HomeMy WebLinkAbout039-530-019 (3) (2)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 -40A ricultural, 40 -acre Assistant Director
(9 Planners:
parcel) Dan Breedon, AICP
Principal Planner
Attachments:
APNs: 039-530-019 & 020 Exhibit 2 — Conditions of
A Approval to Resolution
Approving Mining Use
Permit
r 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 California Environmental 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 5e
Ie
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
s Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■
s M & T Mine MIN 96-03 s 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 11 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 a Planning Division
® M & T Mine MIN 96-03 s Agenda Report ® January 25, 2007 ® Page 3 of 5a
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 Existinq 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 t6
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.
a Butte County Department of Development Services o Planning Division ■
s M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ January 25, 2007 a 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)62) 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 a Planning Division
® M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ® Agenda Report a January 25, 2007 a Page 5 of 5a
EXHIBIT 2
CONDI'T'IONS 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 constitute3 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 witl�n 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 underiaken 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 13-10.7.
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 conditiors and ordinance
requirements have been met.
Planninll Division:
8. All Reclamation work shall be in substantial compliance wit -I the approved
Reclamation Plan.
9. All mine operations shall comply with the Project Description End 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 24 hours 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 Ouality 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 emissioncontrols 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 lams, turn pockets,
signing and striping. Improvement plans shall be approved by fle Butte County
Public Works Department prior to construction.
18. Prior to operations Owner/Operator shall provide improvement3 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 Fridge, and the
M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 3 of 6
e
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
15
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
he-
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 we7dands 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-listec 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 Wish 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 a.:tivities 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 lane. disturbance of
five acres 6r 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
V
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
Butte. County Department of Development Services - oUTp�o
TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
o o
7 County Center Drive - . o i o
Oroville CA 95965 0
(530),538-7601 Telephone �+
(530) 538-7785 Facsimile OUN�
ADMINISTRATION'` BUILDING * PLANNING
January 18, 2007
James S. Pompy, Reclamation Unit Manager
Department of Conservation
Office of Mine Reclamation
801 K Street, MS 09-06
Sacramento,. CA 95814-3529
SUBJECT: MIN 96-03 M & T Chico )Stanch Mine Declamation Plan
SCH#97022080
Dear Mr. Pompy:
This letter will confirm that Butte County has fulfilled the requirements of section
2774(d)(2) of SMARA with the M&T Mine Reclamation Plan transmittal letter dated
October 2, 2006 (see attached). The issues raised in comment letters from the
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
' 1
Butte County Planning Commission.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (530) 538-2167.
Sin 1
t co -
. 1
Assistant Director
Enclosure
r
L
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
ADMINISTRATIONBUILDING' 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 lette_ dated September
20, 2004, alongwith 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 finds 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
ALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC.
GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS
® _
O�TR�CTI ` 1764 SKYWAY/ CHICO, CA 95928 (530)891-6555 (530) 894-5220 FAX
September 20, 2004
Mr. Dan Breedon
Principal Planner
Butte County
Department of Development Services
C EHu, G7
SEP 2 3 2004 f �1
BUTTE Oukrf '
FLANKING DIVISION
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
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 Rancz mining
operation.
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA") requires teat 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 ofMine
Reclamation ["OMR"j) for comments. .(Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 2754(c).) OMR has
30 days to issue its comments. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 2774(d)(1). -D 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:
Paragraph 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 in
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 f_oodplain
impacts that would result from the placement of a deep mining pit with 103 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, mirigating
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 fcr 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, page 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 E1R process.
OMR is correct in noting that the previous version of Exhibit 2 d_d not
incorporate the 100 -foot buffer. This was a typographical error. BCC re-N.ised 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-
Rene Vercrussen
Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc
1764 Skyway . -
Chico, CA 95828
RE: Public Works Comments 5-22-05 - 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.
Sincerel ,
Ross Simmons, P.E.
NorthStar Engineering
20 DECLARATION DRIVE
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973
530-893-1600
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
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 Khat 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 1001
.
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, 5ut 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 ars 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 dit2hes will.
accommodate the 10 year design flows is to keep the direct field runoff
from overflowing the ditches and entering the pit.
The 10- year flood in Little Chico Creek does not enter the pit area
staying instead to the west of the pit (in the
Chico Creek through the Jones parcel). ..The
bypass channel and in
Little'
topsoil piles are to the west,
3
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 aper-mit 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
of the pit beyond a levee and do not effect the 10 -yr flood pla_-a 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.
11
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/l7 does contain a backwater analysis for the
flood plain. The report analyzes the water surface elevation from
cross 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
41
BALDWIN CONTRACTINGEOMPANY, INC..
GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS`��`�
1764 SKYWAY/CH ICO, CA 95928 (530) 891-6555 (530) 894-6220 FAX
Nov Lc l �
BF,VELOPN1
'Q&gVFCES
October 18, 2005
Butte County '
Department of Development Services
Attention: Dan Breedon
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Ile 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.
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 Developm,,nt Services, with
an Inter -Departmental Memo from the Public Works Department, dazed 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 MLne". 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 Ed the flood
study work for the Draft EIR, 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. Vercruyssen
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"
Dear 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.
Sincerel
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 14 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 "Int --orally generated
stormwater 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 improves and proposed
improvements need to be shown on the plans and fully addressed --n 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 tent) are proposed
to, be improved to a 10 -year capacity. No design calculations or plans were
M&T Reclamation Plan Comments Page 2 of 2
June 22, 2005
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.
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)
a
Mem�orandum
TO: I Mike Crump, Public Works Director
FROM: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: . M&T Chico Ranch Mine
DATE: I May 23, 2005
Mike,
Department of Development Services
Planning Division
This document ("Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents") represents 3aldwin 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.
Orc?pg7MENr Oc
o WTT
ali o
MEMORANDUM. - i
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT It ''
7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 538-7681 Fax 538-7171OV N�yy, T
�eUc W���
TO: Pete Calarco, Assistant Director, Development Services
FROM: ' Shawn O'Brien, Assistant Director, Public Works j ,
! 3
SUBJECT: M & T Mine — Alternative Traffic Routes
DATE: January 16, 2007
During recent hearings held on the above referenced project the Plarning Commission
requested staff analyze the possibility of requiring all project truck trFffic to exclusively-.
use either of the following routes:
1. River Road to SR 32, rejoining the original route at SR 32 and West 5th Avenue
2. Ord Ferry Road to Dayton Road, to Hegan Lane, to Midway, re oining 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 lollowing 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 SR?2 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 Curren-. County Standards
for width, alignment and structure. In this case the road will need to :)e reconstructed to
a pavement width of 32 feet, including bike lanes. Such a reconst-uction 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.
.l v
PUBLIC WORDS DEPARTMENT
Page 2 of 2
1/16/2007
Option 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.
r
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A P R O F E S$ 1 O- N A L
L A %V C 0 K P O A A T I O N
66,1 CALIPORNFA SHEET
NINE II'EENTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94108 _
415.7772727
WWI,V.F.[ 1.MAN-81!RKH.00.'A
January 17, 2007
Mr.' Chuck Nelson, Chair
Ms. Nina Lambert, Vice Chair
Mr. Fernando Marin
Mr. Harrel Wilson
Mr. Richard Leland
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
C/o BUTTE COUNTY DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 County Center Drive
Oroville CA 95965
JAN 17, 2007
HOWARD N. EI N ELOPMEN�.
415.296 1610 DIRECT°�IRVICES
415.495.7.587 FACSIMILE
FiL-E.LM.N@EI_LMAN-BURKF.COM _
Att'n: Clerk Of The Planning Commission
Re: M&T Ranch Gravel Mine: Application Min 96-03
Application for Permit To Establish Gravel Mine On Agricultural Land:
December 14, 2006 Hearing
Dear Commissioners:
This letter addresses four issues:
L Flood Incidents
2. ,Penetration of the Aquifer
3. Permits Required from OtherAgencies
4. Compatibility with Surroundings
I. Flood Incidents
In our letter of December 11, we pointed out that the EIR for the captioned gravel
mine makes no mention of, or provision for, additional sediments that will flolw onto Llano Seco
Ranch from the gravel pit during the regularly occurring flood incidents in the area. Staff and.
the environmental consultant respond by stating that flood waters already con_ain significant
sediment loadings. Thus, any additional sediments the mine will cause are irrelevant.
N:\P\PARRI\GM\Letters\Pretest letter 01-17-07
G
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A •' P P. 0 F E S S I O N A L- L A W C O R P O P, A T 1 O N
January 17, 2007
Page 2
That response ignores two critical facts:
1. First, the California Environmental Quality Act requires EIRs to consider,
report upon and provide for mitigation of any incremental impacts. Incremental additions to
traffic, for example, that are caused by a project must be considered - no matter how much traffic
already exists. The same is true with respect to every other impact, including sediment loadings
to flood waters. The extent to which the mine will, increase sediment loadings should have been
considered and evaluated. Plainly it was not.
2. Second, the existing sediment loadings in the flood waters received by
Llano Seco today consist primarily of eroded topsoil. The mine will contribute sediments of an
entirely different nature — i.e., fine particulate substrate material, the type of material that in other
situations has been identified as harmful. It is no coincidence that mine sediments have been
identified by the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries Services (formerly NMFS) as one of the most important contributing
causes to the decline in steelhead and salmon populations in the Sacramento Valley, leading to
their listing under the Endangered Species Act. See, e.g., 50 Code of Federal Regulations
("CFR") Part 227 (1998); 50 CFR Part 226 (2000); "Factors For Decline" W -FS (1996) at pages
25-27, 56; 50 CFR Part 223 (1999); 50 CFR Part 227 (1998). The NMFS publication "Factors
For Decline" identifies gravel mines in flood plains as a major factor contributing to the decline
of salmon and steelhead populations. The pending application is for a gravel :nine in a
floodplain of a river system that is a major spawning habitat for these protected fish — based on
an EIR that does not even acknowledge the issue, let alone address it.
IL Penetration of the Aquifer
The excavation for the gravel mine will significantly penetrate -he large,
unconfined aquifer, which underlies that part of the County, at a depth of little more than five
feet. The aquifer has direct hydrologic contiguity with the Sacramento River. The water in the:
NAMPARRI\GM\Letters\Protest letter 01-17-07
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A- P R 0 F A S S 1- O N A L L A W C O P. P 0 R A T 1 0 N
January 17, 2007
Page 3
aquifer flows from east to west, at a consistent pace, all year. Even in the dry season. This
means that the mine sediments from the gravel pit will be transported directly to the Sacramento
River. All year. This will be unavoidable.
Furthermore, the flows in the aquifer run to the south as well as the west. This
means that mine sediment will be transported not only to the" Sacramento River to the west, but
to the wetlands of the Llano Seco and the Federal Refuge to the south. The qualities of mine
sediments which make them virtually toxic to protected fish species, as mentioned above, can
have the same impact on seasonal and permanent wetlands, sealing the soil and impairing the
growth of the vegetation, upon which the health of those lands depends.
