Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout039-530-019 (2) (2)BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION i AGENDA REPORT — December 14, 2006 1 Baldwin Contracting. Company Applicant: (Rene Vercruyssen, representative) Owner: Pacific Realty Lease area: 627 acres . Project Site: 235 acres File #: MIN 96-03 . Parcel Size: Mined area: 193 acres Equipment Area: 40 acres Topsoi• Stockpile: 2 acres General -Orchard and Field Crops - Plan: Zoning: A-40 (Agricultural, 40 -acre parcel) 039-530-019 & 020 Supervisor 1 District: Pete Calarco Planners: Assistant Director Dan Breedon, AICP Principal Planner r, Attachments: Resolution Certifying EIR A Exhibii 1 — Findings of Fact Exhibii 2 — Mitigation Monitcring Plan Resolution Approving B Mininc Use. Permit, Reclamation Plan and Financial Assurance Exhibi•: 1 - Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit 2 — Conditions of Approval. 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 reclamation plan; financial assurance cost estimate and a statement of. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ n M & T Mine MIN. 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ December 14, 2006 ■ Page 1 of 3s overriding considerations, SUMMARY This application was continued from the November 30, 2006 Planning Commission meeting after receipt of public testimony. Areas of concern in the public testimony provided at the November 30, 2006 meeting are summarized as follows: 1. Potential flooding impacts to surrounding properties related both to diversion/displacement of flood waters from Little Chico -reek and the Sacramento River and to potential deposit of sediments and materials , of downstream properties. 2. Impacts of increased truck traffic on local and arterial roads, road maintenance, and traffic safety. 3. Impacts of the project to surrounding agricultural and wildlife habitat uses, including direct and cumulative economic impacts, and impacts to existing agricultural practices. 4. Consistency of the proposed project with the Butte Counts- General Plan, including the Agricultural Element, and other regional plans 5.. Adequacy of the Final EIR's responses to proposed Williamson Act cancellation and the consistency of the proposed project with the Williamson Act itself. 6. Adequacy of the Draft and Final EIR in characterizing the environmental setting, including the use of the Lleno Seco Ranch. 7. Adequacy of the Final EIR in addressing impacts to mosquitoes and their abatement as a result of the proposed project. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission Agenda Report of November 30, 2006 provided an outline of the review process for the M & T Chico Ranch Mining P -oject, including ; the Final EIR, Mining Use Permit, and Reclamation Plan. At the November 30 meeting, public testimony was received on a variety of issues relEting to both the adequacy of the Final EIR, including responses to comments re,--eived, and the proposed Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan. At the conclusion of public testimony, the Commission continued the public hearing open in order to allow staff to provide responses to the information received, and for further deliberations. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ December 14, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 3 ■ 0 At the December 14, 2006 meeting, County staff and the County's consultant team will provide responses to issues raised on November 30, 2006. - Overall; staff believes most of the public and Commission comments at the November.' 30th hearing have been addressed in the Final EIR and its responses to comments. The applicant will also refer your Commission to where these impacts have previously been addressed in the record, including the Final EIR and response to comments. As your Commission continued the public hearing as an open item, additional public testimony may be offered. If outstanding issues pertaining to the Final EIR are addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, certification of the Final EIR, including the findings - of fact and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan can be considered. As discussed in the November 30, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda Report, after the Final EIR is certified, CEQA requires the Planning Commission to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the.. proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in considering its approval. A list of key project benefits was included in the November 30 Report.. If the project is approved, the Commission must adopt a Stateme-It of Overriding Considerations that states the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR or other information in the record. Staff recommends your Commission certify the Final EIR certification (see attached resolution), then consider approval of the proposed project, including approval of the Mining Use Permit, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, approval of the Mining Reclamation Plan and revised financial assurances, - and . adoption of the required Statement of Overriding Considerations. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ December 14, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 3 ■ Z At the December 14, 2006 meeting, County staff and the County's consultant team will provide responses to issues raised on November 30, 2006. - Overall; staff believes most of the public and Commission comments at the November.' 30th hearing have been addressed in the Final EIR and its responses to comments. The applicant will also refer your Commission to where these impacts have previously been addressed in the record, including the Final EIR and response to comments. As your Commission continued the public hearing as an open item, additional public testimony may be offered. If outstanding issues pertaining to the Final EIR are addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, certification of the Final EIR, including the findings - of fact and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan can be considered. As discussed in the November 30, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda Report, after the Final EIR is certified, CEQA requires the Planning Commission to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the.. proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in considering its approval. A list of key project benefits was included in the November 30 Report.. If the project is approved, the Commission must adopt a Stateme-It of Overriding Considerations that states the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR or other information in the record. Staff recommends your Commission certify the Final EIR certification (see attached resolution), then consider approval of the proposed project, including approval of the Mining Use Permit, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, approval of the Mining Reclamation Plan and revised financial assurances, - and . adoption of the required Statement of Overriding Considerations. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ■ M & T Mine MIN 96-03 ■ Agenda Report ■ December 14, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 3 ■ diepenbrock* harrison A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION December 11, 2006 Chuck Nelson Chairman, Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re- M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Our File No.: 2941.002 JOHN V. "JACK" DIEPENBRC-K KAREN L DIEPENBROCK KEITH W. M(BRIDE BRADLEY J. ELKIN EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK MARK D. HARRISON GENE K CHEEVER MICHAEL K. BRADY LAWRENCE B. GARCIA SUSAN E. KIRKGAARD ANDREA A MATARAllO JOEL PATRICK ERB JON D. RUSIN R. JAMES DIEPENBROCK #PIP - 1001) JEFFREY L ANDERSON MICHAEL E. MINDING JENNIFER L DAUER MATTHEW R. BERRIEN SEAN K. HUHGERFORD LEONOR T. DICOICAN CHRIS A MCCAHDLESS JEFFREY K. DORSO DAN M. SILVERBOARD ANDREW P. TAURIAINEN BLAIR W. WILL KRISTA J. OUNEWEILER DAVID R. RICE JENNIFER 0. BECHTOLD SARAH R. HARTMANN MARK E. PETERSON Dear Chairman Nelson: This letter provides responses to the primary issues raised at the November 30, 2006 hearing before the Butte County ("County") Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") regarding the approval of the conditional use permit, Reclamation Plan, financial assurance, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine ("Project"). A. Williamson Act Process At the November 30, 2006 Planning Commission hearing Commissioner Leland inquired as to the process regarding action by the Planning Commisson on the conditional use permit, Reclamation Plan, financial assurance, and certification of the FEIR and the Board of Supervisor's action on the petition for partial cancellation under the Williamson Act. As the Planning Commission is aware, the M&T Chico Ranch Draft EIR ("DEIR") contains an extensive analysis of the Project's potential impacts to agricultural land. (DEIR, p. 4.2-7, 4.2-10.) This analysis included a determination of th- Project's consistency with the County's Uniform Rules and the LCA contract. The County concluded in the DEIR that the Project is consistent with the County's Uniform Rules and the applicable LCA contract, stating that both the Uniform Rules and the LCA contract expressly allow "sand and gravel operation[s] subject to securing of a use permit approved by the County as a permitted use on the land while t is under Williamson Act contract." (DEIR, p. 4.2-6.) WWW.DIEPENBROCK.COM 400 (APITOL MAIL SUITE 1800 SA(RAMENTO,CA 95814 916 492.5000 IAK 916 44 6.453 5 DIEPENBROCK HARRISON Chairman Chuck Nelson December 11, 2006 Page 2 During the public comment period to the Draft EIR, the California Department of Conservation ("DOC") commented that the Project was not an allowed use under the Williamson Act. In October 2003, the County released the M&T Chico Ranch FEIR. In the FEIR, the County specifically responded to DOC's comments and reiterated its position that the Project was consistent with the Williamson Act. (FEIR § 5.1.4.) The County again concluded that since "surface mining" is expressly listed as an allowed use in both the County Uniform Rules and the LCA contract it is an allowed use. (FEIR, pp. 5.1-9 — 5.1- 12.) However, in an effort to respond to DOC's comment on the FEIR and to avoid a confrontation between the County and DOC, Baldwin voluntary filed a petition for partial cancellation for a 106 acre area of the Project. (M&T Chico Ranch Mine Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act, p. 6.) The petition for partial. cancellation is presented to the LCA Committee and then to the Board. A decision on the petition for partial cancellation is not necessary for the Planning Commission to move forward on its decision to approve the conditional use permit, reclamation plan, financial assurance, and certification of the FEIR given the FEIR's conclusion that the Project is consistent with the Williamson Act. Further, such action is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission. In addition, as a practical matter, the Planning Commission's determination will be appealed — either by Baldwin or the opposition. As such, the conditional use permit, reclamation plan, financial assurance, and FEIR will be before the Board of Supervisors when it also makes a determination on the petition for partial cancellation. B. Flood Protection At the November 30, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, there were questions regarding: (1) offsite impacts to the Llano Seco Ranch from the introduction of mine sediment/particulate matter into Little Chico Creek and Angel Slough during a flood event, and (2) offsite'impacts to adjacent landowners resulting from the Reclamation Plan's weir and berm design. Both the Reclamation Plan and the EIR included substantial hydrology and water quality analysis, which address each of these concerns set forth below. (See, e.g., DEIR, § 4.4, App. D-1; Reclamation Plan, Attachments 3, 9, 10; FEIR § 4.7, 4.7-4, 5.1-22, 5.4-25 — 5.4-27, 5.4-33, 5.4-56.) 1. Off -Site Impacts and Mine Sediment CEQA requires lead agencies to evaluate a proposed project's "indirect or secondary effects" that are caused by the project and "reasonably foreseeable." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15358(2).) For mitigation, CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt DIEPENBROCK HARRISON Chairman Chuck Nelson December 11, 2006 Page 3 mitigation measures, when feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts.' (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21081, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002; subd. (a)(3).) CEQA does not allow reliance on argument, speculation, opinion or narrative. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).) Baldwin carefully designed the Project's flood protection measures to comply with applicable state law as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, Public Resources Code section 2770 et seq. ("SMARA") and reclamation standards found in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 3700-3713, which include legal requirements for slope stability (section 3704); drainage, diversion . structures, waterways, and erosion control (section 3706); and stream protection, including surface and groundwater (section 3710). The EIR then analyzed the design and its direct and indirect environmental impacts as part of the CEQA process. The County's analysis of the design included a . comprehensive flooding study for the proposed Project. (See Little Chvco Creek: Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis for M&T Mine Project, NorthStar Engineering, Jan. 2002 ("NorthStar Flooding Study") [attached as Exhibit 1.].) Both the NorthStar Flooding Study and analysis contained in the DEIR evaluated off-site i-npacts caused by stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and processing facilities. (NorthStar Flooding Study, pp. 13-14; DEIR, p. 4.4-69.) Based on this analysis, the EIR concluded that the Project, with approval of relevant state and federal permits, would not result in significant environmental impacts to neighboring properties (which includes the Jones property and Llan:) Seco Ranch) via Little Chico Creek or Angel Slough. (DEIR, p. 4.4-52, 4.4-69.) The DEIR states as follows: Drainage from Processing Facilities: Materials from the pit will be transported to processing facilities via a conveyor'. There is very little opportunity for local storm runoff from the processing area to travel toward the pit, as it is presently graded. However, the processing facilities will be raised above the 100 -year floodplain and there will be no runof, discharged to surface waters since the project Applicant has stated that the facility intends to operate as a zero -discharge operation for the purposes of obtaining a stormwater ' Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" as follows: "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. DIEPENBROCK HARRISON Chairman Chuck Nelson December 11, 2006 Page 4 discharge permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. (DEIR, p. 4.4-52.) Impact 4.4-4: Stormwater Discharges Proposed .Project Without Batch Plants Scenario Stormwater discharges from the processing facilities cou:d enter -Little Chico Creek. This is a potentially significant impact. The processing area will be raised above the 100 -year - floodplain elevation so that floodwaters will not flow onto the site and commingle with runoff from the processing area. This scenario would preclude the development of the baich plants, ready -mix plant, and related facilities. However, certain processing facilities would still be developed. The Applicant will need to obtain a Construct Activity Storm Water Permit and possibly a Waste Discharge Permit. Compliance with existing Central Valley Regional Water' Quality Control Board regulations would mitigate impacts from stormwater discharges. Impacts to Little Chico Creek resulting from stormwater discharges.from the processing area would not occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-69.) Following release of the Draft EIR, the same neighbors again inquired as to whether the proposed Project would have offsite impacts resulting from stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and processing facilities. These comments were expressly addressed in the FEIR. The FEIR explained how the 'Project's design, DIEPENBROCK HARRISON Chairman Chuck Nelson December 11, 2006 Page 5 as well as applicable state and federal stormwater prevention requirements, would ensure that neighboring landowners would not be impacted by polluted stormwater or mine sediment. (See, e.g., FEIR § 4.7; 5.1-22, 5.4-25 — 5.4-27, 5.4-33. 5.4-56.) The FEIR provides, in relevant part: The NorthStar Flooding Study (2002) included as Appendix D-2 of the Draft EIR includes calculations that document -:he increase in stage at and near the proposed processing area. This is the only potential flooding impact attributable to the project and would affect only M&T Ranch land. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a is designed to protect all downstream properties from any adverse effects with regard to flooding. (FEIR, p. 5.4-56 [emphasis added].) On January 22, 2004, at the Planning Commission hearing on tle Project, one person, Howard Ellman, counsel for the Parrott Investment Company towner of Llano Seco Ranch) again raised this issue. Mr. Ellman requested that as a precautionary measure to prevent "fine particulate matter" from entering the Llano Seco Ranch, that the Planning Commission require Baldwin to obtain a "stormwater management plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board." (See Butte County Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2004, pp. 8-9 [attached as Exhibit 2].) . The County adopted and expanded upon Mr. Ellman's recommendation and those recommendations contained in the EIR with additional conditions of approval. As set forth below, Baldwin must acquire all relevant state and federal stormwater pollution prevention entitlements prior to commencing mining operations. The conditions of approval state, in relevant part: 29. Baldwin shall comply with the following Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, and obtain all necessary approvals, including: a) NPDES Permit or Waste discharge requirements Per -nit CFR Title 40, Section 436, Subpart B, for on-site gravel washing and discharge of wash water to on-site settling basins. b) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to construction activities used to identify potential pollutants and to eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants entering surface waters. c) General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit is required if there are storm water discharges to surface waters. d) A Review of Groundwater Monitoring Plan prior to approval by the County. 30. Baldwin shall comply with the following California Department of Water Resources, Reclamation Board -"'requirements, and obtain all necessary approvals, including: a) A Construction Activity Storm Water Permit for any', construction activities where clearing, grading, filling and, excavation result in a land disturbance of five acres or more. b) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be in place prior to construction activities. (Conditions of Approval for M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and (Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin, Contracting Company]; pp. 4-5 [emphasis added].) 2. Proposed Weir & Berm Design 5. At the November 30, 2006 hearing an assertion was made that the Project's flood prevention measures (i.e., a weir, berm, and,,bypass channel) would actually. cause additional flooding on' neighboring properties. As a member of'the community and a responsible operator, Baldwin went through great lengths to design a flood control plan .that would be protective of neighboring landowners. The EIR reviewed Baldwin's design and its direct and indirect environmental impacts as part of'the CEQA environmental review process. - The EIR included an extensive analysis of potential off-site impacts caused by the Project's flood control design. (See generally, NorthStar Flooding Study; DEIR, pp. 4.4-75 — 4.4-76; FEIR § 4.7-4.) Both the NorthStar Flooding Study and analysis contained in the DEIR evaluated off-site impacts caused by stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and processing facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.4-69; NorthStar Flooding Study, pp. 13-14.) The DEIR concluded that with appropriate mitigation, potential environmental impacts to adjacent landowners resulting from the flood design would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-76.) Comments were received on this issue during the public review/comment period on the. DEIR. As required by CEQA, the County addressed this specific concern in the FEIR Response to Comments Document. Relevant excerpts from the FEIR are as follows: DIEPENBROCK HARRISON Chairman Chuck Nelson December 11, 2006 Page 7 ,The suggestion that because mining operation is occurring at the project site, "floods of sufficient magnitude to cause this much flooding will likely become a lot more frequent...". is erroneous. There is no nexus between this project and increased flooding. Concerns regarding the earthen berm redirecting floodwaters are not an issue because of Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c of the Draft EIR, which states: "Applicant shall install a bypass channel to convey flows formerly conveyed by the distributary channel around the proposed pit area. The overflow weir and adjoining bypass channel will be designed such that elimination of the distributary will not result in increased flooding depths or duration to the Jones' parcel. The bypass channel shall maximize, to the extent possible, use of native plant materials in the design to control erosion. Plans shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction." (FEIR, p. 5.4-33.) The FEIR further states, in relevant part: Mitigation Measures 4.4-7a, b, and c (pages 4.4-75 of the Draft EIR) spell out the specific measures the County is imposing on the project to implement NorthStar's flood prevention recommendations. These mitigation measures Will eliminate additional flooding effects on adjacent property owners... As noted above, Mitigation Measures.. 4.4-7a, b; and c provide approximately ten-year flood protection for the created lake from overflows of Little Chico Creek and from local agricultural runoff. But for flows in Little Chico Creek exceeding approximately 2,000 cfs, or for flooding from the Sacramento River which yields equivalent flood stages, floodwaters will flow into the pit, serving to reduce flood depths. . (FEIR, § 4.7-4, p. 4.0-35 [emphasis added].) For the Planning Commission's benefit, we have attached the relevant section of the DEIR which describes Mitigation Measures 4:4-7a, b, and c as Exhibit 3. DIEPENBROCK HARRISON Chairman Chuck Nelson December 11, 2006 Page 8 C. Environmental Setting In a comment letter submitted to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2006, Mr. Howard Ellman questioned whether the DEIR provided an adequate project description because it did not specifically name the Llano Seco Ranch in its discussion of the Project's environmental setting. As discussed herein, the EIR's'description of the environmental setting for the proposed Project complied with CEQA. CEQA requires that an EIR contain, among other things, a project description and a description of the "environmental setting" in which the proposed project would be undertaken. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15120, 15124, 15125.) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15125, an appropriate discussion of a project's en\Aronmental setting includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project from both a local and regional perspective, discussing environmental resources, including those that are rare .or unique to the region, and analyzing inconsistencies; if any, between the project any applicable general or regional plans. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125.) Here, the EIR included an intensive discussion of the Project's environmental setting. (DEIR, pp. 3-1 — 3-7, 4.1-1 — 4.1-8.) Each section contains a description of the regional environment and local conditions and how the Project could impact the local and regional environment. (See e.g., DEIR, 4.3-1 — 4.3-7 [Geologic Setting]; 4.4-1 — 4.4-35 [Hydrologic Setting]; 4.5-1 — 4.5-14 [Traffic Setting]; p. 4.2-5 [Farmland]; 4.7-1 — 4.7-22 [Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat].) Thus, while the DEIR did not specifically name the Llano Seco Ranch, it did describe the regional environmental setting for the Project and analyze reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project as required by CEQA. Further, the County adopted additional conditions of approval to ensure that the specific concerns of Llano Seco Ranch were addressed. (See Exhibit 2 [Minutes for January 22, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing]; Conditions of Approval for M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin Contracting Company], pp. 4-5 ) DIEPENBROCK HARRISON Chairman Chuck Nelson December 11, 2006 Page 9 We look forward to the December 14th Planning Commission hearing. If you have any questions, please call me at 916-492-5000. Very truly yours, DIEPENBROCK HARRISON A Profess' oration C� ey K. Dorso JKD:gjc cc: Nina Lambert - Vice Chair Fernando Marin Richard Leland Harrel Wilson Rene A. Vercruyssen Ren6 J. Vercruyssen Jeffrey J. Carter 0 • t v . t .. - '( _ - i.. . . .. . �.: ...�_ - -... �- -.. , : ': .. _ . . . - .. . . . . ... : ; . . . . :C . . . . . . .. :,� - : . q ! '. - :, ': .. . .. : . . '. . - - . :�- �. �' . �::�-. � - . - - - :.­:­ : . - , :. ., - , . .. . .. :. . _ . ..r - .. ' . ,.t .. .i.., - :..: ..;: 3, {, n.. , woW :y _ t,• .00 npoj ?Qq t% §': . i v • .. .. .',. Vii.'.:,. .... ,..:':'. :•< - ,'. v ; . t. • ... i.. 'S.' n ; .. ...., ,. •1 :., . ;t;�, .::..• i. ' .. a ,. .. a. .a.. s- .....:..:: 1-: °s.:1. tea•„ �'. too .T 4: cF:% i.' y: : ra. :: ingot :Ji' r+ c: `:i•: s[,:' ' �.. :•C' �3: i.� ..7� Y. 1' r�trx::G, �: `ink ��': _ ' i.i:. 5 s. ;j>% i. :i t :: i' S,C :,: ' .3':' .'.4:i�%s.''- 1' a' 7... , y,.i.:.i.. V. Y.. t. ,rr? y'i yt! i :% •t ) y :.} t G. >' :� I'MIGM- ,,7` s� �ak'Ci 4f'.'a ,. L:•• t y - ' 2.+'•:?n! ''ii's `.{,''r ..,,.. '�Y �� =�t :: ' r.+;i Y .: ;;•{•.v' :i � ?� . - t:.' .:'Ki:'<: . r'a' ::„ :) r 4:'Nout _ _ _ 1. �. ;^Val':{!. R'l �" ..t. rti:"J%� '1 ; '� ':J: ':f,.. v' T .. f,:: . Mv', ._'`,t i'_." ,:,i:'• i' - .. .. ::,t[ _ '[t+'.:'}',. _i:.:. iii':r: .i°— i� ._.." .y'yl.yV :':a..:. r`a ....... rt . ,;.....i .,, n.r...., ... R-i.l� X:_L .S�'....:t ...:. , . ..:. ''G`� :.`� .:i v. 1.. F _ f. .-_ .F'•• .tl. :W �.y . '-iii '.', c` :t: - :' y:i' dv q. t. ,,,!_.0?�,.• r�i:;`-inn, :!� ( jt v,, ';7i �W. i. ;,. j: } i. ` 3w iv_:` ;, `f 'a ''. ..\. 4 :2e�'�,a r'�„ ::its _ �q.t'.. •y.. ,< `'U.:;ctiyr- ':G.' �.i. ' h•. : uI: ..N-_• • - - )fir: .. : i. a t a :�� ' sem; � ,. .: ., qq 3 ..; :::. �'N - .,.,. w. s.. ..,. ... .,.:: �;°l. r.as,_::. .. ..♦:.� .y?a •: p.= ^r"';:^'�: i. i..t - t�;a Tc r_. a:'v�.?; +e �,.:.� _ f.' 5. i <17 5- _rp... tr< _,i_ ae?, 'i ' .:�': - nk - :G< '':F, ,+� ti' _ y mow. t n .y.: ""M AM w oft QPRY -r:�J 3 t-< - ;i.. 1 o: 5 'ti S. r.a y y. :...: :r - - �,. [ l �, k nli� ::yds:. P ..i%,t. "J- y.i�,i� ' 11 . .b .. r:,+-rvay;•. .: �... �..,,,u.r.._.,; ;.:' it''r ':6:• :':G' :�i i,n.'i.::'}'v.':.: '.}•. �. L fW r y ?fi �. •,-, { .3.f t, .'.:: �.'':'i:, ^ - t5.. .tom•. :.'i1 �-: %'f r S" `y - , .. 4.4 _ ...y� _ - D �' :.� L �'d,'. 1. r• ,1 r.f . ! :. i� •., - i. .. .., .... .. ,. . - •• -i . .r ..., .... :. , - -.v ._. "1. �... -Onto _ ...♦ .. ..-.. , .., .. :1 .. y 1!%.' .: . ,-- _ . ., 1 . 't if .. .. 4. i F- ;....... M1_.. -. r .,, .. y .,-, :, .. . ..' ...r �.: _ A- o :jv' A" :t ..r., ,.: ,, : J _ ,K:.. is •' - , f. t'.1. :,. ` .A - - 4' .. T ,_ -:p,.