HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT A (3)•
• Y'
yi
x
y,
ATTACHMENT A
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. Proiect 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:
12
•
•
Lease area:
627 acres
Project site:
r
Mined area:
193 acres
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. Trak 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
2
13
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. `
r 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
14
ki
•
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 Fihal 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.
�� 15
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
16
5
C:
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.
x) Two appeal letters were filed within the appeal period of the Planning
Commission decision to certify the Final EIR and approve the project.
• y) On April 24, 2007, the Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the Petition for Partial Cancellation, the appeal of
the Planning Commission certification of the Final EIR and approval of
the project. The Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to deny the Petition
for Partial Cancellation and continued. the public hearing to May 22,
2007.
z) On May 22, 2007, the Board of Supervisors opened the public hearing
on the appeal request and continued the item to November 6, 2007.
aa)On November 6, 2007, the Board of Supervisors opened the public
hearing and continued the item to January 8, 2008.
R
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;
s
c) Draft EIR Errata containing corrections and clarifications made to the
text of the Draft EIR;
17
N
C]
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);
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.
18
7
•
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
Resources, Cumulative impacts associated with Air Quality and Traffic and
Circulation.
3. Mitiqation 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 con_ siderations 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:
19
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
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.
20
6
0
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,
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,, 4
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
21
1n
•
§ 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.
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
11
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.
40, 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].
23
12
•
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
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. 1261; 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.
24
`K1
•
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. El R'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..."
25
14
•
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.
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 the EIR 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. 74-75].
26
15
0
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
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. `
27
16
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.
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. 1.
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].
28
17
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
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.
Ly^ n
18
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. 1211; 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
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
30
W
•
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
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
31
20
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.
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 existence 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 -
32
91
•
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
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
22
33
•
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
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
34
23
•
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
service areas in previously unserved areas, extending transportation
routes into previously undeveloped areas, and establishing major new
employment opportunities; and v
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
35
7d
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
I
eflect 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.
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
•
aconsistency 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.
36
9S
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 8.1..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
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 LOS E.
The Project will add additional trips to these road segments. In all cases, these
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
37
26
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,
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.
97
•
0
Findings Regarding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 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.
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);
11. 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
2008, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
C. Brian Haddix, Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By:
Deputy
•
40
EXHIBIT 1
Impact Statement, Mitigation Measures and
Findinqs of Fact for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Impact
Statement
Impact 4.2-1: Land Use Incompatibility
The proposed project will result in land uses that
would be incompatible with the existing and
planned land uses in the vicinity. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Impact 4.2-2: Consistency with Butte Count
This scenario will be consistent with the policies
of 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 of up to 193 acres of non -prime
farmland to mining uses, and eventually to open
space water and wildlife habitat uses. This is a
less than significant impact.
Impact 4.3-1 Seismicity
Expected seismic activity within the project
vicinity could result in seismically induced ground
shaking and damage to mine facilities or
reclamation features. This is a less than
significant impact.
l�
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-9 for traffic
impacts, 4.8-1a through 4.8-2b for noise impacts
and 4.9-1 a through 4.9-3 for impacts to
aesthetics will reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
General Plan and with the Butte County Zoning
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1:
The Applicant has incorporated a 3H:1V slope for
final slopes into the project design to provide an
adequate safety factor. No additional mitigation
is required.
q 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.
and Mining Ordinance
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are 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.
0
Impact
tatement
Impact 4.3-2: Slope Failure
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.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
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, Com
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
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: The Applicant has
incorporated a 3M:1V 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 mitigation is required.
action, and Disruptions of Soils
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.4-1: Groundwater Resources
The proposed project will not result in significant No mitigation is required.
impacts to groundwater resources.
Impact 4.4-2: Groundwater Quality Associated with Facilities Operation
Equipment servicing, refueling, and other Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a:
operations in the processing area could result in Any sumps or detention ponds used to contain
contaminants beinq delivered to the water table runoff from within the servicing and refueling
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
N Page 2 of 28
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 -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 are not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
oroiect. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures
Findin of Fact
Impact
Statement
directly beneath the processing area. This is a
area shall be located where there is a minimum
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
potentially significant impact.
of five feet of separation between the bottom of
less -than -significant level.
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 'e 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 Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Impact 4.4-3: Pit Water Quality
Exposure of the water table through mining
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a: Runoff from the
be
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
activities could result in contaminants being
discharged to groundwater. This is a potentially
surfaces of the processing area shall
prevented from entering the pit by regrading the
project, The Board of Supervisors finds that this
significant impact.
area between the pit and the processing area as
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
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
I
-� Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
W Page 3 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Findin of Fact
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.
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
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 4 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Findin of Fact
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.
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
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
(j) Page 5 of 28
Pi
'p Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 6 of 28
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Impact
Statement
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
r
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
'p Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 6 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Findin of Fact
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' 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
J Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 7 of 28
-p Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
00 Page 8 of 28
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Impact
Statement
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
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.
Impact 4.4-4: Stormwater Discharges
Stormwater discharges from the processing
No mitigation is required.
Less than significant impact. Findings not
facilities could enter Little Chico Creek. This is a
required.
less than significant impact.
-p Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
00 Page 8 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures
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 of the existing channel
alignment, diminishing existing riparian habitat.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Impact 4.4-7; Flooding
Placement of dikes or fill within the processing
area to raise it above the 100 -year floodplain
elevation could result in some increase in the
frequency of flooding of River Road. Elimination
of the existing distributary at the north end of the
proposed pit for groundwater quality protection
could result in increased flooding of the Jones'
parcel. These are potentially significant impacts
-p
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 a minimum setback of 100 feet
from the bank of Little Chico Creek to avoid
potential lateral migration of the creek.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a: 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.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 9 of 28
•
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 -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 -significant level.
Proposed
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Impact
Statement
Measures
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 Butte County prior to construction.
Recharge
No mitigation is required as this is a beneficial
Impact 4.4-8: Flooding Storage and Groundwater
Creation of the proposed pit will result, at the
end of operations, in approximately 1,000 acre-
impact,
feet of available floodwater storage and the
same amount of potential groundwater
recharge. This will be a beneficial impact.
;> t
Impact 4.5-1: Fugitive Dust Emissions
Exhibit. 1- Findings of Fact
Page 10 of 28
Findinq of Fact
Less than significant Impact. Findings not
required.
Impact
Statement
The topsoil removal, aggregate processing, and
truck and equipment travel on-site will produce a
net increase of fugitive PM,o. Compliance with
BCAQMD rules will reduce impacts by controlling
emissions to within Action Level A thresholds for
PM,o. This is a less than significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 b: 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 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 4.5-1 e: Wet sweeping shall
be performed on heavily -used on-site paved
roads and within 500 feet of the access roads for
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 11 of 28
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 -significant level.
•
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures
the aggregate plants as necessary to control on-
site and track -out dust.
Finding of Fact
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
less than significant im ac .
Impact 4.5-4: Increases in Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Transportation and Batch Plant Operations
Emissions from diesel -fueled vehicles and No mitigation is required. Less than significant Impact. Findings not
equipment, and from asphalt manufacturing will required.
result in an increase in toxic air contaminant
emissions. The estimated health risk from these
(J) Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
N Page 12 of 28
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
No mitigation is required.
equipment 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
No mitigation, is required.
plant at a currently permitted location contributes
to a net increase of criteria pollutants including
NOx, CO, and ROG within the NSVAB. This is a.
t
Finding of Fact
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
less than significant im ac .
Impact 4.5-4: Increases in Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Transportation and Batch Plant Operations
Emissions from diesel -fueled vehicles and No mitigation is required. Less than significant Impact. Findings not
equipment, and from asphalt manufacturing will required.
result in an increase in toxic air contaminant
emissions. The estimated health risk from these
(J) Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
N Page 12 of 28
0 0 0
Impact
Statement
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.
Impact 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 significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation 771
Measures
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.
TRS►
Impact 4.6-1. Ord Ferry I Little Chico Creek Bridoe
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips Mitigation Measure 4.6-1:
per day to the bridge on Ord Ferry Road at Little The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share
Chico Creek under existing and future conditions. contribution to improve reconstruct the bridge on
This bridge is 20 feet wide, which is less than the Ord Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek. The fair
24 -foot minimum standard. This is considered a share contribution amount should be based upon
significant impact. the relative proportion of project vehicles
traveling on the bridge. The implementation of
this mitigation measure shall occur before
building permits are granted.
Impact 4.6-2: River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road
The proposed project will add 25 or more truck The project Applicant shall contribute its fair share
trips, which cause an increase in the Traffic Index of the costs to improve the pavement on River
(TI) of 0.5 or areater on a County maintained Road between Chico River Road and Ord Fer
W Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 13 of 28
of Fact
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.
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
Droiect. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
roadway.
Road with a two-inch asphalt concrete overlay. The
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
fair share amount shall be based on the increase in
less-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;
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
U) Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
-p Page 14 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation Finding of Fact
Statement Measures
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.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Vl Page 15 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement
Impact 4.6-31: Dayton Road and Durham/Dayto
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips
per day to the intersection of Dayton
Road/Durham-Dayton Hwy. 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.
Impact 4.6-4: SR32/West 5`" Street
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips
per day to the intersection of SR 32/West 5'
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.
This is considered a significant impact.
i Highway
Recent improvements to this intersection include
implementation of four-way stop -sign control.
This improvement will likely reduce the impact at
this location. No mitigation measure can .
eliminate the occurrence of accidents at this
location. However, with the identified
improvements, this is no longer considered a
significant impact by Public Works and no
mitigation is required for this project.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: 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.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 16 of 28
of Fact
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
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
Measures Findin of Fact
Impact Mitigation:_
Statement
Impact 4.6-6: Park Avenue/East 20 Street/East Park Avenue
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the The Board of Supervisors firids that there are
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F
operating conditions on Park Avenue from East level of impact to this roadway segment. This is no additional feasible mitigation measures or
impact. alternativesthatrd of uperyrs
20th Street to East Park Avenue under cumulative considered a significant, unavoidable
Could this set me which dis
adopconditions.
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/ ighway 99
project will exacerbate LOS F No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the The Board of Supervisors finds that there are
The measures or
proposed
operating conditions on East Park Avenue from level of impact to this roadway segment. This is no additional feasible mitigation
a significant, unavoidable impact. alternatives that the Board of Supervisors
Park Avenue to Highway 99 under cumulative considered
Could adopt at this time which would reduce
conditions.
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
r 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 28
0
impact
Statement
Impact 4.6-7: Bruce Road/SR 32/Skyway
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS E
operating conditions on Bruce Road from SR 32
to Skyway under cumulative conditions.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Impact 4.6-8: Baldwin Plant DrlveA2MLs yway
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F
operating conditions in the a.m. peak hour and
LOS D in the p.m. peak hour at the intersection
of the Baldwin Plant Driveway and Skyway under
cumulative conditions.
Impact 4.6-9: Durham -Dayton Highway/Mid
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F
ooeratina conditions in the a.m. peak hour and
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the
level of impact to this roadway segment. This is
considered a significant, unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-8: Improvements to the
median crossing, acceleration/decelera-tion
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.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-9: The project
Applicant shall contribute a fair share cc
v I Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
00 Page 18 of 28
Finding of Fact
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.
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.
TT�he6o-ard of Supervisors hereby directs the
butionitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
p.m. peak hour at the intersection of the Durham -
Dayton Highway and Midway under cumulative
conditions.
Mitigation
Measures
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.
