Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT E (2)0 U � 0 � f �aIt CURVE TABLE - 1*% CURVE Ri1D1US DELTA LENG 750.00' 14'57'00' i C2 795.69' % 550.00': / 17'00' 1 08' -� / C1. C,3 63..•21' 860.00' 1319'03'. C4. 800.00• 13T8'1 ' - / 5 190:41' 5 4000.00' ..,4'41.' 5' 327.44' �. 525.00' 17'18'41' 1 -C2 C7 58.b2' x•00' 9 19'28' 141.4ca ' oa 210.0048'26'57' . 177.58' 5"Q4'33. C10 Op' 1.4.'44'4$' 248.3 1 985: TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH RANGE I WEST rw -C* AMOUNT DIABLO MERIDI-.AN POINT OF BEGINNING lot - LEGEND LEGEND ;A Ls iM&T 0AACHnwAlascN 2a� I-- �2 a --=+L.J • ACT CANCELLATION PARCEL �1�,.0 - t� 0 -X 106.6 ACRES f ej .�.y��. L9 .. L1 , UNE TABLE �'9 Ca �✓ C� jl LINE ---DIRECTION DISTANCE " Lt SO 12'38'W-+ 38'W212.85' �� C7-) S 012'46"W 475.09' L3 475.09' so - L4 615.12' C8 SO '32-E 253 87'. L5 S0513'11'E L6 S0T23'03'E 715.66' CIO L7 a 486.37' S02'41'38'E 891:93' _ L8 520'00'i 'E' L1., L9 333.41' tip L! N64''13 : E 12212' o . 110 S50'15'23'E Li l S34'41_'03'W302:49' 4+as L12 r S13'45'54'E L13 ' S0178'39'W 281.20 498:50' L14 S16'03'27'W 147:04' 115. S00'05'02'E. 63.27' L16 S7813150a L9 7 S4�.25' W 55248' L18 S8414'48'W 588.20' 519.43' ti CPAWN BY --LS- OAr-- �1NE.2004 CHEClt© J.M.H. ------ FLAT TO ACCOM P A�1 � TrT Rs r� r �- �_. SGILZ 1 1000' ., NON -RENEWAL PARCEL DEISCR1PTI,rl�...� 0 PROJECT qr, • a -+...-.e +tit • �'�`�`.'"� R0 PID . = Project Loca DRAWN @ 7 h �. E..>��_� } ).�� �;r= z PLAT. TO ACCOMPANY �►iT RANCH cH�at�n Q.U.N. SCXZ R01SCA_LE NON—RENEWAL PARCEL DESCRIPT]Glti t y i I SAND SG NZ,� PROJECT j � � - � NO.PLS 5616 � of VA �9j•+A9�30ib -. RO A� _ Project Locato DRAWN BY NS. E. OA -r DECEMBER, 200`4 PLAT TO ACCOMPANYM�eT RANCH EXHIBIT � CHECKED�•�•N• SCALE NO � SCALENON—RENE�� " PARCEL .2 Of- SCRIPT)(DiN t ` � rn ,3'� J32 e 3 U CURVE TABLE _ M&T RANCH �C8 CURVE RADIUS 'DELTA LENGTH WILLIAMSON 3 C1 500:00' 7'44-'34 81.013' AI:T NDN- C2 600.00' 11'44'3.0" . 122.96' � ;6 REC�EW,AL C3 150.00' 702915 184.54' C4100.00' 67'18'51" 117.49' PARCEL 2 co o C5400.00' . 1-2:1-9'36" 86.06' crn 43.75 ACRES± S C6 450.00' 20'45'57" 163.10' F CS p C 7 u� - 750.00' 20'53'53" 273:56.' E Ca 80.00' 29'57'08" 41.82' w . C-4 - wl U J 9' TRUE POINT • C2 51�� OF BEGINNING�� Cl /g' NI PARCEL i - LINE TABLE LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH 3T L1 N11'44'22"W ' RANGE 1 WEST II 261.97 MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN =r L2 N07'44'42"E 256.51' N62'44'33' W l3. - � of POINT OF L4 N04'34'18"E 107.37' zCOMMENCEMENT t5 - N07'45'18"W 295.95' _ LL8 N14'14'02"W 95.9 23 r7a N06'31'S6"E 26 -25 326.61' N14'21'S7"W 398.74' I CRAwr, 9Y NS. E. DATE DECEMBER, 2004 -PLAT TO ACCOMPANY M&:T RANCH EXHIBIT CHECKED JMH SCALE 1" = 500' NON -RENEWAL PARCEL 2 DESCRIPTION m DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ATTACHMENT F MINES AND GEOLOGY DMG OPEN -FILE REPORT 2000-04 MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION OF THE KRC HOLDINGS, INC. M&T CHICO RANCH SITE, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 'FOR CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE RESOURCES • rIII STATE OF CAUFORNIA "GRAY DAVIS THE RESOURCES AGENCY GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MARY NICHOLS. DARRYL YOUNG SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DIRECTOR • DIVISIONOFMINESAND GEOLOGY JAMESF. DA VIS STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2000 by the Califomia Department of Conservation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the Department of Conservation. 'The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose.' STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Governor DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION •DMSION OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DIVISION OF OIL, GAS AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES DMSION OF RECYCLING Q 601 K Street SACRAMENTO, CA 95 61 4 3 5 28 Phorw (916)122-1080 FAX (216)445-07= TDO (916)12A-2666 OPEN -FILE REPORT RELEASE OFR 2000-04 "Mineral Land Classification of the KRC Holdings, Inc. M&T Chico Ranch Site, Butte County, California, for Construction Aggregate Resources" by John P. Clinkenbeard; Associate Engineering Geologist, 18 page report. SUMMARY: This report was prepared in response to a petition received by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) from KRC Holdings, Inc. an February 2, 2000. The petition requested that a property in western Butte County be classified for construction aggregate resources under the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). The petition was transmitted to the State Geologist for preliminary evaluation to determine: 1) the quality of the economic -geologic data provided by the petitioner, 2) the likelihood of the property receiving the classification requested by the petitioner, and 3) if present or near -future land use in the immediate area indicates that. Mineral Land Classification is advisable. After a review of the State Geologist's preliminary evaluation, the SMGB accepted the petition on March 9, 2000. A field examination of the M&T Chico Ranch site was conducted on April 5, 2000. The State Geologist has investigated and subsequently classified