- -;.-:;'-T.-. �. �...a... _ `.`::}:'.i . yam,.. : „ . ° 4 . ., i.. t _ , _ _ . :. :. I ... .t :. .. :. r + ,>1' - . ,ii_ - I .. .. ^ ' I '. .. .-- _ _ - ,. : . : _ .. .y _ . : : t - - , _ -' , - ..w. APPENDIX D 2 FLOODING STUDY, -FOR PROPOSED',GGyRAVEL_ MINE, . . :M&T CHICO RANCH MINE ' . . .. _ . , . . . . M & T RANCH MINE Flooding Impact Study BACKGROUND A potential impact associated with the construction of the processing plant(s) and stockpiles is the increased stage in Little Chico Creek as a result of placing fill (plant, stockpiles)` in the floodplain. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified a substantial area along little Chico Creek as lying within the 100 -year fldodplain. This area is within the "A" Zone, meaning that no depths,or: elevations have been established: FEMA mapping is not clear as to the source of the flooding; i.e. Little Chicd Creek,or the Sacramento liver. The Flood ` Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies readies along Liftle Chico Creek and has-.establish6d1000't'e'at flood el6vatiioris. The FIR-M."was prepared by a consultant under contract with FEMA. Sforin recurrence intervals and peak flows were polished and are the basis for the flow rates used in this study and account for urbanization in .the Chico afea. This detailed study stops upstream of the -proposed mine site. PEAK FLOW DATA The area along River Road has a long history of flood events, occurring as a result of not only high flows in Little Chico Creek but from flows in the Sacramento River. A reach of levee known as the M & T weir allows floodwaters from the Sacramento to follow old natural swales across adjacent properties. River road has been closed numerous times in the past due to over bank flooding from the Sacramento River. A primary concern expressed by County staff during initial review of the proposed project was the impacts of potential increased stage (water. surface levels) on adjacent properties and River Road. It is generally. acknowledged that during a major event, such as the so-called 100 -year NorthStar Enqineering Page 1 flood, that much of the area will be inundated. What is of snore concern are the more frequent events that have the potential to cause flooding to adjacent properties and result in more frequent closure of River Road. In order to establish floodplain elevations, field cross sections were taken at select locations. These locations and cross sections are depicted on Exhibit "A". Little Chico Creek is heavily vegetated with grasses, cattails and other Woody growth that increases the friction factor., contributing to the decreased capacity of the creek. Land leveling and levee construction along the east side of the creek has resulted in the creation of a low area where the plant and stockpile is proposed to be placed. This low area is drained through a 30 concrete pipe, back into Little Chico Creek at the southwest corner of the proposed plant site. The levee along the east side of the creek affords some protection to.the area east. of the creek where the plant is proposed. It is estimated that this levee will contain flows'•up to a once in five-year event. Hydrology Flooding of the area proposed for the plant site could occur -from two sources. Little Chico Creek flows through the project area and will cause flooding during events that exceed the capacity of the existing, natural channel and levees. • This is the source that has been used for modeling. In addition, over bank flows from the Sacramento River can enter the site through swales that cross River Road and enter the site at two locations downstream of the proposed plant site. These "swales" are identified'in County records as the "brick house" and "Winelands", referring to the farm house and adjacent owners. During periods when this Sacramento River over bank flow is occurring, a backwater effect could cause an increase in stage in Little Chico Creek, should a subsequent event occur. This has not occurred during the period of record. NorthStar Engineering Page 2 02/26/2002 i Little Chico Creek, Looking Upstream Period of record data was obtained from the Department of Water y Resources, for Little Chico Creek from the stream gauge at Taffee Avenue (Station A04270) and from the Sacramento River. This data was analyzed , to determine the occurrence of simultaneous peaking. The period of record on Little Chico Creek is only 10 years but contains twosignificant events. The January 1997 event produced a peak flow of 2400 c.f.'s..The` February -1998 event resulted in a peak flow of 2670 c'. f. s. Each of these events exceeded. a 10 -year recurrence interval storm.. What is significant is the recurrence of flows between 1250 and 1650 c.f.s. Peak flow's -in this range occurred in five of the last 10 years. The 10—Year average peak flow is 1600 c.f.s. �Of note, the aforementioned levee along the east side r of the creek was not overtopped during these events.' The data from the Department of Water Resources for the period of " record on the Sacramento River at Ord Ferry indicates that peak flows in, the river occur approximately 24 -hours after the peak in Little -Chico Creek. This lag is to be expected given the distance upstream of contributing tributaries and the controlled releases from the Shasta' Dam, Keswick complex. Review of aerial photos taken on January, 6, . . 4 { Herringer:y,Personal Communication �. NorthStar Engineerinq. Paoe 39 S i Little Chico Creek, Looking Upstream Period of record data was obtained from the Department of Water y Resources, for Little Chico Creek from the stream gauge at Taffee Avenue (Station A04270) and from the Sacramento River. This data was analyzed , to determine the occurrence of simultaneous peaking. The period of record on Little Chico Creek is only 10 years but contains twosignificant events. The January 1997 event produced a peak flow of 2400 c.f.'s..The` February -1998 event resulted in a peak flow of 2670 c'. f. s. Each of these events exceeded. a 10 -year recurrence interval storm.. What is significant is the recurrence of flows between 1250 and 1650 c.f.s. Peak flow's -in this range occurred in five of the last 10 years. The 10—Year average peak flow is 1600 c.f.s. �Of note, the aforementioned levee along the east side r of the creek was not overtopped during these events.' The data from the Department of Water Resources for the period of " record on the Sacramento River at Ord Ferry indicates that peak flows in, the river occur approximately 24 -hours after the peak in Little -Chico Creek. This lag is to be expected given the distance upstream of contributing tributaries and the controlled releases from the Shasta' Dam, Keswick complex. Review of aerial photos taken on January, 6, . . 4 { Herringer:y,Personal Communication �. NorthStar Engineerinq. Paoe 39 1997 indicate that ov erflo\vs from the Sacs ame6to River at the M dr T overflow-continue from the earlier event but that Little Chico Creek has , receded significantly.,. One event in liebruary 1998 resulted in peaks in �•:' 1 both the; River and ,creek occurring on the same day. - Historic Road Closures Records provided by Butte County Department of Public Works were reviewed, for. the,period 1995 through 1999. In-particul'ar, the frequency and-dates when closures of River Road, from Chico River Road to Ord `Ferry Road were analyzed. Two types of entry'are contained in the °4 records. `;`Road Closed" and "Flooded" are the• two types of aigns posted''' by the'Department. Flooded signs were placed typically`at three ' "!locations'along River,Road; at the "gas well", "brick house" and "Winelands", each corresponding to a low point where water overtops the road: 'The' placement of "flooded" signs was -by far the predominant _ activity, with road closed used less frequently. Of particular importance, none of the "flooded" or "road closed" postings corresponded with peak „ " flows in Little Chico Creek, except the period of record peak flow that t occurred.on.Feb. 2 1998. This closure also corresponded with-a.peak t: 3 flow in the.Sacramento River; therefore it is uncertain that the Little Chico Creek flow was the cause of the closure. What is more certain are the influence of the Sacramento River on flooding along River Road. • It is worth of note that the closures have occurred during a wet seasonal cycle . and that long-term averages would likely indicate less frequent closures. EXAMPLE CLOSURE DATA - .. . • s t '- � "; - s • - - - Lam' � u��J :- � Sou t.F _ LI'T'TLE CHICO CREEK w • Hydraulics, -In order to,assess the impacts of placing fill (plant and stockpiles) within the"floodplain,.HEC RAS,'a hydraulic model developed by the U.S Arrny Corps.of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center at Davis wasused. Stream,chanriel and over bank roughness coefficients were developed''' {QQwrr, efiiir`IIe � t �� L � 'k� ..�' .. Y .. , . • NorthStar Engineering - Page 4 02/26/2002 and cross section data was entered. The site was fit-ld reviewed, since the area does not represent a typical stream channel due to the extensive land leveling and levee/road construction that has occurred. From field review and review of available mapping, it was determined- that the area proposed for the plant and stockpiles is contained within levees/roads that impair the free return flow of over bank floodwaters to the creek channel. HEC RAS has an option for entering "ineffective flow areas", that is areas where water is stored and the area is not available for conveyance. This data was entered for the area where existing levees do not allow free flow of floodwaters back into Little Chico Creek. In effect, the area proposed for the plant is acting as a storage basin by not allowing free flow into the creek. While the volume of water stored may not be significant, the levees do impede free flow. Since this is an existing condition, the initial geometry input to the model reflected this situation. HEC RAS Model Runs Three model runs were selected to represent existing conditions and model the impacts of adding the plant and stockpiles. 1. Existing conditions recognizing the existence of the levee. 2. Existing conditions without the levee. 3. Overtopped levee With plant and stockpiles in place. The flows selected were based on the historic data from the Taffee Bridge gauge as well as the 10 and 50 -year design storms from the FEMA study so that this could be cross-referenced to information on road closures/overflow depths from County records. Model Run 1. The model results indicate that the creek will contain flows up to approximately 2000 c.f.s. without overtopping the existing left bank levee. The presence of this levee causes an increase stage and hence the frequency of flooding River Road. Under this modeling scenario, River road is flooded at two locations; at the upstream cross section (Section 13) and Section 10, referred to as the "gas well location" in County road closure/ flooding reports. Of significance is the ability of these existing levees to confine flows to the existing channel and right over bank and not flood the proposed plant and stockpile site. Since the principal reason for modeling was to assess impacts to River Road and the adjacent Jones parcel, it can be concluded that storms with a return frequency of 5 years or less will cause no impact beyond what occurs-at - NorthStar Engineering Page 5 present. falows in excess of approximately 3000 c.f.s. will _overtop tl-)e existing levee at Section 10 and enter the stockpile /processing site. The return frequency of the event that would cause this is het,,veen 5 and 1.0 years. While the modeling suggests overtopping, this has not occurred during the events of the past 10 years. 2 Model Run 2. In this case, the presence of the levee was ignored, thus allowing free flow on the east side through the area where the stockpiles and plant are proposed. This decreased the water surface profile due U the larger waterway area. This model run acknowledged that the existing levee system did not allow free flow to Little Chico Creek and created an ineffective flow area. Model Run 3. The plant site and associated stockpiles were superimposed on the cross sections using a technique in HEC RAS known as blocking. The flows were then again run using this geometry to assess the increased water surface profiles and to determine the increase in stage. The results of the above models are contained in the appendix and summarized in Table A Conclusions The present levee system protects (albeit without freeboard) the area proposed for the plant site and stockpiles from events u7D to approximately 5 -year storm. For the events that overtop the levee, the increase in stage will be approximately one foot over the pre project levels at the plant site, diminishing to approximately 0.2 feet upstream at cross section 13. The only measurable impact will be to increase the stage at the low point in River Road near cross section 10 (gas well site) where the water. surface would be less than one foot above pre project levels. This increase will cause more frequent flooding of River Road, but can be mitigated. Refer to mitigation measures. The increase in stage will also be reflected on the orchard property west of river road. This increase of approximately one foot could cause some additional flooding of this orchard. Since the orchard is owned by the applicant (M & T Ranch), the impacts will be known by them. Herringer, Personal Communications (JorthStar Engineering Page 6 02/26/200 TABLE A RIVER STATION FLOW. RECURRENCE PRE -PROJECT PROJECT PLANT INCREA; (CROSS SECTION) C.F.S. INTERVAL (yrs) ELEVATION IN PLACE (feet) 1 1500 1 109.9 109.9 0 2307 10 111 111 0 3763 50 111.9 111.9 0 2 1500 1 113.1 113.1 0 2307 10 113.8 113.8 0 3763 50 114.6 114.6 0 3 1500 1 116.5 116.5 0 2307 10 117.1 117.1 0 3763 50 117.8 117.8 0 4 1500 1 117.1 117.1 0 2307 10. 117.8 117.8 0 3763 50 118.5 118.5 0 5 1500 1 118 118 0 2307 10 118.6 118.6 0 3763 50 119.4 119.4' 0 6 .1500 1 118.3 118.3 0 2307 10 119 119 0 3763 50 119.9 119.9 0 7 1500 1 118.3 118.3 0 2307. 10 119.1 119.1 0 3763 50 119.9 119.9 0 8 1500 1 118.6 118.6 0 2307 10 119.3 119.3 0 3763 50 120.2 120.2 0 9 1500 1 118.9 119.5 0.6 2307 10 119.6 120 0.4 3763 50 120.4 120.7 0.3 10 1500 1 119.1 120.2 1.1 2307 10 119.7 120.8 1.1 3763 50 120.5 121.3 O.E NorthStar Enoineerinq Pane 7 12 1500 1 120 120 4 2307 10 120.4 121 .1 ' 3763 50 120.9 121.6 13 1500 1 120.5 120.6 2307 10 120.8 121.2 3763 50 121.4 121.8 .The impacts could be reduced to near zero if the existing levee were replaced with a setback.levee or River Road raised in the vicinity of Section 10 and larger culverts installed. Overtopping Through Pit Area The frequency. and magnitude of overtopping of the Little Chico Creek channel in the vicinity .of the pit excavation. has been expressed as a concern and a design. issue. Cross sections 6, 7 and 8 were taken upstream of, and near the upstream limits of the pit. The model runs indicate that the creek channel proper has very limited capacity in this area. The capacity of the creek proper immediately upstream of the "pit" is on the order of 300 c.f.s. Overtopping can be expectec to occur on at least an annual basis. The ten-year average peak flow cd approximately 1600 c.f.s. will cause overtopping and an average depth of 1 to 2 feet. This excess flow currently passes through the area propoised for excavation. During a site visit on January 9, 2002 a bifurcation or distributary was observed, wherein approximately 30% of the flow in the creek was flowing into this distributary. This "relief' currently minimizes the flooding impacts on the adjacent Jones parcel, where the thread of Little Chico creek currently exists. Assuming that this overtopping is allowed to continue and be controlled during the operation of the pit, no increased stage would be expected on the adjacent Jones parcel. The existence of this flow split presents a design challenge for the project. If a "levee" were to be constructed to prevent this split flow, then increased stage upstream and through the Jones parce:. could be anticipated. If the creek were to be allowed to continue to flow into the area proposed for excavation, then several issues will be raised, including water quality, mining in a flowing stream and probably others. NorthStar Engineering Page 8 02/26/200 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.4 Looking Downstream at Bifurcation Overflow to Pit A mitigation measure to alleviate the direct flow through the pit as' occurs now, and to also mitigate increased stage, would be to construct a low levee/weir along the -downstream side of the creek. In conjunction with this weir, a bypass channel. would be needed along the west side of the mine site that would take excess flows and mitigate the potential increased stage upstream and on the Jonds parcel. This weir and bypass channel would have to be carefully designed so as to provide- a continued flow into the creek thought the Jones parcel for environmental reasons. Overtopping of the weir would be designed and expected to occur for events that exceeded the S to 10 year recurrence interval. 'Careful design using a combination of hard armor (riprap) and bio -engineered systems would keep velocities low and could distribute the flow over broad area. Given the very flat slopes and corresponding low velocities, erosion and, failure of the weir leading to relocation of the creek would be unlikely. n NorthStar Engineering Paae 9 s S' Looking Downstream at Bifurcation Overflow to Pit A mitigation measure to alleviate the direct flow through the pit as' occurs now, and to also mitigate increased stage, would be to construct a low levee/weir along the -downstream side of the creek. In conjunction with this weir, a bypass channel. would be needed along the west side of the mine site that would take excess flows and mitigate the potential increased stage upstream and on the Jonds parcel. This weir and bypass channel would have to be carefully designed so as to provide- a continued flow into the creek thought the Jones parcel for environmental reasons. Overtopping of the weir would be designed and expected to occur for events that exceeded the S to 10 year recurrence interval. 'Careful design using a combination of hard armor (riprap) and bio -engineered systems would keep velocities low and could distribute the flow over broad area. Given the very flat slopes and corresponding low velocities, erosion and, failure of the weir leading to relocation of the creek would be unlikely. n NorthStar Engineering Paae 9 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AT PIT SITE ' Design, of the bypass channel would require measures to control velocities, and erosion potential. Given ,the substantial area available and the low velocities expected this should be easily achievable. TOPSOIL STOCKPILE The question of:increased flooding caused by placing the overburden ; (topsoil) on the designated site has been raised. The propose stockpile for'topsoilr'emoved prior.to mining -,is situated on an existing rice field above the Little -Chico Creek floodplain therefore will pose no•increase,in flooding ANGEL SLOUGH Angel Slough is a minor tributary to Little Chico Creek that enters the ' creek in two -locations. The sough is,actually a series of -§wales that carry. t Sacramento River overflow into Little Chico Creek and'the Butte Sink3 The• most -northerly branch crosses River Road and enters at two _ locations upstream from the proposed stockpile site. As a tributary,' this -'branch does not contribute significantly ,to peak rainfall runoff, due -to ' �`.the�smallFcatchment and its location. What is,of interest however -is the apparent seepage from the Sacramento River that enters this upper, I4orthStarEngineering Page 10 02126/2002 1• t r LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AT PIT SITE ' Design, of the bypass channel would require measures to control velocities, and erosion potential. Given ,the substantial area available and the low velocities expected this should be easily achievable. TOPSOIL STOCKPILE The question of:increased flooding caused by placing the overburden ; (topsoil) on the designated site has been raised. The propose stockpile for'topsoilr'emoved prior.to mining -,is situated on an existing rice field above the Little -Chico Creek floodplain therefore will pose no•increase,in flooding ANGEL SLOUGH Angel Slough is a minor tributary to Little Chico Creek that enters the ' creek in two -locations. The sough is,actually a series of -§wales that carry. t Sacramento River overflow into Little Chico Creek and'the Butte Sink3 The• most -northerly branch crosses River Road and enters at two _ locations upstream from the proposed stockpile site. As a tributary,' this -'branch does not contribute significantly ,to peak rainfall runoff, due -to ' �`.the�smallFcatchment and its location. What is,of interest however -is the apparent seepage from the Sacramento River that enters this upper, I4orthStarEngineering Page 10 02126/2002 slough during high flows in the River. This is readily apparent in the aerial photos taken in January 1997. The quantity and impact of these flows would be very difficult to quantify, however, they are likely significantly lower than peak flows in Little - Chico Creek. These flows appear to be the reason for "flooded" signs being placed at the low points on River Road' at the "gas well'. Refer to previous discussion on road closures. 4 The flows in the downstream branch location (identified on the Ord Ferry Q:Udd- ng&bLs, Angel Slough) are.-.&ectly related to overflows of the M&T w.6 and to some extent to seepage from the Sacramento River. From e�`ami.nation of the 1997 aerial photos; it is determined that these flows enter the project. site significantly downstream, approximately one half mile, from the area where the plana and stockpiles will be located. SACRAMENTO RIVER The Sacramento River distributes flows in excess of approximately 100,000 c.f.s. to the Butte Sink via several flow control structures (FRS). The control structure known as the M&T Weir is located on the left bank of the Sacramento River near River Mile 190. This weir is the most upstream FRS in the system. The operation of this weir is governed by the State Reclamation Board and is maintained by DWR. The regulations governing encroachments or reclamation acts within the "Butte Basin" are contained in Title 23, Water Code. The site of the proposed mine falls within Area B of this regulation. Approval of the State Reclamation Board is required for any "encroachment that could reduce or impede flood flows, or would reclaim any of the floodplain within the Butte Basin." The map accompanying this regulation describes the limits of the 1970 flooding and includes the project site. The EIR prepared for the Butte Basin Overflow Area in 1986 describes in detail the construction •and operation of the M & T Weir as well as two other flood relief structures (FRS) in the general area. The M & T Weir is the only FRS that could directly impact the proposed project. The frequency, depth and flow of these overflows however are not contained in this document. The M&T Weir is designed to discharge when gauge height at Ord Ferry reaches 111. Review of period of record information indicates that this stage has been reached five times between 1990 and 1998, therefore flows across this weir occur on average once every two years or so. This corresponds with the County road sign records, further indicating that Sacramento River overflows are the primary reason for closures of River Road, not Little Chico Creek. As stated previously, the flows from this NorthStar Engineering Page 11 02126!200 weir contribute to the downstream reaches of Angel Slough, entering the project site well downstream of the plant facility. Imnacts on Sacramento River Floodplain Due to the location of the project at the flood fringe, near the upstream limits'of the designated floodway, impacts of placing the plant facilities and stockpiles within the Sacramento River floodplain will be minimal. The proposed site is not in the direct flood path of the M&T weir, based on* available information. The increased stage of approximately one foot at-the,site and diminishing to .02 feet within 2000 feet is a local impact that should not be considered significant. Flooding of adjacent properties downstream of the plant facilities and stockpiles should not be an issue, since removal of material from the area'will increase storage capacity and conveyance. Overtopping of the . existing creek channel in the vicinity of the pit will occur on a frequent, annually or more often, and must be considered in the design of erosion control to minimize the possibility of re-routing the creek through the pit. Due to restrictions contained in Title 23, construction 'of new,*higher levees to preclude flooding of the plant and stockpile site from Little Chico Creek is. a very remote possibility. A much more feasible and defensible alternative would be to replace the existing levees with `setback" levees at the same elevation, on the east side approximately 200 feet east_ of the existing. The existing levees should be removed to increase the conveyance of the creek. The result would be to decrease the stage in the creek by approximately 0.6 feet. If the setback levee is designed as an integral part of the plant/ stockpile, the area between the site and the creek will be available for conveyance of overbank flow. I,JorthStar Engineering Page 12 02/26/200 CONCLUSIONS Flooding impacts from Little Chico Creek associated with the placement of processing plant and stockpiles will be limited to events in excess of five-year recurrence interval storms that overtop the existing levees. Flooding impacts due to Sacramento River are very difficult to ascertain, since the operational characteristics of the flood relief structures are not defined. Sacramento River flooding events that overflow the M&T weir will in turn cause some flow to enter the lower reaches of the mine (pit) area via Angel Slough and the remnant of Little Chico Creek that passes through the Jones parcel. These events will not cause increased stage on adjacent properties since no fill will be placed in the pit area. The occurrence of this overflow has not historically coincided with peak flow in Little Chico Creek, thus should have little or no backwater impacts on the creek. MITIGATION MEASURES Little Chico Creek Impacts on River Road Mitigation 1. Replacing the existing levee with a setback levee placed 200 feet east of the existing can mitigate the increased stage due to the stockpile and plant site. This levee should also be designed as an integral part of the plant/ stockpile. Removal of the existing levee will allow the over bank flow to return to Little Chico Creek, immediately downstream from the plant/stockpile area. The existing levee on Little Chico Creek should be removed. Mitigation 2. Reconstruction of the "dip" in River Road at the low water crossing near Section 10 ("gas wells") by raising the roadway approximately three feet and replacing the existing small culverts with larger ones will elevate the road above the flood elevation of Little Chico Creek and minimize the frequency of closures at this location. Larger culverts will allow excess Sacramento overflows to flow under rather than over the road. The culverts will need to be of sufficient size to accommodate this flow. NorthStar Engineering Page 13 _ 02/26/2002 Little Chico Creek Impacts Through the Mine Site (pit) Mitigation 3. Mitigate overbank flow through the proposed mine (pit) area by construction a low levee/weir in conjunction with a bypass channel along the west side of the project. Design and construct the weir/diversion to meet the following criteria: Retain flows in Little Chico Creek through the Jones parcel to meet the requirements of Department of Fish and Game. • Divert flows up to 2000 c.f.s. (Slightly less that the 10 year event) th-rough the bypass channel and existing creek. Design and construct the overflow weir to allow flows in excess of 2000 c.f.s. to enter the pit. Design of the weir shall] include measures to resist erosion and scour and preclude migration of creek through mine site. Construction of the weir and bypass channel shall be cor-npleted prior to full operation of the pit excavation for commercial purposes. P NorthStar Engineering Page 14 02127/2002 Appendix Model Run 1 Existing Conditions Levee Recognized HEC -RAS Plan: Plan 15 River: Main1 Reach: 1 E.G. Elev E G Slope E.G. Vel lChpJ F ©�N op� ' � Wadth Froude # Chi E fib- �r.