HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT F0
I
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. PC 07-06
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 app_icant, Baldwin
Contracting Company ("Applicant"), consists of a long-term, off -channel gravel mining
operation approximately 5 -miles southwest of the City of Chico. The miming 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 wildLlfe habitat and
agricultural uses. The mined aggregate would be processed (washed and screened) on a
40 -acre area at the site.
The Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Project came on
public hearing before the Planning Commission of the County of Butte ("County") on
October 23, 2003, January 22, 2004, March 11, 2004, April 8, 2004, August 26, 2004,
November 30, 2006, December 14, 2006, and January 25, 2007. Havin.; 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. 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. Project Description: The Project allows a long-term, off -channel gravel mining
operation. The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site over an
estimated 20 to 30—year, period. Approximately six acres will be mine- each year. The
aggregate would be processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area of the site.
a) Acreages: The approximate acreages for the Project are as fol-ows:
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 to Old Ferry
Road, and east of, and partially adjacent to, River Road. Access to the site would
be provided by River Road.
c.' Material to be mined: High quality construction aggregates including gravel
and sand. The Project site is part of the present Sacramento River Floodplain and
the gravels and sands underlying the site consist of channel deoosits from the
river.
d. Production: Production numbers for the Project are as follows:
Maximum annual mine production: 275,000 cubic yards (mined)
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. Trajfi�ic 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 trip.E 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 97022)80), based on
Findings of Fact documenting compliance with CEQA (Exhibit 1), and
independent review and consideration of the information in the EIR prior to
taking action on the Project.
b) Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
implementing mitigation measures. (Exhibit 2.)
c) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, to
allow for the excavation of 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site, including portions of
Assessor Parcels 039-530-019 & 039-530-020.
d) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, to allow for the
establishment of a lake with shallow wetland areas along the perimeter for
wildlife habitat and a 40 -acre area reclaimed to agricultural uses.
e) Approve the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate in the amount of
$103,526.93 to ensure reclamation of the mine site.
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 p=epared for the
Project to. analyze the environmental effects of the Project.
5. Process: Preparation of the Final EIR was a multi-year process, which included
the following activities:,
a) 'On August 30, 1996, the Project application was submitted to the County.
b) An -Initial Study to evaluate the environmental impacts asso,.iated 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 Pre-Daration for the
EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and the public.
d) In May ' 1998, the County issued the Draft EIR. The Count_ circulated the
Draft EIR for public review and comment from May 12, 1998 to July 2, 1998.
Over 80 comment letters were submitted to the County on the Draft EIR.
These comment letters are on file and available for review at the County
Planning Department: County staff and the EIR consultant reviewed all
comments during preparation of the revised Draft EIR.
e) On June 11, 1998, the Draft EIR for the Project was first heard by the
Planning Commission. Extensive public input was received at that time. The
Planning Commission continued the matter to allow addit:onal input and
analysis following the hearing.
f) The County decided to update and supplement certain sections of the Draft
EIR (including the Traffic, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise sections)
in order to update technical data contained in the Draft EIR. In addition, the
County required the completion of a pedestrian level archaeological survey at
the Project site. The County then decided to recirculate the entire Draft EIR
to ensure consistency and accuracy between the new and old sections, and to
maximize the opportunity for public comment on the Project and the Draft
EIR. The County hired a new consultant, Resource Design Inc., to prepare the
revised Draft EIR. The particular modifications to the original May 1998
Draft EIR are outlined on page 1-3 of the revised Draft EIR.
g) In September 2002, the County issued the revised Draft EiR. The County
circulated the revised Draft EIR for a 45 -day public review period � .
t
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 Completion for the
revised Draft EIR with the State of California Clearinghouse._
i) On October 24, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in
Oroville to receive public comment on the Project and the revised Draft EIR.
Public notice of this meeting was provided by the County.
j) In October, 2003, the County released the M&T Chico Rancfi'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 County released an Updated Response to 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 M=.ring Use Permit
No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, a nd the
Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of.
Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission voted to continue the.
hearing until December 14, 2006.
p) On December 14, 2006, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before
the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final EIR, approval
of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of M=ping Use Permit
No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, and the
Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. At this hearing, Staff provided responses.to public
Page 4 of 26
comments which were received at the November 30, 2006 hearing. The
Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing until January. 25, 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 Permit No.
Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, and the Financial
Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. In addition, Staff returned to the Planning Commission with
responses to public comments that were received at the December ' 14, 2006
hearing. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt a Motion of Intent to:
(1) adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR and approving a Mitigation
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 Chico Ranch
Mine Project includes the following items (collectively referred to as the "Final EIR").
a) M&T Chico Ranch Mine Draft EIR (SCH 97022080) dated September 2002;
b) Comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, dated October 23,
2003;
c) Draft EIR Errata containing corrections and clarifications made to the text of
the Draft EIR;
d) Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act, dated November,
2006;
e) Updated Draft EIR Errata Regarding Environmental Setting; and
f) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programa
7. Description Of The Record: For purposes of CEQA and the findings hereinafter
set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those items listed in Section
21167.6 (e) of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1994) including but
not limited to:
a) All application materials and correspondence contained in the Lead Agency's
Project files (MIN 96-03);
b) The original Draft EIR;
c) The revised Draft EIR;
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 hearings and
workshops, and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project;
and
i) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally -adopters land use plans
and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, area plans and
ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents,
findings, mitigation monitoring programs and other documentation relevant to
planned growth in the area.
8. Custodian of the Record: The administrative record is maintained at .he Butte County
Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Evidentiary Basis for Findings: These findings are based upon substantial
evidence in the entire record before the Planning Commission. The references to the
Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other evidence in the record set forth in the findings are for
ease of reference and are intended to demonstrate the analytical path between the
evidence in the record and the findings adopted by the Planning Commission. The
references are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence in the record that
is relied upon for these findings.
2. Impacts of the M&T Mining Project: Appendix F of the Final EIR provides a
summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with this Project.
These impacts and mitigation measures are associated with the following impact
categories: Aesthetics and visual resources, Agricultural Landt 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 substanytially 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 o= approval of the
Project.
b) The County Planning Commission also finds that the Mit-gation Measures
incorporated into and imposed upon the Project will not hav(-,: new significant
environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the Final Environmental
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 measures or feasible
alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact. Only when there are specific
economic, social, or other considerations which make it infeasible to suibstantially 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 fcllowing findings
for each identified significant impact:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpcxated 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 thy Environmental
Impact Report.
b) Exhibit 1, attached hereto, contains the Planning Commission's Findings of
Fact concerning each of the impacts and mitigation measures identified as
significant and mitigatable, and significant and unavoidable in the Final EIR. The
Planning Commission's determination regarding environmen _al impacts that
remain significant or are reduced to a less -than -significant level given the
implementation of adopted feasible mitigation is provided in .he "Findings of
Fact" column.
Page 7 of 26
5. Areas' of Controversy: The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR Identify areas of
controversy known to the lead agency based upon review of public and agency comment.
Controversial aspects of the Project have been determined to be: 1) potential impacts to
groundwater resulting from mining operations; 2) potential pit water quality impacts; and .
3) potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Project. Mitigation measures
have been provided within the Final EIR to address these impacts, to the extent feasible.
FINDINGS REGARDING WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO
THE NOVEMBER 30, 2006, DECEMBER 14, 2006, AND JANUARY 25, 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
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 det•:rmined that the
proposed Project is consistent with the Butte County General Plan.
The General Plan has an Agricultural Element that sets forth basic policies and goals with
respect to agriculture. The Agriculture Element identifies two separate land use.
designations. The Project site is designated "Orchard and Field Crops". The Land Use
Element of the General Plan sets forth the types of uses allowed in this designation,
which uses are consistent with the Agricultural Element. The General Plan 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 anirnal
uses, resource extraction and processing, hunting and
water -related recreation facilities, dwellings, airpor.s,
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 seconda`y uses 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 ofidentified
deposits of building materials and other valued
mineral resources.
2.6b Encourage the reclamation of lands subject to
mineral extraction.
As required by law, the County finds that the General Plan is internally consistent and the
Land Use Element and its descriptions are consistent with the general policies of the
Agricultural Element. Surface mining is consistent with both of these elements as made
clear by the express reference to resource extraction and processing in fhe "Orchard and
Field Crops" description found on page LUE-48 of the Land Use Elemerrt.
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 anc 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. 4ccording to the
County, this configuration will ensure continuous access by mosquito predators,
Page 9 of 26
especially mosquito fish. The Final EIR further provides that the banks of areas that
retain water after June 1 (the beginning of the optimal mosquito breeding season) will be
designed to be steep enough to prevent isolated pooling as the water level 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, 5.4-67;
Planning Commission Testimony; Administrative Record.
Statement #3
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 the Project's
impacts to both local school bus operations, and the bicycle and pedestrian system in the
vicinity of the Project.
The Draft EIR concluded that the Project would not impact the Levels of Service (LOS)
of any of the roadways studied or the existing bicycle, pedestrian, transit facilities and
school bus operations. Further, the Draft EIR found truck trips generated by the Project
equate to a less than one percent (1%) increase of total traffic volumes in the Project area
under cumulative conditions.
However, the County found that in four instances the LOS for impacted intersections
already exceeded the County's minimum LOS C threshold without the Project.
Therefore, the addition of Project trips to these roadways, even if less than 1% of the
total, will constitute a significant impact which can not be mitigated.
The County also addressed comments regarding traffic impacts in the Final EIR. Analysis
contained in the Final EIR reiterates the County's finding made in the Draft EIR that the
proposed Project would not change the LOS rating of any of the roadways studied in the
traffic analysis. The Final EIR also explains that because existing conditions on four
roadways already breached the County's LOS requirements, the Project's cumulative
impact at these locations could not be mitigated.
The Final EIR also responded to comments regarding the Project's impacts to roadway
safety, and the bicycle and pedestrian system due to increased truck traffic. The Final EIR
clarified that the Draft EIR traffic study included an analysis of current roadway'
conditions and operations, intersection operations, accident history, and truck traffic.
Further, the Final EIR explained that the traffic study is based on detailed traffic counts
that identified the mix of autos, bicycles, arid trucks. The Final EIR reiterated 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 Approval 18 and 19
implement the Applicant's fair share obligations. These conditions were later updated and
expanded upon by the Public Works Department in a November 3, 2006 letter from
Director Mike Crump.
In addition, Public Works Department representative Shawn O'Brien testified at the
Planning Commission's December 14, 2006 hearing by that the Applicant's per/ton "fair
share" contributions to the County are appropriate to cover the Pro-ect's impacts to
infrastructure.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.6; FEIR § 4.4; Planning Commission Testimony; Administrative
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 Seeo 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 vicinity of a
project from both a local and regional perspective, including a discussion of
environmental resources.
Here, the Draft EIR included an extensive discussion of the Project's regional setting: As
part of this discussion, the Draft EIR delineated several properties and uses in the vicinity
of the Project site. For example, the Draft EIR identifies both the Jones parcel and the
Llano Seco Ranch. Additionally,. each section of the Draft EIR contains a description of
the regional environment and local conditions, and how the Project could impact the local
and regional environment. Both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR evaluated all potentially
significant environmental impacts to both onsite and offsite properties. For example, the
Draft EIR and Final EIR evaluated potential impacts to neighboring properties caused by
the Project's flood control design.
In addition, testimony was proffered to the Planning Commission at the December 14,
2006 hearing which detailed both the Draft EIR's description of the regional
environment, and the Draft EIR's analysis of the Project's potential environmental
impacts to surrounding properties.
However, following the December 14, 2006 hearing, at the direction of the Planning
Commission, 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 have been
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 were less than
significant.
The County's analysis of the flood control measures designed for the Project included a
comprehensive flooding study which was conducted by NorthStar Engineering. The
flooding study and the analysis contained in the Draft EIR evaluated off-site impacts
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 approval of
relevant state and federal permits, would not result in significant environmental impacts
to neighboring properties.
Furthermore, the Final EIR explained how the Project's design, as well a3 applicable state
and federal stormwater prevention requirements, would ensure that neighboring
landowners would not be impacted by polluted stormwater or mine sediment.
Additionally, at the January 22,.2004 Planning Commission hearing on the Project, Mr.
Ellman requested that as a precautionary measure to prevent "fine particulate matter"-
from entering the Llano Seco Ranch, the Planning Commission require the Applicant to
obtain a "stormwater management plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The County adopted and expanded upon Mr. Ellman's recommendation and
those recommendations contained in the EIR with additional conditions of approval. As
such, the Applicant must acquire all relevant state and federal stormwater pollution
prevention entitlements prior to commencing mining operations, which mitigates all
potential for sediment transfer.
