Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT D (2)t aH V. "JACK" DIEFENBROCK JEFFREY L ANDERSON dol L DIEPENBRCCK MATTNEW IL BERRIEN KEITH W. M(BRIDE SEAN K NUNGERFORD AdMI BRADLEY J. ELKIN LEOHOR Y. DI(DICAN EILEEN M. DIEPENBtOCK CHRIS A. McCAHOLESS MARK D. HARRISON DAN M. SILVERBOARD GENE K CNEEVER ANDREW P. TAURIAINEN di e e n b ro c k. 1 {.� L a h h I s O n MICHAEL V. BRADY VALERIE (. KINCAID p LAWRENCE B. GARCIA BLAIR W. WILL A PROF ISSIONAL (0 R P O R A T I O N SUSAN E. KIRKGAARC KRISTA J. DUN2WEILER ANDREA A. MATARALO DAVID R RICE JOEL PATRICK ERB JENNIFER D. BECHTOLD JON 0. RUSIN SARAN R HARTMANN MICHAEL E. VINDINC MARK E. PETERSON JENNIFER L DAUER March 30, 2007 JEFFREY K. DORSO R. JAMES DIEPENBROCK (1929 - 2002) Mr. Paul McIntosh Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Butte County . 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re:. M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Our File No.: 2941.002 To Members of the Board of Supervisors: This letter responds to the allegations raised in the appeal letters submitted to the Butte County ("County") Board of Supervisors by the Parrott Investment Company ("Parrott") (Letter from Howard Ellman to Paul McIntosh dated February 26, 2007 ["Parrott Appeal"]), and Ron Jones ("Jones") (Letter from Ron Jones to the Butte County Administrative Office dated March 1, 2007 ["Jones Appeal"]). Both of the appeals address the County Planning Commission's ("Planning Commission") February 22, 2007 approval of the proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine ("Project"). Based on the following, we respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeals filed by Parrott and Jones, certify the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), and approve the financial assurances cost estimate, Use Permit (96-03) and Reclamation Plan for the Project. (See Planning Commission Project Resolution [attached as Exhibit 1]; Planning Commission CEQA Resolution, [attached as Exhibit 2].) A. 'Project Background Baldwin Contracting Company ("Baldwin") proposes an off-cf annel construction aggregate mining operation at the M&T Chico Ranch. The proposed sand and gravel operation would entail surface mining on approximately 193 acres of a 235 -acre site over a 20 to 30 year period for sand and gravel. Total Project reserves are estimated at over 5.5 million cubic yards. Under the Reclamation Plan, mined areas will be concurrently reclaimed to high-quality open—wafer, wetland wildlife habitat. Concurrent reclamation will begin after the first five _/ears of mining 400 CAPITOL MAIL SUITE 1800 SACRAMENTO.CA 95814 WWW.DIEPENER.:)CK.COM 916 492.$000 FAX 916 446.4535 •DIEPENBROCK K. ,RRISON - Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007' Page 2- ' with approximately 600 linear feet of lake perimeter created each year. The approximately 40 -acre processing site will be reclaimed to support agricultural uses. The Project is an important component of the County's efforts to address its. drastic shortage of aggregate. According to the California Department of Conservation. ("DOC"), California Geologic Survey, the region encompassing the County has permitted aggregate resources amounting to seventeen percent (17%) ' of the region's projected 50 -year demand. (Department of Conservation, California t Geologic Survey, Map Sheet 52: Aggregate Availability in California (2006).) Thus, once permitted, the Project's 5.5 million cubic yards of high quality aggregate reserves will help alleviate the County's aggregate shortage. , ,. r The Project's importance to the County is magnified by its Mineral Resource Zone designation. As required by section 2761(b) of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, the State Geologist classifies and designates important aggregate resources within the state. Areas subject to Mineral Land Classification studies are divided into various Mineral Resource Zone ("MRZ") categories that reflect varying degrees of mineral potential. Here, the State Geologist designated the Project site as MRZ-2a. Land designated as MRZ-2a is important because it contains known economic mineral deposits (e.g., construction aggregates). The County has conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"). The County's review involved a thorough investigation of the Project's potentially foreseeable impacts, and included the preparation of 'a series of .highly detailed environmental analyses.' In addition, between 1998 and 2007, the Planning, Commission held ten public hearings to hear testimony regarding the Project. ,2 The Parrott and Jones appeals do not raise or introduce any substantial issue which the County has not previously addressed. See, e.g., AGRA Earth.and Environmental, Inc. 1996, Aggregate Investigation Hallwood and M&T Properties. California; AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. 1997, Excavation Stability M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation, West of Dayton, California; Hydroscience, Inc., Water Quality Report,- Kelley eport;Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1997, Memorandum of Prime Farmland Soils Analysis for the M&T Chico Ranch September 24; Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1993, M&T Chico Ranch Groundwater Investigation, Phase I, Memorandum Report, Red Bluff, u California; Deverel, S.J. 1996, Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel Mining: M&T Chico Ranch; Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1997, Traffic Impact Analysis for the M&T Chico Ranch Project; Kelley' & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1996, M&T Chico Ranch Mine Use Permit, Mining Permit, and Reclamation Plan Application; Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1996, Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation: M&T Chico Ranch; City of Chico. 1995. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Chico Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion. State Clearinghouse Number 94112054. 2 June 11, 1998, October 24, 2002, October 23, 2003, January 22, 2004, March 11, 2004; April 8, 2004, and August 26, 2004, November 22, 2006, December 14, 2006, and January 25, 2007. r DIEPENBROCK h...ARISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 3 A. Parrott Appeal The Parrott Appeal addresses issues that the County has exhaustively analyzed over the course of an eleven (11) year review of the Project.. 1. The Proiect is Compatible with the Applicable Land Use Designations and Surrounding Uses The first assertion contained in the Parrott Appeal is that the Planning Commission erred by relying solely on the County General Plan ("General Plan") to support its determination that the Project is compatible with surrounding uses. (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) As evidence for this assertion, Parrott states: "[t]he entire purpose of discretionary hearings on an application for a use permit is to determine if the specific use proposed is in fact compatible, notwithstanding the provisions of the General Plan." (Id.) As discussed below, however, Parrott's assertion grossly misrepresents the law and ignores the Planning Commission's findings and substantial evidence in the record. First, the Planning Commission is obligated by law to ensure that development projects are consistent with the General Plan. Under California law, every county and city must adopt a "comprehensive, long-term gene -al plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65300.) The California Supreme Court has described the general plan as the "constitution for all future developments" within the city or county. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 570 [ci-ing O'Loane v. O'Rourke (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 774, 782]; Friends of 'B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 997; deBottari v. City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1212-1213 [holding, "[t]he general plan is tremendously significant in shaping future development because land use decisions must be consistent -herewith"]; Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 800, 806 [holding, "[t]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements"].) Thus, the Planning Commission was required by law tc determine whether the Project was consistent with the General Plan land use designation. In addition, contrary to Parrott's assertion, the Planning Commission also based its compatibility determination on: (1) the Project's consistency with General Plan policies, (2) the Project's consistency with the County Zoning. Crdinance, and (3) the Project's consistency with the County Surface Mining Ordinance, County Code, Chapter 13-101 et seq. (See Project Resolution, p. 4.] The P-oject Resolution approved by the Planning Commission states, in relevant part: DIEPENBROCK h_ RRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 4 1. FINDING: LAND USE CONSISTENCY — Based on its land use compatibility analysis, the County finds that the Project is consistent with 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 with the County Mining Ordinance. Further, the proposed mining is an appropriate 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.bn and 6.1.a. (Butte County, 1997.) (Project Resolution, p. 4 [emphasis added].) Thus, the Planning Commission properly relied on the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Surface Mining Ordinance to make its consistency determination. With respect to the notion of compatibility, the Planning Commission evaluated the Project for eleven years, conducted extensive environmental review, and imposed over thirty conditions to ensure the Project is compatible with surrounding uses. 2. The EIR Adequately Describes the Llano Seco Ranch Parrott asserts that the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR" )3 provides an inadequate description of the Project's environmental setting because it "mischaracterizes the uses of the [Llano Seco] Ranch." (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") requires that an EIR contain a description of"the "environmental setting" in which the proposed project would be uncle -taken. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15120, 15124, 15125.) Under CEQA Guidelines section 15125, an appropriate discussion of a. project's environmental setting includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project, and. an analysis of any inconsistencies between the project and applicabl3 general or regional plans. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125.) Here, the Draft EIR included an intensive discussion of the Project's environmental setting. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-1 — 3-7, 4.1-1 —4.1-8.) Each section contains a description of the regional environment and local conditions and how the Project could impact the local and regional environment. (See e.g., Draft EIR, 4.3-1 3 "EIR" refers collectively to the Draft and Final EIR, which includes Errata to the Final EIR. DIEPENBROCK H,-?,RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 5 - 4.3-7 [Geologic Setting]; 4.4-1 — 4.4-35 [Hydrologic Setting]; 4.5-1 — 4.5-14 [Traffic Setting]; p. 4.2-5 [Farmland]; 4.7-1 — 4.7-22 [Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat].) While the Draft EIR did not specifically name the Llano Seco Ranch, it described the regional environmental setting for the Project and analyzed all reasonably foreseeable significant impacts associated with the Project, including all potential off-site impacts. (See, Draft EIR § 3.0; Final EIR § 4.0 and 4.7.) Further, the EIR preparer and others testified that the Draft EIR evaluated the Project's potential environmental impacts to surrounding properties, i-icluding the Llano Seco Ranch. (See CEQA Resolution, pp. 11-16; see also, Letters from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006; Dec. 13, 2006); Planning Commission hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Pete Calarco, p. 5]; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Dave Brown, pp. 18-2.2; testimony of Jeff Dorso, pp. 70-74].) The County further addressed Parrott's concerns by issuing an Errata to the Final EIR regarding the Llano Seco Ranch. The Errata states, in relevant part: 3.2.4 Regional Environmental Overview — Llano Seco Ranch Parrott Investment Company, owner of the Llano Seco Ranch, located South of the M&T Ranch, has requested that its land use be more accurately described in the M&T Chico Ranch EIR. Llano Seco Ranch has submitted information indicating that it has placed more than ten thousand acres under easement or have been sold as wildlife habitat since 1991. The Ranch has invested in restoration work to create such habitat, including seasonal wetland for wintering waterfowl, riparian oak forest, and native grasslands. (see: Letter from Ellman Burke, Hoffman & Johnson to Butte Counter Planning Commission, November 27, 2006.) Current aerial photography shows these wetland habitat areas, located approximately one mile south of the proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine. The above information, is added to Draft EIR Section 4.1.1, Regional Environmental Overview. DIEPENBROCK K .RRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 6 (See, Planning Commission Staff Report, Jan. 25, 2007 hearing.) This, the County went beyond the requirements of CEQA in order to address the Llanc Seco Ranch.4 3. The EIR Extensively Analyzed the Impact of Mine Sediments Parrott asserts that the EIR is invalid because it fails to addres3 "the cumulative impact of adding mine sediments to flood flows that travel from the mine to the [Llano Seco] Ranch." (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) To the contrary, the County extensively analyzed potential impacts caused by mine sediments. The applicant, Baldwin Contracting Company ("Baldwin"), carefully designed the Project's flood protection measures to comply with applicable stag law as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, Public Resources Code section 2770 et seq. ("SMARA") and reclamation standards found in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 3700-3713, which include lega requirements for slope stability (section 3704); drainage, diversion structures, waterways, and erosion control (section 3706); and stream protection, including surface and groundwater (section 3710). The County then analyzed'this design and its direct and indirect . environmental impacts as part of the CEQA process. The County's a-ialysis of the design included a comprehensive flooding study for the proposed Project. (See Little Chico Creek: Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis for M&T Mine Project, 4 Parrott also asserts that the addition of the Errata following the issuance Cf the Final EIR "introduces significant new information that requires recirculation under the Guidelines and applicable case law." (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) CEQA only requires lead agen--ies to recirculate EIRs if "significant new information" is added to the EIR prior to certification. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.) Here, as demonstrated by substantial evidence in the record, the Errata does not constitute "significant new information" as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a)(1)-(4). The Draft EIR sufficiently described the regional environmental setting, and evaluated all potentially significant impacts to surrounding properties, including the Llano Seco Ranch; the addition of the Llano Seco Ranch to the "Regional Environmental Overview" section of the Final EIR did not reveal a-iy new environmental impacts not previously analyzed in the EIR. The record plain y demonstrates that the Errata clarifies the exact nature of the uses occurring within the Llaro Seco Ranch. (See December 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing transcript.) Thus, the Errata is only a clarification or "insignificant. modification" within the meaning of Guidelines section 15088.5(b). Courts have held that the requirement in [section] 21092.1 that an [EIR] be recirculated when significant new information is added is not intended to promote endless, rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs; rather, recirculation is intended to be the exception rather than the general rule. (See, e.g., Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal App 4th 99.) DIEPENBROCK k_ ZRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 7 NorthStar Engineering, Jan. 2002 ("NorthStar Flooding Study").) Both the NorthStar Flooding Study and analysis contained in the Draft EIR evaluated off-site impacts caused by stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and processing facilities, including mine sediment. (NorthStar Flooding Study, pp. 13-14; Draft EIR, p. 4.4-69.) Based on this analysis, the EIR concluded that the Project, with approval of relevant state and federal permits, would not result in significant environmental impacts to neighboring properties (which includes the Jones property and Llano Seco Ranch) via Little Chico Creek or Angel Slough. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-52, 4.4-69.) During the public comment period on the Draft EIR, the County again received comments regarding whether the proposed Project would have offsite impacts resulting from stormwater discharges and runoff (including mine sediment) from the proposed pit and processing facilities. The County expressly addressed these comments in the Final EIR. The Final EIR explained how the Project's design, as well as applicable state and federal stormwater prevention requirements, would ensure that neighboring landowners would not be impacted by polluted stormwater or mine sediment. (See, e.g., Final EIR § 4.7; 5.1-22, 5.4-25 - 5.4-27, 5.4-33, 5.4- 56.) The Final EIR provides, in relevant part: The NorthStar Flooding Study (2002) included as Appendix D-2 of the Draft EIR includes calculations that document -the increase in stage at and near the proposed processing area. This is the only potential flooding impact attributable to the project and would affect only M&T Ranch land. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a is designed to protect all downstream properties from any adverse effects with regard to flooding. (Final EIR, p. 5.4-56 [emphasis added].) On January 22, 2004, at the Planning Commission hearing on the Project, Howard Ellman, counsel for Parrott, raised this issue again. Mr. Ellman requested that that the Planning. Commission require Baldwin to obtain a "storm water management plan" as a precautionary measure to prevent mine sediment from entering the Llano Seco Ranch. (See Butte County Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2004, pp. 8-9.) The Planning Commission implemented Mr. Ellman's recommendation, and further, added additional conditions of approval aimed to prevent any potential impacts from mine sediment. (Exhibit 3.) Under the approved conditions of approval, Baldwin must acquire all relevant state and federal stormwater pollution DIEPENBROCK N,_ ..ZRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 8 prevention permits prior to commencing mining operations, including a stormwater pollution prevention plan and relevant NPDES permits. (Conditions o- Approval for M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin Contracting Company], pp. 4-5 [emphasis added].) The Planning Commission also heard extensive testimony from representatives of NorthStar Engineering, and the EIR consultant thal any impacts caused by the transfer of mine sediment during flood events would bE less than significant. (See, Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Mark Adams, pp. 61-66]; see also, Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Nov. 30, 2006 [testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, pp. 123, 131]; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006. [testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, pp. 74-75].) 4. The Project Will Be Reclaimed to Wildlife Habitat Parrott also states that the EIR is flawed because it "mischaracterizes the gravel mine as wildlife habitat creation project, a result that can only be achieved after 30 years of extraction[.]" (Parrott Appeal, pp. 3-4.) This is a factual misrepresentation. Reclamation will occur concurrently with mining. Beginning in Year Five (5) of the Project, Baldwin will begin reclamation activities, which will include the formation of wildlife habitat. (Reclamation Plan, p. 34.) Thus, the assertion that the creation of wildlife habitat can only be achieved after 30 years is factually inaccurate. Parrott also states that that EIR "ignores the existing habitat value of the undulating ground that the gravel mine will defile." (Parrott Appeal, p. 3.) This inflammatory statement ignores substantial evidence in the record, including the EIR. The EIR contains an extensive analysis of the Project's impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. (Draft EIR, § 4.7.) The EIR concluded that the propcsed Project's impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, with the identified mitigation measures, would be less -than -significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-27 — 4.7-36.) The County also addressed inquiries regarding the Project's impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Final EIR. (Final EIR, pp. 5.4-49 — 5.4-50.) The Final EIR explained that special -status species known to reside in the vicinity of the Project site will continue to use the habitats available to them, whether on or off the Project site, and whether or not the Project is approved. (Final EIR, gyp. 5.2-21, 5.4- 49 — 5.4-50.) DIEPENBROCK h..ARISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 9 5. The Location of the Mine is Consistent with Statewide Practices Parrott asserts that the EIR is flawed because its fails to consider guidance by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- Fisheries ("NOAA Fisheries) and the Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") which discourages the placement of gravel mines in flood zones. (Parrott Appeal, p. 3.) While Parrott cites no evidence to support this proposition, for purposes of this analysis we assume that the source of Parrott's argument is the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") publication, National Gravel Extraction Guidance. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-70, Sept. 2005.) First, we note at the outset that neither NOAA nor DFG commented on the EIR that mining is prohibited. Contrary to Parrott's veiled inferences, there is no applicable state or federal law that prohibits aggregates operations in floodplains. Parrot fails to state that the NOAA document, by its own admission, is.a policy document which is not legally binding. (National Gravel Extraction Guidance, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-70, Sept.. 2005, pp. 1-2.) In addition, the County is the lead agency for the Project and is not required to adopt the policy position of other agencies. In addition, at the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, substantial evidence was introduced into the administrative record by the County's EIR consultant indicating that it is common in California for gravel mines to be located in floodplains, including river corridors adjacent to agricultural lands. (See Dec. 14, 2007 Planning Commission hearing transcript.) The EIR consultant named the City of Redding, Yuba County [Yuba River Corridor], Yolo County, Placer County [Bear River Corridor], Merced County [Merced River Corridor], Tulare County [Kaweah River Corridor], and Fresno County as examples of sites where gravel mines are located in floodplains. (Id.) Furthermore, several counties encourage mining not only in floodplains, but within actual waterways. For example, mining operations are located on in -river gravel bars throughout the state. 