Im act 4.7-1: Loss of Non -Native Grassland and
Dryland Agriculture Habitat
The proposed project would result in the
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: Slopes along the
permanent loss of approximately 193 acres of
perimeter of the created lake shall be actively
annually tilled, non-native grassland and dryland
revegetated, where necessary, to supplement
agriculture to open water and wetland habitat.
natural colonization of plant species as part of
This is a potentially significant impact.
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
No mitigation is required.
wildlife through loss of habitat, disruption of
natural movement patterns, and noise. This is a
less than significant impact.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 19 of 28
Finding of Fact
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 impact. Findings not
required.
•
�J
Impact
Im act 4.7-3: Swainson's Hawk Habitat Loss The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
The proposed project will result in the loss of Mitigation Measure 4.7-3: Mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The Applicant shall be required to obtain a Take g
Disturbance to Swainson's hawk during nesting Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the CDFG project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
potentially 9 Code, prior to mining. The Section 2081 Permit mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
may also occur. This is a otentiall significant less -than -significant level.
impact. will provide mitigation for the effects of mining on
Swainson's hawk foraging and potential nesting
habitat.
Habitat for Other Special -Status Species
Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: 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. 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.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Finding of Fac
impact 4.7-4: Loss of Foraging and Nesting
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. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 20 of 28
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
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.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
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.
impact 4.7-6: Native Oaks and Mature Trees
The proposed project will affect native oak trees
Mitigation Measure 4.7-6: The oak grove
and several mature Fremont cottonwood and red
scheduled for preservation will be protected
willow. This is a potentially significant impact,
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.
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.
jurisdictional wetlands shall be coordinated with
the COE prior to project development to
determine whether a permit is required.
-npact 4.8-1: Excavation Noise
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 21 of 28
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.
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.
•
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Proposed
Impact
Finding of Fact
Statement
The proposed project will result in average
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 a: Construction of an
The Board of Supervisors hereby.directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
equipment noise levels up to 65 dBA, Leq, at the
Earthen Berm: The project Applicant has
of an earthen berm
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
closest residence. This is a potentially significant
proposed construction
between the proposed mining activities and the
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
impact.
nearest residence (Residence A) to mitigate this
less -than -significant level.
noise impact. The location of this 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.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
N
Page 22 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 b: 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).
Impact 4.8-2: Screening/Crushing Noise .
Maximum and average noise levels generated by
the crushing and screening plant equipment at
the project site will be approximately 58 dB LmaX
and 53 dB Leq at the nearest residence. The
average noise level would be approximately 3 dB
over the recommended 50 d6 threshold. This is
a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.8-2a: 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
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
W Page 23 of 28
of Fact
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condltlon (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
Im act Mitigation
P Ilnnmcuroc
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.
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.
impact 4.8-3: Asphalt and Concrete Plant Noise
No batch plant noise would be generated under No mitigation is required
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 No mitigation is required.
n significant nificant im act.
This is a le
A.
7 9
Fact
Less than significant
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
•
Im act 4.9-1: Initial Mine and Plant Constructionfisors hereby the
Initial construction of the proposed project would Mitigation Measure 4. a1s screen treeplllanting cantsall mhtigation measue Board of re
(s) to be a condition tion (s) of the
reduce the visual quality of the project site. This prepare and implement p
is a potentially significant impact. program to block views of the proposed mining project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
- Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
-� Page 24 of 28
0 0 0
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Statement
operation for travelers along River Road and
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
from the closest residence. These trees shall be
less -than -significant level.
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.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 b:
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.
Impact 4.9-2: Mining and Processing Operations
The proposed project Without Batch Plants Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: Temporary stockpiles
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
mit(gation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
Scenario would result in both temporary and
alteration of the visual quality of the
and/or berms shall be placed around stationary
equipment to block line -of -sight views between
project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
the impact to a
permanent
site. This is a potentially significant impact.
processing equipment and the closest residence
mitigation measure will reduce
less -than -significant level.
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.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
�.Jl
Page 25 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Findin of Fact
Impact 4.9-3: Light and Glare The Board of Su ervisors hereby directs the
The proposed project could result in extended Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: Should night p
lighting for occasional nighttime mining operations occur, directional lighting and shields mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
operations. This is a potentially significant shall be used to minimize the distance at which project. The Board of Supervisors finds that this
impact. light emanating from the project is visible. mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Impact 4.9-4: Site Reclamation Less than significant
The proposed project would alter the visual No mitigation is required. - g
character of the site following reclamation. This
is a less than significant impact.
M
0
C Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
(0111) Page 26 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement, Measures
U. AUA` E.SGU-.,R-
aeological, Historic or Cultural Resources
,P..0 -T. -VA.,
4.10-1: Disturbance of Subsurface Arc
impact
The proposed project has the potential to result
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a: The specific study
Mitigation
in the disturbance of subsurface archaeological,
on the findings of an -inventory -level
historic, or cultural resources. This is a
surface survey only. There is always the
d
that potentially significant unidentified
potentially significant impact.
possibility
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 4.10-1 b: 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.
Impact 4.10w2: Disturbance of Cultural Resources
The proposed project will not disturb any listed
No mitigation is required.
I
cultural resources. This is a less than significant
Impact 4.10-3: Unique Cultural Values or Religious or Sacred Uses
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 27 of 28
Finding of Fact
The Board of Supervisors hereby directs the 1,
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.
0
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Findin of Fact
Less than significant impact. Findings not
The proposed project is not known to be the site No mitigation is required.
of any unique cultural values or existing religious required.
or sacred uses that would be affected or
restricted by the project. This is considered a
less than significant impact.
ti
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
00 Page 28 of 28
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
JANUARY 2008
' a
69
w
EXHIBIT 2
MST CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
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 EIR 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 MMRP,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 MMRP 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 be a 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.
n
MST Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
. ..... .
..... ....
D /':PO
RP_RPP... .. . . :
CE E
Condition .. or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 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, 4.8-1 a through 4.8-3b, and 4.9-1 a
through 4.9-3.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
..... 1Y.... I.., "t
ROW
..-RESPOM.
•
By:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
Date:
n
.. .......
71
M$T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
:.CO?NDITION'ISOURGE L PUR'..:..::...:::.:..........::................:. ,:..::•.::.;:......:....:.....•.:.;.....:.:.: ::>:;;
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 and 4.3-2
Requirement
F
The Applicant has incorporated a 3HAV 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:1 V.
Compliance Timing: During operations, project reclamation
».GE'NCY ..OR':MONITORI . G<L:.REV:EIN: ><>::::::;:>:;>~:::::;>;
:.:RESPO�VSIB_LE: PERSON.(S).;OR,;A,,.:. f:..:...:...: ... ....... ............. ... ..
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
.. :":�i:!'.'4:'i';l•.::.:!::.:i!:..:::��::.::!::{::4ii v:..:�:.:'.i?::: •:.T.?::-:':�?::;:: i?::�? :::\�::::ii !: i:�:'.�:!:i:i:�.�.�.:: v ice::
;;.MONITORING�,SCHEDULEI,T.IME,F;RAME,:..,!;,ra:,ii.::::{;•:i?.;::r..:,_..�..,:...:..r<.::>:.r:.:. • ...::.:.::.::..::., .......... ..:..:.:......:.... . Frequency: At completion of final slopes for each mining are.:.:.:a
Season: N/A
' .. ... .... ....
; :..,..:! :.:.e: ...:�.::..�.. .::.��:!.::+�.:.ic{-..:::i.: �e: ;�.:.•r:.:??��i.:ie_.:::.:..:r.:�i<.,.. +?:9:.: ::-:,Y...:2..::.'>?.. :{..::. v{:_>x::':::r:= :�...:4'v.:,:,X.:.::J'.::?:..!,:n:.'i,.!.`. �.::.,,'::.!:i..?.::..:.. > .:•:...?..:y:. ::.•.:.:r.i..:�j i'.?::^iii::?:::�i:i:.i..i:.'.�
.'+::::!,r ,Jf.i��:.'.�.::::.',..'::..:.;:.:...y:i. .��..:,,i..S.::.::.:i;:.•i..;:i::f5,:t..i,'::�:.:-r: ::�;.:?� 15,:4.l.?.:i.}.,..�i.rT.:.,:.?:�i;:?'T.;:;.i::?:.,.i?i:�;:.V::''4
,:..�:i.`:..�.:..f:...i.:[�.::.y•`...<)C.:i:«.i.�iZ
iv�ii.{`r:,':1 •iF .:
..
i
....,..... r...:r :: ...:.: .r:..... ...n.,
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
... �:.. ..., 4. ..:: :' i ': :-: .:: �':!�.�::-!?��i�t.::'i:iY.;:i�5q::.:. �:.i; r..:.�. •?r. :. :..r4
�i':.??:}i:'4'•::'^:?:::i:.
�,:.CO P.LIANCE:'i;EkIFICATION;!:•REPO;I�TING,::;,:�::'.;:,,,,.:.;�. <...... <:,:�;:.-;:�{;.:�:=,;.>�;:.:....:.::..... ::5.. .,..:.',:.y>.:..:.......
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
��OLLflV1�;1.1P.._.,...:!..:�;.;.,.::.:�. .s.r::::..;i::... ......... :.......... ...:.. F.: ..r ...... .. . :.... . . . i .F .. i
t /2
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
A ..[ L 7
0
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
.. . ' .:,.
SCOOP TIQN1:SQU CE-1.-P.Lko.
gCondition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitiation 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 d I amage to structures to a less -than -
significant level.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
. .... ...........
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
,
•
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 o
`zRESP:O'NSIBLE PERSON:(:S) ORAN
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
.. .._..�.—. .: .:..:.._n_a�:�.::•.:..�.:.:.v:::�...:�:::/9.:Sr._::.:::::.�!:.:..:"�Si:i:vi:r: ri.�i:i :, :: u:r r:: ::.. — i�.J:. •��;�1._i...
_......
.. a.. :, ..... r._..,:... ..... .... ..n ,K .S..L..v.l. r.I ... ..-...r.. ..�.::.:.:.:..r: ..•. u: . ,,: -a.`..:r_.�.. .:.•4:...s.....`1:`.t.: ..:�. �..::.:,...::.!n`.:.v.r.'v_:!.ie•i.:i.::n.:3.:>r:_:.r. `.nnr.�.:>.:�:' v��:..��.�x�:`:::,::-•.:': ir:1...:e.r:_- <F.•.:._:.�::?..::!.:Ye..:..'.![::.'.�:_.?::�S.....: .�.v'...:.r'.:t::,..4.....:}.r.'%.v.::..�.i..r'...�.<.�..'�ki'�.:.._�iR'?.:ai'.,• I' X.,
_m
,. .. i:
i>
•:: r::•.:.::.u..::
Frequency: At completion of sump construction
Season: N/A
MONITORING:`A:CTM.TY'::'':`<.
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
nce Comments:
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
.. ....... .. ...:: .. .: : .: i'. .. .:. �...—
: T fie. f. :.::..��v,•::.... .....A < .. :: is
i ..
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
n _t rw
74
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
..
............
Condition NTor 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
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
7✓
&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report ' ^s C 1
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
;CONDITION
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
•
By:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
n .L CA
Date:
76
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
GONDPU
.ITL.bRPOSE:`::'..:.
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
<. .. SIBL'EP�'RSOIV: S:,ORAGENCY.FOR MONITORINGr RE IEW;`.<>:;<:: ;_'
Name: Director or designee
• Agency: Public Works
RPM :— �NG:.SC.HEDULE.>T�M.r ....... .