A more serious concern exists here in that herbicides and pesticides from aerial
applications on adjacent farming operations (which will only be twenty or thirty yards away) will
inevitably find their way into the large open gravel pit. Similarly, petroleum products and other
wastes from the southwest portion of the City of Chico will be brought by Little Chico Creek
into the mine in storm and flood situations. And these herbicides and petroleum products will
then be transported through the aquifer to the river and to those wetlands to the south. This
problem might be minimized if the project included the non -nal 300 ft setbacks from intensive
agriculture operations. But if those setbacks were in place in this case, the rr_ining operation
would virtually disappear.
One example of how seriously this kind of problem is viewed by the responsible
agencies is the fact that any well drilled in a flood plain must be topped by metal casings which
extend upwards to a point at least two feet higher than the hundred year flood plain level. ,
Another example is the fact that water injected into an aquifer must be treated to meet a zero
degradation standard, i.e., have a quality equal to or better than that of the groundwater. No such
requirement is proposed by you in this case, nor would it be feasible.
NAP\PARRI\GM\Letters\Protest letter 01-17-07
Q
ELLMAN BuP KE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
AP R O F E S S 1 O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N
January 17, 2007
Page 4
The fact that your consultant and Staff have attempted to shrug off these issues in
such a dismissive manner, given the wealth of information on the public record (that should have
been found and commented upon by them without the necessity- of our doing so) is as puzzling as
it is unacceptable. We submit that nothing could better demonstrate the inadequacy of the EIR
than this most recent episode.
We reiterate our objection to the EIR's treatment of the issue and the continuing
effort on the part of Staff and its consultant to downplay it in a manner that is impermissible
under CEQA.
Parrott Investment Company, owner of Llano Seco Ranch, expects to have to
undertake extraordinary measures to prevent these sediments from impairing; its effort at wildlife
habitat creation and restoration. These are efforts that the applicant and the County should
undertake in the first instance, a step that to date both are seeking to avoid. And in the first
instance, the EIR should have identified, quantified and provided for mitigation of the impact.
Instead, you are offered superficial, dismissive evasion, despite CEQA's mandate for full and
fair disclosure.
III. Permits Required from other Agencies
We note the applicant's repeated statement that it will be required to obtain
permits from the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Corp of Engineers, statements offered
supposedly to assure that the impacts of the development will be closely controlled and
monitored. The DEIR, however, states that those permits will only be requir•,-d under certain
conditions. We have seen nothing in the documentation to assure us that the permits will
actually be required — of that, if required, they will be of sufficient scope to provide realistic '
protection. In other words, the time to impose meaningful mitigation and lirr_itations on this
development is within the context of the pending application, an exercise tha: cannot effectively
take place without an adequate EIR. It is the County's responsibility, as the "lead agency" - - a
N:\P\PARRI\GM\Letters\Protest letter 01-17-07
Q
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A P R O F E S S 1 O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N
January 17, 2007
Page s
buck that cannot be passed onto other agencies that have "single purpose" responsibility and
limited jurisdiction..
IV.- Compatibility with Surroundings
Finally, we ask you again to look at the "bigger picture," an analysis that your
own County Code requires you to undertake if you are to properly consider the issue of
compatibility under Section 24-45.10 of the Butte County Code:
A. Environmental Issues:
The western and southwestern portions of Butte County include some of
the richest and most environmentally diverse landscapes remaining in California. Among other
things, the area includes most of the State's unprecedented program to creat✓ the "Sacramento
River Conservation Zone." That legislation is the State's most ambitious plan to protect a
priceless combination of oak woodland, riparian forest, natural wetlands and native, undulating
grazing land, a combination that has virtually disappeared from California. The 20,000 acre
Llano Seco Ranch is the centerpiece of this plan, as it includes a mosaic of all of the above
habitat types in a unique combination and structure, The Ranch includes a ]broad array of the
State's most endangered species, and has been the wintering ground, at times, for as much as a
quarter of all the waterfowl in the State.
The proposed gravel mine would be situated right in -.he middle of this
environmental rarity and splendor. See Exhibit 2, a graphic that shows the location of the gravel
mine in the larger environmental context. Placing a gravel mine in such a location is comparable
to placing such an operation at the entrance to Yosemite National Park, the middle of the Napa
Valley Vineyards or within the Lake Tahoe Basin. It will destroy what cou_d otherwise be one
of the State's great gems for future generations, marring it in perpetuity. Agd all for the purpose
NAP\PARRI\GM\Letters\Protest letter 01-17-07
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A P R O V E 5 5 1 O N A L L A %V C O R P O R A T I O N
January 17, 2007
Page 6
of benefiting, relatively briefly, from slightly cheaper roads (with no assurance of such benefit)
and an ephemeral, short term increase in County revenues.
B: "Quality of Life" Issues:
The environmental diversity and aesthetic richness of I area has
catalyzed an effort to create public recreation areas and areas to be. preserved for conservation
and environmental ends. Federal, State, County and non-governmental ager ;ies have spent
millions of.dollars on these efforts along the Sacramento River and in western Butte County.
The areas thus created attract regular use by a growing army of County resid--nts as well as other
citizens.
The people who use these areas do so to enjoy'their nF-tural beauty, their
environmental diversity and their "pastoral' peace and quiet. The gravel mine will be located
right in the middle of these areas. This is an utterly - - and cynically - - incompatible
positioning. The presence of a giant gravel mining operation will completely destroy the rural,
pastoral, wilderness nature of these areas. And no less than fifty of these promoted areas lie
within a ten mile radius of the proposed mine. Exhibit 3 illustrates that proximity and highlights
the potential conflict. The mine will bring noise, dust, truck traffic — all the -Byproducts of a high
intensity industrial use — to an area being preserved for values that are the very antithesis of such
a use. The mine area itself will become a rocky, barren moonscape in place of the pastoral
setting which exists there today.
These matters bear directly on the decision before you. Section 24-45.10
of the Butte County Code establishes the criteria ,you must apply in considering the gravel mine
application:
The planning commission, on the basis of the evident; submitted
at the hearing, may grant use permits required by the provisions of
this chapter when it finds that the proposed uses of the property
will not impair the integrity and character of the zone. in which the
h•
NAP\PARRI\GM\Letters\Protest letter 01-17-07
v r
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFM-AN & JOHNSON
A P R O F E S S 1 0 N L LA W C O R P O R A T I O N
January 17, 2007
.Page 7
land lies and that the use would not be unreasonably ;ncompatible
with, or injurious to, surrounding properties or detririental to the
health and general welfare of the persons residing or working in
the neighborhood ... (Emphasis added).
This language doesn't say that the compatibility requirement "may" be
followed, or that it can be followed "if it pleases the Commission." It says that it must be
followed.
Given "the current integrity and character of the zone in which the lF.nd lies," wholly
apart from the other issues we have raised, we submit that you cannot, lawfully, make the
findings required of you to support issuance of a use permit in light of Exhibits 2 and 3. We
respectfully submit that this application should be rejected on the ground that the proposed use
fundamentally conflicts with the "character of the zone" as it has evolved, eiien if there were no
other ground for rejection— without regard to the fact that you simply cannot lawfully act on the
basis of an EIR so clearly defective.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Howard N. Ellman
HNE/flf
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Richard Thieriot
Felix Wannenmacher, Esq., Deputy County Counsel
Mr. Pete Calarco, Assistant Director, Butte County Dept. of Development Services
Clerk, Butte County Planning Commission
N:\P\PARRI\GM\Letters\Protest letter 01-17-07
EXHIBIT 1
TO LETTER OF [DATE]
Introductory Note
The following material is taken from a report prepared by Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.
("EKI"),'a groundwater consultant retained by Parrott Investment Company. to evaluate the
groundwater resources at Llano Seco Ranch (and the immediate vicinity) fcr purposes of
determining their extent and reliability. Parrott conducted the investigation that produced the
report (the "EKI Report") for purposes of assessing the long-term sustainabdlity of its wetlands
and conservation programs in light of the water demand those programs im-3ose. The EKI
Report was not prepared as an advocacy piece for the proceedings pertaining to the M&T Gravel
Mine or any other purpose other than to obtain the best information available.
The attached diagram is Figure 4 taken from the EKI Report showir_g the direction of
groundwater movement in the unconfined aquifer that underlies the Ranch and most of western
Butte County. That aquifer, lying as close as five feet below the ground su=face, proceeds in a
southwesterly direction toward the Sacramento River at a pace such that the aquifer fully
recharges with all drawdown restored on an annual basis. (Parrott was investigating the
possibility of creating storage capacity for imported water by pumping the aquifer and
discovered that the prolific recharge characteristics rendered any such plan infeasible.).
The recharge rate demonstrates that pollutants introduced to the groundwater will quickly
migrate toward the River. Deep excavation for the mine that will extend well below the water
table cannot help but introduce pollutants into the unconfined, shallow aquifer that will migrate
down gradient toward the River.
A few relevant excerpts from the EKI Report are the following:
"There is a shallow, unconfined aquifer that, based on water level elevations
measured on the Ranch, is encountered within five feet of the ground surface."
"During normal to wet years, the aquifer system in the Sub -Basin within which the
Ranch is located appears to naturally recharge to its maximum storage capacity by the following
spring."
N:\P\PARRI\GM\Letters\Ex. 1 to Protest Ltr 01-07
"Groundwater flow in the two aquifers (the shallow unconfined aquifer and the
deeper aquifer located approximately six hundred feet below ground surface) appears to be
toward the Sacramento River from both sides of the River indicating that groundwater recharges
the River near the Ranch." EKI Report, p.2.
2. "As can be seen on Figure 5, in the vicinity of the Ranch and generally throughout
the sub -basin ... groundwater flow is believed to be southwesterly toward the Sacramento
River." EKI Report, p.3
N:\P\PARRI\GM\Letters\Ex. 1 to Protest Ltr 01-07 2
\
Ex lanafion of Selected. Formations:APPROXIMATE SUBJECT
.
y v- PROPERTY$®��®AY
ti Qa Alluvium
.. f
e
•Q
(South)
U
V
r' I' "i
• FEET - �� - FEET. i+JSQb 'Basin De oslts - -
t -
p
Soo � Recharge r� f
• ec a ge o Unconfined Aquifer from' ,soo
Unconfined
,�- Aquifer
-q
uiferRainfalf Irrigation, and Surface Nater
/
r -
_Modest o Formation
• . _ -. _ �'`�Qm t F a S'
laoo
1000
Tte
Tehama Formation
'500 t' - - _ s .sr,
- z _ , v',.' �q. 500 :w' >
. -
,
-
<;
n. - --
.. - .,. 6aa*k-..si."�u:eL-.Mn a, '--_a'c-+ ts+' ,,,.,.'Fxr-+.,•}�'�,.�w.••'.t, .Se�-'. ,:�o.�'.. .,,4'".;�^.,.,":..:.iiZ•',{Mt..,w9. •S:Li,:�,,r'1r�.�..t -__..�4 Ji/u -.,4.ttl`t'-.,;r:M'y1*"r-°Sa. .a"r'-.. ,'-k°^-�'Y°-k=j. `':,L 0. �`ca,•yi4£.,-2w_.'..+r?.e�i.,".,iw�_ .a�
_-Wi..:_it-w_,,��'. ,�%. �.•t�:. •�z�„.: _'..+.,.•q,•� -c4 . ,•••r,-'ah.-e^.,>..:ky_.„c_l;r-»_.,.._,.,r!,F.?;.x,. ,:. . ccn'"_,.?�`.:�+M�.�:..:gz.+�_';-.,,�,a:r,-7 _,_�•,,k-r,...",«.•n<, �awl,•"n.':1a. te'_�.. ,Vi..>�ti�'i_a"-.`:ia��,•ce,e•. .'.�:."t�'_-:Z,. fi�ri nrk.,i'},`..,C ;�frxidg»•- w:-nt•s�,, ..?f�c. t-t�a''Fsn".�'.'._+r_, `^.-,p-.,�3 _
-,. ta - is4�§ 1-�_ ,• ,�%-••fr�yy_u.�p _�os' of� 1:• L �"�r.-fix<'Wv:._�.•..i ;.':,. .",�'_ p;.1>z?Y '�C"��hs5+'.,t3 y -_ %-a,t:,'tt.u.z�.�l9'stF':'sr" ;ru'•.,:' [°,..- y� 'n}->' a}ti..T ,,f-'S.!rY.a,•iv.n,ys3t-� '.'-t ? --�- .
