Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout039-530-019 (4)BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT — January 25, 2007 Baldwin Contracting Company Applicant: (Rene Vercruyssen, representative) Application: M & T Chico Ranch Mine 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 Supervisor 1 General Orchard and Field Crops District: Plan: Pete Calarco Zoning: A-40 (Agricultural, 40 -acre Planners: Assistant Director, parcel) Dan Breedon, AICP Principal Planner Attachments: APNs: 039-530-019 & 020 Exhibit 2 — Conditions of A Approval to Resolution Approving Mining Use Permit B Final EIR Errata C Public Works Memo Letter to OMR D Regarding October 2, 2006 Transmittal of. Reclamation Plan E Correspondence RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt, the attached resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as consistent with the requirements of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) including the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the Mining Permit 96-03 including the ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ January 25, 2007 ■ Page,1 of 5■ reclamation plan, financial assurance cost estimate and a statement of overriding considerations SUMMARY This application was continued from the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting after receipt of public testimony and discussion. Clarifications and responses to Planning Commission direction are provided for the proposed projects' compliance . with the Williamson Act; determination of prime or non -prime agricultural lands; existing setting and project setting; traffic; and transmittal of the Reclamation Plan to the Department of Conservation. ANALYSIS The Project's Compliance with the Williamson Act The applicant has requested immediate cancellation from the Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) contract. This request has been evaluated by the County's Land Conservation Act committee (LCA), an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors. The LCA's recommendation to the Board is that four of the five required statutory consistency findings (Government Code §51282 (b)) for cancellation could be made. The LCA determined that one of the required findings could not be made, thereby constituting a recommendation to the Board not to approve the immediate cancellation request. The required finding which the LCA advised could not be made is as follows: (5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the restricted land. As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the' salient features of .the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels. A. requirement of filing an immediate cancellation request is that the applicant file and record a notice of non -renewal. Alternatively, a Williamson Act contract can go through a landowner initiated non -renewal process commonly referred to as a nine-year roll-out meaning that the property taxes are increased over a nine-year period until full taxation is reached upon contract expiration. Williamson Act non -renewal is not a discretionary ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ i M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ January 25, 2007 ■ Page 2 of 5■ action. A notice of non -renewal has been recorded on the area proposed to be mined. This means that the mine area will not be in a Williamson Act contract nine years from the date of filing that non -renewal regardless of the action by the Board of Supervisors on the immediate cancellation request and regardless of the decision on the proposed mining project. The Board of Supervisors will consider the adequacy of the Final EIR as it relates to the immediate cancellation request. As stated, Government Code requires that the Board make all of the statutory consistency findings in order to approve the request for immediate cancellation. If the request for immediate cancellation is denied, an approved project could proceed upon completion of the non -renewal process. Alternatively, the Board of Supervisors may find that the project is consistent with the Williamson Act. In any of these three scenarios, the Board of Supervisors could approve the proposed project as consistent with the requirements of the Williamson Act. While compliance with the Williamson Act is part of the project description, staff has added an additional condition of approval clarifying this requirement (see attached Exhibit 2 — Conditions of Approval). Determination of Prime or Non -Prime Agricultural Lands Testimony was provided to the Planning Commission regarding the Final EIR's determination of the project site as prime or non -prime agricultural lands. Section 51201(c) of Government Code (the Williamson Act) provides any of five criteria may be used for determining prime agricultural land for purpose of the Act as follows: 51201. As used in this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context:.. . (c) "Prime agricultural land" means any of the following. . (1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications. (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. (4) Land planted with fruit- or nut -bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ January 25, 2007 ■ Page 3 of 5■ The Williamson Act does not require a detailed site-specific analysis for a determination of prime or non -prime for the all of the agricultural lands contained within a LCA contracted area. Evidence in the Final EIR indicates that the site-specific conditions on the specific area proposed for mining do not support a prime agricultural land designation, as defined above. The Assessor's Office determination regarding prime or non -prime contracted lands does not invalidate or conflict with the information in the Final EIR for CEQA purposes. Clarification of Existing Setting and Project Description As directed by the Planning Commission at the December 14, 2006 meeting, clarifications (errata) to the text in the Final EIR are provided (see attached). The errata includes a description of the Llano Seco Ranch as part of the Regional Environmental Overview and reference to the Williamson Act immediate cancellation request as part of the Detailed Project Description. Traffic Attached is a memorandum from Butte County Public Works in response to testimony provided at the December 14, 2006 meeting and Planning Commission direction to return with information regarding alternative/exclusive circulation routes. Routes addressed in the memorandum include River Road to SR 32 and Ord Ferry Road to Dayton Road, to Hegan Lane, to Midway, rejoining the original route at Midway and East Park Avenue. Transmittal of Reclamation Plan to Department of Conservation and Response to Comments Testimony was provided to the Planning Commission regarding, the Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation's review of the proposed Reclamation Plan in compliance with requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA -' Public Resources Code §2710 et seq.). Attached is a .letter from Development Services to the Office of Mine Reclamation confirming that the responses and submittal required in Section 2774(d)(2) of SMARA has been fulfilled. A portion of 2774(d)(2) is provided below: The lead agency shall prepare a written response to the director's comments describing the disposition, of the major issues raised by the director's comments, and submit the lead agency's proposed response to the director at least 30 days prior to approval of the reclamation plan, plan amendment, or financial assurance. The lead agency's response. to the director's comments shall describe- whether the lead agency proposes to adopt the director's comments to the reclamation plan, plan amendment, or financial assurance. If the lead agency does not propose to adopt the director's comments, the lead agency shall specify, in detail, why the lead agency proposes not to adopt the comments. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ January 25, 2007 ■ Page 4 of 5■ Butte County has reviewed and responded to the comments of the Department of Conservation, including their letters of November 18, 2002 and June 10, 2004. It is staff's recommendation that, in conditionally approving proposed Reclamation Plan, the Planning Commission determine that the plan is consistent with the requirements of SMARA. County staff transmitted the Reclamation Plan, including responses to the Director of Conservation's comments, in compliance with 2774(d)(2) on October 2,, 2006. Those materials are included in the attached letter to the Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ January 25, 2007 ■ Page 5 of 5■ EXHIBIT 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR M&T CHICO RANCH MINING USE PERMIT AND RECLAMATION PLAN (MIN 06-03 BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY) 1. This Mining Use Permit allows the extracting, processing, and sale of up to 5,500,000 cubic yards of aggregates within Assessor Parcels 039-530-019 and 020 ("Project") in accordance with County ordinances and land use regulations subject to the following terms and conditions. This approval also allows construction of facilities ancillary to the mining project and related improvements. 2. Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval of application and issuance of the Mining Use Permit constitutes cause for the revocation ,of said permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in the County Zoning Ordinance, including County Code Sec. 24-45.65. 3. Unless otherwise provided for in a special condition to this Mining Use Permit, all conditions must be completed prior to or concurrently with the establishment of the granted use. Owner/Operator shall commence operations within 5 (five) years from the date of issuance of the final permit. Should operations not commence within said 5 (five) years the final permit shall expire and become void, unless extended by the Planning Commission prior to expiration. 4. Amendments to an approved Mining Use Permit may be submitted to' the Planning Commission, detailing proposed changes to the original plan. Substantial deviations ' from the original plan shall not be undertaken until such amendments have been filed with and approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall set a public hearing regarding such amendments in the same manner as provided for in'County Code Section 13-107. 5. The terms and conditions of this permit shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of Owner/Operator. 6. Financial assurances to ensure compliance with the approved Reclamation Plan shall be in place to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Development Services or his/her designee prior to the 'establishment of the approved mining use. Financial assurances have been initially calculated at $103,526.93. 7. Prior to use of the site for the proposed use Owner/Operator shall contact the Planning Division for a field inspection to verify that all conditions and ordinance requirements have been met. Planning Division: 8. All Reclamation work shall be in substantial compliance with the approved Reclamation Plan. 9. All mine operations shall comply with the Project Description and Mining Use Permit application as submitted and approved and set forth in the M&T Chico Ranch Certified Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), dated October M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 1 of 6 2003. 10. Annual inspection of the mine shall be conducted in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. All applicable inspection fees shall be paid in accordance with adopted rates. 11. Mine Operation and Reclamation shall be in accordance with the Mitigation Measures contained within the Final EIR incorporated herein by reference. 12. All Mitigation Measures as identified in the Final EIR for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine are adopted as conditions of this Mining Use Permit and as such the Mitigation Measures have full weight and authority in the same manner as conditions of the Mining Use Permit. 13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting shall commence and proceed in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan referenced within the Final EIR. The owner/operator is responsible for all costs associated with monitoring and reporting activities including but not limited to the hourly rate of County staff time, as approved by the Board of Supervisors and as amended, and any contract services as may be necessary to conduct such work on behalf of the County as determined by the Director or designee. 14. Mining, processing, maintenance and load -out activities shall occur from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm (nine hours per day) from November through April, and from 6:00 am to 5:00 pm (ten hours per day) from May through October. Operations shall take place five days per week; however, Saturday operations may occur sporadically to meet customer demands. Aggregate. load -out for delivery to the plant could also occasionally, not to exceed 30 times per year to be verified by log book, begin by 5:00 am. Only during times of declared emergency (when aggregate resources are needed.. to address flood damage or other natural disaster) either under executive order from the State or County, operations are allowed 24hours until such time as the emergency is declared over. 15. Prior to establishment of the use, the Owner/Operator shall obtain County Board of Supervisors approval of the partial California Land Conservation Act (Williamson . Act) immediate cancellation request or determination of compatibility. Butte County Air Quality Management District 16. The Butte County Air Quality Management District requires Owner/Operator to obtain an Authority to Construct Permit to operate. Owner/Operator shall be required to implement all emission controls necessary to assure specified limits are not exceeded on both mobile sources (mining equipment) and stationary sources (processing facilities). As noted within the Draft EIR for Impact 4.5-2' (Page 4.5-30) all diesel fueled construction -type equipment shall be required to meet the emission reduction_ requirements recently set by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). An equipment inventory shall be maintained at the project site and_ available for review by District staff. All equipment shall be maintained and kept in proper repair per manufacturer's maintenance schedules. M & T Mining (UP 96-03) - Page 2 of 6 Department of Public Works 17. Prior to operations Owner/Operator shall construct improvements to River Road at the Project's entrance, including acceleration/deceleration lanes, turn pockets, signing and striping. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Butte County Public Works Department prior to construction. 18. Prior to operations Owner/Operator shall provide improvements to the median crossing at the Baldwin Plant site driveway and the Skyway. Improvements to include acceleration and deceleration lanes, improved signing and striping, and channelization of the driveway approach. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Butte County Public Works Department prior to construction. 19. The project Applicant shall contribute its fair share of the costs ' to improve the pavement on River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road with a two-inch asphalt concrete overlay. The fair share amount shall be based on the increase in ESALs, which is 51 %. Butte County Public Works estimates the cost of this improvement to be approximately $1,200,000. Therefore, the Applicant's fair share cost would be about $40;000 per year. The Public Works Department has indicated that the fee shall be submitted annually based on the tonnage of material that is hauled from the project site and shall be relative to an inflation index. Based on the information contained in Table 4.6-9, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be approximately $0.08. 20. The project applicant shall contribute its fair share of the cost to maintain the asphalt concrete pavement on the following roads over the 30 year life of the project: • River Road; between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road; • Ord Ferry Road; between County Line and Dayton Road; • Durham Dayton Road; between Dayton Road and SR 99; • Dayton Road; between Ord Ferry Road and Chico City Limit; • Hegan Lane; between Dayton Road and Midway; and • Chico River Road; between River Road and Chico City Limit. Road Maintenance shall include a chip seal surface treatment every 10 years with M & T Chico Ranch Mine project's fair share contribution based on the projected net increase in ESALs as shown in the attached Table A. Based on the information contained in Table A, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be approximately $0.06 and shall be relative to an inflation index. If maintenance costs are rolled.into a single fee per ton of material extracted, the mitigation fee shall be made up of $0.08 per ton for the overlay on River Road, plus $0.01 per ton for the improvements to the Ord Ferry Bridge, and the M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 3 of 6 installation of a signal at Midway and Durham Dayton highway, for a total of $0.09 per ton of material removed from the site. The amount intended to compensate for the extra maintenance required due to the increased truck traffic, shall be $0.06 per ton of material extracted. These fees shall be deposited by the operator into the Butte County Road Fund, and shall be adjusted for inflation based upon the change in the Construction Cost Index for San Francisco, during the month of January of each year. These fees shall cease to be collected should the County impose a countywide tax or fee for road maintenance based upon weight of materials moved over the roads. 