Evidence: DEIR § 3.0; FEIR § 4.0 and 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter
from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock F_arrison (Dec: 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
HOWARD ELLMAN,
LETTER OF DECEMBER 11, 2006
(REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY)
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 General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and the Project's potential environmental impacts on agricultural uses
and wildlife habitat. The EIR concluded that the Project is consistem 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 impF-cts to agricultural
uses. The Draft EIR explained that the proposed mining and reclamation activities
proposed for the Project would be similar in scope and equipment to neighboring
agricultural operations. Accordingly, the Draft EIk concluded that, with the proposed
mitigation, the Project is compatible with the existing and planned uses in the 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 measures, would be
less -than -significant. In particular, the County concluded: (1) wildlife will not be
adversely affected by noise emanating from the Project; (2) the Project will block unique
or important migration corridors; and (3) species inhabiting the Project site will remain
common in adjacent habitats.
The Final EIR also addressed comments regarding the Project's impacts on wildlife and
wildlife habitat. The Final EIR explained that special -status species known to occur in the
vicinity of and in habitats similar to the Project site will continue to use the suitable
habitats available to them, whether on or off the Project site, and whether or not the
Project is approved.
In sum, the environmental analysis conducted by the County as part of the CEQA process
indicates that (1) the Project is consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, and (2) the Project will not adversely affect surrounding agricultural
operations or wildlife/wildlife habitat.
Evidence: - DEIR § 4.7; FEIR; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #2
"[T]he EIR does not adequately describe the flood impacts on the neighbors that
will be caused by the protective works to be erected around the gravel mine."
Response:
As part of the CEQA process, the County included an extensive analysis of potential off-
site impacts caused by the Project's flood control design. The Draft EIR concluded that,
with appropriate mitigation, potential environmental impacts to adjacent landowners
resulting from the flood design would be less -than -significant.
The County addressed comments on this issue again in the Final EIR, and concluded that
Mitigation Measures 4.4-7(a), (b), and (c) will eliminate any additional flooding effects
on adjacent property owners caused by the Project. Thus, the County extensively
analyzed and addressed the issue of flood impacts to adjacent landowners both in the
Draft EIR and again in the Final EIR.
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 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. `
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 stormwater prevention
plan that the Applicant will implement (as required by the County's Conditions of
Approval) will prohibit mine sediments from being transported to other properties during
flood events.
Evidence: DEIR § 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 determined that, with
proper mitigation, impacts to adjacent properties caused by the transfer of mine
sediments (and other contaminants) through the aquifer are less -than -significant.
Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) all serve to prevent groundwater
contamination due to exposure of the aquifer to contaminants generated by the proposed
mining activities.
In addition, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony to the
Planning. Commission at the January 25, 2006 hearing that mine sediments will not be
transferred through the aquifer because the sediments cannot physically interface with the
opening to the aquifer.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #3
11. The Project. is not compatible with the surrounding environment.
Response:
As partof 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 with 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 Ranch. (14
Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.2(a).)
The CEQA. specific analysis and process produced substantial evidence -hat 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 _essen any of the
significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider alternatives which are
infeasible. For this project, several alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are
discussed in the Draft EIR section 5.0. ,
2. In evaluating the potential alternatives to the Project, the County recognizes that
actual implementation of one or more alternatives could be remote and speculative due to
the complexities in locating and developing mineral resources. It is recognized that the
range of reasonable alternative locations is necessarily limited by location of the
particular mineral resource. (See CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(f)(2)(B).) In
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 ap-Dropriate 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 coinoarative 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) Env ironmentally 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 project 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 for infrequent
agricultural purposes. The consideration of this alternative is required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e).
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate mining
sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for E-ggregate in Butte
County. For example, currently aggregate is imported from other counties, including
Glenn County. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions, vehicle miles
traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other environmental effects
associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water
quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transfused 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 cons -ruction 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 percent of its 50 -
year aggregate demand. Without permitting additional aggrega-.e 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 st ucturally sound
roadways. With the Project, the County will receive impact fees ("fair share" monetary
contributions) to help maintain and improve County roads and transportation
infrastructure. In addition, the County will receive additional sales tax revenue. Sales tax,
property tax, and secondary expenditures of goods and services spent outside the County
do' not assist in maintaining or enhancing the County's economy and do not pay for
impacts caused by importation of aggregate, or assist in funding other services in the
County.
Further, as detailed in Alternative 2, if the M&T Chico Ranch Mine is not developed,
other aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth
demand for aggregate in Butte County. Thus, environmental impacts as3ociated with the
Project will only be transferred to other locations when market demands for aggregate
warrant new supplies.
B: Alternative 2: Alternative Project Location
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate mining
sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for aggregate in Butte
County. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions, vehicle miles
traveled, and truck trips, with 'or without the Project. Other environmental effects
associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hyd_ology and water
quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites.
The Project Location Alternative therefore avoids the impacts at the Project site, but not
the regional effects associated with the production and distribution of construction
aggregate products, nor the site specific effects from mining activities at another site.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: This alternative
would place the Project in an alternative location within the County :)r eastern Glenn
County. The nature of aggregate mining dictates that aggregate mines can generally only
be developed where the resource is available and proximate to markets The successful
development of the project at another location would depend on a nunber of geologic,
environmental, and economic factors, primarily the existence of marketable quantities of
construction grade aggregate.
One of the objectives of the proposed Project is to provide aggregate for markets in the
City of Chico and Butte County consumption area. The Project site hEs 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 MRZ72a, meaning the property contains a known,
important and significant mineral resource. There are no other potentiE-1 aggregate mine
sites that have been identified in close proximity to the Project site, or to 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 percent to a
maximum rate of 137,500 cubic yards per year mined and 125,000 cubicyards 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 proceEsing rate, other
aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for
processing aggregate. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions,
vehicle miles traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other environmental
effects associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hydrology and
water quality, noise,, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply tra`lsferred to other
sites. Potential environmental impacts associated with the Reduced Processing Rate
Alternative would be similar to those identified the proposed Project since the same
amount of surface disturbance (approximately 193 acres) would occur. Further, potential
impacts to biological resources would be similar if not greater than those of the proposed
Project due to the extended life of the mining Project. Additionalwy, reducing the
processing rate by 50 percent necessarily means that the Project will generate twice as
many truck trips. Thus, the reduced processing rate would not offer any significant
environmental advantage over the proposed Project, and would likely result in increased
environmental impacts.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: Since local
supplies of processed aggregate would be restricted under this alternative, additional
aggregate would have to be imported to meet project demand. However, the
development of processed aggregate resources outside of the Butte Ccunty/Chico area
specifically for the Butte County/Chico market will only transfer environmental impacts
to another site, and will also result in added environmental impacts including an increase
in vehicle miles traveled and truck trips. Further, the demand for aggregate products to
meet countywide construction project demands would need to be supplemented from
other sites, which may not be efficiently located, and therefore more costly to consumers,
which include Butte County and the City of Chico. Therefore, operating at a reduced
processing rate would not substantially reduce any identified significant impacts, and
does not meet the basic Project objectives.
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the EIR to identify the environmentally
superior alternative. Additionally, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative
from the remaining alternatives. According to Draft EIR Section 5.5, for the proposed
Project, the No Project alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative
Page 21 of 26
since no mining would occur on the site. Among the other alternatives the Reduced
Project Area Alternative #3 does offer some environmental advantages over the proposed
Project due to the reduction in mined acreage and the shortened life of the Project. This
alternative would note feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives, and leave
approximately 50 percent of known mineral reserves. Since local supplies would be
restricted under this alternative, additional aggregate would have to be imported to meet
Project demand. This would result in similar environmental impacts associated with
developing an alternative project location as detailed in the "Alternative Project
Location" alternative. Therefore, permitting the Project is the other environmentally
superior alternative.`
FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT
1. CEQA Section 15126 (g) requires that an EIR consider the potential for a project
to create growth inducing impacts. A project could have a growth inducing impact if it
could:
a) Foster economic or population growth, or construction of additional housing,
either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment;
b) Remove obstacles to population growth, for example, developing service
areas in previously unserved areas, extending transportation routes into
previously undeveloped areas, and establishing major new employment
opportunities; and
c) Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively.
2. The proposed Project will not result in a significant increase in employment, or
any increase in housing. (Draft EIR, section 6.2, pp. 6-4 — 6-5.) No new roads or public
services would be installed as a result of the Project that would remove obstacles to
growth. The Project would make available aggregate materials used in a variety of
activities, including road building and maintenance, and construction. While the Project
will make these materials available, it cannot be considered to be facilitating the activities
using aggregate materials. The Project isnot the only source of these materials, and these
activities will occur regardless of the availability of the additional resources made
available by this Project. Therefore, the Project would not encourage or facilitate
activities and create environmental effects other than those addressed in this Draft EIR.
FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1. A cumulative impact is the effect on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the proposed project when combined with the effects of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15355, subd.
(b).) The significance of a cumulative impact may be greater than the effects resulting
from the individual actions if the effects of more than one action are additive.
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
,potential
a cumulative effect may occur only when two or more of the activities are
occurring simultaneously.
3. The CEQA Guidelines provide that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when
they are significant and that the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity
of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence (section 15130 (a) and (b)).. These
effects, where they occur, are then evaluated for their impact in combination with other
activities in the area for cumulative impact.
4. The following section discusses the potential cumulative environmental effects
that could result when the potential impacts of the proposed Project ar 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
quality from other projects in the vicinity that could contribute to a :emulative 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 Cl-ico 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 -IR 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 PM10 emission impacts are expected. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.)
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Traffic, there are no feasible mitgaulat 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 habit a7 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 well not result in
significant cumulative biological impacts.
F. 'Noise
The County analyzed cumulative noise impacts as part of the CEQA process and
determined that none of the cumulative projects located near in the vicinity of the Project
site (delineated in Draft EIR Section 6.1.1) are close enough to the.M&T Chico Ranch
Project to contribute to cumulative noise impacts associated with mining operations.
(Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, no significant cumulative mise impacts will
result from this Project.
G. Cultural Resources
Records review and field surveys show no evidence of "cultural r --sources" 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 cultuta:_ resources.
H. Aesthetics
The aesthetic character of the site would change as a result of mining and reclamation.
However, completion of reclamation activities at the site will eliminate the potential for
any negative cumulative visual effect. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, no
significant negative cumulative aesthetic impacts will result from this Project.
Findings Regarding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1. Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, Q'EQA Guideline
section 15097, and Board policy require the Butte County Board of Supervisors to adopt
a monitoring and reporting program on the changes in the Project and Mitigation
Measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this resolution as Exhibit 2.
2. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program fulfills the CEQA mitigation
monitoring requirement because: the Conditions of Approval are specific and, as
Page 25 of 26
1
appropriate, `define performance standards to measure compliance under the Program.
The Program contains detailed descriptions of conditions, implementation, verification, a
compliance schedule and reporting requirements to insure compliance with the
Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. The Program also ensures that the
Mitigation Measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the Project.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE 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);
IL Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Exhibit 2;
III. Fin ds this Project has the potential to have a significant impact to fish or wildlife
habitat. The collection of Department of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Fish and
Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5 is required.
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of February, 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioner Marin, Leland, and Wilson
NOES: Commissioner Nelson and Chair Lambert
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None,
t
Nina Lambert, Chair
Planning Commission
County of Butte,.
State of California
ATTEST:
Q�
INA BONHAM, Secretary
Planning Commission
County of Butte, State of California
Page 26 of 26
EXHIBIT 1
Impact Statement, Mitigation Measures and
Findinqs of Fact for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Impact
Statement
LAND USE
Impact 4.2-1: Land Use Incompatibility
The proposed project will result in land uses that
would be incompatible with the existing and
planned land uses in the vicinity. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Impact 4.2-2: Consistency with Butte Count
This scenario will be consistent with the policies
of the Butte County General Plan and with the
Butte County Zoning and Mining Ordinance. This
is a less than significant impact.
Impact 4.2-3: Conversion of Agriculture
This scenario will result in the permanent
conversion of up to 193 acres of non -prime
farmland to mining uses, and eventually to open
space water and wildlife habitat uses. This is a
less than significant impact.
GEOLOGY
Impact 4.3-1 Seismicity
Expected seismic activity within the project
vicinity could result in seismically induced ground
shaking and damage to mine facilities or
reclamation features. This is a less than
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-9 for traffic
impacts, 4.8-1a through 4.8-2b for noise impacts
and 4.9-1a through 4.9-3 for impacts to
aesthetics will reduce this impact to a less than
si nificant level.