" ,z.;kms-�__f'''•p '- -
2-c.�i.+''-N.,'.fgy�•,�pF_
'
"2smo.�_1D�'i'^_•r::.�.,_.2
N"}°
0,
00Y_
Tus_can_U 't C
_
e
Confining Layer
SO
Unconfined Aquifer
�
Confining Layer'an Unit BTusc
Sfi:. _ ?Confined A uife
r. •SooTuscan Unit A ?k :,yT3��• -MM?,: � i Confined Aquifer yIN � �
000 •
i
„Yer'.,fi;Estimated Groundwater Flow bi
rection-P1Z
---- _.
,.
-
;i1yv; ,.r= s _ _ ,3•x..,1.'t_a a•: .;rare�v'''._z•:>iE xiv, "� .CRS?:'t r ; i _qa ri . r,
• • •l:rcita=;^+-t.�ix'r.`>X.;>x.+,.^:, �,'_ ..,a ; .P�.vy�+,,p'l,=. `"A,:'.:a;y.seitf-„�;j.spn>�`i�..,�•,`Trys, _°=",Yos,iii...+t.�,, e'�'ILi:.-Lwlr�i' - "-i.�a. i',Y.t`�fid�+Y:�-'.•:
Fa..�'ak-::.'=w;-:.'r�"�:I.v::trpp'y`.,�vx,T..,i�: >yJy^<'i-b',�' �:sS3i.`m>n_''4.'7�if'.W.<.'r+19:=,I'..'c. "Ix+.:,.-•{+tl.i.L.Y..2r}' •.•,•+.cP.,_�...'..,.: �_,:,.r.t attt„'.J_i�«t.,,,j,w,.s,:._h.,trt,.g.,YMwl w'i,�".�_d.^,'y-xwS•.-.,i..•,:.ar_•x.-,,,.zL.so-5aR.'weag,�krtP®R.'i.',•�-NY
-1500 s-i,.� NIayi✓.1c"u,o�'.;w+«Stz". �<en:s4.Fe_pF»am.o't�aai' rw'",r�Y.t_'i:p:R.�" rS�. , �.,(�•=r_ �fic:,�'y,':'`y�'�i-t' S : 'aL!_`Y?�.s,r-i-tc�:it �'P vs-.�.i=lso-`r. u`yiRra�r�,", t7n_'s.';.. n.`;��_tt/�r�.a.> y,- n-�t'��>u4�. > , (:'', i1 -n. .4f.c,F5 �^�'�"
-1500 Base of Fresh Water Aquifer
A.
_ -
�'i-i�r•::�' i'.t,,RE'{'n w'Et a '.,`f$"�.-rrr:u44�.�� t'r' t, f w��. '-i ai<'- c: :a1=r,-. - - �
,5�,,.. .,, f4^^ ^t S 'Ra-.,ic:..': , •.oY�'sir-. 5t,tlenv;: ?C y�•5.�. �' •rne .'::,c•:<v,Wf t r'Yasti,:.i S -S :` F A i .
r�S.:j :.«, i s. ,'..i":.�'�vT?i +"+-•vP.:.tt. ,.t, .Gt:.:•3 al.
.; ,«•. r•...,.F.. :..µ_ , .�.s_s,3 `> r ...fit ��ie; - . • -
_2000 :,>.• ss:-,� .•�.xew 'i%1'} v,e�:.., •5.�±,-,-vm».,v,...... 4' i at'.d. ,t as - .a:2a •roa; :i:'r,+-?-,+5, [aEe+': �i. aa*d?' •-..::>vn.,,a
• .K.y,•r.,s.-. P= „- �.,.,a.:r•. r; .,-i'.�.,1>»-„w,.P6.:. :>ti.•...�'�,''.a,2'.,�1 .a.•.-73:-`: ''Cw,T -';-'i-
.. t -w=,. <">:r' `5:.,`'.
? e,, r�^�""S; s�-Cz-ro"�':aa,?--�•.,� .7C"' ,� Y- 1 .•f, .n..iiFK;R,r ; 7> i a n i-��..r�•.4' t• , esay. ,°�`+� a �-,-az "•"aiu _ �.t aa-^-7�:•"�Y'' { i r i ^ ` .
- -. :t•!5.�.'e"P„';Y ',,,. } .^SC�',';`f?�tT +."Y.:.-'7.5 v"":"^Y"". c:Kn'•'XC. I,w-rs,,`,P•.;Y�.,. rok- ta,,.f"W9:x. Q, alio a 7w�-r a [at. �4slty d
"'"•.iia'•&k..'<`t7Ca y�3,Y-�., ,..,q+',Irc• r.6i '.. F of �N ',�>c��s..s,., ?>. _ M,,, .�. a'^`-..4"?-ti*•,Z.M.:., <.
,.•. e� 7.,.•.c<,.,..:vi`, Q si°�:.._ chi � r�`'L: ;. A' rt. °,",H.S°' n:2 "� � ra sof- x m. atm ".tl'..v..ra,v,;,•w�<etcK 9.�.c..'.11:: �12�x. ^a°'"it,X'*"•,7,'° •" PiK
"'��* -
�mrv:•a,arwRir:a . i%4 �,+.iiaFi'�• r4"w`? ti+•:�.,:.r ' ;irs.-.,r�..soi t:,�o. [.+ rryg�,d�w.•>Z.5' ...,i..a"t�c`S �Txt:]otP'•a,i;
-2500-:"°�fi'%`'y'"""".," nrF.,y. ,'%+$i,2-,r"•�„¢5� i{< "1''�["i'°.tz_ L.-' 'c'.`i4n.?"'_R i�`.E'.1C.-c., 'a?aw,t=,..• Yc.� r':Syul.: y'�`"' +u-•c'e"v',+r: zq..._� .\-n' °acri<-2500,.,
t..- .,.,r,l`S,: ?,a .ai -^ s ,. a •"�'.. .�.��{,. !k: 'Y.':+ xv�°c r. �',.4W ._
' '. °i�L.�.y:a �,: '. aJri„iv Asir ,,il. j. �� i" ,Har<s�,$rS�;j�„•.. ��'s., :'ka..�w.. �E�a:.av '"' �•-tn-'.°.N.$'ss x�lj.: i:..iom..tasin<.s'i u:..'�'£t!.r-,: <.'-",°"-:: m>-r'=�+i "�' - ., 1�"^'• ,
x}��ir�»tiRrrw r`>7'�...t-a1 ?' .-sem`-tom.., '^rl�..•c3*ti'Ll"'Y�.[?'��- •w^:..j,cu a�.+ra�:aai, .>4c"!a2L�,�:a•ri 'Y �"i:.nu•.. n"2� •u:i�ir:. y:..'1`.,1,rgw..ri3,•.,�'r.'.- Yr `�° _ ..
.y .,YG-..,�;�w,:`'�..r. ik••.:f. �-.s;:. ,-f'^..'--3..a.' ,'�.:a��, '•'.,Fp'y't>}'-�"..dt.-k'f3z"�O`-z"'>...3.1 +a:;s:tH'9te`.: ry^�»r�.._.,.,,r�.�.;.,�4..�•_-:i7t�- .ty '?nss:�a!fi'-�,.klw-i: tC., �'"t-� `'"'g .. -
. .�yr1�t�t ,+. T ':t ;^.,k �-• \h y� cCs'i � a }. �.� �W: 4� .L�,o-•,N,b.• -exr av ac y.°5... ..
-3000
ra: < r,,,: _ • 'ttmru3000
s _ , .. - :.. - tze nse� -
CROSS-SECTION E - E' . '.
The Confined Aquifer is.'
3: T�4 . �; Recharged from Rainfall
Notes:
_ _ s in the Foothills cc
y a• Y 1. All locations are approximate
(West);, (East) 2. Annotation by EKI.
V F,
FEET
^ 1500 y. �. .a. 1E00 .
_ _ a Recharge of Unconfined quifer from r :" S r, 3. Source: Department of Water Resources, Butte County
p i
I
ll
Rainfa, Irrigation, and -S ace Water. •
Groundwater Inventory. Analysis, 2000. -
T I ,
APPROXOMATE
SUBJECT'
r. 500.. .. -
_ *- 500.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY r
a `m -
' �.' m! , - .Fs -<z _ - e a �. _
- � >: ,�j�, ?^ � "tis r..'L"". ��',°3 r+. f0!
" RL"• a
to ; •.,a, :,"
A
-
r-8.
:M
Unconfined Aquifer � ro � w ter • � ' t a�;-. :��.�
<��[ �, . �' - �_ _ _ ,�„.' � ..1 �•. _ •PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL'�.
Mmsl
.oy x?. :. .. • Iow� o. ids � 1 ���,_ h=w _ ,�k _.:. b,t - .. rLL .. �,F` - -' - -_ "'1.r r"/' i4 -i -:'{ ', ,:-'. :;r. 04,, ' i:. -,k.:, �a+. -aAg®figCCwtW ®per ®®UC - 500 sHa� .?' ?'may ��jj y /g¢e�t :o:tpA,`,�v?P�'v 3 -500 �• 8�0T®I�I��Y�6fL�GY�@�YY®PSf�9-Pi®®ki4�TE ? 4^�x� b-Confinin La er.x"a - ,•;r. �!, _ � •.-� •Z °� -� •<.>• ,.gym .---
'tui""1'��- h. /s1J9: �r�- ... .'r N�'�'' . r '?.iii✓ :�,. .S: n,,.. , to
. .,� _. 1 {oy�c i..$:,R ^v n .i•i: , '. .i < V .. �{ :{�• : 'Lr :'iF' i�..., -
.-
r-
i
e
t
t
. • -Tib rx :,- i .. . + ,,� • v
- 1' -1000 +w .z w � Ps r.. >�j�"sT. ��','i`� a.caf.' r- s :�6i4 - 75 �•� -1000
..