6. The Project's Impact on the Groundwater Aquifer is Less -Than - Significant Parrott asserts that the EIR is inadequate because it fails to address impacts caused by the infiltration of mine sediments into the groundwater aquifer which is located in the proposed mining pit. (Parrott Appeal, pp. 3-4.) This assertion ignores substantial evidence contained in the administrative record. The County extensively analyzed the Project's impacts to groundwater via the aquifer as part of the CEQA process. (Draft EIR § 4.4.) As part of this analysis, the DIEPENBROCK h ..ORISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 10 County commissioned a hydrology report which specifically evaluated the Project's impacts to groundwater quality. (See Draft EIR, App, D-1, Steven J. Deverel, Ph.D, Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel Mining: M&T Chico Ranch.) This report states, in relevant part: The potential effects on groundwater quality as the resLdt of mining operations and reclamation were assessed by an evaluation of the possible pathways and mechanism3 for groundwater contamination. Possible pathways are the migration of constituents (fuels, lubricants, etc.) associated with mining operations, movement of nutrierts and pesticides onto the site in flood flows of Little Chico Creek, and changes in groundwater chemistry as the result of in -lake processes. Because agricultural runoff and drainage do not flow into Little Chico Creek, groundwater contamination as the result of flood flows at the site is highly unlikely ... The movement of chemical constituents associated with the mining operations. will be controlled in accordance with State and Federal Storm Water Discharge requirements. This will prevent movement of contaminants to surface and groundwater. (Draft EIR, App D-1, p. D-1.10 [emphasis added].) Based on this analysis, the County concluded in the Draft EIR that, with proposed mitigation (Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 4.4-4), and compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater prevention requirements (see Conditions of Approval 31, 32), the Project will not result in significant impacts to'groundwater resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-36.) In addition, at the January 25, 2007 Planning Commission hearing, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony that ming sediments will not be transferred through the aquifer.because the sediments canno- physically interface with the opening to the aquifer. (Planning Commission hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Mark Adams, pp. 77-78; see also testimony of Richard Leland, p. 97].) Thus, based on this substantial evidence, the Planning Commission determined that the EIR adequately addressed the issue of aquifer contamination, and specifically found that Parrott's claims regarding groundwater ccntamination were invalid. (EIR Resolution, pp. 15-16.) i DIEPENBROCK h...ZRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 11 - 7. The County Adequately Addressed the Impacts of the Project's Flood Design on Surrounding Properties . . Parrott next asserts that the EIR does not adequately address the impacts to surrounding properties caused by the Project's flood design during high -stage flood events. (Parrott Appeal, p. 4.) This argument flagrantly ignores substantial' evidence contained in the administrative record which specifically addresses this issue. The County conducted an extensive analysis of potential off-site impacts caused by the Project's flood control design as part of the CEQA process. (See NorthStar Flooding Study; Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-75 —4.4-76; Final EIR § 4.7-4.) The Draft EIR concluded that, with appropriate mitigation, potential environmental impacts to adjacent landowners resulting from the flood design would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-76.) The Draft EIR noted that the purpose of these measures was to mitigate off-site impacts, including impacts to River Road, the Jones' parcel, and the Sacramento River floodplain. (Draft EIR, p. 4:4-76.) - The County again addressed comments on this issue in the Final EIR. Relevant excerpts from the Final EIR are as follows: Concerns regarding the earthen berm redirecting floodwaters are not an issue because of Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c of the Draft EIR, which states: "Applicant shall install a bypass channel to convey flows formerly conveyed by the distributary channel around the proposed pit area. The overflow weir and adjoining bypass channel will be designed such that elimination of the distributary will not result in increased flooding depths or duration to the Jones' parcel. The bypass channel shall maximize, to the extent possible, use of native plant materials in the design to control erosion. Plans shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction." (Final EIR, p. 5.4-33.) The Final EIR further states, in relevant part: Mitigation Measures 4.4-7a, b, and c (pages 4.4-75 of the Draft EIR) spell out the specific measures the County is imposing on the project to implement NorthStar's flood DIEPENBROCK`h...ZRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 12 prevention recommendations. These mitigation measures will eliminate additional flooding effects_ on adjacent property owners. (Final EIR, § 4.7-4; p. 4.0-35 [emphasis added].) In addition, expert testimony was received at the Planning Commission hearing of December 14, 2006 from the County's EIR consultant, and Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering regarding the Project's flood control design. The EIR consultant and Mr. Adams demonstrated how this design in fact protects, and does not exacerbate, flooding impacts on surrounding properties during large flood events. (See, Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Dave Brown, pp. 24-29; testimony of Mark Adams, pp. 30-35, 57-66].1 8. ` The Planning Commission's Alternatives Analysis Complied with CEQA Parrott asserts that the Planning Commission's findings "are nDt based on substantial evidence of sound justification to support rejection of alternatives under applicable legal. standards." (Parrott Appeal, p. 5.) Parrott further as3erts that the Planning Commission's omission conflicts with the California Supreme Court Case,- City ase,City of Marina v. Board of Trustees (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341. Parrott's argument ignores the evidence in the record. CEQA Guideline section 15126.6 requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6, subd. (a); see e.g., Village Laguna of Laguna Beach v. Board of Superviso,s (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1028-1032.) The purpose of this alternatives analysis is to "foster informed decision making and public participation." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) CEQA establishes no set number of alternatives that the EIR must analyze. (Id. at subd. (f).) Rather, the EIR must "set forth ... Bose alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." (Ibid.; see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553.) At a minimum, however, an EIR must include evaluation of the "no project" alternative. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6, subd. (e).) Once the alternatives are set forth and evaluated, the EIR must identify the "environmentally superior" alternative; if the "no project" alternative is identified as such, then the EIR must identify tl-e environmentally superior alternative from the remaining alternatives. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6(e)(2).) CEQA provides greater flexibility for alternatives analyses that address mining . operations. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines recognize that for mining projects the only feasible alternative locations may be the actual project location since the project DIEPENBROCK F-; _.ORISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 13 facilities must be located near the relevant natural resources. (Cal. Cede Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(2)(B).) Thus, in the case of the Project, CEQA. only requires a discussion of alternatives which can meet Project goals (i.e., mineral extraction). Here, the Draft EIR contains a 26 -page discussion of Project alternatives. (Draft EIR § 5.0.) It included a broad range of alternatives, including: (1) a "no project alternative, (2) an alternative project location alternative, (3) a reduced project area alternative, and (4) a lower processing rate alternative. Thus, in . preparing the Draft EIR alternatives analysis, the County went beyond what was required. by CEQA, specifically CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, subd. (f)(2)(B). The Draft EIR determined that the "no project" was the environmentally superior alternative, and the "reduced project area" was determined -o be the environmentally superior alternative from the remaining options. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) The County determined that both of these options failed to meet the basic project objectives, and further, deferred impacts associated with construction aggregates production and distribution to other sites within the County and the region. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-2, 5-4 - 5-5.) Based on this evidence, the Planning Commission concluded that each of the analyzed alternatives was infeasible for economic and other reasons. (EIR Resolution, pp. 17-21.) Accordingly, the Planning Commission's determination is consistent with CEQA, as well as the holding contained in City of Marina v. Board of Trustees (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, cited by Parrott. 9. There is a Demonstrated Need for the Proiect Parrott argues that the County has not demonstrated the need for an aggregate mine in Butte County. (Parrott Appeal, p. 5.) The Final EIR explains that CEQA does not require lead agencies to evaluate the need for a given project (Final EIR, p. 4.0-3.) Nevertheless, the County provided a detailed analysis of the need for the Project in the Final EIR, including an aggregate availability study. (Final EIR, § 4.3; pp. 4.0-3 — 4.0-22.) The Final EIR explains that the Project is necessary because both the state as a whole and the County in particular face a drastic shortage of aggregate materials. (Id. at pp. 4.06 - 4.0-22, 4.0-19.) More specifically, the aggregate availability study contained in the Final EIR concludes that the County, without permitting new sources of aggregate, will exhaust is existing aggregate reserves by 2030. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-19.) The Final EIR states: Demand Over the next 50 years, Chico will require more than 45 million tons, and the County will need nearly 130 million tons. When compared to the DIEPENBROCK K _RRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 14 current estimates of supply, the County 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. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-19 [emphasis added].) Thus, the County conducted an extensive analysis of the need for the Project as part of the CEQA process, and concluded, based on a documented shortage of aggregate in the County (and the.state), that the need for the Project is substantial. Further studies performed by the State reinforce even more they need for the Project. DOC released its most recent study of aggregate availability in California in February, 2006. (See Aggregate Availability in California (2006), California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey [attachec as Exhibit 4].) Although this study does not specifically analyze the County, it does contain an evaluation of Glenn County, currently the primary source of aggregate for the County. (Id., p. 4.) The study shows that in the past five years, Glenn County's permitted aggregate resources have decreased from seventy-one percent (71%) to. twenty-one percent (21 %) of its expected 50 -year demand. (Id., p. 13.) Thus, Parrott's argument that the County can continue to rely on alternative sources of aggregate outside the County is without merit. (See Parrott Appeal, p. 5.) Further, as the Planning Commission determined in the EIR Resolution, importing aggregate from outside sources, specifically Glenn County, actually may increase potential environmental impacts. (EIR Resolution, p. 19.) The EIR Resolution states: Further, if materials are supplied from more distant locations, such as from Glenn County, there is an increase in vehicle miles traveled, potential increase in environmental impacts (more specifically, air impacts), an increase in cost of materials for the City of Chico, the County, and local consumers, and the County derives little economic benefit from the impact fees, sales tax, property tax, and other secondary expenditures of goods and services spent in other jurisdictions. Higher cost materials and. lower tax revenues, including impact fees and "fair share" contributions, mean that fewer miles of County roads can be constructed or maintained. (EIR Resolution, p. 19.) DIEPENBROCK h. _.ZRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 15 Thus, as there is a demonstrated need for aggregate in the County, the Planning Commission's findings regarding the need for the Project a -e based on substantial evidence in the administrative record. (See, e.g., EIR Resolution, pp. 18- 19.) IL Jones Appeal The Jones Appeal also raises issues that the County has extensively addressed during its review of the Project. 1. The Proiect is Consistent with the General Plan's Agricultural Element and Surrounding Agricultural Uses The Jones Appeal speculates that the Project will have negative impacts on the agricultural and wildlife settings surrounding the Project site. (Janes Appeal, pp. 1-2.) The County evaluated potential impacts to agricultural uses in the Draft EIR, stating: . [The] proposed mining and reclamation activities would be similar in scope and equipment used whin compared to ongoing large-scale agricultural operations on other portions of the project site and surrounding areas. The project would not result in tl-e presence of large numbers of people. in the area who might damage or pilfer crops. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-7 [emphasis added].) The County concluded that, with the proposed mitigation, the Project is compatible with the existing and planned uses in the vicinity of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-8 — 4.2-9.) The County addressed this issue again in the Final EIR Response to Comments document. The Final EIR explains that the Project is consistent with the County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance; and Surface Mining Ordinance, and thus compatible with surrounding uses. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-29.) The Project is also consistent with the Agricultural Element cif the General Plan. The General Plan's Agricultural Element sets forth basic policies and goals with respect to agriculture. The Agriculture Element identifies two sieparate land use designations. The Project site is designated "Orchard and Field Crops." The Land Use Element of the. General Plan sets forth the types of uses allowed in this designation, which uses are consistent with the Agricultural Elemert. (General. Plan DIEPENBROCK H. _.LRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 16 Land Use Element, section 2.6, p.. LUE-48; see also Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006).) The General Plan states: Primary Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops, especially annual food crops. Secondary Use: Animal husbandry and intense animal uses, resource extraction and processing, hunting and water -related recreation facilities, dwellings, airports, utilities, environmental preservation activities, public and quasi -public uses, home occupations. (See General Plan Land Use Element, section 2.6, p. LUE-48; Draft EIR, p. 4.2-2.) The General Plan defines secondary uses as compatible uses which are conditionally allowed. (Id.) Further, the General Plan sets forth the following policies in regards to surface mining operations within the County: 2.6a Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of building materials and other valued mineral resources. 2.6b Encourage the reclamation of lands subject to mineral extraction. (See Draft EIR, p. 4.2-5.) As required by law, and as the County has found, the General Plan is internally consistent and the Land Use Element and its descriptions are consistent with the general policies of the Agriculture Element. Surface mining s consistent with both of these elements as made clear by the express reference to mineral extraction in the "Orchard and Field Crops" description as well as the Williamson Act program of the County, which also expressly allows surface mining. (See, County Resolution 68-7; M&T Incorporated Land Conservation Agreement, No. 23188, dated Dec. 11, 1975; County File.) In addition, the Planning Commission specifically addressed this issue in its CEQA findings and, based on the exhaustive evidence in the record recounted above, determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. (EIR Resolution, pp. 8-9.) DIEPENBROCK K .RRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 17 2. . The Project Will Not Result in the Destruction of Prime Farmland . The Jones Appeal states as follows: 2) Both the Assessor and the NRCS have determined that this is prime soil. The real pressing public need is to save as much prime farmland as possible for future generations. 3) Approving any project that destroys farmland, while at the same time giving the owners of that property a tax break which was designed to insure the protection of that land, is diametrically opposed to the intent of the Williamson Act. (Jones Appeal, p. 2.) The County extensively addressed the issue of agricultural land conversion as part of the CEQA process, and determined that the Project site, in fact, consists of unirrigated, nonprime farmland. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-5 — 4.2-6; 4.3-- 20 — 4.3-23.) In the Final EIR, the County further explained that the Assessor's classification of the Project site, for purposes of CEQA review, is irrelevant because the Assessor's classification is made. for economic purposes on a parcel -by -parcel basis utilizing different standards than CEQA or the Williamson Act. (Final EIR, p..5.0-10.) In.November 2006, the County issued an Errata to the Final EIR addressing this issue, which reiterated the findings contained in the Draft EIR that the Project site does not contain prime farmland. (See Updated Response to CDmments Regarding Williamson Act, pp. 4-5 [attached as Exhibit 5].) Based on this substantial evidence, the Planning Commission determined that the Project will not result in the destruction of prime agricultural Farmland. The Planning Commission found as follows: The County determination regarding the prime or non- prime status of the Project site for assessment purposes is not relevant to the analysis contained in the EIR for CEQA purposes (i.e., to analyze the physical impacts of the Project). The County Assessor's classification is made for economic purposes on a parcel -by -parcel basis utilizing DIEPENBROCK I•._ .RRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30,.2007 Page 18 different standards than the Williamson Act. Here, the EIR analyzed the actual site specific conditions of the 235 -acre Project site, not the entire 8,000 acre M&T Ranch. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.2(a).) The CEQA specific analysis and process produced z substantial evidence that the affected Project area does not meet the Williamson.Act standards for prime agricultural farmland, even though the parcel, in its ' entirety, may qualify as prime agricultural farmland for land` assessment purposes. (EIR Resolution, pp. 16-17 [emphasis added].) Thus, the assertions contained in the Jones Appeal that the Project will destroy prime farmland are without merit. Based on the substantial evidence in the administrative record, including public testimony and the EIR, I respectfully request on behalf of Baldwin that the Board of Supervisors reject the Parrott and Jones appeals, and approve the Project. Very truly yours, DIEPENBROCK HARRISON A Profe orporation K. Dorso cc: Mr. Bill Connelly, Butte County Supervisor Ms. Jane Dolan, Butte County Supervisor Mr. Curt Josiassen, Butte County Supervisor Ms. Maureen Kirk, Butte County Supervisor Mr. Kim Yamaguchi, Butte County Supervisor Mr. Pete Calarco Mr. Charles Thistlethwaite Mr. Rene A. Vercruyssen Mr. Rene J. Vercruyssen Mr. J. Jeffrey Carter ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION - A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 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. 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 Planning Commission 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 filed an application for a Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan (MIN 96-03) consisting of 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. Page 1 of 14 3. In 1996 the County prepared an Initial Study to evEluate 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 1506L (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("Guidelines 4. On February 28, 1997, the County distributed a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and the public. 5. From May 12, 1998 to July 2, 1998, the Draft EIR was circulated for public.review. 6. On June 11, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a heating 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. 7. 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 technica_ analyses. 8. The County hired a new consultant to prepare the recirculated Draft EIR (Resource Design Technology, Inc.) 9. In September 2002, the County issued the revised Draft EIR. On September 30, 2002, the County filed the Notice of Completicn 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 publi., notice of this meeting. At the hearing, the Planning Commission heard ard.received all relevant oral and written testimony and evidence filed or presented 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 Page 2 of 14 (collectively, "Final EIR"). . , 13. The Final EIR does not contain significant new information, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, which would require recir�,ulation of 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 not include significant new environmental impacts, do not show a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impF_ct, do not identify a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously identified, and the Draft EI_Z 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 Reclamaticn 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 ransed by the Department of Conservation 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 Act, p. 6.) Under State law, the Petition for Partial Cancellation is beyond the purview of. the Planning Commission, and will be resolved by the County Board of Supervisors. 15. 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 has adopted a resolution certifying the Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 97022080), and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan. Page 3 of 14 LYINDING: FINDINGS OF FACT LAND USE CONSISTENCY — Based on its land use compatibility analysis, the. County finds that the Project is consistent with 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 with the County Mining Ordinance. Further, the proposed mining is an appropriate 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, the Project site also lies approximately two miles west on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline designated on the Chico Area Land -Use Plan. Land uses on the agricultural side of the Greenline are limited 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 `Orchare and Field Crops' land use designation..." As stated above, the Project falls within ,the "Secondary Uses" category, which includes "resource ex -.traction and processing," and "environmental preservation activities." 2. FINDING: SITE SUITABILITY - The site is suitable for the use propos;ed. (a) The Project has been reviewed for suitability by the County Agricultural Commissioner, County Public Works Department, County Air Quality Management District, Department of Conservation, County 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 Clearinghouse. (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 suitable 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 2 AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. 1996. Aggregate Investigation Hallwood and M&T Properties_ California. April. AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. 1997. Excavation Stability M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation, West of Dayton, California. August 22. Page 4 of 14 3 Hydroscience, Inc., Water Quality Report 4 Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1997. Memorandum of Prime Farmland Soils Analy. is for the M&T Chico Ranch. September 24. 5 Department of Water Resources, Northern Diswict. 1993. M&T Chico Ranch Groundwater Investigation, Phase I, Memorandum Report, Red Bluff, California. 6 Deverel, S.J. 1996. Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel Mining: M&T Chico Ranch. 7 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. .1997. Traf is Impact Analysis for the M&T Chico Ranch Project. 8 Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1996. M&T Chico Ranch Mine Use Permit, Mining Permit, and Reclamation Plan Application. 9 Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1996 Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation: M&T Chaco Ranch. November. 10 City of Chico. 1995. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Chico Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion. State Clearinghouse Number 94112054. (c) Final EIR prepared by Resource Design, as certif ed by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2007. 3. FINDING: NO VIOLATIONS - The subject property is in compliance with all 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=vlining and Reclamation Act of 1975, Public Resources Code, Section 2710 et seq ("SMARA" ), which establishes state authority to regulate mining operations and reclamation, and other applicable State regulations, as those provisions may be amended from time to time. 6. FINDING: Sections 2770 and 2773.1 of SMARA require surface mining operators to obtain lead agency (city or county) approved financial as:aurances 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 Page 5 of 14 $103,526.93. (Exhibit 1.) 7. FINDING: RECLAMATION STANDARDS -The Reclamation. Plan co»plies with applicable. requirements of State regulations (CCR Sections 3500- 3505, and Sections 3700-3713, as those provisions may be amended from time to time). a) Section 3703: Performance Standards for Wildlife Habitat - The Reclamation Plan for the Project meets the requirements of Section 3703. Baseline conditions are described in Section 4.6 (Biological Resources) of the Draft EIR. (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 15.) As discussed in the revised Reclamation Plan dated September 2004 ("Reclamation Plan"), shallow wetlands will be established along the. margins of a reclaimed lake. A combination of shallow and deep water habitat for a variety of wildlife species will be created ising best management practices. Further, a nesting island will be constructed using excess overburden. (Reclamation Plan, pp. 18-19, Attachments 7, 13.) Native vegetation will be established on the reclaim -,d 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-;omparing 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 Rcnch Mine Reclamation (Draft EIR, Appendix E; Reclamation Plan, Attachment 8.) The study concluded a 3:1 slope was an adequate facto- 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 propos,-,d onsite, including offices, and other ancillary facilities will be regulated by the Butte' County Building Division of the Development. Services Page 6 of 14 S 'Department. (Draft EIR, Section 4.3, p. 4.3-16.) No backfilling will take place. c) Section 3705: Performance Standards for Revegetat=on - The 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 paoameters of naturally occurring vegetation in the area." (Cal. Code Reg—, tit. 14, § 3705(m).) The Reclamation Plan's revegetation standardE track the statutory requirements mandated by SMARA and its associated regulations. For example, Section 3705(m) states the followving: 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, and species-richness of the reclaimed mined-lands to similar parameters of naturally occurring vegetation in the vea. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 3705(m).) The Reclamation Plan tracks these requirements. The reclamation plan states "Performance standards ... will be evaluated bFsed 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." Further, the 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 Count). 