HomeMy WebLinkAboutM&T CHICO RANCH DRAFT EIR -HYDROLOGY SECTIONMEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
To: Vance Severin, Environmental Health
From: Dan Breedon, Senior Planner
Subject: M&T Chico Ranch Draft EIR, -Hydrology Section
Date: November 27, 2000
Attached please find the new Hydrology Section for the above -referenced EIR. This material has
been submitted in draft form for "in-house" review by the County. I am requesting that the
Environmental Health Department review this document for issues related to the Environmental
Health Department's area of expertise and concern. Please provide any comments prior to January
15, 2001. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
# of pages
post-lt`" brand fax transmittal m Fn ° 7��
To Ca
ICo. E�{� pt
Dept. F
�- -' Fax #
Memo
To: Dan Breedon, Planning Division
From: Vance Severin, Environmental Health
Date: 01/17/01
Re: Hydrology Section, Draft M&T Ranch EIR
I have reviewed the hydrology section of the draft EIR and have the following comments:
Impact 4.4-1: Groundwater Resources
Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b, 1c: Mitigation measure should specify responsible agency. I
assume this would be the Water Department. .
Impact 4.4-2: Groundwater Quality Associated With Facilities Operation
Discussion -"Proposed Project With Batch Plants Scenario
The discussion and associated mitigation measures should address potential impacts from
MTBE in the event of a fuel release. The Laurence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
study focused on benzene, not MTBE. Since the LLNL report, MTBE has been found to be a
more highly mobile and persistent groundwater contaminant than benzene.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b: This may not be a practical mitigation measure due to cost factors
and problems associated with stormwater discharges to the proposed vault.
Impact 4.4-3: Pit Water Quality
Discussion "Proposed Project With Batch Plants Scenario"
As noted above, potential impacts from potential spills of fuels containing MTBE should be
addressed.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4e: A groundwater quality monitoring program may be an acceptable -
mitigation if reviewed and approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The type of operating permit (i.e. conditional use permit) subject to revocation should
be specified.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\MT-EIR.doc - �`
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Hackney, Planning
FROM: Tom Reid, Environmental Health
SUBJECT: M&T Ranch Draft EIR
DATE: July 8, 1998
The Public Health Department's area of interest relative to the project is well
construction, domestic waste disposal and the handling of hazardous materials
such as motor fuels. With respect to those areas of interest, concerns are mitigated
through State and Butte County laws and regulations that are enforced by this
Department.
TR/mlf
m&t1.tr7/8/98 ,
Harming Division
J U L 1'4'1998
Oroville, California
PROPOSED M&T RANCH GRAVEL MINE
PROCESS WATER USE ANALYSIS
Uncontested Assumptions (taken from applicant=s comments to first draft)
840,000 gal/day for plant wash water
80 % of wash water is recycled
Remaining 168,000 gal/day is lost to evaporation and is replaced
21,000 gal/day for rock plant misters
40,000 gal/day for ready mix concrete plant.
Total daily loss is 309,000 gal/day from the above
Current Analysis by Hydro Science
Applicant=s Analysis
March through October - plants operate 5.25
Max. Aggregate production = 425,000 tons
days/week
= 467,500 tons of unprocessed material
309,000 gal/day x 8 months x 30 days/month
Rock Plant production rate = 400 tons/hr
x (percent operating rate = 5.25 days/7 days)
t
Rock Plant operating days = 167 - 7 hr days
= 170.7 acre feet
Water Use as above - 40,000 gal/day for -
Nov -Feb
Ready mix plant
assume wash water recovery increases to 95%
Rock Plant Use = 269,000 gal x 167 days
= 42,000 gal/day lost to evaporation
= 138 acre-feet
no misters,
no water truck
Ready Mix Plant Operates 33-10 hr days/yr
Ready Mix plant use = 40,000 gal/day
based on a production rate of 150 cubic
yards/hr and a maximum total production of
Total daily use = 82,000 gal/day
50,000 yds
Operating rate = 4 days/week
33 days x 40,000 gal day = 4 acre-feet
Total Nov -Feb use = 17.3 acre/ft
Total Annual Consumptive Use
Total Annual Consumptive Use
= 170.7 + 17.3 = 188 acre feet
138 + 4 = 142 acre feet
Discussion:
The applicant=s assumption that the ready mix plant will only operate 33 days a year, i.e., they
will only sell concrete 33 days a year since it cannot be stored seems very unreasonable.