�C'h;E=1' `"''•W` '�' ! � S•:E Crit VN'S t nM 1.08 1333.71 527.62 all 1500.00 116.75 122.56 120.29 122.58 0.000564 1.10 1654.60 531.83. 0.10! 4' 2000.00 116.75 123.17 120.60 123.19 0.000494 1881.48 537.81 _ 0.10: T ' q ' 2500.00 116.75 123.60 120.92 123.62 0.000506 1.18 1.99 1428.49 528.87 0.19 ' �I• 3000.00 116.75 122:74 121.04 122.81 0.001801 1.21.47 118.50 121.52 0.001427, 1.95 848.48 331.82 0.18 • 1500.00 115.49 122.15 118.83 122.21 0.001446 2.04 1103.19 426.42 0.18. ,. t 2000.00 115.49 122.65 119.16 ' 122.71 0.001325 1.98 1319.52 438.8a 0.17! - 1 2500.00 115.49 122.71 122.71 0.000019 0.23 8469.97 2438.08 0.02 , i 3000.00 115.49 122.71 �1 r Y 1500.00 114.56 120.21 117.81 120.23 0.000552 1.25 1193.44 384.36 0 11 Glr 9 b 114.56 120.73 117.99 120.76 0.000660 1.44 1403.89 429.86 0.12' 2000.00 114.56 121.19 118.14 121.22 0.000738 1.58 1611.42 473.47 0.13 i 2500.00 114.56 121.58 118.29 121.62 0.000806 1.71 1804.29 511.53 0.13; 3000.00 ` 1500.00 114.54 119.27 117.64 119.30 0.000857 1.43 1157.95 517.54 0.13 r 114.54 19.67 117.85 119.70 0.000902 1.53 1367.20 527.39 0.14. 2000.00 2500.00 114.54 120.03 117.97 120.07 0.000930 1.61 1560.39 36 5.321 0.14 ; 3000.00 114.54 120.35 118.09 120.40 0.000962 1.69 1733.53 544.20 0.14: r i t m a. . 1500.00 113.26 118.55 118.58 0.000700 1.39 1453.02 9 29.46 0.12 2000.00 113.26 119.02 119.04 0.000572 1.35 1883.96 937.30 0.11: p a 2500.00 113.26 119.41 119.43 0.000512 1.36 2257.00 944.43 0 a• r s 1 3000.00 113.26 119.74 119.76 0.000492 1.39 2566.26 950.29 0.11 1500.00 114.25 118.33ZQQOIQQ 118.34 0.000096 0.32 3153.91 1310.48! 0.03r 114.25 118.81 118.81 0.000094 0.34 3782.00 1322.13 0.03 j 0.03! 2500.00 114.25 119.21 119.22 0.37 4314.65 1331.94 f. - 3000.00 114.25 119.53 119.54 0.000101 0.40 4743.97 1339.79 0.03 W 1500.00 109.89 118:28 118.28 0.000111 0.68 2590.48 980.96 0.05 i -`` '� • »'�r 2000.00J 109.89 118.75 118.76 0.000116 0.74 3060.07 991.67 0.05.•, tib r 2500.00 109.89 119.15 119.16 0.000127 0.80 ' 3462.29 1036.89 0.06' q1 1u _u 109-891 119.47 119.48 0.000141 0.88 3796.86. 1079.63 0.06 3000.00 �� 117.98 0.001316 1.79 937.96 475.54 0.121 1T+ �+ ,Gti,,' •:u.i. mt 1500.00 107.29 1 17.94 c MIN^.vhf �5 9L'S7� Vi�l'3'1�41 .�'�'i�A ��h�rt Ii14{ itF�f�j / • / 1 1 • . 1 1 111 �a^�'(`� I,: e•r. r� �4 ���`;�. Egg it FFIIN' ®® 1 n'c5yv7yyyii, ®® 1 111 w7c^�'f:B rt GQ i1 01 ®®® B�g. , 1 1 { •.tt�;4!��•�kLh;Si�d IL�H�r'l:� q 41111. Vale • . / Bi&.4t11...i^J I dillw�L:UUL'dfi.uY�iIiLS.*.9zLT® U9 U i'L1- 1 �® 1 1 1: 1 /.. 1 8�v6�V • ��t')� f �' ICY'=� sl' rti^(. iF.IK ME 111 1 / 11 • ' 1 •. �tSa'7d1tl��W1L'iilf4:4�,',;�11ttr7�1(11�'��II'a :11lYll'ICFRI 11 � • 1 ® dSln-"L4 s �? p* Ei �QW ,. 1,,.--. ,. j pE? r. �iw 1 1 • ' : �i �l t ui �yr.�lilfi��xlru.Mhilvl .i.' I 1 I�9 yy1 / 1 11 ��• '� . / : /. .ilr t .,�, t to I' p 1 � kIl �vq�.����•ay k-1 , :a:<ti uuyi n�ll?Il;® Yl li91- 6n 'T�t�,;r,'. rr yF fIi • 111MEM F!x?iifhiyI• .S �. ..:,',•�fiJ: �(I1'�gl"' :L r71fi-1L+�t 1 1 1 1 1 ®�� • • , ®® �� ( -IC1 lON�Yl�� -MON 1/ 1 1 ® 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 1• 1® , • • ® ® 1 1537H'- �i:'GJII �!lf5l���� �1n: i�If2;IdlWli2,� 1 1 1 1 1 ���� 1 �IPRti'JLII''�IFl--tI,'d1���JX:JCI{II',!'9'!711���il�!i� / --- M_ k���,�j�•��47�16'3i K�:iFP:'?t':7 ly�,}�•,�.6�.�,�®� 7�1�I'SyIK v;7�ci"IfS�ixct:'P�,`,,��..��„?<`fWq� OWN, 1 1 1 1 1 �' �—� 1/ 1/• ® ' 1® 1 �F�j P GG�j �' ;�il� 1 1 1 / 1 1 • 11 • • �I!iil"IJ'��iatL4'� � 1 / / 1 1 � —�; ,� 1 11 1 1 • ®� • 1 � 1 • 'ttS�,"til4�.t4 .W�1{h`1�� ,Uf?n°t l�k P 1 1 1 1 �� ®� 1 1 / 1 • •®� 1 / �L f}d 'bi NOR 111 / 1 ���A.ri•�'�}AP.�JSf'bV?'I�it;.!.f'..(3L���i✓y7� ® • 1 W`5,'G7��'2�'Ir,'� ��yµi,��l��'tl�'f �s� d I^ hjt • 1• 1• ®�� • 1 ® 1 1 �r 2.rfV��,+—�i(J �. j ��. <til �� � � 111 11 � 1 •. .7�4!13(m•IIILI'''Y��,�IL:�..i ®� ® 1 /. �j �C4UM �. �,,j ®®®®®® 11 ®�� 1 0 iv I Station (k) SECTION 13 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 .04 124- 122 120 r 0 m ami w 118 116 114 .07 -oi.056 ! genff-'-', —EG PF 4 WS PF 4 PF 3 —G WS PF 3 j EG PF 2 WS PF EGPF F —W7S —PF I Crit PF 4 Crit PF 3 Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 j Ground. —Levee Ban? Sta 560 1500 Station (ft) 01=(" TlnKl V) 2500 124 122 114 200 400 600 800 1000 1400. 1600 1800 1200 0 Station (ft) SECTION 10 �Y'ni` IZ f/�1 f f f � f�l!��4✓��J(1 ri tni� CI lir L'Y , .�lY�.'�:�Y r('�- i�'-�,.C/Kt f ^i/f ��X�; �� �,�7 ! (! ;�i l}��i \}"r! x r ✓ 11f ,, 41 /%' m t`/�(1' �I� rl�}� �xg �✓4tiK Y, (:7 r1r t,1}1 �'yr ry s Mf rr k yi J�ilw. f it ,r of »n �' rLJfS t rrrr tr„ref �,. �r ,,;ii.,• r � �v`� s ' ref '�`�+-, i �. 6 y,� t>(rit•y 114 200 400 600 800 1000 1400. 1600 1800 1200 0 Station (ft) SECTION 10 F5 0 . � LLJ 124 122 120 118 m M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 04 .07 .056 4 0 260 400 660 800 IdOO 1200 1400 1600 1800 Station (ft) SE(-.TinN Q egend EG PF 4 WS PF 4- EG �F 3 WS PF 3 EG PF 2 WS PF 2 —CG —PF 1 WS PF I Crit PF 4 7rtF 3 Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 Ground Levee Bank Sta 0 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 400 600 Station (N) SECTION 8 1000 1200 egen ' j, EG PF 4 -' j WS PF 4 EG PF 3 WS PF 3 Ground I Ba4 Sta 114 112 0 400 600 Station (N) SECTION 8 1000 1200 egen ' j, EG PF 4 -' j WS PF 4 EG PF 3 WS PF 3 Ground I Ba4 Sta 1 1 i 112: 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Station (ft) RECTlnN 7 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 ' 056 _lc 1, .05 1241 'Legend t. EG PF 4 i 1 {� o WS PF 4 I EGPF3 i i 1221 I WS F 3 ' EG PF 2 WS PF 2 i EGPF1 i 120A0S PF 1 i t 1 s Ground i Ban®Sta 1 1 i 112: 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Station (ft) RECTlnN 7 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 nr .07 ----- •046 --� egen f EG PF 4 WS PF. 4' EGPF3 i i WSPF3 ' EG PF 2 i W5 PF 2 WS PF I Ground O Bank Sla I 1 SECTION 6 , rcrTl(l�l � M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 .05 . .I, 1 IL .05.6 120 - Legend ' EG PF 4 WSPF4 118 i EG PF 3 WS PF 3 EGPF2 WS PF 2 116 EG PF 1 i WSPF1 ' p_ Ground z 114 i Ban? Sta c 0 m Q w 112- 11 1 11011 1 . 108'1 j� J 106 0 '200 400 600 800 1000 . 1200 Station (ft) rcrTl(l�l � F 0 0 V0 0 O W r .20 U) Co 0 v co O (U) uolaeA@13 Q C LL a LL a LL a LL s LL a LL a LL a LL a C (n ®,c C (D d w w w w Ln o 0 m N O c - C (U C , (d CL fn d N C 7 C (0 O 0 0 V0 0 O W r .20 U) Co 0 v co O (U) uolaeA@13 E E M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 200 460 600 800 1000 ii00 Station (ft) 1400 egen EG WSPF4 EG WS PF 3 i EGPF2 WS PF 2 EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Ground BaJ Sta M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 .05 - 116 114 108 106- 1014 0 061040 1000 1500 Station (it) SECTION 2 iegen EG PF 4 i I WS PF 4 i EG PF 3 1 WSPF 3 I EG PF 2 WS PF 2 I EG PF 1 WS. PF 1 Crit PF 4 1 Crit PF 3 j Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank•Sta i M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 14 .05 ale 1 .05 116 I Legend i EG PF 4 14 WS PF 4 I EG PF 3 ! I 114 _ WS PF 3 EG PF 2 i WS PF 2 1 j EG PF 1 112 i WSPF1 i Crit PF 4 I Crit PF 3 Crit PF 2 i c 0 110- Crit PF 1 m a a� I Ground w . BaA Sta I 108- 08106104 106- 104 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Station (ft) Model Run 2 Existing Condition No Levee HEC -RAS Plan: Plan 26 River: Main1 Reach: 1 120.47 Reach River. Sta a. -T4 l-?`' ;Min•;Ch;EI W:SE1ev. _ Crit'W.S. E.G. EIev E.G...Slope .V�I;C.tinl � 1o�w eta Ttip,Wid.tti... ' Froude # Chi 1500.00 116.75 120.47 119.30 120.49 0.000435 0.71 1753.10 ` 1444.75 C -CO -97 ;x 2000.00 116.75 120.70 119.43 120.72 0.000458 0.74 2095.73 1562.00 0.09 2307.00 116.75 120.83 119.49 120.85 0.000460 0.76 2302.80 1597.17 0.09 !:' ` ' 1 3000.00 3763.00 116.75 116.75 121.07 121.36 119.65 119.79 121.10 121.38 0.000486 0.0004661 0.80 0.82 2691.48 3154.98 1623.92 1640.45 0.091 0.09i 120.00 119.33 120.01 0.000312 0.74 2264.24 2121.65 0.08• 2000.00 115.49 120.22 119.39 120.23 0.000306 0.75 2730.84 2133.41 0.081 2307.00 115.49 120.36 119.431 120.37 0.000292 0.75 3029.45 2140.90 0.08, �' ''`3 3000.00 115.49 120.58 119.48 120,60 0.000306 0.79 3511.65 2171.99 0.08 . , 3763.00 115.49 120.91 119.55 120.92 0.000277 0.79 4237.40 2280.00 0 08 : .. '" . �4 .111' ' _ � .� 1500.00 114,56 119.14 118.58 119.18 0.001450 1.84 1091.061 1419.99 0.17: 2000.00 114.56 119.52 118.69 119.55 0.000924 1.56 1513.83 1451.17 0.14 ;1�' ', (� S. 2307.00 114.56 119.74 118.74. 119.77 0.000750 1.46 t 759.48 .1456.14 0 13 gr U 3000.00 114.56 120.16 118.82 120.17 0.000302 0.93 3156.09 1465.59 0.08 N, `��;ro ! [(5' " 'a s� 3763.00 114.56 120.51 118.97 120.521 0.000294 0.95 3674.161492.15 0.08: f",v=A'NOW., , 19' 1Ik • , 5 1500.00 114.54 118.90 117.24 118.91 0.000187 0.64 • 1965.77 1466.11 0.06 a1;3' . 2000.00 114.54 119.33 117.34 119.34 0.000173 0.65 2398.26 1480.95 0.06: 2307.00 114.54 119.57 117.40 119.58 0.000167 0.65 2640.17 1489.20 .0.06; 1u� a� (r.4M' dry 3000.00 3763.00 114.54 114.54 120.00 120.38 117.54 117.65 120.01 120.39 0.000170 0.0001061 0.69 0.561 3086.27 4978.31 1504.32 1517.67 0.061 0.05; 1500.00 113.26 118.56 118.58 0.000693 1.381 1458.30 929.561 0.12 , 113.26 119.02 119.04 0.000570 1.35 1886.26 937.35 0. i 1 2307.00 113.26 119.27 119.29 ' 0.000529 1.35 2120.86 941.83 0 11 3000.00 113.26 119.74 119.76 0.000492 1.39 2566.52 950.30 0.11: f , "' �'z•:".. M1t'�', %i 3763.00 113.26 120.16 120.18 0.000494 1.47 2965.57 961.56 0.11 , ;1. ilei$ a' *."' 7 �+, 1500.00 .114.25 118:34 118.341 0.000095 0.32 3164.601 1310.68 0.03: 2000.00 11'4.25 118.81 118.821 0.000094 0.34 3786.28 1322.21 0.03:: °: yj�?rr� 2307.00 114.25 119.07 119.07 0.000094 0.36 4121.94 1328.40 0:03 X136IF'IY`••` �NJ 3000.00 114.25 119.53 - 119.54 0.000101 0.40 4744.44 1339.791 0 03; . 3763.00 114.25 119.93 119.94 0.000112 0.45 5285.91 1357.32 0.04 'Froude # Chi 'E.G. Elev a Vel Chn!Ipg low-Arei -slopol, V, MW.S.e Crit W-S-j;p�,j in rh r WV. . tie Is q (Mic r �t N .1 Ch Ell -vit/s) " �� j as ­�` .... ,-..Rive Reach.. VVm) . ...... �0.05, �4 --------- 2599.04 15 0.68 --991.75 0.05 . 118.29 0.000110 3063.47 981 109.89 -0.73 11500.00 --118.76 0.000115 --72000-00 -109.89 118.76 - 3315.14 1017.5 0.06 0.78 119.02 0.000122 2307.00 ()9.89 119-01 119.48 0.00014 .88 3797.26 1079.6 0.06 - -:-:-_O. 0:6 7- 119.47 7 1. 30001..00 109.89 87 0.000159 0.97 _Z227.49 1098.37 119.86 - 3763.00 109-89 0 121 1.78 943.83 477.63 117.99 0.001293 547.12 ------- 7_7Z 1500.00 107.29 117.95 - 1178.31 0.121 5 118.45 0.001227 1.81 - 118.41 0.12 ; ;qy107.29 1308.72 581.24 5 200 0.001218 1.84 - - "86' 107.29--7 118-64 1609.26 934.02 0.12 , 23 -119.04 -119-10 0.001280 1.95 - 981.84o 121 300 107-29 -119.46 0.001314 2.03 1947.16 .i14Alf 119.39 - :3763.00 107.29 - - - - - - 0.10 1 -1 jjj4 0-000791 1.44 1247.1-1 648.78 117.12 _0 1-5 6 9.0 9 - 0.101 l a 15-00.00 10-7.65 000825 1.54 791.16 '117.56 117.59 - - 0.101 2000-00 107.65 117 . .83 0.000825 1.57 176.6.57 8 - 117.80 2112.10 2307.00 107.65 911.01 118.22 0.000833 1.63 - 3000.og -107.65 118.19 ---1.70 2409.95 911.01 0.11 ,8.55 o.000655 3763.00 107.65 118-51 1 --1.20 -0.09. 0.000769 1292.84 641.53 116.47 - 116.45 - 0.10. 1500.00 106.89 N., I - -116.897 0.000834 1-28 1584*29 749 4� 116.87 0.101 - 843.62 • 2000-00 106-89 - 0.000908 1.35 1753-42 117.08 117.11 --966.36 0.10i ____i3O7.00 106.89 -1.43 2115.59 -106.89 -117.47 -117.50 0-000937 3000-00 --U.000936 1.41 2434.85 997.69 0111 -1 OC_ - - 1-17.83 .89 1 T7 7-9 3763.00 - 67739 0.131 0.001536 1.34 1050-53 1500.00 -105.82 113.09 111.o8 113.13 - - - 8:13:�=68 0. 12 f --113.17 0.001361 1.34 1385.14 105.82 113.54 111.36 - ZUVU.UV 1.30 1613.99 846.34 0.11; - 190 111.55 113.85 0.001 2307-00 3.8.1 976.55 909.64 0.111 - 114.23 114.27 0.0u11460 1.30 3000-00 105.82 - 0.11 2366-81 1066.85 -10582 j 14.67 0.001096 1.35 - 3763.00 114.63 - 324.871 U. 14 1.44 687.70 11o.00 0.002001 104.77 1013.92 107.72 . - 0.141 1500.00 - 414.471 il!:!� 0.002002 1.45 910.63 110.53 108.05 110.61 0 14: . . . . . . . 104.77 13631 nIN 2000.00 11.09 1.32 495.021 M M - 0.002001 104.77 111.02 108'.25 - U. I 136042 2307.UU 536.351 M_ 1.20 111.54 0.002001 1 104.77 0.13:. 31 1610.53 1.17 A .00 - 0.002000 3000 ±109:.60±2 11'2.'0'0 104.77 111.90 r- 3713.111) /11� /� T 1 /� \ 1 J /� 124 122 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Flan �eb .07--- .056 --� Legendi EG PF 5 i WS PF 5 I EG PF 4 i WS PF 4 i EG PF 3 i WS PF 3 EG PF 2 WS PF 2 EG PF 1 VVS P C -W -PF 5. Crit PF 4 Crit PF 3 Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 i Ground Ineff i Bank.Sta 500 1000 1500 Station (ft) SECTION 12 2000 2500 124 122 120 M and T Mine, revised _ Plan: Plan 26 AA J. rn _1. nra — 116 114 0 200 Legend EE PF 5 ! I a WS PF 5 i EG PF 4 •. I WS PF 4 EGPF3 i WS' EG PF 2 i i WS PF 2 I EGPF1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 5 CraPF4 Crit PF 3 Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 I Ii Ground � P. i Levee ! Ineff Ban Sta 800 1000. 1200 1400 1600 1800 Station (ft)` M and T Mine, revised . Plan: Plan 26, M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 26 .04 -- — .07 —a 124 .056 J egen EG PF 5 iWSPF5 i EG PF 4 122 I WS�PF 4 EG PF 3 WSPF3 j j EGPF2 120 i 1 WS PF 2 –T G PF 1 ! WS PF 1 {M Ground 2118 t co BanK Sia > w 16 116- 1 114 114- 112L' 112, 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Station (ft) M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 y `+ 056 :- — .OS •` .,� ,3`124 -!• ., .' •t x egen EG PF 5 ,WS PF 5' ar . t EG. PF 4 '' F I. •122 .i ,WS PF-4 EGPF3 i r ' I WS PF 3 EG PF 2 WS PF 2 120 EG PF .1 WSW 1 ,. •r I Ground • - r.N s+�:�'!M1: ,fir rt •u -a -. y � r •n ati + � I1 -� Rfaa 1 �, , ., 12: 121 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29. 112 110 108 Station (ft) _00 g ridgy EGPF5 i i WS PF 5 ! EG PF 4 WS PF 4 EG OF 3 NS PF_ _EG OF WS PI I EG PF WS PF Ground I Bank Sta M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 Station (ft) SECTION 5 056 egen 120 — I i EG PFS WS PFS EG PF 4 WS PF a i 118 ti. I EG PF 3 —VV S PF 3 EGPF2 116- WS PF 2 i EG PF 1 WS PF 1 114 Ground v BantSla c 0 i v w 112- 110. 108 106. -- 400 600 800 1000 1200 _ ,0 200 Station (ft) SECTION 5 tom— .05 120 { 118 116 114- c 0 m v W 112- 110 .I 108• 1061. 0 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 1 —�— .05 200 400 600 Station (ft) We] LegencI7 i EG PF 5 WS PF 5 EG PF 4 WSPF: 4 EG PF I WSPF3 EG PF 2 WS PF 2 EG PF 1 I WS PF i Ground Bank Sta i 120 118 116 114 c 0 v LU 112 110 108 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 -- _I- .1 -.05 WS PF 5 I EGPFA 1 WS PF 4 EG PF 3 i WS PF 3 " EG PF 2 - WS PF 2 i I EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Ground ' v Bank Sta 106--. ---,— 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 �. - Station (K) SECTION 3 f M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 05 .05 116 112 m w 110 108 106 104-1 560 1000 1500 Station (ft) 2000 LegenT--', EGPF5 WS PF 5 EG PF 4 WS PF 4 EG PF 3 WS PF 3 i EG PF 2 1 WS PF 2 G -PF 1 VVS PF I Crit PF 5 Crit PF 4 Crit -F 3 Crit PF 2 Crit -PF1 Ground ® BanK Sta M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 Station (ft) SECTION 1 I .05 6 - EG PF 5 E WS PF 5 EG PF 4 i WSPF4 114 '- t EG PF' 3 WSPF3 i EG PF 2 WS PF 2 j 112 - EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 5 Grit PF 4 0 110- Crit PF 3 v w I Crit PF 2 i Crit PF 1 Ground 108- Ba4 Sla 106 1 104 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 - p 200 400 Station (ft) SECTION 1 Model Run 3 Plant in Place No Levee HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 28 River: Main1 Reach: 1 CrIt,W S', E: iev G Pe. V n`x " nT7A Width f :: r._ Froude # Chl Reach E .. ' 1 Chtz a.°• : :W'," Plev: tt, . . µE Gft%ft): {..rft:. Qea1 �,.,.,,_ _ , ,• .,,.:..:.:_._- . ,,_ . 120.65 0.000297 0:60 1999 33 1545.32 _ ,qty, ,-tiElr •* . ;�, . qr 1500.00 116.75 120.64 119.30 0.56 2612-73 0 07 1621.10 �' � ,. ,. 1 .a a a 2000.00 116.75 121.03 119.43 121.04 0.000237 ...- 0.55 2933.57 1632.57 0.06 i •� 2307.00 116.75 1 121.22 119.49 121.23 0.000220 0.63 3229.85 1643.11 __ ��, �• 3000.00 116.75 121.40 119.65 121.42. 0.000275 3886.62 1660.36 0.07. 3763.00 116.75 121.80 119.79 121.82 0.000242 0.63 y u � 120.42 119.33 120.42 0.000109 0.46 3147.97 2143.87 0.05:! , 115.49 120.86 0.000086Q.Q4, 0.44 4114.19 2278.081 ^ .0.04 ! . 2000.00 115.49 120.85 119.39 121.07 0.000080 0.43 4593.97 2285.581 2307.00 115.49 121.06 119.43 121.20 0.000110 0.52 4888.47 2290.15 0.05' E . 3000.00 115.49 121.19 119.48 121.63 0.000095 0.51 5867.22 2305.22 0.05 l y 3763.00 115.49 121.62 119.55 n I 120.16 118,27 120.17 0.000328 0,97 1597.46 665.62 0.08! 4 wi 1500.00 114.56 119.24 120.64 0.000348 1.05 1916.96 704.17 0.09 2000.00 114.56 120.63 120.86 0.000373 1.11 2071.53 725.72 91 Cf - 2307.00 114.56 120.84 119.36 , 0.10.02 , 3000.00 114.56 120.86 0.000643 1.52 2416.93 0. 1' 3763.00 114.56 121.31 119.81 1210.34 114.54 119.49 117.62 119.59 0.001580 1.99 '603.50 686.58 0.181 r {1500.00 114.54 119.86 117.89 120.02 0.001854 2.24 693.03 700.261 0.20 2000.00 114.54 120.00 118.13 120.17 0.002195 2.47 720.52 704.37 0.22 2307.00 120.22 118.44 120.26 0.000510 1.22 2195.63 712.24 0.10 3000.00 114.54 120.65 118.79 120.69 0.000536 1.27 2505.14 729.00 0.11 3763,00 114.54 } ,, 1---0. 1500.00 113.26 118.56 118.58 0.000693 1.38 1458.30 929.56 12 113.26 119.02 119.04 0.000570 1.35 1886.34 937.35" - 0. t 1 . y 2000.00 119.27 119.29 0.000529 1.35 2120.83 941.831 0.1 t 2307.00 113.26 119.76 '0.000492 1.39 2566,51 060.30 0.11' 3000.00 113.26 ' 119.74 120.18 0.000494 1.47 2965.57. 961.56 0.11! 3763.00 113.26 120.16 1500.00 114.25 118.34 118.34 0.000095 0.32 3164.60 1310.68 0.03 I ,I Id I ° 2000.00 114.25 118.81 i 18.82 0.000094 0.34 3786.40 1322.21. 1328.40 0.031 00311 j Ah. u•. 1 1 2307.00 114.25 119.07 119.07 0.000094 0.36 4121.89 , - h4 11 °x v 119.53 1.19.54 0,000101 0.40 4744.42 1339.79 0.03; -, , 1 ild fi tii ray fir, r�� v > '�+ 3000.00 114.25 119.94 •' 0.000112 x 0.45 5285.91 1357.32 0.04 • 3763'.00. 114.25 119.93 • r I i Reach?y" FtaJer Sfa Q ota f Min Ch El W.S. ElevEti'-&, W.S.., '; E.G. Elev._,;;: E.G. Sloped -Vel ChnF ,Flow Areay Top Width'ti! "` Froude # Chl -. ' _ :,.. - .. _ . .ry�.;k ft ft (fi�ft)ii.•' "4'''• (ft/5)'4r:C (SQ ft%• =+,•(h) "._..;: ;• 109.89 118.29 118.29 0.000110 0.68. 2599.04 981:15 0.05:1 iA 1500.00 2000.00 109.89 118.76 118.76 0.000115 0.73 3063.57 991.75 0.051 ii 2307.00 109.89 119.01 119.02 0.000122 0.78 3315.10 1017.53 0.06 .i, 3000.00 109.89 .119.47 119.48 0.000141 0.88 3797.24 1079.68 0.06 3763.00 109.89 119.86 119.87 .0.000159 .0.97 4227.49 1098.37 0.06 ji 1500.00 107.29 .117.95 117.99 0.001293 1.78 943.83 477.63 0.12 i 1 2000.00 107.29 118.41. 118.45 0.001227 1.81 • 1178.39 547.14 -0.12 a� i 2307.00 107.29 118,64 118.69 0.001218 1.84 1308.69 581.23 0.12;. ;i�•, k 3000.00 107.29 - 119.04 119.10 0.001280 1.95 1609.25 934.01 .0.12; ;1 3763.00 107.29 119.39 119.46 0.001314 2.03 1947.16 981.84 0.12 i 1500.00 107.65 117.12 117.14 0.000791 1.44 1247.15 648.78 0.10 11.1 2000.00 107.65 117.56 117.59 0,000824 1:54 1569.51 791.33 0.10; i 2307.00 107.65 7.801 0.000826 1.57 1766.42 866.96 0:10! 3000.00 107.65 118.19 118.22 0.000833 1.63 2112.07 911.01 0.10! ;1a _ ti 3763.00 107.65 118.51 118.55 0.000855 1.70 2409.94 911.01 0.11 4 �r. 1500.00 106.89 116.45 116.47 0.000769 1.20 1292.84 641.53 0.091 1 o 2000.00 106.89 116.87 116.89 0.000832 1.28 1585.23 749.77 0.10 2307.00 106.89 117.08 117.11 0.000908 1.35 1753.09 843.43 0.10: 3000.00 106.89 117.47 117.50 0.000937 1.43 2115.48 966.35 0.10; 3763.00 106.89 117.79 117.83 0.000936 1.48 2434.82 _ 997.69 0.11 1500.00 105.82 113.09 111.08 113.13 0.001536 1.34 1050.53 677.39 0.13! V! ° 2000.00 105.82 113.54 111.36 113.57 0.001365' 1.34 1383.69 813.47 0.12;. 2307.00 105.82 113.81 111.55 113.85 0.001188 1.30 1614.74 846.45 0.11. , 1 4 ' 3000.00 105.82 114.23 111.86 114.27 0.001146 1.30 1976.93 909.77 _ 0.11 3763.00 105.82 114.63 112.13 114.67 0.001096 1.35 2366.94 1066.91 0.11 1500.00 104.77 109:92 107.72 110.00 0.002001 1.44 687.70 324.87 0.14 �„; )9 z,, t N 2000.00 104.77 110.53 108.05 110.61 0.002002 1.45 910.63 414.47 0.14: y „ 2307.00 104.77` _111.02 •108.25 111.09 0.002001 1.32 1136.31 .495.0210.14. 3000.00 104.77 11.1.45 108.64 •111.54 0.002001 - 1.20 1360.42 536.35 0 13 r 3763.00 ' 104.77 .111.90 109.02 '112.00i 0.002000 ". 1.17 1610.53 591.08 0.13• L 126; i i 1 124 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 .056 04 - .07 I Legend 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Station (k) SECTION 13 EG PF 5 WS PFS EG PF 4 i I WS PF 4 EG PF 3 WSPF3 EG PF 2 i WSPF2 ! EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 5 Crit PF 4 Crd PF 3 Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 Ground IneK BanT Sta 1800 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29. x .07 " - .056 --� .04 I CeTe RT 124, � - - - -• •.� EGPFS,i I T WS PF 5 - EG PF 4 1 WS PF 4 . 1221 EG PF 3 WS PF 3 EGPF2J _ WS PF 2 PF 1 120 r • . p.. c'.,r.-;• r *tiu vV$ PF t s. r .. i - av ,u�'G. n ---' Crit PF 5 c cz � Crit PF 4 o I Crit PF 3 a� _ - b w Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 i Ground IneH Ben? Sta 116- 124 } 122 12( M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 .056 11E 114 112 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Station (ft) SECTION 8 egen � e i EGPF5 WS PFS i WS PF 4 . I i EG PF 3 t WS PF 3 j I EG PF 2 WS PF 2 EG PF 1 i WS PF 1 Ground Bank Sta — —• NF-MURTO • 1 � 1 'V:'ll'Y.;rr: r.�Y^i'"r'j' p�a1y.(I�(tf fy{H''q�.a'«�rf 1• J� !✓ r + 1 } S h:Ll 'a0"', �) - :^t'I'.'C ::ISI' .r,n �•)" rrlr; •.:Cry •;({!Fl �l.c e3'•h�1�`f e`:'i. •�:et%Ti" iR I. 3`!, t.?? '!;[ilipy, •,l• :;�`, ,.,,..�,�FfN-(+J•f. llt,�.7'If'i•.�;.-:nt I f.r�.1V yV� f.+l �/1 1 ! Ji IrJI 1 : fir•, t (j•i f t%> 1.%(cr ! {,! 1' 7 , 4 I '!'r1 7 �..I�� _ r,'m':?:�::eY, r'� ^,1"', c drCr �f' Yf-L: ' I�4(: .y r.; 4•i,•- t1 ,l,} "]. i 1 Psja� fi.t ilWF i U, • r,�.lyrk'("rJ �'S'r �. ✓�F r�r�'.i �t�jjiY� /yl!firl" (,,r,t- v. J 1s, 1. i /.i : I:>.,,�171.;4�['.�r'✓ .� )i�'T l , r� �I. 1 I ✓.I. ,.JSi� .1 ,r., f! , t C f )i�i, . C �f �.r '� ill`. ) 1 �n 'ifillii't! i ft , 7 t` { , 2 15n 1 /Il f�,f r�+,r ani it'f ,I: %•%i4Yr; moi, lyi4`1 >I:h.1�., �,.a }. ?1°�4i`'!/,/ff]�1;�'4 C�1�'5'tnr ( 'iF �' J.1 (�!-. S �. . � l t .Y��1,11�f.. rJ a!`i` :r y '•'ril F; �)Vnl:}3, :4 ��'!i��'� IlU I%[-i2)1r i �.h.. u11 ]] d j`; ,y[S 4£ 1 i l:'✓-. •�� if: ''1l��. ��f ff,ll egg �C::!:r, �6?rRt, .,).tiv [.� y ( <t Ljr....(u ,il�.l,, i pI�C. 1.4xrr.1F.,,.I(ii i:X} Fik1R14 n ��� SI f 441. 1 1 �rJS IPJ✓ 1 �I��,1 f{, 1M.j). �'rl Y. �I 171t •, tl, ij 4 L -I �iHS,I r�,r�i A�l �•IJ's�( It (i 1 ( 4j�[n-['G,,j S j t1/1( �r,,.,..N ,I j, -` -.7!!i 1.1„+�{,tr.•.�1,4J�.fn•1 r,iN; S t�;�wl Yr'- t,f!. ..i'1 ,M (£ � �;, 9 'r A,- >, t i •.t,J„ t� �`at d w I 1r,.,,l i , l ii f�;� fll i�t•�(1 t. Grfjyr r ,), r„( iS.. I c�t�t``t� [j,ti �4t'. -4. I( I '.I -,:..1`{41/ ef!�.L I,f Y'I'ei (.Ii%!'�.JIl�lr i. ;'yi Itl eJ..'�t' fjrfi'}:Y.}�4�;tf` a„P ....}�;nx.� ; 3% II , z� y . .�. �, , . l.f ! q( 1. v � + ,:l,p ',,I - rl•'•{ af?;: r,:1 pis • :yr?� 1,/ It , p •np INn,.� Itf f �t J,..1I)) II((I � �': �r,.'i•�f:�' ,�7•;st:,,tr`dJ� {,c.n, t r f. i . l:i:�; �,} :It� j t.. (� t I (�” t,l I `i}!II'lY,t ,-1 , ti1/`r4 I t' , ,. ,l n;;9 �!.;•��,, 's1:5�, 13t-' Ct 71 rJ ,., tt i, 1 , f � fl ll, •rj• �•t ,u. It ,> . ..,, i'� ,:1�{t 4.r+ �f�rRrfti'...I, rr�•,, l�3 s,r�+,n��i�! i lr� upF'r {�ri�f (,�fl ,� �', i�j,l�)F I, 'Ittl k,G� li fi `,c , �� stir Ivf� �f'frC (�iti' f ';�14 � w s , , a `,f nl� w�l �. I�1lk1�1 (it-�4/ i' HI•�I bj`i'(�tyi 4111a1� �fi �) (l; )s �} r. i'.,s c,r r,arlt tk�.. I,,ft %,� ta,�,�;';. •a�1, .� I y l� I y ;>. � I ,',i t i , �„• `„ r, tl.�r e �.s , `� � ,�s i F :,, , tl r+,' f �d,,•o.. �}tr�[ n �i � [ It (f,,. Il,� r I. t 1ri.) ppIt fr,l�r�ir, E ++Ip at�'i� y t. L r r1Uz F U'jLt I � I L.,.✓ (I �G'[ t{IL r�ltiy� I qS t;- ,t SC3r '4 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 SECTION 6 r' 800 1000 cu r!'rFl:�•.J•rt.'I' 0;F .P.:rr, �.;ta . ,.'R"^; 10f 1vfJJ( 00Tr lll�;:lr{l lgi./,p r(rl1�' 1A �h`�:. 1ri� sr ,'n`J ..^„,{eJI /.:H.-. : < f/Y"¢1f�1✓!K✓,, ijlh}r"�.��' f{ ir 1�. zJcr:/ ilL !ltr, rof,.r��s{ rryI � .yy`iI'l.yrt2( l.!,i tfa•t,l'ti ;l!am'f.,I y :jlz t;(G�F , ft, .tF� ;x.r frr��',dk�, "3ri�.�b. vr,e!4i f� 7Cr / r! r.} , �! <;�.✓ol,/ . Yy�'.1 "'E' aY� ! f.7 :�f_,. �./ � /h- .f.. l !J t (M I < ,'! Y� i .f u {y7".9�A., ttrtti t/,rJ jr l7' r � 1' 7 l r n ✓'�'u JSI li 4 J C . {.� .� gF ,,.fir !,Y yF 1)r�. ft'l )/� J f-i':(r itua +:r'�i4v ':l YJF Ifill �.t l fa. _l{.n Iti �rr}j If lb r..l F1� I (, �nl/✓'J Vi,.All rlti t;. SECTION 6 r' 800 1000 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 1, 3.1-11 .056 120 .05 �e�gencT i EG PF 5 WS PF 5 118 1 EG PF 4 � i WS PF 4 EG PF 3 WS PF 3 I 1161 EG PF 2 I WS PF 2 EG PF 1 114 WS PF 1 Ground I ° 1 Banz St, 'w w 112 1101 I I r 108 106 -i—�— 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Station (ft) M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 = 05 .1 ��—=--- .05 = .. r egen � e ) EG PF 5 WSPF5 i EG PF 4 WS PF 4 EG PF 3 WSPF3 I. EG PF 2 , i WSPF2 ' EG PF 1 I WS PF 1 Ground Banr St, JO Station (ft) , SECTION4 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 •I .05 - L 05 0 egen i II E�----� WS PFS EG PF 4 WSPF4 EG PF 3 WS PF 3 EG PF 2 ; WS PF 2 EG PF 1 WS PF 1 I � Ground t BanZ St. 106 •I 0 Station (ft) SECTION 3 00 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 J --�� egen EG PFS EG PF 4 WS PF 4 EG PF 3 WS PF 3 i • i —EG P.F2 ' i WS PF 2 i i EG PF 1 WS PF 1 _ I Crit PF 5 1 Crit PF 4 Crit F 3 i I Crit PF 2 i I ' Crit PF 1 — i Ground Bant St, i 1000 Station (ft) SECTION 2 1500 M and T Mine, revised Plan: Plan 29 .05 1--- .05 i 116 1 114 112 r ° 110 v w 108 106 104 , 0 200 100 1000 1200 1400 1 Station (ft) CF(;TIC)N 1 egenn EG FS WS PF 5 EG PF 4 ' WS PF 4 EG F 3 •. WS PF 3 � i EG PF 2 I WS PF 2 I EG PF 1 i I WS PF 1 Crit PF 5 Crit PF 4 I Crit F 3 Crit PF 2 Crit PF 1 Ground Ban: St, 1800 Little Chico Creek Capacity Analysis Section 5 ,i Little Chico Creek Capacity Analysis Section 5 Little Chico Creek Section 5 Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestad\fmw\little c.fm2 Worksheet Little Chico Creek, Section 5 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Channel Slope 0.000200 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 117.00 ft Elevation range: 107.30 ft to 117.70 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station 534.00 117.00 534.00 545.00 108.30 546.00 108.00 553.00 107.30 562.00 108.80 573.00 116.70 574.00 117.70 Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.100 Discharge 163.76 cfs Flow Area 249.49 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 45.19 ft Top Width 39.30 ft Height 9.70 ft Critical Depth 109.32 ft Critical Slope 0.139589 ft/ft Velocity 0.66 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft . Specific Energy 117.01 ft Froude Number 0.05 Flow is subcritical. End Station Roughness 574.00 0.100 Cross Section 5 Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File cAhaestad\fmw\little c.fm2 Worksheet Little Chico Creek, Section 5 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.100 Channel Slope 0.000200 fuft Water Surface Elevation 117.00 ft Discharge _ 163.76 cfs 118.0 - - - --- - - - -- ----- 1 • 1 I 1 1 1 1� 1 1 I _ 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 116.0------Y-------1-------r--------------- - - - - - -r-- ----1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 I 1 114.0------i------1----------------.-------------------1------------1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 C: 0 112.0 ------;-------1-------------4--------------+-------1-- - - -- - - - - - Y i I I I I I I 1 1 1 110.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - L - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - L - - - - - - J I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 108p .0--------------1------.