as MRZ-2a a portion of the Ord Ferry Quadrangle, Butte County, for construction aggregate. The property, referred to as the M&T Chico Ranch site, is currently leased by KRC Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Baldwin Contracting Company. This study is an evaluation of the aggregate potential of the approximately 627- acre M&T Chico Ranch site based • upon field and laboratory data provided by the petitioner, KRC Holdings, Inc. A field examination of the site was Oconducted on April 5, 2000. This report explains the classification of the property and presents the conclusions reached in this study. It is intended for the use of the SMGB, the petitioner, and the lead agencies that have decision-making authority over this 1 property under SMARA. For a mineral deposit to be considered significant and therefore eligible for MRZ-2 classification, it must meet criteria established by the SMGB for material quality, marketability, and economic value. The significance of the resources was determined by evaluating the quality. of the deposit and its suitability as a marketable commodity, and by calculating the available volume, tonnage, and value of aggregate resources contained within the property. Data necessary to evaluate the property were compiled from geologic literature, proprietary company files; and limited field study by the Division of ' Mines and Geology (DMG) staff. AVAILABILM: The Open -File Report is available for reference at the Division of Mines and Geology offices in ' Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles. OFFICES OF THE DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ' GEOLOGIC INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS 801 K STREET MS 14-33 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (Reference copies, over-the-counter sales, DMG OFR mail orders) SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL OFFICE, 185 BERRY STREET, SUITE 210 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 (Reference copies, over-the-counter sales) ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL OFFICE 655,SOUTH HOPE STREET, #700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 (Reference copies,over-the-counter sales) OPEN -FILE REPORT 2000-04 MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION OF THE KRC HOLDINGS, INC. M&T CHICO I RANCH SITE, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE I RESOURCES BY John P. Clinkenbeard 2000 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 801 K Street, MS 12-30 Sacramento, California 95814-3531 • CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ......................................................................... ........................... iii INTRODUCTION........................... .................................................................................... BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 1 THE SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975 (S MARA) .......................... ......... 1 MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................... 4 MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE (MRZ) CATEGORIES ................:......:...........................:..........4 MINERAL RESOURCE -RESERVE CLASSIFICATION NOMENCLATURE ......:......:......................5 CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 8 OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE ........................................................... 9., AGGREGATE QUALITY .................................................................................................... 10 ALLUVIAL SAND AND GRAVEL VERSUS CRUSHED STONE AGGREGATE ................................ 11 FACTORS AFFECTING AGGREGATE DEPOSIT QUALITY ..................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF THE M&T CHICO RANCH SITE .................................. .......... .... 12 GEOLOGIC SUMMARY .................................................................................................... �. MATERIAL QUALITY ......................................................................................................... 12 12 THRESHOLD VALUE .......................... % . ............................................................................. 12 • PROPERTY EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 14 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 16 1 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................... 17 TABLE Table. Average annual per capita aggregate consumption rates for Central. Valley counties and production -consumption (P -C) regions ........................................................................................ ....... 9 FIGURES Figure I. Location of the KRC Holdings, Inc. M&T Chico Ranch site .............................. 2 Figure,2. Relationship of MRZ categories to the resource/reserve classification system ...................................... ....................................:......:.....6 Figure 3. Generalized geologic map of the KRC Holdings, Inc. M&T ChicoRanch site ............................... ................................................................ 