General Plan and with the Butte County Zoning
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1:
The Applicant has incorporated a 3H:1V slope for
final slopes into the project design to provide an
adequate safety factor. No additional mitigation
is required.
Finding of Fact
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
and Mining Ordinance
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Impact
Statement
Impact 4.3-2: Slope Failure
Seismic shaking at the project site could result in
both ground and slope failure and damage to
reclamation features of the excavation area. This
is a less than significant impact.
Impact 4.3-3: Subsidence and/or Liquefactior
Expected seismic activity at the project site could
result in subsidence and/or liquefaction of the
project site. This is a less than significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Impact 4.3-4: Topographic Modification, Com
The proposed project will result in a permanent
modification of the site's topography, disruption
of native soils, compaction of soils, and
displacement of soils as a result of on-site
excavation and processing activities. This is a
less than significant impact.
Impact 4.3-5: Soil Resources
The proposed project will convert approximately
193 acres of non -prime farmland to a non-
agricultural use. This is a less than significant
impact.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.4-1: Groundwater Resources
The proposed project will not result in significant
impacts to groundwater resources.
Impact 4.4-2: Groundwater Quality Associat
Equipment servicing, refueling, and other
operations in the processing area could result in
contaminants being delivered to the water table
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: The Applicant has
incorporated a 3HAV slope for final slopes into
the project design to provide an adequate safety
factor. No additional mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3:
Any structures proposed on-site including offices,
and related facilities will shall be appropriately
designed and constructed in accordance with the
seismic safety requirements of the California
Uniform Building Code and other requirements of
the Butte County Building Division of the
Development Services Department. Therefore,
no mitigation is required.
action, and Disruptions of Soils
No mitigation is required:
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
ed with Facilities Operation
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a:
Any sumps or detention ponds used to contain
runoff from within the servicing and refueling
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 2 of 28 .
of Fact
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
loco than -cignificant lovel.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings are not
required.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
nroiect. The Planninq Commission finds that this
Impact .
Statement
directly beneath the processing area. This is a
potentially significant impact. .
Impact 4.4-3:. Pit Water Quality
Exposure of the water table through mining
activities could result.in contaminants being
discharged to groundwater. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
area shall be located where there is a minimum
of five feet of separation between the bottom of
the sump and the seasonal high water table. If
this criterion cannot be met because the
proposed locations of sumps are in locations
where the elevdtiuri difference between the
bottom of the sump and the seasonal high water
table is less than five feet, then sumps shall be
capped with either an impervious material or an
18 -inch layer of compacted fines which have a
permeability at 90 percent relative compaction of
no greater than 1.0 x -10 '8 cm/second.
The above requirement is not extended to those
sumps which will collect and recirculate process
water.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b:
All equipment servicing and refueling shall be
performed on impervious surfaces.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c: Project proponent
shall develop and implement a groundwater
quality -monitoring plan acceptable to both Butte
County and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a: Runoff from the
surfaces of the processing area shall be
prevented from entering the pit by regrading the
area between the pit and the processing area as
necessary to ensure that runoff from the
processing facilities will not flow to the proposed
pit area.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b: Flows in Little Chico
Creek up to 2,000 cfs shall be prevented from
entering the lake through construction of a low
levee/weir and bypass channel, which will
prevent flows from entering the distributa
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 3 of 28
Finding of Fact
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this ,
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Proposed
Impact
Statement
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
channel..
This mitigation measure is the same as
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c, as described by
NorthStar, 2002). The created lake will be
protootod from floodwater entry up to
approximately a ten-year recurrence interval
flood from Little Chico Creek. The level of flood
protection afforded by this measure by
Sacramento River floodwaters is unknown,
however, it is rational to expect that flood
protection from that source will approximate a
ten-year recurrence interval since it would be
unusual for large floods from the Sacramento
River, which is regulated, to more frequently
overflow the new levee and bypass channel that
floodwaters from Little Chico Creek. Typically,
regional flooding is correlated with local flooding.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3c:
The existing drainage ditch at the southern limit of
the proposed pit, and all drainage ditches along the
east side of the pit up to 1,000 feet beyond the
project area shall be improved as necessary to
increase their peak flow capacity to carry a 10-year
recurrence interval peak flow. Similarly, a ditch of
similar capacity shall be constructed along the
western property boundary through any reaches
where the local topography slopes toward the
proposed pit.
The western ditch depending on the design, may
be the same as the Little, Chico Creek overflow
diversion described above. All ditch construction
within the 100-year floodplain shall be performed
without side casting, and all other ditch
improvements must be performed so as not to
increase the hei hts of anv existing berms
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 4 of 28
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 5 of 28
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Impact
Statement
alongside these ditches. Mining shall cease when
the edge of the proposed pit is within 50 feet of the
ditch along the southern boundary.
This measure will eliminate runoff in contact with
aoriniiltiiral lands generated from local storms
from entering the created lake at a frequency, on
average, of greater than ten years. Since no side
casting is allowed, these agricultural drainage
ditches cannot prevent the entry of floodwaters
backing into the area from the Sacramento River.
The exception is the ditch to be constructed
along the western property boundary, which is
specifically designed to give the proposed pit
flood protection from Little Chico Creek.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d: Mining shall not be
performed with the use of a dredge boat without
prior review by Butte County. All motorized
mining equipment, when not in use, shall be
parked more than 50 feet from the edge of the pit
during normal operations. When no mining
occurs for more than a 14 -day period, all
motorized equipment must be removed to areas
which do not drain into the proposed pit. All
refueling will be conducted at a distance greater
than 50 feet from the edge of the pit. Any soil
contaminated by fuel or hydraulic fluid must be
removed in accordance with measures to be
specified as required by the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3e: Applicant shall
develop a ground- water monitoring program to
be approved by the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board and Butte County. If
monitoring shows that drinking water standards
Title 22 of the California State Code of
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 5 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Regulations) are not being met either at the
property boundary nearest the proposed pit in a
downgradient direction or at the Jones domestic
well, due to degradation caused by the project,
then Butte County, in Consultation with the
Central Valley Repeal Water Quallly Cui ih ul
Board, shall rescind their operating permits, and
no permit shall be re-issued until such time as a
groundwater remediation plan has been
implemented, groundwater at the property
boundary once again meets drinking water
standards, and additional measures, as approved
by Butte County, have been implemented to
prevent future degradation. The term "caused by
the project' shall be interpreted as any increase
in contaminant concentrations between the
upgradient baseline monitoring well above the
proposed operations area and the downgradient
monitoring. locations which exceed drinking water
standards.
Monitoring, at a minimum shall consist of
"
monitoring of two wells. One located`up-gradient
of the proposed pit and operating area, and
another approximately 1,000 feet south from the
northwest corner of the pit. As mining proceeds
additional wells shall be installed; one located
mid-way between the north and south edges of
the pit near the western property boundary, and
-
the other 25 feet from the ultimate southwest
-
•'
corner of the pit. Figure 4.4-13, Proposed
Monitoring Well Locations, shows suggested
..
locations for the monitoring wells proposed under
this mitigation measure and Mitigation Measure
4.4-2c. The wells shall be monitored four times a
-
year each year during the life of operations within
the first week of April, Julv, August, and
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 6 of 28
Exhibit 1- Findings of raci
Page 7 of 28
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Impact.
Statement
September. Once the edge of pit progresses to
f
within 500 feet of the next down -gradient well,
that well shall be monitored and monitoring of the
upslope well shall cease. Samples shall be
composites formed by sampling within two feet
UL-luw the water table, and oombining with an
equal volume of water 20 feet below the water
table. Samples will be analyzed for turbidity,
fecal coliform, diesel and BTEX compounds.
Additionally, pesticides commonly used in the
vicinity shall be sampled annually. The selection
of.pesticides to be analyzed shall be approved by
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board and Butte County. Additionally, Applicant
shall monitor the domestic well on what is
referred to as the Jones' parcel if the property
owners grant permission for monitoring.
Monitoring shall consist of drawing tapwater
samples. .
Samples shall be analyzed for turbidity, fecal
coliforms, benzene, and atrazine. Priorto the onset
of mining, at least three samples, taken on a
monthly interval, shall be taken from the Jones'
domestic water supply to establish a baseline from
which subsequent samples shall be compared.
Following the baseline sampling, monitoring shall
consist of two phases; an intensive Phase A, and a
routine Phase B. During Phase A samples shall
be taken weekly for 12 consecutive weeks
beginning June 1. Phase A shall take place during
the first irrigation season after mining -operations
have commenced, and, at the discretion of Butte
.•
County, the second irrigation season after mining
begins. Additionally, Phase A sampling shall occur
the first irrigation season following a flood where
floodwaters enter the proposed pit. Phase B
sampling shall take place whenever Phase A
Exhibit 1- Findings of raci
Page 7 of 28
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 8 of 28
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Impact
Statement
sampling is not taking place and shall consist of
sampling on the first week of April, July, August,
and September. Phase B monitoring will continue
for at least four years after all Phase A monitoring
is completed. After that, all monitoring of the
Julies' parcel water Supply may bo diccontinued if
Butte County determines that contaminant
concentrations at the Jones' parcel well never
exceed those at the project monitoring well(s).
In lieu of monitoring the Jones' domestic water
supply as specified above, applicant may
undertake one of two alternatives if requested by
the Jones' parcel owners prior to discontinuing the
monitoring described above. It shall be at the
discretion of the Jones' parcel owners which of the
two alternatives they wish to accept, if any. The
alternatives consist of either replacing the existing
domestic well with a new well of equivalent capacity
which draws water only from the lower aquifer, or
installing a filter system capable of reliably
furnishing water meeting drinking water standards.
Applicant shall pay for all costs associated with
replacing the existing well and increased pumping
costs, or the costs of installing and maintaining, in
perpetuity, a filter system.
Impact 4.4-4: Stormwater Dischar es
Stormwater discharges from the processing
facilities could enter Little Chico Creek. This is a
No mitigation is required.
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
less than significant impact.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 8 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures
Impact 4.4-5: Erosion of Buffer Between Little Chico Creek and the Proposed Pit
Floodwaters could flow over the 50 -foot wide Mitigation Measure 4.4-5:
buffer between Little Chico Creek and the The slope between the buffer strip and the
northern edge of the pit, thereby linking surface actively mined area shall be designed by a
fln%AV; frnm I ittle Chico Creek to the qroundwater licensed civil engineer to prevent erosion.
in the pit. This is a potentially significant impact. Suitable measures may inclUde both structural
and vegetative, if it can be demonstrated that a
combination of a gentle slope, in conjunction with
vegetation can prevent erosion from Little Chico
Creek overflows.
Impact 4.4-6: Creek Migration
Little Chico Creek could migrate laterally through
the proposed 50 -foot buffer strip separating the
creek from the pit edge along the northern
boundary of the proposed pit. This could result in
a direct linking of surface and groundwater, and a
possible abandonment of the existing channel
alignment, diminishing existing riparian habitat.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Impact 4.4-7: flooding
Placement of dikes or fill within the processing
area to raise it above the 100 -year floodplain
elevation could result in some increase in the
frequency of flooding of River Road. Elimination
of the existing distributary at the north end of the
proposed pit for groundwater quality protection
could result in increased flooding of the Jones'
parcel. These are potentially significant impacts
The design shall consider the potential
concentration of floodwaters, the lowest expected
antecedent water surface elevation in the
proposed pit, and scour/undermining of the toe of
the slope. Butte County must approve the design
prior to initiation of the project. A design report
shall be submitted along with plans.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-6:
No excavation or grading shall occur within 100
feet from the bank of Little Chico Creek.
Mitigation wetlands proposed within this zone
may be relocated.The mine pit excavation area
shall maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet
from the bank of Little Chico Creek to avoid
potential lateral migration of the creek.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a: Applicant shall
remove the existing levee on the east side of
Little Chico Creek and replace it with setback
levees at the same elevation. A by-pass channel
will be constructed to convey flows overtopping
the new setback levees back to the creek
through new, larger culverts. Plans shall be
approved by Butte County prior to construction.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 9 of 28
of Fact
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning -Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less-than-aignifeont lovol.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
This measure will increase the floodway width
which will decrease the 50 -year flood depth by
0.6 feet (NorthStar Engineering, 2002) and with
its implementation, it is expected that there will
be no impact on flooding in the Sacramento River
rluudplaii i.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b: Applicant shall enter
into an agreement with Butte County to either
construct or fund the costs of raising the existing
low water crossing on River Road near the gas
well site by up to three feet and installing larger
culverts within three years of use permit
approval. Plans shall be approved by Butte
County Public Works Department prior to
construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c: Applicant shall install
a bypass channel to convey flows formerly
conveyed by the distributary channel around the
proposed pit area. The overflow weir and adjoining
bypass channel will be designed such that
elimination of the distributary will not result in
increased flooding depths or duration on the Jones'
parcel. The bypass channel shall maximize, to the
extent possible, use of native plant materials in the
design to control erosion. Plans shall be approved
by Butte County prior to construction.