-L-___J-------L-----1------- ------- L - - - - - - J 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 106.0- 530.0 535.0 540.0 545.0 550.0 555.0 560.0 565.0 570.0 575.0 Station (ft) n1/nQ/n7 FlnwMaster v5.1C Little Chico Creek Capacity"Analysis Section 6 Capacity at Section 6 Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File cAhaestad\fmw\little c.fm2 Worksheet Little Chico Creek, Section 6 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Channel Slope 0.000200 tuft Water Surface Elevation 116.80 ft Elevation range: 109.90 ft to 117.50 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station End Station 90000 11.7.50 900.00 1,048.00 924.00 111.00 928.00 110.30 936.00 109.90 951.00 111.20 1,000.00 115.10 1,038.00 116.60 1,048.00 116.80 Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.070 Discharge 285.46 cfs Flow Area 450.00 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 146.50 ft Top Width 145.42 ft Height 6.90 ft Critical Depth 111.96 ft Critical Slope 0.068540 ftlft Velocity 0.63 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energy 116.81 ft Froude Number 0.06 Flow is subcritical. Roughness 0.070 FIowMaster v5. Cross Section 6 Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestad\fmwllittle.c.fm2 Worksheet Little Chico Creek, Section 6 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.070 Channel Slope 0.000200 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 116.80 ft Discharge 285.46 cfs 118.0 - - - -- - - t - - - - - - - , -- - - - - - - 117.0 1 1 , ' - ---- -------- --------,------- 116.0 -----1---------------'- ' 115.0 1 ' --T-------=--------' O �'' m113.0 ------ ;------- 1 W ;--------;----- I I --- ---------------' ; ' --------'--------! ' I I , 112.0------------------- - - - - - - ........................ -------'------ I I 111.0 _ -- I ' I r - , 110.0 I 109.0 900.0 920.0 940.0 960.0 980.0 1000.0 1020.0 1040.0 1060.0 Station (ft) 01/08/02 Little Chico Creek. BypassChannel 12 Bypass Channel Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestadlfmw\llttle c.fm2 Worksheet Bypass Channel Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Bottom Width Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.035 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth -4.00 ft Left Side Slope. 4.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Discharge 1,000.00 cfs Results Bottom Width 25.53 ft Flow Area 166.14 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 58.52 ft Top Width 57.53 ft Critical Depth 3.07 ft Critical Slope 0.013766 ft/ft Velocity 6.02 ft/s Velocity Head 0.56 ft Specific Energy 4.56. ft Froude Number 0.62 Flow is subcritical. J 01/16/02 na•1q-rn PM Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Walerbury, CT 06708 (2031 755-1666 FlowMaster Pane 25.53 ft 61/16/02 63:18:30 PIA Haestad Methods, Inc 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 4.00 ft 1 VN H1 NTS FlowMasler v5.10 Page 1 of 1 Bypass Channel Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw111ttle c.fm2 Worksheet Bypass Channel Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Bottom Width Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.035 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 4.00 ft Left Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Bottom Width 25.53 ft Discharge 1,000.00 cfs 25.53 ft 61/16/02 63:18:30 PIA Haestad Methods, Inc 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 4.00 ft 1 VN H1 NTS FlowMasler v5.10 Page 1 of 1 I 1 I1 J. Clements 1 9/12/00 Preliminary: subject to revision LITTLE CHICOCREEK AT TAFFEE ROAD NEAR CHICO A04270 PERIOD OF RECORD ANNUAL PEAK DISCHARGE I ' I I Water: Time -Gage Dischar a Hel ht Elevation I I 11 Year Date, st) I (tfs I ft ft Local Rank': Source I Remarks i I I IBEGIN RECORD 11/90 PER DWR STATION FILE 1991 I 3/3/91 1045 1 968 16.40; 16.40 9 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1992 2114/92 2045 1,230;.- 17.90; 17.90` 8 1 Ipeak GH same as for dschar e. 1993 1/20/93 1745 1,690' 20.10: 20.10i 4 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1994 2!7194 1115 587 14.20; 14.20- 10 1 Peak GH same as for dwmar e. 1995 379795 1100 2,330; 19.54' 19.54' 3 1 Peak GH same as for d+scha e. 1996 1121121951 0930 1 1,260• 15.74, 15.74' 7 1 Peak GH same as for discha e. 1997 1/1197 0545 2400' • 19.60: 19.601 2 1 Peak GH same as for discha e. 1998 2!1198 2330 2,670,:- 20.371 20.37 1 1 Peak GH same as for dacha e. 1999 2/9/99 0815 1,3501 16.25' 16.251 6 1 Peak GH same as for dadia e. 2000 1 2/13100 2315 1.650'j.* 17.29; 17.29 5 1 Peak GH same as for discha e. Notes 11 Source,1 = DWR Northern Distrid Surface Water GagingSlation computer files. Data computed by Northem District personnel. 1 I 15 minute reoDrding interval). I T 1 1 1965 1283t64.- 1650 - 221 15 1 B DWRIlX13111-65 '.2 1111.1164, ! 61-,1.2 I if - c, 1, .2, 1966 llala� 3 ::2 �SACRAMENTO RIVER AT ORD FERRY (A02570) DWR B * !�:., 39 *DWR 116166 . 7 , .., all 'I I. .411 35 3� DWR :.. 170-66 . 66 PERIOD OF RECORD _.9200L 0730101.000_65.61_115611_26 F • -1-22 ANNUALPEAK 11167 1 211/671__ -'-68'2001'-- INSTANTANEOUS AND MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE AND STA . GE _. 19 ;:'[)WR* Sul. 130-67 PEAK 114STANIA14EDUS 2j251`68"72366 MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY I.! I 41 14 DWR IIZZ*b()�66 11 GageF 60.86: I Gag. 2-1 36 DWR BrA. -68 1969 11`141W 0470 Time _!.I 67 29 ,S. Cnk S, ,;-a- Discharge ge I ", I P16 Stage S1.9, I P,;...,y Lem Data PSI)lain (CIS) leer I Ra R:nl, Source Dal, ..I, CIS le USED Rank U Rank S-,4 22 2120122 2100 MR. 11 109 '.1 11 DWR But 1613/25 MR Me' MR N MR MR I 14R NR 23 ?129122. 0300. DWR 0 DWR Bul 11], ID9. IR R.B.1- NR I MR N "!R N R MR MR I If R 1924 218124 1200 52.80• 64.891 IFO 110 NR * '�49 DWR 14R MR N. LIR R MR MR' NR 2 . W12125 __..NR._. 2100 MR 19.7 1 1 1 1 MR ill UWR Sul 16-13125 MR MR MR 14R MR NR IIR ;91-256 211126 1400 LIR Ill NR 41 1 DWR But. 1*6 45126 MR MR I MR MR MR NR HR 4 1 No p.bli-Imn, dischaw.olstra; Bala CLYe,135r- 1-1 n,.UQh 193b. R 1_25_ 1971 ]/141]7 0100 IR .�13.14 311176 it%15� � J�. � 161_ 3.1t. 3171 *103:22 112 11 32. DWR But • Not.: Discharge Years 1936 through 1964 includes east bank overflow. East bank overflow has hilloiic.11y began at a stage of 113 to 114 USED: 31 T' IT— 163(fr.. _ 1�2 2 :I 3 . . 1 �12!12137 MR 1 19.2.. I I 14R .1 4- DWREd. 16. 34142 I�j5f- �14.9 26151b� I MR 1 106.341 1, , �.Jl- MR 60 DWR Sul 16-3414� 3114139 MR 105.6j 109N61 MR.- ID DWR 'E;W*16:34142 '0 1940 ��6 288140 2030 ])0.000 121.7 121.7 21 .- I I WR But 1 1674142 289140 2129149. MR 2):ql MR 121 I DWR Ilu� 15-34/42 1:41 2' 114 1 46 31 -- 2 "It 1 6 DWR 8'4 16-34142 2/11141 N R 1. 2 MR' ',,.:0 43 D WS Sul. 16-34142 1.42 2 IU42 2030 2:5.000 :.2 121: 2 12, '1 W Bul 1 2 0 RS . 6.34142 217142 MR 20 01 20181) I DWR Bul. 16-34142 I. 1 943 ir24143 b 00 1 7.00D 116.0 118.0 7 15 DWR But 16-42144. 1123143 MR 17 4 117.4 NR td DWR Sul 16.42144 112BfB 1 79.800 6r, ' 03' Nola: DiS,h.'R--'- 0,1'1'4 by Shasta D.. ..d Reservoirbeginninq 35 in December 1943. I 982 i2l'2111111 DWS• 1944 1-214144 'OiGO MR I 108.DD1108.001 MR 1 58 . DWR But 16-4}144 1 214144 ! MR 1 IDS 01 106.01" MR 48 1 DWR Bul. 16.42144 1 1945 2045 0500 60.ODD 110.8110848 4 DWR Bul lb:44144b '111.45,L 4 MR 10941 1,094 MR 41 148.0001 1-346 12f28145 . 1800 110,001) 44, 6 115.0 2.. 2'� R ad. 16.4414 q 2" MR 101'4 .41 a. 41 MR 2 � �DW �4'41 :4 4414 4 � 1947 9 7 Zli3A? 0300 6* -141.200--166.31 li3.000d -111.10 I,6.84i 56 DWR Sul. 16 45 DWR W. 16 2113t47 W24M:j MR. 107.3 65.?dqj 1-:31 1. ...3 1985 -4 a.- -4. ilT:416140' 1 946* 107.08 51 59 OwRI 170.85 ---9d.}001 _ - 0; 3P3 104.661 42 D R Bul 130-65 1919 3112149 0600 100,01]0 114.37 362 4 113.21 1 13.2 i�..j 22 29 5, 11 1 41 11 h3 46 Sul. 16.451501. DWR'ELFiCSb152 2!515�0 L -.69. SY 31131117 1 1051, 'i95f li2261--2630 12128151-h 3 72.000 --ijf.6d6 --f17.'20 I 11330 30 1 1 7.20 12' • It ?� 1 'DWR'SWf4-6615� 1122151 12128151 ??.,Boo ':174.71_15 .?06.0001 114:31 114,3 1 5 34 22 DWR dul. 2j:S'i DW 9 SA: 27.31 1953 W111153 2030 96.6bD " 114 35 32 31 16 DWR 6 -52J54 W21153 I 04.000 4 21 114-2 511.98 'I 1 DWR Sul. 23-53 1954 VIEWS4 iSW 91.300 112'841 112.841 34 36 DWR Sul. 23-54 -- 2,1111154 i If 87.200 1:4 1 " 4 7 31 DWR ffu`� 23 1955 11/16154 I0fl 31. 'D 1 14 61 DWR Bud. 16-521- 4 DWR But 23-56 111161541 11 ]6,600 105.0. 105.0 45 Sol DW;; a 23-554 1956 1 $7 25151 21.,". 0 30 f7l..D.' 118.55 it6.551 11.1.5 11151 42 43 DWR But. 23,57 16/561 f, S. I 7 a.; 63:= 1 0 B , 1 -?1 3 3 IT318 1 DWR BLAd 23-56 DWR Bul. 23-57 I:S 21 1 993 ODO 12 .10 120 101 :1 1 4 1 DWR Sul 23-Sa 21-58 1 251.000 1 9.41 "13.9! 1 g 126 1 DWR. DWR But. 23-5 95: 2117159 0830 109.6001' 114.81) 114 801 23 But 1 28 1 DWR But 23.59 a, 2/17159, 1 fin nDol 11],91 DWROLA 23-5: - -196-0 219160 070 $1.681 �Ii:?o 11120 25 32 I OWR '40 56 1 94 11311 113.1; 21 Bul. Z3.60 1961 IUV60 do -I'-- I-- S . .." 1, 3 2 2.55 6 DWIl 12121601' 60-8! 110.81 32 37 DWR Bul 23.61 962 2115162 91,500 1,311 11311 29 • 35 DWR Ba .23.62 ' 1 '2115/62 1 $1621 82400:- ' 61.961 111.961 • 29 33 DWR 8,42'3-62 1963 4115163 Dy 166.poo fis:., i"It'l 2 4 25 DWR 0,0 4 115163 105.0001 64R 671 INI 4.671 If, 20 DWRSkA. 130.63 1964 -01164 1:17 49 1 DWR '!,d 1.1110195 V2197 1 46.50D N R I "42 1 MR I DWRB,d 130.64 1 1965 1283t64.- 1650 - 221 15 1 B DWRIlX13111-65 '.2 1111.1164, ! 61-,1.2 117 if DWRB- 13-_6S 1966 llala� 3 ::2 11182 3 33 39 DWR B * !�:., 39 *DWR 116166 . 7 , .., all 'I I. .411 35 3� DWR :.. 170-66 . 66 1967 .211W � _.9200L 0730101.000_65.61_115611_26 F • -1-22 Sul. 130-67 11167 1 211/671__ -'-68'2001'-- _ 96.700 65.03 ­iiS:031.---2.-� _. 19 ;:'[)WR* Sul. 130-67 1968 2j251`68"72366 6 11,311 I.! I 41 14 DWR IIZZ*b()�66 21`25168 L- 60.86: 110.86 36 DWR BrA. -68 1969 11`141W 0470 _!.I 67 29 117.29: 21 18 DWR 1§�CiYD�69­ 1)14169-1 • 1011=1-66:54! 113_ 6.54 14 16 1 DWRBu1 130-69* 'iffit' . `114.591 1 . +. DWR 112480 '1117171 2 ' - 68.861 -7,.j- -113.1`0 971 11111?11 057.,1 ob .59 114.5 29 DWR 0 DWR Bul .0b 63.!o 24' .-'27-' 1 DWFCBA. 170.)1 1972 1973 314n2'*-' 01145 111983 c9mal; 96.400 52.80• 64.891 102 01 I 14.09; 58 31 66 21 13CO2' DWR Skd 13D.73 3141`72 1119173 milloi 13 G001 MR MR N R MR �13 MR MR DVR Sul :30,; 2 DWRIW in. 3 1914 1/1784 1915� 142.000 68.47 1111.01 9 Q I DWR But. 13D-75 '1117174 179,0001 9,0001 - N R MR 4 MR DWR 5,9 130-75 1975 211/85 071 1DICOD 4 1 R 1_25_ 197 311176 it%15� 53.22 *103:22 57 6 311176 25.900!_ 55 31 1977 W3/77 1`115 14.706 99421 59 67--j.- 113f7l 12.300, 48.62 98.621 51 31 1978 1h77/8 1000 122.000 66 21 11111 16 1 21 31 11iJ7178 1 20.0001 65.941 115.941 9 IJ 1979 _ ?J`14419 174 _ ffdbd 60:BE 86. 46 31 2114/79 9 62.BDOI 58.66! 108.66. 38 43 31 1950 2.12011500830 �27. 56.50 - 20181) 1 26.0ml 6`49 116.4 9 7 11 31 981 '1128,111 1611'!� ll� �0�0% • 61-65 1 l:aS .14 - 7 42 112BfB 1 79.800 6r, ' 03' 111.011 " .11 3. 35 3) I 982 i2l'2111111 DWS• 6, 3 20 2 3 41 of 12 1 12 B 1 , 05 GDO 6. 24 114�2 23 41 1983 3/n2fBl 9 19 1 7 312 83 148.0001 .41 "'.4 la 5 4 1984 1212(�Iijf 0345 n(�W ON5" T�i, •_ 67.33, 117.33 3 17 _ 1 . '21261 831 125.000i I,6.84i IlW841 8 1 15 41 1985 11125154 -is a 107.08 51 59 OwRI 170.85 1 185184 lf�.11001 14.661 104.661 44 1 52 i D R Bul 130-65 i9B6 21118186 •2i15 3 a. 19 to -47 1• 133 000' 67.681 117.661 5, 11 1 41 11 31,131117 � 59:12 1 I" SY 31131117 1 '8-'o 101120 3 44 41 9:7 8 114168 as. 1 45 so I 1151 S��400 I' 57.141 01 4 41" 1 !17 41 1959 311111189 * , 1 511.98 'I 1 46 55 311 159 52'300. 57�461 ID7.46 41) 45 41 1990 11114190 1 twsai- i�00- 30.2 0 �.24 ?9 CIA 0324 - I �r 56 3 1 64 �,U. i 4� _ 1. �- � Ill 4190 , 3,5m 1 28 300' 3 - 5283, 102-:1 47 41 1 992 21i'Al 0, t---Irii-100 10, s8,10 __I. .4 .a IS , '7 141. - 41 -2/1 M 1 42.11. 55 71 to, '1 OS 105.87 46- 1 53 �49 41 41 1 993 -2 0 112110 W K4-06 �00 -65 33 5.33 1. 2 Ir21193 B1.9m 64 14, 1 4:81-'4' 1 2:1 25 41 I 994 Z0194 2fifyii 'a ---5i.660 '60 -0.5710]57,--55 63 218194 1 23.300 $1.681 lm:6al-• 50 56 1 Q 1995 1a 7 1 1 I j - - - - - 68.46 Ill 4 a 4 i" 1996 -,,= :..�s 6-154 1111�01.'- :72 " 114.11 - I'l .13 41---, 2,122196 .4 153 4. 11 4: 28 IS. 4'1 i if2A7 043 120.000 0 68.90 lie.90 6.90 ff� - ....41 1.1110195 V2197 1 , 118.01)0 - 65.65 I 11 8:6� I. I 41 7998 2/4%38 �O61D 111,006 6$.47tlB.4J I 9 2/4198 114.000 68,0`11 118.01 Q it Note: See pacte 2 of 7 for lomnoles. See page 1 of 3 for remarksregarding Desk. inSIW.n ... 5 data Its, each w.l., year. TABLE 35 LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC HODEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 10 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL FF24 -Hour Peak Time of -Creek Subwatershed Node Preci itationJ Dischar e Peak Little Chico Creek 1 7.86 144 17.25 A 144 17.25 .2 7.38 254 10.00 B 373 17.25 3 6.23 274. 9.75 C 609 10.50 4 5.75 '556 9.00 D 1,009 10.25 5 5.56 858 8.75 E 1,539 9.75 6 .4.79 532 9..00 F 1,976 9.75 7 4.12 358 9.50 G 2,276 10.50. 8 3.83 562 8.25 I 562 8.25 9 3.64 332 8.75 10 3.54 121 8.25 J 1,984 10.25 11 3.45 94 9.50 K 2,065 10.50 12 3.40 291 9.25 L 2,2.27 11.25 13 3.35 20 9.75 �4 2,'235 12.00 14 3.31 41 10.50 N 2,263 12.75 15 3.29 89 9.75 0 2,307 13.50 Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. TABLE 36 ' LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MOOEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 50 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL '-� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. 24-HourJ Peak 7 Time of Creek. Subwatershed Node � Preci itation Dischar e Peak Little Chico Creek 1 10.63 368 9.50 A 368 -9.50 2 8.81 461 9.50 g 810 10.00 3 8.33 ' 624. 9.25 C 1,375 10.00 4 7.76 1,065 9.00 ' D 2,154 - 10.00 5 7.47 1,505 8.50 E 3,049 9.75 .6 6.51 989. 9.00 F .3,795 9.75 7 5.94 794' 9.25 G 4,407 10..50 g 5.75 1,145 8.Z5 1 1,145 8.25 9 5.46 698 8.50 10 5.08 24.5 8.25 3,191 9.Z5 11 4.89 199 , 9.50 K 3,385 9.50 12. 4.60 498 9.00 L 3,670. 10.50 i3 4.31 47 9:25 M -3,667 11.00 14 4.26 90 9.75 N 3,713 11.75 15 4.22 153 9.50 0 3,763 12.50 '-� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. TABLE 37 LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC KODEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 100 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL ICreek I Subwatershed Little Chico Creek. 1 2 Node A 24 -Hour Preci itationJ 11.50 Peak Dischar e 473 473 Time of Peak 9.50 9.50 11.02 873 9.25 B 1,29B 9.75 3 9.58 - 876 9.25 C 2,107 9.75 8.62 1,302 9.00 4 D 3,087 9.15 5 8.14 1,748 8.50 E 4,117 9.75 6 7.19 1,186 8.75 F 4,940 10.00 7 6.23" 872 9.25 G 5,563 10.50 8 6.13 1,266 8.25 1 1,266 8.25 9 5.65 733 8.50 J 10 5.56 286 8.25 3,477 9.00 I1 5.36 236 9.50 K 3,706 9.25 12 4.98 566 9.00 L 4,043 10.25 13, 4.7.4 63 9.25 F1 4,040 11.00 14 4.69 118 9.75 N 4,093 11.75 15 - 4.65 186 9.50 4,155 12.50 1 Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. -FABLE 38 LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 500 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL Areal Adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. 24 -Hour PEak Time of Creek Subwatershed Node Pre ci p, itationJ Disciar e Peak Chico Creek 1A 13.70 785 9.25 _ittle 785 9.25 2 13.22 1,365 9.25 B 2,077 9.50 3 .11.21 1,233 9.25 C 3,213 9.50 410.35 1,800 9.00 D 4,-592 9.75 5 9.77 2,358 8.50 E 5,956 9.75 6 8.43 1,565 8.75 F 7,005 10.00 7 7.38 1,792• 9.25 • G 7,815 10.75 II 7.19 12610 8.25 I 1,610 8.25 9 6.71 .973 8.50. J 10 6.61 :379 8.25 • J 1 4 1;330 9.00 • 11 6.71 352 9.25 K 4,665 9.25 12 6.13 780 9.00 L 5,099 10.25- 13 5.56 95 9.00 M 5,0.92. 10.75 14 5.56 179 9.50 5,177 11.50 15 5.36, 243 9.50 0 5,247 12.25 Areal Adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. § 135 BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA COI)r? OF ►zFr:tlr ATIriwc § 135. Supplemental Standards for Butte Basin. The standards apply to Butte Basin, as delineated on Figure 8.12 and partitioned into designated Areas B, C, D, E, and Reclamation District 1004. The basin's west boundary is the Sacramento River east bank proj- cct levee, and above the Ord Ferry area where there is no project levee, the boundary is the designated floodway of the Sacramento River adopted November 29, 1988. The east boundary is based on the wetted area of the 1970 flood. The north boundary is the Sacramento River dcs- ignated floodway in the proximity of Murphy Slough and Golden State Island, and the south boundary is the Sacramento River between the city of Colusa and the Butte Slough outfall gates, a section of the Butte Slough levee i n both Colusa and SutterCounties, and Pass Road in Sutter County. These standards Supplement and, where in conflict with, supersede the standards in section 111 through section 137. (a) Approval from the board is required for any encroachment that could reduce or impede floodflows, or would reclaim any of the flood- plain within Butte Basin. (1) Encroachments in Reclamation District 1004 are not regulated by the board. (2) The supplemental standards do not apply to that portion of Area E located north of the Butte -Sutter County line and its extension westward into Colusa County, and situated adjacent to the Sacramento River proj- ect levee where the natural ground level is higher than the 100 -year flood elevation. (3) Except where the activity would potentially affect a project levee or other project feature, the standards within sections 116, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127,129, 130, 131,132, and 137 do not apply to that portion of Area E located south of the Butte -Sutter County line and its extension west- ward into Colusa County. (b) Approval from the board is not required for crop checks less than thirty-six (36) inches in height. In Areas B, C and D, all crop checks must be removed prior to flood season, unless they comply with the require- ments of subdivisions (d), (e), and (f), respectively. (c) Except where the activity would potentially affect a project levee orother project feature, approval from the board is not required for land leveling orgrading; or for drainage and irrigation improvements in Areas C, D, and E that have a localized impact only and comply with subdivi- sions (e), (f), and (g) of this section. -r:. i (d) Within Area B, approval from the board is not required for any croachment that is less Illan eighteen (18) inches in height above the n: ral ground level. However, any proposed encroachment within a sloe or swale must be approved by the board. Area B extends southerly fr Butte Basin's northerly boundary to a line located one thousand (1.0 feet southeasterly and lying parallel to the Parrott Grant line. (e) Within Area C, approval from the board is not required for any croachment less than thirty-six (36) inches in height above the natt. ground level, and having a crest elevation less than seventy and one to (70.1) feet (NGVD). Area C is the area enclosed within a three- (3) n radius measured from the center of Moulton Weir and limited by southeasterly extensions of the north and south training levee alignme to the three- (3) mile are. (f) Within Area D, approval from the board is not required for any i croachment less than thirty-six (36) inches in height above the natu ground level and having a crest elevation less than fifty-four and n tenths (54.9) feet (NGVD). Area D encompasses the Colusa Weir toge er with its outflow channel enclosed by training levees, and an overfl, area extending to Butte Creek. .(g) Within Area E, approval from the board is not required for any croachment less than thiny-six (36) inches in height above the natu ground level. The northern boundary of Area E is a line located one th( sand (1,000) feet southeasterly of the south -Parrott Grant line, and I southern boundary is formed by the Sacramento River between the c of Colusa and the Butte Slough outfall gates, a section of the Butte S)ou levee inboth Colusa and SutterCounties, and Pass Road in SutterCoun (h) Within that portion of Area E located south of Gridley Road, nI and existing recreational structures, including caretaker, security, a dwellings for seasonal occupancy (as defined in section 1 13) may be p, mitted provided the finished floor level of the structure is at least two feet above the design flood plane or two (2) feet above the 100 -year flo elevation, whichever is higher. Nate Authority cited: Section 8571, Water Code. Reference: Sections 861 8609 and 8710, Water Code. HIsTORY 1. New section and figure 8.12 filed 9-30-96; operative 10-30-96 (Register! N6.40). Title 23 Reelelnation Bonrc} r..- . • .. 1 1 - _ -D \E Y-ice'—t M1 - : I UMIT OF i 1970 .;;F L004M 1 ALL f •i � , t '1 ` • { 1 r..- . • .. 1 1 - _ -D § ] 35 l�u,ry,zr, To Sri-olzr. "c Final Environmental Impact Report f®r the Butte Basin Overflow Area Prepared for The Reclamation Board Sacramento,CA December 1961 w®®dward®C.Eyde Consultants _ _�...�.err.aa-..-r..._e..�.�•'...nrc.>-.. r. � •—.-n ... - •–�___rwrr�.�.+r'�..ad�.�:�.v:t.0+•.-r..ri�'re. w.^1•'�'''�•��� I .- . SACRAMENTO 811ER �. CHICO LANDING TO GLEN('( -Q is�cro cl"CO \'1 AREA OF OVERFLOW TO BUTTE BASIIT, 4 RIVER MILE N z ROAD RIVER NR (7ANNEL =.16E0 1065 :ho;CS \ SEVEHMI�E�' .. DANK PROTEGTiOi! \ Llltl•�I� WORK DY CORPS OF EN6114CEA s/STA TE \\ \ o O O ROPOSED D.aNK \ •� \ - jI PROTECTION WORK , I DY CORPS OF > C4, .. p ENGINEERS/STATC c L � O x 1 ()OC, WORK PROPOSED n \ - \ BY STATE 0: �- - D h -� C r o - 4,079 �,•• C,- �� M \P/ F.R.S. FLOOD RELIEF ,1 �._...� c�loU�• O o STRUCTURE 1oDROAD -_- 917E 19-2.4 � O -r'r SITE tao.T Angel II _ ^ Parkrns•..._ �_••• Slough W RAISE II - ��'••--- Lake ^��'• 1 D 194 LP Ivo MdT F.R.S. 1-IVRPHYII-.,f`••ZZ _ __ - - Z:; .._� / 1 1 cN1co SL. PLI V D B 3 'LANDING 1p 0, O _ SITE 187.2il OVERFLOW 9' 11 'I,'�•'.• AREA T I PARROTT F.H.S. Edd y L d k 0 r'1 SITE 191.8 •'•" ('No Work Propoe'ed} C! The Cepoon 77- --__� DEGRADE I87 _ ROADWAY V••.;•'100 r SITEr 1'67.1 - , 'rPLUG \�� 1, -188 SITE 170.5 "•' 1;3 `0 n� 180 1jr1 182 181 179 7 177 (� / d 164 / � SITE 188.5 185 0 Q'I( Ord Far IID T Bridge SITE 18,8.8 9 1 8 D , y 1`8 ••'li SITE 179.5 ` 179.4 1' E H ORDSEND OLENN MILES FLOW PLAN 0 , BUTTE BASIN OVER v GROUNDWATER QUALITY AT THE 111&T 1.0 Samplinr; lYlethodoloay 'Samples were collected and analyzed from three observation wells installed at -rarying :distances from an wdsting gravel pit on the M&x property. The objective of the samplir_.g vitas to assess the probability of groundwater contamination duoggh the eAgiag pit. The sampling was designed to serve asa MW scal.e,test oaf lb e.proWity that future gravel pits VAI .0,be a rorduit far groundwater contadnation* Tk►e 1.ot adgm of the we.11;4 sbo - im.f-lir 1 are.ti sl Ott the aoundw.atec flow direetiori-and travel tlmus cal ia"tcd:fr m hyAraullc iiifQirria#iatt cdkOtod On the A T by t1mb t:af` Water Resources. Tho groundwater velocity, in, the upper =d and gravel way. eat pasted to be about 280 to 500 feet per year. For surface water that may have entered the p`rt during thov4nter of 1995, about 2.5 years elapsed in Pall, 1997. Groundwater moved about 70 to 1.,250 feet from the pit during this time period. Assu=g that the surfa.co water entering the pit.mixed completely with the water in the pit, contunination that may have entered the pit would have traveled 700 to 1,250 feet or less in the shallow groundwater that is conkiguous with. the pit. Vitei[ number 3 i.5 thus located at 1,000 feet from the pit in the maid direction of groundwater flow. . Similarly, surface water entering the pit during the 1995 and L997 storms coiAd bavetraveled 420 to 750 and 140 to 250 feet from the pit in the shallow sands and gravels, resp-- ively, Therefore, wells 2 and 1 were located at 195 and 590 feet from the pit. Because there is uncertainty in the rate of groundwater movement, this placement of wells also .provided sortie Coverage if the groundwater flow and contaminant transport rates are larger or smaller than fl -m calculated rates. The boreholes were drilled to about the elevation of the bottom of the pit. Treaded PVC well casing was :installed in the boreholes that were scaled with bentonite from 2 fid above the screerned interval to land surface. The wells wtere screened frotn the bottom cftlie well to the wager table which is 1ao more than 10 feet No gluc* or solvents were used dUxing the installation. The wells were developed the day before sampling Vy pumping water until ti ere was essenti-dy zero turbidity. Unfiltered samples were collected in S,lass containet-s by Northaste Water Ti.-*tiag of Chico, placed on ice and transmitted itrtmediately to the laboratory for analysis. Constituents analyzed include trace metals and non --metals, volatile organic compounds, organophosphate pesticides, organochlorime pesticides, trkzj.DO herbicides, phonpXy herbicides, d ioearbama a herbicides and nitrate. Glass sample bottles for organic compounds, pesticides artd lzerbiddes were filled to leave no aitapaoc. The samples were held no more, than 14 days before analysis. Samples for nitrate were analyzed witWn 7 days. Chain -of -custody forms were filled out for all. samples, 2.0 Results aril Discussion The analytical results demonstrate that for the constituents analyzed, there is not a groundwater - quality problem associated with the existing pit. For 0 the organic constituents analyzed which include pesticides and herbicides used near the site that are likely to move into groundwater, the concentrations are less than detectable. For the inorganic constituents, Only aluminum and nitrate were detected. Aluirtinura concentrations range from 140 to 810 micrograins/liter. These concentrations axe consistent with groundwater in equilibrium with aluminosilicate minerals present in the soil and aquifer. Nitrate conmitmitions wart 7, 47 and 23 milligrams par.litter in saMples collected from wells 1, 2 and 3, respeWvely, For raforanco, the ma)d=rn permitted whoetitratioA in dd.nEn& grater is 44 iniftrams per liter. Surfited water entering the existing pit is not the source of the 4tmte in the grouadwwor. Groundwav (kousbout tho area typic* W nitrate comoonuations that rango as aj T- A Also, -a nitrate s Wtfita qpAce - h , Vsx, A , th plug ptm-ons of'Liftle C" Ott* WO MMOM:a Yta1i, M1191119 &OM fIOAAOfbftbT6Vi 0.'97 *Dgams pex liter: D-3.2 '10 Atow- 563 EAST LINO AVENUE . . -_ CHICO; CALIFORNIA 95926Ora ' PHONE (91.6} 343-5818 Aagn 4 of TE$T REPORTT . 146281 KQIRTHETATE WATER TESTING P. 0. 89)( 1933 CHT Q1().v Q) 45,491--Z-01M 4t't ent i on i PAUL. BER ' ample Ii 1 .:Y1t'SF%•at, ini)_i4 & T, .WELL Co l ioc�t ud '$V ;PAUL. BEHR Date & T'fn14 To.kanv 114/iroa/'97 WaO Ot hor Data.I MMIC Sansple Matrixt Liquid Report Daus : :I : /43/ �7 R� iced = 10/8/'3'% Cl i Qnt h1DRa7G BYT PRRf i*i TE1t 5u17s UNITS RNAL YZED EOL -.mM- bb Fiveride 8 16 aglL 1198 10/13/97 a 1 4011 E 09- ticthoe 4a.a X5 i:eraury ;H�ride) . • `.::8 ug/L ; i8$ 1l13g137 La aq/L �i8 �7ti0fl 245.:- u�b . lritratp 47 oyJL ; ifi9 101l3r97 Z ;Z& M.d ,Method 35#.3 ,_cs Aluai.nua 3!si �yll 'IN ugfL EX liethad ZAL? 'tK6 C2�t , uc1L !I -.W A/Eil9i 2 uo1L 09 Method M.2 03. i�ritR - AN 10A RM/57 IN !lethod Z -FA. 7 tyk ber+.i`.oa 't1.a ;tgll_ :'.trD 1@li�19; t ugrL � ?�.rnod 212.2 9wg >aeaivat tt.a agfL tin 314.1157 1 /l tri Ahou ei&E Ghrni-an > . !18 na/i HN !812-9197 18 UPI! 5:4 Kethtd. !&E ,4iel��t X16 ug/L "A !2/29197 ld ryfL UP Mtrod 449.2 WK Lean fF.3 .sg!!, ;;6@ 181 ri i S•d +1111 fA i!ethbd 239.2 ZLS aniiADnT b.9 VIA 1;38 tolz9m i.4 ag1L %j9'1i;th" 7041 'M E i4nl u.f ( 4 Vg/i i Mot 180/9-1r Uc1l C34 AnbDd Mi ?h41:�us ;i3O u3/L :;0 18131/97 :.•a --it& E_ -a &tisd'79— :%B Sample Preparation Steps For 146281 Si:ver 1B ... 'y,l ...... . i .32 ;$119197 ;9 „orle1n 272.2 . - '�un:'in,jed ' 568 EAST UNDO Wril`IUE 919►"$-�C2Z"J i. 1" y, -_ _ PHONE (916) 343-5818 01921 to] jilqc. OR ' • L t /03/97 1.46681, Cont; i rm Qu Page 2 of 3 Quality Assurance for the SET wLt:h Sampid 146.8At . Saapllr t ' , Descriatiltp .desalt. •Grits .. DUD/Std Value '5pk Calk.. Cent .. ']iae , • , .. _Date.. ' f 3q Fluoride 3tand.ard :0 1&0 11.20 .81131Fi. DLS Standard 0.25 cg/L t 25 129 10 _z310/9i k-0 Standard 8.€8 q1L 2;58 138 11996 i.9/t3197 919 Standard 1.0 ag1L 1.0 ]tt$ 1100 10/13/57 U 14we lhwlicpte 5,13 sg/t 8.13 a IIN 18f(3197 OLS 1406 50tiie aglL 0:2.3 W UN 18!13/91 '�•� Mercury (Hydt^ide) Stud&,, 8.9B ug& 1.0 9a l]0$ 181e13?7 Si(B Staward 2.8 ug/L 2.0 i8$ IIBd 10131397 U3 Standard v.6 dg/L 4.2 !