13 Figure 4. Mineral Land Classification of the KRC Holdings, Inc. M&T• - Chico Ranch site for construction aggregate ................................................... 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to a petition submitted under the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), the State Geologist has investigated and subsequently classified as MRZ-2a a portion of the Ord Ferry Quadrangle, Butte County, for construction aggregate: The property, referred to as the M&T Chico Ranch site, is currently leased by KRC Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Baldwin Contracting Company. { This study is an evaluation of the aggregate potential of the approximately 627 - acre M&T Chico Ranch site based upon field and laboratory data provided by the petitioner, KRC Holdings, Inc. A field examination of the site was conducted on April 5, 2000. This report explains the classification of the property and presents the conclusions reached in this study. It is intended for the use of the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), the petitioner, and the lead agencies that have decision- making authority over this property under SMARA. For a mineral deposit to be considered significant and therefore eligible for MRZ- 2 classification, it must meet criteria established by the SMGB for material quality, • marketability, and economic value. The significance of the resources was determined by evaluating the quality of the deposit and its suitability as a marketable commodity, and by calculating the available volume, tonnage, and value of aggregate resources contained within the property. Data necessary to evaluate the property were compiled from geologic literature, proprietary company files, and limited field study by the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) staff of the Department of Conservation. It is concluded that: • Aggregate test results provided by the petitioner and analyzed by DMG staff indicate that, with appropriate processing, the material present on the M&T Chico Ranch site could meet the specifications for use in a variety of construction aggregate products including base, asphaltic concrete, and portland cement concrete. • Aggregate resources present at the M&T Chico Ranch site far exceed the minimum threshold value of 12.5 million 1998 -dollars (approximately 13.1 million 2000 -dollars) established by the SMGB. • The M&T Chico Ranch site has been classified MRZ-2a for construction aggregate as shown on Figure 4 of this report. iii 0 V r U 1 n U 1 4 i Background This report was prepared in response to a petition received by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) from KRC Holdings, Inc. on February 2, 2000. The petition requested that a property in western Butte County be classified for construction aggregate resources under the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). The petition was transmitted to the State Geologist for preliminary evaluation to determine: 1) the quality of the economic -geologic data provided by the petitioner, 2) the likelihood of the property receiving the classification requested by the petitioner, and 3) if present or near -future land use in the immediate area indicates that Mineral Land Classification is advisable. After a review of the State Geologist's preliminary evaluation, the SMGB accepted the petition on March 9, 2000. A field examination of the M&T Chico Ranch site was conducted on April 5, 2000. The site consists of approximately 627 acres on the M&T Chico Ranch in. western Butte County about 7 miles southwest of Chico (Figure 1). The area is shown on the U.S. Geological Survey Ord Ferry 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. The site is within sections 13, 24, 25, and 36 (projected), T. 21 N., R. 1 W:, MDBM. KRC Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Baldwin Contracting Company, have a lease agreement with the property owner, Pacific Realty Associates L.P., and have submitted an application to the Butte County Department of Development Services to mine the site. In the past, the property owner has mined a small amount of aggregate from the site to surface roads on the ranch property. There is no existing SMARA mineral land classification study covering the area. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) SMARA requires the State Geologist to classify land based on the presence, absence, or likely occurrence of significant mineral deposits in certain.areas of the state subject to urban expansion or land uses incompatible with mining. The areas to be classified are set forth by the SMGB as shown on a priority list established in Resolution No. 82-14 (SMGB, 1982), and by the SMGB's acceptance of petitions for classification of specific properties. The SMGB, upon receipt and acceptance of the classification information, transmits it to the appropriate lead agencies for incorporation into their general plans and for use in their land -use planning process. • WI&A ♦ Chico M&T Chico Ranch Site N BUTTE COUNTY GLENN COUNTY d 0 I 2 3 Miles ParadiseA. GLENN Area covered. BUTTE COUNTY by location map COUNTY Oroviiie I Figure 1. Location of the KRC holdings, Inc., M&T Chico Ranch site in Butte