Impact 4.4-8: Flooding Storage and Groundwater Recharge
Creation of the proposed pit will result, at the No mitigation is required as this is a beneficial Less than significant impact. Findings not
end of operations, in approximately 1,000 acre- impact. required.
feet of available floodwater storage and the
same amount of potential groundwater..
recharge. This will be a beneficial impact.
AIR QUALITY
impact 4.5-1: Fugitive Dust Emissions
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 10 of 28
Proposed
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Findingof Fact
Impact
Statement
The topsoil removal, aggregate processing, and
truck and equipment travel on-site will produce a
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: Unpaved haul
roads, service roads, and plants areas shall be
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
net increase of fugitive PMjo. Compliance with
treated with water or chemical stabilizers in
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
BCAQMD rules will reduce impacts by controlling
sufficient quantity and frequency as necessary to
less -than -significant level.
emissions to within Action Level A thresholds for
meet the following standards:.
PM10. This is a less Man slgnlflcant Impaul•
No visible emissions extending beyond the
property line (BCAPCD Rule 207); and
• No visible emissions as dark or darker than
Ringlemann 2 or 40% opacity fora period or
periods aggregating more than three .
minutes in one hour determined using EPA
Method 9. (BCAPCD Rule 202); or
Any future standard respecting fugitive dust
or visible emissions that is more stringent
than the standards in paragraphs a and b
that is adopted or amended by the Butte
County APCD subsequent to the approval of
the project.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 b: Truck and mobile
equipment speeds on interior haul roads shall not
exceed 15 miles per hour. Speed limits shall be
posted.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c: Excavation areas
shall be treated with water during topsoil removal
phases. As excavation areas are completed and
final depths are reached, revegetation shall be
implemented as stipulated in the Reclamation
Plan:
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1d: Permanent roads
from public streets to the processing or loading
facilities shall -be graveled or paved to reduce the
use of unpaved roads.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 e: Wet sweeping shall
be performed on heavily -used on-site paved
roads and within 500 feet of the access roads for:
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 11 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures
the aggregate plants as necessary to control on-
site and track -out dust.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1f:
A truck spraying facility shall be constructed and
operated near the exit of the aggregate plants.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1g:
The aggregate Operator shall set up a 24-hour
anemometer at the plant site to monitor wind
speeds. If wind gusts exceed 20 miles per hour
as defined by the BCAQMD, the Operator shall
terminate topsoil removal and hauling on-site
until the high wind abates. Times that the above
water table mining operations are shut down shall
be logged and included in the annual mine
inspection report required by SMARA.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1h: Topsoil storage
piles shall be covered with gravel/rock or seeded
with an erosion control seed mix to prevent wind-
blown dust.
Impact 4.5-2: Increases in Air Contaminant Emissions from Vehicles and Equipment
Engine exhaust emissions from excavation No mitigation is required.
equipment will contribute to a net increase of
criteria pollutants including NOX, CO, and ROG.
This is a less than significant impact.
Impact 4.5-3: Increases in Air Contaminant Emissions from Plant Opera'
Emissions from the operation of an asphalt batch No mitigation is required.
plant at a currently permitted location contributes
to a net increase of criteria pollutants including
NOX, CO, and ROG within the NSVAB. This is a
less than significant impact.
Impact 4.5-4: Increases in Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Trans
Emissions from diesel -fueled vehicles and No mitigation is required.
equipment, and from asphalt manufacturing will
result in an increase _in toxic air contaminant
emissions. The estimated health risk from these
Finding of Fact
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
on and Batch Plant Operations
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 12 of 28
Impact
Statement
emissions is less than one -in one million. These
emissions are less than the BCAQMD threshold
of significance and are therefore considered less
than significant.
Impact 4 5..r,- Addition to CO_H.Qt Spots
Certain intersections in vicinity of the project will
experience congestion under cumulative
conditions. Carbon monoxide emissions from
vehicle traffic will increase at congested
intersections due to increased idling time. Under
BCAQMD thresholds of significance, the creation
of a CO hot spot is a significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
There are no feasible mitigation measures t6
reduce traffic congestion at the impacted
intersections. The air quality impacts are a direct
result of traffic congestion. Therefore, there are
no feasible mitigation measures for the air quality
impacts. This is a significant, unavoidable
impact.
TRAFFIC
Impact 4.6-1: Ord Ferry I Little Chico Creek Bridge
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips Mitigation Measure 4.6-1:
per day to the bridge on Ord Ferry Road at Little The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share
Chico Creek under existing and future conditions. contribution to improve reconstruct the bridge on
This bridge is 20 feet wide, which is less than the Ord Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek. The fair
24 -foot minimum standard. This is considered a share contribution amount should be based upon
significant impact. the relative proportion of project vehicles
traveling on the bridge. The implementation of
this mitigation measure shall occur before
building permits are granted.
Impact 4.6-2: River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road
The proposed project will add 25 or more truck The project Applicant shall contribute its fair share
trips, which cause an increase in the Traffic Index of the costs to improve the pavement on .River
(Th of 0.5 or greater on a Count maintained Road between Chico River Road and Ord Fer
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 13 of 28
of Fact
me Planning Cummissimi finds that there arc
no additional feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that the Planning Commission
Could adopt at this time which would reduce
this impact to an acceptable (less -than -
significant) level. The impact, therefore,
remains significant and unavoidable. To the
extent that this adverse impact will not be
eliminated or lessened to an acceptable level,
the Planning Commission finds that specific
economic, social, and other considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
oroiect. The Planning Commission finds that this
Proposed Project Without`Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Statement
.
Road with a two-inch asphalt concrete overlay. The
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
roadway.
fair share amount shall be based on the increase in
less-than-significant level.
ESALs, which is 51%. Butte County Public Works
estimates the cost of this improvement to be
approximately $1,200,000. Therefore, the
Appliuc l.'S fair share cost would be about V0,000
per. year. The Public Works Department has
indicated that the fee shall be submitted annually
based on the tonnage of material that is hauled
from the project site and shall be relative to an
inflation index. Based on the information contained
in Table 4.6-9, the cost per ton of material hauled
from the project site would be approximately $0.08.
The project applicant shall contribute its fair share
of the cost to maintain the asphalt concrete
pavement on the following roads over the 30 year
life of the project:
River' Road; between Chico River
Road and Ord Ferry Road;
Ord Ferry Road; between County Line
and Dayton Road;
Durham Dayton Road; between
Dayton Road and SR 99;
Dayton Road; between Ord Ferry Road
and Chico City Limit;
Hegan Lane; between Dayton Road
and Midway; and
Chico River Road; between River
Road and Chico City Limit.
Road Maintenance shall include a chip seal surface
treatment every 10 years with M & T Chico Ranch
Mine project's fair share contribution based on the
projected net increase in ESALs as shown in the
attached Table A. Based on the information
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 14 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures.
Findin of Fact
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 tee
per ton of material extracted, the mitigation fee
shall be made up of $0.08 per ton for the overlay
on River Road, plus $0.01 per ton for the
improvements to the Ord Ferry Bridge, and the
installation of a signal at Midway and Durham
Dayton highway,.for a total of $0.09 per ton of
material removed from the.site. The amount
intended to compensate for the extra
maintenance required due to the increased truck,
traffic, shall be $0.06 per ton of material
extracted. These fees shall be deposited by the
operator into the Butte County Road Fund, and
shall be adjusted for inflation based upon the
change in the Construction Cost Index for San
Francisco, during the month of January of each
year. These fees shall cease to be collected
should the County impose a countywide tax or
fee for road maintenance based upon weight of
materials moved over the roads.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Findin of Fact
Impact 4.6-3: Dayton Road and Durham/Da ton Hi hwa
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips Recent improvements to this intersection include Less than significant impact. Findings not
per day to the intersection of Dayton implementation of four-way stop-sign control. required.
Road/Durham-Dayton Hwy. This intersection has This improvement will likely reduce the impact at
hPan.iripntifipd as a location having 4 or more - this location. No mitigation measure can
accidents in a 12-month period over the last eliminate the occurrence of accidents at this
three years. This location also had more than one location. However, with the identified
accident over a 12-month period, which involved improvements, this is no longer considered a
heavy vehicles. significant impact by Public Works and no
mitiaation is required for this proffiect.
Impact 4.6-4: SR32/West 5`" Street
The proposed project will add 10 or more trips
per day to the intersection of SR 32/West 5'
Street. This intersection has been identified as a
location having 4 or more accidents in a 12 -
month period over the last three years. This
location also had more than one accident over a
12 -month period, which involved heavy vehicles.
This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: The project
Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution
to improve the intersection of SR 32/West-5 1h
Street by modifying the existing traffic signal to
provide split phase timing, including three
seconds of yellow time and one second of all -red
time per phase. The fair share contribution
amount should be based upon the relative
proportion of project vehicles traveling through
the impacted intersection.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 16 of 28
The Planning Commission finds that there
are no additional feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives that the Planning
Commission Could adopt at this time which
would reduce this impact to an acceptable
(less -than -significant) level. The impact,
therefore, remains significant and
unavoidable. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be eliminated or lessened to
an acceptable level, the Planning
Commission finds that specific economic,
social, and other considerations identified in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations
support approval of the Project as modified,
despite unavoidable significant impacts.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Statement
impact 4.6-5: Park Avenue/East 20 Street/East
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F
Park Avenue
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the
The Planning Commission finds that there are
operating conditions on Park Avenue from East
level of impact to this roadway segment. This is
no additional feasible mitigation measures or
2o`h Street to East Park Avenue under cumulative
considered a significant, unavoidable impact.
alternatives that the Planning Commission
nnnditions.
Could adopt at this time which would reduce
this lillpacl lu an acceptable (Icaa-than•
significant) level. The impact, therefore,
remains significant and unavoidable. To the
extent that this adverse impact will not be
eliminated or lessened to an acceptable level,
the Planning Commission finds that specific
economic, social, and other considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Impact 4.6-6: East Park Avenue/Park Avenue/ ighway 99
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the
The Planning Commission finds that there are
operating conditions on East Park Avenue from level of impact to this roadway segment. This is
no additional feasible mitigation measures or
Park Avenue to Highway 99 under cumulative considered a significant, unavoidable impact.
alternatives that the Planning Commission
Could adopt at this time which would reduce
conditions.
this impact to an acceptable (less -than -
significant) level. The impact, therefore,
remains significant and unavoidable. To the
extent that this adverse impact will not be
eliminated or lessened to an acceptable level,
the Planning Commission finds that specific
economic, social, and other. considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Exhibit.1- Findings of Fact
Page 17 of 28
Impact
Statement
Impact 4.6-7: Bruce Road/SR 32/Skyway
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS E
operating conditions on Bruce Road from SR 32
to Skyway under cumulative conditions.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Impact 4.6-8: Baldwin Plant Driveway/5Kyway
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F
operating conditions in the a.m. peak hour and
LOS D in the p.m. peak hour at the intersection
of the Baldwin Plant Driveway and Skyway under
cumulative conditions.
Impact 4.6-9: Durham -Dayton Highway/Mid
The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F
operating conditions in the a.m. peak hour and
No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the
level of impact to this roadway segment. This is
considered a significant, unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-8: Improvements to the
median crossing, acceleration/decelera-tion
lanes, improved signing and striping, and
channelization of the driveway approach could
improve the safety characteristics of this
intersection. In addition, signalization of the
Skyway /Honey Run Road (anticipated by 2005)
may provide sufficient gaps in through traffic on
Skyway to improve egress from the driveway.
However, no feasible mitigation measure will
reduce the level of impact to this roadway
segment. This is considered a significant
unavoidable impact.
of Fact
The Planning Commission finds that there are
no additional feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that the Planning Commission
Could adopt at this time which would reduce
this Impact to an acceNtAle (less -than -
significant) level. The impact, therefore,
remains significant and unavoidable. To the
extent that this adverse impact will not be
eliminated or lessened to an acceptable level,
the Planning Commission finds that specific
economic, social, and other considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
The Planning Commission finds that there are
no additional feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that the Planning Commission
Could adopt at this time which would reduce
this impact to an acceptable (less -than -
significant) level. The impact, therefore,
remains siqnificant and unavoidable. To the
extent that this adverse impact will not be
eliminated or lessened to an acceptable level,
the Planning Commission finds that specific
economic, social, and other considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the
Project as modified, despite unavoidable
significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-9: The project [The Planning Commission hereby directs the
Aoolicant shall contribute a fair share contribution gation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 18 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
p.m. peak hour at the intersection of the Durham -
Dayton Highway and Midway under cumulative
conditions.