(+e 1 J8@ 1.0131/97 m 14EIS5 D¢alteatt 11.0 ag1L I.'J J 11d'd 381771%97 NB 146115 Split .1 .: 2.0 ?a _it10 ;9131/97 ti(9 N itrat e Standard ..q ea/L i.? ' w 1412 1100 flea 12/1 /93 38!13!97 CiLS Ja Standard :i tq/L Doll fi 22 105 !190 10/13/97 Standard Standard e3 +: WL 98 ilBd 18/13/97 m ;46261 Duplicaate 32,8 agll 12.0 •.JBB ;0113!97 Jl5 146251 Spike felt ii A UN IV13/Sr Silver Standard 10 uq/L 10 :2e .Eon 3ari c6 snIL LIS leo 110@ 10le9/91 �C3 1462,E 1}aplicat e 30.5 ag/1rg '•8.3 8 ;.80 10129!97 WB ro(B 14M. Spike gg/ka d.` R.5 :iBF+ 10129!53 Aluminum Stardarld 49 ug/L 54 98 1108 1®/Z9/97 9-tauLwd ?Q agA. IN 99 Ill 10/25/97 $KB Stands d .>98 ug/L to 59 Ha 18/23/57 Ni'J3 twit Dzpliate 818 ug/L Big 9 1120 18/25/97 146M %Pike jetL 90g 98 •. too 16 W97 R.rsanlc 'Standard 5.t uq/t. 5.0 104 1103 10/2!197 `! Staadacrd :9 ug/L 10 100 3;J IVW2 7 Statldard ag/L as3G0 1120 1d/21347B ;:D Standard S0_ oy/l 5g IM+ 1153 0121 /57 FYT 140111 0481 irate 44 4g/L 44 47 P log 1100 1108 18/21/97 ialaii97 TIB 146439 Sp1kp q1t. Bat- ijm Standard :83 uq/L :(� 19� 110 i0l:9/";7 '•ra a_v.a Stanw-d 409 Ug/L 1011(4 ! (46ia5 D1alirate 11Lg :g/L :19e SU 3 1l� 1!l 10129197 7(6 146305 Spite Dery 1 1 i Ilv Stacdar^ :..� ;oil ;. ,00 ;1 8 :F/e9/97 ?Rb Conttn.izd D_3.4 - 563 EAST I.INDO AVENUE,- GIi1C0 CALIFORNIA 95926 ^ b PHONE PHONE (916) 343-5818 l/03t97 1462.81 Cantinue, Page 3- of 3 Pie Oa5Gr11x'ian R.e5u11 Units DuplStd Value Spk Cont:. Percent Tiae Date 3v. Standard 2,5 uoil u5 1136 .1186 ;4/49197 Vab , Standard iB ugiL 18 1180 1i1/291ni �J(B :461115 Duplicate 11.8 ug/L U.8 0 11A .11119197 R+15 �4Gi95 =Plitt ugiL 1.3 lid lib®• 18iE°/97 aKE q.;ta Standard 1.8 di]1L 1.8 1Sll1 _ 1190 12/29/37 R*KB Stcnc'-ard 2:55 ug1L 25 I" tin 111119197 , Mal Standard 4.9 ug/L 19 98 11.92 (0/29197 10Ai 14610 Dit91icat0 11.8 ugiL 11.21-i 18123/97 f1K1i 14618'5 saikp 96 tin . 1816191 Ito Chirnai u kanQard 9.6 . ug/L It 96 111A 1016151 FF3 Staltlb7� _ 6 un/L 100 1180 IWESM RR Standard �A ugiL 52 2'k7 114!2 Arnmi ?'d8 1+b;QS ➢upi:catE (1B U6/L =Q 0 1196 IWS/97 M 146185 3oskr ag1L L 139 118.8 10/291 ' R7F tdicke 1 Standard 18 ug IL 1f 100 1134 ;B1e91°j nY� Standard 24 ujL 'S 46 :1 1212°191 ' Standard 181.. tgiL ; z81 1184 10125: ?7 Ri'� ;�1©a - it3ltl l`_,ie 10 tat! t;2 3 !le'0. :1s124/47 :RiB !S6i�5 Spilt: �9�� 2 liirZ° i14C i3J?:i?i ..� ;1(8.. L_Q ad 3ttmard 5.4 agiL ; 8 10b IM 19121:9; tis stEr.0Sri. 25 mil 161D 908 I$/E7l4•? 0L Standa d vl �gtw9 162 1134 146[93 Iixgii�YT .a ag11 0.395 $ 1184 i411�119+ . 146293 5piite a jli. d.9°;$ 184 11013 lS/2I/SI D`W A�tS�aony Standaixl 5.3 ug/L 5.4 A IRA 19/29157 Standard 10 ug/L 18 `_t $ 11% 19124/91 R[T 5tin44rd � ugfL 25 1 lite -.9129/97 =�.$ Mies Dillilimu (6.@ uo1L I&A a ; pys i4ig5 S�ikt ug/L . 2 185 t1BB ;Qlcs: a`TY. Be I e n i un Standard 5:1. Tall S:it !92 i1P0 l0l29/97 : 3119 stantlartl ,0, ug/L 10 in !1 !@124197 i3F3 Standard 26 ug/i- 4 1@4 1I 181291 r 14161415 5.6 uDtL 15,9 @ !1416 18119.919? R 145144 &Pike ua/L 12 IN 1194 10129.191 78 Thalliva Statrard 1.2 • 1tv+i 1.3 !D8 1149 13131 s; 4Y1 51an0art Z.3=gi4 2 5 1i' ?:�� 13/3,157 413 Standard 1:9 V ?fig 1.4M46 DUDImit, I!.2• vafi ti.t 9 !1QP 19.131197 R'1.B 14"Soihe ng/L 1.3. In IIN 18/3:/97 UB �4 583 EAST LINDO AVENUE J11, CHICO. o , CALIFORNIA 950205 PHONE (9 16) 343-58 18. ho 1,9 ryb1c. Page I of 3 TEAT REPORT: 1462a1 NOWMSTATE. WATER TESTING P. 0. BOX L-533 C -J4100, GA 55927 -MQ) A-ttentixjTtt. PAUL BNR S&.fv.p.j.e ldantifiodtion:14 & T. WELL 410 .Culledt-v.-d SytPAUL BEHR Date & Ti -a e Taken:10JOB/97 0730 Other Data: INOMANIC sampla Nat -rix: Liquid Report Date- it/02'..'97 Received: Client: NOR.' -77 i:, p pig 4VItETE A RESULTS. UNITS ANALYZED E=QL METHOD BY Flurid? 6.16 zgk 11!38 10/1,31V -11, 3@ft FA !4ihM w3.2 M8 ht-cury u4ycridel -YETW& 11 -trate »i 2 soft in AtA thod 5513 Alwaisue, dig A/L ;!Q6 !WW037 z D 4q1" EPA 4ethod Ma arsenic i2.a qi / L 1IN 3121: 2 u4/1- EEEPA method 29.2 411E rivr 18 ujiL 1106 1MV57 1.03 --n-A. gig Aethed 36.7 7x9 uj/L 1130 IS10/97 I EPA Aethad 812 Mraii-a 10 gil Z;* Kithea 1132 Matt W4 ijA f .j L M Athad. 241 'a . EPR Aethm kaf25197 6.2 -jj/L 04 VIethod Iml 15.9 uji'L lie$ 10129197 j ug PL EPA Ketriag EME R0 .=yrt_ M4 10/3151 279 - Sample Preparation Steps for 146281 .. .......... ....... ';10......... I.0..........'L ............. ; ......"- i, 3 Ift'hol. 212.2 Silver... ;:.D n t j r) u t? d D-3.6 5.653 EAST 1_IN00 AVENUE � CHICO. CALIF" MIA 95925 PHONE (916) 343-5818 _ 1/03/97 146;=81 Contin,.:ed 1=age 2 of 3 Quality FissurAxtcu for G 69±F aIck 6aigpie viGiS671 ft • . • 5aaple R Descriptlan it IU1i units Oup1S d U.aja@ Spii U110. Qercerd Tiae Data 3y Fluoride ';kandard 9.1'0 mglL a. 14 to Ila R12i47 M 5tt,ai rtl . ' 8.:25 @'g/I. 4.23 IN tin :81131;7 V 5tantlnrd 8•; Bglt 0.5@ 1Nit* 18!131°7 MS Skaii2ar+S I.B ayk 1.;0 110 It/1319; E 14528$ D41jL-att S.13 *VL a.13 8 1118 10/13./97. OLA 145268 Spike a8lL 8. i`3 :fib Alto 1914.3/97 DB Marrury (Hydride) Standard 8.38 tig/L ;.3 ?8 llf8 19/3119; RYE Standard Z 8 1191E 2• a ;bit lits 19 MI S7 Z Standard 4jg/7_ 4!t U80 1144 18/31/97' ?IM 145125 Duplicate 11.8 vg1L (i.3 0 1199 ,•10/nU97 R!iH i4b185 Spike u9i.1 2.8 98 11•� :6131/47 W Nitrate 3tandaro, q.6 1CIL t•4 114 118@ 12113!97 8L5 Standard !i aglL 11 702 1111$. i@113/97 LVA 5tamard ?3 ag/L C{ lt?6 !lag 133/13197 PLS i Star4ard 43 sglL 4A 98 1188 16113197. v*L5 146261 Duplicate (E•8 ag/L Q. d ;182 IQ113/S7 D.5 14b? 1 Spike ft tin 18/13/3; DLS Si 1 v e•r Standard !9 uo/L 16 138 1M i SM M, W standarv! !1N 101891:r1 1B 14621 ., Duplicate (0.5 ®ge'ig ;IBS 1®!2919; Ali 14F.2F6 4olice agfzo a.`,2 185 Im !@129197 %a Alull inuM Standard" 49 11¢11 sa 5$ 1188 12129/gi r<Y9 540wo 99 uQIL 188 99 ITEC MOM RKB 9lalidard 998 ugfL 1020 99 11n 1/1123/57 RKB 146281 Daolicate 818 kg_fL 810 t 1124 10/c'2<f: Ml 142- Spica uYL 9B 1199 10/;;*915' $ Ar•�an i� • sWUM 50e uo(L .5.e IM tin . - 18/21197 FKS alanda(31 :6 119/1 ?1 - 10 1188 13IZ1/ 7 °lc$ Standard ug1L 23 169 11 :i�/21i9$ Standard 5A ugfl 58 138 t1S@ iP/2if97 1469 1 DUDI imle 44. ,gfL a 11b8 {2/�1a'97 RKS 146 apihe ug/L 47 lad 3108 ISILI 7 V_B Bar i um Standard 103 uglL 1®9 iQl? 1,00 ;$129147 SEan6ard 1009 Wt. 1940 !a$ !;d>1 1B/c9197 14614 Doi 110D ig/L :120 � 1 �b 12!29137 � ° 146185 Spike ao11 ;!N 10/29197 FAB BeryII um Standar' ;.9 1An !.d IN 1121A ` Cent in•.ed Wpl4 It . Mfilt 563 EAST LINGO AVENUE .' ., � ' Tide PHO14 (916) ORNIA .343 512 58 8.5 j1/03/97 146281 Can -tinned 9tandatl Page 3 of 3 Wpl4 It Destrlptian Mfilt Mts Don/Btd V110 SpR C64. Percent Tide Date By 9tandatl 15 q/L 2.5 426. 110 W29197 RKB 5ti6dard 18 vg/L 10 120 '160 13128197 R1(fl 146105 Duplicate (1.1 ug/L (1.0 a Is" 18/25/97 RK6 14611!5. Spike eq/L l.3 120 1180 18/24147 RXI Cadmi um Standard 1.6 ug/L La IN 1160 l3/29/77 ,RM Slerdard 2.5 Wt. 2.3 10$ !128 15129197 RKB Standard 3.8 ag/L 18 98 il" 18/23/97 WE 14610S Duplicate (l,a =11. Q. -A 0 Hn 131N/97 RKB 146135 Spike 411. 2.5 9& 1180 1 1612919? RKB Chromium Standard 3.8 null 16 39 1.1M 119/29/57 Sl(9 Standard. 25 nok L, IN :IN 10/2919/ RM Standard 50 93/1. `_B 13il ilei ;i/ a197 RKB 146115 Duo' icate (t0 nq/L (10 0 ::90 13/29/97t RKB 1wi23 iioike au/? 12 1210 ±tea 10/23/°7 EYe Nickel Stitttlard i0 �q/L :Et ID.4 :1311 30M. W.B Standard 24 cai`_ 215 36 '.108 12/2°197 wB Standard let :o)L(IN :B! 1:08 ;012S1?? RiB ?551 D5 Cu6iter, a ;18 sgil :I L :110 !0/29!97f8 E46ii15 Soi ce .qr� i2 1ge" :leg W6i97 :r8 Lead st2nderd 5,a agrL 5.2 108 1:90 11017,7!% atstidzrf 25 9irL ..S 160 :±98 IB/c?/rr -'L.3 Stabda-f St 3g1L 53 02 1143 WIN ,157 J9: 146c99 Duplicate 0.2iv eq/L 0..`V5 0 1160 1D/'7/97 DS f4fsir96. Spike. eg/L 11029 104 It" 11/27/97 antiaoriy Staadard 5.2 ag/L `,.11 IN [ in 111ri;9/37 Stincard 1s ugll ill :112 1100 10/24/97 � Standaty is uq/t. 25 M 1100 [0/&S7 c8 ?#&iS DaplimE ail 010. (6.4. 3 I'M M/e9M, RY8 t!i6i4k� Spike 1911 12 its 11,811 110103-1 SeIani uaa Standard:.: igtl. 5.8 1Q U4 !6129/97 8tAmall '.B 1811 18 IN 11n 18/29/97 RED Standaad W 104 11@.3 160i4'i 146185 15uaiicate .o /oIL (S.2 0 lies :.2129197 ?l;a i46184 Spike ,g/L :: lot 1108 (0/29/97 =Y8 Thal Iiun Standard 1.0 ugiL l.a in 1120 ;;1;1157 3Ii6 5tan�arc _.5 .q1L c., lf0 1:C8 11/3097 qlr? Standard 4.3 ng/L 5.3 39 1Al ;01311?? ;v.s 146446, Duo Iieere".i'• �o/L i.J 3 ,IN ±(513±197 3l.B ;T.6 146446 SD,ke uglL 1.3 1Lv l;za i8/3±/?7 D-3.8 .563 EAST LNDQ AVENUE CHICO. QAUFORNIA 95926 ....... ..... -7-F-- -- Pane 1 0. -1 mk RE -PORT: 146-80 NORTHGTP TIE WATER YFSTING P. Q. 80Y 11933 CHIM, CA 959. 7—r4m Atte-nb i on 3 PRUL Ba --HA T IRANC`'rI- WEELL #i Calle�txd Date & Time Taken:114/�•,B/97 0725 Uthar Data Sadple Matrix. - Report Date: CI en't s N C, R 2 15- PIA-RAMETER. RESULTS UNITS ANALYZED Ell METHOD BY t A no 1:29 ,vaw?y _50 131L ,94 )emeo 31 'url v'41 °Oii 1-37 :moi -5. 1 !ciiL 9 t-, �i! Q Ott i: 0 71 :91i d^73 -AN -i -7 .3. !2 SKK (3 u it "ii Bei Ott 11.1 4 tai I DIA Nelbm N-5 4.b is lot 10fi3jr, A— 4 ;,vl EPA 70A7s RW In 1t/F.177 'tarp -EN 2n, :�211)cl I.; j;tL -Pq A& 2c Sample Preparation Steps for 146280 3i IvEr'.-v%"tQ'�1 10y a ric 563 EAST UNDO AVENUECHICO. CALIFORNIA 95926 - PHONE (916) 343-5818 11/0 %57 tjnti nu -o Page 2 of 3 t ua ity ASSUra"ae for the BET with Bawple• 148860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . a • . a . . a . .1 . . �aapia s Gesaciat(on Result I;n:ts Dup/Std Value Bak W4 ?anent lilt Dat, �y Fludride 3tandal,d 0.19 ag1L Mo 13 ! : ii111srS7 ?L? Standard 0.23 egli - 3.25 ! $ Uto !0113M. X S 9tandar9 0.58 101L d.53 190 >ITO !$712157 5 5tardam 1.4 3L5 1g62p$ M 146M Sliike iolt J. Zs i,'E 1:03 :3! is/5i Date: 10/29/97 REPORT Page 6" of 2 0 Work Order: 97-10.269 Invoice dt 60062081 SAl1PLE ID' D419 -Wit) Con9rt:M." 12 ., ._ "AC-_ O?A-.. cbi.LEMI)i01 /07/97 RECEIVED. 10 1D 9 PAPILKSTER RE411LX LlH1T um"r D1 .FL .ACTOR EXTPACTED Rl NE.T.H00 EPA 60M jkrcmOticS/Water EPA 60.21 Betlz.eile OD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 00/17/9T EPA Baal iolueiie ND 1.0 u011, 1.0 'O/i7/97 EPA $0x1 tlllorobenxenti HO 1:0 ug/L 1.0 '4/17/97 EPA 8021 Ethylbenzeria ND 1.0 QIL 1.0 '0/17/97 EPA 8021 m,p Xylcno ND 0.50 u9/L 1.0 0/17/97 EPA 8021 o Xylene NO 0.50 uq/l 1.0 .0/17/97 EPA 8021 1,3•Dlchlorobwane ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 :0/17/97 EPA 6021 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene No 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1D 1.0 Lq/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Surrogate: 10/17/97 EPA 8021 4-Chlorotoluene 96.2 N/A % Rec 1,0 _10/17/97 EPA 8021 EPA 11021 ttalogenoted/Wster EPA 8021 Diehlorodlfluoro:aethane, Ito 1.0 uglL. 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 ChlDromethane RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 80z1 VinyL chloride NO 1.0 ug/L 1.D 10/17%97 EPA 8021 eromoaiothenc 110 1.0 ug(L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6021 Chloroethane NO 1.0 u9IL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Trichlorofluoromethe.ne 0 1.0 ug(L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA B021. 1,1 -Di chtortmthytene ND 1.0 ug(L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 , kethylem chloride N0 1.0 ug(t 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 t-1,2-Dichlor6ethYleile ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA. 802.1 1,1 -Di chloroethnrio NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Chlo1`oforal NO 1.0 ug/'L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,1,1-TirIChl o. ethane RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA BOO . Carbon tetrochlorida HO 1.0 uglL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,2-Otctllaroetharit: ND 1:0 ug(L 1.0 10/17/07 €PA 8021 Trichtoroatfiyteft No 1.0 ugM 1,0 10117/97 EPA 8aP1 1,2-Dichloropmpatl4 1D ' 1.0 ug/1 1.0 10(17/97 CPA 8021 Brt'RpcAichlortrw0 f"i W 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 t�1,3�D4ahlora¢rop s RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 1001/47 EPA 6021 c.1s-1;Y-D4ckllai'bpanm ND 1.0 LPI/! 1.0 10(17/97 EPA 8021 1,1,2-Trtchlaroetham ND 1,0 ug/t 1.0 1001/91 EPA 6021 Tel mahloraethene ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10117/97 EPA 8021 Dibrowc'hioroaethof* NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 chlorobenzene HD 1.0 vg/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 BroM for19 ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10117/97 EPA 8021 1, 1, 2, 2T atrachIoroethan ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,3-DichloroCenzcne RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 NORTH COAST LABORATORIES 5680 West End Road nrcata. California 95521 707.822.4649 FAX 707.8.22-6831 Date: i0/29197 REPORT Page S of 20 Work order: 97-10 ZG9 invoice #- 60062061 S/514PL€ 1D: @Wt�4Aa/1�� FRAC-: Q�€ [ALLECi£Ot 10/07!9701ndYD:'10/10/47 PARAl1E31 R Rfs6UlT i�jMil UMTS Dj.L-FACfM OXTRACtED RUN !A -M EPA 61S11tiie/at' EPA 4.151 DaUpon ND 5.0 U9,11 1,0 10/14/97 10/19/97 EPA 815i Di-CbAti0 ND 0_50 ug/L 1.D 1011419T 10/1a/97 EPA 8151 KCPP N4 210 uglL 1.0 i0/14/97 1.0/1'8197 EPA $1.51 MCPs► RD 25.0 vo/L 110 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA B1S1 Dtchtorprop RD 1.0 tag/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/t6/97 EPA 0151 2,4-D 11D 1.0 iWfL 1.0 10/14/97 1.0/14/97 EPA 8151 2,4,5 -•TP ND' 0.54 VOIL 1,0 10/14/97 10/10/97 FPA 8151 2,4,E -t RD 0.50 uy/L 1.6 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8151 2.4.0 RD 1•0 up/L 1-0 10/14197 10/18/97 EPA 3151. Dinoseb WD 0.50 ug/L 1.0. 10/14/97 10116197 EPA 5151 6ucro9atet 10/14/97 10/1B/97 EPA 6151 Z,3 -D 56.9 91A Seo 1.0 10/14/97 10/16/97 EPA 5151 5AxP4 ID: BaIYIN j S 1 L/ ll #1 FBAC.: OfF cDII.CDTED: 10JOI&I RECEtYED: 10/10/91 Lim[ D1)L DR EXTRACTED BAN FiR TH40 EPA w/61at0P EPA 632 oxwyl bD 40 WL 1.0 10!13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 "Vth06a1/1 WD 40 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 6pA 63Z ND 4.0 u®fl 1.0 10/13[97 10/16/97 EPA 632 Famcon MD 4.0 1Aj/L 110 10/13/91' 10/16/97 EPIC .G3Z wp No 40 top/L 1.0 10/13/01 10/141 VA 632 F•Y fsAR' . 0 40 u911. 1.0 10/13/97 10!16/9.7 EPA 632 CBrb4lure[j qO 40 ug/L i:0 10113/97 10J1G/47 EPA 631 Carbaryl RD 4.0 vD11. 1.0 10/13/97 10./1.6/97 EPA 63Z ftuomt..otm RD 4,0 ug/L 1.0 10/13197 10016/97 EPA 632 0118`011 OD 40 t01L 1.0 10/!3/97 10/46/97 M632 PF`D�s11 Ft,�t3eloOarb 00 40 WL 1.6 10113197 10/16j EPA 63Z to LO up/L 1-0 10/13/97 10!16/97 EPA 6 WD 4.0 us/L 1_0 /0113/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 LirL cn N0 4.0 tl/L 1.0. 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 Swap 1.0 19!13/91' 10/i6/97 EPA 632 Chtarprophait NO 40 u®/L 1,0 10/13/91 10/16/97 EPA 632 Sbrbane ND 4.0 ug/L 1.0 10/11/91 10/161/97 EPA 632 NtbuW 10/13/97 ta/16/97 EPA 632 Surrogate: S4.B N/A x aec 1.0 10/13/97 10/16>97 EPA 632 5lmazins 1.K3RTH Cot ST L ADORATOR1 ES 5680 Wcsi End Road • krCala, C200M14 95521 • 707422.4649 • FAX 707.822.6831 D-3.15 Data! 10/29/97 REPORT Page 4 of z ` vort Order- 97-10.269 Invoice 8e 60042081 (?RkR1lE1E1l, RESULT um UNITS 01l:FACTO4 EXT.AACT'Ea g gETH[p Attirin Ho 0.10 ugft 1.0 10/i3/9T 10/17%97 EPA 8081 06p.Vuhtot cpoXide RD 0.10 Ug/L 1.0 10/13191 10/17197 EPA 8081 Eritfd9ulfah I 10 D. I'D vg/L 1.0 10/13/91 10/17/97 EPA 8081 4,4f - DDE RD 0.10 WL 1.0 10/13/97 10/11/97 EPA 8061 OfEldriiY 0.10 ug/L 1.0: 10/13/97' 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Endrfm 10 0.10 ug/L .1.0 10/13/971 10/17/97 EPA 8081 4,4' - D65 10 0-I0 Ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8681 Er doculfcA 11 RD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/91 70/17/97 EPA 8081 4,41 - o0T uD 0.1D u0/L 1.0 10/13/9: 10%17/91 EPA M Endrin aldehyde wo 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/9: 10/17/97 EPA 0091 Erdosulfan culfate Ito 0.10 ug/L 1,0 10/1319: 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Nathoxychlor RO 0.10 ug/L 1.D 10/13/9:' 10/17/97 EPA 8081 [hterdsivb RD 1.0 uo/L 1.0 10/13/9' 10/17/97 EPA 8081 T6-xgAiELSE NL 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/9" 10/17/97 EPA 6081 PCB 1016 NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10113/9' 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PCB 1221 k'0 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/1319° 10/17/97 EPA 8D81 PCg - 1232. No 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/1319! 10/17/97 EPA 6081 PCB 1242 RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 16/13/4► 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PC8 - 1248 b0 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/1 M 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Pc8 - 1254 ao 1.D uvt 1.0 10/131W 10/17/97 EPA W01 PC8 - 1160 KO 1,0 ug/L 1.0 10/1315,7 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Turrogate:. 10/13/S'T 10/11/91 EPA 8001 chlororteb 73.3 R/A % AEC- 1:0, 10/13/S7 10/17/97 EPA 8081 "LE las Salduin FRAC-:010 COLLECTED: 10/07/97 &EM.IVEO: 10/1LL/9.7 PAMME E M -S -U T LIHII UR1TS OIL.FACTOR EXTRWED. MN EPA, 619/water EPA 619 Promotan dC 0.50 ug/L l.Q, 10/141W Wjil/9T EPA 619 AtratCn go 0.50 WL 1.0 10/14/77 10/iT/9T EPA 619 Propszirle 10 0.50 U91L 1.0 10/14/D7 10/17/97 EPA 610 Atrazine 0 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/711 10/tT19T EPA 619 Prometryn RD O.S11 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 TerWtryn RD 0.510 vg/L 1.0 10/14/97 10!17/97 EPA 619 SIMM lna IW 0.50 Us/L 1.0 ID/1;/'97 1g/1T/97 EPA 619 Aw tryh 10 O.SO ug/L 1.0 10/14x97 10/1Y197 EPA 619 .Slstttfh to 0.50 u9/1. 1.0 10/14p97 16/i7/91 EPA 619 Svrro9ete: 10/14,97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Triohtnylpl:osphsle .57.5 N/A X Rec 1.0 10114.97 10/17/91 EPA 619 NORTH CO, -,ST LABORATORIES 5680'.'Ves1 End Road • +hath. CaJifomii 95521 • 707.822-4649 • FAX :r7-822AA31 ow;. 10/29/97 REPORT PoBc 3 of 'to 41ark -0fd*r; 97-.10-3&9 I rNO1'ce #; 60062081 P LlFtli tA1tTS 011 '.._ j ATED 1�Ut N i,3-plchlorob®ttYetl4 10 1.9 ugfL 1.0 10/17/07 :EPA 8021 1�2=D icF►lorabgr►lrtait ND 1.Q u0/L 1.0 10/17107 !EPA SQ21 91trvbsfttA.: 10/17/97 EPA DOZ4 $-Oltloro°LoluOne 102 M/A X ket 1.0 1D/17/V EFA 002! SAi1PLE 1D; �eldcitn G4 7J1f�1 01 rJ14 c 9JL 0LA94Ts4_ 10147/.97 REc8fYE0;. 10/1Da7 PARS 1=1 '$1!417 tw"s DIL,FA474RR�Xj ACfE0 gw HET"m EAA g144Net.ar EPA 4141 oteltLflrvas IPP 6.50 us/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 tPA ,8141 1tarir+�laa MO 1.0 ug/L. 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 6141 o �aeton - 0 tnd - S ND 2.6 u9/1. 1.0 10/14/91 tD/18/97 EPA 8141 E 0.opr60on ND 1.0 ug1L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Phorots ND 0.50 VQ%i, 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8.141 Diatinon NO_ 0.50 Ug/l. 1.4 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA. 9141 DiO.UifWA ND 0.50 LQfL 110 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 5141 01W1104.16. I ND 2.0 UWL 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 CPA. 8141 kQ"t ND 0.50 ualL 1.0 10/14/07 .10/18/97 EPA 8141 ME.tbvt pFtnitTon No D.Z9 uy/L 1.0 1.0/14/97 10/1B/97 EPA 8141 chlkvpYrifD4 N0 0.50 u9/L 1.0 10/14/97 10118/YT EPA 8141 Ethyl pAr4thion RD 0.50 LWL 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Fmthteft w 0.50 u0/L 1.0 t0/ti/97 10/18/97 FPA 8141 1SalatkloD 10 0.50 uy/L 1.4 10/14/97 10/18/97 BPA 6141 TetracAlorY11>D11118 Ifo 0.50 LIA 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Fewulfathion NO 0.50 ug/L 1.0 1Q/iL/97 10/18/47 EPA 8141 cc o: taD 2.5 1$ 1.0 10114/97 10/it/97 13'A 6141 B AIan MD O.bp 4411$ 1.0 10/14197 19/18/97 EPA 8111 Azlnphos - merbYl 0 Q.5 up/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/10,97 EPA 8141 Surrogate. 1D11$/47 101%f9T EPA 6141 TripmwtFfip%#wto 66,2 NIA % Rec 1.0 1Q/1$/97 10/18/97 EPA $141 87 WLE IDs 9115111% Ooii9tll.&H -V FRAC.: �;tt�. VM:. UTEDi 1pvft REAE1YED; 10/10197 PAUK-stR R U Ll Uit I7S 09l_ PAGTOt �Q ( (► ,1¢ 71104 EPA 8481 EPA 80� /VaUr A108 - 81EG DQ 0.1Q LOA 1.0 10113/97 1D/1T/9T EPA 5041 Lindsm ND 0.90 u9/L 1.0 10/111/97 10117f97 EPA 8481 6cta - 8RC MD 4.10 u9ri 1.0 la/13/97 1D/iT/97 EPA 8081 K4piecillor ND 0.10 u9/1 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 0QB1 Delta BNC ND 0.10 u9/L 1.0 :0/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 NQRTH COAST LA00RATORIES 5680 yleg End Road • Ac -AIA. CatfD nia 95521 + 707.821.4649 • FAX 707.02-6431 D-3.13 Date: 10/29/97 REPORT Page 2 of LL work Order: 97-10.269 lttvoice b: 60,362081 SMPLE 1D: B81du11t COhtt,, cell 01 FRAC.: 011 _ COLLICTED: 10107197 RECEIVEDI 10/10197 R6 fULi L1N17 Lents. DIL.FAC7UR EXTRACTED Eifel Sd2) Ai`GahS.CfSsJat EPA 8021 Befttfte ND 1,0 ug/L 1.0 Wfi?M EPA 60.21 Tolrzette ND 1.0 u9/1. 1.0 {U117197 EPA 8021 thloiol58rtzt o: 90 1.0 u0/L 1:0 'OI17197 EpA 5021 Ethylbcnzem ND 1.0 ug/L. 1.0 --0/17/97 EPA 8D2t w,p xytaht ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 •0%17/97 EPA 8021 o xylenfs' ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 0117/97 VA 8021 1, 3.Oichlor6be%rtr4 ND 1.0 ug/L 1,0 0/17/97 EPA 8021 1,4-Dichlorobtnteh6 ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 00/17%97 EPA 8021 1,Z Dichlorotvnteru ND 1.0 %WL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 802i 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Surrogate/ i-Chi orotoWere 97.3 N/A X Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 EPA 5021 Nalogonatod/wafor EPA 8021 Dichiorodifluoranethani Ito 1-0 ug/L 1.0 10/17(97 EPA aOZ1 Cli,lorodle4hatle 1>D 1,0 ug/L 1.0 '10/17/9T EPA 8021 Vinyt ehlortde ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 '10/17197 EPA S721 aromomethane 1Gf 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA OD21 Chloroethane ND 1.0 ug/L 1.D 10/17/97 EPA 8:121 Trichloroftuotomtharie ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1, 1-Di61oroettiAthe ND 1.0 USIL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Meth�lxx chloelde NO 1.0 Jell 1.0 -10/17/9T EPA '8021 t-1,E'Oichlorbothylene to 1.0 uglL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,1•Dichloroethene 0 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Chtoroform ND 1.0 ugjl, 1.0 10/17/97 EPA B'121 1.1,1-Trichtoroeth'orte ND 1.0. 4/1. 1.0 10/17/97 fPA 8021 carbo tetreditoiide NO 1.0. LW L 1.0 10/17/47 EPA 8021 1,2-0t bIOrbetfimb No 1.0 usvL 1.0 10/17!97 EPA 8021 TrichtarOthyletls< RD 1,.0. u�/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021. 1 f¢t1a ND 1.0 UIZIL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6021 ,2-1)iehlol �rct¢odlohlcP fAf WD.. 1.0 ucA 1.0 1D/17/97 OA 8021 r•1 1:0 ug/L 1.0 101,17197 E'PA 8021 ei8-1,3.0lclltompropene ND 1.0 u§fL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,1,1-t rtGtllaroeiNadte E� 1.0 u211. 1.0 10!17/97 EPA 8021 TamchlorcethoM ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 iD/17/91 EPA 6021 D ibrogior-h t crow th one 116 1.0 ug/L 1.6 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Mlorobenzene ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Bromform x0 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6021 10,2,2Toirachloroethan ' ND 1.0 ug/l 1.0 10/17/97 EPA On 1,3-Dichlorobenzene XD 1.0 Lg/L 1.0 10!17/97 EPA 6021 ,40RTH COAST LABORATORIES ;cRn w+u FAA RnaA Arrata. California 95521 701.8? 2.4649 FAX 707 B • °r,83 1 T�-3.12 Jt6�44=4 •563 EAST UNDO AVENUE " CHM, CALIFORNIA 95926 PHONE (9 16) 343.5818 - L +/03/97 1=+Fc30 Cnr.c in -,tea Page 3 of .3 2aAgle # ]asc^iptfan Resin: Units :ivar`M., 9a1ur Sal co,�. aercept ?}�e �aie ay Standard 2.5 ugh S Rn- 6iA1rAaFd itoo 18/M57. 7!2 1461 OaGt.CBt.e .i.0 yg�l 4i.a IM 101c?rW kP5 i� A �pt:rQ �g/L Iib tin 1012Ersi r.Y6 !410 111Yi i8/2?/a7 RE6' �andr;xd 2.5 ng/L 2.5 100 tidy it:125M r ift 6ttama..rp 9.8 ug/L It 98 tin 10/29!9? R4B lA51; 001=3t2 41.0 unit tl. t a 110@ 14129/99 j3it0 ikfilgfS gp1kQ ug/L @ II'm 1$!OM[ WE Chromium Sta�ard 9.4, i0 .9F 006 18f2;M NB >tandaro c5 ,_fL -25 M 110@ 10"eVi? K.e—; SiOtdard v8 'G,r ��! ;4'-0 :1'.43' i01c^9r=• �Rb ;t6il'1r- hrl;ce:a ;t2 tz;'_ t1B i" 0 I'N 11@0 lkt;8 !OfcSl3i g B 146ia` Spike Nicl4el 9Lanwd 18 ngrt_ 141 1-441 RY.B Si ardnrd 24 Sqh 25 t.;!49 :0129/5: FRB Standltd 101 SOIL 130 lot RIG AW5 Duplirate U0 nal{ :10 t2 d 13@ !]ll® :iefb !3!29/51 12/:?/i78 1461 @F apiGe sari Los ad $tandard 5.4 uq/L $tanderQ 25 ugr6 25 ,411 ! 1141 =0/c1/ GLS Standard 91 +491: K' ME 1:60 ! ifll{ +0121!:1. 10/21 l:7 �i.9 a�'3% )�IA1 i4'a38 0. C� 791: b. E�5 ti~M d 184 `e/?.? t452s.3 5pfkt agrt Antimony 6t40-0 5.0 q/L $.@ skamro 1 11011 to t'c"'b ;e2 1140 1130 18/29/57 !eiE9i'; 3t�adard c5 u9a25 +6. A 1� ;4610 13roQ1ie3E� t6.� �f i2i4sj". M1 F 14611S Spike ugfL %aIen a �t�ri0a^s3 u.: `Y5 �Starde� :0 iii 10 1� tl4'� tAl8g1.5? �� S1e�e� 26 ugtl � 104 0 ;6� :108 la/1:4191. 1$/89/9'f �.5 i?biitS t�Bt11'.Z�vi iw� •� ,i.4 i2 10B 11140 ROM - OM-ThalI 14fii05 3a1kB tg/L Thal Iium S:ar�Sard l.0 .p,� ..Q !44 Ft22 ttitB 1013tc97 10/31iG7 I RKB bandana 2.5 ?8 1198 '.1/31197 ,'rt �k andard �, , uori 5.9 t •.a 18119 r?7 ^'`{ 146446 Wviirace (l.t 4 1108 t81!t!?7 '•g !4ty44o Ss!tke D-3.31 Date: 10/29/97 REPORT Page 12 of Z-1 York Ordcr: 97.10-269 invoice R: 60062081 URAME71=.8 RESULT LM MB 01WACTOR EXTRAMD M KETHOU Aldrin HD 0.10. ug/L i,6 10/13/47 10/}197' FPA 8081 Reptachlor epoxide HD 0.10 ug/L 1,0 10/13/97 10117(97 EPA 8081 Eti$osulf9ii i NO 0.10 LWL 1,0 10/13/97 10117/97 EPA 8081 4,41- : DDE ND 0,11) ug/L 1.0 10/13101 10/77/91 EPA 8081 Dialdrin RD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10111/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Endrin . U'D 0.10 UVL. 1.0 10/13/97 10/11/97 EPA 8.081 4,40 - DOD- NA 0:10 uy/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 End.osu(fan 11 ND 6.10 uq/L 1.0 10/13/97 16/17/97 EPA 8081 4,48 - DD7 kD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Entfi io aldehyd0- ND 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Endoxulfan sulfate ND 0.11) uq/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 6081 11et;hoxychlor ND 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8091 Chlordane ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Toxaphene ND 1.0 uq/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PCS • 1016 RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PCB 1271 RD 1.0 u4/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 80$1 PER - 1232 ND 1.0 ug/L 1.1) 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PCS 1242 0 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/'97 1007197 EPA 8081 PCB 1248 ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10!17197 EPA 8081 Pet 1254 ND 1.0 ug/L 1,0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PCS - 1260 RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Siirfogtite: 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 diloroneb 79.8 N/A X Roc 1.0 10/i3/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 SAMPLE 10: 9al.dwio Comm-due.11 #1. FRAC.: 21L COLLECSEb: 10/07/91 RECEIVED: 10/10/0.' PARAMETER kESULT WWI UNITS 0.11.F.ACTOR EXTEAGT% : RUN kETUM EPA 419/,43ter EPA 6.19 Promqo 110 0.50 Wt. 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Atr2l ofll HO 0.50 U®/L 1.0 10/14/97 10111/97 CPA 619 Propazine RD 0.$0 vg/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17t77 EPA 619. Atraz.lne NO. D.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/47 EPA 619 Prwitryn NO 0.50 ug/1. 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/91 EPA 619 Terbutryn ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/jr/97 EPA 619 g;pyoLirye ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10114/97 10/17/47 EPA 619 Atls`tf jrn NO 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Simetryn NO 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 surrogat44 10/14/97' 10/17/97 . EPA 619 T r i ph eny I ph o s ph a t e 98.8 x/A X Ree 1.0 10/14/97' 10/17/97 EPA 619 IORTH COAST LAOORATof?IES ,680 V✓ett End Road AiCatA California 95521 • 707-822-4649 F.V: 707-F,224,811 D-3.22 Date: 1D./29/97 PES1JLi - REPORT DNM Page 11 of z Work Order; 9710-269 1uq_ 11£71100 SPA1494Ua{ar lrNolco t1: 60063081 PARANEfER RfTh?f L.iN1.1 W.M pU.FA'G70R EA METHM 1,t-Dichlart�k�enlafut 1 1.0 119/:( 1.0 1010197- EPA 5021 1,.2eDictllvr etu RD 1.0 /L 1.0 l0/11/97 EPA 602i iurragata: EPA 6141 Detnet - 0 and - s 1:4/1713 Eph 8.021 4v-GhL.or6tgjtw* 041.7 N/A X Rat l.0 101'17197 EPS 81721 SAME IDs 0attfu.ill Atxti�.3�(1Jtil�lF�3 FRAC.z Bim. COL( C9ED1 10/10/97 SAMPLE IDs Baiduin .EgAt.,j 1_ 113 FSAt.: QL 004.i.