HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT B (2)G
'• •
t
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION -
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVING THE MINING USE PERMIT, RECLAMATION PLAN, AND
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES FOR BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY
(MIN 96-03) CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: A) MINING USE PERMIT
ALLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF AN AGGREGATE
MINE WITH ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES; B) RECLAMATION PLAN
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS, TIMELINES AND PRACTICES FOR PHASED
RECLAMATION; C) FINANCIAL ASSURANCES COST ESTIMATE
ENSURING THE COMPLETION OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES; D) A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BASED UPON THE .
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM; AND E) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The M&T Chico Ranch Mine ("Project") proposed by 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 Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan (MIN 96-03) 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 approved the Use Permit, Reclamation Plan, Financial
Assurances Cost Estimate, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Conditions of Approval. The Project 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. The proposed operation is located on approximately 193 acres of the M&T
Chico Ranch. The proposed quarry and processing facilities are
approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River, and approximately
5 miles southwest of the City of Chico (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 416-
039-530-015 & 018).
2. On August 30, 1997, Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. filed an application
for a Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan (MIN 96-03) consisting of
Page 1 of 15
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
the following: 1) Mining Use Permit to allow the development and
operation of a new aggregate mine with an onsite processing operation and
associated structures, and 2) Reclamation .Plan establishing standards,
timelines and practices for phased reclamation of the site to open
space/wildlife habitat.
In , 1996 the County prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and identified
several potentially significant environmental effects that may occur with
implementation of the project. Accordingly, a draft environmental impact
report ("Draft EIR') was prepared pursuant to section 15064(a) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("Guidelines").
On February 28, 1997, the County distributed a Notice of Preparation of
the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and the
public.
From May 12, 1998 to July 2, 1998, the Draft EIR was circulated for
public review.
On June 11, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the
Draft EIR.. The Planning Commission took extensive public input. The
Project was continued off the agenda to allow further Staff evaluation.
Written comments received during this review period are on file at the
Butte County Planning Division and are incorporate by reference in the
revised Draft EIR/Final EIR.
Based on public comment and in order to maximize public participation in
the environmental review of the Project, the County decided to recirculate
the Draft EIR to update and supplement the underlying technical analyses.
The County hired a new consultant to prepare the recirculated Draft EIR
(Resource Design Technology, Inc.)
In September 2002, the County issued the revised Draft EIR. On
September 30, 2002, the County filed the Notice of Completion with the
State of California Clearinghouse.
10. The County circulated the revised Draft EIR for a 45 -day public review
and comment period commencing October 12, 2002 through November
25, 2002.
11. On October 24, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on,
the revised Draft EIR in Oroville. The County provided public notice of
this meeting. At the hearing, the Planning Commission heard and received
all relevant oral and written testimony and evidence filed or presented
Page 2 of 15
. 1 x ly r v. • ' E,
regarding the Draft EIR.
12. `�; In October 2003, the County distributed the Final EIR to all commenting
agencies,'departments, individuals and organizations. . The Final EIR is
comprised of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments Document
` ' } (collectively, "Final EIR").
{ 13. The'Final EIR does not contain significant new information, as defined in
;1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, which would require recirculation of
F: 'the'modified sections or entire document.
}
Final EIR Section 3.2 delineates the changes to the Draft EIR in response
to comments received on the Draft EIR. The changes are not substantial,
do riot include significant new environmental impacts, do not show a
' y substantial increase in -the severity of an environmental impact, do not
} `identify a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably
different' from others previously identified, and the Draft EIR was . not
fundamentally inadequate.
Further, Section 3.2 does not contain significant new information that
deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial adverse effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or
avoid such an effect. All of the information added to the Final EIR merely
clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in the. Draft EIR. '
• Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. (See Guidelines
Section 15088.5.)
14.. The Planning Commission held hearings to solicit public comment on the
Project (including the EIR, Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan) on
January 22, 2004, March 11, 2004, April 8, 2004, August 26, 2004,
November 30, 2006, December 14, 2006, and January 25, 2007. These
Planning Commission hearings also addressed, in part, issued raised by the
Department of Conservation ("DOC") regarding the Williamson Act. On
October 11 2005, the Applicant voluntarily filed a Petition for Partial
Cancellation for a 106 acre area of the Project. (M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Ac -t, p. 6.) Under
State law, the Petition for Partial Cancellation is beyond the purview of fi .
the Planning Commission.
15. On February 22, 2007, in its capacity as lead agency for compliance with ,
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section
21000 et seq. of Public Resources Code),. the Planning Commission, -
- : adopted a resolution certifying the Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No.
97022080), and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting '
` t Program for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Mining Use Permit and.
Reclamation Plan. -
iJ r . Page 3 of 15
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. FINDING::
LAND USE CONSISTENCY — Based on its land use zompatibility ,
analysis, the County finds that the Project is consistent wi-h the Project
`'' •
site's General. Plan designation (i.e., Orchard and Field Crops) as a
secondary use, the Project's zoning district (A-40), and wi.h the County
Mining Ordinance. Further, the proposed mining is an ar'-propriate use
•
under the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan Designation, and is also -
` ' ` "compatible in all agriculturally, designated lands within Butte County
where minerals are known to exist, pursuant to General Plan Policies:;
'=
�2.6.a,. 2:6.b, and 6.1.a. (Butte County, 1997). In addition, tie Project site.
lies approximately two miles west on the agricultural side of the -
-
Chico Area Greenline designated on the Chico Area Lend Use Plan.
Land uses on the agricultural side of the Greenline are j.imited by the
Butte County. General Plan to agricultural uses, which are defined in the -
Land Use Element of the Butte County General Plan as "the `Primary'
.Uses' and the `Secondary Uses' set. forth in the `Orchard and Field
Crops' land use designation..." As stated above, the Project falls within
'
the "Secondary Uses" category, which includes "resource extraction and
processing," and "environmental preservation activities." _
2. FINDING:.
SITE SUITABILITY - The site is suitable for the use proposed.,
(a) The Project has been reviewed for suitability by the County .`
Planning Commission,, County Agricultural Commissioner, County
" Public Works Department, County Air Quality Management ;
District, Department of Conservation, Coun-y Office of
`
Environmental Health, Central Valley Regional -Water Quality
Control Board, Department of Water Resources,. City of Chico
Department of Public Works and California State C'_earinghouse.
(b) Technical reports submitted by qualified consultants indicate that -
there are no physical or environmental constraints such as geologic
or seismic hazard areas, environmentally sensitive habitats or
"
similar areas that would indicate the site is not suiiable for the use #
proposed. The following reports were submitted with the -Mining .- ;
'
Use Permit application, or subsequently submitted, "and
independently reviewed by County staff. '
1 AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. 1996 Aggregate.
•
_ Investigation Hallwood and M&T Properties. California.'.
April. ;
2 AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. 1997. Excavation • ' '
Stability M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation, West of ` -
Dayton, California. August 22.
:a*
Page 4 of 15 At c.
3 Hydroscience, Inc., Water Quality Report.
' ^s 4 • Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences,. Inc. 1997.
.� • y Memorandum of Prime • Farmland Soils Analysis for the
` M&T Chico Ranch. September 24.
5 . Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1993.
M&T Chico Ranch Groundwater. Investigation, Phase I, ,
Memorandum Report, Red Bluff, California.
6 Deverel, S J. 1996 Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel .
s, x Mining: M&T Chico Ranch.
Fehr & 'Peers Associates, Inc. 1997. Traffic; Impact
Analysis for the M&T Chico Ranch Project.
8 Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, - Inc. 1996:
" r 1M&T Chico Ranch Mine Use Permit,Mining Permit, .and
k V Y Reclamation Plan Application.
9 Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences; Inc.'1996-
Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation: M&T Chico Ranch.' l'
November.
10 City of Chico. 1995. Draft Environmental Impact Report: ,
Chico Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion. State .' f
.' Clearinghouse Number 94112054.
(c) v Final EIR prepared by Resource Design, dated October 2003.
3. FINDING: NO VIOLATIONS - The subject property is in compliance with all t:
rules and regulations pertaining to zoning uses, subdivision and any =
other applicable provisions of the County's zoning ordinance. .
4. FINDING: The Project, as conditioned; is consistent with the provisions of. the:
County's surface mining. ordinance (County Code, Chapter .13-101 et
seq., Surface Mining and Reclamation), which establishes regulations
for mining operations and reclamation.