Frequency: At completion of process area grading
Season: N/A
•
. ... ..... .._.._r�.:::v::....:r_.�::.�.,.—..c„r:,..!,_;:L)"C'.isr:•iiJ)'!niii:�'+::'=i:5�.��4:4''i�,!iii ':�:r:ti?':�i�ii:�i'S:?e':�y��'!r!1: n:�i.: :.! ::C.Y.
::1� �. : ,. _.. .: ?I,�"4:•i �:.z.. l: ': �: �.: :s r.....: .. ...... ]tr �:Y'iii'.'T�'::i:ii...l�:: ri�. �_.v!.�r.':�4. �: !:i-: <: ,"q��.%!(.;
-....,....�:r
.._....r�:v�...: r.r..: ._
:::�:MO.NfTL3RING;��A•'GT�V�TY,:r:;:!:,:..�r�.<.,::<i:v:';_��:�,::,;rr.......:.'�::��::
r: q.:y.:i• :. . e: .S::l::;t;!:
....... ... _. ,...... ..: _
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
-. :.., v... •. .s:a):::..:
.. _ ..: ...:...-•n, ..u:.. :,, :...:.;...:4. tr �.:;:. .. 4t +i: A�•.4:.:�.:�:::in•qi_::r:'v::iiR::::.!r�!._.;,v.�:.n.!{t!i:^!�::^:
is o.,:.m.....:.: r.,3s::.r,...:,: r. r... F:�a. s, .: ...r � .. .. .......:.
F CP►T.,IQN;�;i�1=
.......:..:...: : ,,.�:�<��:is::.::.1-5'.ic:J_Y;{.4,.i):[i:i: :}r.::;;1:
is :. :::1:... 1�i::: i::: ...... r....�
...:.. ... d!;:i;:J:�>):.:: :r). ....::::. � c..,'7.;.:;: �:!0:•: `:S:`:f<i"::^i::X::. �%?.G:c
=.:CO.MP�:IANC.E�VER ., r..RTl.�1;r...:.. :.-....
..,..:,.
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
W� i.i.viivi :)'. .. .. r. ,...).. ;4 v::: ::: `,: ...' .::.: 5..;•:... i. ..i .; •.,. .: i•':::':'
M8&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
n -4K4
Date:
77
•
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION./ SQURCE.L:PU. .,,,..,.:.:........:..: 9.
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
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
0 By:
Date:
....... ..............:....:...............:. .
..........
:... /
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
.:CONDIT10.WtSOURCE:I.P.:. ,_;;;,...:.... ..
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 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 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; 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 engineer that drainages are constructed as
specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
TORING'.'I;RE;
,...:. ......
Name:..,. .
Agency: Public Works Department
;�INdNITO�R�NG�CHI='DULL /
.v:.tr..c.�•=....a:n.,..�..:...r.S.:u_-..zc_>.,>:.:a.:_s.-....r•>,m�::_.:e.._...c.-.:1:....:......:.......c�'•rr:c�..
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
-._ .., ._. .4 .....,.....:::::
vc.-
.:.:.:..:
:.,:....,.:,.,..,,...:..:: •�., v.,._:,r.., a .tri....:.:::..:......::: .-:,,.:c:.n..,,..i.. , .... :3AB_:. .., .. :..:.• ..
:: u. . r ,: .... ....-.... ,:: ., :,. :-a..,.:. :.: '.: <,.;�,.:.:.>::.a: .., i" ....: .. .::: ..5 :..k:.Y:�::;niJ'ii:::r,.: :�:; •:.:;:....�:: r•::,.;.:.::.: .:.::: .: .>. .p:::.{C+:';`;::i<:•:
PNON1TORING
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
• Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
r1
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report .. � "
•
•
MXT Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
... .;. .. .::::. ... .. ... .... .. ...
.. . .
80
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM:. 2008
MONITORING REPORT : ......:...:....; .:......
;.;GONDtT10N OURCE./..PURP,. ......
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.,
: During Compliance 7imi g ng operations,�..;.....:.�........:.:.:.... .: _
».:r.
OR;MONI70RIN,G<hREVIE:.,.:.::::<':>>
• ' RE.S.Pl�NSIB.L:EPERSON(.S).:QR yAGENCY F ;, . : :_....,... _
11.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
:.-IVIONITOR�N.,,.:t;.,:.::>.:., ..........:..,�., ,.Y......___,_,:,.:<, ... _ ,.. •
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A ;
•
i56LT rhicn Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
::.:.....:..:...........:.,...,..:, :PURP:OSE.-�<:::;�::;..:::>.:::.:`;`.`::';<:;;.:;:<>.'...;:>;;:::::;;�:::.:.:;:::::>:;�,"..;;::_::.:.,>:;:::::>::;;;:.:::;:;:::
CONDITIQN.a SOURCE I , ..,:.::,.:..:,........
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3e
Requirement
ground -water monitoring program to be approved by the Centra
Applicant shall develop a
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 projects 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 ce and combining Samples shall with an
be
composites formed by sampling within two feet below the water table,
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
hall take place whenever Phase A sampling is not taking place and shall consist o
sampling s
sampling h the first week of April, July, August, and September. Phase B monitoring wi 2
__.,� o. --1k Uina Mnnitarina Resort
•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 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
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
:.iii '?.i' " "�' .•�:�:;:.{:
-:. ... .. ..,<. a. ._; :: � ...:-.::.........:. ..'r.::.: a: i. ^r..�';.:;:.:;:T .:`'.+.::�: "'iJ; S;C: �:.i>::k•oi;T��;':Y'.;` i?<:'::i ,..:.
•�` ; ORII�G';SC:HED;I�LE:;�3T� E_,t=#2AM,_.s,,;ia�f«:Y��:,:;>:,.r>�•,::•:::,,><;:�.:::;�::.....:.:..
�.. MONIT
Frequency: At completion of monitoring program design
Season: N/A
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
. m•n:::rtn:.'+r...mu.'rn".:v:!..:.:n:<vv.::rP'•^-".c: .
-..: '.:.w.v:. Q:..�.: n,::%i• .� .: .. .:: is .. .. ... .... .......:. ..:�.: :•: r...::::.: f:: .:: .. .:: }i::�l•i�:•i �i��'i �.�s�a'r":i':''. ..
.
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
• Date:
By:
U.
83
... y .:. .. ...:.::. ..
....:..::..:
MJLT r_h�I-n Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
R.P.
CONDITION 1::SOURCE/::PU....:r::.:...:.:..::.......:... .... ........::..:... ................. .
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-5
Requirement
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.
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
�........r.;:....!.r.:i.;.:t.....aucR::
�ZESPflNS�BLE�PERSO::N(S)`�ORiAGE�C�( �0�, MONI�flRING�I W
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
, V:/!�4ii �.i?: Fiiiitiii":!::: :.r�.^:'•!'n.. .. r..: _.;.... i.'l•i:;:i:v`S':� �:�'�:!:^:::...:!:�. �: '. r: =i:t r::: r:...
,: p. r,..: irk vu•:rnn:.+! n n;vw.x.p:., fn�VT.l.v:. s.... _..i>ny.'.v,':. �.:.; :. 1.. ti•¢�it c.
�. .. : � �. i .�. :'. �: �. � �{'�::T•:.':��':j!is�tir.'.):::'::'::?::i'�iii!?::: : i!t�+?..:.�. .. t:T;Fjr l.Firtt.':i;,r.: [Zr:::��..
_,'::J: .°.v.��eeT.i v: ��l;.. e_:.Y :.i. -. .�.v....- .� n:_,.�. r ..t .... . .. r.. s. _.' :.�� s F .. er :::k.... .. � .. .:�:�"t �i4'i �::'�:: �::•'i:..
_ ... .. u: ,. .:'. :f is t::<•n.: ... : • •i: ii:..'::�.. ..
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
.,r:4...-r.v:.v,nuvap„{ur.ur,a.p:r...sR;s�y: r,J.Y!�.t??.2^._.:•:: �'l: yj 4,,•.n •: .`.t't Ji�}i:.i:i�t:4^i:-ii::�.iviiq)';�ii i:'^:/u,-,�?!!irFF.i!i�F!:v ;v`�,-.��..lF:;::
25, ,+ ::iy::<:-r•lP'—tet{(. �.f :l:.ri>:.� iF::..... F.3:�'Fi:`i�': �-�� J'�'.v .bc'�:'N:i>4l!r :t;:�;in;'::::!vii
_�4a1u1�:Lr:.'y:. cE`�ERI��c� � oN��:R .:5...:��_I'��>rr._,....... :r=�:�i:..�:.... r r. �`3"4:h , .KL�J'�:+5:'�i::•.r. . . .. r e. .r
::`:�,.>.:�. rr �sa.me�Si+'�rrs•:L�s: _.: •p •:: .... .:°. _ ��<E: •..:. r.T.r. ..!:c. .r .... .
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance: n
By: Date:
i
_. ...-.. --r :rnti•v.
.. ..3..., .r..... ... �.:.::: .......:...,.:k...r Q
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
,CQNDITION./;:SOURCE/.PU,RPOSE _ •' .: "::>::...::...:.= .: , ..::. • ...r � ' ... .
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-6
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; El 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
:.:.:. r....
:. :AGI=NC:Y.OR,MONITO.RING;/REUIEW;_<>;:<: ::;: ;
�2EShOT�SIBLErP,ER.S,ON(S).,OR: ;_.> .oF..rr._..r:...:.:__....:_r:.r:._::......,....Yv..
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
=.a.� r.�.r.
.,.,.,:...< . ,....,:,.,..:r.a.,.r..rr,,..r r.r:.ao: ,.,..:.!...,..: ... ..::.: •::..;.'
r v
:-:NLO:NITURLNG.SCH�DU,Lf,�.;TIME,,fi(?J?+M1E=t .
..:,..ns..,.::::. ..... .
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
: `i': ::;'.i:'. r.'a%:.i:itS:�r��'".i..".'"i:�:
:. .. .. � .. :'.' �.:' � :•i:: r'r_ri�-.C,�r.. vi!'i - •:-: v.i:'.�: is �•� i''�. i i � � 'i F2:.....'..::::'.:.: :':: v::. ��-.<v.:r: _ - -
,�VLOI�ITORING,A�CTIVITYr,,:r_.
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
r_?Tir^::: i:..:...
P
— ?l' "i r' ':J -i1 i::.:��v ':6ii%:.J9:n.'.: i�;: i•,r}'.:F'�:�:i�:1:::�5'�::'v::^f9:::".:::-::::
.. :; :g@P•;:;:-a.. t: K.c %t t. rr r ->:'C'.,. .
:n.:..: C1='�TLO.N:�=REPO1�;.:JhLC»<<;rir....:.,...::.���•'r....�:•�:�.,,.�:.:.;::.;�{:.���.�>:,.:..a ... .. ��AN�
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
.a. �: � :;% .r .h r. ... r.7r .. ... .'ir' ....... ......:... .n.............. r.r ... . ..:r.: �;. - :. ... - � ..r .
...:.::.: .
.r
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
' CONDITION:./:SOURCE /. PU...:......:.:.::..:::...:... .
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.
Com liance Timing: During operations
r.:, :r :Vii,' ",} v:. i' 'rci: i}F' ALfr�:•.i.!(.
GENG1r.F.O.R:.MONITORIN:G;1REVIEW`'r::`::<:..,:.:.,::..........