Mitigation
Measures
to install a traffic signal and improve lane
configurations with a left -turn lane and shared
through/right-turn lane on each approach of the
Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway
intersection. With this improvement this
intersection will operate at LOS C under
cumulative project conditions. The fair share
contribution amount shall be based upon the
relative proportion of project vehicles traveling
through the impacted intersection.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.7-1: Loss of Non -Native. Grassland and Dryland Agriculture Habitat
The proposed project would result in the
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: Slopes along the
permanent loss of approximately 193 acres of
perimeter of the created lake shall be actively
annually tilled, non-native grassland and dryland
agriculture to open water and wetland habitat.
revegetated, where necessary, to supplement
natural colonization of plant species as part of
This is a potentially significant impact.
site reclamation to meet the performance
standards specified by SMARA. Specific areas
for supplemental revegetation will be identified
using collected data following one year of
monitoring natural colonization. Additional
requirements specified by state or federal
agencies shall be incorporated into the final
revegetation plan. The revegetation program
shall specify planting and maintenance
techniques, with a detailed monitoring program to
evaluate restoration success.
Impact 4.7-2: Loss of Habitat, Disru tion of Movement Patterns, and Noise
The proposed project would disturb existing
No mitigation is required.
wildlife through loss of habitat, disruption of
natural movement patterns, and noise. This is a
less than significant impact.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 19 of 28
Finding of Fact
project. The Planning. Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 20 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Findingof Fact
impact 4.7-3: Swainson's Hawk Habitat Loss
The proposed project will result in the loss of
Mitigation Measure 4.7-3:
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
g y
mitigation measure to becondition ( the
foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk.
Disturbance to Swainson's hawk during nesting
The Applicant shall be required to obtain a Take
Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the CDFG
this
project. The Planningg Commission finds that this
may also Qccur. This is a potentially significant
Code, prior to mining. The Section 2081 Permit
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
loco than -significant I?v?!.
impact.
will provide mitigation for the ettects 6f mining on
Swainson's hawk foraging and potential nesting
habitat.
Impact 4.7-4: Loss of Foraging and Nestinq Habitat for Other Special -Status Species
The project will result in the loss of Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: The Applicant shall
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
proposed
foraging and, possibly, nesting habitat for other
consult with CDFG to determine an appropriate
distance or other conditions to mining for
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
special -status species. Mining activities could
also disturb nesting for California black rail, if
buffer
allowable mining activities during the nesting
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
present, in adjacent Angel Slough. This is a
period of any special -status species. When these
less -than -significant level.
potentially significant impact.
requirements have been established a qualified
biologist should conduct a pre -construction
survey in spring to determine the presence of
active nests for special -status birds and to
determine the presence of northwestern pond
turtles. If survey results are positive for raptor
nests, California black rails or turtles, the best
protection measures relative to mining in potential
nesting habitat will be determined in consultation.
with CDFG.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 20 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Impact 4.7-5: Bank Swallows
The proposed project could result in the creation
Mitigation Measure 4.7-5: Slopes on stockpiled
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure to becondition (s) of the
of temporary nesting sites for bank swallows.
This is a potentially significant impact.
soils shall be graded to 2:1 for long-term storage
to prevent use by bank swallows. At no time
project. The Planningg Commission finds that this
during the active breeding season (May 1
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
through July 31) sliall slupes on stockpiles
loes-than-significant level ,
exceed 1:1, even on a temporary basis.
Stockpiles shall be graded to a minimum 1:1
slope at the end of each workday where
stockpiles have been disturbed during the active
breeding season. If any vertical slopes are
inadvertently created, these slopes shall be
destroyed immediately following verification by a
designated Environmental Monitor that no bank
swallows have begun nesting there. If bank.
swallows have begun nesting, CDFG will be
consulted as to the best strategy.
Impact 4.7-6: Native Oaks and Mature Trees
The proposed project will affect native oak trees
Mitigation Measure 4.7-6: The oak grove
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
and several mature Fremont cottonwood and red
This is a significant impact.
scheduled for preservation will be protected
during mining by the placement of temporary
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
willow. potentially
fencing or flagging along the dripline of each of
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
the trees to prevent mining related damage. The
less-than-significant level.
operator will place temporary fencing prior to pit
development with potential for equipment to be
within 50 feet of protected plants. Fencing need
not be maintained once operations are beyond
50 feet.
Impact 4.7-7: Modifications to Jurisdictional Wetlands -
The proposed project will impact jurisdictional Mitigation Measure 4.7-7: Potential impacts to
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s)'of the
wetlands. This is a potentially significant impact.
jurisdictional wetlands shall be coordinated with
the COE prior to project development to
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
determine whether a permit is required.
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less-than-si nificant level.
NOISE
Im act 4.8-1: Excavation Noise
Exhibit l- Findings of Fact
Page 21 of 28
Proposed
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
Impact
Statement
The proposed project will result in average
equipment noise levels up to 65 dBA, Leq, at the
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a: Construction of an
Earthen Berm: The project Applicant has
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
closest residence. This is a potentially significant
proposed construction of an earthen berm
between the proposed mining activities and the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
impact.
nearest residence (Residence A) to mitigate this
less -than -significant level.
nolse Impact. The lucdtiuii of this berm is
generally shown by Figure 4.8-7.
Barrier effectiveness is dependant on the relative
heights of the noise source and receiver, the
frequency content of the noise source, as well as
the distances from the noise source and receiver
to the top of the barrier. Given the geometry of
the proposed berm (approximate height 18 feet,
approximately width 475 feet) relative to the
mining area and nearest residence, this berm is
predicted to reduce excavation noise levels by
approximately 15 dB. The degree of attenuation
is predicted to reduce excavation -related noise to
approximately 50 dB Leq and 60 dB Lmax, which
would comply with the project's standards of
significance.
Because the proposed berm is predicted to
reduce mining -related noise levels to a state of
compliance with the project's standards of
significance, no additional mining -related noise
mitigation measures are, identified for this project.
Y
However, because there is no margin of safety
built into these calculations, follow-up noise level
measurements shall be conducted as part of the
mitigation monitoring program to ensure that the
berm is providing the required degree of sound
attenuation. In the event that those follow-up
-
noise measurements indicate that the project's
standards of significance are being exceeded,
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 b shall be implemented.
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 22 -of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 b: Creation of
Additional Setbacks
Finding of Fact
from Mining Areas: Because the proposed berm
is projected to provide sufficient attenuation of
mining -related noise, additional mining setbacks
are not Neoommended at Oils Lillie. Huwever, if
the follow-up noise level measurements required
in Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a indicate that the .
project's standards of significance are being
exceeded even with the proposed berm, this
measure should be implemented.
As a general rule, sound decreases at a rate of
about 6 dB per doubling of distance from the
noise source for a noise source which generally
operates from a fixed location, such as an
excavator or drag line. For example, if the
mining setback from the nearest residence were
increased from 300 feet to 600 feet, excavation -
related noise levels would be approximately 6 dB
lower than those expected with the 300 -foot
setback. The specific setback distances, if
required, will depend on the effectiveness of the
proposed berm in reducing the excavation- .
related noise levels at the nearest residence
Residence A).
Impact 4.8-2: Screening/ rushinNoise
Maximum and average noise levels generated by
Mitigation Measure 4.8-2a: Shielding by
that
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition,(s) of the
the crushing and screening plant equipment at
the site will be approximately 58 dB Lmax
Aggregate Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows
the proposed aggregate stockpile location is
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
the impact to a
project
and 53 project
LeQ at the nearest residence. The
,
north of the proposed processing equipment. As .
those stockpiles would provide shielding
mitigation measure will reduce
less -than -significant level.
average noise level would be approximately 3 dB
This is
a result,
the optional asphalt and concrete plants, but
over the recommended 50 dB threshold.
a potentially significant impact:
of
not of the processing equipment, in the direction
of the nearest residence to the south.
Consideration should be given to locating one or,
more stockpiles between the noisiest processing
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 23 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures
equipment (crushers and screens) and that
residence to the south. If stockpiles can be
erected to intercept"line of sight between that
equipment and residence, a 5 dB attenuation can
be expected. This degree of attenuation would
reduce pl uuessii iy equipment noise to a ototo of
compliance with the recommended standards of
significance.
Mitigation Measure 4.8-2b: Additional
Processing Equipment Noise Control Measures:
If stockpiles cannot be utilized to achieve
compliance with the standards of significance, or
if processing equipment noise levels still exceed
those standards following construction of
stockpiles, additional noise control measures
shall be required. Specific noise control
measures which could be implemented include,
but are not limited to, lining hoppers and chutes
with heavy urethane sheets, utilizing urethane
screen decks (rather than steel), and suspending
acoustic curtains around specific equipment
which is found to be the source of'the noise level
of Fact
Impact 4.8-3: Asphalt and Concrete Plant Noise Less than significant
No batch plant noise would be generated under No mitigation is required
this scenario. Therefore, no impacts relating to
batch plant noise levels have been identified.
Im act 4.8-4: Off-site Traffic NoiseLess than significant impact. Findings not
Increases in traffic noise will range from 0 to 2 TNo mitigation is required. required.
dBA. This is a less than significant impact.
AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE
impact 4.9-1: Initial Mine and Plant Construction
Initial construction of the proposed project would Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a: The Applicant shall The Planning Commission hereby directs the
reduce the visual quality of the project site. This prepare and implement a screen tree -planting mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
is a potentially significant impact. , program to block views of the proposed mining project. The Planning Commission finds that this .
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact
Page 24 of 28
Proposed
Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Statement
Mitigation
Measures
Finding of Fact
operation for travelers along River Road and
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
from the closest residence. These trees shall be
less -than -significant level.
planted along portions of River Road, and along
lines of sight from the closest residence. The
species of trees shall be selected based on
viability in that particular location, screening
potential, and compatibility with other local and
regional vegetation. These trees shall block
views of the construction of the stationary
facilities and provide additional screening of the
completed facilities for the duration of the mining
project.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 b:
As described in Section 4.8, Noise, an earthen
berm shall be constructed to shield the dragline
and dredging operations from the adjacent
residence. This berm will also screen views from
the adjacent residence. The berm shall be
placed in the direct line -of -site between the
residence and dragline or dredge operation. The
berm shall be temporary and shall be revegetated
with grasses for erosion control purposes and to
be aesthetically pleasing. The constructed berm
shall minimize nearby views of the stationary
equipment and the dredge and dragline. The
berm shall be removed during final reclamation.
Impact 4.9-2: Mining and Processing O erations
The proposed project Without Batch Plants Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: Temporary stockpiles
The Planning Commission hereby directs the
Scenario would result in both temporary and
and/or berms shall be placed around stationary
between
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
The Planning Commission finds that this
permanent alteration of the visual quality of the
This is a significant impact.,
equipment to block line -of -sight views
processing equipment and the closest residence
project.
mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
site. potentially
and along River Road near the northeastern
less -than -significant level. .
'
portion of the site. As the processing facilities will
be raised above the 100 -year floodplain these
temporary berms and/or stockpiles would not
displace any floodwaters.
Exhibit 17 Findings of Fact
Page 25 of 28
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
impact 4.9-3: Light and Glare
The proposed project could result in extended Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: Should night The Planning Commission hereby directs the
lighting for occasional nighttime mining operations occur, directional lighting and shields mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
operations. This is a potentially significant shall be used to minimize the distance at which project. The Planning Commission finds that this
impact, light emanating from the project is visible. mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Impact 4.9-4: Site Reclamation
The proposed project would alter the visual No mitigation is required. Less than significant
character of the site following reclamation. This
is a less than significant impact.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact
Mitigation
Statement
Measures,
CULTURAL RESOURCES
impact 4.10-1: Disturbance of Subsurface Arc haeolo ical, Historic, or Cultural Resources
The proposed project has the potential to result
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a: The specific study
in the disturbance of subsurface archaeological,
is based on the findings of an inventory -level
histnrir, nr nultural resources, This is a
surface survey only. There is always the
potentially significant impact.
possibility that potentially significant unidentified
cultural materials could inadvertently be
encountered on or below the surface during the
course of proposed future development or
construction activities. In such a situation,
archaeological consultation shall be sought
immediately.
