The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA GRAVEL MINE ON BAD IDEATo the Board of Supervisors, January 8, 2008 From Maria Phillips, 884 Vallombrosa Avenue, Chico 95926 I'm here to talk about health and safety, the "Dangerous" part that's in the copy I've given you of our latest ad, which says: "Dangerous, Unaffordable, Unnecessary." Why dangerous? I'm including for the record an email I received from Gail Williams, Senior Air Quality Planner, Butte County Air Quality Management District, in response to an inquiry we made regarding air pollution and incidences of lung disease. The details are in the email (attached). But the gist of it is that air quality standards have changed substantially since the EIR was written and, among other things, as of December 18, 2007, our area has been recommended by the federal government for non -attainment status. Butte County, and especially Chico, now has the unfortunate distinction of being the third highest PM2.5 design value in the state (the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley basin are the highest). The applicant (KRC) argues in one of the many full-page color ads they've been running since the summer that the shorter distance that the trucks from this mine would have to travel to get to their destinations would result in less air pollution. But the fact is that the closer the exhaust emissions are to populated areas, 'the greater the risk to the community. This is not a distance issue; this is a roads issue. And it's a risk issue. This is gambling with health and safety. The roads that are being proposed to become the new gravel truck routes are in densely populated urban areas, where congestion and stop -and -go traffic prevail (copies of the EIR routes are also attached). We've been studying the EIR and have found that, for some reason, left out of all the charts and tables is any mention of 8d' and 9d' streets— these are the road segments connecting- Walnut (Hwy 32) with either Park Avenue or Hwy 99. Student populations (and vulnerable residents of all ages) live on these streets and they will be subject"to any increase in PM2.5 particulates as well as diesel exhaust emissions. Besides 8d' & 9d' streets, the trucks would go very near to several schools, including Durham elementary school and high school, Rosedale School, and Chico Country Day School on 11th Street, just a block or two west of Park Ave. Speaking of which, on Park Avenue, in addition to children, we now have an elderly population that will also be affected. This is a health risk. On the safety front, in the EIR and its various attachments, there is also no mention of traffic congestion or accident statistics for 8d' and 9d' streets. So we asked Captain Maloney of the Chico Police Department to give us 2005-2007 accident statistics on all these streets (including the ones that are listed in the EIR} the numbers for 8"' and 96' streets are the most astonishing. And they're not in the EIR. Below is a chart I made up (based on the Maloney data) listing the most seriously affected Chico streets proposed in the EIR—consistently, in all three years, by far the greatest number of accidents occurred in the 8`h and 9t' Street segments—and this huge safety risk has not been addressed. Reported Collisions In 2005, 2006 and. 2007 ---------------- -------- Si IiEE7 -------- 2005 -------- 2006 2007 t ,5th Street from the W edge of Chico to Walnut 12 12 13 !Walnut from 5th to 9th Street 4 7 2 8th and 9th streets from flainut to Hv:, 99 122 138 131 t 'Park Ave from Broadway to E. Park/Mi voy 1(incluaed Oro"ville Ave since Park doesn't tintersect Broad-vs 17 16 20 !East Park to Kwy 99 25 22 24 tSkyvay from 99 to E edge of Chico (could not Idetermine Mere city boundary Is in terms of ,street 4, so this represents all of Skyway). 35 28 29 t t i r ► I ! i I I lus uitormation, verbatim, was emailed to me December 10, 2007, and January 2, 2008 by Captain Mike Maloney and Robert Woodward City of Chico Police Department I don't know why these statistics are not in the EIR, but it is clear to me that they should have been since other segments of the proposed routes are already listed as with "significant, unavoidable and unmitigatable" impacts. This level of operation running gravel trucks through densely populated urban areas exposes the citizenry of Chico and Durham to the double -whammy of air pollution and traffic accidents. This is what we mean by "dangerous" in our ad. These are health and safety