�RESP.ONSIBLE;>P,ERS.�N( ,,,�►,;..,,.. � .,...�.....:..r....,
Name: Director or designee
Aaencv: Public Works Department ..._.__._..._..r,...
.�IIIDNI;C):KiNh:ts.T1CUUL „=ssi,
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
�
+. ?..:��:. f_r�:.,q:_:;:;,.�•.;IT=.+^.•T;`,: :.; ;'v: ": ::^f��.�:.�.. ;
•]. .. � � � (•`i:?u. t.:....:_,rr.+ih,rf=:^.'��e:T�::�••..;:�:�:i'�.i`:::':; ;..::::.
.
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
•,�..,. .V .,>.,.. ,......: ,. <::.: 'r: i:v is:i ::. rr,:-.�..,,:. .. V.r •: <(�,::4. ::::
P
:..: :'.. R O TIN
<... C. �'VE...FG . TION... I� R.. ..r ...
z,CO.MP4lA i EK.. R,r:_,::%'eRITY 1;.,,i .,,.:.....^_,. <v..:,
,. 'r kr,e!�v:9ti'�_aK,.•tlC_s,.:: .
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
Date:
By:
�;:,�i1.-..rO _._. :r. .:r� .....�..e..•r Y� .�.a.:..—.;t::R.:./.v..Q�.�..?4:,.�.._i,,:. a:•i.. . a;,,3•.r•...kk:�:�J.is. •:..t5:�.xe.:y.;C,^:,4l�.<v�.;Y:?.a'i�}:,rr�<i:..Y, r,�-:i,:fv'".'.:.'.:.::A.T r,.;.r..t. .r. ,.,:.:...:. +:r -.:: :.•+...i:.: :.v�.x:._.::l,:�:}:,C>�..�a`::Tv.�.::r�:;: � :,+•�:;�:.r.v,�' f.;:.rz>n+'.i.::,�iiSti..,!..:.,.`.(..7r •.;.:. ::'.-.,.=r.5r:�i,:,:it ::iY'n„•.1. `t5i
.
.•,.:.'::„:: �::o-;__2r:o-..%:,�r-:.4:,,:- y:�.r;•,CyliyA.
86
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION`/ SO:URCE.�,.::...,.....:::....:....: '..:..:... .... ::.::..:..... .... :. .:
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
;: O.S _fR:;AGENCYfOR:MOI>11TORING:IREUIE1iV:'r;=':Z;«.;,'..i.::';:.::.:..:a.::.:::<.::':':::
RESPONS1BLl=�PERSN :.::r::.:.:.:�.::) • .....,:.:.h`:5......
•Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
...... ......r...v,.::.:: , .. :.�.♦ .x......;:. y.,.:...Q. o:.. r... _..:... p,r.c.:4-; ,�,,..: �; ... .::.;.a.: :•_.J::: .!l:,..:. n::.: .....,,:. ...,;:r. !:li:`;'::..; l: }l:.t., .�:.i'.,':.: •i:'-.: i::;'..:'. Y.:: �:; t.i'., 5;�
. .r r is ':
r:>'S-:x.Ya..1r,E.p,:::,::.';',,:[:•�'%;i;P`' r:.`":%i�.Y:n;.;:;.;i;.':.i??;i�:%ir. is rl;: ;, .. �_i'
SCHEDU ' E::�,f'LM::;RAMIT:::<"
IIIIO §TO�RIN.G._ :>:
h.: "•rv:.*'di•.... 9'rv;, v:: _9:: i:`i t...v!•r.,.�kn:-c•.•:: vxk1:6i .r..:.+vI 4ri.��:::...le �i �,:. �':\ti ::'i::•i, .v,5. tl.�. 7:iYiYi' .. 1: F:::.; �:.. •.::•4.i:. :: .. .. .
Frequency: Upon signing of funding agreement
Season: N/A
.. nv � r n.rv-r:,.n„n:::,.: r �. �-,:-: r�- ::,•"v::^:.i: !: •:.>."^,i'4i9�!: �.G.:T.�c.<: ni!; }: v,i.:i::.i.i� u::: r:_v...p:r.4: n•rq r�!„r_;;.}•.:;."'T'^ ,{:-:.r::ii:F: = �:vT�ii::;':.: y!;; ,; _.v.
v.1�....tJ.::.4o-:::l: +:r::....}.�,:_:.. :.,_-i `�C aFr.,Yv..;:Y.a�C...;:'J,r.l.,i.:•F..:.:.,.�: :;iii:?'�eSr'G''Li•y.•:: .. Y.: T.�.
- z.K'i�,�. �: .. /.. <, ��..i n,.;j,'.:.. •. +C.. ei, ...fi..: �!. `� '.:A
:::FI]j� s,Tt.!•' _...�':� .4:v..m r,i:ri.. rF :4:'...:..li,;:rJ�`:�v�ii.'.�1. _.
T:.ORING.:.�CTIVITY
,d.�!�ROI.\I::i ..: .. ... " •d::'UC.:�r.iY'.�e.'Y: �_t4:�': v. ..: i:�'G'4�{.. _!S:.J::... a. ,. ..i}F�i;iM.i:.y_. i':Y`..• 'i • :: ..... :: ..... r '::).t!':'t�•:
,.v,a'...�aa•.v: 1r..L:a �i n:.v:•rc�v::<4_r N....0 .........,,y:.h.rx .. r....: .... : .... �:: :.. ..., .. q,
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
•4rr,.c.=-. R .r: t: �^ii':.�:$ �: i,':r': i�.::•:5;:.; i'i::: is v:�'J.:::;iY •r:.i:.
�? : k}�'. ' f.. �: jTt:::: �ii.•?_: i FS:;::j,. fj;i:+: Wit,.;:.::! : ,:.;
Y• _ ...t F.. i:' 1,: ?•.;' •.'.: .: is iitr: Y:.
1 .Y ,i. .. ..: ! ..:.}ice::: F�;:, .i:•.Y:i.:::!:'vY:: i'. i. iji:i:f'!:'i: yl:i.�:. r:..,„.:.. �: a t: i!"':i•�.}:
i NCE,:VERIf1CATIONi,�.iREPO.RTI.NGt..'....-.
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
.. .
¢.iw. ;w, �, r+ ,t...r ...+}'... :�r,'S.t.. :,..,.,r'4 .,?K., :r:r�.. � r•.,::•h...: ..::m .,... ..,n,, ., -' ., ...: ::: a,�:.,rR':.: �. �5:
`:.. :F{ r _ .,. .., :r..., t,.:.k.y; ;;!..:a,: , .,T.;,;::Im '•I�,[:;;r:y.x:'::;�.;�? :;!:.,st::E: ...v•.,::.: ...F ...
�. .. : r, .:,c�:::,:i :i"3: .., .....v:.}.:_�.. .i',�, .�ii:4...'r...t �: i:4.r ..J'�i:: i:i �' ,�:{.::; -- �::2�: �:Z,:.:a r:�:I�:. ..{,.r ,.,•. ..
,f... Y.,. ....vsrr4': ii:•A���r. S.YrC>'i:.:.::; .: .. , :F.i:�: ..'�.. T�::. .... ...... .. u::: i��::::.
87
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I.SOU.RCE./•PURPOS•.::..), - Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number:
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 in 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 operationsstart-up
.:: ... ,.� ;:.,j ,.F .. SO.N S :O.R::�AGEN��Y�OR;MONITORING;/<;REVI ::.. ,};:;::�:.,::.•::>'.:}... ,.....:':}:.;..:...::.,.::
Name: Director or designee
Anencv: Public Works Department
•
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
:. . ITORING
V.I
MO.N ...::..
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection: ,
Location:
Compliance Comments:
:: � T O .: i' : E .,aDRJh(Ga.;..r F..: ' :. ... F
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
S.
7, r,Y 4"0• tl
.. .
. V V
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
OSE:: ::.:::>: :.•>::<:'': : < ; ::;::>>;':<'.`.:.:.:.< .
C.ONDITION;.I SOURCE /'P.URP...:.. ..:.:...:.. ... .. .
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: a 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
tF aONITflR11�TG''/<IEVI"E1N.< " <>
Name: Director or designee
AnPnc:v• Department of Development Services
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
M..
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
v-.- _a._r. •r:-:_:: '��•�v.1. F-r.�n..,.r{r•.•.a...r. :'nn;.a':�:}.....� r��:. �ij. :;i�i
..r r. . ,. ,- f.: �;.,.,i,.::. -
�j r Y:.:: ?:.;:.':.ei:i%v'::i '\'i` aX�la:�v:r:'v..::
... �.. :�.; �:k, �:: .. .. ''�. �� a�IZ\i'.:a:;�.:��::�_..:v:::::::•*:::�:�..::o.:;:::.:..�:,��.:r:;�":�'�':�v�:�:.rr�:T•:'.;�r �a'.�.�%'t:•':��<',`'Yz`%'::. -..>;: �.
:fCfliVl���►�'Gi11,�1/J>=1�I�1CA°tIO,�Vf,/t_� .>.� , .IN.. .. Y r .. r... .....
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
M&T CHico RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
WNIJIT /..-S-' WE.i,.PURP. .. S...;
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 PMjo.
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
tj4id
3" E .2
m -911..'s NMI?
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
i•.MONIT..ORING;:SCHED :.,.. _ � :...T.a... .. .
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
:2
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
•
Date:
Z
M&T CHico RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
:CONDITION /SOURCE IOU
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 PMjo.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
-`Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
.. . ...... .......
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
Eff
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
•
Date:
..... ....
91
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
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
ITO ...
.....,:.:..')':!
CY OR MON...., ..R
:;RESPONSIBLEM:,f?;ERS;QN(S)�OR�w.::._•., ;N �:..:..:..:� , ......:.. �.:..:....::.............. ... .... .
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
.. ,.. .T, n.: ....n .. • .:: .. .. :J ............. .... ..: .:��_.:: ).....::-:i'-: �4i��:'':::i::!;!:!y:�.::f:•�''x�:: vv, _ :: :.. •±}�riTr:<).:y'�:'i�i
-
*=:MONITORING_S .:..:.::.....: n,::.:.........>..,_-,.'.,..>,.:, ..... ... ... ;.. ..: ...:+:...._..r..., .... +:: ............_..: ..
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: NIA
...... ... ..:>: .:: -: v.... :•-...
1VIbN.l. _....0..h.. r1•�+:1•^N:•vG. .:.'.::A�-•G. �:.,. �V•- I-T,.�..,(•,.m.,�.;,::�: .x.,>!x•:.:!.4:'.9:,,..ni...,..:... , ..:.:.:.!r'.r .nK... :......r. i ....:: ..: , •..,-:i ......::. ...?....4...... ......r..-..�: �.:
;.::!:-4::.:.M!'•!:.':. :v..,.::S..<.•..i-'`�).vV-Fl. ii:!4:r,'n �:-i!:'�.!),!i;::::.�i.:•v. ::v..i:: .!.j.y:}Ti. i�;l'.,.�T�:,_.:.!;r'.i.;:.•;:;.r(s: r,i.<r:,4:C.,;:Y;)::.i;i!::Y.. +n :.::: r_�,:'.ti.;
j- ;nv::�;)5}::�'ry'.! :`;`i:%;�i:�.:::�r:Y;-:�-i:� '.'t±:.'�:;: ::;;'F::v���t:::W�Wi.te�r:irF•'
!
:.....