County, California The primary goal of mineral land classification is to ensure that the mineral resource potential of lands is recognized and considered before land -use decisions that could preclude mining are made. The availability of mineral resources is vital to our society. Yet, for most mineral commodities, economic deposits are rare, isolated occurrences. In addition, access to land for purposes of mineral exploration and mine development has become increasingly difficult because California is faced with growing land -use competition. As a consequence, local planning agencies are confronted with . increasingly difficult land -use decisions. If the minerals industry is to continue supplying raw materials for California, it is essential that areas containing significant mineral resources be identified so that this information can be incorporated into land -use planning decisions. 3 • 0 MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION As set forth in Section 2761 (b) of SMARA, the State Geologist shall classify land solely on the basis of geologic factors and without regard to existing land use. Areas subject to mineral land classification studies are divided by the State Geologist into. various Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories that reflect'varying degrees of mineral resource potential. The MRZ criteria and nomenclature adopted by the SMGB (DMG, 2000) are described below. Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) Categories MRZ-1: Areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant mineral resources. MRZ-2a: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. As shown on the California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram (Figure 2), 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 by such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface exposure, and mine information. Land included in MRZ-2a is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral deposits. MRZ-2b: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic information indicates that significant inferred resources are present. Areas classified MRZ-2b contain discovered mineral deposits that are significant inferred resources as determined by their lateral extension from proven deposits or their similarity to proven deposits. Further exploration could result in upgrading areas classified MRZ-2b to MRZ-2a. MRZ-3a: Areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Further exploration within these areas could result in the reclassification of specific localities into MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. As shown on the California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram, MRZ-3 is divided into MRZ-3a and MRZ-3b on the basis of knowledge of economic characteristics of the resources. MRZ-3b: Areas containing inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Land classified MRZ-3b represents areas in geologic settings that appear to be favorable environments 4 ` • for the occurrence of. specific mineral deposits. Further exploration could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into Ithe MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. MRZ-4: Areas of no known mineral occurrences where geologic information ( does not rule out either the presence or absence, of significant f mineral resources. The distinction between the MRZ-1 and the MRZ-4 categories is important for I' land -use considerations. It must be emphasized that MRZ-4 classification does not imply that there is.little likelihood for the presence of mineral resources, but rather that there is a lack of knowledge regarding mineral occurrence. Further exploration could result in the reclassification of land in MRZ-4 areas to MRZ-3 or MRZ-2. Mineral Resource -Reserve Classification Nomenclature I The following definitions are important when studying. the different resource categories used in the California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram (Figure 2). Particular attention should be given.to the distinction between a mineral deposit and a resource and to how a mineral deposit may relate to resources: MINERAL DEPOSIT: A naturally occurring concentration of minerals in amounts or. Iarrangements that under certain conditions may constitute a mineral resource. The,concentration may be of value for its chemical or physical characteristic or for both of these properties. I MINERAL OCCURRENCE: Any ore or economic mineral.in:any concentration found, in bedrock or float, especially a valuable mineral in sufficient concentration, to suggest further exploration. ECONOMIC: This term implies that profitable extraction or production under defined Iinvestment assumptions has been established, analytically demonstrated, or assumed with reasonable certainty: I MINERAL RESOURCE: A concentration of naturally occurring solid, -liquid, or gaseous material in or on the earth's crust in such form and amount that economic extraction of a commodity from the concentration is currently or potentially Ifeasible. The terms resource and mineral .resource are synonymous in this report. :i • CALIFORNIA MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DIAGRAM AREAS OF