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, the reclamation plan requires that "[m]ethods for monioring 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 R?clamation Plan meets the requirements of Section 3706. The Applicant will obtain coverage under a general stormwater control permit from the 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 Page 7 of 14 - - Y. � c fin• - _ � y , .. - t ` C ! ' . , ' • e .mss` ' !y .� - VIX a S discharge of surface flows from the.site meet stormwate- pollution control permit requirements, and comply with applicable erosion' , control and sediment control requirements. Further, as indicated in the j •._ �'-' J excavation stability study (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 8), the 3:1 final slopes incorporated into the final Project desigri 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. Th --re 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 4 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 Se, 3708. ' z 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 ares) while ' the mining area (193 acres) will be, reclaimed as open water and - - wetlands.. The revegetation scientist that the Applicant wiD retain for, the. Project will set up appropriate reference areas for bofi 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 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 br wildlife .' habitat by comparing appropriatemeasures of cover, dLnsity and , • 2 ..^ , species • richness of the reclaimed lands to similar parameters on reference areas approved by County staff. g) -Section 3709: Performance Standards for Building, Structure and Equipment Removal - There are currently no buildings o- structures ` within the proposed Project area. Buildings and structures associated ., •' with the aggregate processing plant will be removed wher mining is _ ;3 `completed. . °� �• � :.. . `. , Page 8 of 14 ' h) Section 3710: Performance Standards for Stream Protection, Including Surface and Groundwater - The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements of Section 3710. Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the Draft EIR describes the potential imparts 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 wai.er 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 discussed in Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel MinMg — M&T Chico Ranch (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 9; Draft EIR. Appendix D.1), the Project will not have a significant impact on g-oundwater resources. (See Draft EIR,. section 4.4). The proposed lake will actually result in enhanced groundwater recharge from p-ecipitation 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 .o alter that process. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-38.) The groundwater .quality study prepared for the Draft EIR by Monarch Laboratory con luded that there is no groundwater problem associated with the existing pit. (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 11; Draft EIR, Appe:idix 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 recharge and water quality following reclamation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4- 64.- 4.4-78.) i) Section 3711: Performance Standards for Topsof Salvage, Maintenance, and Redistribution — The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements of Section 3711. The Reclamation Plan describes how topsoil and subsoil (growth medium) will be saved and stockpiled for reclamation uses as shown in Attachment 7 of the Revege-tation Plan. (Reclamation Plan, p. 8; Attachment 3, Item 6, p. 5; Attachment 5.) j) Section 3712: Performance Standards for Tailing and Mine Waste Management — The Reclamation Plan meets the requirements of Section 3712. Under the Reclamation Plan, the Proje_—t will not generate any mine wastes because all mine products wil- be sold or used in reclamation. (Reclamation Plan, Attachment 3, Item 5, p. 5.) k) Section 3713: Performance Standards for Closure of Surface Openings — The Reclamation Plan meets the requirement3 of Section Page 9 of 14 3713. There are no drill holes, portals, shaft or tunnels associated with the mining operations proposed for the site that would require abandonment. 8. FINDING: HEALTH AND SAFETY — The establishment, maint✓nance or operation of the use or structure applied for will not, _under the, 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 det-iiental or injurious to property and improvement in the neighborhoock or to the general welfare of the County. Findings Regarding Statement of Overriding Considerations . 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 ir-npacts, 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 of the Project against these impacts, and has determined that the adverse environmental impacts are acceptable for the. reasons outlined herein. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project will create the following benefits for the County of Butte and County residents (in no relative order): A. Continued supply of readily available high quality aggregate for nse in local 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 aDraft EIR, section 4.2.2, p. 4-2.1). B. Protection and development of a significant aggregate resource designated under the Mineral Land Classification system by the California De.:)artment 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 Jata indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 is divided into MRZ-2a and MRZ=2b on the Page 10 of 14 basis of degree of knowledge and economic factors. Arias 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." TotalProject reserves are estimated at over 5.5 million cL.bic yards (approximately 8.25 million tons). The resources identified on the Project site are considered by the State to be excellent potential aggregate sour -,es for use .in both ready -mix concrete and asphaltic concrete product. 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. Mitigatioi Measure 4.6-2 requires the Applicant to contribute a fair share of the cost o.o 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 r:quires 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 -he current Baldwin Contracting Company 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 L, -ss 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 future use in Butte County to account for population growth. Final EIR Section 4.3 provides a -collective response concerning comments received regarding the rn�-,cessity of additional aggregate resources in Butte County. In the next 30 years (the maximum permit time frame requested by the Applicant), the Cit_ 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 Page 11 of 14 consume over 60 million tons. Over the next 50 years, Chico 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 County 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. F. Extraction of a known valuable. aggregate resource consistent witl- 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 the Chico and Butte County markets. H. Highly regulated, responsible mining under carefully controlled conditions, with the ability to revoke the individual permit at any time after 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 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 we:dand 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 propose] pond/pit will result, at the' end of operations, in approximately 1,000 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 protecticn 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 operaticn) 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 requiP that The Applicant develop a groundwater monitoring program, approved by the Page 12 of 14 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and by Butte County. L. Avoidance and reduction in reliance upon highly disturbing in-stream mining and related environmental concerns associated with in-stream mi-ling. 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. y 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 is instead located on alluvial terraces away from environmentally sensitive in- stream mine sites. M. Generation of employment opportunities associated with -nining of aggregates, required monitoring and reporting, construction associated with on site facilities and improving and maintaining roadway fac_lities, and restoration of wildlife areas. N. Generation of employment opportunities for a locally based compa_-iy 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). Page 13 of 14 DECISION IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, EVIDENCE, AND THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, the Butte County Planning Commission hereby approves the M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use. Permit, Reclamation Plan (MIN 96-03, and Financial Assurances Cost Estimate (attached as Exhibit I and incorporated by reference herein), adopts the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit 2), anj approves the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3 and incorporated by reference nerein). DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Nina Lambert - Chair Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California ATTEST: TTNA BONHAM, Secretary Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT,.AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE M&T CHICO RANCH MINE. MINING USE PERMIT AND RECLAMATION PLAN (MIN 96-03) BACKGROUND The M&T Chico Ranch Mine ("Project") proposed by the applicant, Baldwin Contracting Company ("Applicant"), consists of a long-term, off -channel gravel mining operation approximately 5 -miles southwest of the City of Chico: The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site over an estimated 20 to 30—year period The Project site would be reclaimed to high-quality, open -water, wetland wildlife. habitat and agricultural uses. The mined aggregate would be processed (washed and s.;reened) on a 40 -acre area at the site. The Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Prcject 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. Having :onsidered all the. written and documentary information submitted, the staff reports, o-al'.testimony, other evidence presented, and. the administrative record as a whole, the Planning Commission hereby finds and decides as follows. RECITALS 1. Lead Agency Status: Butte County is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") for preparation and certification of the Final EIR for the Project. 2. Proiect Description: The Project allows a long-term, off -channel gravel mining operation. The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre, site over an estimated 20 to 30 -year period. Approximately six acres will be mined each year. The aggregate would be processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site. a) Acreages: The approximate acreages for the Project are as follows: Lease area: 627 acres Project site: 235 acres Mined area: 193 acres Page 1 of 26 Equipment area: 40 acres Topsoil stockpile: 2 acres b. Location: The Project is located on a portion of the M&T Chico Ranch approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River and approximately 5 miles southwest- of the City of Chico, in an area north of and adjacent tc Old Ferry Road, and east of., and partially adjacent to, River Road. Access to the. site would be provided by River Road. c. Material to be mined: High quality construction aggregates including gravel and sand. The Project site is part of the present Sacramento River Floodplain and the gravels and sands underlying the site consist of channel deposits from the river. d. Production: Production numbers for the Project are as follows: Maximum annual mine production: 275,000 cubic yards (min -d) Maximum annual mine production: 250,000 cubic yards (marketed) Average annual mined product amount: 66,667 cubic yards Total production: 5,500,000 cubic yards e.Traffic Volumes for Trucks: According to the traffic study contained in the Draft EIR, the Project will generate approximately 16,667 trips per year. Average. daily trips generated will be 128 (64 arriving and 64 departing). The Project will generate 20 additional AM and PM Peak Traffic Trips. These trips equate to a less than one percent (1%) increase of total traffic volumes in the Project- area under cumulative conditions. 3. Discretionary Approvals Required: The proposed Project involves the following discretionary approvals and CEQA actions by the Planning Commission: a) Certify the Final EIR for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Long -Term Off - Channel Mining Use Permit application (SCH 97022080) based on Findings of Fact documenting compliance with CEQA (Exhibit 1), and . independent review and consideration of the information in the 3IR prior to taking action on the Project. b) Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program implementing mitigation measures. (Exhibit 2.) c) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, to allow for the excavation of 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site, including portions of Assessor Parcels 039-530-019 & 039-530-020. d) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, to allow for the establishment of a lake with shallow wetland areas along the perimeter for wildlife habitat and a 40 -acre area reclaimed to agricultural uses. e) Approve the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate in the amount of $103,526.93 to ensure reclamation of the mine site. Page 2 of 26 f) Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. g) Adopt Conditions of Approval as set forth by County departments and agencies. 4. Preparation- of an EIR: Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. sections 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"), an EIR was prepared for the Project to analyze the environmental effects of the Project. 5. Process: Preparation of the Final EIR was a multi-year process, which included. the following activities: a) On August 30, 1996, the Project application was submitted to the Ccunty. b) 'An Initial Study to evaluate the environmental impacts 'associated with the - proposed project identified several potentially significant environmental effects that may occur with implementation of the project. Accordingly, an EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064(a). c) On February 28, 1997; the County distributed a Notice of Preparat-on for the EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and the public. d) In May 1998, the County issued the Draft EIR. The County circulated the Draft EIR for public review and comment from May 12, 1998 to Jury 2, 1998. Over 80 comment letters were submitted to the County on the Draft EIR. These comment letters are on. file and available for review at the County Planning Department. ' County. staff and the EIR consultant reviewed all comments during preparation of the revised Draft EIR. e) On June 11, 1998, the Draft EIR for the Project was first heF-.rd by the Planning Commission. Extensive public input was received at that time. The -Planning Commission continued the matter to allow additional input and analysis following the hearing. f) TheCounty decided to update and supplement certain sections of the Draft EIR (including the Traffic, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Nois,- sections) in order to update technical data contained in the Draft EIR. In addition, the County required the- completion of a pedestrian level archaeological survey at the Project site. The County then decided to recirculate the entire Draft EIR to ensure consistency and accuracy between the new and old sections, and to maximize the opportunity for public comment on the Project and the Draft EIR. The County hired a new consultant, Resource Design Inc., to prepare the revised Draft EIR. The particular modifications to the original May 1998 Draft EIR are outlined on page 1-3 of the revised Draft EIR. g) In September 2002, the County issued the revised Draft EIR. Tile County circulated the. revised Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period Page 3 of 26 commencing October 12, 2002 through November 25, 2002. Comments were received on the revised Draft EIR and are included and responded to 'within the Final EIR. h) ' On September 30, 2002, the County Filed a Notice of CompleVon for the revised Draft EIR with the State of California Clearinghouse. i) On October 24;. 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in Oroville to receive public comment on the Project and the revised Draft EIR. Public notice of this meeting was provided by the.County. j) In October, 2003, the County released the M&T Chico Ranch Final EIR. The County provided notice of the availability of the Final EIR to agencies, organizations, and the public. k) On October 23, 2003, the Planning Commission held another hearing to solicit further public comment on the Final EIR. The Planning Commission held additional hearings to solicit public comment on the Project on January 22, 2004, March 11, 2004, April 8, 2004, August 26, 2004, November 30, 2006, ,December 14, 2006, and January 25, 2007. 1) During the public comment period to the Draft EIR, the . Department of Conservation ("DOC") commented that the proposed Project was not an allowed use under the Williamson Act. m) On October 11, 2005, Pac Trust filed a Notice of Partial Nonrenewal for the " 106 acres to be cancelled and voluntarily submitted a Petition of Partial " Cancellation. n) In November, 2006 the Countyreleased an Updated Response tc Comments Regarding the Williamson Act for the Final EIR. o) On November 30, 2006, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission to. consider certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and' adoption of a S-atement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning. Commission voted to, continue the hearing until December 14, 2006. p) On December 14, 2006, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final E=R, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of Mining- Use Permit No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation P"an," and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding *Considerations. At this hearing, Staff provided respon;es to public Page 4 of 26 comments which were received at the November 30, 2006 hearing. The Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing until January 2`, 2007. q) On January 25, 2007, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of Mining Use ?ermit No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, and thT Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations'. In addition, Staff returned to the Planning Comm.ssion with responses to public comments that were received'at the December 14, 2006 hearing'. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt a Motion of Intent to: (1) adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (2) adopt a separate resolution approving Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, including the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 6. Documents Comprising Final EIR: The Final EIR for the M&T C_Zico Ranch Mine Project includes the following items (collectively referred to as the "FinF-1 EIR"), a) M&T Chico Ranch Mine Draft EIR (SCH 97022080) dated September 2002; b) Comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, dated October 23, 2003; c) Draft EIR Errata containing corrections and clarifications made tc• the text of the Draft EIR; d) Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act, dated November, 2006; e) Updated Draft EIR Errata Regarding Environmental Setting; and f) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 7. Description Of The Record: For purposes of CEQA and the finding3 hereinafter set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those items listed in Section 21167.6 (e) of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1994) including but not limited to: a) All application materials and correspondence contained in the Lead Agency's Project files (MIN 96-03); b) The. original Draft EIR; c) The revised Draft EIR; Page 5 of 26 d) The Final EIR; e) All Notices of Availability, the Notice of Determination, staff reports and presentation materials related to the Project; f) All studies contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft EIR, or the Final EIR;. g) All, public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the County and other agencies; h) All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hyarings and workshops, and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project; and i) For 'documentary and informational purposes, all locally -adopted lard use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, area plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents, findings,, mitigation monitoring programs and other documentation. relevant to planned growth in the area. 8. Custodian of the Record: The administrative record is maintained at the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS• L Evidentiary Basis for Findings: These findings are based upo-1 substantial evidence in the entire record before the Planning Commission. The refe-ences to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other evidence in the record set forth in the findings are for ease of reference and are intended to demonstrate the analytical path between the evidence in the record and the findings adopted by the Planning Commission. The references are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence in t -ie record that is relied upon for these findings. 2. Impacts of the M&T Mining Project: Appendix F of the Final EIR provides a summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated wi6 this Project. These impacts and mitigation measures are associated with the following impact categories: Aesthetics and visual resources, Agricultural Land, Air Quality, Archeological Resources, Drainage and' Flooding, Geology, Noise, Traffic and Circulation, Water Quality/Groundwater, Land Use, Biological Resources, Cumulative impacts associated with Air Quality and Traffic and Circulation. 3. Mitigation Measures: The Mitigation Measures herein referenced are those Page 6 of 26 identified in the Draft EIR, as clarified or amplified in the Final EIR, and as modified by the Resolution approving the Project, including the conditions of approval contained therein. The tables included in Exhibit 1 specify available and feasible mitigation measures. a) All feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project and that are adopted in these Findings shall become binding on the County and The Applicant at the time of approval of the Project. b) The County Planning Commission also finds that the Mitigation Measures incorporated into and imposed upon the Project will not have new significant environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the Final Enoironmental Impact Report. 4. Findings of Fact: CEQA states that a project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact, or if feasible mitigation measurer or feasible alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact. Only when there are specific economic; social, or other considerations which make it infeasible to substantially lessen or avoid an impact can a project with significant impacts be approved. a) If the project can be defined as having significant impacts on the environment, then an EIR must be .prepared. Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant environmental impacts„the approving agency must make one or more of the follow:ng findings for each identified significant impact: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or, incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed Environmental Impact Report. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, transportation or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental Impact Report. b) Exhibit 1, attached hereto, contains the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact concerning each of the impacts and mitigation measures i jentified as significant and mitigatable, and significant and unavoidable in the Final, EIR. The Planning Commission's determination regarding environmental impacts that remain significant or are reduced to a less -than -significant level given the implementation of adopted feasible mitigation is provided in the ":Findings of Fact” column. Page 7 of 26 5. Areas of Controversy: The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identiy areas of controversy known to the lead agency based upon review of public and agency comment. Controversial aspects of the Project have been determined to be: 1) potential impacts to groundwater resulting from mining operations; 2) potential pit water quality impacts; and 3) potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Project. Mitigation measures have been provided within the Final EIR to address these impacts, to the extent feasible. FINDINGS REGARDING WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 30, 2006, DECEMBER 14, 2006, AND JANUARY Z5,2007 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS The County: received additional letters following close of the EIR public comment period and just prior to hearing. Although not required, below are specific findings That address the main statements contained in these letters. . RON JONES, LETTER OF NOVEMBER 22, 2006 Statement #1 The Project is not consistent with the Agricultural Element of the County General Plan. Response: As part of the CEQA environmental review process the County evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with the County General Plan. The County determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the Butte County General Plan. The General Plan has an Agricultural Element that sets forth basic policies anj goals with respect to agriculture. The Agriculture Element identifies two separate land use designations. The Project site is designated "Orchard and Field Crops". TY -e Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the types of uses allowed in this designation, which uses are consistent with the Agricultural Element. The General Plan Land Use Element, page LUE-48 states the following uses in the Orchard and Field Crops land use designation: Primary Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops, especially annual food crops. Secondary Use: Animal husbandry and intense animal uses, resource extraction and processing, hunting and water -related recreation facilities, dwellings, airports, Page 8 of 26 utilities, environmental preservation activities, public and . quasi -public uses, home occupations. The General Plan Land Use Element, page LUE-46, defines secondary use3 as other appropriate uses which are less extensive but similar, compatible or necessary to the primary uses. It is assumed that the terms included necessary and customary subordinate uses incidental to the state uses. Further, the General Plan Land Use Element sets forth the following policies in regards to surface mining operations within the County: 2.6a Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of building materials and other valued mineral resources. 