21. Prior to establishment of the use Applicant shall provide a fully executed agreement to preserve, maintain, restore and or repair in perpetuity, any and all mitigation improvements constructed or required as a condition of this project. These improvements shall include, but are not limited. to, any weirs, dykes, levees, channels, berms or other flood control devices. All repairs shall be completed in a timely manner in conformance with the adopted mitigation measures. This agreement shall be recorded and shall run with the land. In order to insure compliance with this condition, applicant provide a performance bond, cash deposit or other County approved security; in an amount equal to 100% of the construction costs of said improvements. Said security shall be adjusted annually using the change in Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco as the basis for adjustment. The County, at its sole discretion, shall have the authority to call said bond and use the proceeds to perform the required work. Nothing contained in this condition shall be so construed as to attach any liability to the County for its actions or failures to act in order to preserve any of the improvements required by this project. Environmental Health Division 22. Owner/Operator shall a receive a Hazardous Material Release and Response Plan (Health and Safety Code 25500 et seq.) (Business Plan) for hazardous materials inventory and emergency response planning. 23. Owner/Operator shall receive a septic and domestic water well permit from the Environmental Health Division prior to site development for waste water disposal and drinking water. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 24. If there is a conflict between the mining operations and the PG&E natural gas line, Owner/Operator will be responsible for the relocation of the PG&E gas line and all associated costs, along with the acquisition of new rights of ways. 25. Weights of all mining equipment shall be provided to PG_&E to ensure that weights will. not damage gas lines. 26. Any use of PG&E easements shall require a review and consent of PG&E. Upon review a consent agreement would be prepared if the use is appropriate. M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 4 of 6 t Mosquito Abatement: 27. Owner/Operator shall be required to comply with Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District requirements for the cost of any future mosquito control work performed by the District at the Project site. This shall include stocking the pond with mosquito fish to prey on and control mosquito larvae. State and Federal Requirements and Conditions: 28. Owner/Operator shall comply with the Clean Water Act and obtain all necessary approvals, including a 404 Permit for fill or disturbance of wetlands and other waters of the United States. 29. Owner/Operator shall comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act, including a Section 10a Permit for .incidental take of federally -listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat, if any. 30. Owner/Operator shall comply with the California Endangered Species Act, and obtain all necessary permits, including a Section 2081 Permit (Fish and Game Code 208 1) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code 1603) for incidental take of State -listed threatened/endangered species � or habitat (if anticipated) for possible impacts, if determined to the Swainson's hawk and for any new stream crossings. 31. Owner/Operator shall comply with the following Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, and obtain all necessary approvals, including: a) NPDES Permit or Waste discharge requirements Permit CFR Title 40, Section 436, Subpart B, for on-site gravel washing and discharge of wash water to on- site settling basins. b) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to construction activities used to identify potential pollutants and to eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants entering surface waters. c) General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit is required if there are storm water discharges "to surface waters. d) A Review of Groundwater Monitoring Plan prior to approval by the County. 32. Owner/Operator. shall comply with the following California Department of Water Resources, Reclamation Board requirements, and obtain all necessary approvals, including: a) A Construction Activity Storm Water Permit for any construction activities where clearing, grading, filling and excavation result in a land disturbance of five acres or more. b) A Storm Water. Pollution Prevention Plan must be in place prior to construction activities. M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 5 of 6 c) Compliance with the California Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act for owners and operators , of above ground • petroleum storage tanks to file a storage statement and prepare a federal spill prevention and control countermeasure plan. d) A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for projects needing an Army Corps of Engineers 404. Permit; this certification must verify that the . project does not violate State Water Quality Standards. 33. Owner/Operator shall receive a State Board of Reclamation Encroachment Permit (CCR Title 23 Section 135) for any encroachment that could reduce or impede flood flows, or would reclaim any of the floodplain within the Butte Basin, if necessary. Agricultural Commissioner's Office 34. Prior to Mining Permit issuance, submit a Weed Management Plan to' the Agricultural Commissioner's Office for review and Approval. Butte County Counsel 35. If this entire matter or any finding, action or condition of this matter is appealed to the Board of Supervisors, Baldwin or any other developer/operator other than Baldwin agrees to indemnify the County of Butte from liability or loss related to the approval of this project and agrees to sign an indemnification agreement in a form approved by County Counsel before the Board's appeal hearing. If the application is not appealed, these conditions of approval are deemed satisfied. Attachment: Table A -M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 6 of 6- r Final 'EIR ERRATA Additions . Thefollowing is added to the Final EIR, Section 3.0 (Draft EIR Errata). ; t 11 3.2.4 Regional Environmental Overview Llano Seco Ranch Parrott Investment Company, owner of the Llano Seco Ranch, • located South of the , M&T Ranch, has requested that its land use be more accurately described in the M&T Chico Ranch EIR. Llano Seco Ranch has submitted information indicating that it has t placed more than ten thousand acres under easement or have been sold as wildlife habitat since, 1991. The Ranch has invested in restoration work to create such habitat, 'including seasonal wetland for. wintering .waterfowl, riparian oak forest, and native grasslands. (see: Letter from for., Burke,. Hoffman & Johnson to Butte ',County' - `` - Planning Commission, November 27, 2006). • Current aerial `photography shows these `wetland habitat areas,' located approximately one, mile'south of the proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine., , • The above. information, is added: to Draft EIR Section 4.1.1!, Regional Environmental Overview. ;• 3.2.5 3.2.5 Williamson Act Cancellation The proposed. M&T Chico Ranch Mine' lies in an area `lwhich is included• within • Williamson Act • contracted land. Exhibit A ,to the subject ,Williamson Act Contract provides a list of the permitted! use on the subject property. Section 7.a. provides: "sand and gravel operation subject to 'the securing of a use permit approved by the: County." {' Government Code Section 51238.3(c)(1) provides that the requirements of , 51238.1 and 51283.2 do not apply to uses that are expressly specified within the contract itelf prior to June. 7, 1994. The contract, specified above,, meets the requirements of Government Code Section 51238.3(c)(1) because: (1) excavation activities , are defined as compatible, and . (2) the contract was executed prior to June 7, 1994. Both the Butte County Resolution, and the , M&T. Williamson Act • Contract allow ' the Board of Supervisors to approve the. proposed end land use of open water/wildlife habitat/agriculture. . On n October T11, 2005, the Applicant voluntarily decided to submit a Petition for '-'Cancellation. While the ' Project is compatible with the' Williamson Act, in order to address :comments of the State .of California Department of Conservation (DOC) and to avoid conflict between the DOC -and the County4'the, Applicant decided to go` forward, with a Petition for Partial Cancellation with respect to 106 acre area ' of the project. ' M&T,Chico Ranch Mine Final EIR v . MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 538-7681 Fax 538-7171 �P �tTM�1T %' oOUTTF (% o''''= •�� �l -i =y�� o �� r `,.