surface
and Groundwater
Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the Draft EIR describes the
potential water -related impacts of the Project. The only proximate surface water
stream, Little Chico Creek, will not be disturbed or impacted by the Project. There
will no in -stream mining. Other surface water bodies include wetlards which Will
be mitigated as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other state
and federal agencies. During mining operations, industrial stormwater and
process water will be collected in onsite recycle ponds. In addition Baldwin will
operate the Project in accordance with a California Regional Water Quality
Control Board stormwater control permit and SWPPP.
As discussed in the Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel Mining — M&T Chico
Ranch (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 9; Draft EIR, Appendix.D.1'1, the Project
will not have a significant impact on groundwater resources. (Se. -e Draft EIR,
section 4.4). The proposed lake will actually result in enhanced groundwater
recharge from precipitation and evaporation from the shallow groundwater.
Further, although there is recharge to the water table which occurs as a result of
percolation losses from Little Chico Creek, the Project will not alter that process.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.4-38.)
The groundwater quality study prepared for the Draft EIR by Monarch Laboratory
concluded that there is no groundwater impact associated with the proposed
operations. (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 11; Draft EIR, Appendix . D-3).
Following reclamation, as part of the approved Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for
the Project, Baldwin will develop a groundwater monitoring program to be
approved by the. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte
County to monitor recharge and water quality following reclamation. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.4-64'- 4.4-78.)
§ 1711, Performance Standards for, Topsoil Salvage, Maintenance .and
Redistribution ,
The Reclamation Plan describes how. topsoil and subsoil (growth medium) will b
saved and. stockpiled for- reclamation .uses as shown in attachment 7
Revegetation - Plan. (Reclamation Plan, p: 8; Attachment 3, liem 6;
;§371Attachment 5.) p. 5-
§ 3712
2 Performance Standards for Tailing and Mine. Waste Management
Under'the'Reclamation Plan, the Project will not generate any mine wastes
because` all mine products will be sold or used in reclamation. (Reclamation Plan
Attachment 3, Item 5, p. 5.)
§ 3713 Performance Standards for Closure of Surface Openings
There are no drill holes, portals, shaft or tunnels proposed for the minin
operations that would require abandonment. 9.
November 22;, 2006
Planning Commission Members,
4
hope you'will have time to read this letter before the Planning Commission meeting on
November 30th," Some sections simply. summarize points we have made at previous meetings,
but there are-several areas.which address issues which have never been discussed before in
a ,
any. meeting., �r
:
When the; Land Conservation Act committee met back in March 2006, the committee
initially stated that the M & T Ranch should be allowed out of their Williamon Act contract.
But at their next meeting in April,. after reading my letter" to them and discLssing the issues
raised in that letter, they did a complete about face and unanimously vote) to recommend. that,
the M & T should not be let out of their contract.
This letter contains information about the M & T mining project whi --h you mightnot
have seen before — information that, I believe, could greatly influence your thinking about this
project. µ
The Environmental Impact Report is incomplete. We have been told where some of
the insignificant things in the project would be located, but we don't know where any of the
most important elements of the project would be. How could you or anyone else possibly
make an intelligent decision about approving this project without such critical information?.
In.CEQA Section 15147 —Technical Detail — it says that, "The information contained in
an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plat plans, diagrams, and similar,
relevant information'sufficient to permit full assessment of significant en\Aronmental impacts by
reviewing agencies ... ". CEQA section 15151,— Standards for adequacy of an EIR — states,
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers
with -information which enables them to make a decision which intelligen-ly takes account of
environmental consequences". With that in mind:
How can you possibly make an intelligent decision about how much the bypass canal
and pit pond will affect-our ability to farm if you don't have the foggiest, notion how far
those things are from our property line? The amount of environmental impact the canal
' and lake would have on our property is directly proportional to how far those two things
are from our property line. The closer they are, the greater the impect. The FEIR still
shows the lake 25 feet from our property line and the bypass canal :straddling the
property line.' Would you actually approve a project showing that helf of their bypass
channel would be out in my almond orchard? And if the FEIR map -doesn't accurately
portray where the bypass channel and lake would be located, then how can we possibly
know where will they be?
® How can --you come to any conclusions about how much flooding the weir would cause if
you don't know how high it would be?
I already pointed out at one of the Planning Commission meetings :tow poorly the EIR
had described the flooding problem in the area. They plan to put the plant,. conveyor,
and weir in the path of flood waters that, during a major storm, can 'be crossing River
Road a quarter of a mile wide and 12 or more feet deep.
CEQA regulations do not allow for the approval of an EIR that is incomplete, and this is far
from complete.
Another oroblern with this Droiect is that 193 acres of prime farmland will
be destroyed forever. The MRCS and the Butte County assessor '"Iave. both said that
this land is prime farmland. 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, Tehama County, and Butte County 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.
The General Plan says, "Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of
building materials and other valuable mineral resources". It goes on to say, "Encourage the
reclamation of land subject to mineral extraction." Would leaving a 70 -foot hole in the ground
with a mosquito -invested swamp along the edges be in compliance with he 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 1 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 would this lake be 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 -5) 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
eadthe General Plan and come to the conclusion that ruining good farmland is in accordance with
the Butte County General.