#Bi1R1; 1:DtD7/i/ai' REC9.lw: 10110/97 p6melmza PES1JLi - lIN1I$ DNM DI1.fACIORi 1uq_ 11£71100 SPA1494Ua{ar EPA 8141 blchlomn ND O.SO tt7/L 1.A 14/.1.4j97 1x/1$/'97 EPA 8741 llcstif b>< Nb 1.0 t61/L 1.0 10/14/97 1'0/18/91 EPA 6141 Detnet - 0 and - s ND 2.0 U21L 1.0 10/14/9? )0/0/97 EPA 8141 Ethopropitaa ND 1.0 WL 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Phorate ND 0,50 WL 1.0 10/14/97 1.0418/97 EPA 8141 Diazinon ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Dl.mulfaton NA 0.50 ug./L 1.0 10/1197 10/18!97 EPA, 8141 DfmathoatQ 10 2.0 w/1. 1,0 10114/97 10418/97 EPA 8141 Rel 90. 0.50 uy/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 E?A 8141 Ne"I P9rathi011 N0 0.20 Wt 1.0 10/14/97 1D/td/97 EPA 6141 (0119rpYff(o 1 0.54 u9/1. 1.0 10/14/97 14/18497 PA 8141 Earl Parathion ND 0.50 un/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Fenthion no 0.50 ug/L- 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/47 EPA 8141 Malathion 110 0.50 tilt/L 1.0 111/14/97 10/14497 EPA 6141 Tetrachtorvinphos. M0 0.5D tWL 1.0 10414/97 i0/ism EPA 8141 Rg1e4z{�otl.lat NO 0." X14 1.0 ' 10/14/91 i0/i$/97 EPA A$41 Co�siapkari NO 2.5 u0/L 1.0 O/U197 1D/111M EPA 8144 -Etb(on RD 0.56 1A0.%L 1.0 10414197 10/18/97 ERA 4151 Azliphos - w4thyl ND 2.5 LoR 1.0 ' 10914197 10/18/97 EPA 6141 Surrogate: i0jlw97 18118,147 €PA 8141 14.1FA aWtpl>"phaita BE.O N/A I Rage 1.0 1011(/47 10/10/97 EPA 8141 SAMPLE IDs Baiduin .EgAt.,j 1_ 113 FSAt.: QL 004.i.#Bi1R1; 1:DtD7/i/ai' REC9.lw: 10110/97 p6melmza lel L DNM 1uq_ M4?9- EPA 4061/1 Ur EPA ODBI Alpha - 13RC In D.10 99A un 10115/97 10/17197 EPA 8081 Undane 9b 0.10 u9/L 1.0 10/18/97 10/1T197 EPA 8081 Beta • SM a 0.10 USA 1.0 1010197 10/17/97 EPA 8081 1laytaahlOr NO 0.10 u4/L 1.0 10!13197 10/1T/07 FSA 8081 Dtita - 88c 90 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13797 10117197 EPA 80BI NORTH COAST LABORATORIES 5600 west End food • Arcata. Calilomla 95541 • 707-832.4549 • FAX 707 -FIZZ -6831 D-3.21 Dete: 10/29/97 REPORT Page 10 of '16 wort order: 97.10-269 " Invoice i1: 60%M i tWLE IN Raldwltt NMI, /11411 #3 FRA[:.: 03 COLLECTED: 10 /07/ RECEIVED= 10110/91 uBa 0017§ '01L.F4C?OR E%1_ RACIED BA HoTlo1 En 8621 Ara tfet/watar EPA 8021 9eii Bite RD 1.0 u0tL 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 TatLm to 00 1.0 ug/L 1.0 V07/97 M 8021 chiarobenYML dD 1'.0 ug/L 1.0 19/17/V7 E1'{l 6021 Ethy(ber tft RD 1.0 u9/L 1.0 1)/17/97 EPA 602t �.P Xylene 00 0.50 ug/L 1.0 17/17/97 EPA 6021 a Xylene RD 0.50 ug/L 1,0 13/17/97 EPA 8021 1,3-Dichlorob�nzana kD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 17/17/97 EPA 6021 1,4-Dfchloroberuone 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6021 i,ZrOichloroberuene WD 1.0 uq/L 1.0 40/17/97 EPA 8021 Surrogate: 0/17/9T EPA 6021 C Cfilorotoluane 91.1 N/A t Ree 1.0 '0/17/97 EPA6021 EPA 8021 Halogenated/water EPA 6021' Dfehtorodlfluoromethene RD 1.0 uD/L 1.0 0/17/97 EPA BQZ1 Chloroethane RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 :0/17/97 EPA BOZ1 Vinyt chloride Rb 1.0 uD/L 1-D i9/17/47 EPA -8021 9tamcm thaht HD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17197 EPA 6021 Chlor-oethanc RD 1.0 ug/L I.D 40/17/97 EPA 8021 Tri chi cwof I uoremethahe RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 1D/17/97 EPA BOZ1 1,1-Dieiitsro�thylona. ND 1-0 ug/L I.D 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Mechy{ettie c}ilorlde ND 1.0 ug/L I.0 16/11/47 EPA 9021 C i,2-Dichloroethylena RO 1.0 uq/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 0021, 1,1 OichloroeYiiiLhO 1.0 ug/1 1.0 10/17/97 EPA BOZi Chloro -torr N0 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,1,1-Trichloroeth6ns R11 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/91 .EPA BOi1 carbon teCPochlori& 90 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8081 1,2•Dichi or-Wharx , HD 1.0 u4/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA SOLI lriotilsrr tllYlern WD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10117/97 EPA SAZ1 1,Z Dicfil4FdptGptti9 RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 1S/17(97 EPA 8021 BraRadlthtbt` th RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10,117/9X EPA SOM C l,3-Dlrl4loTOpT6p4t1e RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 14/17/47 EPA SOZ1 afs-i3-0Ichlar-opropam MD 1.0 WL 1.0 i4/17/47 EPA SOM 1,1,2-Ttichtoroethane AD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 ' 10/17!47 EPA 8421. ,, TBtTbtNlol oetlimt RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Dib . romohlorowthade R1 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA $021 Chlorobenxere RD 1.0 ig/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Bremoform RD 1.0 Mrd/t 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1, 1, Z, Zletrachloroeth8n NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,3 D{chlorobrnzene ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8031 ;,)OPTH COAST LP.BORATORIES ;n80 b\Iezl End P-oad Atr•11d. C311(Mni'% )SS21 - 707-822-461!9 FAX 707.8'-21>631 D-3.20 Oate: 10/29/97 REPORT Page 9 of 1p Work order: 97-10-269 lhvOice 9. 60042081 SAMPLE 1D: Saltiwln CaMt:J92(l FRAC.: 02t COSMPED: 12/07f97 REtEIV0: 10/10/97. - Mw uU L41tlf. 'MM QE1l..FAGTOR EKTRA0IE HET1100 EPA S151Nater EPA 0151 owl Apon � S•0 Wt. 1.0 10/14/47 10/18/97 EPA DISH D i C;Wfba EtD 040 W*IL 1.O 10/14/97 10118/97 EPA 6151 NOPp 250 WL 1.0 10/14/97 10/18197 EPA 8151 A kE0 250 u9/L 1.0 10/14/97 16/1$/97 EPA 8151 DICh191rprop HD 1.0 uN/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/1e/97 EPA 811 2.6=fl RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 t0/19/97 4PA 8151 2,0,5=TP ND 0.550 Wt. 1.0 10/14/97 10118/97 EPA 8151 2,4,5-7 HD 0.5D 14/4 1.0 10/14/97 1!1/18/97 EPA 6151 H0 1.0 Wt. 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8151 Dinoteb ND Q.SQ us/L 1.0 10/14/97• 10/14/97 EPA 8151 Surro8at4: 10JU/97 10/18/97 EPA 8151 2,3-D 54.1 MIA % Roc 1.0 10/14/97 10/15/97' EPA. 6151 $AElPLE 1D; q l_ nst./Wei[ Bt EFRAC.: 22!�.- MLECTEA. 10 07 RE-M.VEDt 10 10 �> SULT LIMIT WIJS D.IL.FAt:TOQ gX7MC3E0 EPA 632/mater EPA 632 m4wi t >ag 40 u9/L 1.0 [Q/13/9'7 1011619T EPA 632 1(¢thowl ND 40 U211. 1.0 10/13/97 1Q/16/9T EPA 63Z rkmAron 110 4.0 WL 1.0 10/13/91' 18/16/97 EPA 632 i[Ct11irvn 110 4.0 u91k 1,0 10/13/97 10!14/97 EPA 63.2 No 40 ug/L 1.0 10113,/97 10/14/97 EPA 632 Prerpoxur Cptfurat� 110 40 u9/1, 1.0 10/T3/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 C>iT1>A ,1 ND 40 WL 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 62 f4t74aJ021XaiT RD 4.0 ug/L 1.0 ID/13/9T 101`16/97 0A 61.2 oiNr<nn 140 4-0 VOL 1.0 10/13!97, 10/16/97 EPA 432 Pf 1 RD 40 WL 1.0 10/13/97 IQ/l6f97 EPA M. Hethiomt6 1 40 0911 1.D 10113/97' 10/16/91 EPA d3Z &iron N9 40 ug!L O.d 10113/47 10/45/47 EPA, AS? 10 44 ►2/1. 1.D 1011$1 1 10/16/4!1 EPA 632 LJMX- *n lb 4.0 ug/L 1,0 10113197 101'1619 7 EPA 432 Sung Cbt"prgMx yp 40 WL 1.D 1#►113/9i 10/16/97 EPA 632 11D 40 t�B/L 1.0 TO/13197 10/16/97 EPA 632 8art16tta ND 4,0 Va/L 1.0 10113/47 10/16!97 EPA 632 He# ran 10/13/97 10ji6/97 EPA 632 trTb9A;e. S.SiL�eZ1114 T0.5 91h X Rtc 1.0 10/13/97 10116/97 EPA 632 NQRTH CQA5T LABORATORIES 5680 West fix! R044 • Arcalk CaRtomia 95531 • 707.822-4649 • FAX 707•B22-6831 D-3.19 REPORT Page 8 of j0 Z69 1 NORTH COAST LAD'ORATOPIES 5660 West End Road Arcata CaVoMia 95521 707-822•4649 FAX 707.822-6E31 v Tl_ l Q RESULT L11lIT U T'S p:iL.fAE7UR. EXT GT ED W.41 METHOD HD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 pgxlde NO 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/1'7/97 EPA 8081 NO 0.10 Wit 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 110 0:10 ug/L 1.0 10/13!97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 ND 0,10 LWL 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 . EPA 808.1 RD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 11DA t197 EPA 8.081 RD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10-13/47 101.17197 EPA' 8031 1 RD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13197 10117/97 EPA 8081 HO 0.10 LWL 1.0 10/13/97 10x17/97 EPA 8081 yde RD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 IOM 7/97 EPA 8081 ulfate NO 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 101'17/97 EPA 8081 RD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 IOp17/97 EPA 8081 HO 1.0 uq/L 1.0 10/13/97 1O $T/97 EPA 8081 NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 1Of17/97 EPA 8081 NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10113/97 10!17/97 EPA 8081 ND 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10p1719T EPA 6081 NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10-17/97 EPA 8081 Rb 1.0 UVL 1.0 10/13197 10417/97 EPA 8081 ND 1.0 WL 1,0 10/13/97 1OP17/97 EPA 8D81 No 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 IDA17197 EPA 8081 . 0 1.0 uq/L 1.0 10/13/97 10!17/97 EPA 8081 10/13/97 10.17/97 EPA W81 8P.1 H/A % Ret 1.0 1D/13/97 10.17/97 EPA W81 w1h cm4t:/ueil Irl FRAC.: 074 COLLECTED, 1030:3/97. RECE,1VM- 10110191 AMT L INIt l#IITC DEL.FA.OT:OR EXTHACTEO, f 11 l�TN00 EPA 619 140 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/1407 10!17/97 EPA 619 ND 0.50 uo/L 1.0 10/14-197' 10:!17/47 EPA 619. ND ' 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10417/97 EPA 619 Nal 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/16/97 1 DO 17/97 EPA 619 go 0..50 ug/L 1.0 10/16/91 1WIT191 . EPA 619 Ilia 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10[!17197 EPA 619 ND 0.50 gig/L 1.0 10/14/97 10!+17/97 EPA 619 ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 1W1T/97 EPA 619 ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10117/97 EPA 619 10/14/97 1C/17/91 EPA 619 sphate 98.5 9/A % Re -c 1.0 10/14/97 IC/17/97 EPA 619 . NORTH COAST LAD'ORATOPIES 5660 West End Road Arcata CaVoMia 95521 707-822•4649 FAX 707.822-6E31 v Tl_ l Q Dates 10/29/97 Work Order: 97-10-269 Invoice 0: 60062081 PARA14ETER 14-D1chl.cr bont". 1,Z-D1chlo.r x9a. .Wra01 0; 4-ChgorbX*0I- i dh* I REPORT Page 7 of Zp ?ff �lOc if1. Cl5ft8t,/5131-L i2_ F7tAC.: OZ� COLLI C1Eb: 1QID1'J3+� REal-vtD, 1D 9to RD 1.0 11g/L 1.0 10/ 17197 CPA 0091 KD 1..0 ug/L I .. D 10/ 17197 EPA 6.021 tiETHOD EPA AW/Vater 10717!97'EPA 8421 95 t4 M/A X Ree 1,.0 10/17197 EPA 4.021 ?ff �lOc if1. Cl5ft8t,/5131-L i2_ F7tAC.: OZ� COLLI C1Eb: 1QID1'J3+� REal-vtD, 1D 9to p�tpA ETER. 2E331LT LIM 1NJU 61L.FA0Oit-CVAACYED n.m tiETHOD EPA AW/Vater EPA 8141 Didilorvoq RD 0.50 tyg/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/91 EPA 8141 gelrlr,pttag RD 1,0 :Fp/L 1,0 10/14/97 10/15/47 EPA $941 0asaton - 9 and - S 90 2.0 by/L 1.0 10/14/97 70/18/97 EPA E143 Ethoprophos kv 1.0 U0/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/1@/97 EPA 8143 Phorate N0 0.50 Wt. 1.0 10/14/97 10%13/97 FPA 5143 pi.$xftwrt 10 050 ug/L 1.0 9D114/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 plsuLioton bp 0.30 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8941 Dimatb at4: 10 2.0 ug1L 1.0 10/14197 10/18/97 EPA, 0141 Aarinel MO 0.50 US/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/1$/97 EPA 6141 Methyl ParAthion MD 0.20 t1g/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 6141 chtorwrifaB RD 0.50 twL 1.0 10/14/97 10/18197 EPA 8141 Ethyl Parathion HD 0,50 ug/L 1.0 1@J14/97 16/18/91 EPA 8141 Fenthion 0.0 0.50 US/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 ERA 8141 F4af,e;tb190 HD 0,50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/1$/97 EPA am 7Qtrachtorvit�thvP HD 0.50 U4/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/16/97 EPA $141 fan4tiltQChiW4 MO 0.50 vs /L 1.0 10/14.197 10/14197 EPA -8141 Cptsmapilos 19i 2.5 taQ[L 1-0 10/14/97 1D/18197 EPA 8141 Ethion MD 0.30 upll 1.1 101141,9.1 ID114197 EPA 9141 Ati"os - *ethyl IID 2.5 u8/1. 1.0 1Q11&/97 10ii"7 EPA 8141 , 5ujrgpr>Ter 1D/1b/97 1011.8197 EPA 8141 Trlphenylpho att &Z.4 MIA % Uc 1.0 10/14/97 10/16/97 EPA 5141 SWLE 10: 0-algirin 44 i /tel l 2 f911C. t 2 C%LECFEA.t 10YLi�A� RI+Giil t 1Qli�L�� e RE5lfL1 �} 41L-Fac%oR FP1_U 0A Wal Nater EPA 6[!61 Atoo • RHC WD 0.10 tt111L 1.0 10113!97 10/17/91 EPA $097 Lil4atl6 1& 0,10 i#9/t 1.0 ' . 10/13/97. 10/17197 EPA 8081 Bete - SHC MD D.10 U91L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 5081 Htptaahlor MD 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 80-81 Delta - BHC MD MO uglL 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 NORTH C-PA5T LkBORATORIES 5680 West End Road • Aicata, G1H?miz 95521 - 707-822-4649 • FC 707-$22-6831 D-3.17 Ddte: 10!29/97 Work Order: 97.10.269 lnVolee t: 60062081 A.'.. ff 0'i ch tprvos Mvirsphos bemtan - 0 - B Etic6pFa,�hb8 , Phor4'Ce O f rdz 1.1�ort Gisaliatah . o i methaetis Reoml Hethyi Parethton thlt orpyri f oa Ethyl Parothion F er%tk i on NatathIoch Tat rachIorvirsphos Fonaulfoth(on eoumaphos Ethion AX'It�pb64 - ebthyl SiNi^og4'Ce: _ Tr( phsnylphlos04te EPA AIS1/Water 08(apcxl D1as� FiC?p MCPA Oichlotprop Zr4-D 2,491-TP' Z,4,5-T o4naseb Surrogates 2,3.d REsu4'1. L. Al. . 68._6 NIA 62.0 NIA 31.7 N/A 78.5 p/A 7P.6 ii/A 8.0:4 MIA ?$.8 H/A 55:2 x/A 80.1 M/A 83.1 M/A 88.1 K/A 88,1 M/A 77.5 M/A 86.8 M/A 97.3 K/A 88.2 MIA 44.8 MIA 92.4 M/A 102 M/A 115 M/A 9t.T M/A. 77.4 Rik 6$.6 MIA 73.9 M/A 78.6 R/A 80.9 MIA 10.3 MIA 49.5 a/A 79.2 N/A 26.0 MIA 65.8 N/A REPORT uk1.TS X &et % Ret % Roo X.lee X kee X Roo X, Rec X ket X Roo i Rec X Ree X Ree X Rao X Ree x tee X Ret x xet X Ree X Rec X Rec % Rec % Ree % Ret % Rec x Rex % Rec X Res X tee % 1t>1c- % Esc % kec Page 20 of Lv L?D 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 SPA 6141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 1.Q 10/14/97 10/{'8%97 EPA 8.141 1.0 10/14/97 18118/97 FPA 6141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 IPA 8141 " 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/9't ERA 8141 1.0 10/14/97 10114497 EDA 8141 1.D 10114/97 10/18/:97 EPA 8141 1,0 10/14/97 10M/97 EPA 8141 1.0 10%14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 1.0 10/14/97 10118/91 EPA 3.141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 PPA 8141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 .EPA 8141 1.0 10/1419T 10/18/97 EPA 8141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8M , 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 10/14/97 10118/97 EPA 6141 1,0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 EPA 8151 1.0 10/14/97 10(18/97 EPA 8151 1.0 10/14/97 10/16/97 EPA .8151 1.0 10114/97 10/18/97 EPA 6151 1.0 10/14/97 10/18./9'7 EPA 8151 1.0 10/14/97 10!14!97 EPA 8154 1.0 10(14/97 10118/97 EPA 8151 1.0 10/14/97 161118x97 EPA 8181 1.0 10114/97 10/18/97 EPA 8151 1.0 i0/16/97 10%18/97 EPA 8151 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8151 10/-14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8151 1.0 10114/97 10/1B/97 EPA 8151 NOtt`TH COAST LABORATORIES Sb80 West End Aohd Arbta, Caliiornla 95531 707•$224649 FAX 7078?2.6831 D-3.30 pates 10/29/97 R.EKAT Pogo 19 of -14 uoric erdarr 97-10-269 Invoice 8r 60062061 ia-mgm UNU lamx mm 9-ILEAMR EURAC.TED 41E, TH04 eix�1,3-Dichlat�gpropano 92.1 MIA %Ret 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6..021 1,1,1 -I'M 103 M/A % Rec 1,0 10/11/97 EPA 8051 Tet-rlactlloreethelle 103 N/A X Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 13021 Oibr acblarop tkOne 07.4 M/A % Rab 1.0 10/17/97 EPA "ZI Chlovobanz" 101 MIA X Ron: 1.0 10/17197 EPA 0021 8VAKW-,f0rm 99.7 MIA % Rec 1.0 10/17/97 VA 60.21 1,1,?i,9Tetrachloraethan 98.0 N/A X Ree 1.0 '16117/91 EPA dQ1 1,3-D %hlorobrnzcme 99:4 MIA X Sac 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,4-D3G11luroberi1.ene 102 M/A % Rae 1:0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 97.S M/A % Rec 1.0 10/'1719] EPA 80-1 Sur-mpoi¢s 10/17/97 EPA 8021 4-ChloPetolueiu 1D0 I MIA X Rec° 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 EPA 808106texr E4A 13081 Alpha - BHC 71,1 MIA X Rea 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 LlIX14M 71.1 MIA X Rec 1.0 10/'13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 a6ta - RHC 73.0 MIA X Rec 1,0 10/11M 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Heptachlor 74-6 MIA X Rat 1.0 10113/91 10/17/97 EPA 8.041 Delta . RHO 77.1 N/A X Res 1.0 10/11/97 10/17/97 EPA 80$1 Aldrin 42.z It/A '% Rte 1.0 10/13,/97 1Q/17/9'T EPA AD81 8eptaclitor epoxide U.7 MIA X Res 1.0 10/13/97 10117/97 EPA 8081 Endoautluri I TT -0 N/A X Rte 1.0 10/13/97 10/IT/9T EPA 8081 4,40 - DDE 80-3 MIA X Rec 110 10/OM 10/17/97 LPA 8081 Dialdrin 80.3 MIA % Rec 1.0 1D/13197 10/17/97 0A 8081 EMrin 105 M/A % Rec 1.0 1D/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 4,40 - ODD 72.9 MIA % Rec 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Erdasulfan Il 80.0 M/A % Rec 1.0 10/13197 10/17/97 EPA 8081 4,40 - of 46.3 M/A : RU 1.0 10/43197 1D/17/97 EPA 8081 Endrin aldehyde 44.6 MIA % Rec 1.0 10/13/97 10717/97 EPA 8P1 e dosutfan sulfate 7$.7 VA % Rex 1.0 10113/97 10/47/97 EPA.SW Ne'thRttyd►lot 76.0 MIA X R." 110 10/13/97 10/17/9+7 EPA 0081 tot mdena MIA MIA 4 940 1.0 10/13/97 10/17197 EPA 8081 Tesxaphom K/A RIA X Ret 1.0 10/13/97 10/1TM SPA WDI PCs - 1016 R1A MIA % Ree 1.0 10113191 10/17/97. EPA 8*81 PCs - 1221 MIA MIA % Ru 1:0 10/13/9T 10/17197 . EPA 8081 PCs - 1232 R/A. MIA % Reo 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PC9 - 1242 MIA R/A % Ree 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 80$1 PC8 - 1248 MIA N/A X Rte 1.0 1D/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PCB - 1254 X/A M/A % Rec 1,0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA BD61 PCR - 1260 N/A MIA % Rec 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA BD81 SurrDpale: 110/13/97 10/11/97 EPA BOB1 Chlororeb 62.2 VIA % Rec 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 EPA 8141/Vater EPA 8141 NDRTI-i COAST LABORATORIES 5680 West End Road - Areata Cal<lorrtia 955ZI - 707-822.4649 - FAX 707-B22-6831 D-3.29 Date: 10/29/97 REPORT P90o 18 of 2, Work Order: 97-10-269 Invoice R: 60062081 NORTH COAST LA80RATORIES 5680 West End Road • Arcata. California 95521 - 707.822-4649 • FAX 707-i422•E'fl I D-3.28 ER SOLT LiNiT UNtT9 PIL,rwoR EXTRACTE;P _ R M�THOO DttttoJt" 80.9 MIA % Ree 1.0 10/13/97 10/96/97 EPA 632 PtopNptit 79.3 MIA X Rea 1.0 10/13/97 16/16/97 EPA 632 14thiocarb " 8Z.6 M/A % Rea 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 Sltl atl 82.1 M/A X Rea 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 tpA 632 Lltitkcn 77.4 RIA X Ree 1.0 10113/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 Staep 74.5 M/A X Roc 1,0 101113/97 10/16%97 EPA 63? oliLori 81-2 NIA X Rea 1.0 10/13/97 10116197 EPA 632 Aarbam 82.8 MIA X Stec 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 yebggtj 81.9 N/A X Ree 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 StifFvgstE: 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 SStaezSna 66.3 N/A X Rec 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 EPA 8021 Ar6mbtics/V4ttr EPA 8021 aenzef* 95.4 NIA X Ree 1.0 10/17%97 EPA 8021 Toluonm 97.3 u I A % Ree 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Chtorobenzerw 96.2 MIA X Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Ethy( benzene" 96.D MIA X Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 m,p XyLene 97.4 NIA X Rea 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021' o Xylene 9T.4 MIA X Rec 1.0 10/1T/97 EPA 8021 1,3-Dichlorot riztne 97.7 MIA % k r 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 1,4-DicFl�orobenzene 95.3 MIA % Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPR 8021 i,L-Dichlorobenzene 98.5 NIA X Ree 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6021 Surrogate: 10/17/97 EPA 8021 4-Chlorotolub.04 100 .0/A % Rec 1.0 16/17/97 EPA 6021, EPA 8021 Hgloge Ced/1lA3el EPA 8021 01ch to.rodlftuoromothtne 80.4 RIA X Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Cht.orcmtham 108 M/A % Ree 1.0 10/17197 EPA 8021 vinyl eh1ar<1da 85.3 MIA % Rec 1.0 10/17/91 EPA 8021 arm mo tbume 91.1 M/A X Rea 1.D 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Cht,orowtimm. 87.5 MIA X Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8GZ1 Trfalslory lllotdl tN8i1m 88.1 NIA % Rsa 1.0 10/1719T EPA 8021 t,1=DtClilOtere#NylesttR 9i.t MIA % flee 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 methylene ehtaride 92.2 MIA X Ree 1.0 10/i7/9T EfA 8021 t•1,Z-bl.chLaroet'hyle'ne 9Z.5 M. /A X Ree 1.0 10/17/9Y EPA 8021 1,1 -01c11tvroethexle 92.0 M/A % Rec 1.6 t0/V/97 EPA 8021 ChtorofoPfn 97.4 NIA X Rec 1.0 10/17/9T EPA 8021 1,1,1-TrIcht*rmethkrie 94..0 M/A % Rec 1.D 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Carbon tetrechtoride, 95.4 M/A % Rea 1.0 10/17/91 EPA 8021 1,2 �iehloroethane 96.5 N/A X Rec 110 10117/9? EPA 6021 Trichloroethylene 99.8 u/A % Rea 1,0 1D/11/97 EPA 8021 1,2-Dichloropropano 92.0 M/A X Rec 1.D 10/17/97 EPA 6021 8rowdiehlorooethane 103 MIA X Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6021 t-1,3-Dlehloropropono 101 MIA % Rec 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 NORTH COAST LA80RATORIES 5680 West End Road • Arcata. California 95521 - 707.822-4649 • FAX 707-i422•E'fl I D-3.28 Data: 10/29197 REPORT Page IT of'i-I Work Ordort. 97-10-269 Irr4olce 91- 60062081 muff= um UM Ifflin p.l.L,fAcTbq E.XTRA.CTA2 A-timbol - 6*tt.t-Yt No Ls U§/L 1.0 10/14/917 10/IB/911' EPA 0141 six .. me'Vor., 10114/91 10/18197 EPA 6.141 Tr.jp-bv*.ljphqtp'hgt-c 90.6 N/A X Rec 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/91. EPA 1i41 EPA mmwqur EPA 6151 Datzq" MD- 5.0 UO/L 1.0 10/14./97 10118l97 Em sm blewba ND 0.50 u9iL 1,0 10114/97 10118/91 EPA 11-51 KIPP RD 2.50 u9A 140 10/1419.7 10/1807 EPA -4151 HOA RD 250 UO/L 1.0 10/14-197 10/18(97 EPA 8I51 bichlorprop No 1.0 ugh 1.0 IDJ14/97 10116/97 EPA 9151 Z,4 -D No 1.0 uWL 1.0 10114./97 10/1$197 EPA 6151 2,4,5 -TP No 0.50 uqjL 1.0 10/14197 10/18 %97 EPA 1051 2,4.S -T up 0.50 UO/L 1.0 10/14f97 I0/15f97 EPA 051 2.4-0R ND 1.0 uvJL 1.0 10/44197 10/18/97 EPA 01SI 0 inoseb 1* 0.50 US/L 1.0 10/14/01 10/18/97 EPA 8151 Surrogates 10/14197 10/18/07 EPA 8151 2,3-D 62.5 N/A t Rec 1.0 110/14/97 I0/18/97 EPA 8151 tmw.L.E ID% CbhtN.t S.a FRAC.! COLLECIEN N/A Rml-VEpt 10l101.21 PARAMETER RESULT um1A�115 I L. FACFM EXTRACTED W EPA 619/W-tt EPA 07 propplan X *.Cc 1.0 10/14/97 10/117197 EPA 619 Attata" $2.6 MIA % flet 1.0 10/14197 10/17197 EPA 619 pr"XiYAO 82.6 N/A X !tee 1.0 10/14197 10/17/97 EPA 619 urulm 79.3 MfA % Ift 1,0 10/14197 ID/17.f97 EPA 619 Prvmtrr 87.7 91A X Rec 14 10/14197 IQII?pn F -PA. 619 Timbutryn 81.8 MIA % itt-C 1.0 lo/14197 10/17 EPA W Si#mxzinw U.4 at -A % Rec 1.0 I!DIIA/77 10/ 17197 F --PA 619 wtryn 79.9 MIA x Rec 1.0 19/14197 10t17197 EPA 6.19 Simtryn 82.8 9/4 % Rec 1.0 10/1401 10/17197 EPA 619- Surrogbt8; 10/44/97 10/17/07 EPA 019 Triphe"tphasobtt 90.14 N/A X tee 1.0 10i14/97 90y17f97 0% 610 EPA 632 EPA 61UWS.W 78.4 MIA % kic, LID 10113107 t0/16/97 EPA 632 tlethcalyl 81.2 K/A. % Rec 1.0 10113/97 10116/97 EPA 632 Fer"on 81.0 MIA x Ru 1..0 I0113147 10116197 EPA 632 mgmwoh S3.3 VIA % Rec 1.0 10/1319.7 10116177 EPA 632 Prop ur 54.4 NIA % Rec 1.0 10113197 10/16/97 EPA -M carivfvran 8317 N/A x 4c 1.0 10/I3/97 10116.197 EPA 637 c4rbaryi 8L.7 NIA % R". 1.0 10/13197 I0/16/97 EPA 632 F t uom turon 81.7 N/A % Ap; 1.0 I0/13/97 10/16197 EPA 632 NORTH COkST LABORATORIES 5680 West End Rood - Arcata. Calif0miz 95521 - 707-822-4649 - FAX 707-822-6831 D-3.27 Date: 10/29/97 REPORT Lege 16 of '40 Uor1C Order: 97.10-269 Irryoice N: 60062081 PARAMETER RESULT km UNITS D.IL.fACTOR EXTRACTED M 0IRR Aldrin No 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Haptgchlhr opoxida UO 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 ldosutfan t 0.10 ug/L. 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 4,4' - DOE MD 0:10 k4/t 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 D16tdrin R0 0.10 u0/L_ 1.0 10/13/47 10/17/97 VA 8081 Efde(n 1 go 0.10 uR/L 1.0 10/i319T 10/17/97. . EPA 6081 4,41 - DDD 1O 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13%97 - 10/1`r/97 EPA 8081 Epdosulfer+ it No. 0.10 W/L 1.0 10/13/07 10/17'/97 EPA 8081 4,41 - DDT ND O.io ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Endrin aldehyde ND 0.10 ug/L 1:0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 methoxychlor ND" 0.10 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA8081 Chlordane NO 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8A81 ToX.Vflene RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 6081 PCIS - 1016 RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PGB - 1221 RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 6081 PCH - 1232 RD 1.0 ug/L 1,0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 PCH - 1242 RO 1.0 uo/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 9081 PCS - 1248.. IID' 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/11/07 EPA 8081 PCB - 1254 RO 1.0 u9/L 1.0 10/13/97 fO/17/97 EPA 5081 PCB - 1260 RD 1.0 ug/L 1,0 10/13/97 10/17/99 EPA 8081 3w rogate: 1D/13/97 10(17/97 EPA 8081 Chloroneb 73.2 R/A % Ret 1.0 10/13/97 10/17/97 EPA 8081 €PA 814.1 NAter EPA 8141 01chlorvo3 6J 0.5D LQ/L 1.0 10/14/9T 10/18/97 EPA 8141 mevinphog No 1.0 u9/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 8141 DeNtaton - 0 end - S 10 2.0 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10118/91 EPA'8141 Ethopropht>g ND 1,0 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 1011x3/97 EPA 8141 Phrsrete NO, 0.50 USA 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97' EPA 8141 51a3zinon RD 0.50 tia/L 1,0 10/14/97 10j18/97 EPA 9141 Dlsulfoton RD 0.50 ugrL k.0 10/14/91 10/18/97 EPA 8141 0i" thoate 9D 2.0 1F9/L 1.0 10/14/9: 10/i8197 EPA 8141 Ramwt RD 0.S0 ug/L 1.0 10/14(91 10/18/97 EPA 8141 metbyt Parathion RD 0.20 ug/L 1.0 10/14/9" 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Chlorpyrifos RD 0.50 u0/L 1.0 10/14/9: 10118/97- EPA 8141 £thyi Parathitn RD 0.50 uVL 1.0 10/1419' 10118/97 EPA 8141 Pent -bion RO 0.50 U91L 1.0 10114/9' 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Halath.lon 0 0.50 41L 1.0 10/14/9' 10/18/97 EPA 8141 Tetrachlorvinphoe &0 0,50 vg/L 1.0 10/14/91' 10/18/47:, EPA 8141 Fensulfothian RO 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/1479? 10/18/97 EPA 8141 CotaTiaphos RD 2.5 u9/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPt 8141 ethion UO 0.50 ugh 1.0 10/14/99 10/18/97 EPR 8141 rdQRTH COAS LASORATpRIES 5600 West Erd Road ArCata, C3G.OMi3 95521 • 707-822-4649 FAX 707-122-6831 D-3.26 Data. 10129197 REPDRT Page 15 of QOrk Order-. 97.10-269 Invoice 4. -60062081 LIM KqM 0.1 L-, F AC--T!a RAU - - _g2 1,3RDicht-ariA-*r1ZtM RD 1.0 U21L 1.0 10/17,[91 EPA 841 1,4-IDixh(-oNb6M*jN* RD 1.0 W.L. 110 10/17/97 PPA 8021 RD 110 LWL 1.0 10117197 EPA 602I 10/i7/97 OA B02-1 surryetrts 4-r"ht . *mtoluvle 94,0 NIA X sec 1.0 10j17f97 W AAZI EPA SMI EPA abj Halbopmted/Us-Vor NO 1.0 u9tL 10!19'/9i EPA 8021 Dltht-OrOdWUOMOMtl�OM 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10f17/91 EPA 6021 NO 1.0 uIg/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 Vinyl chloride No 1.0 WL 1,Q ID117197 EPA 8021 Brom*tum RD 1-0 ujr/L 1.0 MUM EPA 8021 Chlovc-ethwm Trich Loroftuorcmqtbwri6 14D 1,0 uq/L 1.0 10.117/91 EPA 8.021 1,1-D I chtoroe'thyt"i 14D 1.0 ug/L 1.0 "A NO p4thvtw.* chloride No 1.0 110 10j1l/71 EPA UZI t-I,2-DIthIQr,I>vthYIq!tw MD 1.0 I'd 10117/97 W 6021 1, 1-4) irhiaroethem HD 1.0 u .91L 1.9 10111197 CPA 5021 101IT197 EPA 502.1 Chlor-WOM HD RD 1.0 1.0 t4/L Ln/L 110 1.0 I4/I7/97 EPA 8021 1.1.1-Trichtor"tharw 9b 1.01 u9it 1.0 10117/9? EPA 8021 parbon tetraGhlorlde 1.0 wqjL 1.0 10/1Z/97 EPA 6021 j,j-0ichIoroetb.bM RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA aOZI RD I twt I'D. jollyfg? EPA M' No -D 1.0 twi 1.0 10/11`/97 CPA b0z, 9rcm.KdIchI.armGth&6e NP 1.0 10/17[97 EPA 0041 t - I , j; -b I ch t o roprVW* im 1.0 ug It u9[L- 1.0 10/17M EPA 8.02, c I s , 1, 3 - 0 1 ch Lur oprmpem 1.0 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 66z1 1, 3 2 - T r I ch ka"rou th 9* 1.0 W.L 1.0 10117{97 ESA SOZI Tatrse�Loro�the ND 1.0 ug/L ito 10117M. EPA B021 oibrloragciliaile RD 1.0 Us/L 1.0 1o/17/97 EPA OZI ND . 1,0 1.0 VWL qq/t 1.0 10117/97 EPA 8021 Broa:bfil�i ND i.0 WL to 10/17/97 EPA 00ZI 1.0 loll?'/FPA A $024 No 1.9 US/L UOA 1.4 111/17/97 EPA 8021 No 1.0 Lo 14117/97 EPA 80V A,2-0j-,hAardb.e=tm u;IL 10/17197 EPA 8021 km9tht63 6 MIAx Reg 1.0 10117i97 EPA 60M 4-010rotalue"liT EPA 6061 Fp,A emwo"?, "D 0.10 uWL i.0 7 EPA BO . jo -jify? 10/17/9 M v BBC RD D.10 &GIL 1.0 W -4111T 1011TIW EPA 6051 t r -dam 0.10 09/1. 