HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT 10
•'
r
G
ATTACHMENT A
ti Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE M&T CHICO RANCH MINE MINING USE
PERMIT AND RECLAMATION PLAN (MIN 96-03)
BACKGROUND
The M&T Chico Ranch Mine ("Project") proposed by the applicant,
Baldwin Contracting Company ("Applicant"), consists of a long-term, off -channel
gravel mining operation approximately 5 -miles southwest of the City of Chico.
The mining would take place on. 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site over an estimated
20 to 30—year period. The Project site would be reclaimed to high-quality, open -
water, wetland wildlife habitat and agricultural uses. The mined aggregate would
be processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site.
The Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Project came
on public hearing before the Planning Commission of the County of Butte
("County") on October 23, 2003, January 22, 2004, March 11, 2004, April 8,
2004, August 26, 2004, November 30, 2006, December 14, 2006, and January
25, 2007. On February 22, 2007, the County Planning Commission certified the
Final EIR and adopted the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
The Final EIR came on public hearing before the County Board of Supervisors on
April 24, 2007. Having considered all the written and documentary information
submitted, the staff reports, oral testimony, other evidence presented, and the
administrative record as a whole, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
decides as follows.
RECITALS
1. Lead Agency Status: The County is the lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.
("CEQA") for preparation and certification of the Final EIR for the Project.
2. Project Description: The Project allows a long' -term, off -channel gravel
mining operation. The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site
over an estimated 20 to 30—year period. Approximately six acres will be mined
each year. The aggregate would be processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -
acre area at the site.
a) Acreages: The approximate acreages for the Project.are as follows:
1
Lease area:
627 acres
Project site:.
235 acres
Mined area:
193 acres
Equipment area:
40 acres
Topsoil stockpile:
2 acres
b. Location: 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 .
Old Ferry Road, and east of, and partially adjacent to, River Road.
Access to the site would be provided by River Road.
c. Material to be mined: High quality construction aggregates including
gravel and sand. The Project site is part of the present Sacramento River
Floodplain and the gravels and sands underlying the site consist of
channel deposits from the river.
d. Production: Production numbers for the Project are as follows:
Maximum annual mine production
Maximum annual mine production:
Average annual mined product amount:
Total production:
275,000 cubic yards
(mined)
250,000 cubic yards
(marketed)
66,667 cubic yards
5,500,000 cubic yards .
e. Traffic Volumes for Trucks: According to the traffic study contained in
the Draft EIR, the Project will generate approximately 16,667 trips per
year. Average daily trips generated will be 128 (64 arriving and 64
departing). The Project will generate 20 additional AM -and PM Peak
Traffic Trips. These trips equate to a less than one percent (1 %) increase
of total traffic volumes in the Project area under cumulative conditions.
3. Discretionary Approvals Required: The proposed Project involves the
following discretionary approvals and CEQA actions=by the Board of Supervisors:
a) Certify the Final EIR for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Long -Term
Off -Channel Mining Use Permit application (SCH 97022080), based
on Findings of Fact documenting compliance with CEQA (Exhibit 1),
and independent review and consideration of the information in the EIR
prior to taking action on the Project.
b) Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
implementing mitigation measures. (Exhibit 2.)
c) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03,
to allow for the excavation of 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site, including
portions of Assessor Parcels 039-530-019 & 039-530-020.
d) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, to allow for
the establishment of a lake -with shallow wetland areas along the,
perimeter for wildlife habitat and a 40 -acre area ,reclaimed to
agricultural uses.
e) Approve the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate in. the amount of
$103,526.93 to ensure reclamation of the mine site.
f) Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
g) Adopt Conditions of Approval as set forth by County departments
and agencies.
h) Approve the Petition.for Partial Cancellation.
4. Preparation of an EIR: Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal. Code Regs. sections 15000. et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"), an EIR was
prepared for the Project to analyze the environmental effects of the Project.
5. Process: Preparation of the Final EIR was a multi -'year process, which
included the following activities:
a) On August 30, 1996, the Project application was submitted to the
County.
b) An Initial Study to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with
the proposed project identified several potentially significant
environmental effects that may occur with implementation of the
project. Accordingly, an EIR was prepared -pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15064(a).
c) On February 28, 1997, the County distributed a Notice of Preparation
for.the EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and the
public.
d) In May 1998, the County issued the Draft EIR. The County circulated
the Draft EIR for public review and comment from May 12, 1998 to July
2, 1998. Over 80 comment letters were submitted to the County on the
Draft EIR. These comment letters are on file and available for review at
the County Planning Department. County staff and the EIR consultant
reviewed all comments during preparation of the revised Draft EIR.
e) On June 11, 1998, the Draft EIR for the Project was first heard by the
Planning Commission. Extensive public input was received at that
time. The Planning Commission continued the . matter to allow
additional input and analysis following the hearing.
f) The County decided to update and supplement certain sections, of the
Draft EIR (including the Traffic, Hydrology and Water Quality, and
3
4
Noise sections) in order to update technical data contained in the Draft
-EIR. In addition, the County required .the completion of a pedestrian
level archaeological survey at the, Project site. The County then
decided to recirculate the entire. Draft EIR to ensure consistency and
accuracy between .the new and old sections, and to maximize the
opportunity for public comment on the Project and the Draft EIR. The
County hired a new consultant, Resource Design Inc., to prepare the
revised Draft EIR. The particular modifications to the original May
1998 Draft EIR are outlined on page 1-3 of the revised Draft EIR. .
g) In September 2002, the County issued the revised ' Draft EIR. The
County. circulated the revised Draft EIR for a 45 -day public review
period commencing October 12, 2002 through November 25, 2002.
Comments were received on the revised Draft EIR and are included
and responded to within the Final EIR.
h) On September 30, 2002, the County Filed a Notice of Completion for
the revised Draft EIR with the State of California Clearinghouse.
i) On October 24, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
in Oroville to receive public comment on the Project and the revised
Draft EIR. Public notice of this meeting was provided by the County.
j) In October, 2003, the County released the M&T Chico Ranch Final
EIR. The County provided notice of the availability of the Final EIR to
agencies, organizations, and the public.
k) On October 23, 2003, the Planning Commission held another hearing
to solicit further public comment on the Final EIR. The Planning
Commission held additional hearings to solicit public comment on the
Project on January 22, 2004, March 11; 2004, April 8, 2004, August
26, 2004, November 30, 2006, December 14, 2006, and January 25,
2007.
1) During the public comment period to the Draft EIR, the Department of
Conservation ("DOC") commented that the proposed Project was not
an allowed use under the Williamson Act.
m) On October 11, 2005, Pacific Realty Associates, L.P., filed a Notice of
Partial Nonrenewal for the 106 acres to be cancelled and voluntarily
submitted a Petition of Partial Cancellation.
n) On November 28, 2005, DOC commented in writing on the Petition for
Partial Cancellation and concurred that the "consistency" findings
required for cancellation could be met.
4
o) On February 21, 2006, the Butte County Land Conservation Act
(Williamson Act) Committee (also known as the LCA Committee) voted
5-0 to approve a Motion of Intent to recommend approval of the
Petition for Partial Cancellation to the Board of Supervisors.
p) On April 18, 2006, the LCA Committee unanimously agreed that
consistency Findings 1-4 for cancellation could be met, with the
majority unable to support consistency Finding 5.
q) In November, 2006 the County released an Updated Response to
Comments Regarding the Williamson Act for the Final EIR.
r) On November 30, 2006, the County held a duly noticed public hearing
before the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final
EIR, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of
Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Reclamation Plan, and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning
Commission voted to continue the hearing until December 14, 2006.
s) On December 14, 2006, the County held a duly noticed public hearing
before the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final
EIR, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of
Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Reclamation Plan, and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.. At this hearing,
Staff provided responses to public comments which were received at
the November 30, 2006 hearing. The Planning Commission voted to
continue the hearing until January 25,_ 2007.
t) In January, 2007 the County issued an Errata to the Final EIR, which:
(1) clarified that the Llano Seco Ranch was part of the EIR's
Environmental Setting, meaning the County evaluated all foreseeable
impacts to the ranch; and (2) supplemented the Project Description to
include the Petition for Partial Cancellation.
u) On January 25, 2007, the County held a duly noticed public hearing
before the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final
EIR, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of
Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Reclamation Plan, and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In addition, Staff
returned to the Planning Commission with responses to public
comments that were received at the December 14, 2006 hearing. The
Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt a Motion of Intent to: (1)
adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR and approving a Mitigation
5
Monitoring and Reporting Program; ,and.(2) adopt a separate resolution
`approving Mining Use Permit No..Min 96-03, including the M&T Chico
Ranch Mine Reclamation -Plan 'and the Financial Assurances Cost
Estimate, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
v) On February 22, 2007, The Planning Commission acted on the Motion
of Intent, and voted 3-2 to: (1) adopt a resolution certifying the Final
EIR and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
and (2) adopt a separate resolution approving Mining Use Permit No.
Min 96-03, including the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan
and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
w) The Planning Commission did not consider the Petition for Partial
Cancellation because, under, both state and county law, Petitions for
Cancellation are beyond its purview.
6. Documents Comprising Final EIR: The Final EIR for the M&T Chico
Ranch Mine Project includes the following items (collectively referred to as the
"Final EIR").
a) M&T Chico Ranch Mine Draft EIR (SCH 97022080) dated September'
2002;
b) Comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, dated.
October 23, 2003; ,
c) Draft EIR Errata containing corrections and clarifications made to the
text of the Draft EIR;
d) Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act, dated
November, 2006;
e) Updated Draft EIR Errata Regarding Environmental Setting and Project
Description; and
f) Mitigation Monitoring and' Reporting Program.
7. Description Of The Record: For purposes of CEQA and the findings
hereinafter set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those
items listed in Section 21167.6 (e) of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1230,
Statutes of 1994) including but not limited to:
a) All application materials and correspondence' contained in the Lead
agency's Project files (MIN 96-03);
6
b) The original Draft EIR;
c) The revised Draft EIR;
d) The Final EIR;
e) All Notices of Availability, the Notice of Determination, staff reports and
presentation materials related to the Project;
f) All studies contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft EIR, or
the Final EIR;
g) All public reports and documents. related to the Project prepared for the
County and other agencies;
h) All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public
hearings and workshops, and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings
related to the Project; and
i) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally -adopted land use
plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, area
plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental review
documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs and other
documentation relevant to planned growth in the area.
8. Custodian of the Record: The administrative record is maintained at the Butte
County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville,
California.
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Evidentiary Basis for Findings: These findings are based upon substantial
evidence in the entire record before the Board of Supervisors. The references to
the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other evidence in the record set forth in the findings
are for ease of reference and are intended to demonstrate the analytical path
between the evidence in the record and the findings adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. The references are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the
evidence in the record that is relied upon for these findings.
2. Impacts of the M&T Mining Project: Appendix F of the Final EIR provides a
summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with this
Project. These impacts and . mitigation measures are associated with the
following impact categories: Aesthetics and visual resources, Agricultural Land,
Air Quality, Archeological Resources, Drainage and Flooding, Geology, Noise,
Traffic and Circulation, Water Quality/Groundwater, Land Use, Biological
7
Resources, Cumulative impacts associated with Air Quality and Traffic and
Circulation:
3. Mitigation Measures: The Mitigation Measures herein referenced are
those identified in the Draft EIR, as clarified or amplified in the Final EIR, and as
modified by the Resolution approving the Project, including the conditions of
approval contained therein. The tables included in Exhibit 1 specify available
and feasible mitigation measures.
a) All feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant effects of the Project and that are adopted in these Findings
shall become binding on the County and The Applicant at the time of
approval of the Project.
b) The Board of Supervisors also finds that the Mitigation Measures
incorporated into and imposed upon the Project will not have new
significant environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the
4. Findings 'of Fact: CEQA states that a project shall not be approved if it
would result in a significant environmental impact, or if feasible mitigation
measures or feasible alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact.
Only when there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which
make it infeasible to substantially lessen or avoid an impact can a project with
significant impacts be approved.
a) If the project can be defined as having significant impacts on the
environment, then an EIR must be prepared. Therefore, when an EIR has
been completed which 'identifies one or more potentially significant
environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of
the following findings for each identified significant impact:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the completed Environmental Impact
Report.
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been
adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
3) Specific economic, transportation or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the Environmental Impact Report.
b) Exhibit 1, attached hereto, contains the Board of Supervisors' Findings
8
of Fact concerning each of the impacts and mitigation measures identified
as significant and mitigatable, and significant and unavoidable in the Final
EIR. The Board of Supervisors' determination regarding' environmental
impacts that .remain significant or are reduced to a less -than -significant
level given the implementation of adopted feasible mitigation is provided in
the "Findings of Fact" column.
5. Areas of Controversy: The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify
areas of controversy known to the lead agency based upon review of public and
agency comment. Controversial aspects of the Project have been determined to
be: 1) potential impacts. to groundwater resulting from mining operations; 2)
potential pit water quality impacts; and 3) potential traffic impacts resulting from
the proposed Project. Mitigation measures have been provided within the Final
EIR to address these impacts, to the extent feasible.
FINDINGS REGARDING WRITTEN APPEALS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE
APRIL'24, 2007 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING
The, Board of Supervisors received two letters appealing the 'Planning
Commission's decision to certify the Final EIR. Although not required, below are
specific findings that address the main statements contained in these letters.
RON JONES,
LETTER OF MARCH 2, 2007
Statement #1
1. The Project is not consistent with the Agricultural Element of the County
General Plan.
Response:
As part of the CEQA environmental review process the County evaluated the
proposed Project's consistency with the County General Plan. The County
determined that the proposed_ Project is consistent with the Butte County General
Plan.
The,General Plan has a general Agricultural Element that sets forth basic policies
and goals with respect to agriculture. The Agriculture Element identifies two
separate land use designations. The Project site is designated "Orchard and
Field Crops". The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the types of
uses allowed in this designation, which uses are consistent with the Agricultural
Element. The General Plan states:
Primary Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage,
9
processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops,
especially annual food crops.'
Secondary Use: Animal husbandry and intense
animal uses, resource extraction and processing,
hunting and water -related recreation facilities,
dwellings, airports, utilities, environmental
preservation activities, public and quasi -public uses,
home occupations.
The General Plan defines secondary uses as compatible uses which are
conditionally allowed.
Further, the General Plan sets forth the following policies in regards to surface
mining operations within the County:
2.6a Encourage extraction and processing of
identified deposits of building materials and
other valued mineral resources.
2.6b Encourage the reclamation of lands subject to
mineral extraction.
As required by law, the County finds that the General Plan is internally consistent
and the Land Use Element and its descriptions are consistent with the general
policies of the Agricultural Element. Surface mining is consistent with both of
these elements as made clear by the express reference to mineral extraction in
the "Orchard and Field Crops" description as well as the Williamson Act program
of the County, which also expressly allows surface mining.
Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DER § 4.2; FEIR
§ 4.6; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock
Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006).
Statement #2
2. Truck traffic generated by the Project will cause substantial traffic
problems.
Response:
The County conducted an'extensive analysis of the impacts of truck traffic
generated by the Project. The traffic study conducted for the Draft EIR was
designed in coordination with the Butte County Public Works Department and the
Butte County Planning Division, Department of Development Services. This
included analyzing the Project's impacts to both local school bus operations, and
the bicycle and pedestrian system in the vicinity of the Project.
10
The Draft EIR concluded that the Project would not impact the Levels of Service
(LOS) of any of the roadways studied or the existing bicycle, pedestrian, transit
facilities and school bus operations. Further, the Draft EIR found truck trips
generated by the Project equate to a less than one percent (1 %) increase of total
traffic volumes in the Project area under cumulative conditions.
However, the County found that in four instances the LOS for impacted
intersections already exceeded the County's minimum LOS C threshold without
the Project. Therefore, the addition of Project trips to these roadways, even if
less than 1 % of the total, will constitute a significant impact which can not be
mitigated.
The County also addressed comments regarding traffic impacts in the Final EIR.
Analysis contained in the Final EIR reiterates the County's finding made in the
Draft EIR that the proposed Project would not change the LOS rating of any of
the roadways studied in the traffic analysis. The Final EIR also explains that
because existing conditions on four roadways already breached the County's
LOS requirements, the Project's cumulative impact at these locations could not
be mitigated.
The Final EIR also responded to comments regarding the Project's impacts to
roadway safety, and the bicycle and pedestrian system due to increased truck
traffic. The Final EIR clarified that the Draft EIR traffic study included an analysis
of current roadway conditions and, operations, intersection operations, accident
history, and truck traffic. Further, the Final EIR explained that the.traffic study is
based on detailed traffic counts that identified the mix of autos, bicycles, and
trucks. The Final EIR reiterated the traffic study's conclusion that the proposed
Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle, pedestrian,
transit facilities or school bus operations, and would not create a hazard for
pedestrians or bicyclists.
Given the importance of the Project to the County, the Planning Commission will
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address these impacts.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.6; FEIR § 4.4; Planning Commission Testimony;
Administrative Record; Planning Commission hearing transcript,
Nov. 30, 2006 [testimony of Kevin Cotter, pp. 106-110];. Planning
Commission hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Andrew
White, pp. 74-76].
Statement #3
3. Truck traffic generated by the Project will degrade the quality of affected
County roads.
Response:
The Final EIR explains that a pavement conditions analysis was conducted as
part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis and specific mitigation was identified.
Specifically, a chip seal surface treatment and a two-inch asphalt concrete
overlay will be required, which will mitigate all physical impacts. The Final EIR
also further explains that the Applicant'will contribute "fair share" funding to offset
costs to the Public Works Department, and that the Public Works Department
must concur with all final dollar amounts of the exact fair share contribution.
The Final EIR also states that the fair share requirements would be conditions of
approval for the use permit. In accordance with this statement, Conditions of
Approval 18 and 19 implement the Applicant's fair share obligations. These
conditions were later updated and expanded upon by the Public Works
Department in a November 3, 2006 letter from Director Mike Crump.
In addition, Public Works Department representative Shawn O'Brien testified at
the Planning Commission's December 14, 2006 hearing by that the Applicant's
per/ton "fair share" contributions to the County are appropriate to cover the
Project's impacts to infrastructure.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.6; FEIR § 4.4; Planning Commission Testimony;
Administrative Record; Letter from Mike Crump, Public Works
Department to Pete Calarco, Nov. 20, 2006; Planning Commission
hearing transcript, Nov. 30, 2006 [testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, p.
126]; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006
[testimony of Shawn O'Brien, p. 43].
Statement #4
4. The County Assessor has classified the Project site as prime farmland.,
Therefore, approving the Project will result in the conversion of prime
farmland.
Response:
The County addressed the issue of agricultural land conversion as part of the
CEQA process, and, based on an extensive soil analysis, determined that the
Project site, consists of nonprime farmland.
In the Final EIR, the County further explained that the Assessor's classification of
the Project site, for purposes of CEQA review, is irrelevant. The Final EIR
explained that the Assessor characterizes property on a parcel -by -parcel basis
12
utilizing different standards than the Williamson Act. To comply with CEQA, the
EIR properly analyzed the actual site specific conditions of the 235 -acre Project'
site, not the entire 8,000 acre M&T Ranch. Based on this site-specific analysis,
the County, determined that the Project site did not contain prime soil. The
County reiterated this conclusion in the November 2006, Updated Response to
Comments Regarding the Williamson Act:
The Planning Commission addressed this issue in the findings supporting its
resolution to certify the EIR, and, based on the substantial evidence in the
administrative record determined that the Project will not result in the destruction
of prime agricultural farmland.
Evidence: DEIR, pp. 4.2-5 — 4.2-6; 4.3-20 — 4.3-23; FEIR, p. 5.0-10; Updated
Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act, pp. 4-5;
Planning Commission EIR Resolution, pp. 16-17; Planning
Commission hearing transcript, Nov. 30, 2006 [testimony of Jeffrey
Dorso, p. 126]; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14,
2006 [testimony of Dave Brown, pp. 127-128; Planning
Commission hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Pete
Calarco, pp. 4-5; testimony of Jeff Dorso, pp. 63-64].
HOWARD ELLMAN, .
LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26, 2007
(REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY)
Statement #1
5. The EIR mischaracterizes the uses of the Llano Seco Ranch.
Response:
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15125, a proper discussion of the environmental
setting includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the
vicinity of a project from both a local and regional perspective, including a
discussion of environmental resources.
Here, the Draft EIR included an extensive discussion of the Project's regional
setting. As part of this discussion, the Draft EIR delineated several properties and
uses in the vicinity of the Project site. For example, the Draft EIR identifies both
the Jones parcel and the Llano Seco Ranch. Additionally, each section of the
Draft EIR contains a description of the regional environment and local'conditions,
and how the Project could impact the local and regional environment. Both the
Draft EIR and the Final EIR evaluated all potentially significant environmental
impacts to both onsite and offsite properties. For example, the Draft EIR and
Final EIR evaluated potential impacts to neighboring properties caused by the
Project's flood control design.
In addition; testimony was proffered to the Planning Commission at the
December 14, 2006 hearing which detailed both the Draft EIR's description of the
regional environment, and the Draft EIR's analysis of the Project's potential
environmental impacts to surrounding properties.
However, following the December 14, 2006 hearing, at the direction of the
Planning Commission, the County's EIR consultant issued an Errata to the Final
EIR, which specifically named the Llano Seco Ranch as part of the Regional
Environmental Overview section of the Draft EIR.
Evidence: DEIR § 3.0; FEIR § 4.0 and 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony;
Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Planning Commission Staff
Report, Jan. 25, 2007 hearing; Administrative Record; Planning
Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Dave
Brown, pp..18-22; testimony of Jeff Dorso, pp. 70-74]; Planning
Commission hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Pete
Calarco, p. 5].
Statement #2
6. "The EIR does not address the cumulative impact of adding mine
sediments to flood flows that travel directly from the mine to the [Llano
Seco] Ranch..."
Response:
The EIR adequately evaluated the Project's impacts to the Llano Seco Ranch
caused by flooding and/or particulate matter and concluded that these impacts
were less than significant.
The County's analysis of the flood control measures designed for the Project
included a comprehensive flooding study which was conducted by NorthStar
Engineering. The flooding study and the analysis contained in the Draft EIR
evaluated off-site impacts caused by stormwater discharges and runoff from the
proposed pit and processing facilities. 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.
14
Furthermore, the Final EIR explained how the Project's design, 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.
Additionally, at the January 22, 2004 Planning Commission hearing on the
Project, Mr. Ellman. requested that as a precautionary measure to prevent ."fine
particulate matter" from entering the Llano Seco Ranch, the Planning .
Commission require the Applicant to obtain a "stormwater management plan
approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board." The County adopted
and expanded upon Mr. Ellman's recommendation and those recommendations
contained in thePR with additional conditions of approval. As such; the
Applicant must acquire all relevant state and federal stormwater pollution
prevention entitlements prior to commencing mining operations, which mitigates
all potential for sediment transfer.
In addition, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony. to
the Planning Commission at the December 14, 2006 hearing that the stormwater
prevention plan that the Applicant will implement (as required by the County's
Conditions of Approval) will prohibit mine sediments from being transported to
other properties during flood events.
Evidence: DEIR § 3.0; FEIR § 4.0 and 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony;
Letter from 'Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record;
Planning Commission hearing transcript, Nov. 30, 2006 [testimony
of Jeffrey Dorso, pp. 123, 131]; Planning Commission hearing
transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Mark Adams, -pp. 61-66;
testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, pp. 74-751.
Statement #3
7. The Project is not compatible with the surrounding environment
Response:
Surface mining is expressly recognized in State law, the County General Plan,
the County Zoning Ordinance, the County Williamson Act Program, and the M&T
Williamson Act Contract as a use that is compatible and consistent use with
agriculture, the primary use occurring on properties surrounding the Project site.
This is reflected in the land use compatibility analysis contained in the EIR. In this
analysis, the County evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with the
County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Project's potential
environmental impacts on agricultural uses and wildlife habitat in the Project's
vicinity. The EIR concluded that the Project is consistent with the Project site's
15
0
.General Plan designation (i.e., Orchard and Field Crops) as a secondary use, as
well as the Project's zoning district (A-40). (See also, Response to Ron Jones
Statement #1.)
As part of the CEQA process, the County also evaluated potential impacts to
agricultural uses. The Draft EIR explained that the proposed mining and
reclamation activities proposed for the Project would be similar in scope and
equipment to neighboring agricultural operations. Accordingly, the Draft EIR
concluded that, with the proposed mitigation, the Project is compatible with the
existing and planned uses in the vicinity of the Project site.
The County addressed this issue again in the Final EIR, again finding that the
Project is consistent with the County's Zoning and Mining Ordinance and General
Plan requirements.
The County also conducted an extensive analysis of the Project's impacts to
wildlife and wildlife habitat as part of the CEQA process. The Draft EIR
explained that the Project's impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, with the
identified mitigation measures, would be less -than -significant. In particular, the
County concluded: (1) wildlife will not be adversely affected by noise emanating
from the Project; (2) the Project will block unique or important migration corridors;
and (3) species inhabiting the Project. site will remain common in adjacent
habitats.
The Final EIR also addressed comments regarding the Project's impacts on
wildlife and wildlife habitat. The Final.EIR explained that special -status species
known to occur in the vicinity of and in habitats similar to the Project site will
continue to use the suitable habitats available to them, whether on or off the
Project site, and whether or not the Project is approved.
In sum, the environmental. analysis conducted by the County as part of the CEQA
process indicates that (1) the Project is consistent with the County General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance, and (2) the Project will not adversely affect surrounding
agricultural operations or wildlife/wildlife habitat.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.7; FEIR; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock
Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #4
8. The EIR does not adequately describe the flood impacts on the neighbors
that will be caused by the protective works to be erected around the gravel
mine.
16
Response:
As part of the CEQA process; the County included an extensive analysis of
potential off-site impacts caused by the Project's flood control design. The Draft
EIR concluded that, with appropriate mitigation, potential environmental impacts
to adjacent landowners resulting from the flood design would be less -than -
significant.
The County addressed comments on this issue again in the Final EIR, and
concluded that Mitigation Measures 4.4-7(a), (b), and (c) will eliminate any
additional flooding effects on adjacent property owners caused by the Project.
Thus, the County extensively analyzed and addressed the issue of flood impacts
to adjacent landowners both in the Draft EIR and again in the Final EIR.
Expert testimony was also received at both the November 30, 2006 and
December 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearings regarding the Project's flood
control design. This testimony, given by Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar
Engineering, explained the form and function of the flood control design
(including the weir design). Mr. Adams explained how the flood control design for
the Project protects, and does not exacerbate, floodwater impacts on adjacent
water bodies and properties during. large flood stage events.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter
from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record;
Planning Commission hearing transcript, Nov. 30, 2006 [testimony
of Dave Brown, pp. 30-43; testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, pp. 122-123];
Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony
of Dave Brown, pp. 24-29; testimony of Mark Adams, pp. 30-35, 57-
66].
Statement #5
9. Mine sediments will infiltrate the aquifer through the mining pit.
Response:
The County analyzed this issue as part of the CEQA process and determined
that, with proper mitigation, impacts to adjacent properties caused by the'transfer
of mine sediments (and other contaminants) through the aquifer are less -than -
significant. Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a), (b), (c),. (d), and (e) all serve to prevent
groundwater contamination due to exposure of the aquifer to contaminants
generated by the proposed mining activities.
In addition, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony to
the Planning Commission at the January 25, 2006 hearing that mine sediments
will not be transferred through the aquifer because.the sediments cannot
17
physically interface with the opening to the aquifer.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter
from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record;.
Planning Commission'hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony
of Mark Adams, pp. 77-78; testimony of Richard Leland, p. 97].
Statement #6
10. "The reclamation plan mischaracterizes the gravel mine as a wildlife
habitat creation project, a result that can only be achieved after 30 years
of extraction that will devastate the environment."
Response:
Under the Reclamation Plan, reclamation will occur at the same time as mining
activities. Thus, beginning in. Year Five (5) of the Project, Baldwin will begin
reclamation activities, which will include the formation of wildlife habitat. The
Reclamation Plan explains that the reclamation of the mining area cannot
commence until there is a sufficient area which exists that is unaffected by
mining activities. This initial period is expected to last five years, after which 600
lineal feet of lake perimeter will be reclaimed each year to high quality wildlife
habitat.
In addition, the Reclamation Plan for the Project site complies with all State law
requirements. This is supported by County staff discussions with the Office of
Mine Reclamation. The pit site, which is subject to a notice of nonrenewal, will be
reclaimed to open space habitat. The 40 -acre processing site will be reclaimed to
agricultural land.
Evidence: Reclamation Plan, p. 34; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec.
13, 2006); Planning Commission hearing transcript, Nov. 30, 2006
[testimony of Dave Brown, pp. 14, 22; testimony of Pete Calarco,
pp. 72-74; testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, p. 125]; Planning
Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Pete
Calarco; pp. 14-15]; testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, p. 121]; Planning
Commission hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Pete
Calarco, pp. 5-7].
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
1. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires- a discussion of a reasonable
range of alternatives to a. project or to the location of the project which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
18
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. An EIR need not
consider alternatives which are infeasible. For this project, several alternatives
were evaluated. These alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR section 5.0..
2. In evaluating , the potential alternatives to the Project, the County
recognizes that actual implementation of one or more alternatives, could be
remote and speculative due to the complexities in locating and developing
mineral resources. It is recognized that the range of reasonable alternative
locations is necessarily limited by location of the particular mineral resource.