The next problem is that this project would severely impact our ability to
farm almonds next to the project site. According to the latest M & T -.hico Ranch Mine
reclamation map, Baldwin Construction is proposing to put the gravel pit la<e 25 feet from our
property line. Then the FEIR shows half of the bypass channel on the M & T side of the
property line and half on our side.
There is a lot of concern 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 allowe�� 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 California 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 to cause the flood waters to 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 would be within 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 used within a certain distance of waterways and that distance could easily
be much more than the current 100 feet in the future. Would allowing this project to go forward
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. And how are you going to know if this could be a concern or not if you don't
even know where the bypass channel and lake will be in relation to the property? In a letter to
the Department of Development Services dated October 22, 2003 the Department of
Conservation said, "A reclamation plan cannot be approved prior to the Department's review of
a substantially complete reclamation plan for.the project. Attaching conditions to the project
approval that would, require the reclamation plan to be completed at a later time and, at the
same time, approving and incomplete reclamation plan is inconsistent with the required
Department review of a reclamation plan prior to its approval. If you look at the large map of
the project it say, "Details of the weir and bypass channel designs in progress". According to
the Department of Conservation this is not acceptable. I didn't even know until this week that
there is a second bypass channel planned for the east side of the project site. (DEIR 4.4-7a)
This bypass channel has never been on any map and they do not plan to do any design work
on it until after. the project is approved. (NorthStar Engineering letter dated October 19, 2005)
Text I would like to examine if there is indeed a gravel shortage in butte County.
In the M & T Ranch DEIR dated October 2003 current Butte County aggregate production
figures are given. On page 4.0-20 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 person who did the .gravel availability study for 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 for
the February 21st meeting of the Land Conservation Act committee. 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 other
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 to do an accurate aggregate
availability study you would need to take into consideration all the gravel w= get from other
counties — not just the gravel located in Butte County. 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 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 reasDns when someone
else working for the State edited her study the word "should" was changes; 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 purp:)se 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 EnNuironmental Impact
Report did not take into consideration any of the gravel being imported info 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 was not done in the EIR report regarding gravel
availability.
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 Count'l 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 Tehana 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 graves pit into Butte County
I
last year and he said about 250,000 tons. Next I called the Deer Greek 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 gray:el 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 1, 560, 0G0 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 California aach year. 'As I read
the aggregate availability "studies for surrounding counties, l 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 than we 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 tions 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 include 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 cosi 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 Clenn County it was
established that a large portion of the land area of Glenn County contain aggregate 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 has identified reserves of
1,532 million tons of concrete grade aggregate. I say all of 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 gra.rel coming in. As a
matter of fact,,it was from their Stony Creek pit in Glenn County that Baudwin 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 viell within the 30 -
mile range that they say gravel has to be in order to be economical.
Where is the pressing public need? 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.
In order to assess whether there's a public need for this project, it is important to look at
the whole picture, not just one little piece of the puzzle. As far as the pubic is concerned, is
this project going to create more problems than it cures?
One very important issue concerninq 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 50 -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 seven to 11 feet throughout the year. They plan 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 coul J only do this for a
while because once the willows, cottonwoods, and other trees started gr3wing 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 thedesign 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
project each year would do to area roads. River Road and Chico Rider 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 wens not built to handle this
kind of truck traffic but I didn't know if this was true or not, so in order tc find this out I went to
the Butte County Department of Public Works and talked to two gentlenen .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 get to the point where they 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 years ago and what would be needed today 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 that 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 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 these trucks 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
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 f -le destruction of
these roads. In the News and Review article, Mike Crump said the $600, J00 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 project would cause.
By Baldwin's 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 corm into Chico on West
5th Street and from there they would fan out to West 8th and West 9th 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 opposftion to this project.
(Letters included in appendix)
In a December 3 2003 letter the Highway Patrol addressed ano`her 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)
Baldwin admits that there would be one truck approximately every four minutes going
up and down West 5th 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 students.on foot, or 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 5th Street
for 30 years. This is a huge reason for public concern, not just to the elementary school
children but also for college kids and everyone else 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 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.
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 and is in Butte County right on Hwy. 99.
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's best for Baldwin. If the County is convinced that we do 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 create such an enormous financial hardship for the County.
It's obvious that there is not a pressing public need to allow this pro:.ect 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 publ'c 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 and the Agricultural Element of the General Plan were 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 want to have similar projects 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 in many of the orchards and fields 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. as many letters opposing this project as 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? Their three main concerns were the destruction of prime farmland, traffic, and public
safety. The M & T's gravel mining project would be a disaster for Chicc and Durham.
There are many reasons why this project should not be approved. 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 ou- ability to farm
almonds along the M & T property line.
(4) Contaminants in the gravel pit lake could contaminate the aquifer.
(5) There is plenty of land in Glenn and Tehama Counties as well as in Butte
County that would be much more suitable for operations like this.
(6) The negatives far outweigh the positives. The negatives being too much
traffic right through Chico and Durham; danger to sch000 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
Just as the Land Conservation Act committee, in essence, voted against this project I
would like to ask you to do the same.
