Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM AND T CHICO RANCH MINE PROJECTM&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Record Clarification December 13, 2006' The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires lead agencies . to evaluate.a proposed project's "indirect or secondary effects" that are caused by the project and "reasonably foreseeable." For mitigation, CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt mitigation measures, when feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA does not allow reliance on argument, speculation, opinion or narrative. 1.. Flooding to Llano Seco Ranch The EIR adequately evaluated the Project's impacts to the Llano Seco Ranch caused by flooding and/or particulatematter and concluded that these impacts were less than significant. The EIR analyzed the design of the.weir.and flood mitigations and its direct and indirect environmental impacts. The County's analysis of the design included a comprehensive flooding study for the proposed Project. Both the NorthStar Flooding Study and the analysis contained in the DEIR evaluated off site impacts caused by- stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and processing. facilities. The State Office of Mine Reclamation has also .approved the Reclamation Plan and weir design. Based on'this analysis, the EIR concluded that the Project, with approval of relevant state and federal permits would not result in significant environmental. impacts to neighboring properties, which includes. the Jones property and Llano . Seco Ranch. The FE.IR further explained how the Project's design, as well as applicable state and federal stormwater prevention requirements, would ensure that neighboring landowners would not be impacted by polluted stormwater or mine sediment. Finally, on January 22, 2004, at the 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 Baldwin to obtain a "stormwater management plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. EVIDENCE: DEIR, pp. 4.4=52,.4.4-69; NorthStar Flooding Study, pp. 13-14 (DEIR, app. D-2); FEIR § 4.7; FEIR pp. 5.1-22, 5.4-25— 5.4727, 5.4-33, 5.4-56; -Reclamation Plan; Planning Commission Transcript (November 30, 2006); Conditions of Approval for M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and ' Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin Contracting Company], pp. 4-5;'Butte County Planning -Commission Minutes, January 22, 2004, pp. 8-9; County File; E t) CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002 (a)(3), 15358(2), 15384(a), 15358(2); CEQA §§ 21002, 21081(a), 21061.1; Public Resources Code §§ 2770 et seq., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 3700-3713. 2. Truck Traffic, The County conducted an extensive analysis of the impacts of truck traffic generated by the Project. The traffic study conducted for the DEIR was designed 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 DEIR 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. In regards to specific impacts to traffic circulation in Durham, the County concluded that all impacts to the Durham -Dayton Highway could be. mitigated. However, the County found that in four instances the LOS for impacted intersections already exceeded'the County's minimum LOS C threshold. Thus, the addition of Project trips to these roadways will constitute a significant impact which can not be mitigated. Given the importance ofYthe Project to the County, County Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address these impacts. The FEIR addressed comments regarding traffic impacts, including impacts at Durham. The FEIR reiterated the County's finding made in the DEIR that the proposed Project would not change the LOS rating of any of the roadways studied in the traffic analysis. The FEIR also explained -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 FEIR also addressed those comments concerningAhe Project's . impacts in"Durham. One of these comments, submitted by the Durham Unified School District, suggested that the Project would interfere with school traffic. However, the FEIR explained that the Durham -Dayton Highway currently operates at LOS B and would continue to operate at this level, even with the addition of employee and truck traffic from the Project. The FEIR further concluded that the proposed Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing school bus operations in the Durham area. The FEIR. also responded to comments regarding the Project's impacts to roadway safety, and the bicycle and pedestrian system due to increased truck traffic. The FEIR clarified that the DEIR traffic study included arnanalysis of. current roadway conditions and operations, intersection operations, accident history, and truck traffic. Further, the FEIR explained that•the traffic study is based on detailed traffic counts that identified the