(See CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(f)(2)(B).) In contrast to other forms of
development that can occur anywhere, many factors are considered in the
selection of an aggregate production site, including appropriate quality and
quantity of the resource, its location and. distance to the market (consumption)
area, transportation accessibility, availability of the land, a willing lessor or seller,
mine economics and engineering, and proximity to incompatible land uses and
environmentally sensitive receptors.
3. The Draft EIR examines four project alternatives, all at a comparative level
of detail, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. A summary comparison of
the alternatives is provided in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR. The alternatives
analyzed are as follows:
A) Alternative 1, No Project Alternative (Existing Conditions);
B) Alternative 2, Alternative Project Location;
C) Alternative 3, Reduced Project Area Alternative;
D) Alternative 4, Lower Processing Rate Alternative; and
E) Environmentally Superior Alternative.
4. For the reasons stated below, the Board of Supervisors finds that adoption
and implementation of the current Project as described is appropriate. The
Board of Supervisors further determines that no other one or combination of
project alternatives would implement the goals and objectives of the Project while
providing the same public benefit. The Board of Supervisors, therefore, accepts
the Project as proposed and rejects all the alternatives, for the reasons outlined
below:
A. Alternative 1: No Project (Existing Conditions)
This alternative would consist of the continued use of the Project site for
infrequent agricultural purposes. The consideration of this alternative is required
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e).
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate
mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for
aggregate in Butte County. For example, currently aggregate is imported from
other counties, including Glenn County. This would generate additional criteria
19
pollutant emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and truck trips, with or without the
Project. Other environmental effects, associated with quarrying; such as impacts
to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, etc., would similarly
not be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites. The No Project Alternative
therefore avoids the impacts at the Project site, but not the regional effects
associated with the production and distribution of construction aggregate
products, nor the site specific effects from mining activities at another site.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: The No
Project alternative would not meet the Project objectives to develop a high quality
aggregate mine within the County. In addition, it would not allow the extraction of
known aggregate resources that would be available for use in the construction
industry, supplying County, infrastructure needs. Currently, the County has 40
percent of its 50 -year aggregate demand. Without permitting additional
aggregate reserves for development, the County could exhaust aggregate
reserves by 2030. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-19.) Further, if materials are supplied from
outside the County, the County receives no impact fees from the Project to assist
it in maintaining safe and structurally sound roadways. With the Project, the
County will receive impact fees ("fair share" monetary contributions) to help
maintain and improve County roads and transportation infrastructure. In addition,
the County will receive additional sales tax revenue. Sales tax, property tax, and
secondary expenditures of goods and services spent outside the County do not
assist in maintaining or enhancing the County's economy and do not pay for
impacts caused by importation of aggregate, or assist in funding other services in
the County.
Further, as detailed in Alternative 2, if the M&T Chico Ranch Mine is not
developed, other aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and
future growth demand for aggregate in Butte County. Thus, environmental
impacts associated with the Project will only be transferred to other locations
when market demands for aggregate warrant new supplies.
B. Alternative 2: Alternative Project Location
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate
mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for
aggregate in Butte County. This would generate additional criteria pollutant
emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project.
Other environmental effects associated with quarrying, such as impacts to
biological resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, etc., would similarly not
be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites. The Project Location Alternative
therefore avoids the impacts at the Project site, but not the regional effects
associated with the production and distribution of construction aggregate
products, nor the site specific effects from mining activities at another site.
20
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: This
alternative would place the Project in an alternative location within the County or
eastern Glenn County. 'The nature of .aggregate mining dictates that aggregate
mines can generally only be developed where the resource . is available and
proximate to markets. The successful development of the project at another
location would depend : on a number of geologic, environmental, and economic
factors, primarily -the ekisterice of marketable quantities of construction grade
aggregate.
One of the objectives of the proposed Project is to provide aggregate for markets
in the City of Chico and Butte County consumption area. The Project site has
been identified by the Applicant as .the best source available for aggregate
production with aggregates being available in sufficient quantity and quality for
construction materials. Further, the State has designated the Project site as
MRZ-2a, meaning the property contains a known, important and significant
mineral resource. There are no other potential aggregate mine sites that have
been identified in close proximity to the Project site; or to the Chico/Butte County
market. The nearest areas of potential aggregate deposits have been identified
in eastern Glenn County. However., these aggregate resources have not been
quantified, and have not been designated by the State Geologist as a known,
significant mineral resource.
Further, if materials are supplied from more distant locations, such as from Glenn
County, there is an increase in vehicle miles traveled, potential increase in
environmental impacts (more specifically, air impacts), an increase in cost of
materials for the City of Chico, the County, and local consumers, and the County
derives little economic benefit from the impact fees, sales tax, property tax, and
other secondary expenditures of goods and services spent in other jurisdictions.
Higher cost materials and lower tax revenues, including impact fees and "fair
share" contributions, mean that fewer miles of County roads can be constructed
or maintained. Under the current development framework, the Applicant will pay
impact fees and make "fair share" monetary contributions to the County in order
to help maintain and improve County roads and transportation infrastructure. This
is revenue that would otherwise be lost if the County continues rely on source of
aggregate located in other counties.
The Board of Supervisors therefore finds that this alternative is inconsistent with
Project objectives regarding location (discussed in section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIR)
because the Project site is superior to alternative locations because it is a known
aggregate resource, and is proximate to area aggregate markets.
C. Alternative 3: Reduced Project Area
This alternative would reduce the area of active mining under the proposed
Project by 50 percent to approximately 96.5 acres thereby reducing the amount
of mined aggregate by approximately 50 percent. The mine life would be
21
reduced by 50 percent to approximately 10 to 20 years. Mining methods and
reclamation would remain the same as those for the proposed Project. This
proposal would minimize the area of disturbance and thus potentially reduce
environmental impacts.
Environmental Impacts: The primary reduction in environmental impacts
associated with the Reduced Project Alternative would be the potentially
lessened effects to biological resources and aesthetics due to the 50 percent
reduction in mine acreage. Reduced impacts at this site could, however, be,
offset by additional impacts at other locations, since existing and future
construction aggregate demand would require development of alternative
resources, and the Project site would only operate for a short period. Air quality,
water resources, traffic and noise impact significance would not be reduced
under this alternative due to the cumulative effects of more mines supplying the
same amount of material from further locations, such as Glenn County.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: The
development of a Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the basic Project
objective of obtaining a reliable long- term source of construction grade
aggregate in Butte County. This Alternative would leave 50 percent or more of
the known reserves in the ground, resulting in questionable economic feasibility
of the Project.
D. Alternative 4: Lower Processing Rate
This alternative would reduce the processing rate approximately 50 percent to a
maximum rate of 137,500 cubic yards per year mined and 125,000 cubic yards
marketed. The mining and processing of the 5.5 million cubic yards of known
aggregate reserves would take approximately 30 to 40 years, an increase in
project life of 50 percent. Mining methods and reclamation would remain the
same as those for the proposed Project.
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site utilized a lower processing rate, other
aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth
demand for processing aggregate. This would generate additional criteria
pollutant emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and truck trips, with or without the
Project. Other environmental effects associated with quarrying, such as impacts
to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, etc., would similarly
not be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites. Potential environmental
impacts associated with the Reduced Processing Rate Alternative would be
similar to those identified the proposed Project since the same amount of surface
disturbance (approximately 193 acres) would occur. Further, potential impacts to
biological resources would be similar if not greater than those of the proposed
Project due to the extended life of the mining Project. Additionally, reducing the
processing rate by 50 percent necessarily means that the Project will generate
twice as many truck trips. Thus, the reduced processing rate would not offer any
22
significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project, and would likely
result in increased environmental impacts.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: Since
local supplies of processed aggregate would be restricted under this alternative,
additional aggregate would have to be imported to meet project demand.
However, the development of processed aggregate resources outside of the
Butte County/Chico area specifically for the Butte County/Chico market will only
transfer environmental' impacts to another site, and will also result in added
environmental impacts including an increase in vehicle miles traveled and truck
trips. Further, the demand for aggregate products'. to meet countywide
construction project demands would need to be supplemented from other sites,
which may not be efficiently located, and therefore more costly to consumers,
which include Butte County and the City of Chico. Therefore, operating at a
reduced processing rate would not substantially reduce any identified significant
impacts, and does not meet the basic Project objectives.
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the EIR to identify the
environmentally superior alternative. Additionally, if the environmentally superior
alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR must also identify an
environmentally superior alternative from the remaining alternatives. According
to Draft EIR Section 5.5, for the proposed Project, the No Project alternative
would be the environmentally superior alternative since no mining would occur on
the site. Among the other alternatives the Reduced Project Area Alternative #3
does offer some environmental advantages over the proposed Project due to the
reduction in mined acreage and the shortened life of the Project. This alternative
would not feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives, and leave
approximately 50 percent of known mineral reserves. Since local supplies would.
be restricted under this alternative, additional aggregate would have to be
imported to meet Project demand. This would result in similar environmental
impacts associated with developing an alternative project location as detailed in
the "Alternative Project Location" alternative. Therefore, permitting the Project is
the other environmentally superior alternative.
FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT
1. CEQA Section 15126 (g) requires that an EIR consider the potential for a
project to create growth inducing impacts. A project could have a growth
inducing impact if it could:
a) Foster economic or population growth, or construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment;
b) Remove obstacles to population growth, for example, developing
23
service areas in previously unserved areas, extending transportation
routes into previously undeveloped areas,.and establishing major new
employment opportunities; and
c) Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect
the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
2. The proposed Project will not result in a significant increase in
employment, or any increase in housing. (Draft EIR, section 6.2, pp. 6-4 — 6-5.)
No new roads or public services would be installed as a result of the Project that
would remove obstacles to growth. The Project would make available aggregate
materials used in a variety of activities, including road building and maintenance,
and construction. While the Project will make these materials available, it cannot
be considered to be facilitating the activities using aggregate materials. The
Project is not the only source of these materials, and these activities will occur
regardless of the availability of the additional resources made available by this
Project. Therefore, the Project would not encourage or facilitate activities and
create environmental effects other than those addressed in this Draft EIR.
FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1. A cumulative impact is the effect on the environment which results from
the incremental impact of the proposed project when combined with the effects of
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15355, subd. (b).) The significance of a cumulative impact may be
greater than the effects resulting from the individual actions if the effects of more
than one action are additive.
2. Criteria for evaluating. the significance of adverse effects were identified
for each environmental issue in Chapter 4.0. of the Draft EIR. These criteria,
which are based on resource sensitivity, quality, and quantity, are also applicable
to cumulative impacts. The timing and duration of each activity is also an
important consideration for evaluating the potential cumulative effects of activities
that occur only for a limited period. In those cases, a cumulative effect may
occur only when two or more of the activities are occurring simultaneously.
3. The CEQA Guidelines provide that cumulative impacts shall be discussed
when they are significant and that the discussion of cumulative impacts shall
reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence (section
15130 (a) and (b)). These effects, where they occur, are then evaluated for their
impact, in combination with other activities in the area for cumulative impact.
4. The following section discusses the potential cumulative environmental
effects that could result when the potential impacts of the proposed Project are
combined with impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable projects
identified in Section 6.1.1 of the Draft EIR.
24
A. Land Use
As part of the CEQA process, the County conducted an extensive analysis of the
Project's cumulative impacts to surrounding uses, . as well the Project's
consistency with County land use documents. The County concluded that the
Project is consistent with the County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Surface
Mining Ordinance, Williamson Act program,' and the M&T Williamson Act
Contract.
Further, analysis contained in the EIR demonstrates that the Project site does not
meet the standard for prime farmland. Though. the - Project will result in the
conversion of non -prime farmland to open space, the amount of agricultural land
surrounding the site is relatively abundant. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.) . In
terms of prime agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts
are expected as a result of this Project.
B. Hydrology and Water Quality
The County extensively analyzed and evaluated the Project's cumulative impacts.
to local hydrology and water quality as part of the CEQA environmental review
process. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that impacts to
hydrology and water quality . from other projects in the vicinity that could
contribute to a cumulative effect would be mitigated to less -than -significant
levels. Further, evidence generated as part of the CEQA review process shows
that mining activities at the M&T Chico Ranch would not have a significant effect
on the hydrogeology of the area; nor would it adversely affect the volume or
quality of regional groundwater resources. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.)
Additionally, no significant cumulative hydrological impacts are expected as a
result of this Project.
C. Air Quality
As described in Impact 4.5-1 (see Exhibit 1), when viewed independently, the
proposed Project would result in a significant impact on PM10 emissions, based
solely on the Level C significance thresholds. However, when'viewed in relation
to existing conditions at the site and surrounding areas, the Project would result
in a net reduction in PM10 emissions (refer to Draft EIR Table 4.5-8). Because _
other impacts from these projects would be individually less than significant, and
the combined impacts would not exceed the significance criteria defined for these
issues in Chapter 4.0, no significant cumulative PM10 emission impacts are
expected. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.)
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Traffic, there are no feasible mitigation
measures to reduce cumulative traffic congestion at certain intersections. This
cumulative traffic congestion will result in an increase to carbon monoxide
-25
emissions due to increased idle time at .these intersections. Under cumulative
conditions, this is a significant, unavoidable impact.
D. Traffic and Circulation
The cumulative traffic impact analysis contained in Draft EIR section 4.6 (see
also Draft EIR section 6.1.2, pp. 6-3 — 6-4) indicates that the daily levels of
service for all locations would operate at LOS C or better with or without, the
Project, except for the following locations, which will operate at LOS E or. F with
or without the Project:
• Park Avenue between East 20th Street and East Park Avenue will
operate at LOS F;
• East Park Avenue between Park Avenue and SR 99 will operate at
LOS F;
• Bruce Road between SR 32 and Skyway will operate at LOS E; and
• Skyway — between SR 99 and the Butte Creek Bridge is expected
to operate at LOSE.
The Project will add additional trips to these road segments. In all cases, these t
additions represent a de-minimis increase in traffic. Specifically, analysis
contained in the Draft EIR demonstrates that truck trips generated by the Project
equate to a less than one percent (1%) increase of total traffic volumes in the
Project area under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the impact of additional
Project traffic to these roadway segments would be minimal yet significant based
upon the significance criteria established by in the Draft EIR.
Peak hour intersection operations under cumulative conditions with and without
the Project also indicate that all intersections will operate at LOS. C or better,
except for the Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway and Durham -Dayton Highway at
Midway. Both locations operate unacceptably without the Project. and those
unacceptable operations are improved by the Project. The Skyway/Baldwin
Plant Driveway intersection will operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS
D in the p.m. peak hour. The Durham -Dayton Highway/Midway intersection will
operate at LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
As discussed in Draft EIR section 4.6, Traffic, there are no feasible mitigation
measures to reduce cumulative traffic congestion at certain road segments.