2.6b Encourage the reclamation of lands subject to mineral extraction. As required by law, the County finds that the General Plan is internally consislent and the Land Use Element and its descriptions are consistent with the general policies of the Agricultural Element. Surface mining is consistent with both of these elements as made clear by the express reference to resource extraction and processing in the "Orchard and Field Crops" description found on page LUE-48 of the Land Use Element. Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2; FEIR § 4.6; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13., 2006). Statement #2 2. The mining pit and reclaimed lake will provide a habitat for mosquitoes, thus presenting a public health concern. Response: The County extensively analyzed this issue as part of the CEQA process and determined that any potential public health risks born by the creation of mosquito habitat were less - than -significant. The Final EIR explained that as part of a Condition of Approval, the Applicant will bear financial responsibility for the reimbursement of the cost of any future mosquito control work performed by the County Mosquito and Vector Control District at the mine pond. According to the Final EIR, this could include stocking the pond with mosquito fish to prey on and control mosquito larvae. The Final EIR also explained that because mosquitoes typically breed in ponds with stagnant water and along the shores of lakes with shallow water, the Reclamation Plan for the Project will provide specifications for a shoreline configuration that will not isolate small channels or shallow ponding areas from the main body of water. According to the County, this configuration will ensure continuous access by mosquib predators, Page 9 of 26 especially mosquito fish. The Final EIR further provides that the banks of areas that retain water after June I (the beginning of the optimal mosquito breeding seasc►n) will be designed to be steep enough to prevent isolated pooling as the water leve.] recedes, thereby allowing for wave action to provide access by mosquito predators. Evidence: Draft EIR; FEIR § 5.111; FEIR pp. 5.4-31 — 5.4-33, 5.4-47 — 5.4-48,15.4-67; Planning Commission Testimony; Administrative Record. Statement #3 Truck traffic generated by the Project will cause substantial traffic problems. Response: The County conducted an extensive analysis of the impacts of truck traffic generated by the Project.. The traffic study conducted for the Draft EIR was prepared in coordination with the Butte County Public Works Department and the Butte County Planning Division, Department of Development Services. This included analyzing tl-e Project's impacts. to both local school bus operations, and the bicycle and pedestrian system in the vicinity of the Project. The Draft EIR concluded that the Project would not impact the Levels of Service (LOS) of any of the roadways studied or the existing bicycle, pedestrian, transit facilities and school bus operations. Further, the Draft EIR found truck trips generated by the Project equate to a less than one percent (1%) increase of total traffic volumes in the Project area under cumulative conditions. However, the County found that in four instances the LOS for impacted intersections already exceeded the County's minimum LOS C threshold without the Project. Therefore, the addition of Project trips to these roadways, even if less thaw 1% of the total, will constitute a significant impact which can not be mitigated. The County also addressed comments regarding traffic impacts in the Final E=R. Analysis contained in the Final EIR reiterates the County's finding made in the Draft EIR that the proposed Project would not change the LOS rating of any of the roadways studied in the traffic analysis. The Final EIR also explains that because existing conditions on four roadways already breached the County's LOS requirements, the Project's cumulative impact at these locations could not be mitigated. , The Final EIR also responded to comments regarding the Project's impacts to roadway safety, and the bicycle and pedestrian system due to increased truck traffic. Tze Final EIR clarified that the Draft EIR traffic study included an analysis of current roadway conditions and operations, intersection operations, accident history, and -:ruck traffic. Further, the Final EIR explained that the traffic study is based on detailed traffic counts that identified the mix of autos, bicycles, and trucks. The Final EIR reiterat-:d the traffic study's conclusion that the proposed Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing Page 10 of 26 or planned bicycle, pedestrian, transit facilities or school bus operations, and would not create a hazard for pedestrians or bicyclists. Evidence: DEIR § 4.6; FEIR § 4.4; Planning .Commission Testimony; Administrative Record. Statement #4 4. Truck traffic generated by the Project will degrade the quality of affected County roads. Response The Final EIR explains that a pavement conditions analysis was conducted as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis and specific mitigation was identified. Specifically, a chip seal surface treatment and a two-inch asphalt concrete overlay will be required, which will mitigate all physical impacts. The Final EIR also further explains that the Applicant will contribute "fair share" funding to offset costs to the Public Works Department, and that the Public Works Department must concur with all final dollar amounts of the exact fair share contribution. The Final EIR also states that the fair share requirements would be conditions ,of approval for the use permit. In accordance with this statement, Conditions of ApprovEl 18 and 19 implement the Applicant's fair share obligations. These conditions were later updated and expanded upon by the Public Works Department in a November 3, 2006 letter from Director Mike Crump. In addition, Public Works Department representative Shawn O'Brien testified at the Planning Commission's December 14, 2006 hearing by that the Applicant's -3er/ton "fair share" contributions to the County are appropriate to cover the Project's impacts to infrastructure. Evidence: DEIR §:4.6; FEIR § 4.4; Planning Commission Testimony; Acministrative Record. HOWARD ELLMAN, LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 2006 (REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY) Statement #1 5. [T]he EIR... makes almost no reference at all to the true nature of the environmental setting — beginning with its mischaracterization of the uses of Llano Seco Ranch. Page 11 of 26 Response: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15125, a proper discussion of the environmental setting includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vizinity of a project from both a local and regional perspective, including a disc-Ission of environmental resources. Here, the Draft EIR included an extensive discussion of the Project's regional setting. As part of this discussion, the Draft EIR delineated several properties and uses. in vie vicinity of the Project site. For example, the Draft EIR identifies both the Jones parcel and the Llano Seco Ranch. Additionally, each section of the Draft EIR contains a description of the regional environment and local conditions, and how the Project could impam:t the local and regional environment. Both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR evaluated all potentially significant environmental impacts to both onsite and offsite properties. For example, the Draft EIR "and Final EIR evaluated potential impacts to neighboring properties caused by the Project's flood control design. In addition, testimony was proffered to the Planning "Commission at the December 14, 2006 hearing which detailed both the Draft EIR's description of the 'regional environment, and the Draft EIR's analysis of the Project's potential en%ironmental impacts to surrounding properties. However, following the December 14, 2006 hearing, at the direction of the Planning Commission, an Errata to the Final EIR, which specifically named the Llano Seco Ranch as part of the Regional Environmental Overview section of the Draft EIR was included for the Commission's consideration on January 25, 2007. Evidence: DEIR § 3.0; FEIR § 4.0 and 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record. Statement #2 6. [Mine] sediments will be deposited on Llano Seco, in areas that havebeen converted to wetland habitat uses, a potential impact that the EIR does not even acknowledge, let alone evaluate. Response: The EIR adequately evaluated the Project's impacts to the Llano Seco Ranch caused by flooding and/or particulate matter and concluded that these impacts we -e less than significant.. The County's analysis of the flood control measures designed for the Project included a comprehensive flooding study which was conducted by NorthStar Engineering. The flooding study and the analysis contained in the Draft EIR evaluated off-site impacts Page 12 of 26 caused by stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and .processing facilities. Based on this analysis, the EIR concluded that the Project, with F.pproval of relevant state and federal permits, would not result in significant environmental impacts to neighboring properties. Furthermore, the Final EIR explained how the Project's design, as well as applicable state and federal stormwater prevention requirements, would ensure that neighboring landowners would not be impacted by. polluted stormwater or mine sediment. Additionally, at the January 22, 2004 Planning Commission hearing on the Project, Mr. Ellman requested that as a precautionary measure to prevent "fine particulate matter" from entering the Llano Seco Ranch, the Planning Commission require the Applicant to obtain a "stormwater management plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board."-- The County adopted and expanded upon Mr. Ellman's recommendation and those recommendations contained in the EIR with additional conditions of approval. As such, the Applicant must acquire all relevant state and federal stormwat:--r pollution prevention entitlements prior to commencing mining operations, which mitigates all potential for sediment transfer. Evidence: DEIR § 3.0; FEIR § 4.0 and 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record. HOWARD ELLMAN, LETTER OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 (REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY- Statement OMPANY - Statement #1 7. The Project is not compatible with the surrounding agricultural and wildlife environment. Response: The County evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with the County i3eneral Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Project's potential environmental impacts on agricultural uses and wildlife habitat. The EIR concluded that the Project is consistent with the Project site's General Plan designation (i.e., Orchard and Field Crops) as a secondary use, as well as the Project's zoning district (A-40). As part of the CEQA process, the County also evaluated potential impacts to agricultural uses. The Draft EIR explained that the proposed mining and reclamation activities proposed for the Project would be similar in scope and equipment tc• neighboring agricultural operations. Accordingly, the Draft EIR concluded that, with the proposed mitigation, the Project is compatible with the existing and planned uses in .he vicinity of Page 13 of 26 the Project site. The County addressed this issue again in the Final EIR, again finding that the Project is consistent with the County's Zoning and Mining Ordinance and General Plan requirements. The County also conducted an extensive analysis of the Project's impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat as part of the CEQA process. The Draft EIR explained that the Project's impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, with the identified mitigation measureE, would be less -than -significant. In particular, the County concluded: (1) wildlife will not be adversely affected by noise emanating from the Project; (2) the Project will bG-)ck unique or important migration corridors; and (3) species inhabiting the Project site will remain common in adjacent habitats. The Final EIR also addressed comments regarding the Project's impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The Final EIR explained that special -status species known to occur in the vicinity of and in habitats similar to the Project site will continue to use -he suitable habitats available to them, whether on or off the Project site, and whether or not the Project is approved. In sum, the environmental analysis conducted by the County as part of the CEQA process indicates that (1) the Project is consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and (2) the Project will not adversely affect surrounding agricultural operations or wildlife/wildlife habitat.. Evidence: DEIR § 4.7; FEIR;. Planning Commission Testimony; Letter. from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record. Statement #2 8. "[TJhe EIR does not adequately describe the flood impacts on the nEighbors that will be caused by the protective works to be erected around the grave' mine." Response: As part of the CEQA process, the County included an extensive analysis of potential off- site impacts caused by the Project's flood control design. The Draft EIR concluded that, with appropriate mitigation, potential environmental impacts to adjaceni landowners resulting from the flood design would be less -than -significant. The County addressed comments on this issue again in the Final EIR, and concluded that Mitigation Measures 4.4-7(a), (b), and (c) will eliminate any additional flooding effects on adjacent property owners caused by the Project. Thus, the County extensively analyzed and addressed the issue of flood impacts to adjacent landowners both in the . Draft EIR and again in the Final EIR... Page 14 of 26 Expert testimony was also received at both the November 30, 2006 and December 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearings regarding the Project's flood control design. This testimony, given by Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering, explained the form and function of the flood control design (including the weir design). Mr. Adams explained how the flood control design for the Project protects, and does not exacerbate, floodwater impacts on adjacent water bodies and properties during large flood stage event:. Evidence:DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record. HOWARD ELLMAN, LETTER OF JANUARY 17, 2007 (REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY) Statement #1 9. ".The extent to which the mine will increase sediment loadings should have been considered and evaluated [in the EIR]." Response: As part of the CEQA process, the County examined the Project's incremental impacts to floodwaters resulting from mine sediment loading. See Response #2 above relating to this subject. ' In addition, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony to the Planning Commission at the December 14, 2006 hearing that the stormwat.:r prevention plan that the Applicant will implement (as required by the County's Conditions of Approval) will prohibit mine sediments from being transported to other properties during flood events. Evidence: DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record. Statement #2 10. Mine sediments will infiltrate the aquifer through the mining pit. Response: Page 15 of 26 The County analyzed this issue as part of the CEQA process and determines that, with proper mitigation, impacts to adjacent properties caused by the transfer of mine sediments (and other contaminants) through the aquifer are less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a), (b), (c), (d),' and (e) all serve to prevent g-oundwater contamination due to exposure of the aquifer to contaminants generated by tFe proposed mining activities. In addition; Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony to the Planning Commission at the January 25, 2006 hearing that mine sediments will not be transferred through the aquifer because the sediments cannot physically interface with the opening to the aquifer. Evidence: , DEIR § .4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record. Statement #3 11. The Project is not compatible with the surrounding environment. Response: As part of the CEQA process, the County evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with the County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Project's potential environmental impacts on surrounding uses. Based on substantial evidence in the record; the Planning Commission has determined that the Project is consistent wi=h all County land use documents and, further, is compatible with surrounding uses. See Response #3 above relating to this subject. Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2. FEIR § 4.6; Planning Commission Testimony;. Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006). BUTTE COUNTY FARM BUREAU, LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 2007 Statement #1 12. "The land has been classified as prime agricultural land by the Butte County Assessor and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Survey. "' Response: The County determination regarding the prime or non -prime status of the Project site for . assessment purposes is not relevant to the analysis contained in the EIR for CEQA purposes (i.e., to analyze the physical impacts of the Project). The County Assessor's Page 16 of 26 classification is made for economic purposes on a parcel -by -parcel basis utilizing different standards than the Williamson .Act. Here, the EIR analyzed the actual site specific conditions of the 235 -acre Project site, not the entire 8,000 acre M&T 12anch. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.2(a).) The CEQA specific analysis and process produced substantial evidence that the affected Project area does not meet the Williamson Act standards for prime agricultural farmland, even though the parcel, in its entirety, may qualify as prime agricultural farmland for land assessment purposes. Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2; FEIR § 4.6; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006) Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record. Statement #2 13. "The reclamation plan calls for the conversion of this land to nonagricultural use which, according to the California Department of Conservation -is not permitted under a Williamson Act contract. " Response: The applicant filed a request for immediate cancellation from the Williamson Act Contract. Discussion of this aspect of the project is included in the Errata (include reference here). Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2; FEIR § 4.6; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Notice of Partial Nonrenewal; Petition for Partial Cancellation; Administrative Record. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 1. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a discussion of -a reasonable range of alternatives to a project or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially less, -,n any of the significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider, alternativ:s which are infeasible. For this project, several alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR section 5.0. 2. In evaluating the potential alternatives to the Project, the County recognizes that actual implementation of one or more alternatives could be remote and speculative due to the. complexities in locating and developing mineral resources. It is recog-lized that the range of reasonable alternative locations is necessarily limited by location of the particular mineral resource. (See CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(0(2)(B).) In Page 17 of 26 -contrast to other forms of development that can occur anywhere, many factors are considered in the selection of an aggregate production site, including appropriate quality and quantity of the resource, its location and distance to the market (consumption) area, transportation accessibility, availability of the land, a willing lessor or seller, mine economics and engineering, and proximity. to incompatible land uses and environmentally sensitive receptors. 3. The Draft EIR examines four project alternatives, all at a comparatwe level of detail, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. A summary comparison of the alternatives is provided in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR. The alternatives analyzed are. provided below as: A) Alternative 1, No Project Alternative (Existing Conditions); B) Alternative 2, Alternative Project Location C) Alternative 3, Reduced Project Area Alternative; D) Alternative 4, Lower Processing Rate Alternative; and E)- Environmentally Superior Alternative. 4. For the reasons stated below, the Planning Commission finds that adoption and implementation of the current Project as described is appropriate. The Planning Commission further determines that no other one or combination of projec_ alternatives would implement the goals and objectives of the Project while providing the same public benefit. The Planning Commission, therefore, accepts the Project as proposed and rejects all the alternatives, for the reasons outlined below: A. Alternative 1: No Project (Existing Conditions) This alternative would consist of the continued use of the Project site =or infrequent. agricultural purposes. The consideration of this alternative is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e). Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate mining sites would be used to meet .the existing and future growth demand for agg-egate in Butte County. For example, currently aggregate is imported from other counties, including " Glenn County. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other environanental effects associated with quarrying; such as impacts to biological resources, hydro.ogy and water quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites. The No Project Alternative therefore avoids the impacts at the Project site, but not the regional effects associated with the production and distribution of construction aggregate products, nor the site specific effects from mining activities at another site. Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: The No Project alternative would not meet the Project objectives to develop.a high quality aggregate mine within the County. In addition, it would not allow the extraction of known aggregate resources that would be available for use in the construction industry, Page 18 of 26 supplying County infrastructure needs. Currently, the County has 40 perceni of its 50 - year aggregate . demand. Without permitting additional aggregate reserves for development, the County could exhaust aggregate reserves by 2030. (Final EIR, p. 4.0- 19.) Further, if materials are supplied from outside the County, the County receives no impact fees from the Project to assist it in maintaining safe and structu-ally sound roadways. With the Project, the County will receive impact fees ("fair share" monetary contributions) to help maintain and improve County roads and transportation infrastructure. In addition, the County will receive additional sales tax revenue. Sales tax, property tax, and secondary expenditures of goods.and services s.pent outside the County do not assist in maintaining or enhancing the County's economy and do not pay for impacts caused by importation of aggregate, or assist in funding other services in the County. Further, as detailed in Alternative 2, if the M&T Chico Ranch Mine is nct developed, other aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for aggregate in Butte County. Thus, environmental impacts associated with the Project will only be transferred to other locations when market demands .:or aggregate warrant new supplies. B. Alternative 2: Alternative Project Location Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate mining sites would-be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for aggregate in Butte County. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other environmental effects ' associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transferred. to other sites. The Project Location- Alternative therefore avoids the impacts at the Project site, but not the regional effects associated with the production and distribution of construction aggregate products, nor the site specific effects from mining activities at another site. Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: ,'his alternative would place the Project in an alternative location within the County or eastern Glenn County. The nature of aggregate mining dictates that aggregate mines car generally only be developed where the resource is available and proximate to markets. The successful development of the project at another location would depend on a number of geologic, environ rnental, and economic factors, primarily the existence of marketable quantities of construction grade aggregate. One of the objectives of the proposed Project is to provide aggregate fo�- markets in the City of Chico and Butte County consumption area. The Project site has been identified by the Applicant as the best source available for aggregate production with aggregates being available in sufficient quantity and quality for construction materials. Further, the State has designated the Project site as MRZ-2a, meaning the property contains a known, important and significant mineral resource. There are no other potentia- aggregate mine sites that have been identified in close proximity to the Project site, or tc the Chico/Butte Page 19 of 26 County market. The nearest areas of potential aggregate deposits have been identified in eastern Glenn County. However, these aggregate resources have not been quantified, and have not been designated by the State Geologist as a known, significant mineral resource. Further, if materials are supplied from more distant locations, such as from Glenn County, there is an increase in vehicle miles traveled, potential increase in environmental impacts (more specifically, air impacts), an increase in cost of materials for the City of Chico, the County, and local consumers, and the County derives little economic benefit from the impact fees, sales tax, property tax, and other secondary expenditures of goods and services spent in other jurisdictions. Higher cost materials and lower tax revenues, including impact fees and "fair share" contributions, mean that fewer miles of County roads can be constructed or maintained. Under the current development framework, the Applicant will pay impact fees and make "fair share" monetary contributions to the County in order to help maintain and improve County roads and transportation infrastructure. This is revenue that would otherwise be lost if the County continues rely on source of aggregate located in other counties. The Planning Commission therefore finds that this alternative is inconsistent with Project objectives regarding location (discussed in section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIR) because the Project site is superior to alternative locations because it is a known aggregate resource, and is proximate to area aggregate markets. C. Alternative 3: Reduced Project Area This alternative would reduce the area of active mining under the proposed Project by 50 percent to approximately 96.5 acres thereby reducing the amount of mined aggregate by approximately 50 percent. The mine life would be reduced by 50 percent to approximately 10 to 20 years. Mining methods and reclamation would remain the same as those for the proposed Project. This proposal would minimize the area of disturbance and thus potentially reduce environmental impacts. Environmental Impacts: The primary reduction in environmental impacts associated with the Reduced Project Alternative would be the potentially lessened effects to biological resources and aesthetics due to the 50 percent reduction in mine acreage. Reduced impacts at this site could, however, be offset by additional impacts at other locations, since existing and future construction aggregate demand would require development of alternative resources, *and the Project site would only operate for a short period. Air quality, water resources, traffic and noise impact significance would not be reduced under this alternative due to the cumulative effects of more mines supplying the same amount of material from further locations, such as Glenn County. Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: The development of a Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the basic Project objective of obtaining a reliable long- term source of construction grade aggregate in Butte County. This Alternative would leave 50 percent or more of the known reserves in the ground, resulting in questionable economic feasibility of the Project. Page 20 of. 26 D. Alternative 4: Lower Processing Rate This alternative would reduce the processing rate approximately 50 per=cent to a maximum rate of 137,500 cubic yards per year mined and 125,000 cubic yards marketed. The mining and processing of the 5.5 million cubic yards of known aggregate reserves would take approximately 30 to 40 years, an increase. in project life of 50 percent. Mining methods and reclamation would remain the same as those for the proposed Project. ' Environmental Impacts: If the Project site utilized a lower processing rate, other aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for processing aggregate. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions, vehicle mile's traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other en-Aronmental effects associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hyjrology and water quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites. Potential environmental impacts associated with the Reduced Proc: ssing Rate Alternative would be similar to those identified the proposed Project since the same amount of surface disturbance (approximately 193 acres) would occur. Furtl-er, potential impacts to biological resources would be similar if not greater than those of the proposed Project due to the extended life of the mining Project. Additionally, reducing the processing rate by 50 percent necessarily means that the Project will generate twice as many truck trips. Thus, the reduced processing rate would not offer any significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project, and would likely result in increased environmental impacts. Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: Since local supplies of processed aggregate would be restricted under this alternative, additional aggregate would have to be imported to meet project demand.- Fowever, the development of processed aggregate resources outside of the Butte County/Chico area specifically for the Butte County/Chico market will only transfer environmental impacts to another site, and will also result in added environmental impacts including an increase in vehicle miles traveled and truck trips. Further, the demand for aggregate products to meet countywide construction project demands would need to be supplemented from other sites, which may not be efficiently located, and therefore more costly to consumers, which include Butte County and the City of Chico. Therefore, operating at a reduced processing rate would not substantially reduce any identified significant impacts, and does not meet the basic Project objectives. E. Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative. Additionally, if the environmentally superior alternF-tive is the No Project alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from the remaining alternatives. According to Draft EIR Section 5.5, for the proposed Project, the No Project alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative Page 21 of 26 since no mining would occur on the site. Among the other alternatives th-- Reduced Project Area Alternative #3 does offer some environmental advantages over thz proposed Project due to the reduction in mined acreage and the shortened life of the Project. This alternative would notfeasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives,- and leave approximately 50 percent of known. mineral reserves. Since local supplies would be restricted under this alternative,, additional aggregate would have to be imported to meet Project demand. This "would result in similar environmental impacts associated with developing an alternative project location as detailed in the "Alternative Project Location" alternative. Therefore, permitting the Project is the other envi-onmentally superior alternative. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT 1. CEQA Section 15126 (g) requires that an EIR consider the potential for a project to create growth inducing impacts. A project could have a growth inducing impact if it could: a) Foster economic or population growth, or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment; b) Remove obstacles to population growth, for example, developing.service areas in previously unserved areas, extending transportation routes into previously undeveloped areas, and establishing major new employment opportunities; and c) Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. 2. The proposed Project will not result in a significant increase in employment, or any increase in housing. (Draft EIR; section 6.2, pp. 6-4 - 6-5.) No new Mads or public services would be installed as a result of the Project that would remove obstacles to growth. The Project would make available aggregate materials used in a variety of activities, including road building and maintenance, and construction. WHle the Project will make these materials available, it cannot be considered to be facilitating the activities using aggregate materials. The Project is not the only source of these mate:-ials, and these activities will occur regardless of the availability of the additional resources made available by this Project. Therefore, the Project would not encourage or facilitate activities and create environmental effects other than those addressed. in this Draft EIR. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1. A cumulative impact is the effect on the environment which r., -sults from the incremental impact of the proposed project when combined with.the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15355, subd. (b).) The significance of a cumulative impact may be greater than the effects resulting from the individual actions if the effects of more than one action are addit_ve. Page 22 of 26 2. Criteria for evaluating the significance of adverse effects were identified for each environmental issue in Chapter 4.0. of the Draft EIR. These criteria, which are based on resource sensitivity, quality, and quantity, are also applicable to cumulative impacts. The timing and duration of each activity is also an important consideration for evaluating the potential cumulative effects of activities that occur only for a limited period. In those cases, a• cumulative effect may occur only when two or more of the activities are occurring simultaneously. 3. - The CEQA Guidelines provide that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significanfand that the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence (section 15130 (a) and (b)). These effects, where they occur, are then evaluated for their impact in combination with other activities in the area for cumulative impact. 4. The following section discusses the potential cumulative environmental effects that could. result when the potential impacts of the proposed Project are combined with impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable projects identified in Section 6.1.1 of the Draft EIR. A. Land Use As part of the CEQA process, the County conducted an extensive analysis of the Project's cumulative impacts to surrounding uses, as well the Project's consistency with County land use documents. The County concluded that the Project is consistent with the County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Surface Mining Ordinance, Williamson Act program, and the M&T Williamson Act Contract. Further, analysis contained in the EIR demonstrates that the Project site does not meet the standard for prime farmland. Though the Project will result in the conversion of non- prime farmland to open space, the amount of agricultural land surrounding the site is relatively abundant. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.) In terms of prime agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected as a result of this Project. B. Hydrology and Water Quality The County extensively analyzed and evaluated the Project's cumulative impacts to local hydrology and water quality as part of the CEQA environmental review process. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that impacts to hydrology and water qualityfrom other projects in the vicinity. that could contribute to a cumulative effect would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels. Further, evidence generated as part of the CEQA review process shows that mining activities at the M&T Chico Ranch would not have a significant effect on the hydrogeology of the area, nor would it adversely affect the volume or quality of regional groundwater resources. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.) Additionally, no significant cumulative hydrological impacts are expected as a result of this Project. Page 23 of 26 C. Air Quality As described in Impact 4.5-1 (see Exhibit 1), when viewed independently, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact on PM10 emissions, based solely on the - Level C significance thresholds. However, when viewed in relation to existing conditions'at the site and surrounding areas, the Project would result in a net reduction in PM10 emissions (refer to Draft EIR Table 4.5-8). Because other impacts from these projects would be individually less than significant, and the combined impacts would not exceed the significance criteria defined for these issues in Chapter 4.0, no significant cumulative. PM 10 emission impacts are expected. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.) As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Traffic, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce cumulative traffic congestion at certain intersections. This cumulative traffic congestion will result in an increase to carbon monoxide emissions due to increased idle time at these intersections. Under cumulative conditions, this is a significant, unavoidable impact. D. Traffic and Circulation The cumulative traffic impact analysis contained in Draft EIR section 4.6 (see also Draft EIR section 6.1.2, pp. 6-3 — 6-4) indicates that the daily levels of service for all locations would operate at LOS C or better with or without the Project, except for the following locations, which will operate at LOS E or F with or without the Project: • Park Avenue between East 20th Street and East Park Avenue will operate at LOS F; East Park Avenue between Park Avenue and SR 99 will operate at LOS F; • Bruce Road between SR 32 and Skyway will operate at LOS E; and • Skyway — between SR 99 and the Butte Creek Bridge is expected to operate at LOS E. The Project will add additional trips to these road segments. In all cases, these additions represent a de-minimis increase in traffic. Specifically, analysis contained in the Draft EIR demonstrates that truck trips generated by the Project equate to a less than one percent (1%) . increase of total traffic volumes in the Project area under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the impact of additional Project traffic to these roadway segments would be minimal yet significant based upon the significance criteria established by in the Draft EIR. Peak hour intersection operations under cumulative conditions with and without the Project also indicate that all intersections will operate at LOS C or better, except for the Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway and Durham -Dayton Highway at Midway. Both locations operate unacceptably without the Project and those unacceptable operations are improved by the Project. The Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway intersection will operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The Durham -Dayton Highway/Midway intersection will operate at LOS F in both the. a.m. and p.m. peak Page 24 of 26 hours. As discussed in Draft EIR section 4.6, Traffic, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce cumulative, traffic congestion at certain road segments. Under cumulative conditions, this is a significant, unavoidable impact. E: Biological Resources As part of the. CEQA process, the County analyzed the Project's cumulative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. The EIR concluded that the resulting habitat associated with the reclaimed lake would result in an overall increase in wildlife values over the long- term. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Accordingly, the Project will not result in 'o significant cumulative biological impacts. F. Noise The County analyzed cumulative noise impacts as part of the CEQA -)rocess and determined that none of the cumulative projects located near in the vicinity of the Project site (delineated in Draft EIR Section 6.1.1) are close enough to the M&T Chico Ranch Project to contribute to cumulative noise impacts associated with mining operations. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, no significant cumulative noise impacts will result from this Project. G. Cultural Resources Records review and field surveys show no evidence of "cultural resom-ces" at the proposed Project site, as defined by CEQA. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, the proposed Project will not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resDurces. H. Aesthetics The aesthetic character of the site would change as a result of mining and reclamation. However, completion of reclamation activities at the site will eliminate the potential for any negative cumulative visual effect. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, no significant negative cumulative aesthetic impacts will result from this Project. Findines Reearding Mitieation Monitorine and Reporting Program 1. Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, CEQA Guideline section 15097, and Board policy require the Butte County Board of Supervisors to adopt a monitoring and reporting program on the changes in the Project and Mitigation Measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this resolution as Exhibit 2. 2. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoring requirement because: the Conditions of Approval are spzcific and, as Page 25 of 26 appropriate, define performance standards to measure compliance under the Program. The Program contains detailed descriptions of conditions, implementation, verification, a compliance schedule and reporting requirements to insure compliance with the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. The Program also ensur.s that the Mitigation Measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the Pro-ect. DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION: I Certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan (Min 96-03); II. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Exhibit 2; III. Finds this Project has the potential to have a significant impact to fislb or wildlife habitat. The collection of Department of Fish and. Game fees pursuana_ to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5 is required. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22A day of February, 2007, by tfie following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: TINA BONHAM, Secretary Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California Page 26 of 26 Nina Lambert, Chair Planning Commnssion County of Butte; State of California 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 51500,000 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 terns and conditions. This approval also allows construction of facilities ancillary to the mining project and related improvements. 2. Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval of application and issuance of the Mining Use Permit constitutes czuse 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 criginal 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 suc_1 amendments in the same manner as provided for in County Code Section 13-107. 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 initially calculated at $103,526.93. 7. Prior to use of the site for the proposed use Owner/Operator sial] contact the Planning Division for a field inspection to verify that all conditions and ordinance requirements have been met. Plan niny, Division 8. All Reclamation work shall be in substantial compliance wi=h 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 EIR"), dated October 2003. M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page I 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 the 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 same 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, and 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 obtain County Board of Supervisors approval of the partial California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) immediate cancellation request or determination 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 B�:rtte 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. Imprcvements to include acceleration and deceleration lanes, improved signing and s_riping, and channelization of the driveway approach. Improvement plans shall to 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 cos: 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 project: • River Road; between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road; • Ord Ferry Road; between County Line and Dayton Road; • Durham Dayton Road; between Dayton Road and SR 99; • Dayton Road; between Ord Ferry Road and Chico City Limit; • Hegan Lane; between Dayton Road and Midway; and • Chico River Road; between River Road and Chico City Limit. Road Maintenance shall include a chip seal surface treatment every 10 years with M & T Chico Ranch Mine project's fair share contribution based on :he 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, -or 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 Franc sco, 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 repE-irs shall be completed in a timely manner in conformance with the adopteJ 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 deposit or 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 Construction 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 actin 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 the ?G&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 o" PG&E. Upon review a consent agreement would be prepared if the use is appropriate. M & T Mining (UP 96-03) Page 4 of 6 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 wetlanjs and other waters of the United States. 29. Owner/Operator shall comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act, including a Section 10a Permit for incidental take of federally -listed t;7reatened or endangered species or their habitat, if any. 30. Owner/Operator shall comply with the California Endangered Spe-:ies Act, and obtain all necessarypermits, including a Section 2081 Permit (Fish and Game Code 208 1) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Cede 1603) for incidental take of State -listed threatened/endangered species CT habitat (if anticipated) for possible impacts, if determined to the Swainson'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 Tile 40, Section 436, Subpart B, for on-site gravel washing and discharge of wa,h 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 Arany 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 Encroach-nent Permit (CCR Title 23 Section 135) for any encroachment that could reduc- or impede flood flows, or would reclaim any of the floodplain within the Buite 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 -s 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 Eoard's appeal hearing. If the application is not appealed, these conditions of approval are deemed satisfied. Attachment: 'Table A M & T Mining (UP 96703) Page 6 of 6 SY of roadway one chip seal 586432 Chip Seal CosUSY S2.10 cosusear Z11.coI.Our.- 3 seals In 30 years 53,694.521.60 over allM S T % 12.5%M & T cost 5462,473.85 Cost per ton 50.06 EPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION alifomia Geological Survey THE RESOURCES AGENCY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MIKE CHRISMAN ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ERIDGETT LUTHER SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES GOVERNOR DIRECTOR L OF T 5i+ss Eu REKA *• yc�' * «« s w ' }` FORN�P CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, PH.D., STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2006 by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey. 'The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose." .. I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1 PART I: DESCRIPTION OF MAP SHEET 52, AGGREGATE AVAILABILITY II�1 CALIFORNIA .. 1 Mineral Land Classification Reports and Aggregate Studies....................................................... 1 Fifty -Year Aggregate Demand Forecast......................................................................................2 Methodology................................................................................................................... 5 Effectiveness of the Per Capita Consumption Model ..................................................... 5 Permitted Aggregate Resources................................................................................................... 6 Fifty-year Aggregate Demand Compared to Permitted Aggregate Resources ............................. 6 Non Permitted Aggregate Resources........................................................................................... 7 Aggregate Production Areas and Districts.................................................................................... 7 Aggregate Study Areas with Less than Ten Years of Permitted Resources .................................. 7 PART II COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL (2002) AND THE UPDATED (2006) MAPSHEET 52 .................................... ........................................................................................................ 8 AggregateStudy Area Changes................................................................................................... 8 Decreases in Permitted Aggregate Resources............................................................................ 11 Increases in Permitted Aggregate Resource............................................................................... 11 Changesin Fifty -Year Demand.................................................................................................. 12 Changes in Permitted Aggregate Resources and Demand.......................................................... 12 Comparison of Areas with Less than 10 -Years of Permitted Aggregate Resources .................. 14 PART III: OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE.......................................................... 14 AggregatePrice.......................................................................................................................... 14 Transportation...:........................................................................................................................ 15 IncreasedHaul Distances............................................................................................................ 15 AggregateQuality and Use........................................................................................................ 16 Factors Affecting Aggregate Deposit Quality............................................................................ 17 Comparison of Alluvial Sand and Gravel to Crushed Stone Aggregate .................................... 18 Factors Affecting Aggregate Demand...............................................................I.....................:... 18 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................:...... 19 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 19 REFERENCESCITED........................................