mix of autos, bicycles, and trucks. The FEIR reiterated the traffic study's conclusion that the proposed Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle, pedestrian, transit facilities or school bus operations, and would not create a hazard for pedestrians or bicyclists. Comments were also received on the effect Project -related truck traffic would have on the area's roads in terms of maintenance and 'wear and tear'. The FEIR explains that a pavement conditions analysis was conducted as part of the . DEIR traffic analysis and specific mitigation was identified to offset maintenance costs to the County. The FEIR further explains that Baldwin would 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 FEIR 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 a.nd 19 implement Baldwin's fair share obligations. These conditions were later revised and effectively expanded upon by the Public Works Department in a November 3, 2006 letter from Director -Mike Crump. In. sum, the County's CEQA environmental review process has exhaustively addressed and analyzed issues pertaining to Project truck traffic. As a result of this analysis, Baldwin is required to implement, to the extent feasible, mitigation measures which will largely offset the Project's traffic impacts. EVIDENCE: DEIR, Tables 4.6-1, 4.6-10,4.6-11, 4.6-12; DEIR § 4.6, DEIR app. G; DEIR; pp. 4.6x5 — 4.6-6, 4.6-15 - 4.6-23, 4.6=30; 4.6-37 — 4.6-38, 4.6-40, 4.6- 43 — 4.6-44; FEI R §§ -4.4, 5.1.2, 5:1.9.. 5.2:4, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.6, . 5.4.13; FEIR, pp. 5.1-25, 5.2-30, 5.2-325.3-4, 5.4-45; Reclamation Plan; Planning Commission Transcript (November 30, 2006); Conditions of Approval for M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and.Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin Contracting Company], p. 3; Letter from Mike Crump to Pete Calarco, dated Nov. 3, 2006; County File. 3.. Impacts to Agricultural Economy (Spraying Practices). The EIR did not analyze the Project's economic impacts because this type of analysis is not required under CEQA. CEQA only requires the analysis of projects which cause a.physical change in the environment. An economic impact created by the actions of an adjacent landowner is not analyzed under CEQA. th Further, general spraying practices and general trespass.standards prevent farmers from encroaching on neighbor property with overspray. As such, it is. not proper to analyze this in an environmental document. EVIDENCE: FEIR, p. 4.0-4; CEQA Guidelines, §§,15064(f)(6), 15131(a). 4. Consistencv with Agricultural Element of the General Plan As part of the CEQA environmental review process the County, evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with the County General Plan. The County determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the Butte County General Plan. The General Plan has a general 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. TheGeneral Plan states: Primary Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops, especially annual food crops. Secondary.Use: Animal husbandry and intense animal uses, resource extraction' and processing, hunting and water -related recreation facilities, dwellings, airports, utilities, environmental preservation, activities, public and .quasi -public uses, home occupations. The General Plan defines secondary uses as compatible uses which are conditionally allowed. Further, the General Plan sets forth the following policies in regards to surface mining ,operations within the County: 2.6a Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of building materials and other valued mineral resources. 2.6b Encourage the reclamation of lands subject to mineral extraction. As required by, law, and as the County has found, the General Plan is internally consistent and the Land Use Element and its descriptions are consistent with the general policies of the. Agriculture Element. Surface mining is consistent with both of these elements as made clear by the.express reference. to mineral extraction, in the "Orchard and Field Crops" description as well as the Williamson Act program of the County, which also expressly allows surface mining. EVIDENCE: DEIR,.§ 4.2; DEIR, pp. 4.2-2, 4.2; General Plan Land Use Element, section 2.6, p. LUE=48; General Plan Agricultural Element; County Resolution 68.