Under cumulative conditions, this 'is a significant, unavoidable impact.
E. Biological Resources
As part of the CEQA process, the, County analyzed the Project's cumulative .
impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. The EIR concluded that the resulting
habitat associated with the reclaimed lake would result in an overall increase in
wildlife values over the long-term.. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Accordingly,
26 .
the Project will not result in significant cumulative biological impacts.
F. Noise
The County analyzed cumulative noise impacts as part of the CEQA process and
determined that none of the cumulative projects located near in the .vicinity of the
Project site (delineated in Draft EIR Section 6.1.1) are close enough to the M&T
Chico Ranch Project to contribute to cumulative noise impacts associated with
mining operations. (Draft'EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, no significant
cumulative noise impacts will result from this Project.
G. Cultural Resources
Records review and field surveys show no evidence of "cultural resources" at the
proposed Project site, as defined by CEQA. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.)
Therefore, the proposed Project will not contribute to cumulative impacts to
cultural resources.
H. Aesthetics
The aesthetic character of the site would change as a result of mining and
reclamation. However, completion. of reclamation activities at the site will
eliminate the. potential for any .negative cumulative visual effect. (Draft EIR
section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, no significant negative cumulative aesthetic
impacts will result from this Project.
Findinas Reaardina Mitigation Monitorinq and Reportinq Program
1. Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, CEQA
Guideline section 15097, and Board policy require the ' Butte County Board of
Supervisors to adopt a monitoring and reporting program on the changes in the
Project and Mitigation Measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental -effects. The. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program' is
attached to this resolution as Exhibit 2.
2. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program fulfills the . CEQA
mitigation monitoring requirement because: the Conditions of Approval are
specific and, as appropriate, define performance standards to measure
compliance under the Program. The Program contains detailed descriptions of
conditions, implementation, 'verification, a compliance schedule and reporting
requirements to insure compliance with the Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation
Measures. The Program also ensures that the Mitigation Measures are in place,
as appropriate, throughout the life of the Project.
27
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS:
I Certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch
Mine Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan (Min 96-03);
II. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in
Exhibit 2;
III. This Project has the potential to have a significant impact to fish or wildlife
habitat. The collection of Department of Fish and Game fees pursuant to
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5 is required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Butte,
State of California, at regular meeting of said Board, held on the day of
2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
JANE DOLAN, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
PAUL MCINTOSH, Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By:
Deputy
EXHIBIT 1
Impact Statement, Mitigation Measures and
Finrlince of Fart fnr the M&T Chien Ranch Mine
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
LAND USE _
Impact 4.2-1: Land Use Incompatibility
The proposed project will result in land uses that
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: Implementation of The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
would be incompatible with the existing and planned
Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-9 for traffic mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
land uses in the vicinity. This is a potentially
impacts, 4.8-1a through 4.8-2b for noise impacts and project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
significant impact.
4.9-1a through 4.9-3 for impacts to aesthetics will mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
reduce this impact to a less than significant level. than -significant level.
Impact 4.2-2: Consistency with Butte County General Plan and with the Butte County Zoning and Min ng Ordinance
This scenario will be consistent with the policies of
No mitigation is required. Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
the Butte County General Plan and with the Butte
County Zoning and Mining Ordinance. This is a less
than significant impact.
Impact 4.2-3: Conversion of Agriculture
This scenario will result in the permanent conversion .
No mitigation is required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not .
of up to 193 acres of non -prime farmland to mining
required.
uses, and eventually to open space water and wildlife
habitat uses. This is a less than significant impact.
GEOLOGY.
Impact 4.3-1 Seismicity
Expected seismic activity within the project vicinity
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1:
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
could result in seismically induced ground shaking and
The Applicant has incorporated a 3H: IV slope for
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
damage to mine facilities or reclamation features. This
final slopes into the project design to provide an
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
is a less than significant impact.
adequate safety factor. No additional mitigation is
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
required.
than -significant level.
Impact 4.3-2. Slope Failure
Impact
Statement
Seismic shaking at the project site could result in both
ground and slope failure and damage to reclamation
features of the excavation area. This is a less than
significant impact.
Impact 4.3-3: Subsidence and/or Liquefaction
Expected seismic activity at the project site could
result in subsidence and/or liquefaction of the project
site. This is a less than significant impact.
Impact 4.3-4: Topographic Modification, Compac
The proposed project will result in a permanent
modification of the site's topography, disruption of
native soils, compaction of soils, and displacement of
soils as a result of on-site excavation and processing
activities. This is a less than significant impact.
Impact 4.3-5: Soil Resources
The proposed project will convert approximately 193
acres of non -prime farmland to a non-agricultural use.
This is a less than significant impact.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: The Applicant has
incorporated a 311:1 V slope for final slopes into the
project design to provide an adequate safety factor.
No additional mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3:
Any structures proposed on-site including offices, and
related facilities will shall be appropriately designed
and constructed in accordance with the seismic safety
requirements of the California Uniform Building Code
and other requirements of the Butte County Building
Division of the Development Services Department.
Therefore. no mitieation is required.
on, and Disruptions of Soils
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
Finding of Fact
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less-
than-sienificant level.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
Impact 4.4-1: Groundwater Resources
The proposed project will not result in significant No mitigation is required. Less than significant impact. Findings are not
impacts to groundwater resources. I required.
Impact 4.4-2: Groundwater Quality Associated with Facilities Operation
Equipment servicing, refueling, and other operations Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a:
in the processing area could result in contaminants Any sumps or detention ponds used to contain runoff
being delivered to the water table directly beneath the from within the servicing and refueling area shall be
processing area. This is a potentially significant located"where there is a minimum of five feet of
impact. separation between the bottom of the sump and the
seasonal high water table. If this criterion cannot be
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 2 of 27
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Impact
Statement
Impact 4.4-3: Pit Water Quality
Exposure of the water table through mining activities
could result in contaminants being discharged to
groundwater. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
met because the proposed locations of sumps are in
locations where the elevation difference between the
bottom of the sump and the seasonal high water table
is less than five feet, then sumps shall be capped with
either an impervious material or an 18 -inch layer of
compacted, fines which have a permeability at 90
percent relative compaction of no greater than 1,0 x
10 "$ cm/second.
The above requirement is not extended to those sumps
which will collect and recirculate process water.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b:
All equipment servicing and refueling shall be
performed on impervious surfaces.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c: Project proponent shall
develop and implement a groundwater quality -
monitoring plan acceptable to both Butte County and
the Reeional Water Oualitv Control Board.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a: Runoff from the
surfaces of the processing area shall be prevented
from entering the pit by regrading the area between
the pit and the processing area as necessary to ensure
that runoff from the processing facilities will not flow
to the proposed pit area.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b: Flows. in Little Chico
Creek.up to 2,000 cfs shall be prevented from entering
the lake through construction of a low levee/weir and
bypass channel, which will prevent flows from
entering the distributary channel.
This mitigation measure is the same as Mitigation
Measure 4.4-7c, as described by NoithStar, 2002).
The created.lake will be protected from floodwater
entry up to approximately a ten-year recurrence
interval.flood from Little Chico Creek. The level of
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 3 of 27
of Fact
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this"
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level. .
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
flood protection afforded by this measure by
Sacramento River floodwaters is unknown, however,
it is rational to expect that flood protection from that
source will approximate a ten-year recurrence interval
since it would be unusual for large floods from the
Sacramento River, which is regulated, to more
frequently overflow the new levee and bypass channel
that floodwaters from Little Chico Creek. Typically,
regional flooding is correlated with local flooding.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3c:
The existing drainage ditch at the southern limit of the
proposed pit, and all drainage ditches along the east side
of the pit up to 1,000 feet beyond the project area shall
be improved as necessary to increase their peak flow
capacity to carry a 10 -year recurrence interval peak
flow. Similarly, a ditch of similar capacity shall be
constructed along the western property boundary
through any reaches where the local topography slopes
toward the proposed pit.
The western ditch depending on the design, may be the
same as the Little Chico Creek overflow diversion
described above. All ditch construction within the 100 -
year floodplain shall be performed without side casting,
and all other ditch improvements must be performed so
as not to increase the heights of any existing berms
alongside these ditches. Mining shall cease when the
edge of the proposed pit is within 50 feet of the ditch
along the southern boundary.
This measure will eliminate runoff in contact with
agricultural lands generated from local storms from
entering the created lake at a frequency, on average, of
greater than ten years. Since no side casting is
allowed, these agricultural drainage ditches cannot
prevent the entry of floodwaters backing into the area
Exhibit 1 Findings of Fact
Page 4 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario "
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
from the Sacramento River. The exception is the
ditch to be constructed along the western property
boundary, which is specifically designed to give the
proposed pit flood protection from Little Chico Creek.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d: Mining shall not be
performed with the use of a dredge boat without prior
review. by Butte County. All motorized mining
equipment, when not in use, shall be parked more than
50 feet from the edge of the pit during normal
operations. When no mining occurs for more than a
14 -day period, all motorized equipment must be
removed to areas which do not drain into the proposed
pit. All refueling will be conducted at a distance
greater than 50 feet from the edge of the pit., Any soil
contaminated by fuel or hydraulic fluid must be
removed in accordance with measures to be specified
as required by the Central Valley Regional Water.
Quality Control Board.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3e: Applicant shall develop
a ground- water monitoring program to be approved
by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board and Butte County. If monitoring shows that
drinking water standards (Title 22 of the California
State Code of Regulations) are not being met either at
the property boundary nearest the proposed pit in a,
-downgradient direction or at the Jones domestic well,
due to degradation caused by the project, then Butte
County, in consultation with the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall rescind
their operating permits, and no permit shall be re-
issued until such time as a groundwater remediation
plan has been implemented, groundwater at the
property boundary once again meets drinking water
standards, and additional measures, as approved by
Butte County, have been implemented to prevent
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 5 of 27 -
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
future degradation. The term "caused by the project"
shall be interpreted as any increase in contaminant
concentrations between the upgradient baseline
monitoring well above the proposed operations area
and the downgradient monitoring locations which
exceed drinking water standards.
Monitoring, at a minimum shall consist of monitoring
of two wells. One located up -gradient of the proposed
pit and operating area, and another approximately
1,000 feet south from the northwest corner of the pit.
As mining proceeds additional wells shall be installed;
one located mid -way between the north and south
edges of the pit near the western property boundary,
and the other 25 feet from the ultimate southwest
corner of the pit. Figure 4.4-13, Proposed Monitoring
Well Locations, shows suggested locations for the
monitoring wells proposed under this mitigation
measure and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c. The wells
shall be monitored four times a year each year during
the life of operations within the fust week of April,
July, August, and September. Once the edge of pit
progresses to within 500 feet of the next down -
gradient well, that well shall be monitored and
monitoring of the upslope well shall cease. Samples
shall be composites formed by sampling within two
feet below the water table, and combining with an
equal volume of water 20 feet below the water table.
Samples will be analyzed for turbidity, fecal coliform,
-
diesel and BTEX compounds. Additionally,
pesticides commonly used in the vicinity shall be
sampled annually. The selection of pesticides to be
analyzed shall be approved by the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte
County. Additionally, Applicant shall monitor the
domestic well on what is referred to as the Jones'
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 6 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
parcel if the property owners grant permission for
monitoring. Monitoring shall consist of drawing
tapwater samples.
Samples shall be analyzed for turbidity, fecal coliforms,
benzene, and atrazine. Prior to the onset of mining, at
least three samples, taken on a monthly interval, shall be
taken from the Jones' domestic water supply to establish
a baseline from which subsequent samples shall be
compared. Following the baseline sampling, monitoring
shall consist of two phases; an intensive Phase A, and a
routine Phase B. During Phase A samples shall be
taken weekly for 12 consecutive weeks beginning June
1. Phase A shall take place during the first irrigation
season after mining operations have commenced, and, at
the discretion of Butte County, the second irrigation
season after mining begins. Additionally, Phase A
sampling shall occur the first irrigation season following
a flood where floodwaters enter the proposed pit. Phase
B sampling shall take place whenever Phase A sampling
is not taking place and shall consist of sampling on the
first week of April, July, August, and September. Phase
B monitoring will continue for at least four years after
all Phase A monitoring is completed. After that, all
monitoring of the Jones' parcel water supply may be
discontinued if Butte County determines that
contaminant concentrations at the Jones' parcel well
never exceed those at the project monitoring well(s).
In lieu of monitoring the Jones' domestic water supply
as specified above, applicant may undertake -one of two
alternatives if requested by the Jones' parcel owners
prior to discontinuing the monitoring described above.
It shall be at the discretion of the Jones' parcel owners
which of the two alternatives they wish to accept, if any.
The alternatives consist of either replacing the existing
domestic well with a new well of equivalent capacity
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 7 of 27
Impact
Statement
Impact 4.4-4: Stormwater Discharges
Stormwater discharges from the processing facilities
could enter Little Chico Creek. This is a less than
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
which draws water only from the lower aquifer, or
installing a filter system capable of reliably furnishing
water meeting drinking water standards.
Applicant shall pay for all costs associated with
replacing the existing well and increased pumping costs,
or the costs of installing and maintaining, in perpetuity,
a filter system.
No mitigation.is required.
Impact 4.4-5: Erosion of Buffer Between Little Chico Creek and the Proposed Pit
Floodwaters could flow over the 50 -foot wide buffer
between Little Chico Creek and the northern edge of
the pit, thereby linking surface flows from Little Chico
Creek to the groundwater in the pit. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Impact 4.4-6: Creek Migration
Little Chico Creek could migrate laterally through the
proposed 50 -foot buffer strip separating the creek
from the pit edge along the northern boundary of the
proposed pit. This could result in a direct linking of
surface and groundwater; and a possible abandonment
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5:
The slope between the buffer strip and the actively
mined area shall be designed by a licensed civil
engineer to prevent erosion. Suitable measures may
include both structural and vegetative, if it can be
demonstrated that a combination of a gentle slope, in
conjunction with vegetation can prevent erosion from
Little Chico Creek overflows.
The design shall consider the potential concentration
of floodwaters, the lowest expected antecedent water
surface elevation in the proposed pit, and
scour/undermining of the toe of the slope. Butte
County must approve the design prior to initiation of
the project. A design report shall be submitted along
with plans.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-6:
No excavation or grading shall occur within 100 feet
from the bank of Little Chico Creek. Mitigation
wetlands proposed within this zone may be
relocated.The mine pit excavation area shall maintain
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 8 of 27
of Fact
Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the.
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level. .
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
of the existing channel alignment, diminishing existing a minimum setback of 100 feet from the bank of Little
riparian habitat. This is a potentially significant Chico Creek to avoid potential lateral migration of the "
impact. creek.