••. Cii 1 � w 1 � ` OA, 00 o 0 o A V y del I c WOP� TO: Pete Calarco, Assistant Director, Development Services FROM: Shawn O'Brien, Assistant Director, Public Works SUBJECT: M & T Mine — Alternative Traffic Routes DATE: January 16, 2007 During recent hearings held on the above referenced project the Planning Commission requested staff analyze the possibility of requiring all project truck traffic to exclusively use either of the following routes: 1. River .Road to SR 32, rejoining the original route at SR 32 and West 5`h Avenue 2. Ord Ferry Road to Dayton Road, to Hegan Lane, to Midway, rejoining the original route at Midway and East Park Avenue Option 1 -- River Road to SR 32 At the time of initial project conception, Public Works staff could not support project truck traffic using River Road between Chico River Road and SR 32 for the following reasons: A. The bridge at Big Chico Creek was structurally deficient; however, in 2000 the County replaced the bridge and brought it up to current standards. B. The intersection of River Road at SR 32 was deficient for sight distance; however, in 2005 Caltrans realigned River Road at SR32 eliminating this deficiency. C. The existing road was deficient in width, horizontal alignment and structural section. These problems remain unchanged. Conclusion In order for staff to support all of the project truck traffic using River Road to SR 32, the applicant will need to reconstruct River Road, bringing it up to current County Standards for width, alignment and structure. In this case the road will need to be reconstructed to a pavement width of 32 feet, including bike lanes. Such a reconstruction will need to include any required environmental, engineering, and construction work as well as all work and costs associated with possible right of way. acquisition. Even if all of this work were to be completed, staff would still have concerns about the project's truck traffic trying to merge into the high speed traffic on SR 32 at River Road. Concerns about the availability of this route due to flooding would also exist unless dealt with during reconstruction of River Road. t � � .. �,,.' � a - � ♦ � 1. � -. . - • ,. � ^ r �L `'�` �'1 �' ` .J � � � ; ' ' •, t t.. .• .. � y moi• t� , . ' ` 2 - .. ,. _ .. �; . 1 ` ' � 1� l � ;` r 1 S _ - � . .- � � _ .Y„ ' . y { + !.. 1 1 - 'Y ♦ a � . � - r,: � ,•. '. ` 1•.` ` ice, � .. � � • � - � a ''. � � . y 1 ai .. - f * _ ` - I +. . �w. • �. � � � �a C � , . � , � ` i 1 _ 1� ! .. c � t • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Page 2 of 2 1/16/2007 Ootion 2 — Ord Ferry to Chico The current EIR envisions a portion of the project's truck traffic using this route. Based upon the traffic study included in the report, about 40% of the project's trucks are anticipated to head towards Ord Ferry Road. Truck traffic is then dispersed through the road system until only 10% of the project trucks arrive at the intersection of Hegan Lane and Midway. Requiring all trucks.leaving the project site to use Ord Ferry will significantly increase traffic such that about 70% of the trucks will pass through the intersection at Hegan Lane and Midway, possibly affecting the level of service of this intersection. A similar situation occurs at the intersection of Dayton Road and Hegan Lane. Overall, the road width along this route is adequate; however, testimony from the public concerning'the lack of width of the bridge on Ord Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek has already been received. This bridge does not meet current standards. As currently envisioned, only 30% of the project's trucks are anticipated to cross this bridge. Requiring all trucks to use Ord Ferry Road will triple the amount of project trucks using the bridge. Hegan Lane between the railroad tracks and Midway is structurally deficient and already being damaged by truck trips generated by the business park fronting on this section of the road. Increasing truck traffic along this road will accelerate the rate of decay of this segment. Conclusion In order for staff to support all of the project truck traffic using the Ord Ferry to Chico route, the applicant would need to: 1. Replace or widen the Ord Ferry Bridge over Little Chico Creek 2. Reconstruct Hegan Lane between the railroad tracks and Midway 3. Study the affects on the level of service at the intersections of Hegan Lane, Midway and Dayton Road. Based on the results of this study, modifications of the two intersections may be required. As with the route discussed above, staff has concerns about the availability of this route as two sections, "the Dips", floods several times during the rainy season. Butte County-Deparrtriment of Development Services T TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR o x " 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone' ; (530) 538-7785 Facsimile- ,` h' ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING January 18, 200T, James S.•Pompy, Reclamation Unit Manager Department of Conservation ' Office.of Mine Reclamation n 801 K Street, MS 09-06 4 „ Sacramento, CA 95814-3529 .y • , r� Y SUBJECT: , MIN 96-03 MA T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan - SCH#9702208.0 Dear AV. Pompy: r w ` This; letter' will confirm that Butte County has fulfilled the re4uir6ents,of section • + F a 2774(d)(2)'of SMAKA with the M&T Mine Reclamation Plan transmittal letter dated October 2, 2006 (see attached).' The issues raised in comment letters from the " a Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation have been addressed by the revised plan together with the conditions of approval recommended for adoption by the F ,. ' •' Butte County Planning Commission. k -If you have any questions regarding',this matter,.please contact me at (530),538-21'67 • ::' ZnlO Assistant Director' Enclosure Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530)538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION'` BUILDING'` PLANNING October 2, 2006 Mr. James S. Pompy 801 K Street, MS 09-06 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE:. Transmittal of Response and Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan (MIN 96-03) Dear Mr. Pompy: Enclosed please find a Revised Reclamation Plan and materials provided by the applicant, Baldwin Contracting Company. This material includes a letter dated September 20, 2004, along with a bound document entitled "Reclamation ' Plan and Supporting Documents" that together responds to the Office of Mine Reclamation letter of June 10, 2004 (included in the attached). Where revisions were not necessary to the Reclamation Plan comments within the Baldwin letter provide explanations or references to supporting materials that address the comment. The. Butte County Department of Development Services fm ds that the amended Reclamation Plan, including the responses provided by the applicant (Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc.), address the comments provided in your letter of June 10, 2004. This Reclamation Plan is in compliance with the applicable requirements of Article I (commencing with Section 3500) of Chapter 8 of Division 2 of Title 14, of the California Code of Regulations. S• rel Dan Breedon Principal Planner Enclosure cc: Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager Pete Calarco, Assistant Director of Development Services BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS 1764 SKYWAY / CHICO, CA 95928 (530) 891-6555 (530) 894-6220 FAX September 20, 2004 Mr. Dan Breedon Principal Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 E E' 0 .F E SEP 2 3 2004 BUTTE COUNTY RE: Department of Conservation comment letter dated June 10, 2004. Dear Dan, This letter sets forth Baldwin Contracting Company's ("BCC") responses to the Department of Conservation's ("DOC") comment letter, dated June 10, 2004. The DOC's letter commented on BCC's reclamation plan for its M & T Ranch mining operation. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA") requires that prior to approving a surface mining operation, a lead agency submit the reclamation plan and supporting documents to the Director of DOC (delegated to the office of Mine Reclamation ["OMR"]) for comments. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 2774(c).) OMR has 30 days to issue its comments. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 2774(d)(1).) The lead agency then must prepare written responses to the issues raised by OMR. The lead agency is not required to resubmit the reclamation plan to OMR for additional comments. See Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 2774 (c) -(d).) This letter's headings are organized to correlate with the items raised in DOC's - June 10, 2004, letter. We have attached a bound version of the reclamation plan with supporting documents, for your convenience. OMR raised the following issues: Para agr ph 3, page 1 OMR states on page one that the utilized reclamation plan format "is not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity." -1- BCC used the reclamation plan format selected by Butte County ("County"). The reclamation plan contains all the necessary requirements set forth is SMARA. The reclamation plan's size and complexity is a reflection of the documents thoroughness and the diligent collaboration between the County and BCC. Enclosed with this letter is a bound copy of the reclamation plan, along with its supporting documents. • BCC bate - stamped the pages to make the reclamation plan and its supporting documents easier to navigate. Item 1, page 2 OMR states in item one on page 2 that the reclamation plan needs to include "a termination date for the operation" and a discussion of the time frame for reclamation. SMARA section 2772(c)(3) requires reclamation plans to include "proposed dates for the initiation and termination of surface mining operations." (Emphasis added.) BCC has both a proposed initiation and termination date in its reclamation plan. The "proposed initiation date is the date all permits necessary to initiate operations are approved by the regulatory agencies." The "proposed termination'of surface mining operations is 30 years after the proposed initiation date." (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 2, bate -stamped page 22, paragraph two.) Item 2, page 2 OMR states in item two on page two the following-. The effects of siltation and the reduction in substrate transmissivity values by deposition of suspended sediment carried in Little Chico Creek during periods of flooding has not been evaluated in'terms of the proposed end use of the site as a ground water recharge "lake." The effectiveness of groundwater recharge would be expected to diminish as the ponds silts in. California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 3502(b)(2), cited by OMR, states "[o]perations shall be conducted to substantially prevent siltation of ground -water recharge areas." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 3502(b)(2) [emphasis added].) California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 3706(b), also cited by OMR, provides that the "quality of water, recharge potential, and storage capacity of ground water aquifers which are the source of water for domestic, agricultural, or other uses dependent on the water, shall not be diminished, except as allowed in the approved reclamation plan." Siltation will not be an issue at the M & T site. The lake, as designed, will substantially prevent siltation of ground water recharge, and will,preserve the quality, recharge potential, and storage capacity of the lake. This is explained in greater detail iri the letter written to the County by Steve Deverel of Hydro Focus, Inc. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 18.) -2- Item 3, page 2 OMR states in item three on page two that "there is no detailed engineered design for the bypass channel or weir structure proposed to mitigate most of the floodplain impacts that would result from the placement of a deep mining pit with 100 feet of Little Chico Creek." California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 3506(e), cited by OMR, states "Where natural drainages are.... impacted by surface mining activities, mitigating alternatives shall be proposed and specifically approved in the reclamation plan to assure that runoff shall not cause increased erosion or sedimentation." BCC's reclamation plan specifically incorporates mitigating alternatives for natural drainages utilized in the M & T environmental impact report ("EIR"). The reclamation plan incorporates the weir and bypass channel mitigations as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b and 4.4-7c. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 14.) The weir and bypass channel, as stated in the reclamation plan, will "protect the water in the lake from flood water entry up to the 10 year event." The weir and bypass channel will be made conditions of approval for the project. BCC undertook substantial steps in the planning process to ensure that the weir and bypass channel would be viable and effective. Design information for both the weir and the bypass channel are contained in Attachment 16 and Attachment 17 to the Reclamation Plan. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachments 16 and 17.) In addition NorthStar Engineering has designed a weir on Butte Creek to take overflow, high water, upstream of the "Oakie" Dam, off Honey Run Road, in Butte County. Item 4; pie 2 OMR states in item four on.page two that there is no design basis for the increase in buffer width from 50 feet to 100 feet adjacent to Little Chico Creek. And in addition, that "this buffer [100 foot] has not been incorporated in the cross sections or diagrams supplied for the reclamation plan." The buffer for the project was increased from 50 feet to 100 feet as an added mitigation measure during the EIR process. OMR is correct in no that the previous version of Exhibit 2 did not incorporate the 100 -foot buffer. This was a typographical error. BCC revised Exhibit 2 to the reclamation plan to reflect this change. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 6.) Item 5, page 3 -3- OMR states in item five on page three that the mitigation for erosion of the proposed bypass channel is, in part, repair by onsite heavy equipment. OMR states that this mitigation would not be effective after mine closure and removal of the onsite equipment. OMR opines that the "bypass must be designed as a long term solution and have a maintenance agreement in place to perform repairs after site closure." BCC designed the bypass channel as a long-term solution to replace water overflow into the Little Chico Creek distributary. The bypass channel does not require a maintenance agreement after site closure. The bypass channel will be designed to blend into the natural topography of the surrounding area and Little Chico Creek. The reclamation plan, through the incorporation of EIR mitigation measures, requires that native plant species be utilized in the bypass channel design to control erosion and to provide long-term bank stability, thus making the bypass channel a suitable alternative to the present downstream distributary on a long-term basis. Item 6, page 3 OMR states in item six on page three that "[s]eparation of Little Chico Creek and the lake formed following mining only limits commingling of the. two water bodies to a 10 -year flood event.... OMR is concerned that commingling might create the "Potential for movement of warm water prey species out of the lake and down the creek to the Sacramento River with possible impacts to anadromous fisheries." Little Chico Creek is a warm water creek that could support warm water prey species. The lake is an isolated lake on private property. Warm water prey species will not be stocked in the lake. The only potential for warm water prey species to enter the lake is if Little Chico Creek commingles with the lake via a storm event greater than a 10 -year storm event and warm water prey species enter the lake from Little Chico Creek. In that case, however, any species that enter Sacramento River would have come from Little Chico Creek, not the lake. Further, in its comment letter on the project, the Department of Fish and Game ('DFG") expressed no concern over warm water prey species in the lake. Item 7, page 3 OMR states in item seven on page three the following: The reclamation plan indicates that revegetation will be attained by natural revegetation except those areas where revegetation is 'insufficient.' .. . Reliance on natural revegetation is not an option under the statewide reclamation standards regulations. Proactive measures to achieve the stated end use must be described in the plan, including a complete description of the number of plants, cuttings and or seed of each species that will be used in the revegetation plan. -4- The performance standards for revegetation are set forth in California Code of Regulations, section 3705. The standards do not prevent utilization of natural revegetation. Rather, 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).) While sensitive to OMR's concerns, BCC has taken great care to ensure that the current reclamation plan provides for a detailed, exhaustive, and legally supportable revegetation plan. The reclamation plan revegetation standards track the statutory requirements mandated by SMARA and its associated regulations. For example, 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 M & T Ranch 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, density and species richness of the reclaimed lands to similar parameters on reference areas." 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)." Item 8, pace 4 OMR states in item eight on page four that the present exhibits do not describe the three plant community locations. OMR also asserts that the reclamation text indicates the nesting island will be in the deepest portion of the lake, but Exhibit 2 shows the nesting island as adjacent to the east shoreline. Following OMR's suggestion, BCC prepared an additional map, Exhibit 3, that shows, among other things, the precise locations of the three plant communities. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Aftachment 7.) The reclamation plan text explains that the nesting island is feasible. Specifically it provides that, even if it were to be td constructed in the middle of the lake, there would be sufficient backfill to create the island. The reclamation plan states as follows:' -5- The nesting island will be constructed using excess overburden and silts and clays removed from the aggregate. in the processing plant. An estimated 2.5 million cubic yards of... overburden materials and 500,000 cubic yards of fines will be available to construct the nesting island.... A 1 -acre nesting island constructed entirely of fill in the deepest partof the lake would require only about 500,000 cubic yards of material so sufficient excess overburden and fines are available for the reclamation plan. This analysis is not intended to establish the location of the island. The actual location of the island will be along the eastern shoreline as depicted in Exhibit 2. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 6 and Attachment 7. Item 9, page 4 OMR states in item nine on page four that "the plan needs to contain more detailed information concerning the water fluctuation levels and how this would impact the'margin habitat."' In addition, OMR states that the "plan does not describe any irregular feature to the shoreline such as peninsulas or bays.... A final map illustrating the modified shoreline needs to be included in the plan and a visual presentation of the 50 - foot wide margin habitat illustrated." BCC is monitoring wells to gather information on future water fluctuations within the lake. As the excavation of the lake progresses, additional and more detailed information on water level fluctuations will be acquired. The revegetation specialist will take the water fluctuation data and use it to establish the exact location and'scope of the margin habitat. Currently, data has been collected from 2003-2004. This data is included as Attachment 19. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 19.) As mentioned above, BCC created a new map, Exhibit 3, to respond to OMR's comments. This map includes a depiction of an irregular shoreline, designed to mirror those found in natural environments. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 7.) Item 10, page 4 OMR states in item 10 on page four that "[c]onstruction of wildlife habitat requires specific revegetation performance standards for each of the three habitats proposed." The reclamation plan contains revegetation performance standards for each of the three habitats proposed, including the emergent zone, the shoreline zone, and the marginal zone. As explained prior, the reclamation plan states: Son Performance standards for the shallow wetlands [emergent zone species] and lake perimeter [marginal and shoreline zone species] 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. To make this point even more clear, these species can be observed on Exhibit 3 to the reclamation plan, which is attached as Attachment 7 to the reclamation plan. (Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, Attachment 7.) Item 11, page 5 OMR states in item 11 on page five that the reclamation plan fails to describe revegetation monitoring. Specifically, OMR claims the following: The plan does mention that revegetation will be monitored for five -years but the plan fails to link monitoring to performance standards.... The plan must state that revegetation will be monitored annually in the spring by a qualified botanist or restoration ecologist for a minimum of five years following planting. A description of the monitoring plan must include a discussion of the statistical sampling method for determining revegetation success. The sampling method must provide at a minimum an 80% confidence level that the portion of the revegetation sampled represents the revegetation of the site as a whole. BCC has taken great steps to ensure that its revegetation plan either meets or exceeds all monitoring requirements set forth in SMARA and its regulations. 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 Bufte County Planning Division. The 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 following year. In addition, the reclamation plan expressly provides as follows: Methods 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). In other words, the reclamation plan is designed to mirror SMARA's revegetation requirements. Item 12, page 5 OMR states in item 12 on page five, that the reclamation plan must have a signed statement of responsibility. -7- The reclamation plan has a signed statement of responsibility. BCC carefully considered OMR's comments in preparing this letter. While many of the comments were already addressed in the reclamation plan, some positive minor changes were made as a result of OMR's comments. , Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss this letter and to, set up a meeting to establish a timeline to approve the reclamation plan. Sincerely, Rene A. Vercruyssen cc: Jeffrey K. Dorso, Esq. The Diepenbrock Law Firm -8- North$t,-ar - -ENGIN�EERING -:Zo'i Civil Engineers • Surveyors October 19, 2005 Rene Vercrussen Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc 1764 Skyway . Chico, CA 95828 RE: Public Works Comments 6-22-b5 - M& T Chico Ranch Mine Dear Rene, This letter is in response to the comments received on 6-22-05 from the Department of Public Works. Their comments were limited to concerns involving drainage and flood control aspects of the "Reclamation Plan and .Supporting Documents for M&T Chico Ranch Mine, dated September 2004". A large number of their comments are in regards to supporting documents in the plan, many of which are from the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated September 2002. It should be noted that the County has already reviewed and commented on the EIR. The intent of submitting this to the county was not a second review of the EIR- but a review of the supporting material that has been asked for by various agencies. We realize that the County is an important party in the review and approval process, but at the same time we would like the county to understand that they are but one of many agencies that are reviewing and approving the project. Many of these agency's "area of concern" overlap and may not directly agree, because of this we are seeking the counties help in coming to compromises with the other agencies involved. Please read through the responses to the Public Works comments and keep in mind that at this stage of the proposed project only approval of the project concept and EIR is being proposed, not specific engineering plans for construction. There will be more than adequate time to review engineering plans and file for permits after the EIR approval. sincerely, Ross Simmons, P.E. NorthStar Engineering 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX -893-2113 The comments from the 6-22-05 Public Work's review are shown in italics and responses to comments follow. 1. The weir and bypass channel locations shown in attachment 6 disagree with the mitigations in attachment 14 and designs in attachments 16 and 17. Response: Attachment 6 has been revised to clear up mis- understandings and discrepancies. One major point of confusion is that there are 2 separate bypass channels with 2 separate purposes mentioned in the EIR. The bypass channel described in 4.4-3b is along the western side of the pit and' is to be designed to accept flows from Little Chico Creek that historically went through the pit location. Its purpose is to alleviate the impacts of the low levee/weir on the Jones parcel by mimicking the current splitting of Little Chico Creek. Attachment 16 demonstrates a possible design for this bypass channel. One of two options for mitigating closures on River Road due to flood waters is removing an existing levee and constructing a setback levee. The other option includes installing larger culverts and raising the road at the low points in River Road. The second bypass channel mentioned in the text (MM 4.4-7a) is in reference to the setback levee. The existing levee just west of the proposed plant site could be removed and a new levee (not to exceed the original's elevation) could be constructed 200' to the east of the old levee. In a 1-17-02 preliminary report by NorthStar Engineering one mitigation measure was to construct a set back levee, leave the existing levee intact, and construct a bypass channel between the levees. This bypass channel would convey flood waters that overtopped the existing levee to enlarged culverts at the south edge of the plant and back into Little Chico Creek. A report was issued on 2-27-02 that suggested (as one mitigation option) the existing levee be removed completely allowing flooding waters complete access to the area and thus negating the purpose of the bypass channel. Attachment 6 shows this mitigation measure. Attachment 17 is a possible design for the low levee/weir described in the EIR and matches schematically what is shown on Attachment 6. Attachment 6 has been revised to match the wording used in the EIR and attachment 17. 