- 7; 8-7; M&T Incorporated Land Conservation Agreement, No. 23188, dated Dec. 11, 1975; County File.. 5.Williamson Act Process As the Planning Commission is aware, the DEIR contains an extensive analysis of the Project's potential impacts to agricultural land. This analysis included a determination of the'Project's consistency with the County's Uniform Rules and,the LCA contract. The County concluded in the DEIR that the Project is consistent with the County's Uniform Rules and the applicable LCA contract, because both the Uniform Rules and the LCA contract expressly allow "sand and . gravel operation[s] subject to securing of a use per approved by the County as a permitted use on the land while it is under Williamson Act contract." During the public comment period to the DEIR, the California Department of Conservation ("DOC") commented that the Project was not- an allowed use under the Williamson Act. In an effort to respond to DOC's comment on the FEIR and to avoid a confrontation between the County and DOC, Baldwin voluntary filed a petition for partial cancellation for a 106 acre area of the Project. This action is simply a response to comment and is not a requirement for the action to move forward. Ir addition, the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the LCA contract cancellation. As such, the .Planning.Commission need simply address the project as analyzed in the EIR-. Further, as a practical matter, the Planning Commission's determination will likely be appealed — either by Baldwin or the opposition. As such, the conditional use permit, reclamation plan, financial assurance, and FEIR will be before the Board of Supervisors when it also makes a determination on the petition for partial. cancellation. EVIDENCE: DEIR, pp. 4.2-6, 4.2-7, 4.2-10; FEIR, § 5.1.4; FEIR, pp. 5.1-9 - 5.1- . 12; FEIR M&T Chico Ranch Mine Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act; Planning Commission Transcript (Nov. 30,"2006); County Resolution 68-7;,M&T.Incorporated Land Conservation Agreement No. 23188, dated Dec, 11, 1975; Public Resources Code § 51200 et seq:; County File. 6. Llano Seco as Part of the Environmental Setting In a comment letter submitted to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2006, a citizen questioned whetherthe DEIR provided an adequate project description because it did not specifically name the Llano Seco Ranch in its discussion of the Project's environmental setting. As discussed herein, the EIR's description of the environmental setting for the proposed Project complied with CEQA. CEQA provides that an EIR contain an appropriate discussion of a project's environmental setting, which includes a description'of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project from both a local and regional perspective, discussing environmental resources, including those that are rare or unique to the region, and analyzing inconsistencies, if any, between the project any applicable general or regional plans. Here, the EIR included an intensive discussion of the Project's environmental setting. Each section contains a description of the regional environment and local conditions and how the Project could impact the local and regional environment. Thus, while the DEIR did not specifically name the Llano Seco Ranch, it did describe the regional environmental setting for the Project and analyzed reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project as required by CEQA. Further, the County adopted additional conditions of approval to ensure that the specific concerns of Llano Seco Ranch were addressed.. EVIDENCE: DEIR, pp. 3-1 — 3-7, 4.1-1 — 4.1-8, 4.2-5 (Agricultural Setting), 4.3-1 —4.377 (Geologic Setting), 4.4-1 — 4.4-35 Hydrologic Setting), 4.5-1 — 4.5-14 (Traffic Setting), 4.7-1 — 4.7-22 (Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Setting); Minutes for January 22, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing; Conditions of Approval for M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin Contracting Company], pp. 4-5; Planning Commission Transcript (Nov. 30, 2006); County File; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15120, 15124, 15125. 7. Mosquito Control. On November 30, 2006 concerns regarding mosquitoes and West Nile virus were raised. This issue has been addressed. The.FEIR explained that as part of a Condition of Approval, Baldwin will bear financial .responsibility for the reimbursement of the cost of any future mosquito control work performed by the County Mosquito and Vector Control District. at the mine pond. According to the FEIR, this could include stocking the pond with mosquito fish to prey on and control mosquito larvae. The FEIR also explained that because mosquitoes typically breed in ponds with stagnant water and along the shores. of lakes with shallow water, the Reclamation Plan for the Project will provide specifications for a shoreline configuration that will not isolate small channels or shallow ponding areas from the main body of water. According to the County, this configuration will ensure continuous access by mosquito predators,'especially mosquito fish. The FEIR 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: FEIR § 5.1.11; FEIR, pp. 5.4-31 — 5.4-339 5.4-47 — 5.4-48, 5.4-67, Conditions of Approval for.M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin Contracting Company], p. 4; County File.