Impact 4.4-7: Flooding
Placement of dikes or fill within the processing area to Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a: Applicant shall remove The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
raise it above the 100 -year floodplain elevation could the existing levee on the east side of Little Chico mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
result in some increase in the frequency of flooding of Creek and replace it with setback levees at the same project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
River Road. Elimination of the existing distributary at elevation." A by-pass channel will be constructed to mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
the north end of the proposed pit for groundwater convey flows overtopping the new setback levees back than -significant level.
quality protection could result in increased flooding of to the creek through new, larger culverts. Plans shall
the Jones' parcel. These are potentially significant be approved by Butte County prior to construction.
impacts 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 the existing low
water crossing on River Road near the gas well site by
up to three feet and installing larger culverts within
three years of use permit approval. Plans shall be
approved by Butte County Public Works Department
prior to construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c: 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 on 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
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 9 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
Butte County prior to construction.
Impact 4.4-8: Flooding Storage and Groundwater Recharge
Creation of the proposed pit will result, at the end of No mitigation is required as this is a beneficial impact. Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
operations, in approximately 1,000 acre-feet of
available floodwater storage and the same amount of
potential groundwater recharge. This will be a
beneficial impact.
AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.5-1: Fugitive Dust Emissions
The topsoil removal ;'aggregate processing, and truck
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: Unpaved haul roads,
and equipment travel on-site will produce a net
service roads, and plants areas shall be treated with
increase of fugitive-PMIo. Compliance with
water or chemical stabilizers in sufficient quantity and
BCAQMD rules will reduce impacts by controlling
frequency as necessary to meet the following
emissions to within Action Level A thresholds for
standards:.
PMIo. This is a less than significant impact.
. No visible emissions extending beyond the
property line (BCAPCD Rule 207); and
• No visible emissions as dark or darker than
Ringlemann 2 or 40% opacity for a period or
periods aggregating more than three minutes in
one hour determined using EPA Method 9.
(BCAPCD Rule 202); or
Any future standard respecting fugitive dust or
visible emissions that is more stringent than the
standards in paragraphs a and b that is adopted or
amended by the Butte County APCD subsequent
to the approval of the project.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b: Truck and mobile
equipment speeds on interior haul roads shall not
exceed 15 miles per hour. Speed limits shall be
posted.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c: Excavation areas shall
be treated with water during topsoil removal phases.
As excavation areas are completed and final depths
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 10 of 27
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
are reached, revegetation shall be implemented as
stipulated in the Reclamation Plan.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1d: Permanent roads from
public streets to the processing or loading facilities
shall be graveled or paved to reduce the use of
'
unpaved roads.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1e: Wet sweeping shall be
performed on heavily -used on-site paved roads and
within 500 feet of the access roads for the aggregate
plants as necessary to control. on-site and track -out
dust.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1f:
•A truck spraying facility shall be constructed and
operated near the exit of the aggregate plants.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1g:
The aggregate Operator shall set up a 24-hour
anemometer at the plant site to monitor wind speeds.
If wind gusts exceed 20 miles per hour as defined by
the BCAQMD, the Operator shall terminate topsoil
removal and hauling on-site until the high wind
abates. Times that the above water table mining
operations are shut down shall be logged and included
in the annual mine inspection report required by
SMARA.
•
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1h: Topsoil storage piles
shall be covered with gravel/rock or seeded with an
erosion control seed mix to prevent wind-blown dust.
Impact 4.5-2: Increases in Air Contaminant Emissions from Vehicles and Equipment
Engine exhaust emissions from excavation equipment
No mitigation.is required.
Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
will contribute to a net increase of criteria pollutants
including NOX, CO, and ROG. This is a less than
significant impact.
impact 4.5-3: Increases in Air Contaminant Emissions from Plant Operations
Emissions from the operation of an asphalt batch plant I No mitigation is required. Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page l l of 27
Impact
Statement
at a currently permitted location contributes to a net
increase of criteria pollutants including NOx, CO, and
ROG within the NSVAB. This is a less than
si nificant impact.
Impact 4.54: Increases in Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Trans or
Emissions from diesel -fueled vehicles and equipment, No mitigation is required.
and from asphalt manufacturing will result in an
increase in toxic air.contaminant emissions. The
estimated health risk from these emissions is less than
one -in one million. These emissions are less`than the
BCAQMD threshold of significance and are therefore
considered less than significant.
Im act 4.5-5: Addition to CO Hot Spots
Certain intersections in vicinity of the project will
experience congestion under cumulative conditions.
Carbon monoxide emissions from vehicle traffic will
increase at congested intersections due to increased
idling time. Under BCAQMD thresholds of
significance, the creation of a CO hot spot is a
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
of Fact
tion and Batch Plant Operations
Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce
traffic congestion at the impacted intersections. The
air quality impacts are a direct result of traffic
congestion. Therefore, there are no feasible
mitigation measures for the air quality impacts. This
is a significant, unavoidable impact.
significant impact.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 12 of 27
The Board of.Supervisors finds that there are no
additional feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that the Board of Supervisors Could
adopt at this time which would reduce this impact
to an acceptable (less -than -significant) level. The
impact, therefore, remains significant and .
unavoidable. To the`extent that this adverse
impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an
acceptable level, the Board of Supervisors finds
that specific economic, social, and other
considerations identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
TRAFFIC I
Impact 4.6-1: Ord Ferry / Little Chico Creek Br
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per
day to the bridge on Ord Ferry Road at Little Chico
Creek under existing and future conditions. This
bridge is 20 feet wide, which is less than the 24 -foot
minimum standard. This is considered a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1:
The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share
contribution to improve reconstruct the bridge on Ord
Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek. The fair share
contribution amount should be based upon the relative
proportion of project vehicles traveling on the bridge.
The implementation of this mitigation measure shall
occur before building permits are granted.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Impact 4.6-2: River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road
The proposed project will add 25 or more truck trips, The project Applicant shall contribute its fair share The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
which cause an increase in the Traffic Index (TI) of of the costs to improve the pavement on River mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
0.5 or greater on a County maintained roadway. Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
Road with a two-inch asphalt concrete overlay. The mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
fair share amount shall be based on the increase in than -significant level.
ESALs, which is 51%. Butte County Public Works
estimates the cost of this improvement to be
approximately $1,200,000. Therefore, the
Applicant's fair share cost would be about $40,000
per year. The Public Works Department has
indicated that the fee shall be submitted annually
based on the tonnage of material that is hauled
from the project site and shall be relative to an
inflation index. Based on the information contained
in Table 4.6-9, the cost per ton of material hauled
from the project site would be approximately $0.08.
The project applicant shall contribute its fair share
of the cost to maintain the asphalt concrete
pavement on the following roads over the 30 year
life of the project:
• River Road; between Chico River
Road and Ord Ferry Road;
• Ord Ferry Road; between County Line
and Dayton Road;
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 13 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
Durham Dayton Road; between
Dayton Road and SR 99;
Dayton Road; between Ord Ferry Road
and Chico City Limit;
Hegan Lane; between Dayton Road
and Midway; and
Chico River Road; between River.
Road and Chico City Limit.
Road Maintenance shall include a chip seal surface
treatment every 10 years with M & T Chico Ranch
Mine project's fair share contribution based on the
-
projected net increase in ESALs as shown in the
attached Table A. Based on the information
contained in Table A, the cost per ton of material
hauled from the project site would -be
approximately $0.06 and shall be relative to an
inflation index.
If maintenance costs are rolled into a single fee
per ton of material extracted, the mitigation fee
shall be made up of $0.08 per ton for the overlay
on River Road, plus $0.01 per ton for the
improvements to the Ord Ferry Bridge, and the
installation of a signal at Midway and Durham
Dayton highway, for a total of $0.09 per ton of
material removed from the site. The amount
intended to compensate for the extra
maintenance required due to the increased truck
traffic, shall be $0.06 per ton of material
extracted. These fees shall be deposited by the
operator into the Butte County Road Fund, and
shall be adjusted for inflation based upon the
change in the Construction Cost Index for San
Francisco, during the month of January of each
year. These fees shall cease to be collected
should the County impose a countywide tax or
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 14 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
fee for road maintenance based upon weight of
materials moved over the roads.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 15 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact MM ation
Statement Measures Findin of Fact
Impact 4.6-3: Dayton Road and Durham/Dayton Highway
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per Recent improvements to this intersection include Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
day to the intersection of Dayton Road/Durham- implementation of four-way stop -sign control. This
Dayton Hwy. This intersection has been identified as improvement will likely reduce the impact at this
a location having 4 or more accidents in a 12 -month location. No mitigation measure can eliminate the
period over the last three years. This location also had occurrence of accidents at this location. However,
more than one accident over a 12 -month period, which with the identified improvements, this is no longer
involved heavy vehicles. considered a significant impact by Public Works and
no mitigation is required for this project.
Impact 4.6-4: SR32/West 5" Street
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per
Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: The project Applicant
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are no
day to the intersection of SR 32/West 5t' Street. This
shall contribute a fair share contribution to improve
additional feasible mitigation measures or
intersection has been identified as a location having 4
the intersection of SR 32/West 5`s Street by modifying
alternatives that the Board of Supervisors Could
or more accidents in a 12 -month period over the last
the existing traffic signal to provide split phase timing,
adopt at this time which would reduce this impact
three years. This location also had more than one
including three seconds of yellow time and one second
to an acceptable (less -than -significant) level. The
accident over a 12 -month period, which involved
of all -red time per phase. The fair share contribution
impact, therefore, remains significant and
heavy vehicles. This is considered a significant .
amount should be based upon the relative proportion
unavoidable. To the extent that this adverse
impact.
of project vehicles traveling through the impacted
impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an -
intersection.
acceptable level, the Board of Supervisors finds
that specific economic, social, and other
considerations identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 16 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
—7Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Findin of Fact
Impact 4.6-5: Park Avenue/East 20`x' Street/East Park Avenue
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are no
conditions on Park Avenue from. East 20th Street to
of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered
additional feasible mitigation measures or
East Park Avenue under cumulative conditions.
a significant, unavoidable impact.
alternatives that the Board of Supervisors Could
adopt at this time which would reduce this impact
to an acceptable (less -than -significant) level. The
impact, therefore, remains significant and
unavoidable. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an
acceptable level, the Board of Supervisors. finds
that specific. economic, social, and other
considerations identified in the Statement of
-
Overriding Considerations support approval of the
Project.as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Impact 4.6-6: East Park Avenue/Park Avenue/Hi hway 99
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are no
conditions on East Park Avenue from Park Avenue to
of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered
additional feasible mitigation measures or
Highway 99 under cumulative conditions.
a significant, unavoidable impact.
alternatives that the Board of Supervisors Could
adopt at this time which would reduce this impact
to an acceptable (less -than -significant) level. The
impact, therefore, remains significant and
unavoidable. To the extent that this adverse,
impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an
acceptable level, the Board of Supervisors finds
that specific economic, social, and other
considerations, identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 17 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
Impact 4.6-7: Bruce Road/SR 32/Skyway
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS E No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level The Board of Supervisors finds that there are no
operating conditions on Bruce Road from SR 32 to of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered additional feasible mitigation measures or
Skyway under cumulative conditions. a significant, unavoidable impact. alternatives that the Board of Supervisors Could
adopt at this time which would reduce this impact
to an acceptable (less -than -significant) level. The
impact, therefore, remains significant and
unavoidable. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an
acceptable level, the Board of Supervisors finds
that specific economic, social, and other
considerations identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Impact 4.6-8: Baldwin Plant Driveway/Skyway
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating
Mitigation Measure 4.6-8: Improvements to the
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are no
conditions in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the
median crossing, acceleration/decelera-tion lanes,
additional feasible mitigation measures or
p.m. peak hour at the intersection of the Baldwin Plant
improved signing and striping, and channelization of
alternatives that the Board of Supervisors Could
Driveway and Skyway under cumulative conditions.
the driveway approach could improve the safety
adopt at this time which would reduce this impact
characteristics of this intersection. In addition,
to an acceptable (less -than -significant) level. The
signalization of the Skyway /Honey Run Road
impact, therefore, remains significant and .
(anticipated by 2005) may provide sufficient gaps in
unavoidable. To the extent that this adverse
through traffic on Skyway to improve egress from the
impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an
driveway. However, no feasible mitigation measure
acceptable level, the Board of Supervisors finds
will reduce the level of impact to this roadway
that specific economic, social, and other
segment. This is considered a significant unavoidable
considerations identified in the Statement of
impact.
Overriding Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Impact 4.6-9: Durham -Dayton Highway/Midway
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating
Mitigation Measure 4.6-9: The project Applicant
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
conditions in the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour at
shall contribute a fair share contribution to install a
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the.
the intersection of the Durham -Dayton Highway and
traffic signal and improve lane configurations with a
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
Midway under cumulative conditions.
left -turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane on
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 18 of 27
Impact
Statement
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenaric
Mitigation
Measures
each approach of the Durham -Dayton Highway and
Midway intersection. With this improvement this
intersection will operate at LOS C under cumulative
project conditions. The fair share contribution amount
shall be based upon the relative proportion of project
vehicles'traveling through the impacted intersection.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES `
Im act 4.7-1: Loss of Non -Native Grassland and
The proposed project would result in the permanent
loss of approximately 193 acres of annually tilled,
non-native grassland and dryland agriculture to open
water and wetland habitat. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Dr land Agriculture Habitat
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: Slopes along the
perimeter of the created lake shall be actively
revegetated, where necessary, to supplement natural
colonization of plant species as part of site
reclamation to meet the performance standards
specified by SMARA. Specific areas for supplemental
revegetation will be identified using collected data
following one year of monitoring natural colonization.
Additional requirements specified by state or federal
agencies shall be incorporated into the final
revegetation plan. The revegetation program shall
specify planting and maintenance techniques, with a
detailed monitoring program to evaluate restoration
success.
Impact 4.7-2: Loss of Habitat Disruption of Movement Patterns, and Noise
The proposed project would disturb existing wildlife No mitigation is required.
through loss of habitat, disruption of natural
movement patterns, and noise. This is a less than.
significant impact.
Impact 4.7-3: Swainson's Hawk Habitat Loss
The proposed project will result in the loss of foraging
habitat for Swainson's hawk. Disturbance to
Swainson's hawk during nesting may also occur. This
is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.7-3:
The Applicant shall be required to obtain a Take
Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the CDFG Code,
prior to mining. The Section 2081 Permit will provide
mitigation for the effects of mining on Swainson's
hawk foraging and potential nesting habitat.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 19 of 27
of Fact
than -significant level.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
Impact 4.7-4: Loss of Foraging and Nesting Habitat for Other Special -Status Species
The proposed project will result in the loss of foraging Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: The Applicant shall The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
and, possibly, nesting habitat for other special -status consult with CDFG to determine an`appropriate buffer mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
species. Mining activities could also disturb nesting distance or other conditions to mining for allowable project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
for California black rail, if present, in adjacent Angel mining activities during the nesting period of any mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
Slough. This is a potentially significant impact. special -status species. When these requirements have than -significant level.
been established a qualified biologist should conduct a
pre -construction survey in spring to determine the
presence of active nests for special -status birds and to
determine.the presence of northwestern pond turtles.