,.Aquifer:fir.. �u n...- ...... -._ ,;...- -; r. . `•'�.. � 2: -
Confined I . <
.- _ - =rx� svr� t:�°•. _ :C�pps
``.>� � •q!+? fl y'�_ }cam rK M'"'Me: ?.L •� W _-•':r v ..,J.V R ��• ••'. Y'
_1500-•r
-1500 `
':c .
a � M�S,t _ 'r• r�
+n'' z. !o• tt■° ..mac
t B01 •>r. -= e'f in f '�
',� `::J-• a° ASCI _ •+'r:"F:� "eoud t"
.,..}wr min . Y'+ Y -__ ^ rt. c
i;y�n 'd=rt s ;-+, : d- ;+v •x�'' -l' 'tS,d l `^.r~ y{{ty>;.tn,. s ,t+Y�. ,� KalinWivski 0
Base of Fresh .Wafer A uifer -�� rr. 4r��°,t, �'� '+w�.:„^'�rL,t xC �., x,, � a< � �,« �,. �- s3�� _ •�;� •�� �"�` •.+ •` 9
q isa v ° {I �,,r ; �:•::. y T: - ,1. k s.,.7-� ���
.-7 ?, X• Y' .3 � ,,5.,� .` C�'. . {�.t.,r t �- .h,:^y$ 'n� s •'Ssarn :r .r,a ..ii . 4x'm `x,. aoa - ��., ,.. "
,t , ns•.; kl .1:N y � r`l.. v,.�4:3' 3;+,a`s-••, $ ys r }fe F , ..n i*sry,� 3' e y�_, ,, c - .w ...,�, '...• ..,3. _.�M - -
-2000 0. •7 ..3^3'e' 7t� - *, r..i�t.. e?,rTL'So x wrw_1-2000 - - t -
..` , 'yi f �:..,.,r rhi _ nth..°
2...t: `� .lr?t-:":t '' .:ai a•"'.,? -c' S r' it4 t .ly';g-s _e, 5.... L -t y °- _
1�., ,, �:..,�,, Geolo is Cross -Sections
�' ' w'4,z,.;t;. �i•.,r_2 ''s'd'
•3i ,� -1"'k T4'v'. 1 i, h 'f-w{f_�-YL F -h-r _ ' yX •£`vF-
-Ri` ft,'-\ ,,., h �lv i'1i^'l - \ 1 "$xe t V A. 9F+Y 1r': R.b. ✓ •i" ;F" 4
Y
moi-'{
,.;i... t• sy,c t. •w 4. e r' - rr' rv{. s, f 1-i+> J a - w. ,r -. "X"' ` y t,.' -
a' p
5 ^cCr"`
•: =t. »_> Through the West Butte Sub Basin
e: in n`�. �5,.. Xty f.�, z,R` �Li ' L.. J ,iie , S •��...! j,' +.5 '?''�� �' �•� •..�'.Ft Q.
A<•-+ r::,sc- ¢� .; �-I..t.r .•cin ,,:�r;',,„>. n �.. u � x. xf•'Sc "cnr.:vs.<.�2'.w e�� `i '
-2500 r ='S-, -rn �`�.' oa �u. e. w
� x ,w, t.. ti
� �z tt'a b F I. d F: yr la\ :5'^:t ? - t f tt 1" �a>r'.es- 3 a `�^,ta c"'�"i _ � v>, b'-"iss •. �w'€.n.:� ,�.'•-..���,� c . '" of .,� {� .
.r. s"'>�i �,A.. PY��: s i+: '� i l v � 1 >r. '.Res, :, Sy,, r .1r iZ a ..:.�'.�• � � � i�.a..•Y-.:e,f,•'..n w'.+�-`fir+.' ..,-�° - t .- - •
' •s, n`✓ _,s,:, .f t. .5 �c a+ t .t�"9::7 r . "�. • i,+ti. twt`i'""a,`°'°as• afi'i.. r. roti-' :;,,,..J<'.,wr>•..rte.9e, i' _ .. ,
a ,.n^5.:.<x`°'. ,•.y'rf ; f i t a....-:,4•'.ir v.� • :,a�'<.r x'�w^ "' v -r+c _ - ..
rs- ,�T..r..t?,-�' �,'�t= w„,� .c;,`°,r' •.__.Fs,:'r -
ani..p1 t...vs�, i,'t `Zzc ta• I t,i. ; - '.v`.,' '-a ^ra• s.ax rYae[r a>.ern -s:•n. - �•n,. ^a"i:•rs,::n- ..ee< a 5 1
. .,.i'r- ccsa.: v_, ;'� F $.-..,'c,t'h ,ck.:.. .:<,te5• :..?•:.f.,,�, .l t_ �;-., „5::,,,ea,5�F4r.>, „nlf'4M •-.,,,:.,.r......'�',°.^x.,C''S.:.,id+w_rt'�>S *.-•':s. :98.,"3 - ..
-3000 w v..� ,� - Llano Seco Ranch
.. P\1R•. _ R,w ru: RIE F3 • :. ~ij , It_6 .RJF '•`+' - -
w
• y. , -
}
-3000
Butte County, CA-
A
pril
AApril 2004'*
EKI A40013.00
.. • i
CROSS-SECTION C - C'
i t ;
.. , Fi ure 4
1
4, -t
..... . . . . . . . .
JV1
Lie 'rYr, 7''37}+
N—
BASI N.
40
-BU x TE,
THER
MR
W,•'liv
REF yly. I 1'. ,, ,
ZOG4
opfT041 KWA
CH
, 45
CR
0:
*'A MWE lr:
a
c
4.
raw DVI
P
>
j . 7 r>` AESE
-
k'.
T- I -
. N
V i
- VA
A M."
A4
SSI TTf3
_4p
7,
�. f -A
I r 7:F n.' lye. s c ' x f �! h
-,ew,
".1
AIA 7,
77 -!,cT7!A
"ei
Al. r." V
14�
F 7:N
Et, -179
m rm "11!
: fflijiul,
::4
Yoh
5- F
EXHIBIT 2
E V. V t.w
CRE Srtt
VeM
AWAN t.
4 1
�-14-
Ownership Map: Public and Conservatiol Lands and Private Recreation Lands
The
r
N Pty e0 Sacramento River Public Recreation Acess Study: Red Bluff to Colusa 80
Consemancy
Tehama
County
Glenn
County
-
;,WatetaWheelyPlcnlcrPatki "`
O.'NItC RV Palk;
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
W
N
LEGEND
Tehama Lee
Primary Study Sites
Conservation Ownership
FZL'.] Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
M
P.?D
W
N
LEGEND
Primary Study Sites
Conservation Ownership
FZL'.] Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
CA Dept. of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
Glenn County
Department of Water Resources (DWR)
CA Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG)
California State Lands Commission (CSLC)
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
USA (US Forest Service)
Sacramento Rivers Partners
Colusa,.
M Reclamation Board (DWR)
0 Other Publicly
County
-/Privately -Owned Properties
=03* Sacramento River'Cfiannel (1999)
'\/ Inner River Zone Roads
N
0 3 6 Miles
lources: TNC (2002); USFWS (2002): CDFG (2002), DPR (1904); EDAW Meet)
J-Mie2l!
N
Label Key
Federal
State
Lion Local
Private
TNC
Unknown name/owner
Primary Study Sites
.............
Note: Not all properties shown on
this map are publicly accessible at
this time. For study purposes only.
Butte
'Reclarnellon Board
Counik
GRAVEL MINE
Princeton Ranch Flabing ACCOSSI
LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT
XHIBIT 3
Post O4iice Box 2012 -
Chico, California 95927
www.motherlode.sierracl'ib.ort!/yahi
Grace M. Marvin, Chair
1621 N. Cherry Street
Chico, CA 95926-3141
gmradm@aoLcom
January 22, 2007
Butte County Planning Commission
c/o Butte County Department of Development Services
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: Baldwin/M & T Mining Operation on River Road
Please be advised that at its January 2007 meeting the Executive Committee of the Sierra
Club Yahi Group discussed the proposed Baldwin Contracting/M& T alining operation
and voted to oppose it.
We are concerned about the many environmental impacts that this mine would have. We
are especially worried about what it might do to the protected Llano Seco Ranch
immediately to the south. Above all, we are concerned about the potential for
contamination to the aquifer which is in such close proximity to the proposed mine.
The location of this project seems wholly ill-advised. It is inconceivaBle that a
professional and unbiased EIR would give a "pass" to this project which clearly has so
many unmitigatable detrimental impacts. Please vote to oppose it.
Sincerely,
7ceM.Marvin, Chair
Sierra Club, Yahi Group
0
January 3, 2007
TO: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chuck -Nelson, Chair
Nina Lambert, Vice Chair
Fernando Marin
Harrel Wilson
Richard Leland
BU'T'TE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Bill Connelly
Jane Dolan
Maureen Kirk
Curt Josiassen
Kim Yamaguchi
cc: Mr. Howard Ellman
BUTTE COUNTY ASSESSOR
Kenneth Reimers
BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL
Felix Wannamaker
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
James Pompy
RE: The M & T Ranch/Baldwin Company Mining Project
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors:
This is a request for the Planning Commission to address the following issues that continue
to be unresolved in order to determine once and for all
® if the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed M&T/Baldv-in mine is accurate.
and complete and should be certified — and
if the resolutions which you are being asked to vote on accurately and honestly
describe the proposed project.
Although many of these issues have been previously raised, they certainly have not been
adequately addressed.
I
Issue #1— Inaccurate Information
Mr. Pete Calarco of the Butte County Department of Development Services, at the
December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, asserted that the Department of
Conservation (DOC) was okay with the reclamation plan. This was misleading information.
Leah Miller of the DOC's Office of Mine Reclamation was Pete Calarco's contact. My
contact has been Jim Pompy, Director of Mine Reclamation, who has told me more than
once that the reclamation plan had not been okayed and that unless the DOC sent something
in writing, their original opinion had not changed (last letter from DOC on this subject was
June 10, 2004). When I spoke with Leah Miller after the December 14th meeting, she told
me that at no time in her conversation with Mr. Calarco had she said that the DOC was now
satisfied with the EIR or the reclamation plan — only that they were satisfied with the
"process". In fact, she told me that if anyone was saying that the DOC had said that they
were now satisfied with the reclamation plan that this was quite an exaggeration.
How can the Planning Commission make a considered judgment on the adequacy of the
reclamation plan if the DOC's position's is not known with absolute certainty?
My request is that someone impartial, not just someone in the Department of Development
Services, calls Mr. Pompy prior to the next Planning Commission meeting on January 25 to
clarify the status of.the project. Given the gravity of the situation, and to avoid the
possibility of any further misunderstanding, I suggest a conference call including
representatives of the various interested parties, and including Felix Wannamaker.
Issue #2 — Compatible with SMARA?
While someone is talking to Mr. Pompy about the reclamation plan, they could ask if
another statement in their last letter about the project still stands. In their June 10, 2004
letter they said that, "The reclamation plan is incomplete and does not meet the minimum
requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ". A few weeks ago Mr.