2. Attachment 14, mitigation measure (MM) 4.4-3a indicates that the storm water from the processing plant will not enter the pit but does 1 not disclose where or how the storm water will be handled. Impact 4.4-4 indicates "Internally generated storm water will be retained . on-site", then indicates a permit will be required to allow this water to go off-site. The plan needs to define and analyze what is actually proposed either on-site retention or on-site detention with drainage to a natural water course? Response: It is correct that storm waters will be'kept from entering the pit, this includes existing field ditches to the east and south of the pit as described in MM 4.4-3c as well as storm water from the plant site in MM 4.4-3a. The purpose of keeping field runoff and plant runoff from entering the pit up to a 10 year event is to minimize any possible impacts to ground water. It is recognized that runoff from farmed fields can contain high levels of pollutants, that in high concentrations can jeopardize ground water safety. What the statement in MM 4.4-3a is saying is that storm waters from the plant SHALL NOT enter the pit. The statement in 4.4-4 then elaborates on where these waters. CAN go, which is back into Little Chico Creek. (with the proper permitting). These permits would include a basic site development plan with the County of Butte. Included in this would be pre and post storm water runoff estimates and likely (as required by the County) a no net increase in peak runoff requirement. When a construction permit is applied for a detention pond can be sized and included in the southwest corner of the proposed plant area. The entire plant facility would be tributary' to this detention pond and flows released to Little Chico Creek would be less than the pre -development flows. 3. 'Attachment 14, MM 4.4-3b, how will floodwater be drained from the pit? See the second paragraph on page 243 "As a worst case, in theory, overflows could erode down the buffer and Little Chico Creek could be diverted, in its entirety, through the created lake." How will the pit and subsequent reclaimed lake be operated and maintained to protect the existing Little Chico Creek? Response: In the 10+ year event it is recognized that Little Chico Creek will spill over the weir and enter the pit. This will raise the lake water level up to a point where the lake will spill out of the south end and back into Little Chico. Creek. This flow path currently exists now at the proposed location of the weir. As the 10 year flood recedes the water level in the pit will steadily drop to the bottom of the existing channel out, then slowly drop to its base level through steady infiltration to the creek bed and aquifer. There will be no need to "drain" the pit entirely as it is proposed to be wet mine. 2 The "worst case scenario" depicted on page 243 is mitigated in both MM 4.4-5 and MM 4.4-6. The mitigation measures state that the slope of the buffer shall be designed by a registered civil engineer to prevent erosion, approval of the plan by Butte County is required. Both structural and vegetative measures shall be used to stabilize the buffer strip (pg. 4.4-70 of the EIR). Note that originally a 50' wide buffer between .the top bank of Little Chico Creek and the pit edge was proposed but this has been increased to 100'. 4. Attachment 14, MM 4.4-3c, the channels to be improved and proposed improvements need to be shown on the plans and fully addressed in the text. It is unclear whether ditches within 1, 000 feet on the east side or ditches on the east side to 1, 000 feet southerly (no plan view associated with text) are proposed to be improved to a 10 -year capacity: No design calculations or plans were provided for these ditches. The flood impact studies by NorthStar Engineering do not show the boundaries of the 10 -year event, however the FEMA mapping indicates the 100 -year flood plain extends more than 1, 000 feet east of the mine site and includes the topsoil stockpile areas. What is the purpose of improving the ditches on the east side to a 10 year design capacity? Provide analysis for the impacts of the topsoil stockpiles to the flood plain elevations. Also this MM identifies the fact that all the proposed' levees will be overtopped by flood flows from the Sacramento River, but does not identify erosion control measures to be taken to protect the levees and pit slopes during operation or to provide protection for the reclaimed lake. Response: The ditches in question have been added to attachment 6 to help clarify the wording in the EIR. The existing ditches are to include the ditch at the southern edge of the pit as well as all existing ditches within 1,000 feet of the eastern side of the pit. The ditches carry local storm water from the fields to the north and east and do not carry flows from Little Chico Creek. The purpose of ensuring these ditches will accommodate the 10 year design flows is to keep the direct field runoff from overflowing the ditches and entering the pita The 10- year flood in Little Chico Creek does not enter the pit area staying instead to the west of the pit (in the bypass channel and in Little Chico Creek through the Jones parcel). The topsoil piles are to the west 3 of the pit beyond a levee and do not effect the 10 -yr flood plan elevation. The 100 year flood plain topic is covered on page 4.4-6 of the EIR. 5. Attachment 14, pages 243 and 244, proposed project with and without batch plant identifies a 50 foot not 100 foot wide buffer between Little Chico Creek and the northern edge of the pit. This conflicts with other information contained in the document, including attachment 6. Response: This is correct. The EIR continually references a 50' buffer, however this has been increased this to 100'. 6. Attachment 14, it appears pages are missing from the document so a complete evaluation cannot be made. Page 244 is identified as 4.4-73, page 245 is identified as 4.4-75 and the content does not flow from one page to the next. Also page 245 (the last page of this attachment) ends in the middle of a sentence. Provide a complete, comprehensive copy of this attachment for review and comment. Response: This is correct. The document provided for review was a compilation of relevant Reclamation Plan documents, titled "Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents". To give context to the discussions the document contains some excerpts from the EIR, BUT does not include the complete EIR. This document is intended to support and be read with the EIR. Attention is drawn to the fact that the pages mentioned above have the words "M&.T Chico Ranch Draft EIR" written next the EIR page number and then followed by a bold single page #. The attempt was not to confuse the county. but to provide clarity by organizing all the supporting documentation in one place. 7. Attachment 16 provides some design calculations for a Little Chico Creek bypass channel, but does not provide information with respect to the construction location or design flow of 1, 000 cfs. Response: Attachment 16 is difficult to understand out of context. What it is attempting to show is that a sufficient bypass channel can be designed to mitigate the flooding of the Jones tract which would occur once the low levee/weir was installed. The bypass channel would be designed to mimic the existing flow event through the pit area. This existing flow occurs when the Little Chico Creek flows top 300 cfs. Once the project is approved detailed plans for the bypass channel and its head works will be developed 'and submitted to the county for review and approval. rd .8. Attachment 17 provides a design for an overflow weir for Little Chico Creek, but does not provide a backwater analysis for the flood plain and does not address how Sacramento River overflows will react to the weir and setback levee. The design appears to be for the 50 year event, not the base flood, 100 -year event. Page 304 profile, is the left levee looking upstream or downstream. Sections 1, 2, and 2.5 appear to intersect the pit, but there is no information with respect to the sections looking upstream or downstream. and the pit. is not shown. Response: Attachment 17 does contain a backwater analysis for the flood plain. The report analyzes the water surface elevation from I ross section 8 to section 0.5 as shown on page 300. The addition of flows from the Sacramento River complicates the area and makes a dependable hydraulic analysis extremely difficult; this is why no 100 yr flooding is shown. It should be noted that the detailed study area with 100 year water. surface elevations prepared by FEMA ended just upstream from the Sacramento River sloughs and the project area. The 100 year flood plain topic is further covered on page.4.4-6 of the EIR. Note that all HEC RAS model river stations are viewed from the path of flow meaning, you start at the upper most and view them traveling downstream. This makes the "left levee" the same -as the east levee for this study. The pit is not shown on the cross sections, but flow. through the pit equals that over the weir. 5 ALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. AM GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS I'TR�CTINGGO 1764 SKYWAY/CHICO, CA 95928 (530) 891-6555 (530) 894-6220 FAX Maki; U._ i SaVICES October 18, 2005 Butte County Department of Development Services Attention: Dan Breedon 