If survey results are positive for raptor nests,
California black rails or turtles, the best protection
measures relative to mining in potential nesting habitat
will be determined in consultation with CDFG.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement _T Measures Finding of Fact
Impact 4.7-5: Bank Swallows
The proposed project could result in the creation of
temporary nesting sites for bank swallows. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Impact 4.7-6: Native Oaks and Mature Trees
The proposed project will affect native oak trees and
several mature Fremont cottonwood and red willow.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.7-5: Slopes on stockpiled
soils shall be graded to 2:1 for long-term storage to.
prevent use by bank swallows. At no time during the
active breeding season (May 1 through July 31) shall
slopes on stockpiles exceed 1:1, even on a temporary
basis. Stockpiles shall be graded to a minimum 1:1
slope at the end of each workday where stockpiles
have been disturbed during the active breeding season.
If any vertical slopes are inadvertently created, these
slopes shall be destroyed immediately following
verification by a designated Environmental Monitor
that no bank swallows have begun nesting there. If
bank swallows have begun nesting, CDFG will be
consulted as to the best strategy.
Mitigation Measure 4.7-6: The oak grove scheduled
for preservation will be protected during mining by
the placement of temporary fencing or flagging along
the dripline of each of the trees to prevent mining
related damage. The operator will place temporary
fencing prior to pit development with potential for
equipment to be within 50 feet of protected plants.
Fencing need not be maintained once operations are
bevond 50 feet.
Impact 4.7-7: Modifications to Jurisdictional Wetlands
The proposed project will impact jurisdictional Mitigation Measure 4.7-7: Potential impacts to
wetlands This is a potentially significant impact. jurisdictignal wetlands shall be coordinated with the
COE prior to project development to determine
whether a permit is required.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the .
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less-
than-sienificant level.
NOISE i
Impact 4.8-1: Excavation Noise
The proposed project will result in average equipment
noise levels up to 65 dBA, Leg, at the closest
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a: Construction of an
Earthen Berm: The project Applicant has propo
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 21 of 27
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
residence. This is a potentially significant impact.
construction of an earthen berm between the proposed
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mining activities and the nearest residence (Residence
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
A) to mitigate this noise impact. The location of this
than -significant level.
berm is generally shown by Figure 4.8-7.
Barrier effectiveness is dependant on the relative
heights of the noise source and receiver, the frequency
content of the noise source, as well as the distances
from the noise source and receiver to the top of the
barrier. Given the geometry of the proposed berm
(approximate height 18 feet, approximately width 475
feet) relative to the mining area and nearest residence,
this berm is predicted to reduce excavation noise
levels by approximately 15 dB. The degree of
attenuation is predicted to reduce excavation -related
noise to approximately 50 dB Leq and 60 dB Lmax,
'
which would comply with the project's standards of
significance.
Because the proposed berm is predicted to reduce
mining -related noise levels to a state of compliance
with the project's standards of significance, no
additional mining -related noise mitigation measures
are identified for. this project. However, because there
is no margin of safety built into these calculations,
follow-up noise level measurements shall be
conducted as part of the mitigation monitoring
program to ensure that the berm is providing the
required degree of sound attenuation. In the event that
those follow-up noise measurements indicate that the
project's standards of significance are being exceeded,
`
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b: Creation of Additional
Setbacks
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 22 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
from Mining Areas: Because the proposed berm is
projected to provide sufficient attenuation of mining -
related noise, additional mining setbacks are not
recommended at this time. However, if the follow-up
noise level measurements required in Mitigation
Measure 4.8-1a indicate that the project's standards of
significance are being exceeded even with the
proposed berm, this measure should be implemented.
As a general rule, sound decreases at a rate of about 6
dB per doubling of distance from the noise source for
a noise source which generally operates from a fixed
location, such as an excavator or drag line. For
example, if the mining setback from the nearest
residence were increased from 300 feet to 600 feet,
excavation -related noise levels would be
approximately 6 dB lower than those expected with
the 300 -foot setback. The specific setback distances,
if required, will depend on the effectiveness of the
proposed berm in reducing the excavation -related
noise levels at the nearest residence (Residence A). .
Impact 4.8-2: Screen in/Crushing Noise
Maximum and average noise levels generated by the
Mitigation Measure 4.8-2a: Shielding by Aggregate
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
crushing and screening plant equipment at the project
Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows that the proposed
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
site will be approximately 58 dB L,n, . and 53 dB Leq at
aggregate, stockpile location is north of the proposed .
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
the nearest residence. The average noise level would
processing equipment. As a result, those stockpiles
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
be approximately 3 dB over the recommended 50 dB
would provide shielding of the optional asphalt and
than -significant level.. —�
threshold. This is a potentially significant impact.
concrete plants, but not of the processing equipment,
in the direction of the nearest residence to the south.
Consideration should be given to locating one or more
stockpiles between the noisiest processing equipment
(crushers and screens) and that residence to the south.
If stockpiles can be erected to intercept line of sight
between that equipment and residence, a 5 dB
attenuation can be expected. This degree of
attenuation would reduce processing equipment noise
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 23 of 27
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
to a state of compliance with the recommended
standards of significance.
Impact 4.8-3: Asphalt and Concrete Plant Noise
No batch plant noise would be generated under this
scenario. Therefore, no impacts relating to batch plant
noise levels have been identified.
Impact 4.8-4: Off-site Traffic Noise
Increases in traffic noise will range from 0 to 2 dBA.
This is a less than significant impact.
AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE
Impact 4.9-1: Initial Mine and Plant Construction
Initial construction of the proposed project would
reduce the visual quality of the project site. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.8-2b: Additional Processing
Equipment Noise Control Measures: If stockpiles
cannot be utilized to achieve compliance with the
standards of significance, or if processing equipment
noise levels still exceed those standards following
construction of stockpiles, additional noise control
measures shall be required. Specific noise control
measures which could be implemented include, but are
not limited to, lining hoppers and chutes with heavy
urethane sheets, utilizing urethane screen decks (rather
than steel), and suspending acoustic curtains around
specific equipment which is found to be the source of
the noise level exceedance.
No mitigation is required
No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a: The Applicant shall
prepare and implement a screen tree -planting program
to block views of the proposed mining operation for
travelers along River Road and from the closest
residence. These trees shall be planted along portions
of River Road, and along lines of sight from the
closest residence. The species of trees shall be
selected based on viability in that particular location,
screening potential, and compatibility with other local
and regional vegetation. These trees shall block views
of the construction of the stationary facilities and
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 24 of 27
Less than significant
Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure .(s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Impact
Statement
Impact 4.9-2: Mining and Processing Operations
The proposed project Without Batch Plants Scenario
would result in both temporary and permanent
alteration of the visual quality of the site. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Impact 4.9-3: Light and Glare
The proposed project could result in extended lighting
for occasional nighttime mining operations. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Impact 4.9-4: Site Reclamation
The proposed project would alter the visual character
of the site following reclamation. This is a less than
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
provide additional screening of the completed
facilities for the duration of the mining project.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b:
As described in Section 4.8, Noise, an earthen berm
shall be constructed to shield the dragline and
dredging operations from the adjacent residence. This
berm will also screen views from the adjacent
residence. The berm shall be placed in the direct line -
of -site between the residence and dragline or dredge
operation. The berm shall be temporary and shall be
revegetated with grasses for erosion control purposes
and to be aesthetically pleasing. The constructed berm
shall minimize nearby views of the stationary
equipment and the dredge and dragline. The berm
shall be removed during final reclamation.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: Temporary stockpiles
and/or berms shall be placed around stationary
equipment to block line -of -sight views between
processing equipment and the closest residence and
along River Road near the northeastern portion of the
site. As the processing facilities will be raised above
the 100 -year floodplain these temporary berms and/or
stockpiles would not displace any floodwaters.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: Should night operations
occur, directional lighting and shields shall be used to
minimize the distance at which light emanating from
the project is visible.
No mitigation is required.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 25 of 27
of Fact
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this .
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Less than significant
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
CULTURAL RESOURCES "
Impact 4.10-1: Disturbance of Subsurface Archat
The proposed project has the potential to result in the
disturbance of subsurface archaeological, historic, or
cultural resources. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Impact 4.10-2: Disturbance of Cultural Resources
The proposed project will not disturb any listed
cultural resources. This is a less than significant
ogical, Historic, or Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a: The specific study is
based on the findings of an inventory -level surface
survey only. There is always the possibility that
potentially significant unidentified cultural materials
could inadvertently be encountered on or below the
surface during the course of proposed future
development or construction activities. In such a
situation, archaeological consultation shall be sought
immediately.
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1b: In order to ensure
proper identification of any cultural materials that
might inadvertently be encountered during future
development, construction, or gravel extraction work,
the County's use permit shall include a provision for
training of field personnel in identification procedures,
prior to implementing the quarry construction
operation. The training shall take the form of a 1/2
day seminar in which a professional archaeologist
shall review with operations personnel the natural and
cultural history of the project area, archaeological
sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural
materials, and what kinds of cultural materials would
be seen if prehistoric cultural materials are in fact
unearthed. The seminar shall conclude with specific
instructions on how to address such discoveries and
what immediate actions to take.
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.10-3• Unique Cultural Values or Religious or Sacred Uses
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 26 of 27
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level.
Less than significant impact. Findings not required.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures
Finding of Fact
The proposed project is not known to be the site of
No mitigation is required.
Less than significant impact.'Findings not required.
any unique cultural values or existing religious or
sacred uses that would be affected or restricted by the
project. This is considered a less than significant
impact.
EXHIBIT 2
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING REPORT
Lead CEQA Agency:
COUNTY OF BUTTE
Oroville, California
Prepared by:
RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
4509 Golden Foothill Parkway, Suite 2
EI Dorado Hills, California 95762
FEBRUARY 2007
EXHIBIT 2
. M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been developed for the M&T Chico Ranch
Mine Project to ensure compliance with mitigation specified in the Final E1R for the project. The purpose
of this document is to provide a framework from which the lead agency can adequately monitor,
document, and report that the mitigation has been implemented. For purposes of clarity; this MMRP
restates each final mitigation measure and provides a format for monitoring reporting. ,
CEQA (Guidelines Section 15091, subdivision (d)) requires that the mitigation measures being monitored
or the subject of reporting must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures." Thus, this M1\4RP identifies what is to be done, when it is to be done, what standard will be
used to measure effectiveness, and who is responsible for the action. Mitigation monitoring takes various
forms and involves many different activities. For some environmental issues, such as those dealing with
project design, monitoring will be a one-time assessment of adequacy. Other issues, such as noise, will
be monitored initially to establish the adequacy of primary mitigation measures. Once adequacy is
established, the County. may allow monitoring to be discontinued. For still other issues, such as
revegetation success and annual assessment of traffic -related fair -share payments, monitoring will
continue throughout the life of the project.
Once collected, monitoring information must be documented through a cooperative effort involving the
Operator, the CEQA Lead Agency (in this case, the Butte County Planning Division, Department of
Development Services), and other applicable agencies. The primary documentation of mitigation
implementation and effectiveness is generally collated in the form of an annual mitigation status report
and permit compliance review.
Preparation of an annual Mitigation Status Report (MSR) is a key component of this M1VIRP for the M&T
Chico Ranch Mine. This report will be required of the Operator to fulfill its responsibilities under the use
permit entitlement. The purpose of this Report is to reduce the level of County monitoring by requiring
the Operator to implement a rigorous self -inspection program which will include a reporting system that
keeps the County apprised of field conditions on a regular basis. The report will bea matter of the public
record regarding the implementation of the required mitigation measures. '
The annual MSR institutes a self -inspection and reporting program for measures with ongoing
application. In addition to this self -reporting effort, the County may verify compliance through scheduled
or unscheduled inspections. At a minimum, the County will verify the MSR data on an annual basis, as
part of its required annual inspections under the California Surface � Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA). The County may also use objective third -party contract services to conduct monitoring and
inspections.
The applicant/owner is responsible for all costs associated with monitoring and reporting activities
including but not limited to the hourly rate of County staff time, as approved by the Board of Supervisors
and as amended, and any contract services as may be necessary to conduct such work on behalf of the
County as determined by the Director or designee.
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
EXHIBIT 2 Page 2 of 51 .
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT -
CONDITION/ SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1
Requirement
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-9 for traffic impacts, 4.8-1a through 4.8-3b for
noise impacts and 4.9-1a through 4.9-3 for impacts to aesthetics will reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To reduce potential land use incompatibility.
Standard for Determining Compliance .
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-9, 4.8-1a through 4.8-3b, and 4.9-1a through
4.9-3.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING/ REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE /JIME� FRAME
Frequency: Annually
Season: N/A
:MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location: .
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
3of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 and 4.3-2
Requirement
The Applicant has incorporated a3H:1V slope for final slopes into the project design to provide an
adequate safety factor. No additional mitigation is required.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To provide an adequate safety factor during seismic activity.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation by licensed surveyor or engineer that final slopes are minimum
3H:1V.
Compliance Timing: During operations, project reclamation
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING I REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of final slopes for each mining area
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY:
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
4of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION] SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.3-3
Requirement
Any structures proposed on-site including offices and related facilities shall be appropriately designed and
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety requirements of the California Uniform Building Code
and other requirements of the Butte County Building Division of the Development Services Department..
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; standard condition
Purpose: To reduce potential seismic damage to structures to a less -than -significant
level.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR. MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING'SCHEDULE / TIMt'• RAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report.
5of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a
Requirement
Any sumps or detention ponds used to contain runoff from within the servicing and refueling area shall be
located where there is a minimum of five feet of separation between "the bottom of the sump and the
seasonal high water table: If this criterion cannot be met because the proposed locations of sumps are in
locations where the elevation difference between the bottom of the sump and the seasonal high water
table is less than five feet, then sumps shall be capped with either an impervious material or an 18 -inch
layer of compacted fines which have a permeability at 90 percent relative compaction of no greater than
1.0 x 10 -8 cm/second. The above requirement is not extended to those sumps which will collect and
recirculate process water.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent contaminants from being delivered to the water table directly
beneath the processing area.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit as -built design confirming requirements have been met.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE- PERSON(S).OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING."SCHEDULE /,TIME' FRAME
Frequency: At completion of sump construction
Season: N/A
MONITORINGACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
6of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b
Requirement
All equipment servicing and refueling shall be performed on impervious surfaces.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent contaminants from being delivered to the water table directly
beneath the processing area.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation of designated servicing and refueling area with impervious surfaces.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) ORAGENCY FOR MONITORING./ REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
.MONITORING -ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
7of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c
Requirement
Project proponent shall develop and implement a groundwater quality -monitoring plan acceptable to both
Butte County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.. .