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX............................................................................................................................................. 22 TABLES Table 1. Comparison of 50 -year aggregate demand to permitted aggregate re3ources for aggregate study areas as of January 1, 2006 ...................................... .......................... 4 Table 2. Comparison of permitted aggregate resources between Map Sheet 52 (2002) and MapSheet 52 (2006)..................................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Comparison of 50 -year demand between Map Sheet 52 (2002) and. MapSheet 52 (2006)........................................................................_.........................10 Table 4. Percentage of permitted aggregate resources as compared to 50 -year demand for Map Sheet 52 (2002) and Map Sheet 52 (2006)..............................`...........................13 DEPARTMENT ur CONSERVATION—CALIFORNIA GE, -,LOGICAL SURVEY INTRODUCTION California Geological Survey (CGS) Map Sheet 52, scale 1:1,100,000, and th:.s accompanying report provide general information about the current availability of California's permitted aggregate resources. Although the statewide and regional information on the map and in this report may be useful to local decision -makers, the more detailed information contained in each of the aggregate studies employed in the compilation of Map Sheet 52 should be us. -d for land -use and decision making purposes. Map Sheet 52 (2006) is an update of the original version published in 2002. (__{ohler, 2002). This updated Map Sheet 52 summarizes data from reports compiled by the CGS fDr 31 aggregate study areas throughout the state. These study areas cover about 25 percent of the Mate and provide aggregate for about 90 percent of California's population. This report is divi3ed into three parts: Part I provides data sources and methods used to derive the information presented, Part H compares the updated 2006 Map Sheet 52 to the original map, and Part III is an overview of construction aggregate. All aggregate data and any reference to "aggregate" in this report and on the map pertain to "construction aggregate" defined for this report as alluvial sand and gravel or crushed stone that meets standard specifications for use in portland cement concrete (PCC) or asphalt concrete (AC). (See Aggregate Quality and U, --e section). PART I: DESCRIPTION OF MAP SHEET 52, AGGREGATE AVAILABILITY IN CALIFORNIA Map Sheet 52 is a statewide map showing a compilation of data about aggregate availability collected over a period of about 28 years and updated to January 1, 2006. The purpose of the reap is to compare projected aggregate demand for the next 50 years with currently permitted aggregate resources in 31 regions of the state. The map also highlights regions where there is less than 10 years of permitted aggregate supply remaining (red circles). The following sections describe data sources and methodology that were used in the development of the map. Mineral Land Classification Reports and Aggregate Studies Data regarding aggregate resources and projected aggregate demand shov`n on Map Sheet 52 are updated from a series of mineral land classification reports published as Special Reports (SR) and Open -File Reports (OFR) by CGS between 1981 and 2005. These reports are referenced in the Appendix. They were prepared in response to California's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SM.ARA) that require the State Geologist to classify land based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. SMARA, its regulations and guidelines, are described in Special Publication 51(Division of Mines and Geology, 2000). The Mineral Land Classification process identifies lands that contain economically significant mineral deFosits. The primary goal of mineral land classification is to ensure that the mineral resource potential of lands is recognized and considered in land -use planning. The classification process includes an assessment of the quantity, quality, and extent of aggregate deposits in a study area. AGGREGATE AVh,LABILITY IN CALIFORNIA --MAP SHEr- 52 (UPDATED 2006) Mineral land classification reports may be specific to aggregate resources, may contain information about both aggregate and other mineral resources, or they may only contain information on minerals other than aggregate. Reports that focus on aggregate include aggregate resource classification and mapping, quantitative calculations of permitted and non -permitted aggregate resources, calculated 50 -year demand for aggregate resources, and an estimate of when the pernzitted resources will be depleted. Map Sheet 52 is a statewide updated summary of 50 -year demands and permitted resource calculations for all SMARA classification reports pertaining to construction aggregate. Mineral land, classification studies completed before 1989 used Production -Consumption (P -C) regions as the study area boundary. A P -C region is one or more aggregate production districts (a IDroup of producing aggregate mines) and the market area they serve. The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) in 1989 changed the scope of the mineral classification studies from P -C regions to countywide studies because counties are one of the primary users of the reports. As a result of this change, classification reports became more user-friendly for local government planners. Mineral land classification reports include information from one or more P -C regions, or from a county. For ease in discussion, the area covered by each P -C region or county aggregate study is referred to as an "aggregate study area". These areas are shown at the lower left-hand corner of the map along with their respective OFR or SR number and publication date. It should be noted that an OFR or SR may include more than one aggregate study area. As provided by SMARA, the State Geologist is required to review mineral land classification every 10 years following the census to determine if new classifications are necessary. The projected 50 -year forecast of aggregate demand in the region may also be revised. Seven updated classification studies have been completed. Updated studies were done by counties (Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura) and by P -C regions (South San Francisco Bay, Monterey Bay, Western San Diego County, and Fresno). Since Los Angeles and Ventura counties had more than one P -C C.region, separate updated 50 -year forecasts were made for each region. The Los Angeles County update (OFR 94-14) includes the San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Saugus -Newhall, and the Palmdale P -C regions. The Ventura County update (OFR 93-10) included the Western Ventura and the Simi Valley P -C regions. The index map of aggregate studies shown in the lower left hand corner of Map Sheet 52 shows the latest reports that cover an aggregate study area. Earlier reports covering the same areas or portions of areas are referenced in the Appendix with an asterisk Fifty -Fear Aggregate Demand Forecast The fifty-year aggregate demand forecast for each of the aggregate study areas is presented on Map Sheet 52 as a pie diagram (See Fifty -Year Aggregate Demand Compared to Permitted Aggregate Resources section), and also is presented in Table 1. The demand information may be new, or updated from previously published mineral land classification reports. The demand forecast information depicted on Map Sheet 52 is for the period January 1, 2006 through December 2055. DEPARTMENT F CONSERVATION --CALIFORNIA G- jLOGICAL SURVEY AGGREGATE AVAILABILITY IN CALIFORNIA—MAP SHEET 52 (UPDATED 2006) AGGREGATE STUDY AREA' 50 -Year Demand (million tons) Permitted Aggregate Resources (million tons) Percentage of Permitted Aggregate Resources as Compared to the 50 -Year Demand Bakersfield P -C Region 252 115 46 Barstow-Victorville P -C Region 179 133 74 Claremont -Upland P -C Region 300 147 49 El Dorado County 91 19 21 Fresno P -C Region 629 71 11 Glenn County 83 17 71 Merced County' Eastern Merced County Western Merced County 106 53 53 Proprietary 50 <50 Monterey Bay P -C Region 383 347 91 Nevada County 122 31 75 Palmdale P -C Region 665 181 27 Palm Springs P -C Region 295 176 60 Placer County 171 45 26 North San Francisco Bay P -C Region 647 49 8 Sacramento County 733 67 9 Sacramento -Fairfield P -C Region 235 164 70 San Bernardino P -C Region 1,074 262 24 San Fernando Valley -Saugus -Newhall 457 88 19 San Gabriel Valley P -C Region' 1,148 370 32 San Luis Obispo -Santa Barbara P -C Region 243 77 32 Shasta County 122 51 42 South San Francisco Bay P -C Region Stanislaus County 1,244 344 458 51 37 15 Stockton -Lodi P -C Region 728 196 27 Tahama County 72 36 49 Temescal Valley -Orange County 3 1,122 355 32 Tulare County Northern Tulare County Southern Tulare County 117 88 12 Proprietary 10 <50 Ventura County s 309 106 34 Vdestern San Diego Count P -C Region 1,164 198 17 Yuba City -Marysville P -C Region 360 409 >100 Total 13.536 1 4.343 1 Aggregate study areas follow either a Production -Consumption (P -C) region boundary or a county boundary. A P -C region includes one or more aggregate production districts and the market area that those districts serve. Aggregate resources are evaluated within the boundaries of the P -C Region. County - studies evaluate all aggregate resources within the county boundary. z The Count), study has been divided into two areas, each having its own production and market area. A separa_e permitted resource calculation and 50 -year forecast is made for each area. 3 Two P -C regions have been combined into one study area Table 1. Comparison of 50 -year demand to permitted aggregate resources for aggre?ate study areas as of January 1, 2006. (Stud), areas with less than ten years of permitted resources are in bold type). 4 DEPARTMENT CONSERVATION --CALIFORNIA GL.,LOGICAL SURVEY Methodology Before selecting a method for predicting a 50 -year aggregate demand, historical aggregate use was compared to such factors as housing starts, gross national product, population, and several other economic factors. It was found that the only factor showing a strong correlation to historical aggregate use was population change. Consequently, a per capita aggregate consumption forecast model is used for most of the aggregate study projections. This method of forecasting aggregate consumption benefits from its simplicity and the availability of population forecast data. The California's Department of Finance (DOF) makes 50 -year county population forecast using U.S. census data. The steps used for forecasting California's 50 -year aggregate needs using the per capita consumption model are: 1) collecting yearly historical production and population data for a period of years ranging from the 1960s through 2005; 2) dividing yearly aggregate production by the population for that same year to determine annual historical per capita consumption; 3) projecting yearly population for a 50 -year period from the beginning of 2006 through 2055; and, 4) multiplying each year of projected population by the average historical per capita consumption, the sum of which equals a total 50 -year aggregate demand. It should be noted that the years chosen to determine an average historical per capita consumption may differ depending upon historical aggregate use for that specific region. For example, in Shasta County, major construction projects from the 1940s through the 1970s caused historical per capita consumption rates to be extremely high and unrepresentative of future aggregate demand (Dupras, '1997). Consequently, an average historical per capita consumption rate for Shasta County. was based on the years 1980-1995. Effectiveness of the Per Capita Consumption Model The assumption that each person will use a certain amount of aggregate every year is a simplification of actual usage patterns, but overall, an increase in the population leads to the use of more aggregate. Over a long enough period, perhaps 20 years or longer, the random impacts of major public construction projects and economic recessions tend to be smoothed out and consumption trends become similar to historic per capita consumption rates. Per capita consumption is a commonly used and accepted national, state, and regional measure for purposes of forecasting. The per capita consumption model has proved to be effective for predicting aggregate demand in major metropolitan areas. The Western San Diego and the San Gabriel Valley P -C regions are examples of how well the model works, having only a 2 percent and a 5 percent difference, respectively, in actual versus predicted aggregate demand (Miller, 1994; 1996). However, the per capita model may not work well in county aggregate studies or in P -C regions that import or export a large percentage of aggregate resulting in a low correlation between production districts and aggregate market areas. When this happens, projections are based on a historical production model where 50 -year aggregate demand is determined by extending a best -fit line of historical aggregate production data for a county or region. This model was used to project Yuba City- Marysville'.s 50 -year demand because the region exports about 70 percent its aggregate into neighboring areas such as northern Sacramento County and Placer County. AGGREGATE AV ,LABILITY IN CALIFORNIA—!/IAP SHL—T 52 (UPDATED 2006) Permitted Aggregate Resources Approximately 4.34 billion tons of permitted aggregate resources lie within the 31 aggregate study areas shown on Map Sheet 52. Permitted aggregate resources (also called reserves) are aggregate deposits that have been determined to be acceptable for commercial use, exist within properties owned or leased by aggregate producing companies, and have permits allowing mining of aggregate material. A "permit" is a legal authorization or approval by a lead agency, the absence of which would preclude mining operations. Although some permitted resources face legal challenges, these resources are included in this study pending resolution of those challenges. In California, mining permits usually are issued by local lead agencies (county or city governments). Map Sheet 52 shows permitted aggregate resources as a percentage of the 50 -year demand on each pie diagram (See Fifty -Year Aggregate Demand Compared to Permitted Aggl-egate Resources section). Beneath the study area name located next to its corresponding pie diagram is the amount of permitted resource in tons along with the amount of 50 -year demand. The3e figures are also given in Table 1. Tonnages are not given for eastern Merced County and for the southern Tulare County to preserve company proprietary data. Permitted aggregate resource calculations shown on the map and in Table 1 were determined from information provided in reclamation plans, mining plans and use permits isssed by the lead agencies. When information was inadequate to make reliable independent calculations, CGS staff used resource estimates provided by mine operators or owners. These data were checked against rough calculations made by CGS staff, and any major discrepancies were discussed with the mine operators or owners. All permitted resource calculations are current as of the beginning of 2006. Fifty-year Aggregate Demand Compared to Permitted Aggregate Resources Fifty-year aggregate demand compared to currently permitted aggregate reEources, is represented by a pie diagram for each of the 31 aggregate study areas shown on Map Sbe-et 52. Each pie diagram is located in the approximate center of the aggregate study area it represents. There are four different sizes of diagrams, each size representing a 50 -year demand range. The smallest pie diagram represents 50 -year demands ranging from 25 million to 200 millicn tons, while the largest diagram represents demands of over 800 million tons. The amount of 50=y, ar demand in tons is shown on the map along with the amount of permitted resources beneath the study area name located next to its corresponding pie diagram (permitted resources, left / 50 -year demand, right). The whole pie represents the total 50 -year aggregate demand for a particular aggregate study area. The blue portion of the pie represents the permitted aggregate resource (shown as a percentage of the 50 -year demand) while the purple -colored portion of the pie represents that portion of the 50 - year demand that will not be met by the currently permitted resources. For, example, if the blue portion is 25 percent and the purple portion is 75 percent of a pie diagram that represents a total demand of 400 million tons, the permitted resources are 100 million tons, and the region will need an additional 300 million tons of aggregate to supply the area for the next 50 years. The pie representing the Yuba City -Marysville aggregate study area (north -centra California) is completely colored blue showing permitted aggregate resources are equal to or greater than the area's 50 -year aggregate demand. Except for Yuba City -Marysville, all of the aggregate study areas have le -;s permitted aggregate resources than they are projected to need for the next 50 -years. Twenty-five of the 31 aggregate study areas have less than half of the permitted resources they are projected to need. O DEPARTMENT CONSERVATION --CALIFORNIA GL,,LOGICA- SURVEY Non -Permitted. Aggregate Resources Non -permitted aggregate resources are deposits that may meet specifications for construction aggregate, are recoverable with existing technology, have no land overlying them that is incompatible with mining, and currently are not permitted for mining. While not shown on Map Sheet 52, non -permitted aggregate resources are identified and discussed in each of the mineral land classification reports used to compile the map (See Appendix). There are currently an estimated 74 billion tons of non -permitted construction aggregate resources in the 31 aggregate study areas shown on the map. While this number is large, it is unlikely that all of these resources will ever be mined because of social, environmental, or economic factors. Aggregate resources located too close to urban or environmentally sensitive areas can limit or stop their development. These resources may also be located too far from a potential market to be economic. In spite of such possible constraints, non -permitted aggregate resources are the most lilaely future sources of construction aggregate potentially available to meet California's continuing demand. Factors used to calculate non -permitted resource amounts and to determine the aerial extent of these resources, are given in each of the aggregate classification reports listed in the Append -x. Aggregate Production Areas and Districts Aggregate production areas are shown on the map by five different sizes of triangle. A triangle may represent one or more active aggregate mines. The relative size of eacl- symbol corresponds to the amount of yearly production for each mine or group of mines. Yearly production was based on data from the Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) records for the calendar. year 2005. The smallest triangle represents a production area that produces less than 0.5 million tons of aggregate per year. These triangles represent a single mine operation. About 85 percent of the production areas on the map fall into this category, and many are located in rural parts of the state. The largest triangle represents aggregate mining districts with production of more than 10 million tons per year. Only two aggregate production district, fall into this category - the Temescal Valley District in western Riverside County and the San Gabriel Valley District in Los Angeles County. The Temescal Valley Production District produced about 12 million tons of aggregate in 2005 and is the largest sand and gravel production district in the United States. Aggregate Study Areas with Less than Ten Fears of Permitted Resources Four of the 31 aggregate study areas - North San Francisco Bay, Sacramento County, Fresno County, and northern Tulai-e County - are projected to have less than 10 years of permitted aggregate resources remaining. They are highlighted by red halos around :he pie diagrams on Map Sheet 52 and appear in bold type in Table 1. Calculations of depletion years are made by comparing the currently permitted resources to the projected annual aggregate consumption in the study area on a year -by -year basis. This is not the same as dividing the to -a] projected 50 -year demand for aggregate by 50 because, as population increases, so does the projected annual consumption of aggregate for a study area. It should be noted that these numbers are estimates and they can quickly change. For example, if a neighboring region runs out o-- aggregate and begins to import aggregate from another region, a 20 -year supply can quickly drop. to just a few years. AGGREGATE AV, -ABILITY IN CALIFORNIA—MAP SHE_ . 52 (UPDATED 2006) PART II COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL (2002) AND THE UPDATED (2006) MAP SHEET 52 The original Map Sheet 52 was completed in early 2001 and published in 2002. Permitted aggregate resource data were current as of January 1, 2001. Most of the data for the map were collected and compiled in 2000. The latest aggregate production and location data available during this time were from 1999 records. The aggregate demand projections for the original map were based on DOF county population projections from the 1990 U.S. census (200J census data were not yet available). Fifty-year aggregate demand from January 1, 2001 through the year 2050 was determined for 34 study areas. The updated Map Sheet 52 was completed and published in 2006. Permitted aggregate resource data for the updated map' is current as of January 1, 2006. All work conducted for the updated study also took place during 2006. The latest aggregate production and location data available for the updated map are from 2005 records. The aggregate demand projections fDr the updated map were based on.DOF county population projections from the 2000 U.S. census. Fifty-year aggregate demand from January 1, 2006 through the year 2055 was determined for 31 study areas. Significant changes also have occurred in aggregate supply (permitted aggregate resources) and demand in the five years since the original Map Sheet 52 was completed. Cl-anges in permitted aggregate resources between the original Map Sheet 52 (2002) and updated _Map Sheet 52 (2006) are shown on Table 2. New mining regulations, mine closures, new mining ?ermits, and five years of consumption have contributed to these changes. Significant changes have also occurred in 50 -year aggregate demand figure. for several study areas due to updated aggregate production and county population projection. Table 3 compares the changes in demand between Map Sheet 52 (2002) and the updated 2006 map. The updated map had three fewer aggregate study areas (a total of 31) beca-lse of aggregate shortages that caused changes in market areas. These changes are discussed in the following secti on. Aggregate Study Area Changes Six aggregate study areas on the original Map Sheet 52 have been modified for the updated map, resulting in three fewer study areas. They include the Southern California P -C regions of Orange County, Temescal Valley, San Fernando Valley, Saugus -Newhall, Westerr Ventura County, and Simi Valley. These P -C regions were modified because they no longer fit tle definition of a production -consumption region. The Western Ventura County P -C region .s depleted of permitted resources, and the Orange County, San Fernando Valley and Saugus Newl-all regions are nearly depleted. When these regions began to run out of permitted aggregate resources, they became dependent on aggregate sources from neighboring regions, resulting in ma-ket areas that no longer were served by their original production district. Orange County's permitted resources are nearly exhausted and now the county relies on Temescal Valley for much of its aggregate needs. These two P -C Regions were combined into the Temescal Valley -Orange County aggregate study area. Permitted resources for this new study area total 8 DEPARTMENT Ot .:ONSERVATION-CALIFORNIA GEG-JGICAL SJRVEY AGGREGATE STUDY AREA Permitted Aggregate Resources as of 1/1/01 (million tons) Map Sheet 52, 2.002 Permitted Aggregate Resources as of 1/1/06 (million tons) Map Sheet 52, 2006 percent Difference (%) Bakersfield P -C Region 167 115 -31 Barstow Victorville P -C Region 115 133 15 Claremont -Upland P -C Region 134 147 10 Eastern Merced County 15 53 253 El Dorado County 13 19 46 Fresno P -C Region 98 71 -27 Glenn County 56 17 -70 Monterey Bay P -C Region 243 347 43 Nevada County 35 31 -11 Northern Tulare County 12 12 0 North San Francisco Bay P -C Region 178 49 -73 Palmdale P -C Region 216 181 -16 Palm Springs P -C Region 70 1.76 151 Placer County 43 45 5 Sacramento County 65 67 3 Sacramento -Fairfield P -C Region 130 164 26 San Bernardino P -C Region 356 262 -26 San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall * **154 88 -43 San Gabriel Valley P -C Region 241 '370 54 San Luis Obispo -Santa Barbara P -C Region 93 77 -17 Shasta County 28 51 82 Southern Tulare County 196 Eroprietary Proprietary South San Francisco Bay P -C Region 564 458 -19 Stanislaus County 35 51 45 Stockton Lodi P -C Region 260 196 -25 Tehama County 40 36 -10 Temescal Valley -Orange County* **837 355 -58 Ventura County (combined Western Ventura County and Simi Valley P -C Region)* **129 106 -18 Western Merced County >50 ?roprietary Proprietary Western San Diego County P -C Region 275 198 -28 Yuba City -Marysville P -C Region >2,000 409 -80 Total 6,848 4,343 * Two P -C Regions have been combined for updated Map Sheet 52 "Total for combined P -C Regions Table 2. Comparison of permitted aggregate resources between Map Sheet 52, 2002 and Map Sheet 52. 2006. AGGREGATE AVAIL, LITY IN CALIFORNIA—MAP SHEET (UPDATED 2006) AGGREGATE STUDY AREA 50 -Year Demand as li n tons (million tons) Map Sheet 52, 2002 50 -Year Demand 1/06 m li n tons (million tons) Map Sheet 52, 2006 percent . Difference (%) Bakersfield P -C Region 246 252 2 Barstow-Victorville P -C Region 165 179 8 Claremont -Upland P -C Region 270 300 11 Eastern Merced County 98 106 8 E1 Dorado County 85 91 7 Fresno P -C Region 565 629 11 Glenn County 79 83 5 Monterey Bay P -C Region 381 383 0.5 Nevada County 169 122 -28 Northern Tulare County 107 117 9 North San Francisco Bay P -C Region 648 647 -0.15 Palmdale P -C Region 172 665 287 Placer County 126 171 36 Palm Springs P -C Region 198 295 49 Sacramento County 686 733 7 Sacramento -Fairfield P -C Region 225 235 4 San Bernardino P -C Region 969 1,074 11 San Fernando Valley/Saugus Newhall * ** 732 457 -38 San Gabriel Valley P -C Region 1,250 1,148 -8 San Luis Obispo -Santa Barbara P -C Region 99 243 145 Shasta County 118 1.22 3 Southern Tulare County 77 88 14 Stanislaus County 311 344 11 Stockton Lodi P -C Region 337 728 115 South San Francisco Bay P -C Region 1,213 1,244 3 Tehama County 52 72 38 Temescal Valley -Orange County 1,203 1,122 -7 Ventura County (combined Western Ventura County and Simi Valley P -C Regions) *� 257 309 20 Western Merced County 49 53 8 Western San Diego County P -C Region 1,099 1,164 6 Yuba City -Marysville P -C Region 30 360 1,100 Total 121016 13,536 * Two P -C Regions have been combined for updated Map Sheet 52 **Total for combined P -C Regions Table 3. Comparison of 50 -year demand between Map Sheet 52, 2002 and Map Sheet 52, 2006. 