issues that must be taken into account in any deliberation regarding overriding considerations. V A ♦ i ' Z From: "Gail Williams" GWilliams@bcagmd.org, Date: January 3, 2008 2:26:47 PM PST To: mariaphillips05@comcast.net Subject: M & T Chico Maria, the following is provided in response to your questions and interest in Butte County's federal attainment status and diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant. 1. The U.S. EPA strengthened the federal 24=hour average air quality standard for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 35 ug/m3 on December 18, 2006. Butte County was attaining the old 65 microgram standard. The State of California was required to submit recommendations and appropriate boundaries to U.S. EPA for this standard by December 18, 2007. The State has recommended that the City of Chico be designated as a non attainment area for the.PM2.5 standard based on monitoring data collected from 2004 through 2006. The.U.S. EPA will make final designations in April 2009. If EPA makes the recommended non -attainment designation the District will be required to prepare and implement a plan to reduce emissions so that the area attains the standard. 2. Based on the project information we understand there will be an increase in PM2.5 emissions from plant activities and heavy-duty vehicles. The increase in PM2.5 emissions also includes diesel exhaust emissions which are toxic air contaminants. The DEIR did evaluate the exposures to diesel exhaust, although our office had comments on the approach. We note the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has a comprehensive program to identify sources of diesel exhaust and develop regulations to reduce these emissions. The following is a link with more information: http://www.arb.ca.qov/diesel/diesel.htm CARB is currently developing regulations for on -road heavy-duty diesel vehicles, which should result in reductions state-wide from diesel -fueled trucks once fully implemented. The following is a link with further information: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm If you have further questions, please contact me. Gail Gail Williams Senior Air Quality Planner Butte County Air Quality Management District 2525 Dominic Drive, Suite J Chico, CA 95928 (530) 891-2882 Fax: 891-2878 I ildwin route.. M&T routes mine.. e.. �SA4j)S Rd., BAD IDEA!- 19 Yol their than And i Glens a t�Ooaot for 6 Planr JWiAW.'t -res! 5 M ui 4 eve" Wal n truck 5th stre nue; of grave Rd VV'.Par AvO C tlic er & F, ay '0 Riv esu 0 i dvv 1( AvO" - .1 oar - % n ;f A GRAVEL MINE ON RIVER ROAD? Dangerou:sl, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of gravel trucks would go within blocks of , three elementary schools --and on streets lined with college housing -- over the 20 to 30 years of this project! ........ 1•- s �s7' :'!J6 1�_=_.=ice' {+art •' � PROTECT OUR CHILDREN; OUR TOWNS, OUR FARMLAND! Unaffordable! According to a study currently used by Caltrans to determine the damage to roads by heavy trucks: ONE 80,000 LB. GRAVEL TRUCK does as much damage,to the roads as 9100 cars.' The trucks from this mine would do MORE damage to Park Ave., 5th St., Walnut, Nord, and 8th and 9th Streets than ALL the cars currently using those streets! 71, IIJ`LIONS ��R� � *http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm and http://archive.gao.gov/dl9t9/144703.pdf - Pg. 26 ry Unnecessa *U'a"s U0 "1 Baldwin's General Manager publicly admitted that we don't need this mine! "You have heard over the years that Baldwin can get their rocks somewhere else. This statement is more than 100% true. This statement is fact.... And we have the reserves and Attend the Hearin planned reserves in Glenn County Hearing that will make this option a viable one Tuesday, January 8, 2008,1:30 p.m. - for decades." Supervisors Chambers — R. J. Vercruyssen, General Manager, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville Baldwin Contracting Company/KRC Call or email the Supervisors p. 17,Official Transcript, MOA Deposition Reporters,. • �� Planning Commission Meeting, ' BConnelly@buttecounty.net 538-6834 .. - January 25, 2007. JDolan@buttecounty.net 891-2830 ' MKirk@buttecounty.net 891-2800 CJosiassen@buttecounty.net 882-4447�A, �� 4 -OW!.' KYamaguchi@buttecounty.net 872-6303 t1',�i•,•raZ For more information contact Butte Environmental Council (891-6424), Ron or Sandy Jones (345-4286), Steve Prentice (345-1566), mariaphillips05@comcast.net or Frank or Lila Prentice (342-6864).