UNDETERMINED MINERAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE AREAS OF IDENTIFIED v MINERAL RESOURCE o SIGNIFICANCE p Demonstrated U W INFERRED o Inferred z KNOWN Measured/Indicated MINERAL 0 MRZ-2a MRZ-2b MINERAL OCCURRENCE OCCURRENCE 0 0 Inferred W Reserves --------------------- MRZ-2a Resources ----------------------- MRZ-2b J z0 cc 0 Marginal Inferred 2 w Reserves Marginal --------------------- - -Resources MRZ-2b MRZ-2b m0 N 0 Demonstrated Inferred 0 W Subeconomic Subeconomic Resources Resources AREAS OF UNDETERMINED MINERAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE AREAS OF v NO MINERAL o RESOURCE p SIGNIFICANCE U W INFERRED o MRZ-1 z KNOWN AREAS OF UNDETERMINED MINERAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE AREAS OF UNKNOWN MINERAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE MRZ-3a MRZ-3b MRZ-4 NO KNOWN INFERRED KNOWN MINERAL MINERAL MINERAL OCCURRENCE OCCURRENCE OCCURRENCE f---- Increasing Knowledge of Resources Figure 2. Relationship of MRZ categories to the resource/reserve classification system. Adapted from the U.S. Bureau of Mines/U.S. Geological Survey (1980) 6 I� RESERVES: The part of the resource base that'could be economically extracted or produced at the time of determination. In this report, the term reserves has been further restricted to include only those deposits for which a valid mining permit has been granted by the appropriate lead agency. r IDENTIFIED MINERAL RESOURCES: Resources whose location, grade, quality, and quantity are known or estimated from specific geologic evidence. Identified mineral resources include economic, marginally economic, and subeconomic components. To reflect varying degrees of geologic certainty; these economic divisions can be subdivided into demonstrated and inferred. DEMONSTRATED: A term for the sum of measured plus indicated. MEASURED: Quantity is computed from dimensions revealed in outcrops, trench workings, or drill holes;. grade and/or quality_ are computed from the results of detailed sampling. The sites for inspection, sampling, and measurement are spaced so closely and the geologic character is so well defined that size, shape, depth, and mineral content of the resource are well established. 1 INDICATED: Quantity and grade and/or quality are computed from information similar to that used for measured resources, but the sites for inspection, sampling, and measurement are farther apart or otherwise less adequately spaced. The degree of assurance, although lower than that for measured resources, is high enough to assume continuity between points of observation. INFERRED: Estimates are based on an assumed continuity beyond measured and/or indicated resources for which there is geologic evidence. Inferred resources may or may not be supported by samples or measurements. MARGINAL RESERVES: The part of the demonstrated reserve base that, at the time of determination, borders on being economically producible. The essential characteristic of this term is economic uncertainty. Included are resources that ' would be producible, given postulated changes in economic or technologic. factors. f MARGINAL RESOURCES: The part of the inferred resource base that, at the time of determination, would be economically producible, given postulated changes in ' economic or technologic factors. SUBECONOMIC RESOURCES: The part of identified resources that does not meet the economic criteria of marginal reserves and marginal resources. 7 • Classification Criteria To be considered significant for the purpose of mineral land classification, a mineral deposit, or a group of mineral deposits that can be mined. as a unit, must meet marketability and threshold value criteria adopted by the SMGB (DMG, 2000). The criteria vary for different minerals depending on (1) whether they are strategic or non- strategic minerals, (2) their uniqueness or rarity, and (3) their commodity -type category (metallic minerals or industrial minerals). For example, to be considered significant, the threshold value of the first marketable product for a metallic ore deposit (such as a gold deposit) is $1,250,000 1998 -dollars, $2,500,000 1998 -dollars for an industrial mineral deposit (such as.a diatomite or clay deposit), and $12,500,000 1998 -dollars for a construction aggregate deposit (such as a sand. and gravel or crushed stone deposit). To adjust for inflation since 1998, each of these values is multiplied by 1.052, a factor based on the annual U.S. consumer price index (Department of Finance website, April 2000) to calculate the threshold values in 2000 dollars. The results are: Metallic Deposits $ 1;315,000 Industrial Minerals $ 2,630,000 Construction Aggregate $13,152,000 t OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE Sand, gravel, and crushed stone are "construction materials." These commodities, collectively referred to as aggregate, provide the bulk and strength to portland cement concrete (PCC), asphaltic concrete (AC, commonly called "black top"), plaster, and stucco. Aggregate is also used as road base, subbase, railroad ballast, and fill. Aggregate normally provides from 80 to 100% of the material volume in the above uses. The building and paving industries