10 DEPARTMENT _,r CONSERVATION—CALIFORNIA GL LOGICAL SURVEY 355 million tons as compared to the total resources for both of the original P -C regions of 837 million tons. This results in a decrease of 58 percent (See Table 2). Western Ventura County has depleted its permitted aggregate resources and now relies heavily on aggregate production from the Simi Valley area. For the updated map, these two regions have been combined to form the Ventura County aggregate study area. Permitted aggregate resources for this area decreased by about 18 percent since the original Map Sheet 52 (See Table 2). A shortage of coarse aggregate in Ventura County has resulted in rock being hauled up to 60 miles into the county from the Palmdale aggregate production region. Both the San Fernando Valley and the Saugus Newhall P -C regions shown on the original map are rapidly running out of permitted aggregate resources. These two regions have been merged for the updated map to form the San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall aggregate study area. Loss of permitted aggregate resources because of mine closures in the Saugus Newhall P -C region has resulted in increased importation of aggregate into the region from the San Fernando Valley P -C region. -This puts an additional drain on San Fernando Valley's permitted resources that already are in short supply. The.new San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall aggregate study area, shown on the updated map, has 88 million tons of permitted resources, or 19 percent of its projected 50 -year demand (See Table 1). The 88 million tons includes 56 million tons of newly permitted aggregate resources granted to CEMEX in 2004 for its Soledad Canyon operation in Los Angeles County. Decreases in Permitted Aggregate Resources Eighteen of the 31 study areas shown on the updated map experienced a decrease in permitted aggregate resources since the original map was completed (See Table 2). Included in these 18 areas are Western Merced County and Southern Tulare County. Permitted resources for both of these county study areas cannot be shown because they are proprietary. Six of thel8 areas had significant decreases of over 50 percent. They include the Glenn County, North San Francisco Bay, Temescal Valley -Orange County, Western Merced County, Southern Tulare County, and Yuba City -Marysville aggregate study areas. Total permitted resources for all 31 areas decreased from 6.848 billion tons to 4.343 billion tons – a loss of 2.5 billion tons. Most of this decrease was because of aggregate consumption and a large reduction in Yuba City-Marysville's permitted aggregate resources. Approximately 1.2 billion tons of aggregate has been consumed in the 31 study areas during the five-year period from 2001-2005. The Yuba City -Marysville area had a decrease in permitted aggregate resources of 1.6 billion tons despite the addition of over 100 million tons of newly pennitted resources to the area. The submission of revised reclamation plans contributed to most of the decrease. Other reasons for reductions in permitted acr resources throughout the state include economic or environmental conditions causing mine closures, new in -stream mining regulations, natural changes in the quality of aggregate deposits, and haulage restrictions. Increases in Permitted Aggregate Resource Of the 31 study areas shown on the updated Map Sheet 52, 12 areas had increases in permitted aggregate resources. Most of these increases are because of newly permitted or expanded mining operations. An expansion may increase the footprint of the mine or, as in the case of San Gabriel 11 AGGREGATE A� . .L -ABILITY IN CALIFORNIA --MAP SH_ -F 52 (UPDATED 2006) Valley, mining depth. Significant increases exceeding 50 percent occurred in the Eastern Merced County, Palm Springs, San Gabriel Valley, and Shasta County aggregate study areas (See Table 2). Changes in Fifty -'Fear Demand All but five study areas shown on the updated Map Sheet 52 had increases in 50 -year demand (See Table 3). Only two study areas had any significant decrease; these are Nevada County and the new combined aggregate study area of San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall. The North San Francisco Bay, San Gabriel Valley, and the Temescal Valley -Orange County study areas had slight decreases. Nevada County's demand decreased because updated population projections by DOF (based on 2000 census data) for the county were lower than those made by DOF using 1990 census data. The 2000 census -based DOF projections were not available at the time the original study for Map Sheet 52 was being conducted. In most growing areas such as the Palm Springs region and Placer County, the 2000 census -based projections were higher than the 1990 census -based projections. The nearly depleted permitted resources in the San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall study area has resulted in importation of aggregate from the Palmdale P -C region. In order to better reflect aggregate consumption in the San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall aggregate study, the method used to calculate 50 -year demand for the area was changed from a per capita consumption to a historical production model. (See Effectiveness of the Per Capita Consumption Model section.). The new model resulted in a 38 percent decrease in the study area's 50 -year demand. Changes in Permitted Aggregate Resources and Demand Table 4 shows the percentages of permitted aggregate resources as compared to the 50 -year demand for the 2002 and updated 2006 Map Sheet 52. The graphic representations of these ratios are shown on both maps as pie diagrams — the blue portion of the pie depicting percentage of the 50 -year demand met with current permitted aggregate resources. An increase in percent between the original and the updated map shows that permitted resources have increased relative to demand. Three of the 31 study areas shown on Table 4 could not be compared to the 2002 map because they are newly combined study areas that did not exist on the 2002 map (See Aggregate Study Area Changes section). Increases occurred in 10 of the 28 study areas that could be compared: Barstow-Victorville, Eastern Merced County, El Dorado County, Monterey Bay, Nevada County, Palm Springs, Sacramento -Fairfield, San Gabriel Valley, Shasta County, and Stanislaus County. Except for Nevada County, increases were because of new or expanded permits resulting in additional permitted aggregate resource for that study area. Nevada County's permitted resources decreased slightly. The increase in the supply to demand ratio for Nevada County was caused by a decrease in the county's population growth estimate. Sixteen of the 28 study areas including Southern Tulare County and Western Merced County, had decreases in supply to demand percentages between the original and the updated map (See Table 4). Large decreases occurred in the Glenn County, Palmdale, San Luis Obispo -Santa Barbara, Southern Tulare County, Stockton -Lodi, and the Western Merced County aggregate study areas. All of these areas also had ]arae decreases in permitted aggregate resources. 12 DEPARTMENT'OF � jNSERVATION—CALIFORNIA GEOL�_ _JCAL SURVEY AGGREGATE STUDY AREA Percentage of Permitted Aggregate Resources as Compared to 50 -fear Demand as of 1/1/01 Map Sheet 52, 2002 Percentage of Permitted Aggregate Resources as Ccmpared to 50 -Year Demand as of 1/1/06 Map Sheet 52, 2006 Bakersfield P -C Region 68 46 Barstow-Victorville P -C Region 70 74 Claremont -Upland P -C Region 50 49 Eastern Merced County 15 50 El Dorado County 15 21 Fresno P -C Region 17 11 Glenn County 71 21 Monterey Bay P -C Region 64, 91 Nevada County 21 25 Northern Tulare County 11 10 North San Francisco Bay P -C Region 27 8 Palmdale P -C Region >100 27 Palm Springs P -C Region 35 60 Placer County 34 26 Sacramento County 9 9. Sacramento -Fairfield P -C Region 58 70 San Bernardino P -C Region 37 24 San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall * ** 19 San Gabriel Valley P -C Region 19 32 San Luis Obispo -Santa Barbara P -C Region 94 32 Shasta County 24 42 Southern Tulare County >100 Proprietary South San Francisco Bay P -C Region 46 37 Stanislaus County 11 15 Stockton Lodi P -C Region 77 .27 Tehama County 77 49 Temescal Valley -Orange County * * 32 Ventura County (combined Western Ventura County and Simi Valley P -C Regions)* ** 34 Western Merced County >100 Proprietary Western San Diego County P -C Region 25 17 Yuba City -Marysville P -C Region >100 100 * Two P -C Regions have been combined for updated Map Sheet 52 **No percentage due to combining of two P -C Regions Table 4. Percentage of permitted aggregate resources as compared to 50 -year demand for Map Sheet 52, 2002 and Map Sheet 52, 2006. 13 AGGREGATE A . i LABILITY IN CALIFORNIA—MAP Sh _ _T 52 (UPDATED 2006) Comparison of Areas with Less than 10 -'Fears of Permitted Aggregate Resources The 2006 Map Sheet 52 shows four aggregate study areas — Sacramento County, Fresno County, Norther Tulare County, and the North San Francisco P -C Region, with less than a 10 -year supply of permitted aggregate resources. The map shows these areas with red halos around the pie diagrams. The original Map Sheet 52 shows seven areas with less than a 10 -year supply of permitted aggregate. Fewer short -supply areas (red circles) shown on the updated map does not mean that California's supply has improved relative to demand. Three of these short supply areas have been combined with neighboring regions. This resulted in all three areas extending their permitted resource life to more than ten years. When regions combine, transportation cost usually increases because of longer and or more time-consuming hauls. PART III: OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE Construction aggregate is the leading non -fuel mineral commodity produced in California, as well as in the nation. Valued at $1.63 billion, aggregate made up about 44 percent of California's $3.72 billion non -fuel mineral production in 2005. California is the nation's leading producer of construction aggregate with a total production of 235 million tons in 2005. Aggregate Price The price of aggregate throughout California varies considerably depending on location, quality, and supply and demand. The highest quality aggregate is that which meets the California Department of Transportation's specifications for use in Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). All prices discussed in this section are for PCC -grade aggregate at the plant site or FOB (freight on board). Transportation cost is discussed in the next section. Price variance makes it difficult to estimate the average price of PCC -grade aggregate for the state. The highest priced aggregate in the state is in the San Diego area, where PCC -grade sand is in very short supply, causing prices to range from $20-$22 /ton. Coarse PCC -grade aggregate is more abundant in the area and averages about $15 per ton. San Diego has started to import sand from Mexico. The price of aggregate in the Northern San Francisco Bay area is up to $18/ton for PCC - grade sand and $16/ton for coarse PCC -grade aggregate. Most of this aggregate is mined from terrace or in -stream deposits of the Russian River located in Alexander Valley. Aggregate is more plentiful and the demand is greater in the South San Francisco Bay area (includes the San Jose metropolitan area). The cost of alluvial sand is about $16/ton, and gravel runs about $15/ton. The price of high strength crushed stone from limestone and diorite in this region is higher at $16 to $17/ton. Sand shortages and subsequent higher prices have resulted in the economical importation of sand from Canada to the San Francisco Bay Region. Aggregate shipped from Canada to the San Francisco Bay and loaded onto trucks costs about $18-$19/ton. The greater Los Angeles area has some of the best quality sand and gravel in the state. Aggregate prices in the major metropolitan areas supplied by alluvial fan deposits in the San Gabriel Valley and San Fernando Valley average $13-$16/ton. Aggregate from the more sparsely populated but 14 DEPARTMENT .-jF CONSERVATION—CALIFORNIA G_JLOGICA_ SURVEY rapidly growing Palmdale area (Northern Los Angeles County) averages about: $10/ton. Much of the coarse aggregate consumed in Ventura County comes from the Palmdale Region – a haul distance of about 60 miles. The added cost for such a long haul is about $9/tor-. The average cost for sand in Ventura County, supplied from the Simi Valley production region,. is about $13-$16/ton – about the same as the greater Los Angeles area. Aggregate price in the Cental Valley regions of Northern Tulare County and Fresno County ranges from $14-$18/ton. Aggregate shortages in the Fresno area have resulted in rock being imported into the area from Coalinga, a 60 -mile haul. Aggregate prices in the Stockton -Lodi and Sacramento regions run about $10 and $11/ ton, respectively. The price of PCC -grade aggregate in the Yuba City -Marysville -region averages about $7-$8/ton – some of the least expensive in the state. Relatively abundant aggregate in this region has kept aggregate prices low. Transportation Transportation plays a major role in the cost of aggregate to the consumer. kggregate is a low - unit -value, high -bulk -weight commodity, and it must be obtained from nearby sources to minimize both the dollar cost to the aggregate consumer and other environmental and economic costs associated with transportation. If nearby sources do not exist, then transportation costs may significantly increase the cost of the aggregate by the time it reaches the consumer. For straight hauls with minimal traffic, the price of aggregate increases about 15 cents ger ton for every mile that it is hauled from the plant. Currently, transporting aggregate a distance of 30 miles will increase the FOB price by about $4.50 per ton. For example, to construct one mile of six -lane interstate highway requires about 113,505 tons of aggregate. Transporting this amount of aggregate 30 miles adds $510 thousand to the base cost of the material at the mine. In major metropolitan areas, this rate is often greater because of heavy traffic that increases the haul time. Other factors that affect hauling rates include toll bridges and toll roads, road conditions, and elevation climbs. Transporting aggregate from distant sources also results :n increased fuel consumption, air pollution, traffic congestion; and road maintenance. Moreover, transportation cost is the principal constraint defining the market area for an aggregate raining operation. Increased Haul Distances Throughout California, aggregate haul distances have been gradually increasing as local sources of aggregate diminish. Consequently, older P -C regions, most of which were established in the late 1970s have changed considerably since their boundaries were drawn. Thi 3 is especially evident in Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties where aggregate shortages have led to the merging of six P -C regions shown on the original map into three regions for the updated map (See Aggregate Study area Changes section). The following lists some examples of aggregate hauls in Southern Califomia that have caused significant transportation price increases: o The Palmdale P -C Region in Northern Los Angeles County currently exports about half of its aggregate into the adjacent San Fernando Valley -Saugus Newhall Region. Some material from Palmdale also goes to downtown Los Angeles. Coarse aggregate from the Palmdale Region is hauled as far as 60 miles to the Western Ventura County. 15 AGGREGATE AV, .. -ABILITY IN CALIFORNIA—MAP SHE– � 52 (UPDATED 2006) Aggregate from the San Gabriel Valley production district is hauled as far south as northern San Diego County. • Although Orange County imports material mainly from Temescal Val--ey, some aggregate is hauled to Orange County from the San Berardino, Upland -Claremont and the San . Gabriel Valley production districts. •- - Aggregate mined from the Claremont -Upland production district is hLuled out of its region to downtown Los Angeles, Orange County and to San Bernardino. • Norther San Diego County imports aggregate from the San Berard=no production area and from Temescal Valley. •- Aggregate is hauled from the Barstow-Victorville production district into San Bernardino. •.. Aggregate is hauled from southwester Imperial County into downtcwn San Diego, a distance of about 90 miles. Between 1 million and 2 million tons of aggregate are shipped annually by rail from the Cochella Valley area into Los Angeles County. • Sand is being shipped by barge from Mexico into the San Diego Bay region. Aggregate Quality and Use Normally forming 80 to 100 percent of the material volume in the mix, aggregate provides the bulk and strength to PCC and AC. 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 car meet specifications for a particular use, and what processing is required. Specifications for PCC, AC, and various other 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 Depai7-ment of Transportation to ensure that aggregate is satisfactory for specific uses. These agencies and other major consumers test aggregate using standard test procedures of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), the American Association of State Highway Officials, and other organizations. Most PCC and AC aggregate specifications have been established to ensu -.e 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, zeote, opal, chalcedony, chert, siliceous shale, volcanic glass, and some high -silica volcanic rocks. Gypsum retards the setting time of pordand 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 or naturally occurring pozzolanic natenals. Pozzolan materials are defined as a siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material o- natural or artificial origin that, in the presence of moisture, reacts with calcium hydroxide to -form cementitious 16 DEPARTMENT,_ CONSERVATION—CALIFORNIA GE_ LOGICAL SURVEY compounds. Naturally occurring pozzalonic materials include diatomaceous earth, diatomite, volcanic ash, opaline shale, pumicite, tuff, and certain clays such as kaolinite. Specifications also call for precise particle -size distribution for the various uses of aggregate that is commonly classified into two general sizes: coarse and fine. Coarse aggregate is rock retained on a 3/8 -inch or a #4 U.S. sieve. Fine aggregate passes a 3/8 -inch sieve and is retai-ied on a #200 U.S. sieve (a sieve with 200 weaves per inch). For some uses, such as asphalt paving, particle shape is specified. Aggregate materia] used with bituminous binder (asphalt) 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 asphaltic concrete (AC) because asphalt adheres better to broken surfaces than to rounded surfaces and the interlocking of angular particles strengthens the AC and road base. The material specifications for PCC and AC aggregate are more restrictive than specifications for other applications such as Class H base, subbase, and fill. These restrictive specifications makes deposits acceptable for use as PCC or AC aggregate, the scarcest and most valuable aggregate resources. Aggregate produced from such deposits can be, and commonly is, used in applications other than concrete. PCC and AC -grade aggregate deposits are of major impDrtance when planning for future availability of aggregate commodities because of their versatility, value, and relative scarcity. Factors Affecting Aggregate Deposit Quality The major factors that affect the quality of construction aggregate are the rcck 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 volcanic rocks, there may be significant variability of rock type within a deposit. Rock type may also influence aggregate shape. For exam-Dle, 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 e-�ample, 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. Weathering is the in-place physical or chemical decay of rock materials a: or near the Earth's surface. Weathering commonly decreases the physical strength of the roc={ and may make the material unsuitable for high strength and durability uses. Weathering may also alter the chemical composition of the aggregate, making it less suitable for some aggregate sses. If weathering is severe enough, the material may not be suitable for use as PCC or AC aggregate. Typically, the older a deposit is, the more likely it has been subjected to weathering. The severity of weathering commonly increases with increasing age of the deposit. 17 AGGREGATE AV..,LABILITY IN CALIFORNIAN—MAP SH,__F S2 (UPDATED 2006) Comparison of Alluvial Sand and Gravel to Crushed Stone Aggregate The preferred use of one aggregate material over anothevin construction practices depends not only on specification standards, but also on economic considerations. Alluvia. gravel is typically preferred to crushed stone for PCC aggregate because the rounded particles o- alluvial sand and gravel result in a wet mix that is easier to work than a mix made of angular fragments. Also, crushed stone is less desirable in applications where the concrete is placed by pumping because sharp edges will increase wear and damage to the pumping equipment. The workability of a nux 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 and a higher cost to the consumer. 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 the ripping, drilling and b-.asting necessary to remove material from most quarries and the additional crushing required to -)roduce the various sizes of aggregate. Manufacturing sand by crushing is more costly than mining and processing naturally occurring sand. 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. Owing to environmental concerns and regulatory constraints in many areas of the state, it is likely that extraction of sand and gravel resources from instream and floodplain areas will become less common in the future. If this trend continues, crushed stone may become increasingly important to the California market. Factors Affecting Aggregate Demand Strong economic growth may contribute to a faster rate of aggregate depletion than forecasted in the CGS classification reports. The nation's strong economy since the mid 1990s has brought about a resurgence of new home and business construction, as well as large construction projects such as airports, new roads, rail systems, and re -paving of existing roads. Several factors may contribute to extending the life of California's permitted aggregate resources. A recession in the. state's or the nation's economy will result in a decrease in construction activities. Also, an increase in the use of recycled aggregate for base rock will decrease the need for new aggregate. The importation of aggregate from other states and countries such as Canada and Mexico is also expected to extend the life of California's permitted aggregate resources. New state-of-the-art ships are capable of hauling up to 70,000 tons of aggregate. California currently imports about one percent of the aggregate it consumes.. DEPARTMENT CONSERVATION --CALIFORNIA GL ­,LOGICAL SURVEY SUMMARY Construction aggregate is the largest non -fuel mineral commodity produced ir. California as well as in the nation. Aggregate production plays a major role in the economy of California. Demand for aggregate is expected to increase as the state's population continues to grew and infrastructure is maintained and improved. For the last 28 years, CGS has conducted on-going studies that identify and evaluate aggregate resources throughout the state. Map Sheet 52 (Updated 2006) is an updated summary of supply and demand data from these studies. The map prs-sents a statewide overview of aggregate needs and permitted resources. In a five-year period (2001-2005), permitted aggregate resources have decreF-sed by about 2.5 billion tons. Also, during this same period, more aggregate study areas had decreases in permitted aggregate resources than increases. Decreases were caused by changes in permitted resource calculations, aggregate consumption, and social and economic, conditions leF-ding to mine closures. Aggregate price at the plant site and transportation cost have increased significantly in the past five years. Areas throughout the state are experiencing shortages in local permitt--d aggregate resources and are being forced to transport aggregate longer distances, significantly increasing the FOB cost by the time it reaches its final destination. Areas in very short supply of permitted aggregate resources include Fresno, North San Francisco Bay, Southern Tulare County, and Sacramento County. The shortage of PCC -grade sand in the San Diego and the San Francisco Bay areas has driven up the price in both areas, making importation of sand from Canada and Mexico into these regions competitive. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Construction aggregate is essential to the needs of modern society, providing material for the construction and maintenance of roadways, dams, canals, buildings and other parts of California's infrastructure. Aggregate is also found in homes, schools, hospitals and shDpping centers..In 2005, California consumed about 235 million tons of construction aggregate or Ebout.6.6 tons per person. Because transporting aggregate is a significant part of the total cost to the consumer, aggregate mines generally are located close to communities that consume the aggregate. The following.conclusions can be drawn from Map Sheet 52 and this accompanying report. Reference is made to the 31 aggregate consumption areas that are represented by the pie diagrams shown on Map Sheet 52: About 32 percent of the total projected 50 -year aggregate demand identified for the 31 study areas is currently permitted. Only six percent of the total aggregate resources identified within the 31 study areas are currently permitted. California currently has about 4.3 billion tons of permitted resources identified in the 31 study areas shown on Map Sheet 52. 