HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICEBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
March 1, 2007 MAR 0 2 2007
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Butte County Administrative Office,
We appeal the Planning Commission's decision of February 22, 2007 regarding the M&T
Chico Ranch Mine. We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors deny the mining
permit and reclamation plan approved by the Commission as well as the certification of the
Environmental Impact Report on the grounds that the project is unnecessary and
incompatible with current land use of the area. The location of this mine is completely
inappropriate, and if the project is permitted it would adversely impact the health, safety,
and well-being. of the community.
Baldwin Contracting claims that there is a great need for gravel in Butte County, suggesting
an urgency to permit mines as quickly as possible in order to keep up with projected
demands in the future. - On the contrary, not only is there an overabundance of gravel
available in the county, but there is more than enough gravel already permitted in the county
to last for the next 60 years (Please see attached independent gravel availability study).
The urgency to mine is Baldwin's, not Butte County's.
Our concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. General Plan Noncompliance
We believe that this project is not in compliance with the General Plan; but it will be
up to you to decide whether or not it is and if having prime farmland ruined forever is
what the original writers of the General Plan would have envisioned as an appropriate
end use.
1) According to the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan, the only
acceptable alternate uses for agricultural land are those that preserve, promote, and
support agriculture, which this project does not accomplish (AE —14).
2) The writers of the General Plan were obviously interested in preserving farmland.
Approving this project would set a precedent which could make any prime farmland
fair game for other companies who might want to put a gravel pit anywhere they
wanted in the county whether the land was prime or not.
3) The Butte County Code says, "...mined lands are reclaimed to useable
condition.." and "...provide for the protection and subsequent beneficial use of
mined and reclaimed land" Once mining is done in this area it will no longer
be useable or have a beneficial use.
4) Butte County has a seriously deficient General Plan that is internally inconsistent and
out of compliance with state law. Projects like this should not be approved until a
new General Plan is implemented.
(Page 1 of 4)
B. Problems for Area Farmers
1) This project will cause increased flooding and flood water damage on neighboring
properties.
2) Having, a bypass channel 15 feet away from the property lines of the three ranches
which are located to the west of the mine site would legally forbid dormant spraying in
the first 85 feet of these orchards, impairing normal farming practices on these three
ranches.
3) Mining in the aquifer and leaving it exposed to sprays and floodwater -borne
contaminants will pollute community drinking water.
4) Allowing such a heavy industrial operation in the middle of intensely farmed land
would be an incompatible use for this area.
C. Destruction of Prime Farmland
1) There is no gravel shortage in Butte County and, therefore, no pressing public,
need to approve this project. At the January 25, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting Rene J. Vercruyssen made the following statement: "You have heard
over the years that Baldwin can get their rocks somewhere else. This statement
is more than100%true. This statement is fact.... We currently import the
overwhelming majority of our construction grade aggregates'from Glenn County,
and we have the reserves and planned reserves in Glenn.County that will make
this option a viable one. for decades."
2) Both the Assessor and the NRCS have determined that this is prime soil. The
real pressing public need is to save as much prime farmland as possible for future,
generations (Please see attached document — Prime or Non -Prime).
3) Approving any project that destroys farmland, while at the same time giving the
owners of that property a tax break which was designed to insure the protection of
that land, is diametrically opposed to the intent of the Williamson Act.
4) Baldwin claims that their site contains,the only proximate available concrete grade
aggregate available in the county; however, no aggregate survey has been done
to confirm this claim. In fact, according to the Butte County Assessor there are
several proximate sites available.
D. Inadequacies of the EIR and Reclamation Plan
1) The Department of Conservation has made it very clear that the EIR and
reclamation plan for this project are not in compliance with either SMARA or
CEQA (Please see attached DOC letters).
(Page 2 of 4)
2) The DOC said the reclamation plan is incomplete and does not meet minimum
requirements of SMARA and that there needs to be a detailed engineered design
done for the bypass channel before the project is approved.
3) The flooding section of the DEIR is inaccurate. It stated that no floodwaters from
the Sacramento River enter the project site. This is not true; actually, raging
waters enter the site. Because of this discrepancy all future studies about any
potential flood -related problems were completely invalid.
4) The Gravel Availability Study in the FEIR was not done in accordance with DOC
guidelines. This led to the incorrect conclusion that Butte County has a shortage
of gravel.
5) The Batch Plant is not in compliance with the Williamson Act, and all references
to the Batch Plant should be removed from the Environmental Impact Report.
6) It is impossible to adequately determine the potential environmental impacts of
this project because the EIR and reclamation plan were so poorly done.
E. Traffic
1) At the present time most of the gravel trucks in the county use designated truck
routes. However, if this project is approved these gravel trucks would be traveling
on substandard, undersized rural roads. This situation would pose a serious
threat to the health and safety of others who use those same roads — especially to
the large number of bicyclists and operators of slow-moving farm equipment on
River Road and Chico River Road. Having the majority of these trucks come into
Chico on a very narrow West 5th Street would create an unacceptable risk for
elementary and college students trying to cross West 5th as well as 8th and 9th
Streets. Also, a large number of the trucks would take Durham Dayton Hwy right
through the middle of Durham, which would create a dangerous situation for all
students going to and from school. (Please see attached Highway Patrol letter):
2) Projects like this need to be located where they have easy access to freeways,
not where they will need to go down narrow residential streets that were never
designed for this kind of truck traffic. This has to be the worst possible area in all
of Butte County for a gravel pit. If you were trying to find a location that would
create the most serious traffic problems, this would be it. Ninety-five percent of all
the trucks leaving this plant will have to go right through the middle of either Chico
or Durham, using highly residential streets, in order to get to almost all of their job
sites. The routes that these trucks intend to use would seriously degrade the
environments of two very special communities.
3) Road repair costs to the county would greatly exceed Baldwin's "fair share"
contributions. River Road and Chico River Road were not built to handle this kind
of truck traffic and will soon deteriorate and West 5th Street is too narrow. Many
projects are turned down because the infrastructure is not adequate to handle the
project, and that is exactly what we have here. It would seem appropriate to have
a fiscal analysis done to assess just how costly this project might be to the county
if it is approved.
(Page 3 of 4)
If this project really was as beneficial and benign as the applicant claims, then wouldn't the
record irrefutably support those claims? Yet, it doesn't. We have participated in the civil
process of opposing this project for the past 10 years. Not only has the Planning Commission
waived aside our concerns, but it voted to approve an unnecessary project that will benefit a
large conglomerate at the expense of the residents and taxpayers of Butte County. On these -
grounds., we the undersigned do hereby ask that you deny the approval of this project.
,
Please contact Ron Jones at 345-4286 if you have any questions. Thank you.
(Page 4 of 4)
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
state of California Flex
yourl&
MemoranduM POT
- C r FII C 1 6 N T
Date: December 3. 2002
BOAR® OF SUPERVISORS
To: State Clearing House MAR0 2
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 �Q��
Sacramento, California 95814
From: DEPARTN MN r OF CALIiFOIZ�a"IA HIGHWAY PATROL
Chico Area
File No.: 241.10360
Subject: M & T CHICO RANCH '\�M' E, SCH 4 970 2080
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the,M
& T Chico Ranch Mine, State Clearing House 4 97022080. The California Highway Patrol
(CHP) Chit;o Area; is the prix 'ary agency that provides traffic law enforcement, safety, and
management within the unincorporated portions of Butte county. Chico Area is responsible for
River Road, Chico River Road, Ord Ferry: Road, Hegan Road, Dayton Road, Durham Dayton
Highway -and the Skyway. We offer the following comments:
The proposed project will have a significant adverse impacts on the roadways the project
mentions that are under our command. These roads mentioned are also primary routes of travel
for local commuters. The additional truck traffic would create an unacceptable safety hazard for
the motoftag public. 'In addition to commuters these roads are used to transport slow moving
agricultural equipment and bicyclists.
- --- ,@- ii�Eoad-(9R42 to -C, River Road): This roadway is narrow in width, separated by__
double yellow linen and has numerous curves. The design ofth s; roadway makes it difficult
for commercial vehicles to safely and legally negotiate. The increased commercial trafrc will
create a potential safety hazard for the motoring public.
• River Road (Chico River Road to Ord Ferry Road): Truck traffic will be entering and exiting
the project site slowly as well as crossing into the opposing lanes of traffic as they enter and
exit the project site. This additional truck traffic will create a safety hazard for the motoring
public.
* Ord Ferry Road- The Little Chico Creek Bridge is substandard and not wide enough to
accommodate opposing large commercial vehicles: Large commercial vehicles.attemptins to
simultaneously traverse the bridge would create a safety hazard for the motoring public.
State Clearing House
Paize 2
December 3, 2002
Skyway/Baldy./Mi Plant Driveway: The additional truck traffic at this'location would create an
unacceF table safety hazard for the motoring public. Because this intersection is uncontrolled,
trucks who would be slowing to enter or accelerating to leave the driveway would have to
cross eastbound Skyway to go westbound. This maneuver is inherently un;;afe due to the
slow speeds, large commercial vehicles travel. These above factors increase the probability for
a high speed collision to occur.