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1b: In order to ensure
proper identification of any cultural materials that
might inadvertently be encountered during future
development, construction, or gravel extraction
work, the County's use permit shall include a
provision for training of field personnel in
identification procedures, prior to implementing
the quarry construction operation. The training
shall take the form of a 1/2 day seminar in which
a professional archaeologist shall review with
operations personnel the natural and cultural
history of the project area, archaeological
sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried
cultural materials, and what kinds of cultural
materials would be seen if prehistoric cultural
materials are in fact unearthed. The seminar
shall conclude with specific instructions on how to
address such discoveries and what immediate
actions to take.
Impact 4.10-2: Disturbance of Cultural Resources
The proposed project will not disturb any listed No mitigation is required.
cultural resources. This is a less than significant
impact.
impact 4.10-3: Unique Cultural Values or Religious or Sacred Uses
Exhibit 1- Findings of Fact.
Page 27 of 28
of Fact
The Planning Commission hereby -directs the
mitigation measure (s) to be a condition (s) of the
project. The Planning Commission finds that this
Mitigation measure will reduce the Impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Less than significant impact. Findings not
required.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario
Impact Mitigation
Statement Measures Finding of Fact
Less than significant impact. Findings not
The proposed project isnot known to be the site No mitigation is required. required.
of any unique cultural values or existing religious
or sacred uses that would be affected or
restricted by the project. This is considered a
less than significant impact.
EXHIBIT 2
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING REPORT
Lead CEQA Agency:
COUNTY OF BUTTE
Oroville, California
Prepared by:
RESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
4509 Golden Foothill Parkway, Suite 2
EI Dorado Hills, California 95762
FEBRUARY 2007
EXHIBIT 2
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been developed for the M&T Chico
Ranch Mine Project to ensure compliance with mitigation specified in the Final EIR for the
project. The purpose of this document is to provide a framework from which the lead agency
can adequately monitor, document, and report that the mitigation has been implemented. For
purposes of clarity, this MMRP restates each final mitigation measure and provides a format for
monitoring reporting.
CEQA (Guidelines Section 15091, subdivision (d)) requires that the mitigation measures being
monitored " or the subject of reporting must be fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other measures." Thus, this MMRP identifies what is to be done, when it is to be
done, what standard will be used to measure effectiveness, and who is responsible for the
action. Mitigation monitoring takes various forms and involves many different activities. For
some environmental issues, such as those dealing with project design, monitoring will be a one-
time assessment of adequacy. Other issues, such as noise, will be monitored initially to
establish the adequacy of primary mitigation measures. Once adequacy is established, the
County may allow monitoring to be discontinued. For still other issues, such as revegetation
success and annual assessment of traffic -related fair -share payments, monitoring will continue
throughout the life of the project.
Once collected, monitoring information must be documented through a cooperative effort
involving the Operator, the CEQA Lead Agency (in this case, the Butte County Planning
Division, Department of Development Services), and other applicable agencies. The primary
documentation of mitigation implementation and effectiveness is generally collated in the form of
an annual mitigation status report and permit compliance review.
Preparation of an annual Mitigation Status Report (MSR) is a key component of this MMRP for
the M&T Chico Ranch Mine. This report will be required of the Operator to fulfill. its
responsibilities under the use permit entitlement. The purpose of this Report is to reduce the
level of County monitoring by requiring the Operator to implement a rigorous self -inspection
program which will include a reporting system that keeps the County apprised of field conditions
on a regular basis. The report will be a matter of the public record regarding the implementation
of the required mitigation measures.
The annual MSR institutes a self -inspection and reporting program for measures with ongoing
application. In addition to this self -reporting effort, the County may verify compliance through
scheduled or unscheduled inspections. At a minimum, the County will verify the MSR data on an
annual basis, as part of its required annual inspections under the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA). The County may also use objective third -party contract services to
conduct monitoring and inspections.
The applicant/owner is responsible for all costs associated with monitoring and reporting
activities including but not limited to the hourly rate of County staff time, as approved by the
Board of Supervisors and as amended, and any contract services as may be necessary to
conduct such work on behalf of the County as determined by the Director or designee.
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
EXHIBIT 2 Page 2 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1
Requirement
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-9 for traffic impacts, 4.8-1a through
4.8-3b for noise.impacts and 4.9-1a through 4.9-3 for impacts to aesthetics will reduce this
impact to a less than significant level.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To reduce potential land use incompatibility.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-9, 4.8-1a throug•i 4.8-3b, and 4.9-1a
through 4.9-3.
Compliance Timing:., Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director.or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE/ TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annually
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
3of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 and 4.3-2
Requirement
The Applicant has incorporated a 3H:1V slope for final slopes into the project design to provide
an adequate safety factor. No additional mitigation is required.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To provide an adequate safety factor during seismic activity..
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation by licensed surveyor or engineer that final slopes.are
minimum 3H:1V:
Compliance Timing: During operations, project reclamation
RESPONSIBLE. PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of final slopes for each mining area
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY.
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION 1 REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine .Monitoring Report
4of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.3-3
Requirement
Any structures proposed, on-site including offices and related facilities shall be appropriately
designed and constructed in accordance with the seismic safety requireme-its of the California
Uniform Building Code and other requirements of the Butte County Building Division of the
Development Services Department.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; standard condition
Purpose: To reduce potential seismic damage to structures to a less -than -
significant level.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By. Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
5of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a
Requirement
Any sumps or detentionponds used to contain runoff from within the ser icing and refueling
area shall be located where there is a minimum of five feet of separation between the bottom of
.the sump and 'the. seasonal high water table. If this criterion cannot be met because the
proposed locations of.sumps are in locations where the elevation difference between the bottom
of the sump and the seasonal high water table is less than five feet, then sumps shall be capped
with either an impervious material or an 18 -inch layer of compacted fines which have a
permeability at 90 percent relative compaction of no greater than 1.0 x 10 -8 cm/second. The
above requirement is not extended to those sumps which will collect and -recirculate process
water.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent contaminants from being delivered to the water table
directly beneath the processing area.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit as -built design confirming requirements have been met.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S),OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING % REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department .
MONITORING SCHEDULE./ TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of sump construction
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY..
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
6of51
Date:
0
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-27,D
Requirement
All equipment servicing and refueling shall be performed on impervious surfaces:
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent contaminants from being delivered to the water table
directly, beneath the processing area.
Standard for .Determining Compliance
Operator.•shall submit confirmation of designated servicing and refueling area with impervious
surfaces.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING'ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By; Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
7 of.51 ,
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION l SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition.or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c
Requirement .
Project proponent shall develop and implement a groundwater qua ity-monitoring plan
acceptable to both Butte County and the Regional.Water. Quality Control Board.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose:'_ To prevent contaminants from being delivered to the water, table,.
directly beneath the processing area.
Standard for Determining Compliance
quality -monitoring plan by Butte County Public Wo ks Department.
Approval of groundwater.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORINGSCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: ' At completion of groundwater monitoring plan
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch,Mine Monitoring Report
8of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a
Requirement
Runoff from the' surfaces of the processing area shall be prevented from entering the pit by
regrading the area between the pit and the processing area as necessary to ensure that runoff
from the processing facilities will not flow to the proposed pit area.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to Exposure of water
r table through mining activities. .
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed surveyor or engineer that grading is completed
as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE"PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works
MONITORING.SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of process area grading
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
9of51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION 1 SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b
Requirement
Flows in Little Chico Creek up to 2,000 cfs shall be prevented from entering the lake through
construction of a low levee/weir and bypass channel, which will prevent flows from entering the
distributary channel. This mitigation measure is the same as Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c, as
described by NorthStar, 2002). The created lake will be protected from floodwater entry up to
approximately a ten-year recurrence interval flood from Little Chico Creek. The level of flood
protection afforded by this measure by Sacramento River floodwaters is unknown, however, it is
rational to expect that flood protection from that source will approximate a ten-year recurrence
interval since it would be unusual for large floods from the Sacramento River, which is
regulated, to more frequently overflow the new levee and bypass channel that floodwaters from
Little Chico Creek. Typically, regional flooding is correlated with local flooding.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water
table through mining activities. This mitigation is the same as
Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c and, thus will also serve as a flood
control measure.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit as -built confirmation by licensed engineer that the levee/weir and bypasE
channel are constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations start-up
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: - Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIMEFRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE. VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
10 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3c
Requirement
The existing, drainage ditch at the southern limit of the proposed pit, and all drainage ditches
along the east side of 'the pit up to 1,000 feet beyond the project area shall be improved as
necessary to increase their peak flow capacity to carry a 10 -year recurrence interval peak flow.
Similarly, a ditch of similar capacity shall be constructed along the western property boundary
through any reaches where the local topography slopes toward the proposed pit. The western
ditch, depending on'the design, may be the same as the Little Chico Creek overflow diversion
described above. All ditch construction within the 100 -year floodplain shall be performed
without side casting, and all other ditch improvements must be performed so as not to increase
the heights of any existing berms alongside these ditches. Mining shall cease when the edge of
the proposed pit is within 50 feet of the ditch along the southern boundary.
This measure will eliminate runoff in contact with agricultural lands generated from local storms
from entering the created lake at a frequency, on average, of greater than ten years. Since no
side casting. is allowed, these- agricultural drainage ditches cannot pr --vent the' entry of
floodwaters backing into the area from the Sacramento River., The exception is the ditch to be
constructed along the western property boundary, which is specifically designed to give the
proposed pit flood protection from Little Chico Creek.
Source of Requirement:. Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to Exposure of water
table through mining activities.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that drainages are constructed as
specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name:
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME `
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:'
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
11 of 51
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION 1 REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
Rv
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION 1 SOURCE I PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d
Requirement
Mining shall not be performed with the use of a dredge boat without pror review by Butte
County. All motorized mining equipment, when not in use, shall be ' parked more than 50 feet
from the edge of the pit during normal operations. When no mining occurs for more than a 14 -
day period, all motorized equipment must be removed to areas which do not drain into the
proposed pit. All refueling will be conducted at a distance greater than 50 feet from the edge of
the pit. Any soil contaminated by fuel or hydraulic fluid must be removed in accordance with
measures to be specified as required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water
table through mining activities.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING' SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location: -
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
13 of 51
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a
Requirement
Applicant shall develop a ground -water monitoring program to be apprcved by the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County. If mcnitoring shows that
drinking water standards (Title 22 of the California State Code of Regulations) are not being met
either at the property boundary nearest the proposed pit in a downgradient direction or at the
Jones domestic well, due to degradation caused by the project, they Butte County, in
consultation with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall rescind their
operating permits, and no permit shall be re -issued until such time as a groundwater
remediation plan has been implemented, groundwater at the property boundary once again
meets drinking water standards, and additional measures, as approved by Butte County, have
been implemented to prevent future degradation. The term "caused by -:he project" shall be
interpreted as any increase in contaminant concentrations between the upgradient baseline
monitoring well above the proposed operations area and the downgradient monitoring locations
which exceed drinking water standards.
Monitoring, at a minimum shall consist of monitoring of two wells. One Iccated up -gradient of
the proposed pit and operating area, and another approximately 1,000 feet south from the
northwest corner of the pit. As mining proceeds additional wells shall be installed; one located
mid -way between the north and south edges of the pit near the western property boundary, and
the other 25 feet from the ultimate southwest corner of the pit. Figu-e 4.4-13, Proposed
Monitoring Well Locations, shows suggested locations for the monitoring wells proposed under
this mitigation measure and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c. The wells shall be monitored four times
a year each year during the life of operations within the first week of April, July, August, and
September. Once the edge of pit progresses to within 500 feet of the next down -gradient well,
that well shall be monitored and monitoring of the upslope well shall cease. Samples shall be
composites formed by sampling within two feet below the water table, and combining with an
equal volume of water 20 feet below the water table. Samples will be analyzed for turbidity,
fecal coliform, diesel and BTEX compounds. Additionally, pesticides commonly used in the
vicinity shall be sampled annually. The selection of pesticides to be analyzed shall be approved
by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte Ccunty. The laboratory
performing the analyses shall forward results directly to Butte County and the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, Applicant shall monj7tor the domestic well
on what is referred to as the Jones' parcel if the property owners grant permission for
monitoring. Monitoring shall consist of drawing tapwater samples.