Thank you,
Ron Jones
3203 Hudson Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
345-4286
Appendix
Agricultural Element pages from the County General Plan
Pesticide = Dormant Spray Bulletin
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
+
r' WHAT. YOU
NEE® TO KNOW
� Z••v 1#
-
\
UPW.i•
�n
WIN'—
ra
try
.........
Protecting rivers- from'
. . . . -§µ-
dormant s ra residues"'.
y
♦ H'
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
jS,r"`. av
overwintering arthropod pests (such as scales
G`
our rivers toxic to aquatic life.
•' .�.,
and mites) and dies. 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
te organ phosphate (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 dormant sprays can cause
elevated OP level^ originating from dormant
.x�
n . '�. �. �. �' •4 ��-
r
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 taken 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 pesticides are moving
residues in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
into waterways, and alternative practices that
22 5 `&
Rivers. DPR's 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.
Working toward a solution
About the problem
I
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
PR- f
the State and Central Valley Water Boards, DPR-
.2001 by the Department, other government
2001
agreed to resolve water quality problems
+
agencies, and private companies. We found
caused by dormant sprays. Rather than
J:
that dormant spray insecticides were fre-
immediately eve 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
laxly in tributaries. The highest detections
developed andadopted to reduce the move- :-
were of diazinon, and coincided with flooding
ment of these pesticides to surface waters., r '
,^
of orchards by winter rains. Small aquatic test
DPR agreed to periodically evaluate the
1
invertebrates are killed when exposed for even
.
success of these voluntary efforts toward • r°
short periods to the OP levels detected in the
achieving water quality compliance " y .
During that time, DPR worked with commodity
groups, pesticide registrants, growers,
agricultural advisors, County Agricultural
Commissioners, Resource Conservation
Districts and others. The Department awarded
$1.2 million in grants to develop pest
management practices that could reduce
discharges of dormant sprays into surface
water. Registrants also did outreach to raise
grower awareness and suggest "best manage-
ment practices" to use when applying
pesticides. DPR also conducted or funded $2.6
million in water monitoring studies between
1991 and 2001.
DPR will continue to
monitor progress
toward eliminating ,
problems in surface
,
t
water from dormant
,
spray residues. Should
,
additional measures be ,
r
needed, the Department
has a wide range of +J/
regulatory options, j
Under the settlement agreement, if improve-
ments were not made in water quality, DPR
would initiate regulatory measures. A DPR
analysis of monitoring done between 1991
and 2.001 found little progress in reducing
aquatic toxicity. (This report, EH -01-01, is on
DPR's Web site, www.cdpr.ca.gov, click on
"Programs.and Services," "Dormant Spray
Water Quality Initiative," then "Reports.")
what's next?
Unfortunately aitliough progress was made,
'voluntary measures were not sufficient to
iesolve"the fpioble`ms ;As a esult4 DSR plans'
o
mandafgry .controls=fg- edjice: dorriiant-spray
reaaule-s"'to'acceptible levels. DPR is develop-
ing regulations to require buffer zones (where
dormant spray applications would be prohib-
ited) around irrigation ditches, drainage
canals, or water bodies that. may drain into a
river or tributary. This is intended to reduce
problems caused both by runoff and drift. As
an alternative to buffer zones, DPR will allow
growers to implement best management
practices. Growers who believe buffer zone
restrictions are not appropriate given their
situation may develop alternative water
quality management plans to address runoff
and drift For assistance on voluntary
conservation planning, you may wish to
contact the federal Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service (NRCS) at (530) 792-5600, or
get the number of your local NRCS center at
<www.nres.usda. gov>.
For information on DPR s dormant spray
initiative, contact Marshall Lee of DPR's
Environmental Monitoring Branch,
(916) 324-4269, e-mail <mlee@cdpr.ca.gov>.
Diazinon residues
DPR's review of monitoring data indicated that
diazinon residues were particularly problem-
atic and must be red -iced to meet water
quality standards. VTZen data indicate an
unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment, regula�ions require DPR to
initiate a formal reevaluation of a product's
registration.
In February 2003, the Department placed
diazinon dormant spray products into
reevaluation. DPR kas'directed the registrants
of this OP to conduct studies that will identify
the processes by vddch dormant spray
diazinon products are contributing to con-
tamination of ricers and streams. The
registrants must also identify mitigation
strategies that wi_t reduce or eliminate
diazinon residues in surface water. The
measures must be: feasible and supported by
scientifically valid studies. If no solution can
be found, the Department can ban sales and
use of dormant spray diazinon products.
Monitoring compliance
DPR will periodically evaluate water quality
data to determile progress toward eliminating
toxicity problerts.in surface water from
dormant spray ?estiddes. Should additional
steps need to be taken, the Department has a
wide range of regulatory options:
• Designate dormant sprays "restricted
materials." Under this option, permits
would be required to use the pesticides,
and local Lee restrictions imposed.
• Request registrants to amend pesticide
product lapels to specify a variety of
miligatior -measures, for example, buffer.
zone requirements, the establishment of
vegetative filter strips, contoured orchard
perimetea, or mix/load containment pads.
• Develop `licensing category for commercial
applicators applying dormant spray
material;, and require training.