The.
traffic analysis for the Final EIR should consider these concerns and identify appropriate and
adequate mitigation rneaslares to alleviate these conditions.
A. T. S.lIvIII'Il, Captain
Commander
Chico Area
130ARD OF SUPERVISORS
Prime or Non Prime?
MAR 0 2 2007
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
There has been a lot of controversy as to whether the soils at the M & T mine site are prime
or not. The Butte County Assessor, the NRCS and the opponents of this project say they
are prime, but Baldwin and the Planning Division insist that they aren't. Here are the facts.
In 2004 1 went to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) regional office and
talked to Dean Burkett, the person in charge of the soil mapping project currently being
done in Butte County. He told me that the NRCS had gone to the mine site itself, not the
M&T Ranch as a whole as you might have been told, but to the actual mine site, and
determined that the soils at this particular site were deemed to be prime soils.
Mr. Burkett said that whoever had done the soil survey for the DEIR had made several
mistakes in the study. He explained that the NRCS uses five areas to classify soils in order
to determine if they are prime or not (these are listed in the DEIR on page 4.3-21). The
DEIR states that the soils at the site did not meet the criteria for being prime in three of the
five areas. However, Mr. Burkett told me that this was not correct; the soils at the mine site
actually met the criteria for being prime in all five areas of soil classification. He went on to
explain each soil classification area to me and why the DEIR was incorrect in concluding
that the soils were non -prime.
One area which Mr. Burkett said the DEIR was mistaken about was irrigation. The soil
study in the DEIR states that, "The project site does not have a developed or reliable
irrigation system" and therefore he concluded that it did not meet the criterion for
classification as prime farmland. Mr. Burkett told me that the question the NRCS asks is
not if it is irrigated but can it be irrigated. He said that all the farmlands around the pit site
are irrigated and the water table is only 11 feet down in this area, so obviously it could be
irrigated and that is the question being asked here. He said whoever did the report should
have said that this area did meet the criterion for irrigation.
Another area which wasn't done right deals with the flooding frequency. Mr. Burkett said a
location has to flood a certain number of times over a period of years in order for flooding to
be considered a problem. He told me that the area of the mine site did not flood often
enough for it to fail, and he showed me the data supporting his position. He said the
flooding frequency report in the DEIR incorrectly assessed the information and that the
amount of flooding which occurs at the site should not have resulted in the DEIR's
conclusion about flooding frequency resulting in it not meeting this criterion.
The last area which Mr. Burkett said had been done incorrectly was regarding the water
table. He said there was no way that this area, even though it floods, should have been
classified as having a problem with the water table. So Mr. Burkett said the mine site
should be considered prime regarding the water table and that the site did, in fact, meet the
criteria for being prime in all five areas used by the NRCS to classify soil.
He went on to say that a large portion of the mine site consisted of a soil type that they are
now calling Parrott Silt Loam. He said this is a Class One soil and that means that this
area is considered to be prime soil.
Another way of assessing if soils in a given area are prime or not is to give that site a Storie
Index rating. At the April 18, 2006 LCAC meeting Blake Bailey from the Assessor's office
said that Dean Burkett of the NRCS office had told him that they try to give each area a
Storie Index rating for its highest and best use. Blake said Mr. Burkett told him that if the
gravel pit site were to be irrigated that it would have'a Storie Index rating of 85. Anytime
you have a Storie Index rating over 80 that ground is considered prime.
I understand that the Planning Division called the NRCS and talked to Dean Burkett back
in, I think, 2004, and I suspect that he told them exactly what he had told me. However, in
spite of the fact that Mr. Burkett probably explained what had been done incorrectly in the
soil analysis for the DER, the Planning Division persists in saying that the soils are not .
prime simply because the person who did the soil study said they aren't. It seem like the
Planning Division is determined to ignore the independent evaluations of two unbiased
experts, the NRCS and the Butte County Assessor, Who have both told them that the soils
are prime, and they have decided instead to listen to the person who made repeated
mistakes in,the process of determining if these soil were prime or not.
You could easily verify this information for yourself by either calling Mr. Dean Burkett at the
NRCS office at 343-2731, or making an appointment to see him at their regional office at
717 Wall Street in Chico. He is very approachable, and I'm sure that he'd be more than'
willing to answer any questions that you. have.
Thank you,
Ron Jones
TABLE 4.3-2
PRIME FARMI AND CRITERIA EVALUATION
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Draft EIR
4.3-21
Meets
Criteria/Considerations
Prime
Criteria
Explanation
Land Use: Prime farmland designation is independent of
Yes
The project site is not water or urban built-up
current land uses, but cannot be water or urban built-up
lands, as defined by National Resource inventories.
land as defined for National Resource Inventories. Map
units which are complexes or associations containing
components of urban land or miscellaneous land types as
part of the map unit name cannot be designated as prime
farmland. The soil survey memorandum of understanding
determines as the scale of the mapping and should reflect
local land use interests in the design of map units.
Flooding Frequency: Some map units may include both
No
Soils on the project site are characterized as
_116oded.
prime and non -prime farmland because of variation in
frequently;
flooding frequency.
Flooding and related access problems prohibit
'.about *6'ori 'ten'
farming five* of years under
normal conditions:`-
Irrigation: Some map units, include both areas that have a
No
The project site does not have a developed or
developed irrigation water supply that is dependable and of
refiable.iffigAtibri-system.,
adequate quality and areas without such a supply. In this
case, only the irrigated areas meet the prime farmland criteria.
Water Table: Some map units include both drained and
No
Drainage problems associated with several soils
undrained areas. Only the drained areas meet prime
on site are recognized within the series
farmland criteria.
descriptions in the preliminary soil survey data
for the project area.
Wind Erodibility, Product of I (Soil Erodibility) x C
Yes According to the preliminary soil survey for
(climate factor) cannot exceed 60 for prime farmland. A
Butte County, the soils mapped on the project
map unit may be prime farmland soil in one survey area but
site are not subject to excessive wind erosion.
not in another.
AM
Land Capability Classification: All land which qualifies
No
Based on the.j)kelirrii.nary 801.,purvey for Butte
for rating as Class I or Class 11 in the Soil Conservation
ounty, e soil mapping units on the.,project
'Soils
Service land use capability classifications.
site' a're considered Class III due, to a_ lack
of a develocied an,4 reliable irri anon stem.
Storie Index Rating: Land which qualifies for rating 80
No
The Storie Index Rating for this site is estimated;,
through 100 in the Storie Index Rating.
to be approximately 46.5% which is
considered nonprime.
Livestock Production Value: Land which supports
No
This site does not support livestock.
livestock used for the production of food and fiber and
which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least
one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States
Department of Agriculture.
Crop Production Value: Land planted with fruit or nut-
No
This site does not currently support any fruit or
bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops that have a non-
nut -bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops.
bearing period of less than five years and which will
Crops planted on portions of the site over the
normally return during the commercial bearing period on an
last several years have not returned the $200
annual basis from the production of unprocessed
minimum threshold. The average annual return
agricultural plant production not less than two hundred
per acre for safflower and wheat planted
dollars ($200) per acre.
between 1993 to 1995 was less than $115.
Crop Production Value: Land which has returned from
No
Agricultural crops planted on portions of the
the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products
project site over the last several years have not
an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars
returned the minimum $200 minimum
($200) for three of the previous five years.
threshold. The average annual return per acre
for safflower and wheat planted between 1993
to 1995 was less than $115.
M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Draft EIR
4.3-21
Gravel Availability for Butte County BOARooFsuPERv►s
ORS
An Independent Study
M
By Ron Jones AR 0 2 2007
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Aggregate production figures for Butte County are given in the M & T Chico Ranch
Mine DEIR dated October 2003 (page 4.0-20). According to this study, there are 54 million
tons of permitted aggregate available in Butte County and in the next 50 years we will need
127 million tons of aggregate. If we looked only at these figures it would certainly seem
that we have a 73 million ton shortage of gravel in Butte County. A lot of the information
that was used to determine future aggregate needs for Butte County came from the
Department of Conservation's Aggregate Availability in Califomia Study by Susan Kohler.
This document was included in the agenda materials that the Land Conservation Act
Committee (LCAC) received before their February 21St meeting. According to Ms. Kohler's
report, the statewide average of aggregate used in California was seven tons per person,
and this is the figure that was used to determine the yearly and the 50 -year aggregate
needs for Butte County. It was obvious that,person doing the gravel availability study for
the DEIR had used Ms. Kohler's report because they quoted from her report several times.