5. FINDING: The Project complies with the provisions of the Surface Mining and
.� Reclamation -Act of 1975, Public Resources Code, Section 2710 et seq
("SMARA"), which establishes, state authority to. regulate mining i
operations. and reclamation, and other applicable State regulations, as
those provisions may be amended from time to time. 5
6. FINDING: Sections 2770 and 2773:1 of SMARA require surface mining operators' < ' -
to obtain lead agency (city or county) approved financial assurances for -
' reclamation. The County will annually require the Applicant to update
the existing financial assurances to ensure there are adequate financial .
{ assurances in place for all costs related to completing the reclamation.
The current financial assurances cost estimate for the Project is". n '
$103,526.93. (Exhibit 1.)
Page 5 of 15 4 ,
7. FINDING:: RECLAMATION STANDARDS - The Reclamation Plan complies,
with applicable requirements of State regulations. (CCR Sections 3500-
'
3505, and Sections• 3700-3713, .as those provisions may be amended
p
from time to time).
"
a)-, Section 3703: Performance Standards for Wildlife Habitat - The,
•
i Reclamation Plan for the Project meets the requirements of Section
_ 3703'. Baseline conditions are described in Section 4.6 (Biological '
'• `r
Resources) of the Draft EIR. (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 15.) As
discussed in the revised Reclamation Plan dated September 2004
r " .
("Reclamation Plan"), shallow wetlands will be established along the
r : •' a t �'
' margins of a reclaimed lake. A combination of shallow and deep water '
habitat for a variety of wildlife species will be created using best
"{ •{ :;
management practices. Further, a nesting island will be constructed
•
: a using excess overburden. (Reclamation Plan, pp. 18-19, Attachments ti
7, 13.) Native vegetation will be established on the reclaimed area by
a combination of natural revegetation and plantings. Topsoil will be
respread on the margins of the lake and in the shallow wetlands areas
to enhance the establishment and growth of native vegetation.`
(Reclamation Plan, pp. 18-19, 22-23.) The Applicant will retain an ,
. - expert in wildlife habitat reclamation to implement the revegetation
plan and monitor success. Performance standards for the shallow
•
wetlands and lake perimeter will be evaluated based on the, .
effectiveness of the vegetation for wildlife habitat by comparing ' -
appropriate measures of cover, density, and species -richness for the
reclaimed lands to similar parameters on reference areas and the
baseline conditions put forth in the Draft EIR. Methods of monitoring ,
and assessment will be based on guidelines provided in the
`.
. Department of Conservation's recently published manual on the
"
rehabilitation process for disturbed lands (Newton and Claassen,
„
2003). (Reclamation Plan, pp. 22-23.)
b) Section 3704: Performance Standards for Backfilling, Regrading,
Slope Stability, and Recontouring - The Reclamation Plan for the
"
-Project meets the requirements of Section 3704. A comprehensive
•
slope stability study was prepared for the Project by AGRA Earth & -.
Environmental, Inc., Excavation Stability: M&T Chico Ranch Mine ,= k
Reclamation (Draft EIR, Appendix E; Reclamation Plan, Attachment . f
8.) The study concluded a 3:1 slope was an adequate factor or safety
for final slopes. Based on this study, the Applicant has incorporated a.',
'
3:1 slope for all final slopes into the project design and Reclamation- '
Plan. In addition, the design of any structures proposed onsite, I J
including offices, and other ancillary facilities will be regulated by the
Butte- County Building Division of the Development Services'
_
Department. (Draft EIR, Section 4.3, p. 4.3-16.) No backfilling will ,
{ .. w Page 6 of .15 ;i
take place.
'c)'•Section -3705: Performance Standards for Revegetation - The
r Reclamation Plan for the Project meets the requirements of Section
- 3705: Section 3705 measures success of revegetation "based upon the -
• effectiveness of the vegetation for the approved end use, = and by
. `•. comparing the. quantified measures of vegetative cover, . density, and
- species -richness of the reclaimed mined -lands to similar parameters of
� t
naturally occurring vegetation in the area." ,(Cal. Code-Regs.; tit. 145 §
-_".3705(m).), The Reclamation Plan's-revegetation standards track the, '
statutory requirements mandated by SMARA and its associated
regulations.- For example, Section 3705(m) states the following: z
;Success .of revegetation shall be judged based ": upon 'the
effectiveness of the vegetation for the approved end use, and by
:comparing the quantified measures of vegetative cover, density,,
r r and species -richness of the reclaimed mined -lands to similar ;a
r i parameters of naturally occurring vegetation in the ' area. (Cal. .
•` Code Regs., tit. 14, § 3705(m).)
The Reclamation Plan tracks these requirements. The reclamation
plan states "Performance standards ... will be evaluated based on'the' 'L
effectiveness of the vegetation for wildlife habitat by ' comparing
-appropriate measures of cover, density and species -richness of the
reclaimed lands to similar parameters on reference areas," Further, the A+` -
r Reclamation Plan specifically provides that revegetation monitoring
will take place for five years. During the five-year monitoring period,
annual reports will be submitted to the Butte County Planning -
Division. The reports will describe the success of the revegetation
:. plan and will include recommendations for how to improve, if • '
possible, the plan's success in the, following year. In addition, tfie'
reclamation plan requires. that "[m]ethods for monitoring and-
' assessment will be based on guidelines provided in the ' Department of
Conservation's recently published manual on the rehabilitation process
for disturbed lands (Newton and Claassen, 2003)." `
d) Section 3706: Performance Standards for Drainage, Diversion
:• Structures, Waterways, and Erosion Control - The • Reclamation • F
Plan meets the requirements of . Section 3706. The Applicant will
obtain coverage under a general stormwater control permit from the : "3
Regional" Water Quality Control Board before initiating onsite
activities.' The stormwater permit will require the development and
implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP").
By complying with the requirements of the stormwater permit and ,
' SWPPP, the Applicant will necessarily control runoff to ensure that
discharge of surface flows from the site meet-stormwater' pollution
y
{ x, Page 7 of 15 ,
control.. permit requirements, and comply with applicable erosion
control and sediment control requirements. Further, as indicated in the
excavation stability study (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 8), the 3:1
final slopes incorporated into the final Project design will stabilize the
reclaimed area, allowing most onsite runoff to remain onsite, thereby
minimizing contribution of sediment to nearby streams and limiting
,
erosion. The streambed and streambanks of Little Chico Creek will
not be disturbed except for road and conveyor crossings. Stanchions
supporting the conveyor will be footed in nonsensitive areas, and the
road crossing of the stream . will be improvements on an already
existing crossing thus resulting in no increased impact. ,There will be
no in -stream mining. (Reclamation Plan, p. 13.)
e)
Section 3707: Performance Standards for Prime Agricultural
Land Reclamation - This performance standard does not apply to the
Project because it is not located on Prime Agricultural Land. (See
Final EIR, pp. 4.0-30 - 4.0-31.)
f).
Section 3708: Performance Standards for Other Agricultural
Land - The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements of Section 3708.
As discussed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project's end use will
be reclamation to agricultural uses for the plant area (40 acres) while
'
the mining area (193 acres) will be reclaimed as open water and
wetlands.. The revegetation scientist that the Applicant will retain for
the Project will set up appropriate reference areas for both the plant
site agricultural reclaimed area as well as the perimeter of the
lake/wetland area. Productivity of the irrigated agricultural land at the
reclaimed plant site will be compared to that of adjacent irrigated
agricultural land on the M&T Ranch. The plant site will revert to
r
become a part of a larger field on the M&T Ranch, and will be
managed the same as the rest of the land in that field. Performance
standards for the shallow wetlands and lake perimeter will be
evaluated based on the effectiveness of the vegetation for .wildlife
habitat by comparing appropriate measures of cover, density and
species richness of the reclaimed lands to similar parameters on
reference areas approved by County staff.
g)
t
Section 3709: Performance Standards for Building, Structure and
Equipment Removal - There are currently no buildings or structures
within the proposed Project area. Buildings and structures associated
with the aggregate processing plant will be removed when mining is
completed.
h)
Section 3710: Performance Standards for Stream Protection,
Including Surface and Groundwater - The Reclamation Plan meets
Page 8 of 15
-_ . '1 ' v ' .,. • .. a / l
the requirements of Section 3710. Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water
. j Quality) : of the Draft EIR describes the potential . impacts of the
•Project. The only surface water stream, Little Chico Creek, will not be
disturbed. There will no in -stream mining. Other surface water bodies
include wetlands which will be mitigated as required by the U.S. Army _
Corps of Engineers and other state and federal agencies. During {'
mining operations, industrial stormwater and process water will be
collected in onsite recycle ponds. In addition, the Applicant will
•`' . operate the Project in accordance with a California Regional Water.