Pompy told me, and he said I could quote him on this, that unless the County has received
something in writing to the contrary that all of the DOC's comments on this project stand as
stated in their letters to. the County. In spite of this fact, Finding 5 in Attachment C that you
will be asked to approve says that, "The Project complies with the provisions of the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ". I would request that this be changed to accurately
reflect the DOC's position that this project is not in compliance with SMARA regulations
and that the EIR and reclamation plan do not meet the minimum requirements of Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act.
Issue # 3 — In Compliance with CEQA?
You could also ask Mr. Pompy if what they said in their November 18, 2002 letter still
stands. This DOC letter states that, "The project as proposed violates the villiamson Act,
CEQA, and SMARA."
Page 1 of Attachment A says, "Adopt the attached resolution certifying the- Final' ,
Environmental Impact Report as consistent with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act. " However, CEQA Section 15147 — Technical Detail — states
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 environmental impacts by reviewing agencies ..: " And, CEQA Section 15151—
Standards for Adequacy of an EIR — says that, "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 intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. " If the DOC
says that this EIR and reclamation plan don't have enough information, dettail, and design
work to meet even the minimum requirements of SMARA then it goes without saying that
these documents, almost by definition, would not have the detail required by CEQA for a
project of this size and magnitude. I would request that Attachment A be revised to read that
the DOC has determined that the FEIR does not contain even the minimum amount of
adequacy and completeness required by CEQA; therefore, this Environment Impact report
and reclamation plan are not consistent with CEQA requirements..
If the DOC says that this project is not in compliance with SMARA and that it's not in
compliance with CEQA; can the Planning Division just decide that it is?
Issue #4 — Mule-bendine
Why has Baldwin been allowed to proceed with a permit request designed -For a small mine
of less than 5 acres when this mine would actually encompass nearly 200 azres?
In their June 10, 2004 letter the DOC said, "The Reclamation Plan uses the 'Small Mine
Prototype' format from the State Mining and Geology Board's website. Th.? Small Mine
Prototype is useful for very small operations (5 acres or less) in areas with negligible
environmental issues. This format is not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity."
Baldwin's response to the DOC is contained in a letter dated September 20.2004. Baldwin
states, "BCC used the reclamation plan format selected by Butte County. " If Butte County
did, in fact, select this inadequate permitting form, why did they do that? Amd if it isn't so,
then why is Baldwin saying they did?
Most of us have had to negotiate the permit process at some point in our property -owning
lives and we know how slow and frustrating it can be. Still, we do it because it's part of the
rule of law. Why wasn't Baldwin required to fill out the correct form? Is Baldwin being
allowed to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us?
An inadequate permitting process should be unacceptable and is clearly a shaky foundation
on which to base subsequent decisions.
Issue #S – Withholding of relevant data
In February 2006, the Department of Development Services led by Dan Breedon provided
the Land Conservation Act Committee (LCAQ with findings only from the DEIR—and
from no other source—as to the nature of the soils at the site (the DEIR states that these soils
did not meet Williamson Act criteria for prime farmland). However, Mr. Breedon did not
also include for the LCAC other already -known assessments that disagreed with the DEIR
which clearly stated that the MRCS, the DOC, and the Butte County Assessor had all come
to the conclusion that the soils were prime.
So in February of 2006, on the basis of this incomplete and one-sided information, the
LCAC voted a motion of intent to release M&T from their Williamson Act contract. After
being given the complete information prior to their April 2006 meeting, LCAC member
Blake Bailey called the NRCS and they told him that they had recently done a soil survey at
the specific project site and they had determined that the soils were prime. Consequently,
the LCAC reversed their decision and voted to recommend instead that the M&T people
should not be released from their contract. If there is still any doubt about the proper
classification of the soils Ken Reimers, the Butte County Assessor, could answer any
questions since he, too, has talked to the NRCS about this issue.
Why was available, official information regarding the quality of the soils of the land in
question withheld from the LCAC in February 2006 when they were deciding on whether to
release the M&T from their Williamson Act contract?
We understand that the Board of Supervisors will be the final arbiter in this question once
they review this project. However, the Planning Commission and all concerned need to
know of this questionable behavior in order to evaluate the soundness of the Development
Division's recommendations.
Issue #6 – Lack of responsiveness
Many of the issues we've mentioned have already.been raised with no credible response,
and much of the information in Attachments A, B, and C is riddled with misstatements
which are represented as facts. Attempts to correct these facts seem to fall on deaf ears.
What I see as a lack of responsiveness on the part of the County developers can be usefully
characterized by the following blatant examples:
Example A
If the Planning Division knows the soils are prime why do the resolutions you will be
signing say that aren't? In order to approve this project the Planning Commission will also
be asked to approve three separate resolutions found in Attachments A, B, and C.
Attachment A says, "The project site does not meet the standard for prime farmland
Though the Project will result in the conversion of non prime farmland to open space, the
amount of agricultural land surrounding the site is relatively abundant. ...In terms of prime
M
agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expEcted as a result of
this Project. " I would respectfully request that this section be changed to. reflect the fact
that the soils have been determined to be prime by the Assessor, the NRCc', and the DOC
and that there would be significant land use impacts.
Both Attachments B and C state, "Land Reclamation — This performance standard does not
apply to the Project because it is not located on Prime Agricultural Land. ' I would also
request that these sections be changed to reflect the fact that this land is prime and the
performance standards for prime farmland do apply. According -to the SM -ARA code
(section 1823.1) the performance standards for prime farmland are as follows:
"The objective of this Part is to set forth those soil removal, stockpiling, and
replacement operational requirements and revegetation and other : eclamation.
standards for. prime farmland to ensure both that the land will have agricultural
productive capacity which is equal after mining to premising levels and the land is
not lost as an important national resource."
Example. B
Attachment C incorrectly states that, "The proposed lake will actually resu?t in enhanced
groundwater recharge from precipitation and evaporation from the shallow, groundwater. "
This finding even disagrees with the DEIR itself (page 4.4-2), which says that rainfall in the
area is about 22 inches a year and evaporation from the lake will be about f 2 inches a year.
Obviously, if there is more evaporation than precipitation you will end up with less water in
the aquifer, not more.
This fact was validated in a letter from the DOC dated June 10, 2004 (page 2) where it says,.
The effect of evaporation of the pond surface would also tend to negate thy benefit of any
enhanced recharge to the aquifer.. We recommend that recharge not be lisMd as a beneficial.
end use for this project.
Why have the misstatements on the groundwater recharge capabilities of the lake that would
result from the mining operations been allowed to stand when they are so clearly
contradicted by the facts?
I request that this statement be changed to read that the project would result in a net loss of
groundwater recharge capabilities due to fact that there would-be more evaporation from the
lake than available average rainfall in the area
Example C
Baldwin Construction finally came out with a weir design in August of 2004 showing rip rap
clear to the bottom of the creek bed. Yet the resolutions you will be asked to sign still say,
"Little Chico Creek will not be disturbed except by the road and conveyor crossings ".
When the new information was provided why weren't the documents changed to reflect
this? And since this first weir was designed with rip rap, it's very likely that once the weir
for the headwaters of the bypass channel is designed it too will have rip rap clear to the
bottom of the creek bed. Of course, we have no way of knowing if this is true or not
because the bypass channel, one of the key elements of this project, has yet to be designed. I
would request that Section 3706 in Attachment B as well as Section 3706 and 3710 in
Attachment C be changed to read that the streambed of Little Chico Creek will be disturbed
in, not one, but possibly two locations.
It should also be noted that when Baldwin completed the Reclamation Plan application form
they indicated that at no time would the creek bed be disturbed. Because of this, and since
not even one State agency knew that this would be part of the weir designs, no agencies
have ever gone out to the site to see if there might be any negative environmental issues
involved with doing such an incursion into the streambed. This is just another in a long list
of reasons why the DOC says that this reclamation plan is incomplete and doesn't meet the
minimum requirements of SMA.R.A.
Examples such as these suggest, rightly or wrongly, a concerted effort on the part of the
Department of Development Services and its consultants to say and word things, whether
true or not true, in a way seemingly calculated to influence first the LCAC and now the
Planning Commission's vote on this project If this is merely an impression, it is a sorry one
that needs to be rectified.
Issue # 7 — The General Plan
The General Plan states that the only alternate uses for ag land are those "which preserve,
promote, and support agricultural areas" (page AE —14). Obviously, this project would not
do that. At the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting Dave Brown gave a
power point presentation showing aerial photos of other gravel pit projects that have been
approved in other counties. His presentation left viewers with the impression that what is
being proposed here is very common. However, this was just another in a long line of
deceptions, smoke and mirrors, and half-truths that have permeated the entire environmental
impact process. What Mr. Brown conveniently failed to tell you was that none of those
other projects were extracting their gravel from prime farmland, not a single one of them.
The fact is that it is not a common practice for other counties to allow mining projects out in
prime agricultural land. Why isn't it common? Because other counties realize that projects
like this do not belong out in the middle of prime ag land. The original writers of the
General Plan would be appalled if they knew what you were thinking about approving.
Conclusion
The ramifications of approving this project are sobering. Giving your approval to this mine
would seta precedent that could lead to literally thousands of acres of prime farmland being
lost to similar operations. If this project were approved, it would be very Yard to tell other
gravel companies that they couldn't put a gravel pit out in prime farmland if Baldwin and
M&T are allowed to do just that.
The people of this County have repeatedly made it clear that they want to preserve prime
farmland. Let's not let them down.
® The DOC is not okay with this project;
the reclamation plan does not meet SMARA's minimum requirern,-nts;
® it is not in compliance with CEQA and
® the EIR process has been flawed, biased, incomplete, and inadequate.
Please vote this project down.
Sincerely,
Ron Jones
3203 Hudson Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
345-4286
ronsano@pacbell.net
Appendix
Below are 10 specific items that the DOC said were deficient in the reclarnation plan for the
M & T Mining project — areas that Baldwin has definitely not addressed.
Statements from the November 18, 2002 Department of ConsepMlon letter:
(Baldwin's responses can be found in the FEIR starting on page 5.I-8)
(1) Page 5.1-13 — "CEQA Guidelines state that termination of a Williamson Act contract of
over 100 acres is treated as a signicant environmental impact of statewide significance.
Thus the FEIR for this project must show termination .of the contract as a significant.
environmental impact and must provide mitigation for this impact. "
Baldwin incorrectly responds that this is a compatible use under the Williamson Act.
(2) Page 5.1-13 - "The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Concerns dies not absolve
the agency of the requirement to implement feasible mitigation that lessen the project
impact. " "The Department recommends mitigation in the form of a permanent agricultural
conservation.easement on other land of at least equal size and quality as the land removed
from the contract. "
Baldwin responds again by saying that this is a compatible use under the Williamson
Act so they do not need to remove this property from the Williamson Act in order to mine
gravel nor is any mitigation necessary.
(3) Page 5.1-17 _ "The Reclamation Plan described in the DEIR does not describe how the
site will actually be reclaimed, and does not give a detailed description ofhe open water
and wetland habitat to be established... "
Baldwin did not respond directly to these issues.
(4) Page 5.1-18 — "Nowhere is the shoreline to be created depicted in any detail. "
Baldwin has no response to this statement. There are still no detailed drawings
indicating where the lake will be nor does it say where it would be in relation to our property
line or to the bypass channel.