The person who did the gravel availability study for the DEIR accurately determined that
Butte County will need 127 million tons of gravel in the next 50 years and that the total
permitted reserves for the County is 54 million. However, it was at this point that they
made one huge mistake in determining whether or riot Butte County actually has a gravel
shortage
The Department of Conservation's Aggregate Availability in California Study says,
"The per capita consumption model has proven to be effective for prediction of aggregate
demands in the major metropolitan areas.......". "However, the model may not work well in
County aggregate studies where the boundaries have little correlation to the aggregate
market area and in P -C (Production -Consumption) regions that import or export a large
percentage of aggregate. In such cases, projections were based on a modified per capita
consumption model. For example, if a P -C region imports 30% of its aggregate, the total
50 -year projected aggregate demand for the P-(� region may be decreased by 30%." (pg.
5) (This page of her report is at the end of the study.)
This is the situation we have in Butte County. Much of the gravel used in Butte
County comes from outside the County so in order to do an aggregate availability study you
have to take into consideration all the gravel we get from other counties. One word from
the quote in the previous paragraph bothered me. It says the demand "may" be decreased.
wondered what Ms. Kohler meant by this. Should a person doing an aggregate
availability report lower the 50-year demand by the percentage of gravel being imported or
did the word "may" mean that this was optional, so I decided to calf Ms. Kohler and ask her.
She said when she originally wrote that statement she used the word "should but she said
that for legal reasons when someone else from the State edited her study they decided to
change the word "should" to "may". She said in all of the 32 areas they studied in this
report if gravel was imported or exported, then the 50-year demand figures were either
raised or.lowered accordingly. The purpose of doing an aggregate availability study is not
to rind out how much gravel is available in the County but to find out how much gravel is
available to the County. The writer of the Environmental Impact Report did not take into `
consideration any gravel being imported into Butte County, and this oversight led to his
incorrect conclusion that we have a gravel shortage in Butte County. According to Ms.
Kohler, if gravel is being imported then the 50-year demand figures should be lowered,
which the person doing the gravel availability report in the EIR did not do.
So just how much gravel is imported into Butte County? In the Glenn County
Resource Report (1997) the State Division of Mines and Geology states that 55% of the
aggregate mined in Glenn County is exported to Butte County. Now the problem was
figuring out how much gravel .is produced in Glenn County in a year. Each year in Glenn
County the gravel companies are charged a per ton fee by the County based on how many
tons of gravel they produce each year. I called the Glenn County Assessor's Office and
talked to Mardy Thomas, and he told me he didn't have the figures for 2005 but in 2004 the
gravel companies produced 1,252,000 tons. If the 55% figure quoted above is about right
thatwould mean that about 688,600 tons of gravel would be coming from Glenn County
into Butte County each year.
Next.1 tried to figure out how much gravel was coming from Tehama County. Just
about 10 miles north of Chico right next to,Highway 99 there are two gravel pits within a few
miles of each other. Both are just over the Butte -Tehama County line. I asked the owner
of the 7-11 Pine Creek Gravel Pit how much gravel he thought came from his gravel pit into
Butte County last year and he said about 250,000 tons. Next I called the Deer Creek
Gravel Pit and they told me they ship about 40,000 tons a year into Butte County: Then I
called several gravel operations in Yuba County but they didn't think that very much of their
gravel went to Butte County. This seemed to concur with the Aggregate Availability Study
done for;Yuba City -Marysville area in which they said that only 1.8% of the gravel mined
there ends up in Butte County.
So it appears that about 978,600 tons of gravel are being imported each year into
Butte County from Tehama and Glenn Counties (688,600 from Glenn County and 290,000
from Tehama County). According to:the M & T Ranch FEIR (October 2003 - pg. 4.0-18)
the estimated use for Butte County for 2005 should have been about 1, 560, 000 tons. We
know that this figure is arrived at by multiplying the number of people in Butte County by 7
tons, the average amount of aggregate used by everyone in California each year.. As I -read
the aggregate availability studies for surrounding counties, I noticed that the amount of
aggregate used in a County can vary dramatically from. one year to another since housing
booms or major road.pro'ects can cause the actual yearly amounts to fluctuate wildly.
However, this figure of 1,560,000 tons should fairly well approximate the average usage in
Butte County over a period of several years.
By subtracting the total amount of gravel that's imported from the average amount of
gravel that's used in the County (1,560,000 — 978,600) we find that in an average year
Butte County probably produced about 581,400 tons, which means that we actually
imported more gravel than we produced in Butte County. If we divide that figure (581,400
tons) by 1,560,000 tons we get a figure of 37%. This means that in.an average year about
37% of the gravel used in Butte County is produced within the County. We can then
multiply the 50 -year aggregate need for the County (127 million tons as found in the FEIR
on pg.4.0-2) by 37% and we will come up with the actual 50 -year aggregate needs of the
County, which would be 47 million tons. If you compare this to the 73 million tons presently
permitted in Butte County (54 million permitted when report was done plus the amount just
permitted at the Table Mountain Mine), we already have more tons -of aggregate permitted
than we will need for the next 50 years.
Another thing Susan Kohler�said in her gravel availability study is that the supply of
gravel in your area can be depleted very quickly if the gravel in surrounding counties were
to run out. So is this something Butte County should be concerned about? According to
Ms. Kohler's study, the Yuba City -Marysville area has permitted aggregate reserves of "
2,000 million tons (pg. 8). This is 34 times as much as we would need in Butte County for
the next 50 years and 66 times as much as Yuba County will need in the next 50 years. In
the Department of Conservation's Report on concrete -grade Aggregate in Glenn County it
was established that a large portion of the land area in Glenn County contains aggregate
M
resources of regional significance with a potential supply of 1,031 million tons of aggregate
which is about 17 times the total we will need in Butte County for the next 50 years. The
Department of Conservation's Aggregate Availability Study for Tehama County indicated
aggregate reserves of over 1,100 million tons. Clearly there is no chance that any of the
counties around us are going to be running out of gravel anytime soon, and they should be
able to keep supplying us with a continuous stream of gravel well into the foreseeable
future.. ,
Do we have a shortage of gravel in Butte County? When the gravel availability study
is done according to the DOC's guidelines, it's clear that we already have more gravel
permitted than we will need for the next 60 or 70 years.
n5�
PA9� � 'Doc `S HIIre�a,#e f-)vA44(411HY ik UiLtI fe�Vq(a 5,f-edy
.by Sus4•v Kokle�.
The steps used for forecasting California's 50 -year aggregate needs entail: 1) collecting yearly
historical production and population data for a period of years ranging from the 1960s through.
2000; 2) dividing yearly aggregate production by the population for that same year to determine'
annual historical per capita consumption; 3) determining an average historical per.capita
consumption; 4) projecting yearly population for a 50 -year period; and 5) multiplying each year of
projected population by the average historical per capita consumption rate to get a total 50 -year
aggregate demand. It should be noted that the years chosen to determine an average historical .per
capita consumption differ depending upon historical aggregate use for that region. For example, in
Shasta County, major construction projects from the 1940s through the 1970s caused historical per
capita consumption rates to be extremely high -and unrepresentative of future aggregate demand
(Dupras,1997). Consequently, an average historical per capita consumption rate for Shasta County
was based on the years 1980-1995.
Effectiveness of the Per Capita Consumption Model
The assumption that each person will use a certain amount of construction aggregate every year is
a gross simplification of actual usage patterns, but it is: intuitively correct to assume that an _.
increase in the number of people will lead to the use of more aggregate. Over.a long enough
period, perhaps 20 years or longer, the random impacts of major public construction projects and
economic recessions teed to be smoothed out and consumption trends become similar to historic
Per capita consumption rates: Per capita aggregate consumption has, therefore, become a
commonly used national, state, and regional measure for purposes of forecasting.
The Per capita consumption model has proven to be effective:for prediction. of aggregate demand
in the major metropolitan areas. The Western, San Diego P -C Region and the San Gabriel Valley
P -C Region are examples of how well the model works having only a 2% arida 5% difference
respectively, in actual versus predicted aggregate demand (Ivfiller; 1994, 199 However .the
model may not work well in coon : ate studies where boundaries have little correlation to .
the. a market area and in P -C re 'ons that import or ort a e ercentage o aggregate.
In such cases, protections were based o a modified er capita consum tion mode For examp e, if
I- P -C region imports 30% of its M.2rPu y projected
aggregate deman r the
,ate, the total ear
P -C region maybe decreased by 30%. .
Where no correlation could be made between population and historical use, 50 -year aggregate
demand was based on projections of historical production. This lack of correlation can exist when
a study area has a large percentage of aggregate imported into the region such as in Orange County
(Miler, 1995) or_when a large percentage of aggregate is exported from a region such as in the .
Monterey Bay P -C Region (Kohler-Antablin, 1999).
Permitted Aggregate Resources .