19 AGGREGATE AV, _ABILITY IN CALIFORNIA --MAP SHE 52 (UPDATED 2006) ® ed approximately 13.5 billion tons of aggregate. This In the next 50 years, California will ne figure does not account for accelerated construction programs as a result of major bond initiatives, or from reconstruction following a major, damaging earthq.iake. m Four of the updated aggregate study areas are projected to have less tFan ten years of perrnitted aggregate resources remaining as of January 2006 (pie diag ams highlighted with red borders). Y Ten of the updated aggregate study areas show less than 25 percent oe the aggregate resources to meet the projected 50 -year aggregate demand. 0 About one-half (16) of the updated aggregate study areas show that 25 to 50 percent of the aggregate resources are available to meet the 50 -year aggregate demand. Three (one tenth) of the updated aggregate study areas show between 50 and 75 percent of the aggregate resources are available to meet the 50 -year aggregate demand. • One study area shows between 75 and 100 percent of the aggregate resources to be available to meet its 50 -year aggregate demand. • Only one of the study areas has adequately permitted aggregate resources to meet or exceed its projected 50 -year demand. The 2002 map showed six areas. The information presented on Map Sheet 52 and in the referenced reports is provided to assist land use planners and decision makers in identifying those areas containing cor_struction aggregate resources, and to identify potential future demand for these resources in different regions of the state. This information is intended to help planners and decision makers balance the need for construction aggregate with the many other competing land use issues in their jurisdictions, and to provide for adequate,supplies of construction aggregate to meet future needs. 20 DEPARTMENT—: CONSERVATION --CALIFORNIA GL -LOGICAL SURVEY REFERENCES CITED California Department of Transportation, 1992, Standard Specifications. Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, California surface mining and reclama'_ion policies and procedures: Special Publication 51, third revision. Dupras, D.L., 1997, Mineral land classification of alluvial sand and gravel, crushed stone, volcanic cinders, limestone, and diatomite within Shasta County, California. Kohler, S.L., 2002, Aggregate Availability. in California, California Geological Survey, Map Sheet 52, scale 1:1,100,000, 26p. Miller, R.V., 1994, Update of mineral land classification of portland cement concrete aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles,'and Orange counties, California: Part II - Los Angeles County. Miller, R.V., 1996, Update of minerals land classification: aggregate materials in the western San Diego County Production -Consumption Region. 21 AGGREGATE AVAILABILITY IN CALIFORNIA --MAP SHEtzr 52 (UPCATED 2006) APPENDIX: MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION REPORTS BY THE, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (Special Reports and Open -File Reports, with information on aggregate resources) SPECIAL REPOR'T'S SR 132: Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete -Grade Aggregate in the Yuba City -Marysville Production -Consumption Region. By Habel, R.S., and Campion, L.F., 1986. *SR 143: Part I: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles.- Area: Description of the Mineral Land Classification Project of the Greater Los Angeles Area. By Anderson T. P., Loyd, R.C., Clark, W.B., Miller, R.M., Corbaley, R., Kohler, S.L., and Bushnell, M.M., 1979. *SR 143: Part H: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, San Fernando Valley Production -Consumption Region. By Anderson T.P., Loyd, R.C., Clark, W.B., Miller, R.M., CSrbaley, R., Kohler, S.L., and Bushnell, M.M., 1979. *SR 143: Part III: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Orange County-Temescal Valley Production -Consumption Region. By Miller, R.V., and Corbaley, R., 1981. *SR 143: Part IV: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, San Gabriel Valley Production - Consumption Region. By Kohler, S.L., 1982. *SR 143: Part V: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption Region and Palmdale Production -Consumption Region. By Joseph, S.E, Miller, R.V., Tan, S.S., and Goodman, R.W., 1987. *SR 143: Part VI: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource.Areas, Claremont -Upland Production - Consumption Region. By Cole, J.W., 1987. *SR 143: Part VII: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, San Bernardino Production - Consumption Region. By Miller, R.V.; 1987. 22 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION—CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY *SR 145: Part I: Mineral Land Classification of Ventura County: Description of the Mineral Land Classification Project of Ventura County. By Anderson,T.P., Loyd, R.C., Kiessling, E.W. Kohler, S.L., and Miller, R.V., 1981.. *SR 145: Part H: Mineral Land Classification of Ventura County: Classi=ication of the Sand, 'Gravel, and Crushed Rock Resource Areas, Simi Production -Consumption Region. By Anderson,T.P., Loyd, R.C., Kiessling, E.W., Kohler, S.L., and Miller, R.V.; 1981. 1`SR 145: Part HI: Mineral Land Classification of Ventura County: Classification of the Sand and Gravel, and Crushed Rock Resource Areas, Western Venwra County Production -Consumption Region. By Anderson,T.P., Loyd, R.C., Kiessling, E.W:, Kohler, S.L., and Miller, R. _V., 1981. 4 -SR 146: Part I: Mineral Land Classification: Project Description: Mineral Land Classification for Construction Aggregate in the San Francisco -Monterey Bay Area. By Stinson, M.C., Manson, M.W., and Plappert, J.J., 1987. *SR 146: Part H: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production -Consumption Region. By Stinson, M.C., Manson, M.W., and Plappert, J.J., 1987. *SR 146: Part III: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the North San Francisco Bay Production -Consumption Region. By Stinson, M.C., Manson, M.W., and Plappert, J.J., 1987. *SR 146: Part IV: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials _n the Monterey Bay Production -Consumption Region. By Stinson, M.C., Manson, M.W., and Plappert, J.J., 1987. SR 147: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Bakersfield Production - Consumption Region. By Cole, J.W., 1988. *SR 153: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production -Consumption Region. . By Kohler, S.L., and Miller, R.V., 1982. SR 156: Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete -Grade Aggregate in the Sacramento -Fairfield Production -Consumption Region. By Dupras, D.L., 1988. 23 ' AGGREGATE AVAILABILITY IN CALIFORNIA—MAP SHEE 52 (UPEATED 2006) *SR 158 *SR 159 *SR 160 SR 162 SR 164 SR 165: SR 173: SR 198 SR 199 Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Fresno :Production - Consumption Region. By Cole, J.W.; and Fuller, D.R., 1986. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm 'springs Production - Consumption Region. By Miller, R.V., 1987. Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete -Grade Aggregate in the Stockton -Lodi Production -Consumption Region. By Jensen, L.S., and Silva, M.A., 1989. Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate and Active Mines of All Other Mineral Commodities in the San Luis Obi3po-Santa Barbara Production -Consumption Region. By Miller, R.V., Cole, J.W., and Clinkenbeard, J.P., 1991. Mineral Land Classification of Nevada County, California. By Loyd, R.C., and Clinkenbeard, J.P., 1990. Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California. By Miller, R.V., Shumway, D.O., and Hill, R.L., 1991. Mineral Land Classification of Stanislaus County,, California. By Higgins, C.T., and Dupras, D.L., 1993. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in Palm Springs Production -Consumption Region, California. By Busch, L.L., 2006. (in progress). Update of Mineral Land Classification- Stockton Lodi Procuction-Consumption Region, San Joaquin County, California. By Taylor, G.C., 2006. (in progress). 24 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ---CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICA._ SURVEY OPEN -FILE REPORTS OFR 92-06: Mineral Land Classification of Concrete Aggregate Resources in the Barstow- Victorville Area. By Miller, R.V., 1993. OFR 93-10: Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles,*and Orange Counties, California: Part I - Ventura County. By Miller, R.V., 1993. OFR 94-14: Update of. Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California: Part_lI - Los Angeles County. By Miller, R.V., 1994. OFR 94-15: Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California: Part III - Orange County. By Miller, R.V., 1995. OFR 95-10: Mineral Land Classification of Placer County, California. By Loyd, R.C., 1995. OFR 96-03: Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production -Consumption Region. By Kohler-Antablin, S.L., 1996. OFR 96-04: Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materia13 in the Western San Diego County Production -Consumption Region. By Miller, R.V., 1996. OFR 97-01: Mineral Land Classification of Concrete Aggregate Resour_zes in the Tulare County Production -Consumption Region, California. By Taylor, G.C., 1997. OFR 97-02: Mineral Land Classification of Concrete -Grade Aggregate Resources in Glenn County, California. By Shumway, D.O., 1997. OFR 97-03: Mineral Land Classification of Alluvial Sand and Gravel, Crushed Stone, Volcanic Cinders, Limestone, and Diatomite within Shasta County„ California. By Dupras, D.L, 1997. OFR 99-01: Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Monterey Bay Production -Consumption Region, California. By Kohl er-Antablin, S.L., 1999. 25 AGGREGATE AVAILABILITY IN CALIFORNIAMAP SHEE 1. 52 (UPDATED 2006) " OFR 99-02: Update of Mineral. Lan d.Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production -Consumption Region, California. By Youngs, L.G. and Miller, R.V., 1999. OFR 99-08: Mineral Land Classification of Merced County, California. By Clinkenbeard, J.P., 1999. OFR 99-09: Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete -Grads Aggregate and Clay Resources in Sacramento County, California. ByDupr.as, D.L.,.1999. OFR 2000-18: Mineral Land Classification of Concrete -Grade Aggregate: Resources in Tehama. County, California. By Foster, B.D., 2001 OFR 2000-03: Mineral Land Classification of EL Dorado County, Califomia: By Busch L.L., 2001 * ` These Mineral, Land Classification reports have been updated and are nct shown on ._the index; map (lower left-hand corner of Map Sheet 52). . 26 M&T CHICO RANCH MINE UPDATED RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING_ WILLIAMSON ACT F 5.1.4 Department of Conservation The DEIR is inadequate for three reasons that are summarized below, and each is further discussed under separate headings in the remainder of this correspondence. • _The DEIR fails to point out that the proposed reclamation wou_d be in conflict with statutory requirements of the Williamson Act. The property is designated as Prime farmland and is under Williamson Act Contract. Because of the restrictions of the contract, the mined land _must be reclaimed to Prime farmland. • The scope of the discussions regarding possible environmental impacts from the project is too narrowly limited. The discussions regarding the environmental setting, ground water hydrology, stream geomo: phology, impacts to fish and wildlife and riparian habitat are incomplete. • The reclamation plan contained in the DEIR is incomplete anc does not meet the minimum requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) (Public Resources Code Section 2710 et.seq.) and the State Mining and Geology Board regulations for surface reining and reclamation practice (California Code "of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 8, Article 1, section 3500 et seq.; Article 9, section 3700 Et seq.). OMR publishes a quarterly revised list of mines regulated under SMARA that meet the provisions set forth under P.C.C. section 10295.5. This fist is generally referred to as the AB 3098 list, in reference to the enabling legislation. This section of Public Contract Code places restrictions on State agencies regarding from whom they may obtain sand, gravel, aggregates or other minerals. The project, as proposed, violates the 'Williamson Act, CEQA, and SMARA. Deficiencies are discussed in detail below. We recommend that the project not be approved as presented. The Williamson Act clearly requires that when Prime farmland is mined, it be reclaimed to Prime farmland pursuant =o the minimum statewide reclamation standard for Prime agricultural land. The reclamation plan proposes to reclaim most of the site to a lake, which is a violation of the' Williamson Act and inconsistent with the SMARA standard fcr reclamation of Prime agricultural land. Until these deficiencies are corrected, the mine cannot be placed on the AB 3098 list. Page 2 Comment 1 WILLIAMSON ACT The land is enforceably restricted by Williamson Act contract, and the Butte County Assessor considers the site Prime agricultural land pursuant to the contract. Historical and current use has been agricultural. The site is su' rrounded by agricultural use. Proposed reclamation is 40 acres of agricultural land and 193 acres of wetland wildlife habitat, the central feature of which is an open water pond/lake created from the excavated pit(s). Page 1-4 of the DEIR concludes, "Comments. regarding conflicts with Williamson Act contracted lands were considered; the project is not considered in confli.=t, and no additional mitigation is proposed." This conclusion is not supported by factual information in the current DEIR, and is incorrect. Both propcsed project scenarios (with and without a. batch plant) are incompatible with the Williamson Act. The Department has twice. previously commented on this project's incompatibility with the Williamson Act and encloses those comments for reference (April 3, 1997 and July 2, 1998). Response 1 Both the County Williamson Act program and the specific Williamson Act contract at issue allow the proposed surface mining project. Exs�ibit A to the subject Williamson Act Contract (executed on December 11, 1975 between M&T Incorporated and the County of Butte) provides a list of the permi-ted use on the subject property. Section 7.a. provides: "sand and gravel operation subject to the securing of a use permit approved by the County." Additionally, Section 6.e. states the following: "Any other use determined to be a compatible use in all agicultural preserves by the Board of Supervisors after public hearing on ten (10) days published notice and such other notice if any as they may specify. And after, such use be deemed a compatible use in any agricultural preserve." . On January 16, 1968 the Butte County Board of Supervisors ,unanimously passed Resolution No. 68-7: Resolution Establishing Administrative Procedures and Uniform Rules Including Compatible Uses for Agricultural Reserves. Sections D.6.e and D.7.a of Resolution No. 68-7 provide exactly the same Language as cited above in terms of land use compatibility on agricultural preserves. Resolution No. 68-7 is attached as Appendix D of this Final EIR. Page 3 The Draft EIR summarizes the conclusions of the Butte County Resr-lution and Williamson Act Contract . and, concludes that the proposed project and reclamation plan are permitted uses. (see page 4.2-6 of the Draft EIR). This conclusion is valid based on information provided in the Draft EIR and expanded upon in the preceding discussion. However, after circulation of the Final EIR and in response to comments made by the Department of Conservation ("DOC"), the Applicant and the Co--inty began discussions with DOC. While the Applicant maintains that the proposed Project is compatible with the Land Conservation Contract, on October =1 2005, the Applicant voluntarily submitted a Petition of Partial Cancellation for a 106 -acre portion of the land. In addition, the property owner—Pac Trust—filed a Notice of Partial Nonrenewal for the 106 acres to be cancelled. The purpose of this Petition for Partial Cancellation was to respond to DOC's comment and avoid conflict between the County and DOC. On November 28, 2005, DOC commented on the Applicant's Petition for Partial Cancellation and concluded that the appropriate findings could be made by the County's Board of Supervisors to support the Petition for Partial Cancellation. Comment 2 Butte County has continuously claimed this site as "Prime" land under the Williamson Act, perhaps relying on the preliminary soils mapping carried out by the U.S. Natural, Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), which lists the soils on the site as qualifying for a Prime designation. The NRCS findings are disputed by the DEIR referring to a 1997 Kelly & Associates Environrr.ental Sciences "Memorandum of Prime Farmland Soil Analysis for the M&T Chico Ranch", which was not included for review in this document. The DEIR di3 not cite any information from the Butte County Assessor documenting wlly the site was claimed by the County as Williamson Act Prime, and provided no review 'of the 1997 Kelly and Associates information by NRCS. Without this additional information, the Department must accept the County of Butte's determination that this is indeed Prime Williamson Act land. Response 2 The conclusions contained on pages 4.3-20 through .4.3-23 o the Draft EIR regarding soil characteristics and the fact the site's soils are not prime farmland Page 4 are amplified and clarified in Kelley (2003), which is attached as Appendix B, M&T Ranch Soils Capability Assessment, of this Final EIR. The fact that the Butte County Assessor's office has classified the entire M&T Chico Ranch to be prime farmland for purposes of taxation is irrelevant in terms of the environmental characterization of the site. M&T Chico Ranch covers about 8,000 acres of which approximately 6,500 acres are actively farmed. About 400 acres of riparian habitat and other urifarmed, nonirrigated areas (including the proposed mine site) occur amid the 6,500 .acres of actively farmed ground. The mine area, covering 235 acres, constitutes less than three percent of the entire M&T Chico Ranch property and will have only a limited impact on the M&T Chico Ranch in particular, and the County's tax base, in general. The parcel will still be assessed as prime farmland for taxation purposes and this classification will not impact the physical characteristics of the site. CEQA doe3 not require economic issues to be analyzed in an EIR unless there is a physical •:hange to the environment. Here, absent any physical change to the environment the assessed value or assessor valuation is not relevant and therefore does not mandate a finding that the site's physical character is prime farmland. Comment 3 Regardless, however, whether the site is Williamson Act Prime or Non -Prime land, the DEIR neither supports nor explains its conclusion that aggregate mining and processing is a compatible use. While the DEIR states that the original Williamson Act contract for the site allowed mining as a compatible use, contracts must be at.least as restrictive as the Williamson Act i_self, and meet current compatibility standards. Actual contract language was r-ot provided in the document. The DEIR accurately quotes Government Code sections 51238.1. and 51238.2, but fails to discuss how the project will meet tltie compatibility requirements included in these sections. Our review of the project and these sections concludes that the compatibility findings cannot be met: • Government Code section 51238.1(a)(1) -This section requires that the use will not significantly compromise long-term agricultural capability of the site. Since the site will be mined for up to 30 years, and the resulting pits allowed to fill with water, this test cannot be met. • Government Code section 51238.1 (a)(2) -This section states that the use cannot. significantly displace or impair current or reasor.ably foreseeable agricultural uses. Again, long-term mining and flooded pits will indeed Page 5 displace agricultural uses, so this test cannot be met. • Government Code section 51238.2 -This section allows a finding of compatibility for mineral extraction in spite of being unable to meet the above tests if the underlying commitment to preserve prime lands o- nonprime lands is not significantly impaired. A 30 -year mining project, with an industrial -type plant site and a potential asphalt batch plant, and with an eventual return to flooded pits, significantly impairs the contractual commitments of the Williamson Act. Response 3 The Commenter incorrectly opines that the applicable Williamson Act Contract does not provide for excavation activities as a compatible use. Exhibit A to the subject Williamson Act Contract provides a list of the permitted use on the subject property.. Section 7.a. provides: "sand and gravel operation subject to the securing of a use permit approved by the County." Government Code Section 51238.3(c)(1) provides that the requiremEnts of 51238.1 and 51283.2 do not apply to uses that are expressly specified within the contract itself prior to June 7, 1994. The contract, specified above, meets the requirements of Government Code Section 51238.3(c)(1) because: (1) excavation activities are defined as compatible and (2) the contract was executed prior to June 7, 1994: Both Butte County Resolution 68-7 and the M&T Williamson Act i--ontract allow the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed end land use of open water/wildlife habitat/agriculture. As discussed in Response 1 above, on October 11, 2005, the Applicant voluntarily decided to submit a Petition for Cancellation. While the Project is compatible with the Williamson Act, in order to address DOC's comments and to avoid conflict between the DOC and the County, the Applicant decided to go forward with a Petition for Partial Cancellation with respect to 106 acre area of the project. Any potentially significant impacts associated with this Petition for Partial Cancellation are the same potentially significant environmental impacts analyzed m conjunction with'the proposed project, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine, including but not limited to the analysis in chapter 4.2 regarding impacts to agricultural land. There are no other potential significant environmental impacts related to the Petition for Partial Cancellation not already analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR. Page 6 In a phone conversation with the County. contact for this project, it was stated that the Board of Supervisors had passed a resolution that imning with reclamation to open space'or wildlife habitat was compatible with -Williamson„ Act contracted land. The Department requested a faxed copy of this resolution, but,has not received it and cannot comment specifically on its meritE. The DEIR does not provide any information about this resolution or its rele-ance to the projects, compatible use. As stated in our previous comments, the . prunary purpose of the Williamson Act and its contract restrictions is the protection and preservation 'of land for agricultural use. The principles of compatibility noted above, *which must be. followed in approving compatible uses, are specifically drawn'. to preserve land for agricultural use. Reclamation plans for approved mining operations must comply with SMARA "performance standards for prime agricultural land and other agricultural land," without exception (Government Code section 51238.2). Therefore, it would appear that the Board's resolution, as described in general terms, may be in conflict with the Williamson Act. Response 4 Page 4.2-6 of the Draft EIR discussed the relevance of Butte County's Resolution .68-7 by stating that the ordinance established administrative p-ocedures and . uniform rules, including compatible uses for agricultural preserves. The Draft _ EIR further discusses the fact that the ordinance uses the same language as the Williamson Act contract for the M&T Ranch site in identifying sand and gravel operations as a permitted land. use. As noted in Response 1, Resolution No. 68-7 is attached as 'Appendix . D of this Final EIR. , In addition, as discussed in Responses 1 and 3, above, the Applicant has voluntarily filed a Petition of Partial Cancellation for a 106 -acre portion of the land in response to DOC's comments and to avoid conflict between the County and DOC. Comment 5 Regarding the project's potential proposal to place -a batch plant on-site, the Department has determined that such a facility does not benefit from the relaxed requirements of Government Code section 51238.2 and is not a compatible use on land under Williamson Act contract. Neither an . amendment to the County's General Plan nor a change in zoning, which are contemplated in the DEIR as methods to gain eventual approval for the batch plant, can subvert the provisions of the Williamson Act. Response 5 The Draft EIR makes clear that the "With Batch Plants Scenario" is not permitted on the site at this time. Section D.6.e of Resolution No. 68-7 provides the County Board of Supervisors an opportunity to add compatible uses in Agricultural Preserve areas. Therefore, while not a compatible use under the Ordinance at this point, such a scenario may be permitted in the future. Comment 6 Because this project does not.meet the statutory tests for compatibility under the Williamson Act, we recommend that non -renewal be initiated, which would allow the project to proceed after the project is no longer under the enforceable restrictions of the Williamson Act. Since the proponents originally proposed this project in 1997, non -renewal should have begun at that time. Alternatively, the Applicant could file for contract cancellation if the project meets. the cancellation findings contained in Government Code section 51282. Notification -of a petition for cancellation must be provided to the Department pursuant to Government Code section 51284.1, and the Department's comments must be considered prior to action on the petition. Response 6 As the proposed project is compatible with the Williamson Act Contract in effect on the site, non -renewal or cancellation are not required. However, as explained above, the Applicant has voluntarily filed a Petition of Partial Cancellation for a 106 -acre portion of the land to address DOC's comments and avoid conflict between the County and DOC. Page 8