(5) Page 5.1-18 — "The volumes of backfill available for use in creating a diverse shoreline
is unstated and unplanned and the slope profiles are generic and non -committal. "
Again Baldwin has no response to this statement.
(6) Page 5.1-19 —"Reclamation procedures are not presented in sufficient: detail to
determine the viability of the created wildlife habitat. "
Baldwin's response is that this was discussed in the DEIR.
Statements from the June '10, 2004 Department of Conservation letter:
(Baldwin's responses can be found in a letter to the Department of Development
Services dated September 20, 2004)
(7) Page 1 — "The Reclamation Plan uses the "Small Mine Prototype" format from the State
Mining and Geology Board website. The Small Mine Prototype is useful for very small
operations (5 acres or less) in areas with negligible environmental issues. This format is
not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity. "
Baldwin states that this is the reclamation plan that the County recommended that
they use.
(8) Page 2 — "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 within 100 feet of Little Chico Creek and in proximity of the
Sacramento River. This aspect of the reclamation plan is totally lacking and must be
addressed prior to the approving the reclamation plan. "
Even though the DOC says that this needs to be designed before the project is
approved, Baldwin's response is that "The weir and bypass channel will be made conditions
of approval of the project. " In other words, they will do the design work and engineering
after the project is approved.
(9) Page 3 — "Reliance on natural revegetation is not an option under the statewide
reclamation standard regulations. Proactive measures to achieve the stated end use must be
described in the plan... "
Baldwin says that they feel natural revegetation is allowed under state regulations
and they don't need to use proactive measures.
(10) Page 4 — ".....the plan needs to contain more detailed information concerning the
water fluctuation levels and how this would impact the 50 foot wide bench created for the
margin habitat. "
Baldwin's response is that as they excavate the lake, additional and more detailed
information of water level fluctuations will be acquired. Even though the DOC wants this
information stated before the plan is approved, Baldwin's response is they will get to it later.
January 6, 2007
JAM 09 2007,
IDEVELOPRENr
RRVICES
Mr. Tim Snellings, Director
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive:
Oroville; CA 95965
Dear Mr. Snellhigs,
I am enclosing a copy of the letter I just mailed to Planning Commission members,
Supervisors and others. It contains information I thought that you, as Director of the
Department of Development Services, should have.
To say that we are disappointed with the conduct of several members of the County's
Department of Development Services would be an understatement. Although we do
understand that it is the job of the personnel in DDS to assist those who are trying to get
projects approved by the County, we do not believe that DDS personnel should actually be
proponents for the projects.
It has been obvious that both Mr. Calarco and Mr. Breedon have been willing to say things
that were not completely true and to word documents inways so as to influence the approval
of this project. They have shown a complete disregard for the opinions of the DOC, the
MRCS, the Butte County Assessor, the EIR and even the reclamation plan in the wording of
the resolutions that the Planning Commission. members will be asked to sign in order to gain
the "approval of this project.
The resolutions that the Planning Commission will be asked to sign are inaccurate and need
to be reworded. The DOC's Dept. of Mine Reclamation has a lot more expertise in
determining if an EIR and reclamation plan have sufficient detail in order to be in,
compliance with CEQA and SMARA than do the County planners. To totally disregard the
DOC's clearly -stated position regarding these two issues, as well as all th.e other items which.
the DOC has said need to be addressed, is totally unacceptable.
At the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Calarco looked the
Commission members right in the eye and told them that the Department of Conservation
had said that they were now okay with the EIR and reclamation plan. This was not true.
And it was not the first tame .this statement had been made. Dan Breedon, in a conversation
BUTTE-
®d COUNTY
PARD BUREAU
Serving Agriculture For More Thon 80 Years
January 12, 2007
Butte County Planning Commission '
7 County Center Drive
Oroville; CA 95,965
Subject: M & T Chico Ranch Mine Project
Dear Commissioners,
The Butte County Farm Bureau (BCFB) opposes the granting of a mining permit for the
M & T Chico Ranch Mine Project at this time based on the following concerns:
1) The property is under a Williamson -Act contract which is intended to preserve
agricultural lands. The land has been classified as prime agricultural land by the Butte .
County Assessor and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. The
reclamation plan calls for the conversion of this land to nonagricultural use which,
according to the California Department of Conservation is not permitted under a
Williamson Act contract.
2) The mine will create anew waterway within 15 feet of neighboring orchards and
the aquifer will be exposed within 103, feet. BCFB believes new waterways and the
open aquifer pose a threat to the continued agricultural practices to all the lands
surrounding the mine. The BCFB requests that a minimum buffer of 300 feet be
maintained free of new water ways and the open aquifer. This position is consistent with
our position that newly built residences on agricultural lands be kept at least 300 feet
from neighboring agricultural lands.
Please contact us at (530) 533-1473 if you have any questions regarding. the above
concerns. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
David Lundberg
President
cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors
kyjgBU
o
JAS 1 17 2007
F'VzL0F 'X
ACES
January 13, 20,07
TO: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chuck Nelson
Nina Lambert
Fernando Marin
Harrel Wilson
Richard Leland
Cc: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Re: M & T Ranch Mine
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
realize that you must be very busy, and I'm sorry to keep bothering you but there seems to
be so many issues regarding this proposed mine that just have to be said.
The Department of Conservation (in their November 18, 2002 letter) said that if the M & T
wanted to do an immediate cancellation on 106 acres of their Williamson Act contract there
should be some form of mitigation. They suggested that this might be a permanent
agricultural easement on other land of at least equal size. It is my understanding that even
though the Planning Commission won't be taking up the issue of the Vlliamson Act
cancellation, you could still make a mitigation recommendation to the E-upervisors. Since
this wasn't discussed at the LCAC meeting I,wasn't sure if you were aware of the DOC's
recommendation.
Here is the complete text of the. DOC letter.
"Mitigation Measures
As the project does not meet the compatibility findings of the Williamson Act, it would as
currently configured, require termination of the Williamson Act contracr. The CEQA
Guidelines state that termination of the contract of over 100 acres is a treated as a
significant environmental impact of statewide significance. Thus, the FEIR for this project
must show termination of the contract as a significant environmental impact, and must
provide mitigation for this impact. The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration
'does not absolve the agency of the requirement of implement feasible, mitigation that
lessens a project's impacts.
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15370, mitigation includes measures that "avoid, minimize,.
rectify, reduce or eliminate, or compensate" for the impact. For example, mitigation includes
`Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute rescurces or
environments (15370(3)).' All measures ostensibly feasible should be included in the FEIR.
Three hundred foot set back
I've been puzzled as to why Baldwin has refused to do any engineering work on the bypass .
channel. It seems possible that they may have been expecting that they would be required
to move the bypass channel and lake away from our property line as a condition of the
project's approval. Assuming that you would be demanding this, it may not have made
much sense for them to put a whole lot of money into engineering the bypass at its current
location right next to our property line.
The Butte County Farm Bureau recently voted to oppose the M & T Ranch Mining project.
One reason for their opposition was their contention that there should be at least a 300 -foot
setback from neighboring ag properties to limit any impacts that a conversion of ag land'to
wildlife habitat might have on those adjacent properties. We agree with the Farm Bureau's
recommendation and we would request that this be made a condition of approval. Of
course this would be good but it still doesn't get around the fact that this bypass channel
has never been engineered and the DOC says this need to be done before you approve this
project (June 10, 2004 DOC letter).
Thank you so much for taking the time to read this.
Ron Jones
3203 Hudson Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
345-4286
ronsano@pacbell.net
To: Butte County Planning Commission,
25 County Center Dr.
Oroville, CA 95965
I am a Butte County resident & live at the corner of Chian River Road
& Morehead Ave.. I am strongly oppose the proposed gravel pit operation on
Chico River Road.
To dig away several feet of great Vina Loam to find gravel in Butte
County seems to be a wasteful idea. With all the foothills to the east of
Highway 99,' there is, bound to be easier sources of gravel with out ruining'
any of the richest farm land in the world.
Trucking all the gravel on two lane county & city roads would cause
terrible damage at great cost to all people in Butte County. West 5' Street
between Highway 32 & Chico River Road would be a terrible bottle neck.
There are apartment complexes for college students so there is parking on
both sides of the road leaving barely enough room for 2 cars to pass, let
alone a big gravel truck. There are also children from Rosedale Elementary
School in this area on a regular basis. Chico River Road is. used extensively
by local farmers on slow moving wide equipment. It is also a favorite road
for college students on bicycles.
We live on one of several long sweeping curves on Chico River Road
and over the last 45 years, several cars and trucks have ended up in our front.
yard with at least 2 fatalities. If you put more large gravel filled trucks on
this road, no doubt there will be more!
Sincerely,
Roy Pase
COQ
JAN 1 7 2007.
DZVEL PMNT . ,
PWICES
To: Butte County Planning Commission
25 -County Center Dr.
Oroville, CA 95965
Concerns about the proposed gravel pit on Chico River Rd.
To dig down several feet on good farmland to find gravel in Butte
County is not a good idea. Trucking all this gravel county & city roads
would cause terrible damage at great cost to all people in Butte County. The
children to and from school would be in peril from these many trucks.
Farmers trying to move their equipment from one job to another will find
the roads dangerous to their slow moving vehicles. Hundreds of bicycle
riders will no longer feel safe to ride on Chico River. Rd. Homes along this
road will no longer be livable. Gravel trucks carrying many tons make
thunderous noise. Chico River Rd. already is known for the many accidents
that happen there on a regular basis. Imagine the rise in this heavy traffic
and the toll it will take in this area. Gravel is plentiful in the county of
Butte. At least two additional gravel pits are soon to open. Looking at the
gravel needed and the amount already available, it seems we have enough.
This proposed site is in the wrong area to be a good thing for any of
US.
Sincerely,
Dix' L. Pase
Poll Dennis
t �
BUTU
Com
JAN 17 2007
IDEWELONT
SERVICES
TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
Concerned Parties
Ken Reimers, Butte County Assessor
Jan. 25, 2007
M&T Chico Ranch Mine "Project" proposed by. Baldwin Contracting Company
I'd like to go on record relative to this "Project"
1. From the very inception of the Williamson Act in 1968 the primary purpose has been to
protect valuable farm land. The question on this project is no-: "can this Qravel mine
legally be permitted on Williamson Act land?" There are ways to accomplish the end
result of placing a gravel mine in this location. The question I'c propose is why would
anyone insist on putting it in this location?
2. There are other options and frankly other proximate lands that could be mined without
the destruction of prime agricultural land that has received preferential tax treatment
for many (38) years. My office has spoken with Dean Burkett from Natural Resouces
Conservation Services (MRCS) in the past and again recently on Tuesday afternoon
January 23, 2007 to confirm they consider Parrott Silt Loam Class I Prime Soil. To make
the blanket statement that this land can not be Class I Prime Soil because it is not
irrigated is either purposely misinforming people or hopefully just not informed. I'd
encourage all of you to answer this key question before you allow this valuable resource
to be lost forever.