Permitted aggregate resources (also called reserves) are. aggregate deposits that have been
determined to be acceptable for commercial use, exist within Properties ow ed or leased by
aggregate Producing companies, and have permits allowing mining and processing of aggregate
material. A "permit" means any authorization from or approval by 'a lead agency, the absence of
winch would precludemining operations. In. California, mining permits are issued by local lead
agencies (county or city governments) not by the state. Map Sheet 52 shows permitted aggregate .
resources as a percentage of the 50 -year demand on each pie diagram (see Fift ,Aggregate
04,' DEPAR2TMEi4T OF CONSER..VATION
y.> r
S T A T E O F C A L I F,O R' N I A
OFFICE OF. MINE
RECLAMATION
801 K STREET
MS 09-06
SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA
95814
P H 0 N E
916/323-9198
FAX
916/322-4862
June -10, 2004
Mr. Dan Breedon
Butte County Planning Division
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965-3397
Dear Mr. Breedon:
r '
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MAR, 0 2 2007
OROVILLE, CAUFQRNIA
Transmittal of a Reclamation Plan for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
dated December 9 including x rptc from th 6 Draft EIR for
M & T Chico Ranch Minina 01jeration and Reclamation Plan
TDD ZrHt 1997022080
916/324-25'55
The Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) has
INTERNET
consrv.ca.gov reviewed the documents included for a reclamation plan for the M&T Chico
Ranch Mine in conjunction with the relevant sections of the Draft EIR as
® referenced in the submittal. We also reviewed the reclamation plan map
A R N OLD and operations map, date stamped November 2003 by butte County. We
SCMWARZENEGG'ER
GOY E R N O R previously commented on this project in letters dated November 18, 2002
and October 22, 2003.
The project will entail the establishment of a 70 -foot deep excavation and
an aggregate processing site in a flood prone area along Little Chico
Creek in Butte County on 235 -acres. The site will be reclaimed as open
ground water pond and wetland wildlife habitat and is also intended to be
used to recharge.the groundwater aquifer.
The Reclamation Plan uses the "Small Mine Prototype" format from the
State Mining and Geology Board's website. The Small Mine Prototype is
useful for very small operations (5 acres or less) in areas with negligible
environmental. issues. This format is not appropriate for a site of this size
and complexity.
Ti e�e6la nation plan iG innomnlPtP and noes not meet the minimum
requirements of the Surface M inn anrt Rentamation'Act of 1975
(SMARA) (Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq.) and the State
Dan Breedon
June 10, 2004
Page 2
Mining and Geology Board regulations for surface mining and reclamation practice
(California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 8, Article 1, Section 3500 et
seq.; Article 9, Section 3700 et seq.). The following items should be included in the
reclamation plan.
Mining Operation and Closure
(Refer to SMARA Sections 2770.5, 2772(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(9),
CCR Section 3502(b)(2), (b)(5), 3709(a), (b), 3713(a), (b))
1. There should be a termination date for the operation, and the time frame in
which reclamation will be completed should be discussed (SMARA Section
2772(c)(3)).
Fnd Land Llse
(Refer to SMARA Section 2772(c)(7), (c)(8), CCR Section 3707 (a), (c), 3708)
2. The effects of siltation and the reduction in substrate transmissivity values by
deposition of suspended sediment carried in Little Chico Creek during periods of
flooding has not be evaluated in terms of the proposed end use of the site as a
ground water recharge "lake".. The effectiveness of groundwater recharge would
be expected to diminish. as the ponds silts in. The effect of evaporation of the
pond surface would also tend to negate the benefit of any enhanced recharge to
the aquifer. We recommend that recharge not be listed as a beneficial end use
for this project (CCR.Section 503(0)(2).and 3706(b)) unless it is designed and
maintained to be functional.
Geotechnical Rei eremienf�, Hvdr. ingly and Water Quality
(Refer to SMARA Sections 2772(c)(8) 2?73(a), and CGR Sections 3502(ti)(3), (b)(4); (b)(6),3503(a)(2), (a)(3),
(b)(1), (b)(2), (d), (e), 3704(6); (b), _( : (e); (f) 3706(a),'(b), (o),(d),(e),(f);(9),'3710 (a),(b),(c), 3712)
3. There is no detailed'erigin.bd.red: desidh-for the bypass channel or weir structure
proposed to mitigate..most<af the: ftoodplain impacts that would result. orm the
placement of a deep.men ng.pi v�J in 100 feet of Little Chico Creek and in
proximity of the Sacr .. ento River: This aspect of the reclamation plan is totally
lacking and must be addresses.:prior to approving the reclamation plan (SMARA
Section2772(c)(8:)(B..).,. CCR'Section 370.6(e)).
Dan Breedon
June 10, 2004.
• Page 3
adequate. The design parameters should be discussed and verified and
included in the site design (SMARA Section2772(c)(8)(B), CCR3706(g)).
5. The mitigation for erosion of the proposed bypass channel is, in part, repair by
onsite heavy equipment. The mitigation would not be effective when the site is
reclaimed and heavy equipment removed from the project site. The bypass must
be designed as a long term solution and have a maintenance agreement in place
to perform_ repairs after site closure (SNfARA Sectton2772(c)(8)(B),
CCR3706(g)). ��
EnvironMen al Saffing and Prnt _ction of !Eich and Wildlife alabitat
(Refer to CCR Sections 3502(b)(1), 3503(c), 3703 (a), (b), (c), 3704(g), 3705(a), 3710(d), 3713(b))
6. Separation of Little Chico Creek and the lake formed following mining only limits
commingling of the two water bodies to 10 -year flood events. Therefore, it would
be expected that commingling of the waters of Little Chico Creek and the lake
will occur in the future. The potential for movement of warm water prey species
out of the lake and down the creek to the Sacramento River with possible
impacts to anadromous fisheries seems possible. We recommend that the. plan
describe how commingling of waters can be prevented.
&soilinaand RwPnaation
(Refer to SMARA Section 2773(a), CCR Sections 3503(a)(1), (f), (g), 3704(c),
3705(a), (b), (c), (d). (e)+ (f), (g). (h). (i). G). (k)., (1), (m), 3707(b), (d), 3711(a), (b), (c), (d), (e))
7. The reclamation plan indicates that revegetation will be attained by natural
revegetation except those areas where revegetation is "insufficient." Page 7 of
the reclarnatidh plan specifies "augmented seedings and plantings will be -
,implemented on a case by case basis." Reliance on natural revegetation is not
an option..under the statewide reclamation standards regulations. Proactive
measures achieve the -'stated end use must be described in the plan, includin
a complete description of the number of plants, cuttings and or seed of each
spec s_that will be used in the rave:' ion_plan. -
A description of the quantities of each species to be planted (seed or plants) is
esseritial and validates that the revegetation procedures will achieve the
performan 'estandart8 establ_ished`for each habitat within the specified
monitoring period.. Seed and plant quantities are also required for formulation of
the fman:c�al._assurance cost e_stamt-e p
a`fian mus a augmented with.a
descriptton-.0 , proactive revegetation:. including quantification of species per unit
area for dAd of the habitats that are to be created.
i
Dan Breedon
June 10, 2004
Page 4
8. Although the plan describes three plant communities, maps presented with the
e
submittal do not reflect where ach.:planting will occur within the project. The
maps presented were prepared on August 15, 1996 and July 3, 1997
respectively and both are stamped received by the Butte County Planning
Division on November 26, 2003. It is not clear if these maps represent the most
current design for the project. Identification of the specific areas where each
habitat community will be established with a descriptor of the total acreage for
each habitat needs to be included in the plan.
The reclamation text indicates the formation of a nesting island in the deepest
portion of the lake. However., exhibit 2 shows the nesting island adjacent to the
east shoreline. The presumption of a "nesting island" is to provide a safe
breeding area separated from the shoreline by deep water that restricts access
to the nesting island by predators. As depicted, the island location does not
appear to meet these criteria and appears to be at odds with the text. Location
of the island needs to be clarified.
9. Construction of shoreline habitat is an appropriate approach for reclamation of
the project but the plan needs to contain more detailed information concerning
the water fluctuation levels and how this would impact Lhe 50 foot wide bench
create for the "margin habitat." The plan does not describe any irregular
in
features to the shore e such*as peninsulas or Eay�._Ihe reve etaoionplan
reports that 2.5 million yards,'ofove►-bUrden and500,000 yards of fines will be
available for reclamation. We recommend that overburden and fines be used to
construct irregularities to the -shoreline to further enhance habitat quality of the
reclamation. A final reclamation'map illustrating the modified shoreline needs to
be included in the plan and. a::visual presentation. of the -50 -foot wide margin
habitat illustrated.
10. Construction of wildlife habitat::re:q:uires specific revegetation performance
standards (CCR 3705 (m)) fareacf. of the three habitats proposed. The
reclamation plan fails to describe performance standards and must be
augmented with this informati. :: Each of the three habitats must contain the
following standards; soecies;;ric:..::.-:_Each
ness, density and percent cover. All three of the
standards must be based solely 6h::native perennial species. Species richness
and density must be presented as: i hole numbers per unit area (e.g. 100m ).