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
-.:P•-}r. ;+, 'i:�i:?; � ';.T�}::.; :• is?:;::; ... : v.i : '�•::::±;: is Y:}� �•�`'�:SlY
�!'::y?'i•L::V.A�::�:T::.4r i.:!~]:i5:::.i:"\�:,.Fi.FI -:. :�: T: ;>.'�.i�.��;.�:i.Fl..��:'•, .:.4.... r.;
CO.MPLl�gNG�,VI�RjF-1C— 7:. >
...........
:;•.i¢-tl3i4.Aia:�_':'r.�i'Gai.u: vi•: .. a��.�:
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
92
.. ... ... ...... _.........r.: .<... ....:..� ter..•::: .. <..
..::..;; .,. ..
.. r .:. ..
.. ... ° .
92
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
IJR
CONDITION /SURCE:L.PP.OSE ..:.:.....,
:..
Condition or MitOigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1e
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
:...:....:...n,,.,:rn.::... :.::_.�,:.::..;.:..:,;..:. G'l/
RESP,O.NS.IBLE PERSON(Sj OR:AGENC.Y;:F:OR=MCNIT;ORIN....
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
,;, i : .: : �:•' ..". ..r � ... . .. . ,)a .: �: �'i:C:��::irf�i is •.}'G�:>: 1!•il.v::;:::::::f i��::�J.i.; r: i,':� .
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
�.y.:.r.•::: �.. .:.•J.. f ',/ -i:,i!i.•:4i:'::;F<:;1: SY:. J'; :•':.�,.;'r�r;ii ::.:,•'tii �?:!:�<.•�!':�-Y�:!!:
•RfrNa
9AC.:. t:�. 11/l:r� s�.r: :.>4ur..::C:>..E...�.'n..h:..:.'...r.:.,.:.>.:;.r•i.,.Ki. ir.. ,:f::::i::.!!;' :L�`:..y. , �:n�r'.v:•.,'.•i.•.4mn..< ..�..vi;..!.::.i�:..i.s.:,:.: � r.•<:::'.:.:�J.iY
.3:.>:'•: ;��:S.i:.:.::':•:..; .F.'::i.i�'.i.:i::..:.:{�::::.;r.arrvr.-'.r�.• . :. .... . �r.::.:..:5...: ':>:!'F:..:r.r!.v.:l':,'..!..::�.:'•.:.'>.:.C.:.C.i.Tit�-:'•�:S':;.HI:::.i:,av.:'y;;, '.J'•ii: i�i 't...:.T:.''."i"r�.,>,'�':.v:yF4ir�i:4:::'::•.K:.i �- n..',.:r::.:'..:{�.,:i::�!::..
i,l•`.•F.:.tF;'
•1
��:it .•n: V'.i,'
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
sn ra•:::r•,�..•.,rn:::i ::�: :.:r..n'<::.:.::.;; ..r:::v..;..iiii't':•: i'.,:•..: i'::i;'•'• .itT::.i
mwa..,:•.n,<�.n:;.:...nr?:: ::::.: n•.::.•v.r: K:, .:.nv' .,, 1 t. �._i:'....5�..:•..::s:�r.'n,..isr..v'�.!...j.,:...:.:`::./.in,�;:i:::t,.`.;:.T.iv:•: ,; .: ;?:..:..:�?`:v'�i��:.:., ��e �'�tiGi'�!:..
t.OMP<'^F <. P:P 1iCE1,e.�t:::::. �i.... i:�: •.rr. �.. �'2 r'�:4..i ��}tiK'�::tr�•�p�.f4..: '4,:v r...
:..;'
._LIA�/ERIFICAT:ION�L4rR.;..:r1..,T1:
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
'
y ,.5:' •iA iY.:'!::
....v_
'r?: .: .. : � . ...,.: r: v.. �r.:: .,<F. .:. _r•yf F..r•.: K!.. .:1.: .... _.i :..::..:. r..... .+7 .: �: +.•:: :•i'.r.
:. r< .. ���: •...
.:;� � i. :. �..i�:.•�.:.;.ih::l:;•.:i�:.uc'a:: :.:...rCrp.. i.. ,.y:. _: r r _ �. ..
�:.: ,,.€;;:: �;Ft�:�S'
is .:'r•: .. r..::r
!.
!�3 is -:v•
....,
•t:i: �'„r �, F�, —
:�:}ji:�`:`:.�#::" .. .. � r
v ... ..
3
MSFT CHico RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
-P'U
CONDITIONJ 9 E :. .. . . . ..
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 [eve -is of fugitive PMjo.
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
M".b iy
ESP� IBL.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
. . ... . ..... .
Frequency: At construction completion; annual
Season: N/A
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
PE�'k
j xi
A -T] I `b
to
"tic
Report Format:,
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
0
5
Date:
"S AN
VAR -ii
•
MSFT CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
:CONDIT[ QN I:SOURCE /.:P.:..:.......,..::....:::.: ....... :...:........... .
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 PMjo.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
ONSI6�E.P..ERSON.(Sj .. _
:..,,.. ,� .. r;...;::rs:;:r , , r ..r., r ;,:,:•a,,,�::,,..•..:.•: r.. ,.: ..r.. r:`_ ...r..__,.rc,... .. .... .
Name: Director or designee
r! Agency: Department of Development Services
.. ... _ .. .. ... .. ...., ra :. r,. v:. �r:, ,:n.,nv:.,:v.c,•.rr: rc:.r.,��::•�.i�ii,: �;... .:.. }: :'^'ii:•::�.i: :: ... .::;y :_
.. rvnr.a:.,y .•.T.v vc._n.r ...c .. .T..>. -J; ..r .. : 'n M1 v. :. l... r. : ii\:_�:. .... .. f:C:i: n:::r ::�4::4i:i i'" :; ,}�`, ,::;;\�:�i- .T!::
.:, r ...:r+ 3 .;. .. ..; ..:.. :+F::.T: q;...:.::.r5.:.'!:4: .,.r:;�>:;,.i;i:;:�::: :::._.:. .:a�;•.::: ..., ;i4.: `. .5;":a:
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
-
- �: tr_T? :: T;1: i;'?iifi ti:?::!-`::.rr��: M):;'li:):.:i::i_:.:'.v. ].: rc•;•.S;>•: t" rr::?�a �::'•,;:ii,;+::•')::i:3.::, <�`r:C (',!:
�.n.. nn n,. r..m n.�n mm ._. �. 4Y.:"!::::':v �.,� :. '.: �:,:�::.r..�:}+: .:;�.::•::
�r �� .,. �: .. :7it:;r., h:.,r::. r •:;::..;.:::. rk'. .�:.;; .s: .::..:Y;.::: r:. .�. >:..:::::;.. .;,�` � v c:..:;i:'.,: J 'r'' R,;.,Tr::;i.!t:.; $,t.. ,,.Xf:: ,.:::
,,:. > � �: .:. � ., .,...-:.T: ::,.�:2,`.;r.::• .r...... rn�;:a::;.��;.;.:..hy.rr...r1 rT:;;nr•>�:.`4'r';r,r:, _. ?',';�s;i•�fi: ''t'�'ift:: r'�'�i:� �'c'<: qa._i>;:: �'.;:,,-;. _
:�::r � . �r: r:!c.':;..,.•...;.�;:>... . �.....: _, �. .�_,;.r.'i:��`:: s�:c: :':.r::��:.'w..: r��.:•.�: �!::!!::1.:o:�;:; i::: r.i::�..: ,?�:� '.. :..
:�MO.NI:T.O�t�I�G: AGTiV1TY.,r. ' ' `�w .r.... ,: _ :. _._... ... `� �•
.. 4:•e,•: ... .. ... .4::::`:r-. _.S:r�::.Fi4iL. �: �:: :'•�`'Z:i�Y.•: `5: :iii r::?f:•T.°�F_=.... .. Y'. •�):n�:: )c •li-r.. j.. :':F;. i^"'
_:��.:��: �:is�-:•;v: h,�'i'Y.fv.Y �. �>: W4.v'tYr.z:�: :•:::" - �i'::4�i:... :.t. .... ....... :: :._
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
.:is;:...':�:_.�•r:":f.j�;'_i.;{.+i i,•.:�?+:�:i: �': `ii:�e.:�'. ..
TIvO�lis.���I��l:�/�I�(�.�CA�101�r�#�1=1'� •:R:.n.�,�.s,i : :r..
.,,�..:•✓m::r.a:env�::muea.'ye-n-v: e1r •::_ vr}:.: .. M:::: .. .. ..) '::F:; �.
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
95
By:
Date:
r ..�r:T ,yT r r.: .. ,.. _.. .. n... ..v, ::1: ..• .....9 �v::._.,
.. �.. .':!:", n;tn ..,:v. .. i.. .:. ... ....,. ....... ..:
.. ... ;::::. :.t:.-
:..: ..:- �: �,: �: r:. :;Svi..^'.i:::
95
0
M&T CHIco RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
. . ......
,>:><:::;..........
-GO DITION, t.501.1 ROE I 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; Elk 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
.E S
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
.. .. . . . ... ... ..... .
U
• Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
m:x
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
7,X:;. -A
WA.
Date:
0
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /. SOIJ.RCE / P..:.., .:;..:.:.......:....:.:.. .....:.:.:.... .. :..:..:.
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
ONS aRAENCYFOR:`<MQNIT,ORING1.<REVIEIIV:<:<::.;>:.::_::i,:'-:>;'
.,r ..:.r:... ..:. :.. .
•Name: Director or designee
Agency: ' Public Works Department
. w.. me `rr: .c a .t i; :•.>.:;'�:t�:%�` ';'t -:':.!.::4i _.��:�.yair !.::.�_ _ ,.F
G.>SC .0 �::.`�TIM ..,;.F<,RP►IVJ....�`.;r'. ;�;�:< r -...;";:;.: ...:.D.
�,�IA _1V�T..4i�' N=..,.. ...r �:. .:.::.,�._........ ;:a:::` i:�.,,i> ,: r:�;:.:>• :....:>�'':..r � r .,...... , .
• Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
•
nw-.,•. .ma..,, r+..u.,n:v.v+p
a am{ is y..;>::+.:. r.... r, •t::- �._; .,.<.,._�'+:_�.0 ..:...9 5..;':r>�:c+•.4; �;3;�":-;i�:`;�!' 9f?PiFi' ".,;;;7,^�;::;i. ;v,;>:'>"`'�r "�7: Sii:`
.. .
o :: .:. :fir:::: .4:: ...:. •�..:: �.�::.. .�::::: � ......; ..>::�;...
_ ,. .. •. ;.'r�..=.....,5..n r..l ii'.� v.i4:''r:'•%.: v::i:'. r:i'ii:':.':`::::.;::.}:'.i;iFi'%;::i::i.:��':::::f:yL�vi:•:.YL:'i'i::'!:X'ie_r_.�: :.i:.:: ::5
M4N1TO�tNG_ACT.IVIT`(�.�,.,;;,;.:;.:';�,. ;:.:.:.:: >.. ... . .. ... .. .. :....... r .
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
•...rr..a u, >:a•. w.,:..„-. ,. •+r• ;::�i.>.,..v,.,o.e:..: m, . e:: ^r:: r,. ..r..5%P7. y.,' ..t,$.,a:rkF. - - -Ri
�+�� :;^?Y7'b:..4;..,, w;%.,F.Q?�==9. +y? .a:Z � � .. ,+,::`;''�:
., yri;._. ::r,y.;:?i:.2i=,cn, :::�':-.�..^:?•. ,.; fi:.;r,Tn;.DR.i.;;>.=_E,:ii::v.-:.rR:<;::S.,r::'F,.i i.: :?:(:.•'}'::^
{: LTr '`<v:kc.3s'exn'•.>: r:..,<,:=r.;;.. #t,:::'i%..r :, rt::..:..�Xc}.b;v;:<s..•:::;i;a?,xs;:i,..r..:,•::::!•::.>:-rY
Ct�MP��AT1G:E=1/I�RIFI:G�•7fO.N��RtrP?f�RJt�., ,..r:.. =•i�t�.>r^�>�.,�...�...._<. _:.:.-._._.., .. _..; r_.,....