• Adopt additional regulations to mitigate
adverse effects of dormant sprays.
• Suspend or cancel the registration (or
certain Wises) of specific dormant spray
chemicals or products.
DPR: A Department of the California Environmental Protection Agency
DS MarchOl
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture for Butte County represents the largest land 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 agriculturalareas for conversion to incompatible use6.s. 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, to1- protecting and maictta+ning. agricuifiure as a continuing major part of the
lora[ economy
an .vuay of life: To that end, the Board of Supervisors in 1994 directed
the' preparationof 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_ susfiain `agriculture: in Butte
■ 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.'
Y
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.
■ BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ■ EXHIBIT A - Adopted May 9, 1995
AE- 1
® 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-agricuftural 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.
n9 a wide. range of addrhona!,_land
processing operations may also result in
operations.
uses in agricultural areas .create conflicts for
water-ski lakes, equestrian centers and some
3.19 operations. Some agricultural
conflicts with adjoining farming and ranching
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 usesrtliat
could :.ae located on noxi -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
m BUnE COUNTY COMPRENENSNE PLAN ■ EMS& A - Adopted May 9, 1995
® AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT
Issue: Too many unrelated uses allowed in curnent agricultural zones result in land use
conflicts with adsting agricultural 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, including building permits, within or adjacent to designated agricultural
areas.
3.2 In order to preserve the maximum amount of land f6 commercial: agricultural
produictiort � and to .avoid �orrfil-�s,. restrict' non-agricultural useb in tFie ' Zoning
Ordinance, including, but not limited to, water ski lakes, riding stables, golf;
courses, residential subdivisions; and industrial, and: commerciaraw l d.not directly'
related to agnciaiture on. agricu ural lands:;` Public uses, including but not limited
to; sewer treatment plants, drainage facilities, and energy genera+ing facilities shall .
be permitted subject' to a Use Permit. ' Such facirdies 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).
3.4 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 200 -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, relatad processing, and
services in support of agriculture. Residential uses, such as tie farmer's home,
in these categories are secondary uses and are permitted or. a limited basis to
assist and support agriculture.
3.6 Carefully locate 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.
e AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT it
3.7 Ensure that pre-existing lots, uses, and buildings which were ieg5l prior to the
adoption of the Agricultural Element are perrnitted 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 r--,vareness and
understanding of the special requirements of commercial farming, ranching, and
agricultural practices associated with normal farm activities- Addiii-anally, 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 designW.ed or used for
agricultural lands, to allow the continuation of standard farming or ranching
practices.
3.4 Enforce provisions of existing State Nuisance Law (Califomia SJivil Code Sub=
section 3482.5).
3.5 When a request is, made for a. 'Use..Permit .on a lots) with. exiuting ,agricultural
operations, require the subm►ttal of an agricuRuraf maintenance pian to provide for
the continuaii�xrof ex�sfing `agricultural activities. The -plans shat be reviewed for
comments and .eand:itions, by the Agriculture Commissioner and.Plahning Services
prior to the Planning Commission hearing on'the Use: PeRriit.
3.6 Provide a definitive purpose . section. for the agric�liural zones arid alist of
a Lural uses, rricludmg, but nal limited to, crop'" praluction, orchards,
aquaculture, ariimat husbandry; agricultural industries; and the lik±, 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 Eleme it, 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.
■ BUM COUWy COMPREHBVSNVE PLAN ■ E*(19TT A - Adopted May 9, 1995
AE - 14
s Drainage plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer
v 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 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
■ Mo'r itoring and regulation of groundwater extraction 'o
prevent adverse effects of groundwater overdrafting.
Issue. The ability to eam a reasonable living from farming is a predom4mnt factor in a*
farmers decision is farm or to convert the property to other uses
Goal 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 of preserving agricultural
land.
5.2 Actively encourage the use of voluntary agricultural and open apace 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 (TDC), Purchase of Development
The steps used for forecasting Califarnia's 50 -year aggregateneeds entail: 1) collecting yearly
historical production and population data for a period of years ranging from the 1960s through .
f 2000; 2 dividing yearly a ate roduction 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 fur a 50 year period; and 5) multiplying each year of
projected population by the average historical per capita consumption rate to get'a total 50 -year
aggregate demand. It should be noted that the years chosen to determine an average -historical .per
capita consumption differ. dependingupon historical aggregate use fo that region. For example, in
Shasta County, major construction projects from the 1940s through the 19706 caused historical per
capita consumption rates to be extremely high and unrepresentative of future aggregate 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 has, therefore, become 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 wellthe model works having only a 2% and a 5% 'difference
respectively, in.actual versus.predicted aggregate demand (iViiller, 1994'199 Howeyer -the : .
model may. not work well in county aggregate studies where boundaries havd littlecorrelation to
the aggregate market area and in P -C 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
the 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 targe percentage of aggregate imported into the region such as in Orange County
(Miller, 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).
Permitted Aggregate Resources .