Species richness i5 th-e number::of native species per, unit area and density is the
number of live, perennial sterns::per unit area.
a
Dan Breedon
June 10, 2004
Page 5
11. Revegetation monitoring must also be described. The plan does mention that
revegetation will be monitored for five years but the plan fails to link monitoring to
performance standards. Approval of the release of the financial assurance.
cannot be granted until the revegetation performance standards have been
achieved. The plan must state that revegetation will be monitored annually in the
spring by a qualified botanist or restoration ecologist for a minimum of five years
following planting. A description of the monitoring plan must include a discussion
of the statistical sampling method for determining revegetation success. The.
sampling method must provide at a minimum an 80% confidence level that the
portion of the revegetation sampled represents the revegetation of the site as a
whole. Failure to achieve the standards within in this time period will require
remedial measures and continued monitoring until the performance standards
have been achieved.
Administrative Requirements
(Refer to SMARA Sections 2772 (c)(10), 2773.1, 2774(b), 2776, 2777, PRC Section 21151.7)
12. The reclamation plan must be supplemented .with the applicant's signed
statement of responsibility for reclaiming the site in accordance with the plan
(SMARA Section 2772(c)(10)). .
If you have any questions on these comments, please contact me at (916) 323-85.65.
Sincerely,
James Pompy, Manager
Reclamation Unit
NOV-18-ZM2 03:13pm Frui-OIVISIo# OF LAB RESOURCE PROTECTION
a c- a
03 K S.T 44 6 T
SurTE Zl00
)Ac NAr1ENTO
-AL! FCC ......
95814
F-" We*
-916/322.1080
FAX
936r445.0732
re'o'
915.324-255<
IRT�R MIT
co nsrv.cd.9ov
. Q
t'r it A V. UA V I sr
Crt_r I Qn'c
N : a
iBt632T3430 T-306 ,P nn2/ntn c-n3c
irvAR' KE E R V A T 1 0 N
T x T E 0� F E' L; F O R Pf ii A -
November 18, 2002 13024RD OF SUPERVISORS
VIA FAXED: (530).538-7785
MAR 0 2 2007
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Lei iit•�.^". vW tsxy aitiliitg Division
7 r',........ r%.._,-- M-:..- .
r VVNIItY %,=I ILVI WIIVC
viv`v"irw, %.Om 53r503-JJy%
Dear hhr. Breednrr
RE: Septer2lDrgftl=lsvi�nrsEnsta�tr�sn��f Cran.,ro'ir,l=rflT �,,:
M & T Chico Ranch Mining Onnratinn anal Lio�l�m�i'nn DLA..
..a -r-.-...
TWBBf�rtment-et-Ge ss im.ls jDenadment} Dirrisinq'of-Larrrf RRgoLirra
Protection (Division) and Office of Mine Reclamation 110MR1 havA mviawAd
tf1e-E3�lF�'tt3f`t�f�f2f8t'tE��Qfot9ct. TfTa#.�ipfsivr� mnriiforg fa?r*tt�nfi
conversion on a statewide basis and adrninisters the Califnrnia Land
C6mefvatkm-1W4harTt,sm) 'Apand-pjhBr`aDfiCi>fttaat tend rnngerr2atitser
Droarams. OMR oversees issues relative to the. Surtace Mining anri
I�®cfaft'i�s�r`l�e_t' �� f4tt9a!+tTt�COT�!!�r?fg' ares Crrarerr}ftcr! in erw,rrian.�g
w4h. pane -1 _3 of th.A: RRA whit_is ctatac rnrayiivw Cnrnrna' rin not
FQ�7FItf�'L3Wrlitl?FTfGCTssPSC[i;', MW rgrnmdntc mticffirrCrrl.miPlcri'Rnr►hid
Meir irfa4ori rrnneartilrsf►'FIi7'•
The:pia} is apwpos4bV Pacift Realty=Asweiatp-s,,:�ieft Etasr contracted-.
with KRC Holdings, Inc.', a subsidiary of Baldwin Contractinq.Company. The
si#e is=� fr�+les E#�Sasrar is Rtvet irm-the-nadhern portion of -the
Sacramento River Valley_ . five miles southwest of the city of Chico, in western
Bdtta Cdunt}c ( %F} .: Th4pm wee l`tt'i&�lertt of a -
processing area and mining a 70 -toot deep ground water pond on prime
faFmlandeuffaitt6-- Wif(iarrtsowAct-eor>;traet. owa•235-acre site: The -.
site will be reclaimed as "higtY quality open water and wetland wildlife habitat
within-tfie 193-aeres- rmined# area ars}°aaricuttare- fof the -4O -acre Droeessrnr
area." Two acres witt be-.used.-fqr stockpiling topsoil.
The DEIR- Ls- 4iadequate. for thfee reasons that. are, summarized below. and -
each is further discussed -under seoaratetmadimasin- the remainder of this
c
r.�
411- $- app Oa:t4m Frog -8403.104 OF lkND RESOURCE PRQYECfiOiP r@TGiT7regr� r-3OnB ^^„^
- 1' VVJ/UIU t•'UJy
Mr. Dan Breedon
November 18. 2 2
Page 2
The .DE[R t ate pfoposed recIA-MatC!t woL'Id be in ,- r",wt
with statutory requirements of the Williamson Act. The prolrinrty is desjynatcd
as Prime farmland an& is under- Wittiarnson AI Cbntrci: ffeca"eL of the
restrictions of the contract, the mined land must be reclaimed 'to Prime farmland.
®. Ttte scan afth>? disc�ssi Ce++,at-�^ r cei lu o � :�°�6� w:e� ac"s-from
the project is too narrowly limited: The discussions regarding the.environt�tentai
sett##.: f�'r3r�trd t�fet ltyt�rrofOrw; s”-P-rn g—eafnarp , impacts to fists a1 d
wildlife and riparian habitat are incom:,lete.
rte`."t`�.rt �.• cor:¢2�tac:'iir tf f;� is irka mf:lata Qr;d does, ret tet
the mtr re -4- " Ree;arr ration Act of 1975
(SMAf A) (`RuWic Ftesoinces Code_Seclion 27 tQ et seg.) and_ ne State ivilning
Jd oicgy
andrsgru,attons fbr sudNiee rtilt'tir3gzi-id':r mation. practice
(Catr r Codeor.Pfegufi -ti3 (CCR}T'a 14, C-trapter Q, n:
Rrieie 1, sectio
35M at ,.....,_.... __ .�_...,.
5 ;essa.+ss terrr•a7vrsedtseq.i:
OMR pubfishes*a'quarterty revised"list-ctmines-regufated-undef-�A RA that meet the
provisions set forth- under P.GC: seeti >fv--I }295-.5: This• list is generally referred to -at -
the -AB. 3098 -fist. in- reference -ta the -enabling teaistafion:. This-seetim of Public Contract
Code pfaces restrictions -m State-agencies-regaretingfrorn-whom they mavobtain sand,
graver, aggregates or ather-ntineri�::.Theproject-,as'prQpesad,."A es the Williamson .
Act; CEC A, and SMARA. Deficiencies afe rise ir► detaiF f�el�w 1AFe reeor reead
that:the project not;'he awed ass- . sertted_-. The Williarnson Aet=Clearly requires that
w e�e-farrnlandis--rained, it-be-reelaimed-to,--Prime=fafn*tnd=ursuar&tv-the
minimum state=da rectaerratinrrstandard tar Pnrne agricutarafland. The reclamation
pk-*R propas9s-tv- reclaim most of -the- siWW & 6ke-, which- is- a -violation 01 -the
Williamson Act-andincensistent.with. the SMARA standard -far -reclamation of Prime
agrieultufa+land Unti+thes&defieieneies-afe eorree-te ,- the- mine eannot be placed oft
the AS 3098 list.
WILFitDYl�. t7f Am rI
The larxf is effrareeabtp restricted by {nrrnifwnson Act contract;, and Wre Butte-Courn`y
Assessor oonsidemthe site Prime agnculturaiIaadpursuaa! to il7aum'.i4ract. i•iis►oricai and
current use has beery agricufturai: The, site is surrounded by agrieaikkaf use PFoposed
reclamation is 40 acres of'agrie mural•land'ard'i93'm%vau
`ae�orai*wildlite habitat, the
central' feature -of which -is an open-waier porWfake-crealeci from Me excavated pit(s). rage
i=* &--rhe=D&R carteit Act, contracted
lands were considered: the project is not considered in conflict, and no additional
mitiVtiarri information -in the
current DEIR. and is incorrect. Both proposed project scenarios (with and without a batch
90r.-19-2019) (ti:!AM Ffv!, ii!�e!nri Ott Iwn ocsnlrrkc _ UAT`. T.�. 1-0.
.. .` I Irl$'c`i,'.Iiu' JUalJi1 rr-v.v
Mr. Dalt Bruer?
InL r to.. LCL.
P9np 7'
r aww v
rplanO are ir,--m._- tt!!'te with the >, it r„ r\.. n..► T.he . k .....