1.0 10111/97 10/17/97 ePA $041 sttz - WD 0.10 U9A 1.0 tolls 97 19119/47 EPA BOW heptachlor No O.W. 4g./L 1.0 I0II5/91 ]0/17197 EPA 6081 Delta - BHC rp NORTH COAST LAAORATORIES 5680 Wc;( Erd Road - Ar C.3ka, Ca8for4a 95S21 - 707422-4649 - FM 707-822-6831 D-3.25 Date: 10/29/97 P.EPORT Page 14 of 2" Work Order: 97-10.269 Invoice 9; 60062001 SAMPLE I D i Ae.thod D1+1 FRAC.: 04A C04.LE07E0: M/A ... RECEIVED: f0110/97- DIL'FACIOR EXTRACTED RUR KINOd 04A 619/►?stet EPA 619 Pro"tcn ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Atraton NO 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Ptopaztro RD 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Atrazine ND 0.50 u0/L 1.0 10/14/91 10/17/97 EPA 619 Proaatryn ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 6'19 Terbut:,ryn ND 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Simat ine ND 0.50 UVL 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Ametryn RD D.SD ue/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Simetryn No 0.50 ug/L ►.D 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Surrogate: 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 Triphenylphos{h ate 90.7 N/A X Ret 1.0 10/14/97 10/17/97 EPA 619 EPA 632/water EPA 632 OxamyI. RD 40 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/9T EPA 63Z ' Nethoaiyl No 40 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10//6/9T EPA 632 Fenuran w 4.6 ug/L 1.0 10/13(97 10/16/97 EPA 632.,- Konuron RD 6.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 Propo,xur RD 40 u9/L 1.0 10/13/97 1D/16/91 EPA 632 CarbofuNin uD 40 u0lL 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA. 632 CarbtLryt ND 40 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/91 lPll 632 Fl1lCiiipturoil . ND 4.0 Wt. 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 63Z Diuron NO 4.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 ID/16191 EPA 632 proiStiata ND 40 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 M6thlocarb RD 40 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/91 EPA -63Z Ston No 40 up/L 1.0 10/13/97 10116/9T EPA 632 LInor on 10 4.0 ug/t 1.0 10/13/97 10/16%97 EPA 632 5gep ND 4.0 ug/L 1.0 10/13/97 10/161'91 EPA 632 ChlOrprtipli ND 40 ug/L 1.0 10/i3/91 10/16/97 EPA 632 9ar}sam NO 40 ug/L 1.0 tD/13/47 10/16!97 EPA 632 Naburon ED 4.0 u91L 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 632 Surr4prTte: 10/13/97 10/16/97 EPA 63Z S1s1na 64.;6 R/A % Rec 1.0 10/13/97 10/16/91 EPA 632 CPA BOZ1 Ar;o#ratic9tWltpr EPA 8021 Banzcne kQ 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 6021 Toluene MD 1.0 u9/L 1.0 10/17/91 EPA 8021 Chlarobenzene NO 1.0 ug1L 1.D 10111197 EPA 8021 Ethylbenzene RD 1.0 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 m,P xylene WD 0.50 ug/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 0 xylem' ND 0.50 u4/L 1.0 10/17/97 EPA 8021 NOR TH COAST LABORATORIES 5680 West End Road A.cata. California 95521 - 707.822.4649 FAX 707-5.22-6831 D-3.24 Date: I0I29/97 RtPM T Pago 13 0 f 7c, Work Order- 97-10-269 Invoice 91 60062081 IMPLE IDs 0114910 C2 t.,IVAI #3 FRAC,.x 039.. COLU'00: .10/07197 kXCEIVIO, 1OZ101-91 MUM '01t.tACIOR EXTRUT ED RUN W-TH00 ph 8j51/VAtO#6 EPA 8151 D,A I BPOn AD 14 10/14.197 10,/18191 EPA 60 1 UT emba RD O. -SI U91L 1r9 10/14197 1 DI 18197 EPA 8151 MCPP RD 250 ug/L 1.0 10114197 i0f78/97 CPA 8151 MCPA RD 25.0 WL 1.0 10/14.197 10118,/97 EPA SIS -1 DichloWop RD 1.0 U214 I'a 10/16/97 10/18/97' ZPK $151 2.4-0 RD 1.10 o.91L 1-0 1014197 10118.197 EPA 8151 2"4,5 -TP NO 0.50 ug/L 1.0 101I4/07 10l18/97 EPA AiSI 2.4.5-Y RD 0.50 w L 1.0 70p4/9'r 10lI8I97 EPA 8151 216-D3 MD 1.0 WIL 1.0 10/14191 10118197 0A 4151 D;ncsab NO O -SO 'uq/L 1.0 10/14/97 10/18/97 EPA 815.1 Surrogate: 10/14/97 10/18197 EPA BISI 2.3-D 54.9 N/A Z Kee 1.0 10/14t97 10/1V97 EPA B151 SAMPLE ID; OpI&IM COMt-Kelt NA FkAr. t ZL MLLE=ED; 1007197 K%,z-Ivp: 16/19197 PARAME kESULY UMI EPA W. /water EPA 632 40 ug/L EPA 632 RD. 0 mg/L 10117/97 EPA 632 Farlwon No 4.0 U21L7'.0 1p113/9T 10117197 EPA 632 "Orman RD 4.0 U21L 1,0 10/1.3.197 10MO7 9P& 61Z Propoxw ND 40 ug/L 1.0 10113/97 10/0197 EPA 6U . cart�ofusqn NQ 40 UOA 1.0 1.011P/97 EPA M Catbiryl )(D 40 LOA 1.0 101I3197 I0/11/97 EPA 63E ftuomtur-co RD 4.0 USA 1.0 10/1.3,/97 10111n? EPA 432 D I ur an NO 4*0 vwL 1.0 10/13/97 10f17f97 EPA 632 proow "D 40 U21t I.D IW,3/97 MUM EPA 63Z mathtocarb HD 40 - UgA 1.0 I0/13/o7 1OI17197 EPA 632 siduron go 41 ug/L 1.0 10113197 10/17/97 CPA 637 t iviran RD 4.0 ug/L 1,0 10/13/97 jefjr/ff E?A. 632 Suep -NO 48.0 uvIL 1.0 10113197 10/17/97 - EPA 632 40 WL 110 10/131V 10I17197 EPA. e2 garb" go 40 ug/L 14 lDfl3f*? I(VIT&T UA 63?* llqwron NO 4.0 ug/L 110 JoIn /gy IQ/ITIV7 EPA 632 0,13197 10/1r/p7 EPA 632 Surrogates 65.3 N/A10/13/97 1011TI$7 EPA 632 simailne t4ORTH CQAST LABORATORIES 5680 Weil W Road - Mcatx Cali(OT4 95521 - 707.822-4619 - FAX 707-8224831 D-3.23 M&T Chico Ranch Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan - The project consists of a long-term, off -channel gravel mining operation. The mining would tale place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site over a 20 to 30—year period. Reclamation would occur incrementally and would consist of the creation of, open -water, wetland wildlife habitat and agricultural uses. The aggregate would be processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site. The project is located on a portion of the M&T Chico Ranch approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River and approximately 5 -miles southwest of the City of Chico, in an area north of and adjacent to Ord Ferry Road, and east of; and partially adjacent to, River Road. Access to the site would be provided byRiver Road. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 039-530-019, 039-530-020 (File # MIN 96-03) (DB) Mr.. Breedon gave a brief'suntirrary ofthe project and the last hearing. He noted a letter received this morning from Ellman, Burke, Hof'finan, and Johnson. He said staff and County Counsel need to look at the issue of the Williamson Act and staff'will be asking for this item to be continued. Commissioner Lambert said she received an e-mail from Barbara J. Berger in opposition. Chairman Leland said the Commission postponed the last meeting to. get continents from the Department of Conservation and the Department of Conservation sent a letter stating that they were not going to give the County any comments because they thought the proposal was incompatible with'the Williamson Act. He said the Commission can either take their response as a "no continent" and move on or the Cornmission can decide the Williamson Act issue without any further input.. He asked County Counsel for guidance. Mr. Wannenmacher said the last hearing was continued to receive an adequate reclamation plan. He said there has been no outside analysis on the revised reclamation plan and that we were waiting for comments from the Department of Conservation. He -said that there is still a problem in evaluating the reclamation plan, and that it was a good idea to not approve the envirorutrental document. He said now staff has a completed reclamation plan, and we are waiting to get comments from the Department of'Conservation. The Department of Conservation stated that there is no point in commenting on a reclamation plan that is incompatible with the Williamson Act. He said staff is in the process of evaluating what to do. He said one option is to see the letter from the Department of Conservation as a "no conunent." He said under 2774 of the Public Resources Code section (d) (1) it states that "the director (Department of'Conservation) shall have 30 days from the date of'receipt of a reclamation plan or plan amendments submitted pursuant to subdivision (c) and 45 days from the date of receipt of financial assurances submitted pursuant to subdivision (c) to prepare written comments, if the director so chooses" Mr. Wannenmacher said that after receiving the letter from the Department of Conservation, he contacted their legal staff and asked them whether County Counsel should interpret the letter as a "no comment." He said the response was that the letter should not be interpreted as a "no comment." He said staff is trying to evaluate this legal issue and have not reached a conclusion. He said if the Commission does not believe the Department of'Conservation will give them feedback, they can direct staff to look for someone else to evaluate the reclamation plan. Chainraan Leland pointed out that it will take at least one more hearing to make a decision. He said lie would be interested to hear if the applicant can get someone else to review tl-_e reclamation plan. He said to his knowledge the Williamson Act allows a gravel mine. He said .he Williamson Act Contract states that M & T gets a tax break if they agree to restrict the use of their property and the restrictions are set out in the contract. Included in the authorized uses is a grave_ operation. In 1994 the new laws say you can not use the land for a gravel operation unless they are "grandfathered" in and the gr•andf'athering in says if it was an authorized use back when you entered into the contract, it is still an authorized use. Mr. Wannen coacher said there is an issue determining what was allowed under the Williamson Act Contract at the time and what the 1994 changes in the law did to that contract._ He said there was a problem prior to 1994 with local governments approving projects that the Department of Conservation did not believe were compatible with the Williamson Act.. He said that pre -1994 the Department of'Conservation believed that mining operations such as this one were not compatible with the Williamson Act. He said the question is whether the local agencies had the independent authority to approve the training or whether they needed to consider the interpretation of the Department of Conservation. He said the impacts of the 1994 amendments to the Law were to change that, but it is still grandfathered in pre-existing contracts. He said there is language in the grandfather clause that is being interpreted in different ways. He said in Govenunent Code Section 51238.3 (c) (1) "Neither shall the requirements of Sections 51238.1 and 51233.2 apply to uses that are expressly specified within the contract itself' prior to June 7, 1994, and that constituted a "compatible use" as the term "compatible use" was defined by this chapter at the time that Williamson Act contract was signed with respect to the subject contract lands." He said he asked the Department of'Conservation what that section meant, and was told that it means the Department of Conservation, as the entity responsible for overseeing the Williamson Act, believes that the change in the law entitled them to have a say in what is compatible in prior contracts- He said he was not ready to say one way or the other whether that is an accurate statement. Chainnan Leland asked how this issue will get resolved. Mr. Wanneruraacher said he will do more research so we can comeback witlhthe right answer. He said that the Department of Conservation has become more active in pursuing matters dealing with the Williamson Act. He noted that there were other issues discussed at the list meeting regarding this application. Chairman Leland said one of the other issues is whether this land is prime agricultural land or not. He said it would not matter if the Department of Conservation is correct on the characterization issue; the project would not be allowed either way if it is correct on the Williamson Act issue. Mr. Breedon said that under the Williamson Act it embraces open space uses and habitat uses such as are proposed by this project's end use which is wildlife ponds. He said tlr: Williamson Act was amended a couple of'years ago to allow for those types of'open space uses being deemed compatible under the law. . i BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COIvI1vIISSION � IvIINiJT'ES i JAIVLTARY 22, 2004 � PAGE 4: �:. '. Mr. Wannenmacher said he was told that the project would need to conform to one ofthe definitions of open space as defined in 51201 of the Government Code.. He said lie would have to look whether this project would fall under any of the open space definitions. Commissioner Marin said the Commission is discussing the legalities and the question of why the Corrunission is not going forward here. He said the problem here is that they are caught up in issues every tirne "not in my back yard" people show up with their attorneys to try to intimidate the Commission. He said the County was more a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution because they were not ready to make a decision at the last meeting, continued to this hearing, and it looks like it will be continued again. He did not feel that we were moving forward. He was concerned that someone would bring up another issue to stall a decision on this project. Mr_ Wannenmacher said there may always be additional issues brought forward, but lie believed at some point we will have adequate certainty to be able to deal with the issues and resolve the matter. He said at this point the reason they are not able to do that is because lie has not been able to fully evaluate the issues. Commissioner Marin said the Commission will never be able to look into this as long as we are relying on someone else to tell the Commission how they should interpret the Code. He said if the Commission can not look at something and say their opinion, and determine whether the project is good or not for the community, and for progress, the Commission is not going to move forward.. Chairman Leland said the Commission can not make a.decision today Mr. Wannemnacher said if there is someone present today that has what they believe to be additional or supplemental information, it would be appropriate to give the testimony today. Commissioner Lambert asked about getting new cornments past the time to continent on the EIR. If' the hearing is continued and staff is receiving new information, what is the obligation to the public to respond to the new information? Mr. Wannenmacher said the one obligation is the one under CEQA to respond to comnnents on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He said the other obligation is the one under the Brown Act to hear comments received and consider those comments brought before the Connmission at any hearing while the matter is open. Commissioner Lambert asked about when it comes down to making a decision, what other findings does the Commission have to make, i.e., consistent with the General Plan, public desires, etc., to approve this project. Mr. Wannenmacher said the Commission has to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan, the Commission would have to certify the Environmental Impact Report and that the certification of the environmental document would require a number of findings. He believed certification of the EIR would require some findings of overriding considerations as to items for which mitigations could not be set out in the environmental document, and the Commission would have to make findings on the approval of the project. BUTTE.COUNTY.PLANMNG'COMMISSION s MINUTES` JANUARY 22, 2004 s PAGES Chairman Leland commented on the 20 page late letter. Commissioner Nelson said letters will always come in late_ Mr. Breedon said that there were consultants and sub -consultants present to answer questions and that their time was limited. Chairman Leland said that one of the assertions was that this is an area that floods and when it floods it will pick up sediment loads and pollutants from the heavy equipment used in -connection with the dredging operation and this will have an impact downstream on the Parrott Ranch. He said one complaint is that this is not addressed in the EIR and that it is an impact that the Commission should consider because it is part of the overall compatibility criteria used in approving the Use Permit, He said lie looked at the EIR and it seems that some accommodation was made fon this impact, that the equipment would be in an area that is better- protected. He said the questions are first, does the Commission believe that this requires a re -circulation of the EIR and second, is there a special impact to the Parrott Ranch downstream that should be considered? The hearing was opened to the public. Mike McEnespy, engineer, said his job has been to address the flooding and hydrology issues for this project_ He said that the area that will be used to process the materials excavated from the mine will be on pads that are in excess of the 100 year flood elevation. He said --.hey worked hard at minimizing the impacts on water surface and adjacent properties so as to not -,ncrease any flooding problems in the area. He said that this project is designed to elevate the pads with the process above the floodplain and is carefully designed so the excavation part of the project l=as a by-pass channel. He said there will be a weir that will protect the area where they do the excavation from up to the 5 - year reoccurrence interval so that there will not be water from a combination of•Little Chico Creek, Angel Stough, and the Sacramento Riven flowing directly through this pit. He said the project is carefully designed so the downstream point where everything leaves this site, where the water goes now is where it will end up going back to. Chainnan Leland said that the assertion is not that the quantity of water is goir_g to differ, but will the water contain sediment loads and pollutants? Mr. McEnespy discussed the design of the project. He said the project will rvDt change the quantity of the runoff and will not put it in a different location, it will go toward the property downstream in the sante place it goes now. He explained a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and said you have to design any project that you do to mitigate for potential off -'site runoff. He said a SWPPP is a plan required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. He said when excavation occurs in the pit area, excavation will not typically take place during the time that the water flows through the pit. He briefly discussed runoff and sediment. Mr. Wannenmacher asked if the SWPPP was something that he was evalu.-ting or is it something that the operator will only do after the project is approved and send only to the regional board - X: BUTTE COUNTY PI:ANNING COMMISSION `n NUNUTES.'s,JANUARY 22,2004's Mr_ McEnespy said the SWPPP are required for disturbance of anything greater than one acre. He said he has done a number of'SWPPP for projects he has worked on. He said ones in the past have been done for on-going projects. He said he was not hired to do a SWPPP for: this project. Mr. Breedon explained that Mr. McEnespy's job was to monitor and determine the floodplain impacts. Dave Brown, Consultant, said he felt the water issues were covered in the ELS. He discussed the pictures shown at the last meeting, by the public and other people; of water qu ility during flooding and those are far from clear water flowing down those pathways. He said g:nerally when water flows from a high energy region to a low energy region coming through a- lake it will drop in sediment load and not pick up sediment loads. Chairnian Leland asked the significance of the State Conservation Zone, Mr. Breedon said lie would need to research that. Chairman Leland asked about the 300 -foot setback issue. Mr. Breedon said Section 2.2 of the Agricultural Element applies to residentia5 uses. He said Policy 2.3 talked about other non-residential use. Chairman Leland said regarding the truck issues, was that this project was analyzed on the assumption that no traffic would go over the stretch of River Road between HSghway 32 and Chico River Road where it parallels the Sacramento River, and asked how this wou-d be accomplished if they do not have a set truck route. Mr. Breedon said it was by the design of the applicant that River Road will not be used. There was a brief discussion. Chairman Leland asked how much flexibility does the Commission have to designate the truck route before they have to re -circulate the EIR and do the traffic study. Commissioner Lambert asked by limiting or determining how many tricks car go on a road, couldn't the Commission also designate a haul route. Mr. Wannenmacher said if they pick another route for traffic they would have to determine if the routes needed to be studied for the amount of traffic on thein. Mr. Breedon said the proximity of the Durham School was discussed at the -.ast meeting regarding the truck route. He said there is a map in the EIR showing the truck route :he applicant plans on using. Chairman Leland asked how much flexibility does the Commission have in =fixing the assumptions made in the traffic study before they have to re -do the study and re -circulate the EIR. :::: BUTTE' COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION i MINUTES JANUARY 22; 2004 PAGE Z`:.::'::" Mr. Brown said limiting this to one truck route would be difficult. He said :he applicant needs different routes because the material goes to different locations.. Commissioner Nelson asked what percentage of the tricks will be going to the Skyway plant. Mr. Breedon said about 15 percent Michael Brady, representing the applicant, said he was not happy that this item is being continued. He said the Department of Conservation has already commented once on the reclamation plan. He said the Department of Conservation has made this project more complicated then it needs to be. He said the process has gone on a long time. Commissioner Lambert said the reclamation plan might be revised, but it _s the first time the Planning Commission has seen a reclamation plan. Rene Vercrussen said he was amazed at what this process is turning into. He was upset that people turning in late letters can cause another continuance. He said the Departm5nt of Conservation commented on the EIR. He said the Williamson Act contract with M&T allows ruining. He said he could not believe the County can go back and say now mining is not allowed_ He said the SWPPP will be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. He said, regarding the issue of•truck traffic, the trucks pay road tax and weight fees and are entitled to use the roads. He said a truck going 15 miles an hour would be in front of Putney Drive for 5'/Z seconds. He ;aid the traffic in and out of the Skyway Plant will not change by one load. He said if this hearing is continued, he would like it continued to a point where a decision can be made and that it be the last hearing. Howard Ellman, representative of Llano Saco, said he was sorry for filing the late letter and that his practice is defending EIRs for applicants. He was concerned with flood waterbecause Little Chico Creek floods every 5 years. He said this project will cause fine particulate mat:er to go downstream and will have a significant impact to Llano Saco. He asked if this hearing is continued, that this be addressed. Commissioner Marin asked if* fine particulates is going to be different than what is going through now. Mr. Ellman said that the substrate of fine particulate matter is different from normal runoff. He said this should have been addressed in the EIR and was not. Chairman Leland said in Mr. Ellrnan's letter, he makes the argument that thisproposal violates the National Gravel Extraction Policy and he quoted "Gravel extraction sites should be situated outside of the active flood plain and the gravel should not be excavated from below the water table." Chairman Leland said it seems to him that it does not violate this policy. He said it is the fisheries' concern to keep gravel operations out of active streambeds because the fish nerd the gravel to spawn and to cover the young. Mr. Ellman said Angel Slough and Little Chico Creek are integral parts of a floodway that is contiguous with the Sacramento River. He said the Sacramento River is a spawning stream. JAMJARY.22; :.664'`i: PAGE 8 . Mr. Wannenmacher asked Mr. Ellman what kind of'condition would lie suggeEt. Mr. Ellman said he would like to suggest that the storm water management plan that is approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board take account of the fact that the pollutants might have an adverse affect on wildlife refuge use, so that there would be some attempt to get rid of those things either by ruruiing the water through a swale or a settling pond. He asked that the experts address the issue. Commissioner Marin said that there was a mention in the letter regarding ?ollutants from the equipment running downstream. He said to his knowledge the dredging equipment to be used does not emit any exhaust of any kind and there is no chance for fuel spillage from dredging. Mr. Ellman said this will introduce heavy manufacturing into a rural area.. He said when you have heavy equipment driving in and out, things leak out of trucks. Lila Prentice said she was concerned with the aquifer and with the problems thzt would be caused by this project. She asked about a well monitoring program. She was conce_-ned with pollutants seeping into the aquifer. She said the by-pass waterway is 25 feet from the Jones and Prentice property line and will interfere with their agricultural operation. She did not see where the by-pass water will go back into the natural waterway. She invited the Commission to her property to see what she sees. Frank Prentice said he can not afford lawyers and has to rely on elected County -employees to support the people. He said Butte County should be natural and all he has heard this morning is talk on how to make this project work. He said if this area eventually becomes a wildlife area, it could restrict their farming operation if there are any rare and endangered species that mato their home here. Jamie Cottle read a letter into the record from his father- John Cottle. He discussed agricultural lands being lost to commercial uses. He agreed with establishing the Greenline. The letter discussed the increase in heavy truck traffic and the effect on River Road. He was against this project. Catherine Cottle submitted pictures of River Road and Ord Ferry Road. She read a portion ofa letter from CHP. She said the CHP states traffic will have an impact on the roads and would cause a Hazard to local drivers. She said she lives in the area and has been there when it has flooded. She said there are inconsistencies in the Ea. Page 5..1-25 refers to a response in tie DEIR and says that traffic on the Durham Dayton Highway segment between Durham Dayton Road and Midway Road would increase by up to 40 vehicles a day without the batch plant. She said t"�tis number, according to the EIR, represents the maximum traffic that would be generated under maximum permitted production levels which it states would average out to one truck every 12 minutes representing the worst case scenario. She said on Page 4.0-23 it mentions that the DEIR idenfifies the average daily trips ends, which is one trip out and one hip back per vehicle, f'or gravel plarrts to be 128 trips per day under a no batch plant scenario. She said also it is mentioned on Page 5.1-3, comment #3, "Project should be required to fund and construct the raising of the low water crossing on River Road at some date certain such as within three years of the date of the Use Permit." She said she was not aware that there was just one low spot on River Road. She said she felt there are at least 5 low spots on River Road, in fact the whole road is low. She did not trust the mitigation measures to be done. She said tier and her neighbors are really against this project. She said gravel can be gotten from other places such as the Roney property off of Highway 99. Ron Jones said in the November 18`x' letter from the Department of Conservat=on it states that this project is in conflict with the LCA contract. He said the Department of Conservation wants a complete reclamation plan to review. He discussed the inadequacies of" the reclamation plan. He said the applicant submitted a revised reclamation plan, but it was not complete- He said the revised reclamation plan does not answer people's questions. He said on the revised map, the second one posted on the wall, it shows the by-pass channel as straddling his property line. He