Permitted aggregate resources (also called reserves) are. aggregate deposits that have been
determined to be acceptable for commercial use, exist within properties ownedor leased by
aggregate producing companies, and have permits allowing mining and processing of aggregate
materlai. A `.per mW means any authorization from or approval by*a lead agency, the absence of
which would preclude mining operations. h. California, mining permits are issued by local lead
agencies (county or city governments) not by the state. Map Sheet 52 shows permitted aggregate
each pie diagram (see F
resources as a percentage of the 50 -year demand on WYearAggregate
5
aounry „
`� BUTTE J E COUNTY MOSQMTO AND
JAMES GAMY
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Manager
Phone: (530) 533-6038
°roe 11
ORO VU �.ELAR
, CAA. 596KIN 5-9250 FAX (530) 5349916
CONIC (530) 342-7350
-
i
June 30, 2003
Mr. Dan Breedon, Senior Planner
butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
RE: M R T Chico Ranch Mine
Dear Mr. Breedon:
After reviewing the draft EIR 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 sufficlent wave acti 'n that when combined with predation from
mosquito fish (Gambusia offinis) should inimize mosquito breeding In most of the
pond.
We are; however, concerned 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 potential 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 financially responsible for the reimbursement of the cost of
mosquito control work performed by the District within the pond that may be necessary
In the future.
incerely.
James A. Camy
Manager
JAC:ds
cc: Brian Gant
Resources Design Technology
302 A South i e4rigton Drive
Folsom, Ca 95630
.
c
I
�
x
-J.
I
v
\
6,
d
N
I
• X
_
Q
5'O CZE/ .
I
�
�
Ei
I
J O �
•
x
IK
I
y
Zg'
T
%
GUILT PLMNS
Y..
1,S BUILT PLA
XALX.E-b--W
44
TYPICAL SECT/O
CS LJ
.......................
....... ...
Al
r-M
TYPICAL MYEWAY PLAN
�k p
W .—CTW
ROAD ;PPROACH
P08LIC
Hyo
mer v�Ar
.6AAVd3 AVa At NEAIAY13 A 00.
AS 66 'ILT P
11 cill 0 Ce;_
n.
5
k.
cvw
05,F 'na, Ad
SCALIE
. ..... . ....
A MIR', 15 7:1L
EWR: OFj.f.AVEcr
Fiva'VED- .. ._ .. .'_. .._..�...... _. � _. _ --'!LI':'_':.: ':'
T
:14
(FIZVFu& �6&We
V..
77.
i-L
4
Lj
...... .... ...... ...
j
..& .....
.. . L"
.; NGCfJ mE-ZIisol1
so
7
IQ
ooy�s pue ,Ct my2.H eue� p.Iox -uew loo fo3d uaptreg sal�ey� ,iay l 'salnat 2utltit y pasodoad ay]
t, o sl -ash ;foray yons �o; pau2isap : ]nogE `L ludV ao `pttrniey) 2lei�
F-M. u1O13 ]l lg 3IEy Ft? : ua va uuadns s,laa[oid ay] pule i v
;aye uama o -a lou alum �Say7 asnt,oaq silstw `7 p ]
l� PION
a ,(uea lli a Tvip sproI byl jnogE `y]?utS ,C�E"I `iaatn�va juaptsas
Pt N y ,.� ' ?l]. s ]Darold a tM a ods dwni
utssed sXow.iJ6 s?sAieuu.v0tut pauiot osj>' si.dtniii� alnoi xonsl g]'?P. X
ayj ]noge uly]ou suoRuatn ]t pasodwd ay] iuoi; loolg 3loq a si g661 pub S66i:tit pt,oJ;o.s lai]s
PT
m oo. D ,Sn7uaiva off ae . s ogSilele auO aq o] pey.
a'jiodaZl ySEdutj lsiaauluoiinvg y nl l q S• l3 P1::. o0o i aJ .
EIITIIItl2]d E' paAi3�a] sey'dwN� IIa1PlttiO'30:�a;ES ay] ]O; SUJaJIIOa ]EtliE 8 9$ -
sdio� ,Cttuy ag: io 'snuyay�i daap sty 2tnssaldica sdlo� ,CtIIIiVi s► siaqulatu Lvg a
uoa a
teat d atp;o yslEM laevo w •lo'J of tliDe; a�le1
ugof ioloetj . y] 3 ur1 sl(.
t uo?]E2, t,snlo�-tival>).ay] '
talo; E-paeiayat lou st?y ay ja]]al alt,uotss¢d a alarm dtlltyD - .Q u�I
R]•(E, ua. Oo�io oral. l,u noo, io; siaauPug;o sdjO3 �tuuy.atV
ptrs duiiu�:`aulil'ssaid;o.gy ] 3 Pay aq Pl
„-jwtj);O lunoum tlDtgm's2sudlziug srVON . !Cq ]Da[aId uaa�Ds ystl uollllul oL$ N
i t� o tit hale of uyo f st sdio dtluy aill ,Cq r alaldtuoD o] papaau sl :lPat 211L r .