Quality Control Board stormwater. control permit and SWPPP. 'As,
`�--r discussed in Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel'Mining- M&T
Chico Ranch (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 9; Draft•EIR, Appendix
.1; D.l),•the Project will not have a significant impact on groundwater
resources. (See Draft EIR, section 4.4). The proposed lake will
F, =' actually result in enhanced groundwater recharge from precipitation
and evaporation from the shallow groundwater. Further, although there • ;
>' is recharge to the water table, which occurs' as result of percolation
losses from Little Chico Creek, the Project is not expected to alter that
` process. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-38.) The groundwater- quality study , r
' } : prepared for the Draft EIR by Monarch Laboratory concluded that - -
' there is .no ` groundwater problem associated with the existing pit.
• (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 11; Draft EIR, . Appendix D-3). ,
Following reclamation, as part of the approved Mitigation and ..
' Monitoring Plan for the Project, • the Applicant will develop a
- groundwater monitoring program to be approved by the Central,Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County to measure
tr ;recharge and water quality following reclamation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-
.6 4
.4-64 - 4.4-78.)
i) ' Section '3711: Performance Standards for Topsoil Salvage, „
Maintenance, and Redistribution — The Reclamation Plan meets the ,
' requirements of Section 3711. The Reclamation Plan describes howa..
topsoil and subsoil (growth medium) will be saved and stockpiled for
- reclamation uses as shown in Attachment17 of the Revegetation Plan. _
4 . (Reclamation Plan, p. 8; Attachment 3, Item 6, p. 5; Attachment 5:)
j) Section 3712: Performance Standards for Tailing'and MineWaste-= --
Management — The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements. of '
Section .3712. Under the Reclamation Plan, the Project will not
generate any mine wastes because all mine products will be sold or.�, 1.
4.
used in reclamation. (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 3, Item 5, p..5:)
. k) Section 3713: Performance Standards for Closure of Surface°
n : Openings — The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements of Section ;
3713. There are no drill holes, portals, shaft or tunnels associated with
the mining operations proposed for. the site that would' require;' ;
Page 9 of 15
abandonment.
r8. FINDING:.` HEALTH AND SAFETY - The establishment, maintenance or
operation of the use or structure applied for will not, under the
r:' _• r ,` circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, morals, comfort,and general 'welfare. of - persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or
= injurious to property and improvement in the neighborhood, or to the
general -welfare of the County.
r 9. FINDING: WILLIAMSON ACT COMPATIBILITY - The proposed, M&T,
Chico Ranch Mine lies in an area which is included within Williamson
Act contracted land. Exhibit A to the subject Williamson Act.Contract,
executed on December 11, 1975 between} M&T Incorporated and
the County of Butte ("M&T Williamson Act Contract"), -provides a
.,
"'.list of the permitted uses on the subject property. Section 7.a. provides:
"sand and gravel operation subject to the securing of a use .permit
,• �; approved by the County." Although Government Code Sections 51238.1
and 51283.2 restricts surface mining on Williamson Act contracted land,
• (Section 51238.3(c)(1) provides that the requirements of 51238.1 and
r 51283.2 do not apply to uses that are expressly specified within the , -
contract itelf prior to June 7, 1994. The M&T Williamson Act Contract,' '
meets the requirements of Government Code Section 51238.3(c)(1) .174 .
because: (1) excavation activities are defined as compatible and (2) the ( '
' contract was executed prior, to June 7, 1994. In addition, the Project is
also a compatible use under County Resolution No. 68-7: Resolution
- Establishing Administrative Procedures and Uniform Rules Including
F Compatible . Uses for Agricultural Reserves ("County Uniform
Rules"). Section D.7.a of the County Uniform Rules specifically permits.
sand and gravel operations on lands under Williamson Act contract
• - provided a use permit is approved by the County. Thus, both the County
Uniform Rules, and the M&T Williamson Act Contract allow the Board ;
of Supervisors to approve the Project and the proposed end land use of
a
open water/wildlife habitat/agriculture. In addition, the Draft EIR
contains an extensive analysis of the Project's potential impacts ` to �,,
agricultural land. This analysis included a determination of the Project's
consistency with the County Uniform Rules and the M&T Williamson r
- T. `•';:: Act Contract. The County concluded in the Draft EIR that the Project is
consistent with the County's Uniform. Rules and the applicable LCA'
f w contract, stating that both the County Uniform Rules and' the LCA '
contract expressly allow "sand and gravel operation[s] subject to
• y , Y '' securing of a use permit approved by the County as,a permitted use on'.`
` . the land while it is under Williamson Act contract." (DEIR, p.' 4.2-6.)-
-Accordingly,
.2-6.)-Accordingly, the Board of. Supervisors finds that the Project (and the,
~' proposed end use) is compatible with the M&T Williamson Act.'
Contract,'and thus. consistent with the Williamson Act.
�` Page 10 of 15
• _ ,�'y .+ ..r�(t ice,.__.. .. z ;� -D `�.
'•t,• N -'yam Yr' 4Y- - I _ _ i._ •
+Findings Regarding Statement of Overriding Considerations. A;
.. , In determining whether to approve the project, CEQA requires a public agency to balance
'the benefits of a Project against- its unavoidable environmental risks. (CEQA Guideline
' ' `section 15093). Implementation' of the Mitigation Measures discussed in the Final EIR. ."
will'avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant impacts to a less than significant
level, with the only exception being project -level and cumulative air quality impacts, and
traffic. The `County cannot state with certainty that these impacts will' be fully mitigated' `
and therefore has found that these impacts are -significant and unavoidable.. The -County:
has weighed the -economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits A the Project
d against these; impacts, -and has determined that the adverse environmental impacts are •
acceptable for, the reasons outlined herein.
The Board of'Supervisors finds that the proposed Project will -create the `following
benefits for the County of Butte and County residents (in no relative order): -
• ,.• • A S Continued supply of readily available high quality aggregate for use in local
-
4" public and private construction projects. At present, the County only has'. }
approximately 40 percent of its 50 -year demand for aggregate permitted. The
State Geologist/Division of Mines and Geology conducted a Mineral Land '
{ Classification Study for the Project site in 2000 and determined'the land was a
: • significant mineral deposit and classified. the land at MRZ-2a (Draft EIR, `.
' section 4.2:2, p. 4-2.1). ._
B. Protection and development' of,a significant aggregate resou: ce designated'
under the Mineral Land' Classification system by the California Department of
Conservation as a MRZ-2a. As explained in Draft EIR Section 3.4.3; the
f M&T .Chico RanchSite has been classified by the . State Geologist. This `
report classifies the site as MRZ-2a. for construction aggregates. - Mineral ;< "
4
• Resource Zone 2a is specifically defined as:
"Areas 'underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data
"?r indicate that significant measured or indicated resouwces are.
'".
Present., MRZ-2 is divided into MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b on the }.
basis of , degree of knowledge and economic factors. Areas , {
classified MRZ-2a contain discovered mineral deposits that are :...~'
either measured or indicated -reserves as determined -:)y such
evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface exposure, r "
and mine information. Land included in MRZ-2a is of prime ~'
importance because it contains known economic mineral `
deposits."
-..Total' Project reserves are estimated at over' 5.5 million cubic yards
"(approximately 8.25 million tons). The resources identified or_ the Project site-,
arer considered by the State to be excellent potential aggregate sources for use
t , in both ready -mix concrete and asphaltic concrete product. There is no other;
Page 11 of 15 '-
land, proximate or otherwise, in Butte County that the State Geologist has
classified as a significant mineral resource.