. iiLusSvrr �\.._, r rrE? l]@r:rarulrF.�1I
III twice feVIIOLIS,j
_,. .
rf�tcrt^cs,�tcrn�nct.ty tct:f(nda svniasNa' .h:1:a.���_ ►I..� t4s u:.:_� ..-_- s t _ , r
• s.rviw. v nreveyrr t
aurae« �CtT it7q II R!!4_!T!25!!! !1Lt Tiff __11G
.rrirn nfv ::ir refnr4.r+r�o.(ll .•.: 1' 71 1 �g7 .•1 1 1.. � IV ���. J
r airy .miry
Q,
Butte Count- has co t"' r S11- 1 imead t 't up o 1 ,- a •a_ .• u .
A ,.. :t1av 1Q,•�•r..�.�I. tom.. ri Com. v,Y C ta....uii this S1, a'.�i . �-me !an d Ander the M il!iarnsort
r4i.ir'1„"r•`c;�F�}��%�!'����owsut�`':".L`^^f^�'�^"irL�.,..+..lw,.-{s.d►LCV. w►..s.....�-
r-�•.•.. r•v ✓v .. wu t+aac Yr Iry v. •Y461 S+I L�1
Resource Conservation Coniine NIFIC 1 :yhic lists fi t.. !, . !
.1.,.... .......... �.,. S,. h lists t e soda. vita the slim as iitwlif f4--
fai..r� esa` ...s ...-
"'•• "• vv +�i•.v�, .:- ' tv�a sn r r,vo �i.. w7}+y�r.;µ' ' �U 14-3
1907 iKoil`r & ssMia, s Ei^ai[i�iw�inT�i^virt3) v�12.iCcySy�ivr►orT00,as-ntnl�rl�lfrnp ria^f►!!�!.�=.-i?J
�(.._I�r i.~./7. vii 1YN.�iv„�N which- as iiVt:inc1U4 �v1 IGVI VY 1.1 l 21 !a. •.
document, Tlie r►E I.R. Lild riot Cito r'arlji iirfvrrTl?a.,On fi-OM ihee Sjj-,- 11(,U1-11 njSQZOtt"Jrii
7PnNa igJ lt!.L� EJyJfdl l!y plc 4YIl �J! !t R'S4L _ t!!t •?, and"
.Ll+�a of . ►1.` 1017 th l.. ... a s __ • , r.r. t a
urvv.a•ou r� r2�1i2., v \tr - r:i . •�Cl•y �ttd t"t8 aro �lQ!f72 !!�lrJ!i 79r!L!l�,!�'�j !yf'l11�. Vfiiii!(��li
i�i�tSr.rt i! rinuii e'i:�ee tits Is Inde d- L�'a.%_turilliarrnsron Act land -
Regardless, however, whether the site 6s :":2:f141.IJo11 pct P:bma or ":on -Friaries land, :h 2
is a compatible use. While the DEI« states that the original .A.M iarrnson Act cOntraCt for
the siEe ofls� ttrfi as a w+A-�;
the Williamson Act itself, and meet current compatibility iLc!ual contract
-'iVl-.t.i'/.� ��V�/ 1�� l0 ✓t.-tr l 4V VVr4t� \1r VV li� I1T --/111i71�
C --de 5eroltionti 512'33.1 .and 51738.2. but ails two diiSCLSS how R*-Rroiect drill meat the
VVI�I~YtIV1i1l�rV VLri1 V..,V�i�iy�_�tj i�.'�y 3yCi�IVii Ml�.wd+� �w�- I�'.
r .,. fir. I.,...,.. C'f-.►�'T9 a.It.rv.r. 3n..
these sectims crwtnkidees thal'_the COffm=tjNf!%j-fir; *nS Cannot be met
GovernMent Code section 5123£_1(a)(1) - This seCticn rec:s:ree that the use will not
s':cr:ifefWrrltx' ^�.^,»'t1:�+-��L++�si!b: �irtCe't��!e• .
%..i1I be miner) fnrr 4n to '711 years and the resultin,��` pits allowed to fill with :;teeter, NS
ail �e .ytirrr�VV IVV V VV r M IVV \V
ment Code section 51238.1(a)f21 - This section states that the use cannot
.-ulL.tiili:�ii c�•i,'NC...3 .•n ti.•t.w.a-w•.e.wl Z^.+:rCtft'r'!���'
Agan. long-term mining and flooded Ails will ind"d displace agiicultural uses, so
ti?tS't@3�EeiF1F1OE'�j®iRBtr - .
G?Jri+i-nar• Code section
51238,2 - This section QlrIv• s ua Iiln.iaiiC ni1 ivrni�it. 110r
-
.iM1.7iG1
lCA Ift4llVla litspite VI.t/e•lt Ir IV \V IItV Vr•\L.V L'ii�vii�i!i.�. •
nnMM;lrnent to nrecer�re t,.rirne lands or nonprime!ands is no! significantly irrt►aairgri-
A-�`�''r�!` r!>w^.!r'y ..�T*�'�'�P� ►."�..lYa.-.vr in�rsb'ssl'.-l�.r�»ttsn4gilr��Rd.-A+rjR►tafl{ia f L1Cr►�i�ll,.
batch nlant anri %ajlth an evenfrral-return to flooded nits Sinnifirantly iripairc the
a.asirun -r vr�nrotnr.:rrw
of -the -f&Tfimt:
r- T
Nov-Ifl-20D1 03:Ido1� Gann-r4v4 1r&Ar- I" i oeenlrorc•tonterrin,.
- - 1-avo r vv7/l•Il' Y -U39 .
Al4�_ Darts RrAoHnn
Rana d
In a nhnnP rnnvPmntinn with tho rr`:.+nt� vnnf�nf f^, Lh;,,
1+.w� r IVe a na peiiioGt,,�•
Rnar[i'nf �tlnarcriErs►a t•ta�t-•n�o`wt •w
..as s�iCL if1G: L^�-
narc nr u
•ue leeieeiels�•ve+�t.t:rt:Lezf.LtC :;i6 it2 QP%M
e,ilPllifn hah;fa► ,•�►-ht.-. •.h ,;,,.,,�,,,,„_.
r--- p+wai+✓+v'vrier+ vvulimrttwet ltla t+lTttC:C _
CU !
ncknArtmont:. ranrLcmmfz 4 •z fwY�•�.:-„.... and, i ne
-t---•--•- ...t......�....r.� ,••,,,.�,.."F,':..eaa�tuuui ..e..i_a.r��-__�._
nannnt nnmmcnl �.�.'+�a:..�lF.. '+.. •... ra._ ne-,r, J___�--�•>�%r:1C2G1.:-f:RC:
L •'�4•+j vi'+ iw +T+vriw. r etc vGrl uVCs i;c2i f1lJVIC2e dR}% IiliOffTldtiGn
�Ftrt�.t'!{airy �e:cnh'.tinn nr'Fn f' t.. tt_�.�u
GV�/Illa1S/(1 va iw tvt¢t•r'a.'•:.:r. Lt, tit9.wia ii14i
nrca+in.le. nn.ww.+. ► •Z. _ -. f s-•-ra�Fir-�
YIG�IYa.a vaa+l+r+,Gillar u/c p.rllfelml.ji' irljlj;�-�, Ui LI.”, CY:t�IGfi:SUfi ACA and.its'
wa+re.tet r t 46 eu i rva prinClj�s
yr .:v+TfpMm" ,LL . etvint.e'�sst,rrc„ti�ttic;et t USA be.'Wiuvved in 2approvin3-CC+T+�`iaLibl@ USES, are
i.,G•U n. r tMCUMII �`..'L ` .. _
>-- - .A ” L•3'3. . o%.iw.tt tiF3P }rlafiS'Or- ar+Pti:rVed
i7m iii IV • T'7 pc" noa.rancw-.-a�%andards for pr;me
a..•..,',••-••• ��:••�:iv.Iit�.[ i�L;�,,;;:zcJLai-i�+:,�-:+iiFi�F:�@7(Eefsei6;'rP+'rrr-`iBl{i•FifltsE�
:1 Wcuiu aper, ihat the Boars Te�rs`t�tior�, as described
�CIICSZt ie::LS:. R.?.. L`8 tR.0 SS:D!^_: L••ti.^. 2LiC t:eit:iA.t:.G_s.-t Cc_�_ •
fli��it�iisF'd'G:iitl9�Aii9k-wa'nrb�c�B-i�►•r�F�•a>swar.h-.^.:.�...,,. � o�� si.,..
i7Q1'l:i rtfl7�nt' %L^C AG7GfflfL'S�A t�1 Y! v'.ivii.w .fa�..v:iif., �� nnf�_f�encfif fr�..n. Ih.a 1,.....1
••• �Y+ Yvtrveet eevrte (leg est�evv
ler IC!er Wiiiiamq n fa t rnntrAnt Noitiwr ;n mimmnijmOn! !` N,n fr`n�.na.•o �an�.w�4� p�ur
nor-?:rta�erres�es:�e++:e a:erhir^i�sno-- _- �•� moo. rte �:�f��� � �.+�-rte �Q.:.�•;
o�/ten4�.Ml.�nnrnu�l fnr !ho h�l�i� ne�n1 ,+an 4i.c .v��;•J:,.v��
• 'Sub.— , a.ra •.•n•oeiniivti ••••w.