yl Pm]s� d»tn� � `uEd of pa.tn{ loiowluoo 2up[Dty] ay i sal]unoD uualrJ put a]]ng sapinlp {
O > P e +..: fes 'sine iotDEl]uoD ay] y]t r . yonlm `ranrg oluatltvaoeS ayl
�sn/Clle?s]l �a�[Det�.sp?o?.atLl .. P.. Q
sa o. od'.32n ata ri_ai6t�1; passnoiip 2uiaq utaDuoo E si']1 Pur . Ol f" . ito pEO'l 2utpti - uos
t ue to o �Clntnwwoo ay] `
algeYapts ' salnoj a]?ut3ap ou aJe alatl,l,,, TMP �P I13
too peStt2 r;'s�pmneoi •Io sr . s •,C]uno� wall) ui ,t]►g uo]lttuFH y2nonll) ,CEmgSiH Eue� p7o1`l ttol
as'
w y2noigl o2 AEui alnoi IOM . -pweH umop lavrq'o7 `sa]noa ales
l~ue 5.6:ut slnr[j : Oym
6 ay] asnroaq pau�aouoo os[e st -le
oM] uo `,Cep ,Dana stapinoq
D st uol]e2ty esn o uva 4eaq;o spleol Toni] Sol;o.ltod
situris s duin� ] u7 ..(I . I t �- lJ 3 (lE , tiI '
res'uapite?l „`uotlnuoouii jou aJe io; io1Danp suo!]Eoiununuoo . -surJi ay] io ' s 5 ]Dafoid a
'Stnr a u,( se ja. to 2r1; pa] E paslrs
;aiaotioo'asagl jo wnleu atlil , . 4 y N t sa s dWTu Poston speca �(l . l
u�aDuoo-ayl a]$tpaut of �uidlay sl p.on* jt,tn3 panlaaW ],useq ay 11.'�l P �
_. ;cLo�'kuI?y aill q�notlj `sagtinoo ...1nq 'SI Judd ut2aq lllm �DafoJd aq] -unoo aturs aq];O awns umop Tool , teal
a iM sa]nat,�lD[ul ?q].aaEutp_ ]ryl sl ,pjvs dwru� 'sdIOD'Xtuty ;o suo] 000'ooI aryl avow jnEy .. �(q ,
g� tuot uo�]letulo t ]sa]E[ ail l o] joafojd pasodoid t, uaym oS ulogd
i000 of �itltgtsuoasat saolaEi]uoa ay]' 3 3u o o sun at{3 u
srjt ,i[alEwtlln p?Es uapitt'Zl �ae?Zl OluaweJOES.ay1 sswoe jsam it P� TIS uioa aalna�sMau
so sa2eiitep pasne?.spiat�Pa . u
�al]Eui ,Sjatui] ,loan a uaq] Pule z£ ainog alr]S o] P 1`I' �o]]¢m
fes-ua ire tua aR osa� y2nonl] ,(Em 2 etm uo 2tnnu?] se satnal 2vt2[nq'ute]uoo dlay
41 1. g P P� -d P. E"1 a u ,-s Eo : �C]a umop P� . �SeRuN
. ol'2tiixiom'air am pue'swa3 -UOO auoond o£ uE leo tui u o] suo}} ; _sp 2lEW
uqD asoyl SuTssaippE ase aM„ uosliM uo lsam 2u�o2 ]uaDlad oL do palanel] s?lON] nape[ X uagtit I!q
pa]uaso3d sumuoo ay] ylim sprol ay] ]gilds uay]',Cemy2ill s ]EtLL 8 I pup 5661;o,spoo�
spur;saepun put, 321]al.s,sdiuN� euej PON uOlUMH of 66 ,Clem a 3o tpetvl?l;e a ant[ai o� ]uEK+
o] asuodsate 2uuud6jd si -y21H umop AO(mJO suol 000'21Ioy4pd;o io3�altp
nr o ue d ,Ca dwN o� e�3nS et'dmttsOFZ'/\ �
ay pres.'sdto� ;Ctutd ath 3.o;1a2E i y ] 1.. y] P1 ] x t
is Goa A:turi0o j
uaapttloi®®u�s
a-AL nmtoap ptnoG 2utInvq 310®.� pasodos "Ir>
VLy-
-Lreivaw8l3 PJON
wojl tloolq 11Eq
r lsnf'pJoq 16 uMo].
90 g2noagl glnos
anapaoo H1M IM i
PEoH �Inf
a�pue•luos11fA8nole
�.. nilIN1,
, v
]sa1a r ; n
awo Gap 'i
s CxMy81H
enE3 PON uo]HgreH
` estop q;nos awoa
put.silon jl agl
sgeP Sol jol.(sd!il
puna ow Rep
it spi:o13an of -
,� w
to alc E;e lqun. 3
4?noJgj iia -
ia..a>3,.,.>,.,.w.u.:.f1,•.,..,..,ws::
f "
"This road damage and road fail
ures are not only �. monetary con-
cern but also a, real safety issue
that cannot be ignored."
Mike Crump
Butte county director of publc works
children on foot, bicycle or vehi-.
cies must 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 tre
Wilson Landing Road has only o.1
and chip on a•friinimuni foad base,
and could sustain. major damage---- •
"This road damage and road .
failures are•not only a monetary
concernbut also a real safetyiss:le
that cannot"be'ignored:' rurnp"s"
letter conf*eds
Crump has spoken with courrty, .
counseEabout the proposed progct
and counsel met.with the Butte
County Board of. Supervisors OR '
April n to discuss options should
the board decide to take action -
The massive amount of rocL
will be used for one componeti of
:..:.. -.
the fish screen roject, which Fro-
...:
;.