Report Format :� <•._.
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
q-af..-erey.nL'-eal:•i.1,.;nr:.P:<�. !>F.e..i:.�:...>; �..�t•::r C:::.r.::�,,...,:rf.:.r: ..i1�. n::,.'.:; . i•::.l.�:.t<�.1.•h. i.,:._ 1 �"..'v::-K::i:i_:,:.':.:r:.>-:. ::�rr�'n:•'i:..:i.5..!:�•. .,•.,.:.;`.'.. : yti.,i.ti?.:;D.:.r'r:.�....::r.�..<:.�'.F.:..: .':. :.. ':.i:. '.. ..v.. '.i. .::.::.;::..:..�..C.:...:..�:.� m'r:r:„'., .y�. .:. ... .. D i,.::-'':iv.�:i_.�i1::i:�:'ef'::4—�.;Yi':?;::�.: ifYf:��`'_..:T:.4:i:�::a.'r::Di'.F..:.;::-...:.,:.jJ'::r":�. 'i4`'r�YA1 :::i:sC e:i'..:- >Iti'�al'��i.'-i':''r'”'}-.:f:.i'i.5i:-.:�..:
'•"::':
97
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITIO.N.I SOU.RCE........ .:...:.....:..:.........:.
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 98
•
maintained 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
...;..,....:.................:.:.:.......:' REV
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S)'ORAGENC.Y:FOR MONITORING:L;.,..•;..IEW:::
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
By:
Date:
.:..: a�,: :. :e •caivo =,G +._: Ac.i^•.a .�.n:�:' } •:,4. is":..:�•":�:.+, ,,.i .d.::.. �:iT:.r .....:.n. ..-Z•i, .j;: ?.; fir..;}R n�Y.:..-: �'�i»! :.9 .h.. ..:s A 'F F J.'t.
. .. 3r- � . �, `�rt.,..r'k��.,a:. .e,ch�9.: ; �': .:..,.:.., rr.:. �.:. o::�.•:.::.`..>:: �.�r.•.,.fe�� ..,. i:: �.�::.: �::%' ..,N3';{v, .:.� :"?�... ,:;v,�;i, , .p � F�r�..�; �. � :.. �.
-Z>•r„ F.:�.. r,4,',..: _ mT;: At. :.•.vc:.� :,.t �..:� ,:-.r+: :.. t. �:.�• ., �::Tr x,•;: �:: .;5 t - :'*r`. �' �' ;:vtai::;�ri;�.
.. .,. r .. .'.'.�;;�; .Fh4.,cx?.� �F.,<.? :.:`2"°:.t:4':i:%'�:�:: .... '... .CX.-; a;:>:,.ag1i;:�. art.,^'r},�7, ••;::' �~ .. .+`>j. ::r. o'G: ., �.: ;G:2:
99
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; -2008
MONITORING REPORT
U POSE;
CONDITION./;SOURCE:! P•, R :...... ,.
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'h 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 5'h Street.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
AGNC'f::IF(JR�IIIONI'ORINGJTRE:.:1E11V:•'.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
Agency: 1
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
}.n.;: �:: :ii. i
.::...:.....
Kr
mn. �+•!�- ••'Y:. .avcnP:.RY 7; S'_' —
$'.:•.ti:":'v��i�:�+i:G:.v::i5j'�:':i.::,•:r::�:v.n
:<.:m,.. �.� .'Ki::: i!!f�: .t..,..
i
:.4.:: 'r:{.: :,�:�.•.,�...., _ c� Crib?
C IAC'i�ERIFIA.T.,10,.15REP;O_I��'LNG..:_:::;
I111P5�LA K!,
T�.;..i�iz;;.�.:.:�!+:?:.;
?WIN
•^_RYi!l: ro:<o:v� •.v i .+.•r'cz:r: .:`.::::: :fi4'..•:.vn•v. ......n L.n..�
.r
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
•
By:
Date:
}.n.;: �:: :ii. i
.::...:.....
Kr
•
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
C.ONDITIQNCE./:PIJ:.:::.::.:.:...::.:::..:... ... r.. ......
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; El 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
.O" 1TORING::�.RE'�LIE11Vi:')isF::�T�'Ih!•;:.;:.Y::h!i:•.t �n':"i�Y::•::::�_3:''
:
�.R�SP.ONS BLh•�:� R.:v�....�(_��:��?�.�P:;.��:�:r..G:;,�F���:>;:)>.:::..)..�.:.«:....,........�......m.:.,>r...,.:rr..::,..,::>.:.���.�:.:,........
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
... ... .�: ::.�. r...:.�n -�,�.x..�..,._•:.,.v�,...,�.;.-.:r.2�..,;..:o-:r:=t: i..:,.. ;:>:,rio-::<6... r.;�.� :::R�: c:.. �::p;rr:: r:} -- `•.T�:
,::..:.:.,..,.�....•:. n.�..;..,.;.r.•=,, r-,a.;:^c.�:r �. +. Y .. �,:..:.,�;�m:<•:.a•::::::-:e?�..:4�;:;^'_?:: ..r ::.: ;.;'::: s�:.::: .3:%k;�:':<; .�:..
` MOIVITORING:S.�.HEDUL EI:,T.IMrE�:..` ..�«::,r,..:.�„t.:�: _:..:.� _ . ..:..�',.;:.,....; ;.. .......: , .. • , . .
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
n,,. o::., ).�,.>.=.z :d�v�nr...:. -•,�:;:'!":'•a'.'r')i;^;.:4s.Pu';:_'-:�'+:':%."r�'A::.`::`3 e::•� �"->.^,•3 �::'.';i?:r:'�'t,`.:-0si�':%:�..:y'�r;�: `'�;y:;':�`tiw+
�r �' C�??,: r,�` .r,_k:" ':�;: ..•s �, ts`c:'•a:: :+: d:. �?%iz;:._._ .:t�i5;t:..:.r
.....: :El.. CE�1i'E IFICAT�ON::.:iiRIEP(�.RT:JNG:;.�.:�;.�: �f<>��•:>:-__.P,::_,,<.�,.,�.�::�>::.��4:._..,::P..::..:.:.�.::.•::..rr�..:. ...... ,
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
0 By:
Date:
. .... .. .. .. ..... ..._,.:... .. ... :..:...:. :': ::...a,rii.ri.:'.". i' Rte: �..:. •..'4 is — -
101
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
::CONDITION /:SOIJ.RCE:/ RURPOS
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
O.R:AGENCY:`FO.R>!MOI�ITO.RING'1:�.REVfEVV:<:::
_ ......,,....:.....�....., ...... ,.., _ �......:.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
rF i�c•yC
I: _ _ K::.:..:.5. ,:!;:4:?" 4,v.s;i.;� _:.,r,.:;o.:aa_:y:1i�':7':. , :..s.. .n; •: f. f::;.:
.r. a: :: ;::'. i::{:>.;.:,_"":;_F..,._..::.y.�,,... e.r:C i':e ..::v: a: ;iSi — - — _�5-F:i `:p:i'V"r:Y• .: Y.1:. �:.�'.�n.:�.V.•.!��C•. �t
::(UIO.NIS(FtfIG$C.IIDLE:.I:T:IMEaRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A ,
;MON
ITORINOACTIVITY:
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
.,,a.e:�t+.;r.+.,�n..,..:,,.=�*..r,...�,..:...:,s....:,.....r...s,.:r_..v_,;..,,.,.�.•::?*.r.=^,::;err.:;:+:o::"._".>�i�:,.:.;;�:.�_c:�:::i�:u�;,.c>:;: .,.:rz: �;a,•+�+:;.•fi,..TV.{YT:.�S:i:'r+.:j �: �: ,e�::'.;r:fl: iq:.�+
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
• By:
Date:
102
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CO..ND.ITION./.SOURCE, /.:...:..:..:.....;:...... .:..
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
..:.z:°;:: .,.,..: .:,..,_. q'. r c x _ .r• .•s :. ::.?:,.:.;:j';::?%;i�+ i8P..9i:.;:�i:'v^� ;;±{.`
E::PERSON S :+D:R:AGENCY;IFOR,MONLTORI.
:ftESP,�NSIBL 1 _ ...._ .... s. ... ,:...:.: _...: ,.... ::
'.N..rY•e:;,n..:t%:iu:✓�::<.�i•Y;:�::".y—]�s_:�v:�fY,.vN`:r:�'..:./T. '::vrs.-_.....s.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
.:.ITDRING:S;CsHED:.ULE.��rT�ME;FRAME,;:,-::::>;;>:>::;a;.:;
vlrM ted.: .¢u _n a.l::••:. .,.. .Y. r.. ..:
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING. AGTI......
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
. A., ..:rvu.:,ero ..cr.mu ,.:l.a,..ry.,.v:+,:l.-n:,. a.�:..�s.F.:,r r...:.,.�,.., 1.:.':.., .. ! ...:...:....: .:!.. q.�:tii ���.'r:i?:•�':�ii:.}:•:.?t:��.; _ .,i:: !. ,. ..TTi+�.• G:1!:
.{,F:,,.r „i;,�.�,...,, a,,..,,,, �4. rt Y�Y y..�a> � � v , i •. ri.,l<`:c'�;3>r'i<'<I y:��:
C, CEP�/
Report Format:
Submitted To:
• Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
•
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I. 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
5• j�'.{i;i�; ;n :tea i:::: �.',';:�:.._; : � :4'�i
-
SIBLE:PERSO.N.(S)�ORzAG�NCY.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: . Department of Development Services
-:.l\,::....:a nyv :..... �....n a..,+; � <. r„-. ::..:'m :•. :': +:.lv: !.'e'.:^:i i�:i:''.:i.'•K.�•: 5.'.:::.::::'!�:J: iii}_: ! !.5;::.4.J; �:: }.[:ry: :.: .:::.. :..... ti . -
.i J .,::•.a <::�: moi•?'ei: ":: ::`:..ii'vi.: r.�...:'.::�.':.::::: �::vi:: iii:':�'r'i::': J.: iS'�i Via':: vti!:��::�':�'1i:i ::�::n: �:�'.�'J:!::�:�'�::
�._ : ,�..<�:.::'.+..•i<�:�i:�ii:.C;;.:F.:.:::r��::>.F'::���:<:�,:Fir:;S;.._':::i::ii,J:J'+i��::::.:'::�': n:.::i:�<:i': .'::�:
�. is nu: w•:<..<r•....ys K"`..v:>.:.:'•..::�•�a.•...J...: �.�:�v. �a...:.rv,v.r:,}r: ,:::i."`GJGR'}n.:, �.. h.:.. �..^: ;�., .}. .......:,<...