-Rar`.7fma !him -.rrrnxG!`f-.17['3GIC..t]!7!'..rrSCiAL�hn lYltrsf:nr_taot.0 ltv:rtrteonnliylilil., �anraor �ifn
•U .
.
vv ,•• vim. �,.�J_..•t YVl14('gl•4•�r•-1t19-1--.. .
tiftii t?�r].F3ret �tf9' Ii4C�r:t1le gmip&_t:
e:rtrs'P i flf6i:t_iiirfdr.tirn.cmfnmLszitiiu rocirintinnc ni the
r' ,--• - r.-1--- ••z--
1dJ<i+�etycnrr-Acyl-
' •e
rfaY7aur i taY�rit�i.1!t in .i ta.+rs i..?iY i:ShwYq _;diirwrrTaiivsaiv :ihO-;W%n irAni rnesid MA inr
!arae>aet-�- fFlr; eltr►�t .rr��.{q-rte �{Is►iir+r+ flrrnen8a rrtf�rrtafter
:^Cver»rrron4 �.rzcin an+riinn sf'3A') i�i�sTit neiiMn nin.aan4siryinn 6rrr! r»nnofiaiinn mile+ hO
nrr�er�.a'rr���ei-tn:.ttie-��r�rfrs*nn4- •.••.••• _ j"' -•••••
..A-- i--- rip4liltsrt
Arnw9n-inriurinn and i'.ufnulafiyP FfiPris,
..... r EIR ti: U •. `rFCiC;w
ei; r4r. i-izn�v cel. iit� eN�iiv to iFBs incl t zt�.Tdn n a% a%vvA tv ef`me Wr jvii4i :iib. L_*
SFJdf.LS1:L••..2::3': rrt-- t:.. iii: _:.r.e.. i:i•..':a!�et __ •rei '.:.:_ tL•..r-•n
CTTT-r
11
rzi��iiui {.rein! SFhdkiau SfR3L7:IGctsrjf $4ufaiS Ile � 0,tc- ::ic!
t.^.La.'L3C:.:lGGL2L`tiu:.�-•C-.:�G::.L:dL:_LIGt.GttC.:
1 S. = ZNMG ZZ P D : V I S 10,14 Cr LAND re. S 0 U R C E P R 0 1. E C 1.11192273433 F-03;
Mr. Dan Breedon
N P
ovember 18, 2002
I -age t
agricultural land, in terms of the Project encouraging mining activities or removing
I>Arriers to minim thatwouid result in the conversi6ft of MriMINWO or removal of land
from Williamson Act contracts.
As the It would.
as currently configured, require termination of a Williamson Act contract. The GEGA
Onmaer. 0:over* wu acres is,
treated as a significant environmental impact of statewide significance. Thus, the FEIR
impact, and must provide mitigation for this impact. The adoption of a Statement of
.�.- �, --- - -k- I .
#-%- - -ge Fav of--
feasible mitiaation that lessens a project's impacts.
minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate, or compensate" for the impact. For example.
FifitivatkYrrincludeff. FWWng"ill- dwhr 'by-MP061V V M-?VMiOQQ=SUb5WUt6
resources or environments. (§ 75370(e))- 0 All measures ostensibly feasible should be
included-inthe-FEM-e" -Eacti'.-*measu-re-shbe-di cpcussad,--,a's'we*-ao-the-reascwiinq for
selection or rejection, A measure brought to the attentionof the Lead Agency -should
nabL-1eft-out unkass-itig: ipfeas"6-wit! face, C-1 V--
Ciftati-sAniaeles-('19977.) 5aCaI;-App:-e- 1059); --Miti-gatioq should be specific,
measurable-actiamthat aDow-rnor#tcitrrer-ttreRuure-theWir�riertt-atie r a c tuation
of succuss.., A mitigation mnsisling only of -a starearent of intention or an unspecified
iutEff-& action-mawriol be-adequatevursvanho=C� E-OXfStmdsfttft*y, -Goun6Lof----
Matidociaa(1998Y-WCal.App.3d296).
The DemArnefyi-yermmurmn ids- n Mig rtliwi- -a�vwrnap& ac
Wiwi, it M -ft I I tit griitu4t�#a;�,
consamaton- easement uri Mar -WO at.a1zleast.equal-si-re anA quality as the land
femovedVornawntrac-1;
mitigation fiees to an organization, -such as, a land lrust,-4or-ft pu"se of a permanent
Information about - agripuftwal',consetvation eabwments-,: ftwWilliarnson Act and
0 b S " 0 - of by coMae&4!ha.
Division at the address -and phone rrumber'listed below.-: T-hL-:Npa rime rit's website
ad dreffs- is:.
httn*fiwww.ceYn5Ty-ta govidirplindex-hini
lur-io-t'"uU"[ vJ:IJ9� Ffft-DiVISION OF tUOD ;F'�(?rr ccr'Er?!�; i sio32i3�}ir
P' (IMOTT F-039
i�Ir. Elan 6reedon
' rVcivi'mber i Pr �f}t��
Paae & ,
sem. TAL
�usiull.€nd•sediifrarriativrtimpacts that "may ree:,
��fMM I'aQufa.l 'Ir y Gt fk,e
excavation have not been addressed. The following issues should be discussed in 'the
�� H arTd tTP15r Deconslaered.tO.determine .an appmpclat� fe^iama4errsir�c�;
The pr%-, Jossd 50i _bOt.'bul c r:be4ween-Llftie CMco Greek (Creek), -and the .
PrOPOSed excavations should be examined in the EIH in -terms of future channel
irnylatit3rl. T 11—a-hisQt rjt of'>channelchangeS irTLittle "Ch_IPO Creek Should. be.
stuu:ed in order to determine changes in planform of the creek over time in order
iv`'prc�u arl
-uate art asses�r.am of .the. possible
�� s�ack�orvuife� :
capiiire and diversion of Little Chico Creek and the deposition of bedload'
sedtMerri:carried by Lithe Chico Greek: in the Oond be includeu-4. The
iriipaci of 'hungry water on Lillie Chico Creek downstream of the pit should -,be
addressed if capture ofb+edtrsad material is likely to occur.
o A geotechnical discussion assessing the adequacy of the proposed buffers
should -ba prwideci.` Ttmpm ed setbacicbuffem_5110utctbaexami�terrr%&
of their ability to withstand seepage failures.. The possible flooding of the batch
pint Ertl F^ at r,;fa :chnnls8 fyn n sr. .5`C `aC ;L; C�:aUY ifi• �••1
cJ7nnlri enonann or ennnpnn 6nif1,mr, (►i-�.,,r
:- [ks¢'e�m[earl otl+zn4 Ft..l �r�v�eray+weri it•+�'a�rieiy iv
:.416sturid vvaQ..rtnnninn Io:lu o rl rir (rA�Ia'nA li 4.n L.r.. r.. 1......,�
"i't' •y 11..11.r.:S..L'/11l -110 ding. 11 im.sa'y wba appropirat to ,gave.
rvnrli Mi MtN.rr�'�'�vtirµl0� tb�r-s{erla�'+�/kre-'''urO..Yy- •' fa�At •. G �:.... aL._ [/. 1_
t�Fr't ttec Vrt-eR
and .,12 pvifGlS to eCriJancc, raurGr than to eiGuo 91 Svwa n uunola.
rr
May •QT er'F't � etre�reioc trsc' r 5ttearrt'ar'er�tsrmrrstrv�aftt Sttlt�o-e�dFaMent..� it
0 der iO limit h8adward erosion and dawnsirearn scour processes should the pit
be 6atrpCured- �• !M -
r�ticrt,trity�-r .
The methods.to.be used to confirm Dil ciepth.and.slope gradients shouid be
shouid•consider impwct5-of mining OperatIons and rnA r�iaer;:sd op.
Waiar iake io i.iiu6 CNWO CFek-- Little imormaiivri l3 gi'Verr ih the vEirr
ctin er" awaiic Species loom in Lillie, chiee Creek.'.
Li%sainhoriids en
iet the
SirOai, I.lan passage andon-trapmentiiilsi Lua ruisiure_cu.al_ce u n lake
vriiii `u8
fiy '
a. warm-wat8r bonQn-mtivepredatt}f1 species vviWliTQSi t11(81y becORTe
established and present a Doiential threat to salmonids that may enter lhe.cr6ek.
T {he-PossIWlli'}R i ate frs#iE
ftiFF tile WW- "(l19 tib$-lirl3Ffk and
Praying on young sali—n iilids should be in -V stigated.