said 30 feet of the by-pass channel as it is pictured here, is on his side of the property line and 30 feet on their side and this is the reclamation plan that the applicant has submitted and wants the Department of Conservation to approve. He said both the old and new maps have cross sections A, B, & C and these cross sections should show exactly where the by-pass charuiel and weirs are located, but it does not_ He listed questions that were not answered on the revised reclamation plan such as "Where are details of the shore line?", "Where are details of the open water and wetland habitats?", "How far is the by-pass channel from the neighbors fence line?", "How far is the lake from the by-pass chamlel?", "Where will the setback levee be?", "How high will the setback le4ee be?", "How tall is the weir?", etc. He asked if the top soil will be sold or re -used to supplement p --ant growth materials on other parts of•the M&T Ranch. He said this project will cause flood problems for him. He was told that the Department of Conservation would not review this plan because of the LCA contract problems. He said that the Department of Conservation would not review this project with or without the LCA problems, because this is not a complete reclamation plan. He said Baldwin Contracting has been given three chances to get this plan right and they have not done so yet. Norma Jones said she lives across from Durham Dayton School and is concerned with the increase of truck traffic and the safety of the children. Steve Prentice said he is against this project. He said this is a poorly conceived project and could be located somewhere else. He was concerned with exposing their aquifer• to pollutants. He was concerned with sand covered with sediment with 6-8 inches of'silt every time it floods. He discussed protecting agricultural land. He said the by-pass was on his back fence and the s is unacceptable, He said the by-pass will affect the way he farms. He said this area is isolated and that other ponds in isolated areas left by Baldwin Contracting are standing ponds with green scum and the ducks won't land on them. He was afraid this could happen here. Mr. McEnespy said that the by-pass will be on the M&T property only. He said the concern is about spray that could go into the by-pass channel and worrying about the setbacks. He said the reality is that, when the by-pass channel is flowing water at the same time water will be flowing through the Jones property, He said when Little Chico Creek flows through the Jones property it is probably at a time when they will not be out spraying. He said when water is not going into Little Chico Creek, it is likely that there will not be water in this by-pass channel. He said it is liLely that the creek and channel will rise and fall at the same rate. He said a fundamental condition attached to this project will be that there is no net increase in terms of flow on any adjacent property. He said it would be up to the developer to hire an engineer to do the reclamation plans. BUTTE COUNTY PI ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES � JANUARY..22, 2064` . PAGE- l O Chairman Leland said the general question was regarding the completeness of the plan and that we have not heard back fi-om the Department of Conservation whether the revised plan is adequately specific. Mr. McEnespy said he did not know. Mr. Brown said they are at the planning level of'arialysis on design levels of detail. He said CEQA does not require engineering and design level of detail for a project description. He said detail can be asked f'or, but does not mean it has to be done even when asked for by a state agency. Don Rogers said there have been accidents on River Road because it is a narrow road. He said they will build a pad on the side and with intense rain water the water will go into the pit and pollute the ground water or go to the properties downstream. He said equipment does leak hydraulic or break fluids, etc. He said the equipment will pollute the ground water in the area and it can not be mitigated. He said the pit will produce water, and where will the water go while the pit is being dug. He asked what assurances there were that the reclamation will ever be done. He asked what would happen if Baldwin sells the property or goes broke. Chairman Leland said a performance bond is provided. Mr. Rogers asked if it was an escalating bond. Mr. Breedon explained the financial assurances that are reviewed every year. Karen Read said that a lady left a note about her asthma and health problems and her name was Cindy Steffen. Ms. Reed said on her own behalf she has witnessed trucks leaking such as garbage trucks, etc. She said Baldwin'trucks are different from other trucks on the road because they are heavier. She questioned a light going in at Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway. She was told the cost of a stop light can be up to $300,000. She was concerned with the EIR referring to no batch plant. She said her understanding of'Baldwin is that ifthis is approved, Baldwin can come back and put in a batch plant without corning back to the County. Ian Holman said they should take a look at the type of ponds near the over pass in Chico and it is mosquito infested and covered with scum with rotten trees in it. She said when they want to build a house they have to put a driveway into the major road and Baldwin is not planning to do this. She felt Baldwin should pay the full cost of maintaining the roads if this is approved. She said traffic is a problem with this application and it is a bad plan. Allen Box said he was concerned because he has seen the area grow and businesses that have failed, He discussed pollutants from runoff: He said they do not need tricks and equipment in the area to pollute and make noise. from the reclamation plan regarding the public observation platforms suggestec. and noted that they could be an attractive nuisance. He discussed the ground water recharging and -wildlife liabitat. He said he read an article where the aquifer will be reduced. Mr. Rogers said the Sacramento River is the basin for the Sacramento Valley and a gravel pit one half* mile from the Sacramento River will be a sink hole. He asked how much o_ the year will the pit be filled with water and how deep before the pit is down to the aquifer - Sharon Wilbeck asked if this is approved can a batch plant be added without fLullier review. Mr. Breedon said there would have to be a code amendment to allow them. Ms. Wilbeck said she could not find the. EIR on the web site. Mr. Breedon said he would have it put back on the web. Mr. Wannenmacher noted that there has not been external review of"the reclamation plan. Chainnan Leland said they can have a third party review the reclamation plan or wait until after the conflict with the LCA contract has been resolved.. Mr. Brady said the applicant is willing to pay for a third party to review the reclamation plan. Chairman Leland said he would like to address the reclamation plan and the LCA contract at the next meeting. Commissioner Lambert asked about SMARA addressing the reclamation plan. Mr. Wannenmacher said SMARA will not comment until the LCA issues are resolved Commissioner Nelson asked about putting this on the next agenda, Mr. Breedon said the contract would have to be amended to cover the cost of a third party review. He said he would need a minimum of 45 days. Mr. Wannenmacher said they have been spending a lot of'time on this project. He said the LCA is a difficult, issue. He asked that this go to the first meeting in March. Chairman Leland stated that the Commission can not matte a decision without the third party review on the reclamation plan and this could cause more meetings. He discussed ha,.ing both issues of,the plan and the LCA at one meeting. Mr. Breedon said he would target the March 11, 2004, meeting. :B.,.. UTTE COUNTY PI: 2 ...._..:.._...:. _....:.:.. ANNING COIvI1VIISSION a IvfINUI`BS'i TANiJAR1! 22 _elf It was moved by Conunissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Marin, and unanimously carried to continue this item open to March 11, 2004, .to resolve the LCA iss_res and have a third party review the reclamation plan. entered the upper reaches of this slough and during large floods may do so again. Peak, flows in this slough are associated with peak flows in the Sacramento River and apparently are more rare than M&T weir overflows. AE was stated in Section 4.4.2, peak flows in the Sacramento River typically lag those in Little Chico Creek by a day or more, nonetheless, there is. a possibility that, if the project is constructed, that coincident high flows could exacerbate flooding of River Road in the impact area identified above. Although it is difficult to assess, there is the possibility that providing 100 -year flood protection to the operations and stockpile areas could ma-ginally increase flood depths in the adjoining Sacramento River floodplain for extremely large floods with recurrence intervals of 100 years or greater. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b, which would eliminate the distributary. from entering the proposed pit area would increase the depth and frequency of localized flooding which would affect the Jorni!s' parcel. Elimination of the distributary is needed to protect the quality of water in the created lake from routine overflows from Little Chico Creek. Restricting all flows to the main channel will increase flow depths. Mitigation Measures The following measures, adopted from NorthStar Engineering's report will be implemented to mitigate flooding impacts created by providing 100 -year flood protection to operations area and by providing ten-year flood protection to the created lake through blocking off of the existing distributary. These measures mitigate impacts associated with increased flooding on River Road, flooding of the Jones' parcel, and possible impacts to the Sacramento River floodplain. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a: Applicant shall remove th-- existing levee on the east side of Little Chico Creek and replace it with setback levees at the same elevation. A by-pass channel will be constructed to convey- flows overtopping the new setback levees back to the creek through new, larger --ulverts. Plans shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction. This measure will increase the floodway width which will decrease the 50 -year flood depth by 0.6 feet (NorthStar Engineering, 2002) and with its implementation, it . is expected that there will be no impact on flooding in the Sacramento River floodplain. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b: Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Butte County to either construct or fund the costs of raising he existing low water crossing on River Road near the gas well site by up to tZree feet and installing larger culverts_ Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c: Applicant shall install a bypass cnannel to convey flows formerly conveyed by the distributary channel aroun3 the proposed pit area. The overflow weir and adjoining bypass channel will be designed such that elimination of the distributary will not result in increassed flooding depths or M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Draft EER 4.4-75 duration on the Jones' parcel. The bypass channel shall rnaximize, to the extent possible, use of native plant materials in the design to control erosion. Plans shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario Placement of dikes or fill within the processing area to raise it above the 100 - year floodplain elevation could result in some increase in the , f requency of flooding of River Road. Elimination of the existing dis`ributary at the north end of the proposed pit for groundwater quality protection could result in increased flooding of the Jones' parcel. 7b se are potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures The implementation of this scenario would result in the same impact from flooding as. the With Batch Plants Scenario. No new Mitigation Measures beyond measure 4.4-7a through 4.4-7c are required. Level"of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 4.4-8: Floodwater Storage and Groundwater Recharge Proposed Project With Batch Plants Scenario Creation of the proposed pit will result, at the end of operations, in approximately 1,000 acre-feet of available floodwater storage and the same amount of potential groundwater recharge. This will be a sustained beneficial impact. Each. acre of mining is expected to create approximately five acre-feet of available floodwater storage., since the average seasonal high water level is approximately five feet below the surface. During floods, water can flow into the pit up to the same elevation of the floodwater. Mitigation Measures 4.4-4-b and 4.4-4c provide approximately ten-year flood protection for the created lake from overflows of Little Chico Creek and from local agricultural runoff. But for flows in Little Chico Creek exceeding approximately 2,000 cfs, or for flooding from the Sacramento River which yields equivalent flood stages, floodwaters will f ow into the pit. This mechanism can serve to reduce flood depths. For example, for the 10 years of available record, the instantaneous peak flow in Little Chico Creek of March 9, 1995, was 2,330 cfs, which was the third largest flow recorded to date. The mean daily flow for that :day was 1,290 cfs. Since 1 cfs creates a volume of water of approximately two acre-feet over 24 hours, the maximum available flood storage could reduce floodwater elevations for, overflows equivalent to 500 cfs for a one day period. This storage of flood flows can abate the extent or duration of flooding in the vicinity of the created lake. The actual extent of the: drop in the floodwater M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Draft EIR 4.4-76 December 7, 2006 Dear Mr. Nelson, I am writing you for two reasons — first of all because you are chairman of the Planning Commission and secondly because you seemed to be very interested in getting all the facts about the proposed M&T-Baldwin mine project. Because of that, I'm hcping that you might be willing to talk to Jim Pompy at the Department of Conservation to find out for yourself if the DOC is indeed satisfied with the EIR and reclamation plan for the M & T Ranch Mine project. Mr. Pompy is the manager of the Mine Reclamation Unit there, and the last few times that the Department of Conservation has commented on the reclamation plan for the proposed gravel mine, Mr. Pompy is the one who has signed the letter. Before the last Planning Commission meeting I sent a letter to you and the other members stating that Dan Breedon had told me that the DOC was now satisfied with the EIR and reclamation plan for this project. I said that since I found this hard to believe I had called the DOC and talked with Mr. Pompy who told me that the Department of Conservation was not okay with either the EIR or the reclamation plan. He said I could quote him and that, "if they haven't received something in writing from us saying that we are okay with this plan then our comments about the reclamation plan stand as stated." After talking with Mr. Pompy, I could not believe it when Pete Calarco sated at the November 30th meeting that the DOC was now satisfied with the reclamation plan and that the Office of Mine Reclamation had okayed the plan over the phone. Then the comment was made by someone for Baldwin (I believe it was their attorney) that if the DOC has a problem with the plan they will tell you in writing, but if they are okay with the plan they will tell you verbally. Mr. Nelson, this is just not true, and I believe that this is not the first time that the Planning Division has been misleading. Before the Land Conservation Act committee met back in February to decide if the M & T Ranch should be allowed out of their Williamson Act contract, the Planning Division sent a memo to the LCAC filled with glowing comments about how great this project would be for Butte County and also telling them that the soils in the project site were not prime. Given this information the LCAC voted a motion of intent to allow Baldwin out of their contract. Of course, no one who opposed the project was at this LCAC meeting because we weren't even told that it was happening. The Planning Div.sion should have realized that we would have wanted to come to this meeting but they chose not to let us know. We just happened to find out about it "through the grapevine. This is what I am trying to tell you: The Planning Division seems to be doing everything in their power to make this whole project fly, apparently even being willing to distort the facts. After the February LCAC meeting I contacted Dan Breedon and asked -1im how the Planning Division could make that statement about the soils to the LCAC. He said that the EIR stated that the soils were non -prime so they were just quoting that information I reminded him that the NRCS, the DOC and the County Assessor all agreed that this was prime farmland.I sRUI N OUTY . DEC 0 8 2006 DEVELOPNMNT SF.RVYr C mentioned that, as he knows, it is the NRCS that makes the final determination as to whether or not this land is prime as far as the Williamson Act is concerned, not the guy who wrote the EIR. However, even if the Planning Division wanted to quote the EIR, they could have been more accurate if they had given the LCAC all the information in the paragraph about the soil classification on page 4.3-20 — not just the one sentence that left the LCAC members with the illusion that this was non -prime land for Williamson Act purposes. The Planning Division could have told the LCAC that the EIR also stated that the Assessor does consider the entire M&T to be prime under Williamson Act criteria. The Assessor clearly disagreed with the EIR findings about whether these soils are prime or not. So before their April meeting, I wrote a letter to the LCAC members telling them the truth about the soils as well as some other pertinent information about the project. I wish you could have seen their reaction. One of the first questions Joe Connell asked was, "Are these soils prime or not prime?" You could tell he was just stunned by this revelation that the soils had actually been determined to be prime by, not one, but several agencies. Once they realized that the soils were indeed prime and after some discussion, the LCAC did a complete about-face and voted to recommend that the M & T should not be allowed out of their Williamson Act contract. I called Mr. Pompy again this past Monday and told him what Pete Calarco had said at the meeting, and I asked him if he could write the Planning Commission a letter telling the truth but he said he couldn't. He said if they make any revisions to the reclamation plan then they can comment again but unless they ask for a comment they won't make one. So I went on to tell him that there had been revisions to the reclamation plan. Initially in the EIR they stated that the 1500 foot weir would be topped by a 10 -year flood,. but when the actual engineering was done only a 200 -foot section of it would be topped by a 10 -year flood and the rest only by a 50 - year flood. He reiterated that all major design changes should have been presented to the DOC for review. However, the redesigned weir, which was engineered after the DOC made their final comments, was never reviewed by them. Well, Mr. Nelson that's the predicament I'm in. Right now its just my word against the word of the Planning Division. I realize that the Planning Commission members don't really have any reason to believe me, but if someone from the Planning Commission is willing to talk to Mr. Pompy at the DOC, you could find out for yourself the truth. That one phone might make the whole process of determining what is best in this matter a whole lot easier. Thank you so much for your time. I really do appreciate it. Ron Jones 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico, CA 95973 345-4286 Enclosures — A page from one of the DOC letters showing Mr. Pompy's phone number; and two pages from the Planning Division's memo to the LCAC about the soils ON COVMT DEC 0 8 2006 DEVELopmm SERVICES OFFICE OF MINE RECLA04ATION 801 K STREET MS 09-06 SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE I916Y323-9198 FAX 916/322-4862 TDO 2555 _DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA June 10, 2004 !JIA FA 1� gpyk�t{i"lYiUY g� �fY9tIC��i�W�TAGN 1 !A LES ,it l 15 .,�i Mr. Dan Breedon Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Breedon: 916/324 - The Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) has INTERNET reviewed the documents included for a reclamation plan for the M&T Chico consrv.ca.gov Ranch Mine in conjunction with the relevant sections of the Draft EIR as referenced in the submittal. We also reviewed the reclamation plan map A RN O L o and. operations .map,- date starn.ped November.2003 by butte County. We SC H W A R 2 E N E G 6 E R GOVERNOR previously commented on this project in letters dated I�Civernber:l8, 2002 and'October 22, 2003. The project will entail the establishment of a 70 -foot daep excavation and an aggregate processing site in a flood prone area along Little Chico Creek in Butte County on 235 -acres. The site will be reclaimed as open ground water pond and wetland wildlife habitat and is also intended to be used to recharge the. groundwater aquifer. The Reclamation Plan uses the "Small Mine Prototype" format from the State Mining and Geology Board's 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. The reclamation plan is incomplete and does not meet the minimum requirements.:of the. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA),:(P...ublic Resources. Code Section 2710 et seq:) and the State COUNxy DEC 0 8 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES portion of this land. On August 30, 1996 BCC filed a use permit and reclamation plan application with the County to mine sand and gravel from approximately 235 acres of the Ranch. In September 2002 the County released the Draft EIR and received the November 18, 2002 comments from the Department of Conservation ;DOC) stating that the proposed mining project was incompatible with the "Williamson Act. On October 11, 2005, the applicant voluntarily submitted a Petition of Partial Cancellation (Attachment B) for a 106 -acre portion of the land. In addition, Pac Trust filed a Notice of Partial Nonrenewal for the 106 acres to be cancelled (Attachment D). On November 28, 2005 DOC commented on the applicant's Petition for Partial Cancellation and concurred that the "consistency" findings required for cancellation could be met tsee page 3, DOC Letter, Attachment Q. Butte County Process: The landowner's request for -partial cancellation is in -addition. to othef-land use entitlements being requested: -by the applicant. These. entitlements include approval .of.a mining permit and reclamation plan, under a project EIR. The Land Conservation Act (LCA) Committee will review and assess only the request for iminedi ec cancellation and will make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission will consider certification of the EIR and will take action on the reining permit and reclamation plan applications. The Petition for Immediate Cancellation must be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. If the Planning Commission's decision is, appealed, then the entire entitlement package; along with the Petition for Immediate Cancellation, will go before the Board of Supervisors for decision.' If no appeal'of the Planr-ing Commission's actions -is-;filed;-;.the —Board.-wi11--only, -take .action-on.--the_.,_Petit_ion...for...Tmmediate> Cancellation, based on the LCA'Comftuttee's�recaznmenclatioiis The`Draft EIR prepared for the project also rise§ses the"'immVdiate' eaheellation'of the' Williamson Act.' eontsact' for environmentalimpacts pursuant tri CEQA. STA'T'US OF LAND The land proposed for cancellation consists of approximately 106.6 acres out. of approximately 8,000 acres under the LCA Contract. The land to be cancelled is located on .Assessor's Parcel Numbers ("APN") 039-530-019 and 020. References to the Draft. E1R..in this report. are, intended as a source.. of background information. The County recognizes that the Planning Commission hs authority to consider certification of the EIR under CEQA prior to acting on the project. The subject property has a General Plan designation of Orchard and Field Crops and it is zoned Agricultural 40 -acre minimum. Attached is a Diagram Depicting the Nonrenewal and Partial Cancellation Parcels, which are adjacent to Little Chico Creek (Attachment E). Current AgriculturaMses%Potential: The.proposed cancellation. is located in' an area generally considered to be productive irrigated farmland.. 14Qwever, the cancellation land itself is not -irrigated. Due to the unleveled and hummocky terrain. of the land; the operator_Ofthe agricultural operation 10 Butte County Deparhnent Of Development Services 11 ® LCA Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)0 Febnlar@ 14, 2006 Ctrl -rc ® Page 3of16® DEC a 8 2006 DIEVELO® HENT .SERVICES t has considered this land to be less valuable than other lands on the Ili&T Chico Ranch. The DRAFT EIR conducted on the project concluded that, "based on an evaluation of the project soils, flooding frequency, crop records from pervious years and other data, the site does not meet the Williamson Act criteria for prime farmland". Most= of the project, and all of the mining activities, would occur on un -graded land.. The current uses on. the site include infrequent dry -land safflower and wheat farming and a small. abandoned gravel barrow site. Aggregate Production Potential: Under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Cal. Pub. Resources § 2710 et seq.), the State Geologist/Division of Mines and Geology (DIV --G) is required to classify, based solely on geological factors, areas specified by the State Mining and Geology Board as areas that may contain one of the following: (1) Areas containing little or no mineral deposits. (2) Areas containing significant mineral deposits: (3) Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance, of which requires further evaluation. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 2761(b).) The primary goal of this mineral classification is to ensure that the mineral resource potential. of lands is recognized and considered before land -use decisions that could preclude mining are made. In 2000, the SMGB approved a petition -:)y KRC Holdings, Inc., and ordered DMG to assess and classify mineral resources on the M&T Chico Ranch, including the land to be cancelled (Attachment 5, DMG Open -File Report 2000- 04, Mineral Land Classification of the KRC Holdings Inc. M&T Chico Ranch Site, Butte County, California, for Construction Aggregate Resources). The DMC classifies the land based on its value to the region as an aggregate resource. DMG evaluates the deposit and its suitability as a marketable commodity based on available tonnage, volume, and quality of the resource. The DMG concluded that, with appropriate processing, the aggregate reserve on the M&T Chico Ranch is a significant mineral reserve, and therefore, the DMG classified the property MRZ-2a. The MRZ-2a' classification is defined under state regulations as follows: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data irdicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ is divided into MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b on the basis of degree of knowledge and economic factors. Areas classified MRZ-2a . contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measured or indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface exposure, and mine information. Land included in MRZ-2a is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral deposits. ® Butte County Department Of Development Services ® LCA.Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)15 February 14, 2006 ® Page 4of16® Mira: DEC 2006 DE VELO INT S ERVZCEs