consume large quantities of aggregate and future demand for this commodity is expected to increase throughout California. Aggregate materials are essential to modern society, both to maintain the existing infrastructure and to provide for new construction. Therefore, aggregate materials are a resource of great importance to the economy of any developing area. Previous DMG studies in the Central Valley area indicate that the annual per -capita consumption of construction aggregate varies between about 5 and 10 tons and averages approximately 7.5 tons (Table). Because aggregate is a low unit -value, high bulk weight commodity, it must be obtained from nearby sources to minimize the dollar cost Table. Average annual per -capita aggregate consumption rates for Central Valley counties and production -consumption (P -C) regions. 9 AVERAGE ANNUAL AREA PER -CAPITA TIME PERIOD REFFERENCE AGGREGATE CONSUMPTION (tons) Merced County 8.1 1960 to 1998 Clinkenbeard; 1999 Shasta County 8.0 1980 to 1995 Dupras, 1997 Tulare County 5.3 1960 to 1994 Taylor, 1997 P -C Region Stanislaus County 7.3 1960 to 1991 Higgins & Dupras, 1993 Stockton -Lodi 8.5 1960 to 1985 Jensen & Silva, 1988 P -C Region Fresno P -C Region 7.0 1961 to 1982 Cote & Fuller, 1988 Sacramento -Fairfield 10.2 1960 to 1980 Dupras, 1988 P -C Region Marysville -Yuba City 5.4 1964 to 1984 Habel & Campion, 1988 P -C Region Bakersfield P -C Region 7.4 1960 to 1984 Cole, 1988 AVERAGE 7.5 9 to the aggregate consumer and other environmental and economic costs associated with transportation. If nearby sources do not exist, then transportation costs can quickly exceed the value of the aggregate. In addition to increasing the cost of aggregate to the consumer, transporting aggregate from distant sources also results in increased fuel consumption, air pollution, traffic congestion, and road maintenance. In fact, transportation cost is the principal constraint defining the market area for an aggregate mining operation. These factors set construction aggregate apart from many other mineral commodities, such as gold or copper, that may reach markets far removed from the areas in which they are mined. Aggregate Quality Rarely, even from the highest -grade deposits, is in-place aggregate raw material physically or chemically suited for every type of aggregate use. Every potential deposit must be tested to determine how much of the material can meet specifications for a particular use, and what processing is required. Specifications for various uses of aggregate have been established by several agencies, such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to ensure that aggregate is satisfactory for specific uses. These agencies and other major consumers test aggregate using standard testing procedures by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO), and other organizations. Most aggregate specifications have been established to ensure the manufacture of strong, durable structures capable of withstanding the physical and chemical effects of weathering and use. For example, specifications for PCC and concrete products prohibit or limit the use of rock materials containing mineral substances such as gypsum, pyrite, zeolite, opal, chalcedony, chert, siliceous shale, volcanic glass, and some high -silica volcanic rocks. Gypsum retards the setting time of portland cement; pyrite dissociates to yield sulfuric acid and an iron oxide stain; and other substances contain silica in a form that reacts with alkali substances in the cement, resulting in cracks and "pop -outs." Alkali reactions in PCC can be minimized by the addition of pozzolanic admixtures such as fly ash. Specifications also call for precise particle -size distribution for the various uses of aggregate. Aggregate is commonly classified into two general sizes: coarse and fine. Coarse aggregate is rock retained on a 3/8" or a #4 U.S. sieve. Fine aggregate passes a 3/8 inch sieve and is retained on a #200 U.S. sieve (a sieve with 200 weaves per inch). For some uses, such as asphalt paving, particle shape is specified. Caltrans Standard Specifications (1992) require that at least 25% by weight of coarse aggregate (1/4 to 3/4 inch diameter) used as Class 2 aggregate base material shall be crushed particles. Furthermore, aggregate material used with bituminous binder to form sealing coats on road surfaces shall consist of at least 90% by weight of crushed particles. Crushed stone is preferable to natural gravel in AC because asphalt adheres better to 10 • broken surfaces than to rounded surfaces, and the interlocking of angular particles strengthens the AC and road base. Alluvial Sand and Gravel Versus Crushed Stone Aggregate The preferred use of one aggregate material over another in construction practices depends not only on specification standards, but also on economic considerations. Alluvial gravel is preferred to crushed stone for PCC aggregate because ® the rounded particles of alluvial sand and gravel result in a wet mix that is easier to work 8 than a mix rYiade of angular fragments. The workability of a mix consisting of portland cement with crushed stone aggregate can be improved by adding more sand and water, but more