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re M&T Ranch Mine, Butte County Department of Public Works (DPW) comments on Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, submitted on September 20, 2004, by Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc. 1. Dear Dan: On September 20, 2004, Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc. (Baldwin) submitted a letter and a document titled, Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents, in reply to Department of Conservation (DOC) letter of comment dated June 10, 2004. As most of the questions contained in the DOC letter had already been addressed in other documents, Baldwin was concerned that there was some confusion among the agencies with review authority about the reclamation plan for the M&T Ranch Mine project. For that reason Baldwin used the time between June and September of 2004 to compile a document, made up entirely of documents already submitted and reviewed by state and county agencies, that was intended to provide the agencies a comprehensive compilation of the reclamation plan and portions of other documents referenced in the reclamation plan in one place. Over ten months later, on August 2, 2005, Baldwin received a letter from Butte County Development Services, with an Inter -Departmental Memo from the Public Works Department, dated June 22, 2005. This memo had eight numbered comments, regarding "drainage and flood control aspects of the Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents for M&T Chico Ranch Mine". Many of the DPW comments were on excerpts from the Draft EIR prepared for the M&T Ranch Mine Project in'September 2002, and already commented upon on several occasions by the state and county agencies. The Draft EIR was extensively excerpted in compiling the Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents. Baldwin submitted the DPW comments to NorthStar Engineering; who did the flood study work for the Draft Ell?, for reply. Attached is a cover letter and replies from, NorthStar Engineering. Very truly ours David Barney President Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc. Butte County Department of Development Services PAUL MCINTOSH, INTERIM DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone (530) 538.7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING August 2, 2005, Mr. Rene A. V ercruyssen , Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc. 1764 Skyway Chico, CA 95928 RE: Department of Public Work's Review of "Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents for M&T Chico Ranch Mine, September 2004" Dedr Mr. Vercruyssen: Enclosed please find comments received from the Butte County Department of Public Works concerning the September 20, 2004 submittal referenced. above. , Prior to transmitting this document to the Department of Conservation, the comments provided by the Department of Public Works must be addressed. Please provide a response to the issues brought forward by the Department of Public Works in the attached June 22, 2005 memo. This response must be received prior to scheduling this project before the Planning Commission. This project has been continued off the Planning Commission Agenda, due to the Williamson Act Contract cancellation and non -renewal process that has been under consideration by your company. Therefore I am not sure when this project will again be .scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact me at this office. Sincerely., . Dan Breedon Principal Planner Enclosure INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: DAN BREEDON, PRINCIPLE PLANNER FROM: STUART EDELL, MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION v PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RECLAMATION PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR M&T CHICO RANCH MINE DATE: JUNE 22, 2005 We have the following comments with respect to drainage and flood control aspects of the "Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents for M&T Chico Ranch Mine, dated September 2004": 1. The weir and bypass channel locations shown in attachment 6 disagree with the mitigations in attachment J4 and designs in attachments 16 and 17. 2. Attachment 14, Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.4-3a indicates that the stormwater from the processing site will not enter the pit but does not disclose where or how the storm water will be handled. Impact 4.4-4 indicates "Internally generated stonnwater will be retained on-site", then indicates a permit will be, required to allow this water to go off --site. The plan needs to define and analyze what is actually proposed either on-site retention or on-site detention with drainage to a natural water course? 3. Attachment 14, MM 4.4-3b, how will floodwater be drained from the pit? See the second paragraph on page 243 "As a worst case, in theory, overflows could erode down through the buffer and Little Chico Creek could be diverted, in its entirety, through the created lake." How will the pit and subsequent reclaimed lake be operated and maintained to protect the existing Little Chico Creek? 4. Attachment 14, MM 4.4-3c, the channels to be improved and proposed improvements need to be shown on the plans and fully addressed in the text. It is unclear whether ditches within 1,000 feet on the east side or ditches -on -the east side to 1,000 feet southerly (no plan view associated with text) are proposed to be improved to a 10 -year capacity. No design calculations or plans were M&T Reclamation Plan Comments June 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 provided for these ditches. The flood impact studies by NorthStar Engineering do not show the boundaries of the 10 -year event, however the FEMA mapping indicates the 100 -year flood plain extends more than 1,000. feet east of the mine site and includes the topsoil stockpile areas. What is the purpose of improving the ditches on the east side to a 10 -year design capacity?. Provide analysis for the impacts of the topsoil stockpiles to the flood plain elevations. Also this mitigation measure identifies the fact that all the proposed levees will be overtopped by flood flows from the Sacramento River, but does not identify erosion control measures to be taken to protect the levees and pit slopes during operation or to provide protection for the reclaimed lake. 5, Attachment 14, pages 243 and 244, proposed project with and without Batch plants identifies a 50 -foot not 100 -foot wide buffer between Little Chico Creek and the northern edge of the pit. This conflicts with other information contained in the document, including attachment 6. 6. Attachment 14, it appears pages are missing from the document so a complete evaluation cannot be made. - Page 244 is identified as 4.4-73, page 245 is identified as 4.4-75 and the content does not flow from one page to the next. Also page 245 (the last page of this attachment) ends in the middle of a sentence. Provide a complete, comprehensive copy of this attachment for review and comment. 7. Attachment 16 provides some design calculations for a Little Chico Creek bypass channel, but does not provide information with respect to the construction location or design flow of 1,000 cfs. I 8. Attachment 17 provides a design for an overflow weir for Little Chico Creek, but does not provide a backwater analysis for -the flood plain and does not address how Sacramento River overflows will react to the weir and setback levee.. The design appears to be for the 50 -year event, not the base flood, 100 -year event. Page 304 profile, is the. left levee looking upstream or downstream. Sections 1, 2 and 2.5 appear to intersect the pit, but there is no information with respect to the sections looking upstream or downstream and the pit is not shown. cc: Mike Crump, Director of Public Works (File 180.2) Memorandum TO: Mike Crump, Public Works Director FROM: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner SUBJECT: M&T Chico Ranch Mine DATE: May 23, 2005 Department of Development Services Planning Division Mike, This document ("Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents") represents Baldwin Contracting Companies response to the Department of Conservations critique of their submitted reclamation plan pursuant to SMARA. Some of the issues that the DOC comments upon involve drainage, flooding, engineering and design information pertaining to these subjects. I am requesting that the Department of Public Works review Baldwin's responses prior to accepting this document as complying with SMARA and the concerns brought up by DOC. The area that I would request Public- Work's input on concerns the "Geotechnical Requirements, Hydrology and Water Quality" Section (Items 3 -5) of DOC's June 10, 2004 letter. Although this project has been. continued off the Agenda, I am requesting a response from your Department within the next 30 days. Thanks for your attention to this matter. I am also requesting that the "Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents" provided with this Memo be returned to me when your review is completed.