Frequency: Upon acquisition of permit; if needed
Season: N/A
.. ... ... .. n,:.::^,•n-r_+:.n.r.:.....r.•.:.�..,r!:r :, .: :c•::::, •::'.:.•: r. ::.R,r•; ?',T:. `: t: •' :.!J'.`i'::::5:::�::'::'i:R
.:,r:.v :..ryn+.va..+n...�.: >..r :..r :vv..,. r.tw_n: .. ..._. : ).. �... .. '.: rni:! ,'•z+i:..�T.il'' :5 `J�:' L•::ti.\'u::; ��.ie=:': P1d'.::i);�
2 i , ... n:.f/. r.: •:-: .:.:: '`:. m.'('. !:.:. �:rrv,J ,..�. r. .�;.I. ` y:l:: i.:f .T .r:A:.: r::.,•: ,4 -
.:- � .=:. .:. t:C:rye:r.v:r:'.i-a:{.•.: .!.: e'1!.., t'i;i::2:!::,!in.Ti:::J:•:;isi:::•i.':���'Fv'I�.:i.::��...:.:.r:.::�:�!Y�: v: �:.i:�:<::!e'ti"...... ..... :.......
�. � .; �. :..: �: .:: Q•i=n;•__:,�r. .f .r....J ..: ;y:, r: :r ::.. ..: ::: ... .... r,. r. .5 E:,y., , .. :t.::,::...., . uric:<'+.S .'i ":.,:;K;'i.::':
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
-.'^i: F. -• ,* :
l r -bb
tt,' Yr • • gg
`+�,r. - �.:."f5:jit::.
: b VIPLIA VG��114RI11CAT>11�N':� R1=P,� .O.TNI
•wa:.:'omy.'s. cta:: .. >•�a'avv.w.,•<+a. Sa. ,..ia-rr<2...o),,:rt,i ..)<.—.
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance: ,
By:
Date:
nw2s-.,;.p,,i�,. �,.,.,,�vi;-+�'c�.'.:.;:::<:} �`yj.`i.:.:?:�::'�:Vr*ij ::�ti+'i4`i::%3;<�':'%4;'G4. ,;i; :t��+;j:�;:�PJ.: t:.;<:F;.;.]: ^; r•. .. .: ..! .. ::: _ :;:f �:: -_ _ -
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitorinq Report
104 -
1]
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION,!. SOU.RGE !.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.
Comuliance Timing: Prior to operations
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
Frequency: At completion of pre -construction survey
SSeason: Appropriate season, as necessary for species of concern.....
ea PP, .......::,.,.;�,r,..:,«;,:.:.,;.':':•;,.::.::..::...«.,...t.:,::.. _ -
.—��.�..�����.t�Yw�<Y.1��/:RTI\/IT�:S....:,..:I:Cc...�...:.>::.::: �f.. .: r: �:.. i:::.�'!..: •,.a_! .... .: .:.. .... .. .. .. ... '... :... .._ .. .. .. ... .r
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
>�G`+SMP'lI%IAC:Ej.�'1���RI�,1.,GA�ION._1Rf�,!�RTII�, G.y:�. r:' .... ..... ...., +;:...>,:.:.. •.:� .. .
VReport Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance: _
By:
Date:
-
.�... � 105
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION;I;SOURCE;/:.PIJ.R.....,,
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
..:.......: ..:.:. �., ::..;.a.P,•u.:- �.::y:,.:,-••.a.;..o.;.r _;:
n,...t1)lE.,:,.,.•
Ti.
t
� }
Name: Director or designee
Agency: 'Department of Development Services
.. .. ::rv.�:,rrv,, .T.v.rx,.-c.. �e.rrr..vv wt•n:...: � ...: 4il�:rv,: ;.;m�;.�n::::: r.•�m -
yy
Q%.:q•::H,::fi�:r'_::'iVP:C^Y::Kii'C{::'i�: i:5 : :;:i=;}.c�iitt:Y'::4.: .r :T i;��-�r.i.,; ;.,..y;:: 6: liN: i`'��<::::
.IVIflN1TORING:S:C;tiEDULE;1;�TaMEfR�M>t}:. ,,•:.:_:.::.}::::.:...:: >.';� .. .-. - . .. ...
Frequency: Operator. monthly May -July; County: Annual
Season: NIA
:r.:..Yw,.: �,., _ •:. rrsy:,:+.;;•;ni,..;.;:t•.�.:�:(2;tF::;'G5'>';��:��:::;' :::���i��t .�i'i: viii+, ..
..y:m ..>r.t+.; ., v4._ a :•.�.. _ o .�y..r .rr.l..
....c•::pm_arr. r.na .r.ysa y:.. m<+.. :t:a..,r. 5. u. v'..,. ., ...•.: hr::: - __
, .. '. _ .. + .4:`'r •.- '}^:.`ilii .�a}..
:
- ycti+'•�• ..�i}`T -: FK::: ��: ..L:. ✓vR.—�rf..:: rv.. ':G
GE�;1/'�RIFICA?Ip:N;I.R.... R, �{�,. _ ....,:., ....,,.........
:}itrr:da•e,:v�r�S^.vv<n)rL:.. .. r.r`'�: �::. . �.. ....: .
�...... .. ..... •
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
•
By:
Date:
. 1. C............ _ ..`... ,. .. � .. ..... :.........._ ... ..... v ..::..: i;:
.::.: lr': `�F,,, is
:::..:.:.... .....::.::.: . :.1
.
06
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDIlION.LSOURCE:.I..PURPOSE::;:;:'
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
G CTO,.- EVIEW.,.
R.SpONSIBiLE PERSON.�s) D.R!°�:_:E >::.:'.`;.R;N(ONIING:�;:.-. -... ....,.... .....
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
..... .. kY
U.
Frequency:
n. ^Cn�. rn nr::: ::•:C ;.. i::: F: i.:: r'.:: �: ,�.:.:� :
aMONITORJNG.�:SCHEDULE;I?TI E:°FRAML'�'::::_:;�::3:`:�T;�:`;='%�''S< .. -.... r ... ,.... ;r .-.::::w,;:`.,r;..:,•
.�;;i::.:..y, ,....•.�...i. �... n. ....L.. nr _,: ..>e,.•+s:�:,. .:.p:...c,�.::.. ,.. ..•r:; ,,r:.. s•F.:S .!. .. r.�__n .. . '.
Frequency: Following placement of fencing; annually
Season: NIA
.. .._...._ .. ........ :•mo-.,,.-.,'::•... ,rr.•.._ :..,.,:.:.::`.. .. .:.::.., ..:.,: :t . ..... .. .:.. .r..r .tY.. ..f.:: ;rj
��'1r':.c•:R.:S:::;W'. ;'':t:::::.:>:.:.;., ... _... ..: ._:� :!�. �.?: �.:>„f:::,:��.:': :.: �;';.-:: �:4•:>r..'_r;:r:.: ��...; ;f':�.;:'�: Frc;.t�';=':%`
:n ..... , :�. .........
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
- _.F +'a:':':. �'4': y:;Y�i �:.:::';:•:;:::•'�::y:,:'�:'Gizi �:::��.i:::':;t :;i;%::+�:';- '��"� '''r�";:
- - .s f�i :!iCr..?:.,,,... ..::'!.•:'+v,1 ;y:.::,:rr•w�:,a; :.;�'J.: .. .ri,<yF'J:: \!F't'',
%�•ti:�:}i{i; i'::i:4Y:j�•. ':i:�'�:.:. Fi:�:F�:4:;'.+ T:.4: 1..;: :�).$:>r:�.
•,'r. ':.:F.. r.d:v i•iF i'�:S •: iA:�::.if vr.:: :Ct:;n:
v*' - �G��R'.I.J1�1.`7. �5`'t �* �� :�: i!•„;.M :''Fr, .:>��: .. ::%F`::fi�j%ti"�<?�^•:.::r�..., i�%f�'i. .. :. ,
?r.:i.io"�V1PLl�r���:1i�j,�{I�I./.�,� .r N>;•=���? .n..T...:_ F .._......r- ._._.......... r,. , ...... ..r. _
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
:.:...,::......:.:...........: ,:, ..
.. .w�., o,•.,� ..+.'n+ -.., ..... �., ..'4 R. _: .... .. .. .r. v...:: ..; ;,: !..., ,. :... � _ .... .... n;.j... _}f:::;.};.:a:<:: 'ii::i:+i:;;'::rj •h�": :�'� F:;�: �:.._.
1'07
M&T CHico RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
..!JR R, P * .......
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
60:- R. -AN' F;PR jT.P.R
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
•..:.............:....�;...�..:::.-,.v7�':rv:n:�1.,:: �.. ,.L ..+J.. ,..:.::.Tn,e✓. 5 •. ..,;.: ::.: .>:•::. r�. :: '::..: v..::....
Frequency: One-time, prior to operations
Season: N/A
.. ........
'A*
-'OR
N.
.K. R.
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of. Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Ll
..... . .... ...
Date:
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION../;SOURCE /.PORP...' .....::.:::.::...... :: .:...�....... ..........:.........:. ... .
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 4.8-1 b shall
be implemented.
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 by licensed engineer that earthen berms are constructed as .
specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
.. .. nr.n,+r.c:.;,....vvn.,:. r.:,. �e<.n:.e.ni'.c..:.K::::::'r'r.c.':?'n:_e'.v._: :.e •.::,..:.i': .r.,r,s•:: er.:: _.: ,..:: :..; .. r. r: '..,:n r.. ri_v� r: ai:n:,:: r...zi:.....
�'.IRESP�.N.S1BLE=PE;RS��N(S)�!Q,R;�AGENG�ORiMON.... - ..,�,.,,..._„ .... _...,...f..._... ...... ., ......: .... .
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
�+. .c _ �`� :.et":r :;:p a:c.:�..,.,:,3:r:4.g.F:,r,;-r2?5:::.s3?..i�>:iFc<%=5+::v-:<r.:::!r.r:: ..._: ...r :5•
:TIIIV11�z:IFRi4MC��.., Fi:{iu';
•r. .ir
♦duo: c::: 1.:rai'!IIL'R t.r: .'N:x.': n' ,:, � .. .:.rTi:i.; r:i v.li r. ....._:..ar.. .. .:..
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
•
•
m
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
42 of 51
Date:
110
• M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION 1.SOURCE:L:PURPO$E' ": ...
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
.:: .. s
....:..... .
...::....:......
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
A'2 of r,1
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION 1 SOIJRCE:I PURPQS , ..:.,
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.
0
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESP,ONSI.B.LE'o'RSON
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING::SCHEDULEaTIME:FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
P.LIANC.�'�1It�R. IFICATION.;i;REP(�}�T
.:.. 1N.. ,,,
cn[ax...p�iv:,-:�S�l.a:-. 1:. „•, r...eA:::.i:.: .. .:: :.:: �. ...:.':+:i.:�::�: "�.': �'r "A":'":•"-
.....:......
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
ddnfR1
Date:
:.......:....:.::.. '
,r .. .
...::.::...
..:.....:.:..
.........:
•
•
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
..:C.ONDITIQ,N/.:$Ol1.RCE;1:;P,URPOS:..:.:.::.:. .:.:.:......::r ...........:.......:...::.:...::.:....:....:::..:..........