Sidebar comment: I believe the process of soil classification has, historically, purposely
included my office to make this judgment call for several reasons
✓ We can provide an objective opinion based upon field inspection and typical
farming practices throughout the county
✓ The Assessor's office has been charged with making this call to keep politics out
of the decision — the Department of Conservation complimented my office during
the last audit of Williamson Act Administration
✓ If we allow the rules to be bent and ignore the facts; tLe entire Williamson Act
program suffers and we jeopardize reimbursement funds
3. There is plenty of gravel available and permitted for the foreseeable future — more than a
10 year supply exists. This would allow this property to be non-_enewed and come out of
the Williamson Act over time. To imply there is some huge pressing economic need to
cancel this contract, and treat other ranchers in the area poorly, s, -ems ill advised and may
open the county up to more litigation.
4. The county has had a lot of discussion concerning agricultural buffers (generally around
300' in width). Why would someone with thousands of acres insist on removing Prime
Agricultural Soil, under Williamson Act contract, immediately adjacent their neighbor's
orchard? Why expose the aquifer and threaten the livelihood of others before abandoning
the project some decades later, while not planning to restore the prime farmland? The
answer is simple; it is more financially feasible.
5. The thought that nearly 36 miles of county rural roads would also be heavily impacted
and the applicant billed a very small share of that cost is called to question. That might
not be a bad call if the roads were built with the proper base and shoulders to begin with,
but they are not. The latest estimates to reimburse the county are ridiculous considering
what is about to transpire if this project goes forward. I alsa heard the figures were
revised'to add 2" asphalt without addressing the base or shoulders to the road. I think we,
can all visualize what the road will look like in a relatively short time.
There were solid facts utilized by the Land Conservation Committee to recommend
denial of the cancellation of this land. Hopefully, you will objectively consider all the
input and reach a proper decision. I believe the local Butte County Farm Bureau got it
right "Don't put a gravel mine on good farm land under Williamson Act contract".
Please don't approve a project in the wrong area that will destroy our rural county roads
and negatively effect quality of life issues in Chico and Durham when better choices
exist.
CC Planning Commission
Board of Supervisors
County Counsel
Department of Conservation
Development Services Department
Final EIR ERRATA Additions
The following is added to the Final EIR, Section 3.0 (Draft EIR Errata).
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
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 Ellman 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 which 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 properly. 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 11, 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 County, the Applicant decided to
go forward with a Petition for Partial Cancellation with respect tD 106 acre area
of the project.
M&T Chico -ranch Mine Final EIR
As the proposed project is compatible with the Williamson Act Contract in effect
on the site, nonOrenewal or cancellation are not required. However, the
Applicant has voluntarily filed a Petition of Partial Cancellation for consideration
by the County Board of Supervisios if it chooses to do so.
The above information, is added to Draft EIR Section 3.4, Detailed Project Description.
ADDRESS TO PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2007 BY M. PHILLIPS
First, I think this Commission is to be commended for its work on the M&;T gravel mine
project these past 11 years. That you are still deliberating and trying to decide the right
thing to do is truly commendable. And we thank you for that.
Having said that, we still don't know which route the gravel trucks would take, even if we
could agree on the mine. All we know for sure is that this project will cause "significant,"
"unavoidable," and "unmitigatable" traffic problems and air pollution. Th-3se are the
applicant's words.
After all these years, there is still no acceptable, agreed-upon plan for getting this
material to the east side and Highway 99 in the Chico area. Until there is such a plan,
there is no way yet to measure or quantify the degree of degradation that the city of Chico
would be subjected to. Despite this, you are primed today to vote on the project, not
knowing how the trucks will get from here to there and knowing that once begun, the
process will be unstoppable and irrevocable. After all these years, the cart is still before
the horse.
As is now in the record, the Chico City Council is concerned about the mine's impact on
Chico and you have recently received a comment letter from the City—a unanimous
comment, by the way—suggesting that there may be only one potentially acceptable
route (North on River Road to Hwy 32 and then out East Avenue). Unfortunately, that is .
one of the two routes that avoid the middle of Chico that your own Public Works
Department (Shawn O'Brien, January 16, 2007) suggests are not possible—the other is
the Ord -Ferry to Chico route, also unacceptable according to O'Brien. Of course, you
will consider and answer Mayor Andy Holcombe's letter but I don't think that the Chico
City Councilmembers will buy the argument that jobs make acceptable the adverse
environmental effects of this project on their constituents. They know that River Road
gravel will not create any more jobs than gravel from sites elsewhere. Wsen Baldwin
starts extracting River Road gravel, jobs will be lost at sites where Baldwin obtains
r
gravel now. Whether gravel comes from M&T or Orland, or Oroville, or north of Chico
off Hwy 99, more or.less the same number of.sand and gravel workers wi:_l go to doctors
in Chico, will buy clothes and food in Chico, will drive to Chico for family outings.
What Chico will certainly get more of is continually torn -up streets, increased traffic, and
a big increase in road -maintenance costs.
The other thing that we also know, as a local newspaper recently pointed gut, is that there
is not even any proof as to whether gravel from River Road is the only gravel available
for long-term local needs. And I stress the word local. Non -local interests and needs are
perhaps another matter.
Which brings me to the long-term lease on 627 acres of the M&T Ranch that was signed
by KRC on the very day that they bought Baldwin Contracting. Until Apri122, 1996,
both Baldwin Contracting and the M&T Chico Ranch were owned by the same company,
Pacific Realty of Portland, Oregon. Then in 1996, Baldwin was sold to knife River
Corporation (KRC), a huge company itself owned by an even huge -r company, MDU
Resources, Inc., both of them based far away in Bismarck, North Dakota.
Only about a third of the leased land (235 acres) will be used for the min,- project.
Surely, the Planning Commission has seen those parts of the purchase and lease
agreements that pertain to mining activity on the M&T Ranch. So maybe you can
provide. the answers to these questions:
"Why would KRC lease long-term 627 acres when it only intends to mine 193, along
with 40 acres to .be an equipment area, and 2 acres for topsoil stockpile? What is intended
for the other 400 acres?"
You might think that this is not any of our business. But I think it is. I think that in order
to be_ good stewards of our land, we need local control. ..
R
Well, Staff planners say in their reports that Baldwin Contracting is "locally -based
That's terribly misleading. It's like saying that Exxon -Mobil is a locally -based company
simply because it has one of its 16,000 service stations here. Baldwin is one tiny
appendage on a huge arm of a gigantic multi -national conglomerate based in North
Dakota, whose bottom line is the satisfaction of some 2 million stockholders and not the
well being of the citizens of Butte County. We have no doubt that the local Baldwin
people who have spoken here are genuinely good people who love their community. But
when we're, 10, 20, 30 years down the line, they'll be long gone and who knows whom
Bismarck, North Dakota, will send here to look after their bottom line. What we do
know is that those 400 acres or so on long-term lease someday will be utilized somehow
by KRC and MDU. We need to find out how. I'd hate to think we're going to end up
with a "lake" 3 times as big as what is envisioned now or perhaps with a "batch plant"
after all. Although I know that any further mining would have to go through another
permitting process, once precedent of this sort is established, it becomes all that much
easier to proceed—witness the recent Table Mountain mine discussions.
I think we need to consider what we are giving up when we give up local control, and
what we are getting.
It seems to me that our community is paying an exorbitant price for supposedly cheap
gravel. Nothing that has been said in this room in the meetings that I have attended so far
has shown me why we should accept the "significant, unavoidable, unmitigatable," and
wholly negative impacts that this mine will cause if approved. Location, location,
location. This mine is in the wrong place. The reason why there is no acceptable traffic
plan after all this time is that one doesn't exist. .
Maria Phillips
884 Vallombrosa Ave.
Chico CA 95926
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 25, 2007
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. PRESENT: Commissioners Nelson, Marin, vWilson, Leland, and
Chair Lambert
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT:
County Counsel Robert MacKenzie, Deputy Cou-ity Counsel
Development Services Tim Snellings, Director
Pete Calarco, Assistant Director,
Dan Breedon, Principal Planner, Advance Planning
Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager
Stacey Joliffe, Principal Planner, Current Planning
Tina Bonham, Commission Clerk
Environmental Health Doug Fogel
Public Health Craig Erickson
Agricultural Commission Richard Price
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA - Commission members and staff may request additions,
deletions, or changes in the Agenda order.
It was moved by Commissioner Marin, seconded by Commissioner Leland, and unanimously carried to
accept the agenda with one change of doing the minutes first.
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Planning Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking
action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda)
None
V. CONSENT AGENDA Consent items are set for approval in one motion. Theses items are considered non-
controversial. No presentations will be made unless the item is pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Any
person may pull an item from the consent agenda.
The Chair will ask if any Commissioner or member of the public wishes to pull a consent item for discussion.
None
VI. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. Any items pulled from the Consent
Agenda will be considered.
None
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION n AGENDA ■ JANUARY 25,200f.7, ■ PAGE 1 ■
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS The Chair will call for staff comments. The hearing will b: opened to the public for
proponents, opponents, comments, and rebuttals. The hearing will be closed to the public end discussion confined to
the Commission. The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item.
It is requested that public initiated presentations be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes so that all interested parties
will have, an opportunity to address the Commission. Following your presentation, please print your name and
address on the speakers sheet so that the record will be accurate.
The recommendation of County staff is indicated below. It is only a recommendation and has not yet been
considered by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Staff Report are available at the -:Planning Division Office
A. UP 05-08 - Continued open from October 26, 2006. Staff recommends an
additional continuance to March 22, 2007
Name: Del Oro Water Company Regional Intertie Project, Phase I
Project: Use Permit (UP 05-08) Planner: Stacey Jolliffe
Location: The 2.5 mile pipeline (16") originates in the Mountain Oaks Subdivison
Water Treatment Plant to Pentz Road to the northern zone of the service area which
adjoins the Town of Paradise, Lime Saddle Water District.
Proposal: Allow for the construction of Phase 1 of the DOWC Regional Intertie
Project. Phase 1 of the project is designed to complete the DOWC Lime Saddle
District water system, including 16" water supply pipeline, from Water Treatment
Plant to Pentz Road to the northern of the Lime Saddle District.
Ms. Stacey Jolliffe said that staff is requesting a continuance until March 22, 2007.
Chair Lambert asked if anyone was there to speak on this item. There was no one.
It was moved by Commissioner Marin, seconded by Commissioner Wilson and unanimously carried
to continue item until the March 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.
There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
B. MIN 96-03 Continued open from December 14, 2006. Staff recommends
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of the project.
Name: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project: Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan, MIN
96-03).
Planner: Pete Calarco . APN: 039-530-019, 039-530-020.
Location: On a portion of the M&T Chico Ranch approximately 1.5 miles east of
the Sacramento River and approximately 5 -miles southwest of he City of 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.
Proposal: 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
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA ■ JANUARY 25, 2007, ■ PAGE 2 ■
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.
An Environmental Impact Report is proposed for this project.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), A forty-five
(45) day public review period for the DEIR was previously provided. This review
period began on October 10, 2002, and ended November 25, 2002. The Planning
'Commission had considered certification in 2003; however, an additional issue
regarding the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) needed to be
addressed. As a result, the applicant filed a request for immediate cancellation from
the Williamson Act contract for a portion of the property.. The immediate
cancellation request will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at a later date.