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent contaminants from being delivered to the water table directly
beneath the processing area.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Approval of groundwater quality -monitoring plan by Butte County Public Works Department.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S)_.OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING /.REVIEW
_Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of groundwater monitoring plan
Season: N/A
'MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
8of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE,
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a
Requirement
Runoff from the surfaces of the processing area shall be prevented from entering the pit by regrading the
area between the pit and the processing area as necessary to ensure that runoff from the processing
facilities will not flow to the proposed pit area.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water table.
through mining activities.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed surveyor or engineer that. grading. is completed as
specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR,AGENCY, FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works
MONITORING SCHEDULE /.TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of process area grading
Season: N/A
MONITORING. -ACTIVITY,
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
9of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b
Requirement
Flows in Little Chico Creek up to 2,000 cfs shall be prevented from entering the lake through
construction of a low levee/weir and bypass channel, which will prevent flows from entering the
distributary channel. This mitigation measure is the same as Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c, as described by
NorthStar, 2002). The created lake will be protected from floodwater entry up to approximately a ten-
year recurrence interval flood from Little Chico Creek. The level of flood protection afforded by. this
measure by Sacramento River floodwaters is unknown, however, it is rational to expect that flood
protection from that source will approximate a ten-year recurrence interval since it would be unusual for
large floods from the Sacramento River, which is regulated, to more frequently overflow the new levee
and bypass channel that floodwaters from Little Chico Creek. Typically, regional flooding is correlated
with local flooding.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water table
through mining activities. This mitigation is the same as Mitigation
Measure 4.4-7c and, thus will also serve as a flood control measure.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit as -built confirmation by licensed engineer that the levee/weir and bypass channel
are constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations start-up
.RESPONSIBLE PERSONS)'QR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
10 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE.
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3c
Requirement
The existing drainage ditch at the southern limit of the proposed pit, and -all drainage ditches along the
east side of the pit up to 1,000 feet beyond the project area shall be improved as necessary to increase
their peak flow capacity to cant' a 10 -year recurrence interval peak flow. Similarly, a ditch of similar
capacity shall be constructed along the western property boundary through any reaches where the local
topography slopes toward the proposed pit. The western ditch, depending on the design, may be the same
as the Little Chico Creek overflow diversion described above. All ditch construction within the 100 -year
floodplain shall be performed without .side casting, and all other ditch improvements must be performed
so as not to increase the heights of any existing berms alongside these ditches. Mining shall cease when
the edge of the proposed pit is within 50 feet of the ditch along the southern boundary.
This measure will eliminate runoff in contact with agricultural lands generated from local storms from
entering the created lake at a frequency, on average, of greater than ten years. Since no side casting is
allowed, these agricultural drainage ditches cannot prevent the entry of floodwaters backing into the area
from the Sacramento River. The exception is the ditch to be constructed along the western property
boundary, which is specifically designed to give the proposed pit flood protection from Little Chico
Creek.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; E1R Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water table
through mining activities.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that drainages are constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name:
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
11 of 51
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date: _
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
12 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT '
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d
Requirement
Mining shall not be performed with the use of a dredge boat without prior review by Butte County. All
motorized mining equipment, when not in use, shall be parked more than 50 feet from the edge of the pit
during normal operations. When no mining occurs for more than a 14-day period, all motorized
equipment must be removed to areas which do not drain into the proposed pit. All refueling will be
conducted at a distance greater than 50 feet from the edge of the pit. Any soil contaminated by fuel or
hydraulic fluid must be removed in accordance with measures to be specified as required by the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water table
through mining activities.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE P!tRSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
.MONITORING.SCHEDULE% TIME: FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY'
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW.UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
13 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3e
Requirement
Applicant shall develop a ground -water monitoring program to be approved by the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County. If monitoring shows that drinking water
standards (Title 22 of the California State Code of Regulations) are not being met either at the property
boundary nearest the proposed pit in a downgradient direction or at the Jones domestic well, due to
degradation caused by the project, then Butte County, in consultation with the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board, shall rescind their operating permits, and no permit shall be re -issued until
such time as a groundwater remediation plan has been implemented, groundwater at the property
boundary once again meets drinking water standards, and additional measures, as approved by Butte
County, have been implemented to prevent future degradation. The term "caused by the project" shall be
interpreted as any increase in contaminant concentrations between the upgradient baseline monitoring
well above the proposed operations area and the downgradient monitoring locations which exceed
drinking water standards.
Monitoring, at a minimum shall consist of monitoring of two wells. One located up -gradient of the
proposed pit and operating area, and another approximately 1,000 feet south from the northwest corner of
the pit. As mining proceeds additional wells shall be installed; one located mid -way between the north
and south edges of the pit near the western property boundary, and the other 25 feet from the ultimate
southwest corner of the pit. Figure 4.4-13, Proposed Monitoring Well Locations, shows suggested
locations for the monitoring wells proposed under this mitigation measure and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c.
The wells shall be monitored four times a year each year during the life of operations within the first
week of April, July, August, and September. Once the edge of pit progresses to within 500 feet of the
next down -gradient well, that well shall be monitored and monitoring of the upslope well shall cease.
Samples shall be composites formed by sampling within two feet below the water table, and combining
with an equal volume of water 20 feet below the water table. Samples will be analyzed for turbidity, fecal
coliform, diesel and BTEX compounds. Additionally, pesticides commonly used in the vicinity shall be
sampled annually. The selection of pesticides to be analyzed shall be approved by the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County. The laboratory performing the analyses shall
forward results directly to Butte County and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Additionally, Applicant shall monitor the domestic well on what is referred to as the Jones' parcel if the
property owners grant permission for monitoring. Monitoring shall consist of drawing tapwater samples.
Samples shall be analyzed for turbidity, fecal coliforms, benzene, and atrazine. Prior to the onset of
mining, at least three samples, taken on a monthly interval, shall be taken from the Jones' domestic water
supply to establish a baseline from which subsequent samples shall be compared. Following the baseline
sampling, monitoring shall consist of two phases; an intensive Phase A, and a routine Phase B. During
Phase A samples shall be taken weekly for 12 consecutive weeks beginning June 1. Phase A shall take
place during the first irrigation season after mining operations have commenced, and, at the discretion of
Butte County, the second irrigation season after mining begins. Additionally, Phase A sampling shall
occur the first irrigation season following a flood where floodwaters enter the proposed pit. Phase B
sampling shall take place whenever Phase A sampling is not taking place and shall consist of sampling on
the first week of April, July, August, and September. Phase B monitoring will continue for at least four
years after all Phase A monitoring is completed. After that, all monitoring of the Jones' parcel water
supply may be discontinued if Butte County determines that contaminant concentrations at the Jones'
parcel well never exceed those at the project monitoring well(s).
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
14 of 51
In lieu of monitoring the Jones' domestic water supply as specified above, applicant may undertake one
of two alternatives if requested by the Jones' parcel owners prior to discontinuing the monitoring
described above. It shall be at the discretion of the Jones' parcel owners which of the two alternatives
they wish to accept, if any. The alternatives consist of either replacing the existing domestic well with'a
new well of equivalent capacity which draws water only from the lower aquifer, or installing a filter
system capable of reliably furnishing water meeting drinking water standards.
Applicant shall pay for all costs associated with replacing the existing well and increased pumping costs,
or the costs of installing and maintaining, in perpetuity, a filter system.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water table
through mining activities.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Approval of groundwater monitoring program by Butte County Public Works Department and Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR -AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDUL' E /TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of monitoring program design
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP '
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
M&T Chico Ranch Mine. Monitoring Report
15 of 51
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-5
Requirement
The slope between the buffer strip and the actively in area shall be designed by a licensed civil
engineer to prevent erosion. Suitable measures may include both structural and vegetative, if it can be
demonstrated that a combination of a gentle slope, in conjunction with vegetation can prevent erosion
from Little Chico Creek overflows. The design shall consider the potential concentration of floodwaters,
the lowest expected antecedent water surface elevation in the proposed pit, and scour/undermining of the
toe of the slope. Butte County must approve the design prior to initiation of the project. A design report
shall be submitted along with plans.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent floodwaters from flowing over the 50 -foot wide buffer
between'the Little Chico Creek and the northern edge of the pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that the slope between the buffer strip and the
actively mined area is designed to prevent erosion.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING'SCH.EDULE% TIME. FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-6
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
16 of 51
F
Requirement
The mine pit excavation area shall maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet from the bank of Little Chico
Creek to avoid potential lateral migration of the creek:
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent direct linking of surface water and groundwater due to lateral
migration of Little Chico Creek through the proposed 50 -foot buffer strip
separating the creek from the pit edge along the northern boundary of the
proposed pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit a map of current surface disturbance in annual report.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR,AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
17 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION. MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /-SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a
Requirement
Applicant shall remove the 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 culverts. 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.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent flooding of River Road and Jones' parcel due to placement of
dikes or fill within the processing area, and elimination of existing
distributary at the north end of the proposed pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Plans shall be approved by Butte County Public Works Department prior to construction.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S);OR-AGENCY FOR.MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency_ Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITOMN6 ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING.
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
18 of 51.
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b
Requirement
Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Butte County to either construct or fund the costs of raising
the existing low water crossing on River Road near. the gas well site by up to three feet and installing
larger culverts within three years of use permit approval. Plans shall be approved by Butte County Public
Works Department prior to construction.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department, EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent flooding of River Road and Jones' parcel due to placement of
dikes or fill within the processing area, and elimination of existing
distributary at the north end of the proposed pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR.AGENCY FOR MONITORING I REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon signing of funding agreement
Season: N/A
MONITORINGACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
19 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT -
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number:
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c
Requirement
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 on the Jones' parcel.
The bypass channel shall maximize, to the extent possible, use of native plant materials iri the design to
control erosion. Plans shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent flooding of River Road and Jones' parcel due to placement of
dikes or fill within the processing area, and elimination of existing
distributary at the north end of the proposed pit. This is the same as
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b and, thus, will also serve as a groundwater
quality protection measure.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit as -built confirmation by licensed engineer that the levee/weir and bypass channel
are -constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing. Prior to operations start-up
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(t) OR'AGENCY FOR MONITORING /REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
•MONITORING_ SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date: _
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
20 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a
Requirement
Unpaved haul roads, service roads, and plants areas shall be treated with water or chemical stabilizers in
sufficient quantity and frequency as necessary to meet the following standards:
• No visible emissions extending beyond the property line (BCAPCD Rule 207); and
No visible emissions as dark or darker than Ringlemann 2 or 40% opacity for a period or periods
aggregating more than three minutes in one hour determined using EPA Method 9. (BCAPCD
Rule 202); or
• Any future standard respecting fugitive dust or visible emissions that is more stringent than the .
standards in paragraphs a and b that is adopted or amended by the Butte County APCD
subsequent to the approval of the project.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM10.
Standard for Determining Compliance .
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPO_ NSIBLE,;PERSON(S)-OR,AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORINGSCHEDULE'/:TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
.Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
21 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b
Requirement
Truck and mobile equipment speeds on interior haul roads shall not exceed 15 miles per hour. Speed
limits shall be posted.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation that vehicles do not exceed 15 miles per hour on interior haul
roads.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING. SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE. VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
22 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION % SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c
Requirement
Excavation areas shall be treated with water during topsoil removal phases. As excavation areas are
completed and final depths are reached, revegetation shall be .implemented as stipulated in the
Reclamation Plan.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services, EIR Measure
Purpose: - To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures..
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE' PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING:ACTIVITY
Persons involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION /REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW,UP ,
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
23 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /.SOURCE. /'PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1d
Requirement
Permanent roads from public streets to the processing or loading facilities shall be graveled or paved to
reduce the use of unpaved roads.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor or licensed engineer that public streets to the processing
or loading facilities are graveled or paved as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING % REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE -VERIFICATION /REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
24 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5 -le
Requirement
Wet sweeping shall be performed on heavily -used on-site paved roads and within 500 feet of the access
roads for the aggregate plants as necessary to control on-site and track -out dust.
Source. of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified wet sweeping procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE. PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING REVIEW;
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A.
MONITORING ACTIVITY..
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCEVERIFICATION/ REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: _ Date:
FOLLOW UP+
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
25 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT,
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or..Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1f
Requirement
A truck spraying facility shall. be constructed and operated near the exit of the aggregate plants.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that a truck spraying facility has been
constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S).OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING /'REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING•SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME � . .
Frequency: At construction completion; annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report,
26 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1g
Requirement
The aggregate Operator shall set up a 24-hour anemometer at the plant site to monitor wind speeds. If
wind gusts exceed 20 miles per hour as defined by the BCAQMD, the Operator shall terminate topsoil
removal and hauling on-site until the high wind abates. Times that the above water table mining
operations are shut down shall be logged and included in the annual mine inspection report required by
SMARA.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services, EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE.PERSON(S) OR,AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING. SCHEDULE% TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING'ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
Date:
27 of 51.
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION/SOURCE/PURPOSE.
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1h
Requirement
Topsoil storage piles shall be covered with gravel/rock or seeded with an erosion control seed mix to
prevent wind-blown dust.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM10.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING/'REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
xMONITORINGACTIVITY .
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
28 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION/ SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-1
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution to reconstruct the bridge on Ord Ferry Road at
Little Chico Creek. The fair share contribution amount should be based upon the relative proportion of project
vehicles traveling on the bridge. The implementation of this mitigation measure shall occur before building
permits are granted.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per day to the bridge on
Ord Ferry Road at the Little Chico Creek.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution to reconstruct the bridge on Ord
Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS),OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING: -SCHEDULE /.TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report.
29 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-2
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute its fair share of the costs to improve the pavement
on River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road with a two-inch asphalt
concrete overlay. The fair share amount shall be based on the increase in ESALs,
which is 51%. Butte County Public Works estimates the cost of this improvement to be
approximately $1,200,000. Therefore, the Applicant's fair share cost would be about
$40,000 per year. The Public Works Department has indicated that the fee shall be
submitted annually based on the tonnage of material that is hauled from the project site
and shall be relative to an inflation index. Based on the information contained in Table
4.6-9, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be approximately
$0.08.
The project applicant shall contribute its fair share of the cost to maintain the asphalt
concrete pavement on the following roads over the 30 year life of the project:
• River Road; between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road;
• Ord Ferry Road; between County Line and Dayton Road;
• Durham Dayton Road; between Dayton Road and SR 99;
• Dayton Road; between Ord Ferry Road and Chico City Limit;
• Hegan Lane; between Dayton Road and Midway; and
• Chico River Road; between River Road and Chico City Limit.