Samples shall be analyzed for turbidity, fecal coliforms, benzene, and atrazine. Prior to the
onset of mining, at least three samples, taken on a monthly interval, shell be taken from the
Jones' domestic water supply to establish a baseline from which subsequent samples shall be
compared. Following the baseline sampling, monitoring shall consis-: of two phases; an
intensive Phase A, and a routine Phase B. During Phase A samples shE_II be taken weekly for
12 consecutive weeks beginning June 1. Phase A shall take place duf ing the first irrigation
season after mining operations have commenced, and, at the discretion of Butte County, the
second irrigation season after mining begins. Additionally, Phase A sampling shall occur the
first irrigation season following a flood where floodwaters enter the proposed pit. Phase B
sampling shall take place whenever Phase A sampling is not taking place and shall consist of
sampling on the first week of April, July, August, and September. Phase B monitoring will
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
14 of 51
continue for at least four years after all Phase A monitoring is completed. After that, all
monitoring of the.Jones' parcel water supply may be discontinued if Butte County determines
that contaminant concentrations at the Jones' parcel well never exceed hose at the project
monitoring well(s).
In lieu of monitoring the Jones' domestic water supply as specified above, applicant may
undertake one of two alternatives if requested by the Jones' parcel owners prior to discontinuing
the monitoring described above. It shall be at the discretion of the Jones' parcel owners which
of the two alternatives they wish to accept, if any. The alternatives consist of either replacing
the existing domestic well with a new well of equivalent capacity which draws water only from
the lower aquifer, or installing a filter system capable of reliably furnis ling water meeting
drinking water standards.
Applicant shall pay for all costs associated with replacing the existing well and increased
pumping costs, or the costs of installing and maintaining, in perpetuity, a,filter system.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent groundwater contamination due to exposure of water,
table through mining activities.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Approval of groundwater monitoring program by Butte County Public Wcrks Department and
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING I REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of monitoring program design
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
T:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP _
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
15 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-5
Requirement
The slope between the buffer strip and the actively mined area shall be de=_igned by a licensed
-civil engineer to prevent erosion. Suitable measures may include both structural and
vegetative, if it can be demonstrated that a combination of a gentle slope in conjunction with
vegetation can prevent erosion from Little Chico Creek overflows. The design shall consider the
potential concentration of floodwaters, the lowest expected antecedent wafer surface elevation
in the proposed pit, and scour/undermining of the toe of the slope. Butte County must approve
the design prior to initiation of the project. A design report shall be submitteJ along with plans.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent floodwaters from flowing over the 5J -foot wide buffer
between the Little Chico Creek and the northern edge of the pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that the slope betNeen the buffer strip
and the actively mined area is designed to prevent erosion.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORINGACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP,
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
16 of 51
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION/ SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-6
Requirement
The mine pit excavation area shall maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet from the bank of
Little Chico Creek to avoid potential lateral migration of the creek.
Source'of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose:, -.To prevent direct linking of surface water and groundwater due to
lateral migration.of Little Chico Creek through tie proposed 50 -foot
buffer strip separating the creek from the pit edge along the
northern boundary of the proposed pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit a map of current surface disturbance in annual report
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE-P.ERSON(8) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE-'/ TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report. Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
MSFT Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
17 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a
Requirement
Applicant shall remove the existing levee on the east side of Little Chico Creek and replace it
with setback levees at the same elevation. A by-pass channel will be co -1structed to convey
flows overtopping the new setback levees back to the creek through new, larger culverts. Plans
shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction. This measuoe will increase the
floodway width which will decrease the 50 -year flood depth by 0.6 feet (No-thStar Engineering,
2002) and with its implementation, it is expected that there will be no impact on flooding in the
Sacramento River floodplain.
Source of.Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent flooding of River Road and Jones' parcel due to
placement of dikes or fill within the processing area, and
elimination of existing distributary at the north End of the proposed
pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Plans shall be approved by Butte County Public Works Department prior to construction:
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S)OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITOR! NG.SC.HEDULE/ TIME -FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING.ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
18 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b
Requirement
Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Butte County to either constructor fund the costs .of
raising the existing low water crossing on River Road near the gas well site by up to three feet
and installing larger culverts within three years of use permit approval. Plans shall be approved
by Butte County Public Works Department prior to construction.
Source.of Requirement: Public Works Department, EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent flooding of River Road and Jones' parcel due to
placement of dikes or fill within the processing area, and
elimination of existing distributary at the north ee,�d of the proposed
pit.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation -of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING -SCHEDULE%.TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon signing of funding agreement
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
19 -of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.4-7:;
Requirement
Applicant shall install a bypass channel to convey flows formerly conveyed by the distributary
channel around the proposed pit area. The overflow weir and adjoining bypass channel will be
designed such that elimination of the distributary will not result in increased flooding depths.. or
duration on the Jones' parcel. The bypass channel shall maximize, `to the extent possible, use
of native -plant "materials in the design to .control erosion. Plans shall bE! approved by Butte
County prior, to construction.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent flooding of River Road and Jones' parcel due to
placement of dikes or fill within the processing area, and
elimination of existing distributary at the north end of the proposed
pit. This is the same as Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b and, thus, will
also serve as a groundwater quality protection measure.
Standard for Determining Compliance -
Operator shall submit as -built confirmation by licensed engineer that the levee/weir and bypass
channel are "constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations start-up
RESPONSIBLE.PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING`SCHEDULE 1 TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection: _
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING '
Report Format:
Submitted To: `
Verification.of Compliance: ` ' By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
20 of 51 .
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a
Requirement
Unpaved haul roads; service roads, and plants areas shall be treated with water or chemical
stabilizers in sufficient quantity and frequency as necessary to meet the following standards;
• No visible emissions extending beyond the property line (BCAPCD Rule 207); and.
• No visible emissions as dark or darker than Ringlemann 2 or 40% opacity for a period or
periods aggregating more than three minutes in one hour determined using EPA Method
9. (BCAPCD Rule 202); or
• Any future standard respecting fugitive dust or visible emissions tl-at is more stringent
than the standards in paragraphs a anis b that is adopted or amended by the Butte
County APCD subsequent to the approval of the project.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE /'TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A'
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:-
Location:
nspection:Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report. Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
21 of 51
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b
Requirement
Truck and mobile equipment speeds on interior haul roads shall not exceed 15 miles per hour.
Speed limits shall be posted.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standardfor Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation that vehicles do not exceed 15 miles per hour on
interior haul roads.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S)'OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING'ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
22 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION ! SOURCE./ PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c
Requirement
Excavation areas shall be treated with water during topsoil removal pha=es. As. excavation'
ureas are completed and final depths are. reached, revegetation shall be implemented as
stipulated in the Reclamation Plan.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services, EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for` Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING'ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
4
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To: :
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
23 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007.
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-19
Requirement
Permanent roads from public streets to the processing or loading facilities shall be graveled or
paved to reduce the use of unpaved roads.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor or licensed engineer that public streets to the
processing or loading facilities are graveled or paved as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE'VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
24 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /SOURCE l PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1e
Requirement
Wet sweeping shall be performed on heavily -used on-site paved roads and within 500 feet of
the access roads for the aggregate plants as necessary to control on-site a -1d track -out dust.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified wet sweeping procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
25 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION /. SOURCE/ PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1f
Requirement
A truck spraying,facility shall be constructed and operated near the exit of th3 aggregate plants.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure f
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that a truck spraying facility has been
constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion; annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:.
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
26 of. 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1g
Requirement
The aggregate Operator shall set up a 24-hour anemometer at the plant site to monitor wind
speeds. If wind gusts exceed 20 miles per hour as defined by the BCAQMD, the Operator shall
terminate topsoil removal and hauling on-site until the high wind abates..Times that the. above
water table mining operations are shut down shall be logged and included in the annual mine
inspection report required by SMARA.
Source of Requirement: Department of'Development Services, EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations, during operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE/.TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION 1 REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
Date:
M&T Chico.Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
27 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007•
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I SOURCE I PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1f
Requirement
Topsoil storage piles shall be covered with gravel/rock or seeded with an erosion control seed
mix to. prevent wind-blown dust.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent high levels of fugitive PM,o.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
28 of 51
M&T CHICO. RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-1
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution to reconstruct the bridge on Ord Ferry
Road at Little Chico Creek. The fair share contribution amount should be ba3ed upon the relative
proportion of project vehicles traveling on the bridge. The implementation of th s mitigation measure
shall occur before building permits are granted.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per day to the
bridge on Ord Ferry Road at the Little Chico Creek.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution to reconstruct the
bridge on Ord Ferry Road at Little Chico Creek.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING. SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
29 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-2
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute its fair share of the costs to improve the pavement
on River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road with a two-inch asphalt
concrete overlay. The fair share amount shall be based on the increase in ESALs,
which is 51%. Butte County Public Works estimates the cost of this improvement to be
approximately $1,200,000. Therefore, the Applicant's fair share cost would be about
$40,000 per year. The Public Works Department has indicated that the fee shall be
submitted annually based on the tonnage of material that is hauled from the project site
and shall be relative to an inflation index. Based on the information contained in Table
4.6-9, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be approximately
$0.08.
The project applicant shall contribute its fair share of the cost to maintain the asphalt
concrete pavement on the following roads over the 30 year life of the project:
River Road; between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road;
Ord Ferry Road; between County Line and Dayton Road;
Durham Dayton Road; between Dayton Road and SR 99;
Dayton Road; between Ord Ferry Road and Chico City Limit;
Hegan Lane; between Dayton Road and Midway; and
Chico River Road; between River Road and Chico City Limit.
Road Maintenance shall include a chip seal surface treatment everp 10 years with M &
T Chico Ranch Mine project's fair share contribution based on the projected net
increase in ESALs as shown in the attached Table A. Based on the information
contained in Table A, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be
approximately $0.06 and shall be relative to an inflation index.
If maintenance costs are rolled into a single fee per ton of material extracted, the
mitigation fee shall be made up of $0.08 per ton for the overlay cn River Road, plus
$0.01 per ton for the improvements to the Ord Ferry Bridge, and the installation of a
signal at Midway and Durham Dayton highway, for a total of $0.09 per ton of material
removed from the site. The amount intended to compensate for the extra maintenance
required due to the increased truck traffic, shall be $0.06 per ton o- material extracted.
These fees shall be deposited by the operator into the Butte County Road Fund, and
shall be adjusted for inflation based upon the change in the Constriction Cost Index for
San Francisco, during the month of January of each year. These fells shall cease to be
collected should the County impose a countywide tax or fee for road maintenance
based upon weight of materials moved over the roads.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will add 25 or more truck trips, which cause
an increase in the Traffic index (TI) of 0.5 or greater on a County
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
30 of 51
maintained roadway.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution for :he above-specified
improvements.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
.COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
31 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2001
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-4
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution to improve the intersection of SR
32/West 5`h Street by modifying the existing traffic signal to provide split phase timing, including
three seconds of yellow time and one second of all -red time per phase. The fair share
contribution. amount should be based upon the relative proportion of project vehicles traveling
through the impacted intersection.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will add 10 or more trips ;ger day to the
intersection of SR 32/West 5`h Street. This intersection has been
identified as a location having 4 or more accidents in a 12 -month
period over the last three years. This location also had more than
one accident over a 12 -month period, which. involved heavy
vehicles.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution to improve the
intersection of SR 32/West 5t' Street.
Compliance Timing: - Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S).OR AGENCY FOWMONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works .Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency: .
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE:VERIFICATION /'REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
Date:
By: ,
FOLLOW UP 1: .
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
32 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-8
Requirement
Improvements to the median crossing, acceleration/deceleration lanes, improved signing and
striping, and channelization of the driveway approach could improve the safety characteristics of
this intersection. In addition, signalization of the Skyway/, Honey Run Road (anticipated by
2005) may provide sufficient gaps in through traffic on Skyway to improve egress from the
driveway. However, no feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of impact to this
roadway segment. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact.
Source of Requirement: Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions
in the a.m. hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hoar at the
intersection of Baldwin Plant Driveway and Skyway. Specified
improvements may improve conditions somewhat.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of their fair share contribution.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE>PERSON(S) OR -,AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SCHEDULE l TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection: .
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
33 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.6-9
Requirement
The project Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution to install a traffic signal and
improve lane configurations with a left -turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane on each
approach of the Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway intersection. With this, improvement this
intersection. will operate at LOS C under cumulative project conditions. The fair share
contribution amount shall be based upon the relative proportion of project vehicles traveling
through the impacted intersection.
Source of Requirement:- Public Works Department; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will exacerbate peak hour LOS F operating
conditions at the intersection of Durham -Dayton Highway and
Midway.
Standard for Determining Compliance
The Operator shall submit annual confirmation of this fair share contribution.