C. The Project will include fair share monetary contributions to improve and
maintain transportation facilities in the area including road pavement,
intersection safety, and Little Chico Creek Bridge reconstruction. Mitigation
Measure 4.6=1 requires the Applicant to contribute a fair share contribution to
reconstruct the Ord Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek. Mitigation Measure
4.6-2 requires the Applicant to contribute a fair share of the cost to improve
the pavement on River Road between Chico River Road ani the Project
access with a two-inch asphalt overlay. Mitigation Measure 4.6-9 requires the
Applicant to contribute a fair share of the cost to install a traffic signal and
improve lane configurations at the Durham -Dayton Highway _ and Midway
intersection.
D: Potential decrease in the use of fuels and transportation costs for trucking
aggregate to markets in Butte County and Chico compared with the current
Baldwin Contracting Company aggregate source on Stony Creek. Section
4.3.2 of the Final EIR cites that transportation costs are a sigrrificant part of
aggregate prices. In areas lacking nearby aggregate sources, delivery charges
may be greater than the sale price of the material at t=ze plant site.
Transportation is a key factor in underscoring the economic importance of
maintaining local aggregate sources. In many cases, for each 30 miles of haul
distance, the price per ton of delivered aggregate doubles. Since much of the
statewide use of aggregate is for public works projects (see Figure 4.0-1) each
doubling of the price of the construction aggregate means less public
improvements (e.g., roadway maintenance projects, public building
construction) can be accomplished for each public dollar.
E. Maintenance of adequate aggregate reserves available for futu-e use in Butte
County to account for population growth. Final EIR Section 4.3 provides a
collective response concerning comments received regarding tae necessity of
additional aggregate resources in Butte County. In the next 30 years (the
in permit time frame requested by the Applicant), the City of Chico
will consume over 20 million tons of aggregates (four times the total reserves
at the M&T Chico Ranch Mine site) while the County m a whole will
consume over 60 million tons. Over the next 50 years, Chiico will require -
more than 45 million tons, and the County will need nearly 130 million tons.
When compared to the current estimates of supply, the Count- may currently
have approximately 40 percent of its 50 -year demand and, without permitting
of additional reserves for development, could exhaust aggregate supplies
before 2030. While actual conditions will vary based on a number of factors,
including actual unreported supplies and production levels (which vary in
response to the economy and local growth), it is clear that the County will
need new aggregate production if demand is to be met.
Page.12 of 15
F. Extraction of a known valuable aggregate resource consistent with local and
state policy.
G. Potential to reduce impacts on transportation systems and reduce air quality
impacts if Baldwin Contracting Company's Stony Creek operation is replaced
by this facility, since the aggregate resource will be closer to tie Chico and
Butte County markets.
H. Highly regulated, responsible mining under carefully controlle=d conditions,
with the ability to revoke the individual permit at any time afte_ due process,
for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit
I. Creation of an opportunity for open space and new wildlife hab _tat areas after
Reclamation Plan implementation. The end use of the mine site will include
an over -wintering pond for waterfowl and associated aquatic. and wetland
fauna. The pond area shall become a managed wildlife preserve. Shallow
cuts along the perimeter of the pond will result in the creation of wetland areas
along the pond.
J. Maintenance of 100 -year flood plain, increased storage of floodwaters and
improved flood protection. As discussed under Final EIR 4.7.4 and Impact
4.4-8 (Page 4.4-76 of the Draft EIR), the creation of the proposed pond/pit
will result, at the end of operations, in approximately 1,OCO acre-feet of
available floodwater storage and the same amount of groundwater recharge.
This will be a sustained beneficial impact of the Project. Mitigation Measures
4.4-7a, b, and c provide approximately ten-year flood, pro _ection for the
created lake from overflows of Little Chico Creek and from local agricultural
runoff. For flows in Little Chico Creek exceeding approximately 2,000 cfs, or
for flooding from the Sacramento River which yields equivalent flood stages,
floodwaters will flow into the pond/lake, serving to reduce flood depths.
K. Protection of adjacent wells and generation of data relevant to groundwater
quality and quantity over a period of up to 30 years (life of operation) for use
by the State and County in gaining a greater understanding �of groundwater
resources in the area. Mitigation Measures 4.4-3e and 4.4-2c require that The
Applicant develop a groundwater monitoring program, approved by the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and by 3utte County.
L. Avoidance and reduction in reliance upon highly disturbing in -stream mining
and related environmental concerns associated with in -stream mining. The
Applicant's closest available source of aggregate is its mining operation at
Stony Creek near Hamilton City in Glenn County (located on SR -32). This
site is nearing depletion and is considered an in -stream mining operation. The
proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine is considered an "off channel" mine,
meaning that it is not located within a stream. The M&T Cliico Ranch Mine
is instead located on alluvial terraces away from environmentally sensitive in -
Page 13 of 15
stream mine sites.
M. Generation of employment opportunities associated with mining of
aggregates, required monitoring and reporting, construction associated with on
site facilities and improving and maintaining roadway facilities, and
restoration of wildlife areas.
N. Generation of employment opportunities for a locally based company Baldwin
'Contracting,' which employs approximately 200 people during peak
construction .season (approximately 80 employees are employed year round)
and has an annual payroll of more than 9 million dollars.
O.Generation of property and sales tax revenues.
The County finds that all of these benefits outweigh the risks associated with the
• identified unmitigated impacts. Accordingly, the County approves the attached Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 2), allowing the Project to move forward.
DECISION
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, EVIDENCE, AND THE RECORD AS A
WHOLE, the Butte County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the M&T Chico
.Ranch Mining Use Permit, Reclamation Plan (MIN 96-03, and Financial Assurances Cost
Estimate' (attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein -1, adopts the
attached Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit. 2), and. approves
the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3 and incorporated by referen-,e herein).
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Butte, State of .
California, at regular meeting of said Board, held on the day of , 2007, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT-.-
NOT
BSENT:NOT VOTING: -
JANE DOLAN, Chain
Butte County Board o Supervisors
ATTEST:
PAUL MCINTOSH, Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By:
Deputy
EXHIBIT I..
M & T CHICO RANCH MINE
Financial Assurances Cost Estimate
(Excerpted from November 2006 Reclamation Plan)
1) .Regrade pit areas- Side slopes will be left a stable angle per the reclamation plan.
Reclamation will occur yearly for those areas that have been depleted of aggregEtes.
Approximately 6 acres will be mined each year, which will result in an average •)f 607
feet of perimeter edge to reclaim each year. The remainder of the mined area wil be
underwater. Recontouring of the perimeterwill typically be done by D-8 class dozer.
a) Dozer Speed
Forward speed 2.2 miles per hour: 194 feet per minute.
.Return speed 6.0 mile per hour: 528 feet per minute.
Average dozer width per pass: 11 feet
b) Production Calculation
Number of passes required to cover pit area:
One time: 22' divided by 11 = 2 passes
Average pass length = 3,035 feet
Average forward speed: 194 feettminute
Use 199 feet/minute
Average return speed: 528 feet/minute
Use 528 feet/minute '
Change direction: .05 minutes
3035 feet divided by 194 feettminute = 15.64 minutes forward
3035 divided by 528 = 5.75 minutes return
Use 50 minute hours or .83 efficiency: 15.64 + 5.75 = 21.4 minutes
21.4 divided by .83 = 25.8 per complete pass
Add .05 minutes for change of direction: 25.8 minutes +.05 = 25.85 min
2 passes x 25.85 minutes per pass = 51:7 to cover area one time
Cover area 3 times to complete grading: 51.7 x 3 = 155.1
155.1 minutes divided by 60 minutes per hour = 2.6 hours
Use 3 hours
c) Equipment cost
D8 -K Dozer 3 hours x $150/hour = $450.00
Total Equipment cost: $450.00
d) Labor
Dozer Operator —3 hours x $59.25/hour = $177.75
Total Labor Costs = $177.75
Total Cost to Regrade pit area: $627.75
2) Topsoil Resp reading- If necessary, a one -foot thickness of topsoil will be respr.ad on
recontoured perimeter areas. Topsoil will be direct respread from adjacent areas to be
mined. Typical equipment to be used will be a 623 class tractor scraper and a 12.3 blade.
a) Production Calculation
Area to be respread = 22 ft x 3035 ft. = 66,770 SF
Volume to be respread = 66,770 SF 1 ft thick/27 = 2,473 CY (use 2,50C CY)
Scraper production = 15 loads per hour 20 CY / load = 300 CY
Scraper hours = 2500 / 300 = 8.3 (use 9 hours)
Area to blade = 66,770 SF
Blade production = 200, 000 SF per day = 26,000 SF per hour in 7.5 hour day
663770 / 26,000 = 2.57 hours (use 3 hours)
b) Equipment costs
9 hours x $182.00/hr = $1,638.00 for tractor scraper
3 hours x $ 56.30/hr = $168.90 for blade
c) Labor costs
Scraper operator 9 hours x $59.25 per hour = $533.25
Blade operator 3 hours x $63.00 per hour = $189.00
TOTAL COST TO RESPREAD TOPSOIL 52 ]
3) Equipment Removal
Activity to complete task: Dismantle plants, load onto trucks and haul to Chico.