Road Maintenance shall include a chip seal surface treatment every 10 years with M &
T Chico Ranch Mine project's fair share contribution based on the projected net
increase in ESALs as shown in the attached Table A. Based on the information
contained in Table A, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be
approximately $0.06 and shall be relative to an inflation index.
If maintenance costs are rolled into a single fee per ton of material extracted, the
mitigation fee shall be made up of $0.08 per ton for the overlay on River Road, plus
$0.01 per ton for the improvements to the Ord Ferry Bridge, and the installation of a
signal at Midway and Durham Dayton highway, for a total of $0.09 per ton of material
removed from the site. The amount intended to compensate for the extra maintenance
required due to the increased truck traffic, shall be $0.06 per ton of material extracted.
These fees shall be deposited by the operator into the Butte County Road Fund, and
shall be adjusted for inflation based upon the change in the Construction Cost Index for
San Francisco, during the month of January of each year. These fees shall cease to be
collected should the County impose a countywide tax or fee for road maintenance
based upon weight of materials moved over the roads.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will add 25 or more truck trips, which cause an
increase in the Traffic index (TI) of 0.5 or greater on a County maintained
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
30 of 51
roadway.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution for the above-specified
improvements.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based.on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
.COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW-UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
31 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /SOURCE/ PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-4
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution to improve the intersection of SR 32/West
5'' Street by modifying the existing traffic signal to provide split phase timing, including three seconds of
yellow time and one second of all -red time per phase. The fair share contribution amount should be based
upon the relative proportion of project vehicles traveling through the impacted intersection.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per day to the intersection
of SR 32/West 5`h Street. This intersection has been identified as a
location having 4 or more accidents in a 12 -month period over the last
three years. This location also had more than one accident over a 12 -
month period, which involved heavy vehicles.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution to improve the intersection 'of
SR 32/West 5h Street.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSiBLE'.PE,RSON(S).OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW ti
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
"MONITORING.'SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
`COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To: `
Verification of Compliance:
A
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report'
32 of 51
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-8
Requirement
Improvements to the median crossing, acceleration/deceleration lanes, improved signing and striping, and
channelization of the driveway approach could improve the safety characteristics of this intersection. In
addition, signalization of the Skyway/ Honey Run Road (anticipated by 2005) may provide sufficient
gaps in through traffic on Skyway to improve egress from the driveway. However, no feasible mitigation
measure will reduce the level of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered a significant
unavoidable impact.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions in the
a.m. hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour at the intersection of Baldwin
Plant Driveway and Skyway. Specified improvements may improve
conditions somewhat.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage'
RESPONSIBLERERSO.N(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING /.REVIEW'.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
M6NIt. ORING�SCHEDULE / TIME'; FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch.Mine Monitoring Report
33 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION./ SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-9
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution to install a traffic signal and improve lane
configurations with a left -turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane on each approach of. the Durham -
Dayton Highway and Midway intersection. With this improvement this intersection will operate at LOS
C under cumulative project conditions. The fair share contribution amount shall be based upon the
relative proportion of project vehicles traveling through the impacted intersection.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will exacerbate peak hour LOS F operating
conditions at the intersection of Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway.
Standard for Determining Compliance
The Operator shall submit annual confirmation of this fair share contribution.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE:.PERSON(S)`ORAGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW,
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITOR ING.SCHEDULE-/ TIME FRAME,
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING: ACTIVITY...., .:
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UW'
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
34 of 51
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-1
Requirement
Slopes along the perimeter of the created lake shall be actively revegetated, where necessary, to
supplement natural colonization of plant species as part of site reclamation to meet the performance
standards specified by SMARA. Specific areas for supplemental revegetation will be identified using
collected data following one, year of monitoring natural colonization. Additional requirements specified
by state or federal agencies shall be incorporated into the final revegetation plan. The revegetation
program shall specify planting and maintenance techniques, with a detailed monitoring program to
evaluate restoration success.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of approximately
193 acres of annually tilled, non-native grassland and dryland agriculture
to open water and wetland habitat.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor or registered biologist that slopes are revegetated as
specified.
Compliance Timing: Post operation/reclamation
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE /.TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY,
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
35 of 51
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-3
Requirement
The Applicant shall be required to obtain a Take Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the CDFG Code,
prior to mining. The Section 2081 Permit will provide mitigation for the effects of mining on Swainson's
hawk foraging and potential nesting habitat.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will result in the loss of foraging habitat for
Swainson's Hawk. Disturbance to Swainson's hawks during nesting may
also occur.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Issuance of Take Permit.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING, SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon acquisition of permit; if needed,
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring. Report
36 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-4
Requirement
The Applicant shall consult with CDFG to determine an appropriate buffer distance or other conditions to
mining for allowable mining activities during the nesting period of any special -status species found to
occur on the project site. When these requirements have been established a qualified biologist should
conduct a pre -construction survey in spring to determine the presence of active nests for special -status
birds and to determine the presence of northwestern pond turtles. If survey results are positive for raptor
nests, California black rails or turtles, the best protection measures relative to mining in potential nesting
habitat will be determined in consultation with CDFG. The preconstruction survey is required before
project start-up and not subsequent to operation, provided that all applicable protection measures have
been implemented prior to operation.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will result in the loss of foraging and, possibly,
nesting habitat for other special -status species. Mining activities could
also disturb nesting for California black_rail, if present, in adjacent Angel
Slough.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by qualified biologist that specified conditions have been met.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLt'PERSON(S) OR;AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE7,TIMEFRAME
Frequency: At completion of pre -construction survey
Season: Appropriate season, as necessary for species of concern
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
37 of 51
CONDITION/SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-5
Requirement
Slopes on stockpiled soils shall be graded to 2:1 for long-term storage to prevent use by bank swallows.
At no time during the active breeding season (May 1 through July 31) shall slopes on stockpiles exceed
1:1, even on a temporary basis. Stockpiles shall be graded to a minimum 1:1 slope at the end of each
workday where stockpiles have been disturbed during the active breeding season. If any vertical slopes
are inadvertently created,. these slopes shall be destroyed immediately following verification by a
designated Environmental Monitor that no bank swallows have begun nesting there. If bank swallows
have begun nesting, CDFG will be consulted as to the best strategy.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: To prevent bank swallows from creating temporary nesting sites at the
proposed project.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE. PER$ON(S),OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING/., REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING.SCHEDULE,/ TIMEFRAME
Frequency: Operator: monthly May -July; County: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING' ACTIVITY ,
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW-UP
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
38 of 51
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-6
Requirement
The oak grove scheduled for preservation will be protected during mining by the placement of temporary
fencing or flagging along the dripline of each of the trees to prevent mining related damage. The operator
will place temporary fencing prior to pit development with potential for equipment to be within 50 feet of
protected plants. Fencing need not be maintained once operations are beyond 50 feet.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: To prevent mining related damage to native oak trees and several mature
Fremont cottonwood and red willow.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor that fences or flags are placed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S).OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Following placement of fencing; annually
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
39 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-7
Requirement
Potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands shall be coordinated with the COE prior to project
development to determine whether a permit is required.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will impact jurisdictional wetlands.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall coordinate with COE prior to project, development to determine whether a permit is
required.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING.SCHEDULE4' TIME FRAME
Frequency: One-time, prior to operations
Season: N/A
MONITOG
RINACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
Bv:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
r
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
40 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION/ SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a
Requirement
Construction of an Earthen Berm: The project Applicant has proposed construction of an earthen berm
between the proposed mining activities and the nearest residence (Residence A) to mitigate -this noise
impact. The location of this berm is generally shown in Draft EIR Figure 4.8-7. Barrier effectiveness is
dependant on the relative heights of the -noise source and receiver, the frequency content of the noise
source, as well as the distances from the noise source and receiver to the top of the barrier. Given the
geometry of the proposed berm (approximate height 18 feet, approximately width 475 feet) relative to the
mining area and nearest residence, this berm is. predicted to reduce .excavation noise levels by
approximately 15 dB. The degree of attenuation is predicted to reduce excavation -related noise to
approximately 50 dB Leq and 60 dB Lmax, which would comply with the project's standards of
significance.
Because the proposed berm is predicted to reduce mining -related noise levels to a state of compliance
with the project's standards of significance, no additional mining -related noise mitigation measures are
identified for this project. However, because there is no margin of safety built into these calculations,
follow-up noise level measurements shall be conducted as part of the mitigation monitoring program to
ensure that the berm is providing the required degree of sound attenuation. In the event that those follow-
up noise measurements indicate that the project's standards of significance are being exceeded, Mitigation
Measure 4.8 -lb shall be implemented.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EM Measure
Purpose: To mitigate noise level impacts caused by the proposed project.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that earthen berms are constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING. SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
41 of 51
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW. UP
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b
Requirement
Creation of Additional Setbacks from Mining Areas: Because the proposed berm is projected to provide
sufficient attenuation of mining -related noise, additional mining setbacks are not recommended at this
time. However, if the follow-up noise level measurements required in Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a indicate.
that the project's standards of significance are being exceeded even with the proposed berm, this measure
should be implemented. As a general rule, sound decreases at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of
distance from the noise source for a noise source which generally operates from a fixed location, such as
an excavator or drag. line. For example, if the mining setback from the nearest residence were increased
from 300 feet to 600 feet, excavation -related noise levels would be approximately 6 dB lower than those
expected with the 300 -foot setback. The specific setback distances, if required, will depend on the
effectiveness of the proposed berm in reducing the excavation -related noise levels at the nearest residence
(Residence A).
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To mitigate noise level impacts caused by the proposed project.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation that standards of significance are not exceeded as specified. .
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING /REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE./ TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
43 of 51
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007.
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-2a
Requirement
Shielding by Aggregate Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows that the. proposed aggregate stockpile location is
north of the proposed processing equipment. As a result, those stockpiles would provide shielding of the
optional asphalt and concrete plants, but not of the processing equipment, in the direction of the nearest
residence to the south. Consideration should be given to locating one or more stockpiles between the
noisiest processing equipment (crushers and screens) and that residence to the south. If stockpiles can be
erected to intercept line of sight between that equipment and residence, a 5 dB attenuation can be
expected. This degree of attenuation would reduce processing equipment noise to a state of -compliance
with the recommended standards of significance.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services, EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent maximum and average noise levels generated by the crushing
and screening. plant equipment at the project site from exceeding the
recommended 50 dB threshold.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR, AGENCY FOR MONITORING /,.REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of 'Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW,UP
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
44 of 51
CONDITION/ SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-2b
Requirement
Additional Processing Equipment Noise Control Measures: If stockpiles cannot be utilized to achieve
compliance with the standards of significance, or if processing equipment noise levels still exceed those
standards following construction of stockpiles, additional noise control measures shall be required.
Specific noise control measures which could be implemented include, but are not limited to, lining
hoppers and chutes with heavy urethane sheets, utilizing urethane screen decks (rather than steel), and
suspending acoustic curtains around specific equipment which is found to be the source of the noise level
exceedance.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent maximum and average noise levels generated by the crushing
and screening plant equipment at the project site from exceeding the
recommended 50 dB threshold.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPON3IBLE.;PERSON(S) OR -AGENCY FOR MONITORING /REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE'/ TIME FRAME `
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY;
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION /.REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
45 of 51
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a
Requirement
The Applicant shall prepare and implement a screen tree -planting program to block views of the proposed
mining operation for travelers along River Road and from the closest .residence. These trees shall be
planted along portions of River Road, and along lines of sight from the closest residence. The species of
trees shall be selected based on viability in that particular location, screening potential, and compatibility
with other local and regional vegetation. These trees shall block views of the construction of the
stationary facilities and provide additional screening of the completed facilities for the duration of the
mining project.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To preserve visual quality of the project site during initial project
construction.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor that a screen tree -planting program has been implemented
as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERON(S).OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of planting; annual checks
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP.
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
46 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b
Requirement
As described in Section 4.8, Noise, a earthen berm shall be constructed to shield the dragline and
dredging operations from the adjacent residence. This berm will also screen views from the adjacent
residence. The berm shall be placed in the direct line -of -site between the residence and dragline or
dredge operation. The berm shall be temporary and shall be revegetated with grasses for erosion control
purposes and to be aesthetically pleasing. The constructed berm shall minimize nearby views of the
stationary equipment and the dredge and dragline. The berm shall be removed during final reclamation.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR measure
Purpose: To preserve visual quality of the project site during initial project
construction.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that a berm is constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(t) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING'/ REVIEW.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING'SCHEDULE`/ TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance: `
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
47 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION/ SOURCE/ PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-2
Requirement
Temporary stockpiles and/or berms shall be placed around stationary equipment to block line -of -sight
views between processing equipment and the closest residence and. along River Road near the
northeastern portion of the site. As the processing facilities will be raised above the 100 -year floodplain
these temporary berms and/or stockpiles would not displace any floodwaters.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: Proposed mining and processing operations would result in both
temporary and permanent alteration of the visual quality of the site.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S).OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
'MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection: '
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
Bv:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
48 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /:SOURCE/ PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-3
Requirement
Should night operations occur, directional lighting and shields shall be used to minimize the distance at
which light emanating from the project is visible. .
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project could result in extended lighting for occasional
nighttime mining operations.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of specified directional lighting and shielding procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations.
' RESPONSIBLE-. PERSON(S):OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE I TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
'MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
49 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE. / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a
Requirement
The specific study is based on the findings of an inventory -level surface survey only. There is always the
possibility that potentially significant unidentified cultural materials could inadvertently be encountered
on or below the surface during the course of proposed future development or construction activities. In
such a situation, archaeological consultation shall be sought immediately.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To protect subsurface archeological, historic, or other cultural resources
uncovered during project operations.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation of adherence to specified procedures by a .qualified archaeologist if
necessary.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RES PO, NSIBLE`PERSON(S)-OR AGE NCY.FOR MONITORING / REVIEW..,
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
,.MONITORING SCHEDULE./ TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING'ACTIVITY . ,.
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To: ,
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
50 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.10-1b
Requirement
In order to ensure proper identification of any cultural materials that might inadvertently be encountered
during future development, construction, or gravel extraction work, the County's use permit shall include
a provision for training of field personnel in identification procedures, prior to implementing the quarry
construction operation. ' The training shall take the form of. a 1/2 day seminar in which a professional
archaeologist shall review with operations personnel the natural and cultural history of the project area,
archaeological sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural materials, and what kinds of cultural
materials would be seen if prehistoric cultural materials are in fact unearthed. The seminar shall conclude
with specific instructions on how to address such discoveries and what immediate actions to take.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EM Measure
Purpose: To protect subsurface archeological, historic, or other cultural resources
uncovered during project operations.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
-RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) ORAGENCY FOR MONITORING /REVIEW.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING.SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch. Mine Monitoring Report
51 of 51