cement must then be added to the mix to meet concrete durability standards. This results in a more expensive concrete mix. In addition, aggregate from a crushed stone deposit is typically more expensive than that from an alluvial deposit due to the ' additional costs associated with mining and processing crushed stone. Although more care is required in pouring and placing a wet mix containing crushed stone, PCC made with this aggregate is as satisfactory as that made with alluvial sand and gravel of comparable rock quality. Factors Affecting Aggregate Deposit Quality The major factors that affect the quality of an aggregate deposit are the rock type and the degree of weathering of the deposit. Rock type determines the hardness, �• durability, and potential chemical reactivity of the rock when mixed with cement to make concrete. In alluvial sand and gravel deposits, rock type is variable and reflects the rocks present in the drainage basin of the stream or river. In crushed stone deposits, rock type is typically less variable, although in some types of deposits such as sandstones or volcanics there may be significant variability of rock type within a deposit. Rock type may also influence aggregate shape. For example, some metamorphic rocks such as slates tend to break into thin platy fragments that are unsuitable for many aggregate uses while many volcanic and granitic rocks break into blocky fragments more suited to a wide variety of aggregate uses. Deposit type also affects aggregate shape. For example, in alluvial sand and gravel deposits the natural abrasive action of the stream rounds the edges of rock particles in contrast to the sharp edges of particles from crushed stone deposits. Weatheringis the in-place physical or chemical decay of rock materials at or near P PY Y the earth's surface. Weathering commonly dec eases the physical strength of the clasts and may make the material suitable only for uses in which high strength and durability are not specified. Weathering may also alter the chemical composition of the aggregate making it less suitable for some aggregate uses. If weathering is severe enough, the ' material may not be suitable for use as construction aggregate. Typically, the older a deposit is, the more likely it is to have been weathered, and the severity of weathering commonly increases with increasing age of the deposit. 11 . CLASSIFICATION OF THE M&T CHICO RANCH SITE Geologic Summary The KRC Holdings, Inc. M&T Chico Ranch site is about 7 miles southwest of the city of Chico. The site lies in the floodplain of the Sacramento River and is about 1 Y2 miles east of the present river channel. The site is characterized by subdued topography, with elevations ranging from less than 105 to 120 feet. Much of the site and the surrounding area have been leveled and are under cultivation. The areas that have not been leveled for agricultural use are characterized by slight rises and swales typical of areas within the meander belt of a large river. The petitioned area is in the Great Valley geomorphic province and is underlain by Quaternary alluvium deposited by the Sacramento River. The most recent geologic map of the area is that of Helley and Harwood (1985), who mapped the M&T Chico Ranch site as predominantly Holocene stream channel deposits with a small area of Holocene marsh deposits in the southern part of the site (Figure 3). The stream channel deposits which make up the majority of the site consist of gravels, sands, and silts derived from source regions in the Sierra Nevada, the Klamath Mountains, and the Coast Ranges. It is likely that the stream channel deposits at the M&T Chico Ranch site are an abandoned meander of the Sacramento River. Material Quality Proprietary materials testing results provided by the petitioner were compared to published Caltrans specifications (Caltrans, 1992) by DMG staff. The results show that, with appropriate processing, the material present on the M&T Chico. Ranch site could meet the specifications for use in a variety of construction aggregate products including base, AC, and PCC. Threshold Value DMG staff made volumetric calculations of aggregate resources contained in the M&T Chico Ranch site based on the drill-hole and laboratory data provided by the petitioner. These calculations indicate that the site contains resources of construction aggregate that greatly exceed the threshold value of 12..5 million 1998 dollars (approximately 13.1 million 2000 dollars) established by the SMGB. The results of these calculations are proprietary and cannot be released in this report. It is possible, however, to demonstrate that the M&T Chico Ranch site contains aggregate resources that exceed the minimum threshold value without revealing confidential data. 1 12 R ' A N Island 92 X7 Yi 1 1.%. -' t �• �:- < _ -�" � /' .- • � ; ; � ; \$ Petition 4-, i Boundary' �`- - .�`•..�.' �'� P '.g ,j -•eft __r.J' �✓�' � " QS.C' _ ig 4 — •'�r'�..• i! of .�.:., '•.. t , •I. '� � i Q ._'::. Base map iron U.S. Geological Survey Ord Ferry7.rminute Quadrangle (1969) N EXPLANATION Qsc Holocene Stream Channel Deposits 0 2000 4000 Qm Holocene Marsh Deposits Feet ,,,o- Contact Scale: 1.48,000 • Figure 3. Generalized geologic map of the KRC Holdings, Inc., M&T Chico Ranch site. Modred from Helley and Harwood, 1985. 