Equipment to be moved: Tanks conveyors, screens, crushers, drier, baghouse
40 truckloads
a) Production Calculations
Dismantle and load out 40 truckloads of plant and plant -related equipment.
1. One 40 -ton truck crane with pickup — 4 days
2. Four Operating Engineers —10 days
3. 40 loads from M&T to Chico @ 1.5 hours each = 60 hours
4. Pilot cars: 10 loads @ 1.5 hours each =15 hours
.b)- Equipment costs
40 Ton Crane: 32 hours @$175.00/hour = $5,600.00
Pickup: 32 hours @$I1.00/hour = $352.0[
Lowbed or 40' Highbed 60 hours @ $80.00/hour = $4,800:70
Pilot Car 15 hours @ $50.00/hour = $750.00
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS $11.502.00
c) Labor
Operating Engineer 320 Hrs. @ $5925/hr $18,960.00
TOTAL LABOR $ 0
TOTAL TO REMOVE PLANT S_3%Q62.00
4) Regrade Plant Areas
Remove settling pond dikes, spread sediment over adjacent pit area, grade plant area
Scraper (623B) Production
15 loads/hr. @ 20 cy/Load = 300 cy/hr x 7.5 hrs./day = 2,250 cy/day
Est. quantity of Sediment: 400' x 400'. x 3' divided by 27 = 17,778 cy
17,778 CY divided by 2250 cy/day = 7.9 days (Use 8)
8 days @ 8 hrs/day = 64 hours
Blade (12G) Production
200,000 SF/Day to subgrade to +/- 0.25'
35 Acres x 43,560 SF/Acre = 1,524,600 SF
1,524,600 divided by 200,000 = 7.6 days (Use 8)
7 days @ 8 hrs/day = 56 hours
Item Summary:
623 Scraper: 64 hrs. @ $182.00/hr = $11,648.00
14 G Blade: 64 hrs. @ $56.30/hr = $3,603.20
Scraper operator 64 hours x $59.25 per hour = $3,792.00
Blade operator 64 hours x $63.00 per hour = $4,032.00
TOTAL TO REGRADE PLANT AREA IZL0 ?0
5) Revegetation — Approximately 15 acres of perimeter will be revegetated every five years.
Most, if not all this revegetation is expected to occur naturally as a result of volunteer
establishment of species present in the area. If necessary natural revegetation will be
augmented by planting as described in the Reclamation Plan. These planting.; will use
plant materials available on the M&T ranch. Plantings will be supervised and their
establishment monitored by a revegetation specialist. Since plant materials and planting
equipment are readily available at the M&T ranch, the only revegetation cosi are
expected to be for contracting with a revegetation specialist. For reclamation costs, it is
assumed that the maximum perimeter (3,035 ft.) must be reclaimed.
Annual Supervision of revegetation = 4 days x $960 per day = $3,840
Annual monitoring data collection, analysis and reporting=
10 days x $1,700 per day = 00
TOTAL REVEGETATION COSTS 511.840.00
3
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS:
Regrade pit area
$627.75
Topsoil respreading =
$2,529.15
Plant and equipment removal =
$30,462.00
Regrade plant areas —
$23,075.20
Revegetation costs =
$20,840.00
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS =
$77,534.10
The following items are taken from Pages A-12, A -I3, and A-14 included
in the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act Financial Assurance Guidelines:
6) Supervision — Taken from Graph 1
6.3% of cost $77,534.10 x .063 = $4,884.65
TOTAL COST OF SUPERVISION
$4,884.65
7) Overhead and Profit -Taken from Graph 2
14% of cost = $77,534.10 x. 14 = $10,854.77
TOTAL COST OF O/H AND PROFIT
$10,854.77
8) Contingencies — Taken from table on Page A-12
04500,000 use 10%$77,534.10 x.10=$7,753.41
TOTAL COST OF CONTINGENCIES
$7,753.41
9) Mobilization and Permits Lumo Sum
$2.500.00
TOTAL RECLAMATION COSTS
$103.526.93
4
EXHIBIT 2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
• APPROVAL OF THE M&T CHICO RANCH
LONG-TERM OFF -CHANNEL MINING PROJECT
In approving the M&T Chico Ranch Mine (also referred to herein as "Project") which is
evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan (State Clearinghouse No 97022080) ("EIR" ),
the County makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in ;support of its
findings on the EIR and in support of the Project. The Board of Suoervisors has
considered the information contained in the EIR, and has fully reviewed and considered
the public testimony and record in this proceeding. _
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Board of Supervisors finds that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh. its
acknowledged environmental consequences. As such, a statement Df overriding
considerations is hereby adopted.
The Board of Supervisors hereby. finds and declares, based upon substantial evidence in
the entire record, that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of
the M&T Chico Ranch Mine outweigh the Project's acknowledged environmental
impacts. The Findings of the Board of Supervisors set forth in Exhibit 1 identify the
environmental impacts of the Project, as well as feasible mitigation measures which have
been incorporated into the Project. In addition, the Findings reject the .Project
alternatives as infeasible.
For that environmental impact which remains individually significant after the imposition
of feasible mitigation measures, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The environmental analysis contained within Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR concluded that.
the following impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable fcr the proposed
Project:
Impact 4.5.-5: Addition to Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hot Spots
Under both with, and without batch plant scenarios, certain intersections in the vicinity of
the Project will experience congestion under cumulative conditions. Carbon monoxide
emissions from vehicle traffic will increase at congested intersections cue to increased
idling time. Under Butte County Air Quality Management District thresholds of
significance, the creation of a CO hot spot is a significant impact.
Page 1 of 9
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce traffic congestion at he 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
and unavoidable impact.
Impact 4.6-4: Highway 32/West 51h Street Intersection
The proposed Project will add 10 or more trips per day to the intersection of State
Highway 32/West 5th 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 velri_ Iles. This is
considered a significant impact.
The intersection of SR-32/West 5th Street has had a total of 13 accidents over the last
three years with 6 occurring in 1997. Two of the accidents in 1997 involved heavy
vehicles. In 1999, seven accidents occurred with no heavy vehicle involvement.
Accident data provided by the California Department of Transportation (`'Caltrans") for
this location revealed that all accidents were due to driver behavior. Field observations
revealed there are no significant obstacles blocking site distance, no significant grades
(level terrain), and adequate signing and striping. However, signal phEsing could be
improved to increase safety. Currently there are protected left -turns Xor the SR -32
approaches and permitted_ left turns for the West 5th Street approaches. With permitted
phasing, vehicles turning left must yield to opposing through and right -tu=n movements.
Field observations also revealed the absence of all -red time at this intersection;
consequently, vehicles are not able to clear the intersection between signal phases.
The following Mitigation Measure is set -forth:
Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Baldwin Contracting Company (`Baldwin") shall contribute a
fair share contribution to improve the intersection of State Route 32/West 5th 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 not be based upon the relative proportion of ?roject vehicles
traveling through the impacted intersection.
The level of significance after implementation, however, is still consi&red significant
and unavoidable: The Mitigation Measure will nevertheless be implemented as a
condition of the Mining Permit as it will improve conditions at the interse3-,tion.