Compliance Timing: Annually, based on reported tonnage
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Public Works Department
MONITORING SGHEDUL•E / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon receipt of fair share contribution
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
r
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
34 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007'
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-1
Requirement
Slopes along the perimeter of the created lake shall be actively revegetated, where necessary,
to supplement natural colonization of plant species as part of site reclamation to meet the
performance standards specified by SMARA. Specific areas for supplemental revegetation will
be identified using collected data following one year of monitoring natural colonization.
Additional requirements specified by state or federal agencies shall be incorporated into the final
revegetation plan. The revegetation program shall specify planting and maintenance
techniques, with a detailed monitoring program to evaluate restoration success.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of
approximately 193 acres of annually tilled, non, -native grassland
and dryland agriculture to open water and wetland habitat.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor or registered biologist that slopes are
revegetated as specified.
Compliance Timing: Post operation/reclamation
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS)"OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
35 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
.MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-3
Requirement
The Applicant shall be required to obtain a Take Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the CDFG
Code, prior to mining: The Section 2081 Permit will provide mitigation for the effects of mining
on Swainson's hawk foraging and potential nesting habitat.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will result in the loss of foraging habitat for .
Swainson's Hawk. Disturbance to Swainson's hawks during
nesting may also occur.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Issuance of Take Permit.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RES PONSIBLE..PERSON (S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Upon acquisition of permit; if needed
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch, Mine Monitoring Report
36 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-4
Requirement
The Applicant shall consult with CDFG to determine an appropriate buffer distance or other
conditions to mining for allowable mining .activities during the nesting period of any special -
status species found to occur on the project site. When these' requirements have been
established a qualified biologist should conduct a pre -construction survey in spring to determine
the presence of active nests for special -status birds and to determine the � presence of
northwestern pond turtles. If survey results are positive for raptor nests, Ca'ifornia black rails or
turtles, the best protection measures relative to mining in potential nesiting habitat will be
determined in consultation with CDFG. The preconstruction survey is required before project
start-up and not subsequent to operation, provided that all applicable protection measures have
been implemented prior to operation.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will result in the loss of foraging and,
possibly, nesting habitat for other special -status species. Mining
activities could also disturb nesting for California black rail, if
present, in adjacent Angel Slough.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by qualified biologist that specified conditions have been
met.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE I TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of pre -construction survey
Season: Appropriate season, as necessary for species of concern
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION I REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
37 of 51
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND.REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-5
Requirement -
Slopes on stockpiled soils shall be graded to 2:1 for long-term storage to prevent use by bank
swallows. At no time during the active breeding season (May 1 through Jul); 31) shall slopes on
stockpiles exceed 1:1,'even on a temporary basis. Stockpiles shall be graded to a minimum 1:1
slope at the end of each workday where stockpiles have been disturbed during the active
breeding season. If any vertical slopes are inadvertently created, these slopes shall be
destroyed immediately following verification by a designated Environmental Monitor that no
bank swallows have begun nesting there. If bank swallows have begun nEsting, CDFG will be
consulted as to the best strategy.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitigation Measure
Purpose: To prevent bank swallows from creating temporary nesting sites at
the proposed project.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S);OR-AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Operator: monthly May -July; County: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection: .
Time ofdnspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW .UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
38 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-6
Requirement
The oak grove scheduled for preservation will be protected during mining ty the placement of
temporary fencing or flagging along the dripline of each of the trees to pre✓ent mining related
damage. The operator will place temporary fencing prior to pit developme-It with potential for
equipment to -be within 50 feet of protected plants. Fencing need not be maintained once
operations are beyond 50 feet.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Mitication Measure
Purpose: To prevent mining related damage to native oak trees and several
mature Fremont cottonwood and red willow.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor that fences or flags are placed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING`.SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Following placement of fencing; annually
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION /'REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance`
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
39 of 51
x
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.7-7
Requirement
Potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands shall be coordinated with the COE prior to project
development to determine whether a permit is required.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project will impact jurisdictional w=tlands.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall coordinate with COE .prior to project development to determine whether a permit
is required:
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: - One-time, prior to operations
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To: .
Verification of Compliance:
By:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
}; 40 of 51
Date:
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE/ PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a
Requirement .
Construction of an Earthen Berm: The project Applicant has proposed construction of an
earthen berm between the proposed mining activities and the nearest residence."(Residence A)
to mitigate this noise impact. The location of this berm is generally shown in Draft EIR Figure
4.8-7. Barrier effectiveness is dependant on the relative heights of the noise source and
receiver, the frequency content of the noise source, as well as the distances from the noise
source and receiver to the top of the barrier. Given the geometry of fhe - proposed berm
(approximate height 18 feet, approximately width 475 'feet) relative to the mining area and
nearest residence, this berm is predicted to reduce excavation noise levels by approximately 15
dB. The degree of attenuation is predicted to reduce excavation -related noi'3e to approximately
50 dB Leq and 60 dB Lmax, which would comply with the project's standardE of significance.
Because the proposed berm is predicted to reduce mining -related noise levels to a state of
compliance with the project's standards of significance, no additional raining -related noise
mitigation measures are identified for this project. However, because there is no margin of
safety built into these calculations, follow-up noise level measurements shall be conducted as
part of the mitigation monitoring program to ensure that the berm is prcviding the required
degree of sound attenuation. In the event that those follow-up noise measurements indicate
that the project's standards of significance are being exceeded, Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 b shall
be implemented.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Messure
Purpose: To mitigate noise level impacts caused by the proposed project.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that earthen berms are constructed as
specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: N/A
4
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection`
Location:
Compliance Comments:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
41 of 51
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION I REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
Bv: Date:
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
42 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition. or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 b
Requirement
Creation of Additional Setbacks from Mining Areas: Because the proposed berm is projected to
provide sufficient attenuation of mining -related noise, additional mining setbacks are not
recommended at this time. However, if the follow-up noise level measurements required in
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 a. indicate that the project's standards of significance are being
exceeded even with the proposed berm, this measure should be implemented. As a general
rule, sound decreases at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance from the noise source for
a noise source which generally operates from a fixed location, such as an excavator or drag
line. For example, if the mining setback from the nearest residence were increased. from 300
feet to 600 feet, excavation -related noise levels would be approximately 6 dB lower than those
expected with the 300 -foot setback. The specific setback distances, if required, will depend on
the effectiveness of the proposed berm in reducing the excavation -related noise levels at the
nearest residence (Residence A).
Source of Requirement: Department"of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To mitigate noise level impacts caused by the proposed project.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation that standards of significance are not exceeded as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR.AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
43 of 51
1
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-2a
Requirement
Shielding by Aggregate Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows that the proposed aggregate stockpile
location is north 'of the proposed processing equipment. As a result, thoee stockpiles would
provide shielding of the optional asphalt and concrete plants, but not of the processing
equipment, in the direction of the nearest residence to the south. Consideration should be given
to locating one or more stockpiles between the noisiest processing equipment (crushers and
screens) and that residence to the south. If stockpiles can be erected to intercept line of sight
between that equipment and residence, a 5 dB attenuation can be expec�,ed. This degree of
attenuation would reduce processing equipment noise to a state of compliance with the
recommended standards of significance.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services, EIR Measure
Purpose:. To prevent maximum and average noise levels generated by the
crushing and screening plant equipment at the.project site from
exceeding the recommended 50 dB threshold.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE'PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: . ' N/A
MONITORING -ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: - Date:
FOLLOW UP w
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
44 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I SOURCE I PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.8-2b
Requirement
Additional. Processing Equipment Noise Control Measures: If stockpiles cannot be utilized to
achieve compliance with the standards of significance, or if processing equipment noise levels
still exceed• those standards following construction of stockpiles, additonal noise control
measures • shall be required. ..Specific noise control measures which could. be ' implemented
include, but are not limited to, • lining hoppers and chutes with heavy urethane sheets, utilizing
urethane screen decks (rather than steel), and suspending acoustic curtains around specific
equipment which is found to be the source of the noise level exceedance.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To prevent maximum and average noise levels generated by the
crushing and screening plant equipment at the project site from
exceeding the recommended 50 dB threshold.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
D r tions
Compliance Tlming. urmg ope a
RESPONSIBLE- PERSON(S) OR. AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE /TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
45 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
• MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a
Requirement
The Applicant shall prepare and implement a screen tree -planting program to block views of the
proposed mining operation for travelers along River Road and from the closest residence.
These trees shall be planted along portions of River Road, and along lines of sight from the
closest residence. The .species of trees shall be selected based on viability in that particular
location, screening potential, and compatibility with other local and regional vegetation. These
trees shall block views of the construction of the stationary facilities and provide additional
screening of the completed facilities for the duration of the mining project.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To preserve visual quality of the project site during initial project
construction.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by surveyor that a screen tree -planting program has been
implemented as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE.PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE:/ TIME FRAME
Frequency: At completion of planting; annual checks
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
46 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
•MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
f
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b
Requirement
As described in Section 4.8, Noise, a earthen berm shall be constructed tc shield the dragline
and dredging operations from the adjacent residence. This berm will also screen views from the
adjacent residence. The berm shall be placed in the direct line -of -site between the residence
and dragline or dredge operation. The berm shall be temporary and shall :)e revegetated with
grasses for erosion control purposes and to be aesthetically pleasing. Th_- constructed berm
shall minimize nearby views of the stationary equipment and the dredge and dragline. The berm
shall be removed during final reclamation.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR measure
Purpose: To preserve visual quality of the project site during initial project
construction.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation by licensed engineer that a berm is constructed as specified.
Compliance Timing: Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: At construction completion
Season: - N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE. VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP'
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
47 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-2
Requirement
Temporary stockpiles and/or berms shall be placed around stationary equi :)ment to block line -
of -sight views between processing equipment and the closest residence ar-d along River Road
near the northeastern portion of .the site. As the processing facilities will The raised above the
100 -year floodplain these temporary - berms and/or stockpiles would not. displace any
floodwaters.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose:.. Proposed mining and processing operations would result in both
temporary and permanent alteration of the visual quality of the site.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW'.
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE % TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:.
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP .
MSFT Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
48 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE -`
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.9-3
Requirement
Should night operations occur, directional lighting and shields shall be used to minimize the
distance at which light emanating from the project is visible.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: The proposed project could result in extended fighting for
occasional nighttime mining operations.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of specified directional lighting and shielding
procedures.
Compliance Timing: During operations.
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR AGENCY FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORING SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING -ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
s
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
49 of 51
a
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007'
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION / SOURCE / PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.10 a
Requirement
The specific study is based on the findings of an inventory -level surface su-vey only. There is
always the possibility that potentially significant unidentified cultural materials could
inadvertently be encountered on dor below the surface during the course of proposed future
development or construction activities. In such a situation, archaeological consultation shall be
sought immediately.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure .
Purpose: To protect subsurface archeological, historic, or other cultural
resources uncovered during project operations.
Standard for Determining Compliance
Operator shall submit confirmation of. adherence to specified procedLres by a qualified
archaeologist if necessary.
Compliance Timing: During operations
RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S).OR AAGENCY FOR .MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development Services
MONITORINGSC.HEDULE / TIME FRAME .
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW UP
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Monitoring Report
50 of 51
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: 2007
MONITORING REPORT
CONDITION I SOURCE I PURPOSE
Condition or Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 b
Requirement
In order to ensure proper identification of any cultural materials that might inadvertently be
encountered during future development, construction, or gravel extraction work, the County's
use permit shall include a provision for training of field personnel in identification procedures,
prior to implementing the quarry construction -operation. The training shall take the form of a 1/2
day seminar, in which a professional archaeologist shall review with operations personnel the
natural and cultural history,, of the project area, archaeological sensitivity, the most likely
locations of buried cultural materials, and what kinds of cultural materials would be seen if
prehistoric cultural ,materials are in fact unearthed. The seminar shall conclude with specific
instructions on how to address such discoveries and what immediate actions to take.
Source of Requirement: Department of Development Services; EIR Measure
Purpose: To protect subsurface archeological, historic, or other cultural
resources uncovered during project operations.
Standard for Determining Compliance ;
Operator shall submit annual confirmation of adherence to specified procedures.
Compliance Timing: • Prior to operations
RESPONSIBLE- PERSON(S)bR AGENCY.FOR MONITORING / REVIEW
Name: - Director or designee
Agency: Department of Development *Services
MONITORING.SCHEDULE / TIME FRAME
Frequency: Annual
Season: N/A
.MONITORING ACTIVITY
Persons Involved:
Agency:
Date of Inspection:
Time of Inspection:
Location:
Compliance Comments:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION / REPORTING
Report Format:
Submitted To:
Verification of Compliance:
By: Date:
FOLLOW'UP
M&T Chico Ranch, Mine Monitoring Report
51 of 51