A NP:water•ofthf-L Is_ tale - and
deleterious effecis on riparian species along and in the stream channel.
BiOiOgic3i @fte&S-to-ripanan SPe£ie% &i eC-M f'"' channel relOeaiit)h
M. _-f. aLsa be c_nsiri'o:red:
P. b '
Y
rt_ _rr_2DD_' nt:r5 srm-njvrclON OF LAND REMPT PMC !nu M63r,NIT r_tDF o n09!0i9 F_039
• �Ji,, lidii Gi'aoCi�iji
NovembeiL4SI 2002
Face 7
r
The folt-0--iiin water lu ity-and ground water is.S_irnv sfZo rld he-evaj,_,ated in the DEIR
• H49chargea basins should be diy (t=g, no interception of grci ind water) babe most
eFt�Ct[Cr9?_ �h$ eKcail�RCis, �'t+11P�-"'"ate' .it7 wiUttTTa,-fa[�r-faaf'rst-Yhc-
Present ground surtace. F2ecause the crater table is Celaiiyeiy high iitfle Increase _
iv anti„r(patsdi.-
Fdrther the rate of evaporation from the nand surtace ov^ooGl� i fill nrnr ,nn
r� 1` rairftal, acc.,dinvg-
t% µtw_ti r{r f' r ro�rrR'fPloainrol 1Qf3C.S' Ti areafinw o ell of nr �..�tnr �An
i'„"v �'"•.Yw''�""v+i- iv.r�/+• r►.ww+r+v-v-�imow w..v<.. a
he anticipated.
P ("G:ivl7" ii' i>•.. w ....lt': •,li ' nSii'Sv�>.iw,nwa.3iad':w irrn�.v.a.fc ..[i:�.G: •...:[f
eiao+vim•reetry-rrerr►�Swr�rrr.rron•.c�tro}reio•wv-.rr•.••��rxrvo�'vw•wrtornt
t'wuu%c tiiftiiiatiuti ititv'thv �iuutiuirvniBs oyuifci.
40� irrrw— ... ..s'.. ..[..r itrtrss d ....,,t . 1...... .J'.. ♦ i.....� si...
+Cro-vvwrts�rarrieFrc "Utrr n tc
wast: uvaLcrrw n Nlw a-ry u7c Liv! u ! Eit`111G Jt�G br rVu1lU 10 -Es gtiUrO6j04i. Ti ! nS lTiaY be '
r±rnicar-i►'plant rogiiii trrrxraiictz-r L >rc, rrGrrruLv rar
ttte rt to
not resurface W0h-:!:_LGffkz- rr lfiit755lsi �al� °�`S —krr,
' '4' i
RECLAMATION iON FLAN
The surface V14ining and Reclamation Act of 1975 'SMARA) (Public Resources Gude
' 3@�tiE2#tG7�lt�s.��atilEtE�F�t-a�%.Fa£�itllq _ _ _ 1@t-IOR5r-f0f-Skdi'taEd3.
mining arta reclamati6n.practice (California -Code of -RegtAWt ons (CCD) Title 14,
Cttapi�i3:-Pic-ie �-;'seEtion-aSe9=e�-sett- R-Ft►cis�ser�tio���=e�'se�-r8tthat-a.,
reclamation pian be -prepared %orine mining operation tiro{ meets the minimum
4ne6ded-_irt it'�e
DE1Ft ts-whoifv tnade=te an6does_TrotcontWn-the spsafic iterTrs e�uired by SPn%IMRA
and ta.QC-Ft-
The 'Rectarnatloq
C-FtThe'Rectamatlorr liar" descrit ed in the DEIR does rcpt desuf be how the site wiii .
a� � a�do�Ftet•�df#aii�oFttt�open•wate�.,
and 'wettand, habitat -thatwill: be' established to benefit wydlite. Erosion and
� tj -I jGSaeS7rvAULr.jMttIBM ph The--,ecta!nezVotr v tme tarmland
to open water is not consistent'with Williams A0 Contract'recwimments, as stated en
Departrner� daie�.#e�-�;-
4 Rt chintatitxc is preserded itt the QEIR'bnly conceptuaHy; and -the document states
ftt. "The tift"ate-desia
_ saied 1 keaft-weffandhaWat-
will depend on many factors ... " The Habitat to actualiv be created is not
o�hra�irrtite-�?acracl�rra�n-r�i�r-1,4�Lr,r,--.'
includes many many non -committal statements such as, "Reclamation design includes the
_.,. ttteirItiRaFAe3►ctrtwit#ter tsrfti avaitat�iiit
of: ana 'Where possible, shoreline edges will be.. These excerpts relate to the
feov-ib-zuUZ u3:i6rMr From-bfVt 104 OF LAND k-SOME-PROTECTIM IMINN"- i-3'06 P.HEIMIt ,c-qig
par; C�tr.�saidrsa-._
IVi3L"erriueF is e-U 'd
ii'eClOsig- factars used in creatirnci.haUitat- Nowhere• IS -the shoreline to be
creat de�3ict6 ira at�Y d�a►� Theme' OF bae{dtll-dvaiiable�for use in crealingra..
diversa shOVOlii a is unstated and un Manned;.a:nd.stODe.'orcMies-tuovided are aenariF
arw nE?r1- of'!1€nP[`tiii 1rr ' ` rYliQrEyalipR oiie6, SUOV i7vn,
Cria`7iriart for 'exatY pio t1v ii nye ii 1 iv`reasure �.4=76. i' nOt jli pfjraiad in f_he
PEtirEimu-de'}r} prei-r;
TiGUYID$ viii and'3-Tlt"do,not. ti51•Yhide1he,ievOoi daiaii-re' Ljirod of a r9Ci3�tio ? -
�c r%ii v�,t- at •t::ti tt i.tSt'Vut� i C C ¢t it�J �, iilrtt.iCrt ct SCi`i7 d ifi biib
tDPGQFPPhy. can-be far eonsisteney:wtit4i ttla4- t art on the -
ptart.:.TSse scute 01 -the $ep p�ic ti,ntours.presonted 5houid be stated and
MUM-Wify-the stintey afl6 1ha qurvey--
bendhrtaftgan be reproduced.
A-terrniirtatioA-date- is- r2c' WrE*14o-be-4Aei -ift the-maelamaWn_ pLa,n fSiMARA..
section 277,?(c)(3�. The s;atentant °chat:fhs site-will, berFtWd "over a 20 to Su
yeiitpt�ifd-is-i�i5itrrtEle�t:" -
':CR *Vv5'?he plan fails-to ` rvvids a dascc;
N y►iot►O° atc %,Jgewive rover Suitaulc
ifi-ir`lE�2fl�ci�afi�-it�F$-t�-r'rFrc'f�9£€i�ifOFr4�-i3896i►fT6-9tti�i&r`t�V£�ifi`16i?iift@ -
Cover, donsq and Wades richness:. -
�t-
¢�Fv�►�iF35 ai3=itE'ie �r8S8rit8E3-if'r=5i�riEirvfi� fietaii io.
dMW. e Me viabil;."yotttu-created'wildlife habitq,.
o CS✓f= 3711(a) Topsoir reFr►c r to + li eed roi*�ii }by r F� one-yam.
The TUCta-ma-ian-plan doesMtCl3scribe VA' en the topSSi' Will tele rer'ii weG. .
CCR 37 _J(d) Phasing. f topes re ;r�j-tas. gabs e .
• C�.rCz1 Yr�F3($):? 6rYTerYfo�tCi [5l Friic7Ce6tlfs i� uifi;i i and co' n'tradii tony/.
The- je_BG&rvit� .as a_
.sWaraia uric arrd not place a on ihu srrpace of redaimed�iand ... '_: and also
staiostl-rat . t1 Eii+ter�►c-irFi-►raF,e
r�tt� di= scute; a �e �'�-: icazcrs. will be..
fSr raL°aCi a�lifi 'f c` it is r `wi i i$v Frl oiPi�ie surface.' PPi1;�
agricuttural_soils ri' w. be- segregated-into-A; B-and e horizons.
CC 3F- (b) There is rio -meinflan Df testpleit;' to assem-pigntintg're iathods and
Peclz:-na:iot- procedure_
• CCr 37GS(g) he reclaPriatiort plat rflails to Provide a VeS.—aiive prescription
describine -species-ioF eaeil--Feelaffation-area
• CCR37Mrn)•Nio performance starZ"rds are presenteo in the realant ation
pian: Performance siai`rniss ai e-nequir6r for agricultural lands and for wildlife
habitat.
'
Ttte reciarrt i-piart-oto-befevised to-amp<�ri W#WkW41kafAson Act-arid.
SMARA. Please forward a Copy of the revised plan to Oirti9 Il8r review pursuant to
StinARA-teetiW27f4('C); a�tit4e Eo ► ; a A�,4-ie& f F 96t i4y to- is