Impact 4.6-5: Park Avenue/East 20th Street/East Park Avenue
The pr?Xosed Project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions on Park Avenue from
East 20 Street to East Park Avenue under cumulative conditions.-
Page
onditions:
Page 2 of 9
The segment of Park Avenue between East 201h Street and East Park Avenue is expected
to operate at LOS F under cumulative no Project conditions. The addition of Project trips
will exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions. Possible mitigation measures would
include physically expanding the facility or rerouting Project traffic. The physical
constraints of this roadway segment (i.e., city streets with pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, minimal setbacks to existing buildings) prohibit expansion from four to six
lanes. Project trips may be rerouted to avoid this roadway segment, however, this is
difficult to enforce. The cumulative no project daily traffic volume on this roadway
segment is 36,000. The Project will add an additional 20 trips to this segment. This
represents less than 1 percent increase in traffic. Therefore, the impact of Project trips
being added to this roadway segment will be minimal yet significant based upon the
criteria listed in the Impacts and Mitigation Measures section of the Draft EIR.
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of impact to this roadway segment.
This is considered a significant unavoidable impact.
Impact 4.6-6: East Park Avenue/Park Avenue/Highway 99
The proposed Project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions on East Park Avenue
from Park Avenue to Highway 99 under cumulative conditions. ,
The segment of East Park Avenue between Park Avenue and Highway 99 is expected to
operate at LOS F under cumulative no project conditions. The addition of.Project trips
will exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions. Possible mitigation measures would
include physically expanding the facility or rerouting Project traffic. The physical
constraints of this roadway segment (i.e., city streets with pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, minimal setbacks to existing buildings) prohibit expansion from four to six
lanes. Project trips may be rerouted to avoid this roadway segment, however, this is
difficult to enforce. The cumulative no project daily traffic volume on this roadway
segment is 40,000. The Project will add an additional 40 trips to this segmenta This
represents a less than 1 percent increase in traffic. Therefore, the impact of Project trips
being added to this roadway segment will be minimal yet significant based upon the
criteria listed in Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section of the Draft EIR. .
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of impact to this roadway segment.
This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Impact 4.6-7: Bruce Road/Highway 32/Skyway
The proposed Project will exacerbate LOS E operating conditions on Bruce Road from
Highway 32 to Skyway under cumulative conditions.
The segment of Bruce Road between Highway 32 and Skyway is expected to operate at
LOS E under cumulative no project conditions. The addition of Project trips will
exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions: Possible mitigation measures would
include physically expanding the facility or rerouting Project traffic. The physical
Page 3 of 9
constraints of this roadway segment (i.e., city streets with pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, minimal setbacks to existing buildings) prohibit expansion from four to six
lanes. Project trips may be rerouted to avoid this roadway segment, however, this is
difficult to enforce. The cumulative no project daily traffic volume on this roadway
segment is 31,500. The Project will add an additional 30 trips to this segment: This
represents a lestraffic. , than 1 percent increase in trac. Therefore, the impact of Project trips,
being added to this roadway segment will be minimal yet significant based upon the
criteria listed in the Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section of the Draft EIR.
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the. level of impact to this roadway segmenta
This is considered a significant unavoidable impact.
Impact 4.6-8: Baldwin Plant Driveway/Skyway
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 intersections of the Baldwin Plant driveway and
Skyway under cumulative conditions.
The intersection of the Baldwin Plant driveway and Skyway is expected to operate at
LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour under cumulative no
project conditions. The addition of Project trips will exacerbate unacceptable operating
conditions. The peak hour volume signal warrant contained in the Traffic Manual,,
Caltrans, July 1995, is not met at this location due to the low volumes at the driveway to
the Baldwin Plant.
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, and this will be reflected as a condition of the Mining
Permit. In addition, signalization of the Skyway/Honey Run Road (anticipated by 2005)
may provide sufficient gaps in through traffic on Skyway to improve ingress and egress
from the driveway. However, no feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of
impact to this roadway segment. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Board of Supervisors specifically finds that to the extent theidentified significant
adverse impacts have not been mitigated to less -that -significant levels, the benefits
identified in Exhibit A (Section J) of these findings support approval of the proposed
Project and entitlements, as follows:
Fiscal and Economic Considerations
1. Continued supply of readily available aggregate for use in local public and
private construction projects.
2. Generation of property and sales tax revenues.
3. Generation of employment opportunities associated with mining of
aggregates, required monitoring and reporting, construction associated with on
Page 4 of 9
site facilities and improving and maintaining roadway facilities, and
restoration of wildlife areas.
4. Generation of employment opportunities for locally based company Baldwin,
Which employs approximately 200 people during peak construction season
(approximately 80 employees are employed year round) and has an annual
payroll of more than 9 million dollars.
5. Protection and development of a significant aggregate resour:e designated
under the Mineral Land Classification system by the California Department of
Conservation as a MRZ-2a. As explained in Draft EIR Section 3.4.3, the
M&T Chico Ranch Site has been classified by the State Geologist. This
report classifies the site as MRZ-2a for construction aggregates. Mineral
Resource Zone 2a is specifically defined as:
Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate
that significant measured or'indicated resources are present.. MRZ-
2 is divided into MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b on the basis of de -gree of
knowledge and economic factors. Areas classified PARZ-2a
contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measssured or
indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling
records, sample analysis, surface exposure, and mine info.-mation.
Land included in MRZ-2a. is of prime importance because it
contains known economic mineral deposits.
Total Project reserves are estimated at over 5.5 million cubic yards
(approximately 8.25 million tons). The resources identified on the Project site
are considered by the State to be excellent potential aggregate sources for use
in both ready -mix concrete and asphaltic concrete product.
6. Potential decrease in the use of fuels and transportation costs for trucking
aggregate to markets in Butte County and Chico compared with the current
Baldwin aggregate. source on Stony Creek. Section 4.3.2 3f the Final EIR
cites that transportation costs are a significant part of aggregate prices. In
areas lacking nearby aggregate sources, delivery charges may be greater than
the sale price of the material at the plant site. Transportation is a key factor in
underscoring the economic importance of maintaining local aggregate
sources. In many cases, for each 30 miles of haul distance, the price per ton of
delivered aggregate doubles. Since much of the statewide use of aggregate is
for public works projects (see Figure 4.0-1) each doubling of the price of the
construction aggregate means less public improvements (e.g., roadway
maintenance projects, public building construction) can be accomplished for
each public dollar.
7. Extraction of a known valuable aggregate resource consistent with local and
state policy.
Social Considerations
1: Generation of employment opportunities associated with mining of
aggregates, required monitoring and reporting, construction associated with on
site facilities and improving and maintaining roadway facilities, and
restoration of wildlife areas.
2. Generation of employment opportunities for locally based company Baldwin
Contracting,_ . which employs approximately 200 people during peak
construction. season (approximately 80 employees are employed year round)
and has an annual payroll of more than 9 million dollars.
3. Maintenance of adequate aggregate reserves available for future use in Butte
County to account for population growth. Section 4.3 of the Final EIR
provides a collective response concerning comments received- regarding the
necessity of additional aggregate resources in Butte County. [n the next 30
years (the maximum permit time frame requested by the Applicant), the City
of Chico will consume over 20 million tons of aggregates (four times the total
reserves at the M&T Chico Ranch Mine site) while the County as a whole will
consume over 60 million tons. Over the next 50 years, Chino will require
more than 45 million tons, and the County will need nearly 120 million tons.
When compared to the current estimates of supply, the County- may currently
have approximately 40 percent of its 50 -year demand and, witaout permitting
of additional reserves for development, could exhaust agg-egate supplies
before 2030. While actual conditions will vary based on a number of factors,
including actual unreported supplies, and production levels (which vary in
response to the economy and local growth) it is clear that the County will need
new aggregate production if demand is to be met.
4. Potential to reduce impacts on transportation systems and reduce air quality,
impacts if Baldwin's Stony Creek operation is replaced by this facility, since
the aggregate resource will be closer to the Chico and Butte County markets.
5. Highly regulated, responsible mining under carefully controlled conditions,
with the ability to revoke the individual permit at any time a -ter due process,
for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the perrut.
6. Creation of an opportunity for open space and new wildlife habitat areas after
Reclamation Plan implementation. The end use of the mine site will include
an over -wintering pond for waterfowl and associated aquatic and wetland
fauna. The pond area shall become a managed wildlife preserve. Shallow
cuts along the perimeter of the pond will result in the creation of wetland areas
along the pond.
Safety Considerations
1 Maintenance of 100 -year flood plain, increased storage of floodwaters and
improved flood protection. As discussed under Final EIR 4.7.4 and Impact
4.478 (Page 4.4-76 of the Draft EIR), the creation of the proposed pond/pit
will result, at the end of operations, in approximately L,000 acre-feet of
available floodwater storage and the same amount of groundwater recharge.