13 Given an average selling price of $5.30 per ton for construction aggregate (provided by the petitioner), approximately 2.5 million tons of resources are needed to meet the minimum threshold value. Using an average density of 1.5 tons per cubic yard and a 15% waste factor, the depth of mining necessary to meet the threshold value over the 627 acre site is approximately 2.feet. The average thickness of sand and gravel deposits under the site greatly exceeds 2 feet. Property Evaluation A one -day field investigation of the property by DMG staff, along with an evaluation of the subsurface information and materials test data provided by the petitioner, indicates the following: • The M&T Chico Ranch site contains resources of sand and gravel suitable for use in a variety of construction aggregate. products including base, AC, and PCC. • , The resources present greatly exceed the threshold requirements established by the SMGB for inclusion into the MRZ-2a category for construction aggregate. Results of the classification of the M&T Chico Ranch property are shown in Figure 4. ;;..4 . R 1 A N C I $` w Strti cti o n'Ag g reg ate 17 ...............:r- ..........::::: 31 Base map from U.S. Geological Survey Ord Ferry 7.5 -minute Quadrangle (1969) N" EXPLANATION MRZ-2a Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data 0 2000 4000 indicate that significant measured or indicated resources- Feet are present. Scale: 1:48,000 Figure 4. Mineral Land Classification of the KRC Holdings,. Inc., M&T Chico Ranch site for construction aggregate. 15 CONCLUSIONS In accordance with the mandates of the SMARA, the staff of DMG, under the direction of the State Geologist, has evaluated the MST Chico Ranch site controlled by KRC Holdings, Inc. It is concluded that significant high quality construction aggregate resources are present on this property. These resources meet the suitability and - threshold criteria established by the SMGB for inclusion into the MRZ-2a category for construction aggregate. �•, REFERENCES CITED California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1992, Standard specifications. Clinkenbeard, J.P., 1999, Mineral land classification of Merced County, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 99-08. Cole, J.W., 1988, Mineral land classification: Aggregate materials in the Bakersfield Production -Consumption Region: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 147, Cole, J.W. and Fuller, D.R., 1988, Mineral land classification: Aggregate materials in the Fresno Production -Consumption Region: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 158, 21 p. Department of Finance website, 2000, Implicit Price Deflator, State. and Local Government Purchases of Goods and Services: http://www:dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/ LatestEconData/Data/Prices/Bbdsl96.XLS I Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, California surface mining and reclamation policies and procedures: -Special Publication 51, third revision. Dupras, D.L.,.1988, Mineral land classification: Portland cement concrete grade aggregate in the Sacramento -Fairfield Production -Consumption Region: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 156. Dupras, D.L., 1997, Mineral land classification of alluvial sand and gravel, crushed stone, volcanic cinders,- limestone, and diatomite within Shasta County, California: Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report�97-03, 186 p. . Hable, R.S. and Campion, L.F., 1988, Mineral land classification: portland cement concrete -grade aggregate in the Yuba City -Marysville Production -Consumption Region: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 132. = Helley, E.J. and Harwood, D.S., 1985, Geologic map of the late Cenozoic deposits of the Sacramento Valley and northern Sierran foothills, California: U.S.. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -1790, Sheet 3 of 5, 1:62,500. Higgins, C.T. and Du ras, D.L..1993, Mineral land classification of Stanislaus County, 99 P California: Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 173, 174 p., 4 appendices, 11 ' plates. Jensen, L.S. and Silva, M.A., 1988, Mineral land classification: portland cement concrete -grade aggregate in the Stockton -Lodi Production -Consumption Region: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 160. 17 ,. k SMGB, 1982, Priorities for the classification of mineral lands in urban and nonurban areas: State Mining and Geology Board, Resolution No. 82-14, 2 p. Taylor, G.C., 1997, Mineral land classification of concrete aggregate resources in the i Tulare County, Production -Consumption Region, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 97-01. U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, 1980, Principles of a resource/reserve classification for minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, 5 p. .Youngs, L.G. and Miller, R.V., 1999, Update of mineral land classification: aggregate materials in the Fresno Production -Consumption Region, California: Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 99-02, 39 p. 1 1 18 •I