••""'•' teas fish fiom being pulled inb
the irrigation•distriet'siniake
valves, Davis said: Tlie rock will
line the bottom of the Sacramento
to put "a.hard point" in the river to
help prevent it from meandering
around the screens on either sale
of the pump.
"Or else you'll have a $5o or..
$6o million. fish screen with so
:.
proper hydraulics," Davis said. "It.
iv the project integrity.".
. .:. " The fish screen, which will
primarily_protectthe winter run of
Chinook Salmon, has been under
construction since the spun€ of i
1998 and, as far as Davis kruws,
)mill be the largest flat plate screen
: in existence when completed. ❑
81-9 V
MT•Oistriouoon of Project Trips
N
O
c r
o m
m a m
o z
m
x u
A
9 m m
N C C
z Z A
0 °'
N Z3 Q ^*
Q o
m o m Q
c
O O O
N Q 7.5
< d
v IVER 1 i�i1
RIVER RD.
z 3
z
0
9
c SEVEN MITE LN. N -0
o 0
y o •�
mFE
om c�no
N O O V1
.r 9 z �3QF n
• , c z ysr Q
y p yL
0 m �.
AQUAS FRAIS RD. _
c C cn fae'1
AQUAS FRAI RD.
TROXEI RD.5 Ca
cQ >` AYT�NRo ae aE
� F
F
DURNAL DR.++
ESQUON AD.
r
_
_
<
w
O
GT
=
=
Lr
tTr
K
O
� y�y
90
g
a
x
Z
m
z
f0 N
9
O
•
N
• Y
FROM FW t-0. 530 345 1117 Hpr. W�> -UU'4 lJ .411ni r i.
' I CITY i k)tINiCII.
I
ITYMCHKO
ct' S 4F,C;-4011
February 20, 2004
Mr. Dan Breedon
Planning Division', County of Butte
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95555
REM & T Ranch .Gravel Mine
Dear Mir. Breedon,
The staff from the City of Chico provided comment on a proposed gravel mine
west of the city. After careful review of the information available on this -oroposed
project, l am concerned with potential impalas on my community.
I believe that the provision of rod( materials is critical to commerce and --he
economy, but i think that the location of this mine is ill conceived. The n1m 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 gill be -utilized, proposed truck routes include city
maintained roadways. Project documentation indicates that most of the truck,
traffic will be routed through the urban area and will cause negative impacts that
cannon 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.
Sincerely, •
Scott Gruendl
Council Member
CC: Board of Supervisors
City Council
a
November 16; 2002
DURHAM UM[FUD SCk.00L DISTRICT
Penny Chennell, Ed.D., District Superintendent
P.O. Boz 300 Durham, California 96938
Telephone (530) 895-4675 Facsimile (530) 395.4692
httPJ/www.bcoe.butte.kl2.ca.us/durbamt
BOARD of TRUSTEES: Linda Bola Mkhael McDontld Bill Onhe1
Tom Simmons Donna Fillomn
Dan Breedon
Butte County Planning Office
7 County Center Drive
CI�l
NOV 2 1 2002
Oroville, Ca. 95965
Dear Mr. 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. Ad this time, our
district has.serious traffic congestion along Durham Dayton Highway during the
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 already 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
ELEMEN- RY SCHOOL
IIV fERMEDIATS SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL
ELIZABETH T. CAPEN
STEPHEN L PILUSO
PAUL ARNOLD
PAUL ARNOLD
PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL
Wephone (530) 895.4695
Telephone (530) 895.4690
Telephone (530) 8954680
FamimIIe (530) 895.4665
Facsimile (530) 8954305
Facsimile (530) 895.4688
Telephone (530) 895-2602
State of California
Mem_orandUM
Date. December 3,'2002
To State Clearing House
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, California 95814
Business, Transportation ant Housing Agency
Flex
Y,our
E5 r.EN EE N?
From: DEP'ARTMNT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Chico Area
File No.: 241.10360
Subject: M & T CHICO RANCH MII�E, SCH # 97022080
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Re -port (EIR) for the M
& T Chico Ranch Mine, State Clearing douse #.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
IPigghhway-and the Skyway. We otter the following comments:
The propos - edproject will have a significant adverse impacts on the roadways the project
mentions that are under our. command. These roads mentioned are also prinary routes of travel
for local commuters. The additional truck traffic would create an unacceptable safety hazard for
the motori:ag public. In addition to commuters these roads are used to transport slow moving
agricultural equipment and bicyclists.
32 taChico River Road): This roadway is narrow.in width, separated by
double yellow lines -and has numerous curves. The design of this roadway makes it di&ialt
for commercial 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 he 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.
s Ord Ferry Road: The Little Chico Creek Bridge is substandard and not wide enough to
accommodate opposing large commercial vehicles. Large cominerciaE'vehicles.attempting to
sunult,,meously traverse the bridge would create a safety hazard for the motoring public.
State Clearing House
Paze 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 interseetbn 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 urhafe due to the
slow speeds large commercial vehicles travel. These above factors increasI the probability for
a high speed collision to occur.