This will be a sustained beneficial impact of the Project. M_tigation Measures
Page 6 of 9
4:4-7a, b, and c provide approximately ten-year flood protection for the
created lake from overflows of Little Chico Creek and from local agricultural
runoff. For flows in Little Chico Creek exceeding approximately 2,000 cfs, or
for flooding from the Sacramento River which yields equivalent flood stages,
floodwaters will flow into the pond/lake, serving to reduce flood depths.
2 Protection of adjacent wells and generation of data relevant to groundwater
quality and quantity over a period of up to 30 years (life of operation) for use
by the State and County in gaining a greater understanding of groundwater
resources in the area. Mitigation Measures 4.4-3e and 4.4-2c requires that the
applicant develop a groundwater monitoring program, approved by the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County.
3 The Project will include fair share monetary contributions to improve and
maintain transportation facilities in the area including road pavement,
intersection safety, and Little Chico Creek Bridge reconstruction. Mitigation
Measure 4.6-1 requires the applicant to contribute a fair share contribution to
reconstruct the Ord Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek. Mitigation Measure
4.6-2 requires the applicant to contribute a fair share of the cost to improve the .
pavement on River Road between Chico River Road and the Project access
with a two-inch asphalt overlay. Mitigation Measure 4.6-9 requires the
applicant to contribute a fair share of the cost to install a traffic signal and
improve lane configurations at the Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway
intersection.
Scientific and Educational Considerations
1. Protection of adjacent wells and generation of data relevant to groundwater
quality and quantity over a period of up to 30 years (life of operation) for use
by the State and County in gaining a greater understanding of groundwater
_resources in the area. Mitigation Measures 4.4-3e and 4.4-2c requires that the
applicant develop a groundwater monitoring program, approved by the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County.
Environmental Considerations
1 Creation of an opportunity for open space and new wildlife habitat areas after
Reclamation Plan implementation. The end use of the mine site will include
an over -wintering pond for waterfowl and associated aquatic and wetland
fauna. The pond area shall become a managed wildlife preserve. Shallow
cuts along the perimeter of the pond will result in the creation of wetland areas
along the pond.
2. Avoidance and reduction in reliance upon highly disturbing in -stream mining
and related environmental concerns associated with in -stream mining.
Baldwin's closest available source of aggregate is its mining operation at
Stony Creek near Hamilton City in Glenn County (located on SR -32). This
site is nearing depletion and is considered an in -stream mining operation. The
proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine is considered an "off channel" mine,
meaning that it is not located within a stream. The M&T Chico Ranch'Mine
Page 7 of 9
is instead located on alluvial terraces away from environmentally sensitive in -
stream" mine sites.
3. Potential decrease in the use of fuels and transportation costs for trucking
aggregate to markets in Butte County and Chico compared with the current
Baldwin aggregate source on Stony Creek. Section 4.3.2 of the Final EIR
cites. that transportation costs are a significant part of aggregate prices. In
areas lacking nearby aggregate sources, delivery charges may be greater than
the sale price of the material at the plant site. Transportation is a key factor in
underscoring the' economic importance of maintaining local aggregate
sources. In many cases, for each 30 miles of haul distance, the price per ton of
delivered aggregate doubles. Since much of the statewide use of aggregate is
for public works projects (see Figure 4.0-1) each doubling of the price of the
construction aggregate means less public improvements (e.g., roadway
_maintenance projects, public building construction) can be accomplished for "
each public dollar.
4. Potential to reduce impacts on transportation systems and reduce air quality
impacts if Baldwin's Stony Creek operation is replaced by this facility, since
the aggregate resource will be closer to the Chico and Butte County markets.
The Board of Supervisors has balanced these environmental benefits considerations
against the unavoidable and irreversible environmental risks identified in the EIR and
has concluded that those impacts are outweighed by these environmental benefits,
among others. Upon balancing the environmental risk and countervailing
environmental benefits, the Board of Supervisors has concluded that the
environmental benefits that the County will derive from the implementation of the
Project, when combined with the other beneficial considerations discussed in this
Section, outweigh those environmental risks.
CONCLUSION
1. The Project includes an EIR prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The
Board of Supervisors has independently determined that this EIR fully and
adequately addresses the impacts and mitigations of the proposed operation.
2. The number of project alternatives identified and considered in the EIR meet the
test of "reasonable" analysis and provide the Board of Supervisors with important
information from which to make an informed decision.
3. Public noticing and involvement in the process, as demonstrated in the record,
were also extraordinary.
4. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates various benefits and
,considerations including fiscal and economic, social, safety, scientific and
educational and environmental which the County would derive and/or face from
Ahe implementation of the Project.
Page 8 of 9
5. The Board of Supervisors has balanced these Project benefits and considerations
against the unavoidable and irreversible environmental risks identifi--d in the EIR
and has concluded that those impacts are outweighed by the Prcject benefits.
Upon balancing the environmental risk and countervailing Project benefits, the
Board of Supervisors has.concluded that the benefits that the County will derive
from the implementation of the Project, as compared to the existing and planned
future conditions, outweigh those environmental risks.
6. The Board of Supervisors believes that the above -referenced Project benefits
override the significant, unavoidable and irreversible environmental impacts
identified with the Project EIR.
Therefore, for the reasons enumerated above, the Board of Supervisors finds that
any remaining effects on the environment attributable to the Project, which are found to. '
be unavoidable in the preceding Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the overriding .
concerns set forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
I
EXHIBIT 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR M&T CHICO RANCH MINING USE PERMIT
AND RECLAMATION PLAN (MIN 06-03 BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY)
1. This Mining Use Permit allows the extracting, processing, and sale of up to
5,500,000 cubic yards of aggregates within Assessor Parcels 039-530-019 and
020 ("Project") in accordance with County ordinances and land use regulations
subject to the following terms and conditions. This approval also allows
construction of facilities ancillary to the mining project and related i-_nprovements.
2. Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval of
application and issuance of the Mining Use Permit constitutes cause for the
revocation of said permit in accordance with the procedures _ set forth in the
County Zoning Ordinance, including County Code Sec. 24-45.65.
3. Unless otherwise provided for in a special condition to this Mining Use Permit, all
conditions must be completed.prior to or concurrently with the establishment of
the granted use. Owner/Operator shall commence operations within 5 (five) years
from the date of issuance of the final permit. Should operations not commence
within said 5 (five) years the final permit shall expire and become void, unless
extended by the Planning Commission prior to expiration.
4. Amendments to an approved Mining Use Permit may be submitted to the
Planning Commission, detailing proposed changes to the original plan.
Substantial deviations from the original plan shall not be undertaken until such
amendments have .been filed with and approved by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall set a public hearing regarding such amendments
in the same manner as provided for in County Code Section 134C7.
5. The terms and conditions of this permit shall run with the land and shall be
binding upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors,
and assigns of Owner/Operator.
6. Financial assurances to ensure compliance with the approved ]=reclamation Plan
shall be in place to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Development Services or his/her designee prior to the establishment of the
approved mining use. Financial assurances have been initiEIly calculated at
$103,526.93.
7. Prior to use of the site for the proposed use Owner/Operator shall contact the
Planning Division for a field inspection to verify that all conditions and ordinance
requirements have been met.
Planning Division
8. All Reclamation work shall be in substantial compliance with the approved
Reclamation Plan.
9. All mine operations shall comply with the Project Description and Mining Use
Permit application as submitted and approved and set forth in the M&T Chico
Ranch Certified Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EW'), dated October
2003.
M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 1 of 6
10. Annual inspection of the mine shall be conducted in accordance with the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act. All applicable inspection fees shall be paid in
accordance with adopted rates.
11. Mine Operation and Reclamation shall be in accordance with fhe Mitigation
Measures contained within the Final EIR incorporated herein by reference.
12. All Mitigation Measures as identified in the Final EIR for the M&T Chico Ranch.,
Mine are adopted as conditions of this Mining Use Permit and as such the
Mitigation Measures have full weight and authority in the sane manner as
conditions of the Mining Use Permit.
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting shall commence and proceed in accordance
with the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan referenced within the Final EIR.