See attached transcripts with errata. Re: Court Reporters transcript of the M&T Mine.
Page 6 Line 18 delete "the"
Line 24 change "accidental" to "conditional
Page 7 Top of Page Re: Conditional upon Williamson Act Cancellation ` Or
determination of that compatibility Condition # 15 added for clarity.
Re: "Immediate" cancellation — could either way - or — finding compatibility
(1) BOS Immediate cancellation — or —
(2) Find compatibility
Page 9 Line 6 CEQA analysis of the project as a whole
Line 13 "CEQUA" to "CEQA"
Line 18-25 "prime" or "non prime" issue
Page 10 Line 1 Whether the mine is compatible with the Williamson Act.
Page 11 Line 16 Compatibility with surrounding area (UP Findings) not Williamson Act
related.
Page 12 Line 14 "assigned" to "signed" and "who" to "we'
Page 14 Line 3 "Prime" to "Vina"
Page 22 Lines 22, 23, 24 "Moorehead" to "Morehead" (See also page 42 and throughout
document.
Page 31 Line 7 "Avenue" to "Street"
Page 34 Line 2 "impact" traffic - or — insert "traffic impact"
Page 37 & 38 Is something left out here?
Page 40 'Line 21 "causes" to "cause"
Page 46 Line 13 delete "a"
Line 24. "318 years" (Is this correct?)
Page 50 Lines 8 and 9 "Simms" to "Symnes"
Page 51 Lines T and 2 "Mertz" — "Merz" — to "Merz" ? '
Page 61 Line 5 "would I" to "I would"
Page 68 Lines 15, 16; 17 "that" to "there"-?
Page 70 Line 7 need word change or word omitted
Page 73 Line 22 "obtain" to "contain
Page 74 ^ ` Line.14 "on" — or, "s" be deleted
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CONMSSION AGENDA JANUARY 25. 2007_ ■ PAGA 3 ■
Page 79-82 Change reference to "Mark Adams" to"Shawn "O'Brien"
Page 83 Line 22 "Albertson's". to "Alberton"
Page 88 Line 20 "of intent" be deleted at this point
Page 95 Line 25 "more"?
Page 103 Line 12 insert the word "be"
Line 15 "approve" to "improve"
Page 109 Line 6 "aggregate" to "agriculture"
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Marin, and approved by a vote
of 3-2:
Ayes: Commissioner Leland, Commissioner Marin, and Commissioner Wilson
Noes: Commissioner Nelson and Chair Lambert
Absent: None
Abstained` 'None
to make a Motion of Intent to take the action and make the findings in the staff _-eport, dated January
25, 2007, which includes adopting the Resolution certifying the final Environmental Impact Report:
adopting the Resolution of approving Mining Permit 96-03, including the financial plan,
Reclamation plan, financial assurance cost estimate, and statement of overridir_,g consideration; item
to be continued closed until.the February 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.
There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
C. MIN 05-01 (UP 93-36) — Continued closed with a Motion of =ntent to approve
Name: Mineral Resources, LLC
Project: Morris Ravine Quarry Amended Use Permit
Planner: Dan Breedon
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 41-400-003, 41-220-050, 41-220`051, 41-300-001,
41-300-047
Location: The Morris Ravine Quarry is located approximately four miles north of
the City of Oroville. The site is located on the eastside of Cherokee Road, near the
intersection of Shirmer Ravine Road, in the Table Mountain arra. Cherokee Road is
located about two miles north of the Forebay Canal Bridge.
Proposal: The proposed project under review proposes to amend the current Use
Permit, UP 93-36 to:
• Allow bulk -fuel storage at the site (diesel)
• Change the hours of operation to allow nighttime operations
• Change materials to be mined from "silica sand" to include quarry
byproducts of aggregate, clay, and overburden rock
• Make operational the above -ground waterline along Schirmer Ravine Road
to augment water supply at the quarry (this above -ground water line and
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA ■ JANUARY 25, 2009, ■ PAGE 4 m
associated storage tank have been already installed but are not currently
operational)
Mr. Breedon gave brief summary of project with the following changes and corrections, a correction
to Condition 6 Mitigation 2 the first sentence should read as "Mineral Resources shall prepare a
report of "how" the mitigation measures described previously have been implemented on the project
site, deleting Condition 10, Mitigation 9, replacing the word "preclude" with "the use of Ophir
Road" from Condition 26, adding the word "prohibited" at the end of the last sentence on Condition
26, and changing Exhibit A second paragraph reference to Martin Marietta to M_neral Resources. He
told the Commission that the waterline does not need to be permitted, the struc-ures on the property
will have to be permitted or removed and some structures have already been removed, the rotting
wood has been removed, and staff has not seen any proof of large brush piles. He said that photos
were received from Lee Edwards and read into the record the letter that accompanied the photos.
Commissioner Leland said the letter and photos should not be part of the record.
Mr. Charles Thistlethwaite agreed that since the hearing was continued closed the letter and photos
can't be part of the official record.
Chair Lambert asked what the timeline was until the project became operational.
Mr. Breedon said two years unless applicant asks for a time extension.
It was moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Marin and unanimously carried
to adopt Resolution PC 07-02 approving the Use Permit for Mineral Resources subject to the
findings and conditions, and including the corrections to Condition 6 Mitigation 2 the first sentence
should read "Mineral Resources shall prepare a report of "how" the mitigation, measures described
previously have been implemented on the project site, deleting Condition 10, Mitigation 9, replacing
the word "preclude" with "the use of Ophir Road" from Condition 26, adding the word "prohibited"
at the end of the last sentence on Condition 26, changing Exhibit A second paragraph reference to
Martin Marietta to Mineral Resources, and changing the reference on the Resolution from Condition
12 and Condition 13 to show as Condition 11 and Condition 12.
There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
D. ZCA 06-0004 and ZCA 07-0001— Staff recommends forwarding this item to the
Board of Supervisors for approval.
Name: Butte County
Project: Zoning Code Amendments ZCA 06-0004 and ZCA0-7-0001
Planner: Pete Calarco
Location: County -wide
Proposal: ZCA 06-0004 is an ordinance implementing Program 2.2 of the
Agricultural. Element requiring a 300 -foot setback for permits and projects in the
BUTTE
Grazing and Open Lands (GOL) and Orchard and Field Crop (OFC) land use
designations of the General Plan and at community boundaries and spheres of
influence for incorporated cities/town. .
ZCA 07-0001 proposes to delete Section 24-285 of the.Butte County Code pertaining
to segregations of home sites. Policy 3.3 of the Agricultural Element states:
Discontinue Agricultural Segregations for home sites (life estates serve the same
purpose). Section 24-285 "24-285 Segregation of home sites in agricultural zones"
needs to be deleted to comply with Policy 3.3.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors,
which will take action on the ZCAs.
Mr. Pete .Calarco gave a brief summary of the project.
Chair Lambert asked if the Unclassified zone was covered.
Mr. Calarco said yes, but it is challenging because they are describing the land use applicability.
Chair Lambert asked why the Agricultural Commissioner is only being consulted instead of making
the determinations.
Mr. Calarco ' said the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
Chair Lambert said that since the Agricultural Commissioner was going to make site visits she
thought it was reasonable that he make the decisions. She asked the Agricultural Commissioner
what he thought.
Mr. Richard Price said he is not comfortable making those decisions because he isn't a planner.
Commissioner Leland asked how an applicant could prove that they had spoken with the Agricultural
Commissioner. '
Mr. Price said it will show all of his comments through the Trakit program.
Commissioner Nelson asked if Mr. Price was more comfortable being a consultant.
Mr. Price said yes.
Chair Lambert said that she wants to make sure that Development Services uses the Agricultural
Commission's recommendations.
Commissioner Wilson said there is a correction on page four of four using a small `a' and
eliminating the word `applications' in the sentence and correcting the numbering in the footer. .
Commissioner Leland said he is comfortable trusting the Development Services Director to make the
determinations based on recommendations.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA e JANUARY 25, 2007, ■ PAGE 6 ■
Chair Lambert said she feels the Agricultural Commissioner's recommendations should be as
important on agricultural issues as Environment Health, California Departmen- of Forestry, etc. are
in their areas of expertise and the recommendations they make.
Commissioner Nelson said the Director receives recommendations from varicus departments.
Commissioner Leland said that since the Director does receive recommendations from various
departments he has a better understanding of what recommendations to make_
Mr. Rob McKenzie.asked to make a modification on page two line two.
Mr. Calarco and Mr. McKenzie made the correction into the document.
.Commissioner Wilson added the word "shape" to the sentence.
Chair Lambert if this addresses Williamson Act property.
Mr. Calarco said no they stayed close to the Agriculture Element and its applicaoility which does not
address Williamson Act land. He said it is limited to Orchard and Field Crcps and Grazing and
Open Lands.
Chair Lambert asked if the 300 foot setback would apply to these properties.
Mr. Calarco said no, but the building department would use the standard setbazk for the zoning on
that property.
Commissioner Leland asked about recital clauses. He said to add another recital to help protect the
300 foot agricultural setback.
Mr. Calarco suggest that recital could go into Section A.
Commissioner Leland said to take out "at city and community boundaries".
Mr. Calarco made the corrections in the document.
The hearing was opened.to public.
Seeing no one the public hearing was closed and comments confined to Commission and staff.
Mr. Calarco spoke of edits to the map. He showed them on his power point presentation. He had
sent out disks so that the Commission could look at different areas.
The Commission looked at examples of Durham and Chico on the map.
Chair Lambert asked if there are existing houses would that exempt the 300 foot buffer.
Mr. Calarco said it could, but it would be looked at on a case by base basis.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA ■ JANUARY 25,2007- ■ PAGE 7 ■
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and.unanimously carried
to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt
the Ordinance with corrections made at the Planning Commission meeting fo_ Butte County ZCA
06-0004 and ZCA07-0001.
VIII. GENERAL BUSINESS -This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Plznning Commission and
Director of Development Services on items of interest, general discussion, or items for which staff has been
directed to do research and bring back to the Commission. Items A, B, & C may no: always be addressed at
every hearing but will always be listed as part of the agenda.
A. Directors' Report
Mr. Dan Breedon went over progress report given to the Board of Supervisors by Tim
Snellings and reminded the Commission of the meeting on Saturday January 27,
2007.
B. ' General Plan/Zoning Ordinance Update
C. Update of Board of Supervisors Actions
D. Legislative Case'Law update
E. Planning Commission Concerns
IX. MINUTES —. November 30, 2006 and December 14, 2006
November 30, 2006 minutes:
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Marin, and unanimously carried
to approve the November 30, 2006 minutes with the following corrections: page 12 line 16 change
"answer" to "answered" and changing the M & T transcripts to show "Tan{ Farm" not "Tang
Farm".
December 14, 2006 minutes:
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Marin, andunanimously carried
to approve the December 14, 2006 minutes.
X. COMMUNICATIONS - Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are
available in the Planning Division Office.)
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:52 pm.
Chairman Lambert
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA JANUARY 25, 2007. ■ PAGE 8 ■