ITe traffic analysis for the Final EM should consider these concerns and identfy appropriate and
adequate mitigation measures to alleviate these conditions.
A. T. SIS I'FEL Captain
Commander
Chico Area
November 22, 2006
Planning Commission members,
1 would like to bring to your attention a letter from the Department of Conservation
Office of Mine Reclamation dated June 10, 2004. In this letter the DOC listed 12 areas of
concern regarding the reclamation plan for the M & T Chico Ranch Mine: In response to
this letter Baldwin Contracting wrote a fetter dated September 20, 2004 detailing how they
were trying to deal with the concerns highlighted in the DOC letter. (I'm not including
copies of these letters because I assume they'll be included in the.packet of information
that you receive.)
On November 21St of this year I went to Dan Breedon's office and we discussed
these two letters. Dan told me that he had talked to two people at the DOC, Leah Miller, a
botanist, and Will Arcand, a hydrologist. He said that after talking to these people that the
DOC, having read Baldwin's letter, was now satisfied with the reclamation plan.
found this a little hard to believe because Baldwin had done very little to try to
rectify any of the concerns brought up in the DOC letter. At this point, I decided to call Jim
Pompy, the Manager of Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation since he
was the one that had signed the DOC letter dated June 10, 2004. He told me that this is
the way it works: He said that their department comments on the reclamation plan telling
the lead agency their concerns with the plan and then usually the applicant, in this case
Baldwin, will comment back. He said that the DOC does not usually comment back to the
lead agency in response to their comments. He said it is up to the lead agency (and
ultimately the Planning Commission and then Board of Supervisors) to decide if the
problems brought up in the DOC letter were properly addressed. He said that I could quote
him on this: °If we have not written the County and told them in writing something to the
contrary that our comments as stated on the reclamation plan stand."
So knowing this I would like to point out some areas that I do not think were properly
addressed by Baldwin's letter. These points were enumerated in the June 10, 2004 letter
from the DOC to Dan Breedon in the Planning Commission.
Point number 2 - The writers of the DEIR just couldn't say enough positive things
about this project. One 'of the things the EIR said was that this lake would act to enhance
ground water recharge. The DOC says that this is not true and the evaporation would
negate this benefit.
Point number 3 - The DOC says that "There is no detailed engineering design for
the bypass channel or weir". When the DOC wrote this I'm sure they didn't realize that
there are two bypass channels proposed and we don't have the foggiest notion where
either one of them are going to be put in relation to the fence line, the creek, or the lake.
Baldwin states that these will be designed after the project is approved, and the DOC says
that this is not okay and that the engineering work necessary is totally lacking'and this must
be addressed prior to approving the reclamation plan. .
There has been no additional engineering'work done on the bypass channel but
Baldwin did give at least a conceptual engineering plan for the weir. I thought it was
interesting that in one place they said that at no time would any work be done that would
disturb the bottom of the Little Chico Creek stream bed, but then I see on the set of
drawings from Northstar. Engineering dated August 2004 that they are planning on putting
cobble or rip -rap clear to the creek bottom all along the about 1500 feet Df the weir. ,
Point number 5 - The bypass channel on the west side of the prcject is supposed to
be about four feet deep at it's deepest and about 50 feet wide. The DOC says that a
maintenance agreement must be in place for maintaining this channel. tt wouldn't take long
for a bunch of trees to grow up in this channel and once that happens when flood waters do
come through the flotsam in water builds up around these trees and in e3sence forms a
dam. I have to continually work at keeping the trees and other debris cleaned out of Little
Chico Creek as it goes through my property. There are always trees falling over or other
things accumulating in the creek, and if I didn't make it a point to keep the stream bed clean
it wouldn't be long before the flow of water down the creek would be plugged up. In their
response to the DOC's concern Baldwin said that they'only plan on maintaining this
channel until the mining is done. If it gets plugged up then they don't seem to care if we
have additional flooding problems.
Point number 8 - The DOC continues to ask for more details on what the final
reclamation of this project will look like. They asked for the total acreage of the 50 -foot
wide wetlands that Baldwin wants to put along the edges of the project site in order to get
rid of the 15 feet of prime farmland they will have to remove in order to gat to the gravel and
the dirt that is mixed in with the gravel. In their response Baldwin chose to completely
ignore this comment. It appears that they have no intention of saying how many acres this
will be because they probably intend to sell as much of this dirt as possible, and if they sell
it they won't have it available to put along the edges of the lake. I wouldn't be surprised if
the M & T Ranch didn't buy a lot of it just to build up their fields in the arEa so they wouldn't
flood as bad.
Point number 7 9 & 10 - Again the DOC states that the members of the Planning
Commission will need more information in order to make an accurate assessment of this
project. All these areas are in regard to revegetation and in all of these Baldwin refused to
provide the details that the DOC felt was necessary for an acceptable reclamation plan.
Ultimately it appears that Baldwin plans to mine their gravel and sell as much dirt as
Possible and then just walk away from this project. It doesn't look like they have any
intention of being responsible for maintaining it after they leave, and they're just hoping that
native plants will grow and they won't have to do anything. But the Department of
Conservation makes it very clear that this is totally unacceptable.