The owner/operator is responsible for all costs associated with monitoring and
reporting activities including but not limited to the hourly rate of County staff
time, as approved by.the Board of Supervisors and as amended, and any contract
services as may be necessary to conduct such work on behalf of the County as
determined by the Director or designee.
14.. Mining, processing, maintenance and load -out activities shall occur from 7:00 am
to 5:00 pm (nine hours per day) from November through April, ar_d from 6:00 am
to 5:00 pm (ten hours per day) from May through October. Operations shall take
place five days per week; however, Saturday operations may occur sporadically to
meet customer demands. Aggregate load -out for delivery to the plant could also
occasionally, not to exceed 30 times per year to be verified by log book, begin by
5:00 am. Only during times of declared emergency (when aggregate resources
are needed to address flood damage or other natural disaster) either under
executive order from the State or County, operations are allowed 24 hours until
such time as the emergency is declared over.
15. Prior to establishment of the use, the Owner/Operator shall obtzin County Board
of Supervisors approval of the partial California Land Conservation Act
(Williamson Act) immediate cancellation request or cetermination of
compatibility.
Butte County Air Quality Management District
16. The Butte County Air Quality Management District requires Owner/Operator to
obtain an Authority to Construct Permit to operate. Owner,Operator shall be
required to implement all emission controls necessary to assure specified limits
are not exceeded on both mobile sources (mining equipment) and stationary
sources (processing facilities). As noted within the Draft EIR for Impact 4.5-2
(Page 4.5-30) all diesel fueled construction -type equipment shall be required to
meet the emission reduction requirements recently set by ,the California Air
Resources Board ("CARB"). An equipment inventory shall be maintained at the
project site and available for review by District staff. All equipment shall be
maintained and kept in proper repair per manufacturer's maintenance schedules.
M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 2 of 6
Department of Public Works
17. Prior to operations Owner/Operator shall construct improvements to River Road
at the Project's entrance, including acceleration/deceleration lanes, turn pockets,
signing and striping. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Butte County
Public Works Department prior to construction.
18. Prior to operations Owner/Operator shall provide improvements to the median
crossing at the Baldwin Plant site driveway and the Skyway. Improvements to
include acceleration and deceleration lanes, improved signing and striping, and
channelization of the driveway approach. Improvement plans shall be approved
by the Butte County Public Works Department prior to construction.
19. The project Applicant shall contribute its fair share of the costs to improve the
pavement on River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road with a
two-inch asphalt concrete overlay. The fair share amount shall be based on the
increase in ESALs, which is 51%. Butte County Public Works estimates the cost
of this improvement to be approximately $1,200,000. Therefore, the Applicant's
fair share cost would be about $40,000 per year. The Public Works Department
has indicated that the fee shall be submitted annually based on the tonnage of
material that is hauled from the project site and shall be relative to an inflation
index. Based on the information contained in Table 4.6-9, the cost per ton of
material hauled from the project site would be approximately $0.08.
20. The project applicant shall contribute its fair share of the cost to maintain the
asphalt concrete pavement on the following roads over the 30 year life of the
proj ect:
• 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
M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 3 of 6
operator into the Butte County Road Fund, and shall be adjusted for inflation
based upon the change in the Construction Cost Index for San Francisco, during
the month of January of each year. These fees shall cease to be collected should
the County impose a countywide tax or fee for road maintenance based upon
weight of materials moved over the roads.
21. Prior to establishment of the use Applicant shall provide a fully executed
agreement to preserve, maintain, restore and or repair in perpetuity, any and all
mitigation improvements constructed or required as a condition of this project.
These improvements shall include, but are not limited to, any weirs, dykes,
levees, channels, berms or other flood control devices. All repairs shall be
completed in a, timely manner in conformance with the adopted mitigation
measures. This agreement shall be recorded and shall run with the land. In order
to insure compliance with this condition, applicant provide a performance bond,
cash depositor other County approved security; in an amount equal to 100% of
the construction costs of said improvements. Said security shall be adjusted
annually using the change in Engineering News Record Construc_ion Cost Index
for San Francisco as the basis for adjustment. The County, at its sole discretion,
shall have the authority to call said bond and use the proceeds to perform the
required work. Nothing contained in this condition shall be so construed as to
attach any liability to the County for its actions or failures to � act in order to
preserve any of the improvements required by this project.
Environmental Health Division
22. Owner/Operator shall a receive a Hazardous Material Release and Response Plan
(Health and Safety Code 25500 et seq.) (Business Plan) for hazardous -materials
inventory and emergency response planning.
23. Owner/Operator shall receive a septic and domestic water well; permit from the
Environmental Health Division prior to site development for waste water disposal
and drinking water.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
24. If there is a conflict between the mining operations and the PG&E natural- gas
line,. Owner/Operator will be responsible for the relocation of t=ze PG&E gas line
and all associated costs, along with the acquisition of new rights of ways.
25. Weights of all mining equipment shall be provided to PG&E to ensure that
weights will not damage gas lines.
26. Any use of PG&E easements shall require a review and consent of PG&E. Upon
review a consent agreement would be prepared if the use is app-opriate.
M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 4 of 6
.a
Mosquito Abatement
27. Owner/Operator shall be required to comply with Butte County -Mosquito and
Vector Control District requirements for the cost of any future mosquito control
work performed by the District at the Project site. This shall include stocking the
pond with mosquito fish to prey on and control mosquito larvae.
State and Federal Requirements and Conditions
28. Owner/Operator shall comply with the Clean Water Act and obtain all necessary
approvals, including a 404 Permit for fill or disturbance of wetlands and other
waters of the United States.
29. Owner/Operator shall comply with the Federal Endangered SpecieE Act, including
a Section 10a Permit for incidental take of federally -listed threatened or
endangered species or their habitat, if any.
30. Owner/Operator shall comply with the California Endangered Species Act, and
obtain all necessary permits, including a Section 2081 Permit (Fish and Game
Code 208 1) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code 1603) for
incidental take of State -listed threatened/endangered species or habitat (if
anticipated) for possible impacts, if determined to the Swainsori s hawk and for
any new stream crossings.
31. Owner/Operator shall comply with the following Regional Water Quality Control
Board requirements, and obtain all necessary approvals, including:
a) NPDES Permit or Waste discharge requirements Permit CFR Title 40, Section
436, Subpart B, for on-site gravel washing and discharge of wash water to on-
site settling basins.
b) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to construction activities used to
identify potential pollutants and to eliminate or reduce the amount of
pollutants. entering surface waters. ;
c) General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit is required .if there are storm
water discharges to surface waters.
d) A Review of Groundwater Monitoring Plan prior to approval by the County.
32. Owner/Operator shall comply with the following California Department of Water.
Resources, Reclamation Board requirements, and obtain all necessary approvals,
including:
a) A Construction Activity Storm Water Permit for any construction activities
where clearing, grading, filling and excavation result in a land disturbance of
five acres or more.
b) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be in place prior to
construction activities.
c) Compliance with the California Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act for
owners and operators of above ground petroleum storage tanks to file a
storage statement and prepare a federal spill prevention and control
M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 5 of 6
countermeasure plan.
d) A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for projects needing an
Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit; this certification must verify that the
project does not violate State Water Quality Standards:
33. Owner/Operator shall receive a State Board of Reclamation Encroazhment Permit
(CCR. Title 23 Section 135) for any encroachment that could reduce or impede
flood flows, or would reclaim any of the floodplain within the 3utte Basin, if
necessary.
Agricultural Commissioner's Office
34.- Prior to Mining Permit issuance, submit a Weed Management Plan to the -
Agricultural Commissioner's Office for review and Approval.
Butte County Counsel
35. If this entire matter or any finding, action or condition of this matter is
appealed to the Board of Supervisors, .Baldwin or any other developer/operator
other than Baldwin agrees to indemnify the County of Butte from liability or loss
related, to the approval of this project and agrees to sign an. indemnification
agreement in a form approved by County Counsel before the Board's appeal
hearing. If the application is not appealed, these conditions of approval are
deemed satisfied.
Attachment: Table A
M & T Mining (UP 96-03)
Page 6 of 6
Truck
128
SY of roadway one chip seal 586432 Chip Seal Cost/SY S2.10 cost/seal 51.Zjl.nur.zu
3 seals to 30 years $3,694,521.60
over all M & T % 12.5% M & T cost 5462,473.85 '
Cost per ton S0.06