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.-
F
Standardffor Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
. rn�..,. ,::arr.m:r.-r r.:u a.a..,•::a: ::a.a:::.v:F+:4!o:r..::�.:.a,e :.,.:..:..:-_.::�..5.•r.:-:,aryrar.p.F..a..::a::...>.a::,....:n.,:.n:::a•r•a,a;r..�:r4.:;e}F--::: rr.y. a: eHr. v..:, •�..+_': :r!_.ii.:.;:.i:::'±.r:.f.i!1::.:::.:.9 �<r.y. ivg�!:�1•K}
l'RESPO.NSIBLE P:ERS:ON(S�:OR AG�NCY�IFOR MONI�ORI�IG ! R�VIE�IUt °' ." � ...-" ;;:`:`'
:":.>.a:.::.u�va.J..:,,d,..Gr}rvr-...:.xe_._:::re...v:6.:CY.: �.:.. .L n.....r..J.v. .....::. .�iS .:. n. ....:... -rr•} ... .. .. F.... ..}T F'r Mr.. •..,
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
:::.•rr.a-a:_.,::r..ar.:.::�.,�....;n, r..�•. �ce�!�a'r .� .:.4'.:s::rv:.,.;:\.::.:.or?\r,:v..u::.;.i�a>[!::::r:;s,?q.rt.?::.:i:?:>:::v:'i'=':�>:,�.'-•:;.'r:::: }:.�...: a: :>:: r:s: yi:'
�:
;r.: .. :• :-"'. :' .: <,: ._..;ri.4'::!ri:;:.._`::;::.:i'SSi �::r�._,::`.T.•i:::}}:i';`Ci.:;'. ::;::i.�:t?r T: �.::: _ :i:t.i!{Fi; :.i :'...::
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
n. naa'-.:.:.::rua;:.:. ran.. -.ea -y .v :a.+:::.::::a'r.+.. n:a.r n.::v::-:: r: sr.l y�iW a::1yi ..::.:-r: l..!' :.iiri:.. i�.!.Y:r:::_ii� r'r �:......•r/}ii.. ...: F:
rrJ..i. ^...}+ssnl .
.Kr:rr.
Xi•i:��F
r°COMPL/NCEERIE'iGATL.ON.I REP,ORT;IIGi::::.=.y' > !:;:: ry.:T,: i'm: Kn.:C v.:.e lC .� S _ i'S•p .. ....n... 7 :.
:,:•.. vb-_,..dv'}.'u. _s�.w�c2:a5�:.2m::.rx�,•..t.:: n�: rir.. .. arn, :�r!:: ....rn ���•�
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
0 By:
Date:
is
_ : .: ... ... ... ...... ..:.5: .:..:.:. ,....., -.. .., ., a.. .. ,. - k.l:F�:t'�;'i:: ��:%:_::'.'_<"•;:" � Vit:; ;;
1. .. :. .... .. :. ... ..: ...:........ .:.. ., ... .::.. .. ....:: .>:.......;: ...,:: - ..}..: :f::.�: � :.t -
.:. LOW i�P..:.o.z.:.:..::...::-..:.....r.....:.....:..,..:.:...:,:..:.....<..:r.:..:....:. ....::... .. :.. ..... : r. . r _::::....: � .......... :: r . ..... s 13
..:... :.:.
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
Ar. of r%1
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
ONDITION./.:SOURCE.1. P11.:' ...:::::::.:..:.:::.:..::: .... :.... .... ....... .
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
... 4.:'.:•::..i. ....!.
r. ::..:a:r._tu�yv4:.::.r•:n r.y u.:}'n:.:.:.1.:.:..u. .. .:. r .n. .Tr. ,., : .. .. :. .. .i:. N.�:i.��i':i.; ,T�ilti :"v i:f ��': :i�!.3:' �_ i'•r::e.1:;:.
'. r '> � �Y�FOR MONITORING./REYIEVI(•E: k. >'..,... �.. ,, y,;Y!.r,,:;::y.>;
Name: Director or designee}
Agency: Department of Development Services
.. .. _.. .. ... .:..,_:..: r� .::.n, v,-.. rr � �: ..:.:. y..T..p :>':•:.i�i:::4 =9:t; ^T �.;r:u
.. .. -. ., ...r n:,. T: m.>...:.. nm. _._ .:: �.w,n._c,narr mrv:. .,r. •.... A........,r. ...:..: >i.J.i i:Ji:i::.: .5.: . _.t. .
�.: Si�vi:. ... T?. ..:. r:::::... .. ...
..r n. .K : rn .. r: .. . v._:%i.i::':r: :•.::: r::..:•• .. .:.. ..v,. .. ....,..::.:. isT..,,��::_C?i::'.':i::::.:.:Fr':•:.!:
.n.....:£.-.:.:l.r:4v:::�5Y'ii::'Si:.:;.::ii!iv..i: SLi �!.:.:.i•::i:'ir r::::::; .: ...
;.::<.....:_:,:�.::.
;.:.;::......:,:...
Frequency: At completion of planting; annual checks
Season: N/A
._ ._ ::r, :...: .:..: uf, .. va::a:. r:.,.� •:+.y4�: i:..J; .a:::: •.::� ii r::2..,.:.i. . ': ....:.....: _;. V.:. r ��...
i.�....v. - _•: i::'�.:J '—
.R...........::i.<;::::..>;;•::,:.:.:_:.;>:f:.>.>:;..,..:.. .: ....:....
.......i�::i�........- ........ .. ..... ..
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
• By:
Date:
::.::.....:.....n.....:
...:: i!'• :i Vii::::': '. ;...: •� .'::.. ��:
....:... ..
:.- 1
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
AR of ri1
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION:/.SQURCE /:PURPO .........,
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'.P.;.;E:R:SO;N.(S:)�:ORAGENCYF,OR,M....:::... .......:.r ._ .........: ,........... ........:..............
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
.......-....,.rr..n•.:,.. :....1.:: J.: .•.r..r:.,.: i•:::: i::.i r3i'.:.i::::._::A<.:?i>:v'9::"� �.: �,:.G$>F".::�� k!
.... .. .. .... .... .. na'a.ro.,:r..,r.:-.,,...,n. ri.:.:_.:...,,.:.: :........ ... .::.:.:1l::. .,: r. •.':IGL: STT,::.
... ..
r:: .. : "::: :;.: � -
TORiNG':SC.HEDULI`.i'�TIME..RME,..__........->.;,:.......:,....
!:.:.-•.: Yc.',C' <}!AT•m::T>:-?..i::.a.aa,%:Asn>`L:_.iS'Y's:LYF...cr_:,:..; .: .._v....:...�:.�.,..v
::.»•..:�aly..ks:irLa':::rtiTLY.'-':E::�:i't.,'a\!'.. .ctY:::: n_ ......., ... .....
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
.......... .
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
..:.v.,.:n.::':::'e�'..:i'.�'.
.. .. °.-3.—s>nert.R P�asa?r:..:�•..,.x_..�:,::x..r.1 -:Tn.� ? T :r "+1. F:. r. �.n!.::1::>: :!5: �:: .... v:.. r.:::.P.,::: �>:. >l:!�::::::/i:'�:i:'.i'Y:_
:..:.....: �::i.`�r.:.:`:_?::�
»<•.�:::!;:.;<>:.;:!:.;:.>.::.:�::.sf:;::;�;:>;<:.r:.;>,
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
• By:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
47 of 51
Date:
115
• M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION SOU.RCEa :PU R..
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
..-. .....,; n.r •.' r.n m.nn../::v:,an,..:.<..,, ..v:: _.•....,... .: .::,.,.... ,,,.: 1.
.• v �.. . � .. .v: r.: .yi. _v:�: M':i:_ �::ii:i�h�F ;:i"?. • n::n..1:i�:.:ni :`vi: n'i:i }i!+i :: is:„Z: 'i:F i...
F: COx�VIPIAIC;aVERIICAT,ONr.}stPO..::::.,.,...v..:
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
�: .:. > .. �:. ...:: :f.::.nr::.,�in<..: Av. _., •. .:: :.::: n• :v._ :...:. :::: :::v!: ..:.: .::::.� �t..Y, ;^,: 1.:::.:'t.C.:f ! .: f.:: _ ... — ... : ... ..
.......:..
t
116
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
4R of 51
• M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION
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.
.
... :.. ._._ .•......\.i..v:ys.:::.:-^::e}i:'r':'.i'.:C^'4.....:::.},:!f�e::..>}n.,�:::.i�..:CF :�:i:.iu.i!:.;:y.:.�.:.:.n.
..
rt� TOR�NG� A. .:
MONI - _
.:r.. u. �...::.:A•,.f:::S>v:.Yl::4i!:.�.::5..�:.::iir.Y.:: .i'.i�:::..::. ........-
:,v.-l:•ri":.:a!�l•+ri:•'t:J::vi:.v:a'rl.'.'�„v.a.V.:ri�.sc\'<v:i:s_.v:::.:..... L>:'('
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
• M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
,;CONDITION./:SOIJRCE.1. 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
E SON
;4
S..R AGENCYfOR;MONITORING lREVIEW- 4 f y, '!. 'i' ;'G
•RESPONSIBLE P R..... ......... ..... .........r....., _..�.._....._�..:.. �,. � ..... .... .:..., . .. .. ,....
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
.. ..r.n:. rv.. .:.:X. -4 .ri4:::.�:i::'.:i:•i:=iy::5:...»:':�T ::::i.:`.':i'f`n'1:<.J�f:'::i!i%:::..y:Ji,;;-:�i:•:Y�:.,i'?:::'.,.v!':::i"%i:i<i v��:�it�'t
:.,: rr ....^,.:..:. �...r....,++:..r-.,.,... ..++'a .>R.y _...a:::5:.: ,- :>;d:;=. ` s.,r,
4. PLIi�1�l:CE:=YERIFICATIO.I�l::1`.REPORTII�G ,>� ' _
CSM ¢.y.r .
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By. Date:
.. : .. .. .: : r: :.. .:. ..S.x_.....::.::.:.... :::: �: ::: ::::. :. ...... �:: ::.i:.�.:: �. �+Y:. ':•l.:.>.'...._i�)�Y':f.:}:."�i:::i'ryi'%:C.i': �`� .. r.
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
50 of 51
118
C]
0
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2008
MONITORING REPORT
CE /PURR.OSE`>;;_
CONDITION./:::SOUR....::'.:.:.....:..:.......:..:........ ...:......:.:.:..:.::..:....:.<:..:....
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 b
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; EIR 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
rRESPOISIBLPERSON(Sj OIrAGECX(R M0IVITORIIVG 1 RE1��EW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
.. _ •'- _ .... wavwv �., n,.:�rs...:, v:
.MONITORING...S.CHEDU.L,E... r.,,I.•:•:..T�:,rvIM:_, :r.r:.:E..::.. :::?,: .::., .:: r.::.:..::• ;.:;.::.; d.::F.:':.:.::?. .n::: %:. ::!:;fi:!:::::::�>:.i.>:>;: ;; RAM
:
F!o�L ;5: �:�:�;:,<:;:;;i:`'r:iri<`:ri?-'av�R;:�i;:.f::;�>!r:,:,:: �?�!�:t:;;:;.-!;::, :�.:.:::P:;.<:":.pi:^s:;.I:::;.., ./,;;.;::R<d.'>.,�..•
...... ...
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
'INV::ri'J;:vfi'�2;iif£:r:�i;:'?!:.:::a�'r•::�:.:o:.p...:�s`.�-?i��.a :;!,:;u;.;u.a ..<. ...,•:.
.s{; r:::ua:.�a:... a:_.•f::...: ,,. s,.r,a.Y. � , iv'. r,.�a�._ ::.a,:q: �.. ..:..:...- .. : .. . �:: ,.... .
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
Date:
F:... .. .1....... .. r ......:...... ............h... r....... .... ... ...... . ,. .. .:I..:::,
.. ...... r....:r. a .... ........................... .. .... .
MSFT Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
51 of 51
119