However, the weakness in the analysis is the use of a daily use rate rather than a rate per cubic
yard of concrete. I do not know what the percent weight of concrete is water but if we assume it
is 25 percent then: 0.25 x 50,000 cu. yards x 27 cu. ft/cu. yard/ 43,560 cu. ft/acre-foot = 7.7 acre-
feet. Thus, the applicant=s analysis from a quantitative perspective is reasonable. _
The main point of difference is that the applicant assumes that all water use occurs only while the
plant is operating, and that the plant will always operate at 100 percent capacity. In my opinion
that is an overly -optimistic assumption.
Note that the original total water use was computed to be 859.5 acre-feet/year. Even if the
applicant=s water use is adopted, then the total would be reduced by 46 acre feet, which is
approximately a 5 percent reduction. I would propose that this is an insufficiently large change
to warrant a complete re -analysis of the possible changes in groundwater gradients and
drawdown, given that the level of uncertainty in the analysis is probably greater than this amount,
and that it is highly unlikely to change the outcome of the analysis.
Toby Hanes
Hydro Science
Feb 8, 2002
Page 1 of 2
Spoor, Cheryl
From: Breedon, Dan
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:54 PM
To: 'Pole, Mike'
Cc: Meleka, M:A:;-Davis, Fred
Subject: RE: ADEIR Status
Mike,
I checked into your question about being provided a copy of the ADEIR. Our current policy is not to release the
ADEIR to the applicant. The reason for this is that our County Counsel advises us that we would be required to
release the document to the general public under such circumstances. This would somewhat defeat the process
of reviewing an administrative draft prior to release of the public document. The idea is to have the Lead Agency
review the work of the consultant and do so prior to finalizing the ADEIR. Staff will be reviewing the ADEIR very
carefully. `Although you will not receive a copy of the ADEIR, please be assured that we will be in communication
with you on any issues that come up.
a
I believe that you should have some level of comfort on the content of the ADEIR at this point because of the
updating that has taken place, and because the County has ensured that KRC participated in any areas where
the project's scope was called into question, or where mitigations changed the project's scope. I am committed to
ensuring that the ultimate product released to the public satisfies CEQA and accurately represents the project. I
also intend to ensure that KRC is aware of all project mitigation measures proposed under the ADEIR.
For you information, I intend to have the ADEIR reviewed by Planning, Public Works, Environmental Health & Air
Quality. f 4,q,� e
I hope that this clears up this issue. If you wish to discuss please do not hesitate to contact me at 530-538-7629
Dan Breedon, Senior Planner
-----Original Message -----
From: Pole, Mike [mailto:PoleM@kniferiver.com]
Sent:, Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:33 PM
To: 'Breedon, Dan'
Subject: RE: ADEIR Status
Dan
when will we get to look at it? Why not have us look at it at the same time as the county - otherwise there
is considerably more delay and they (RDT) will have to make changes three times (once after county
review, once after our review and once after public reviews)
Thanks,
Mike Pole
-----Original Message -----
From: Breedon, Dan[mailto:DBreedon@ButteCounty.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:41 PM
To: 'Pole, Mike'
Subject: ADEIR Status
Mike,
Jennifer at RDT called to say that the ADEIR will be available to the County on March 4, 2002.
tl ,
2/6/2002
Page 2 of 2,,,
County staff will review for two weeks, get any changes back to RDT and work on getting the DER
available in the following two weeks, no firm date set yet.
Please call or e-mail if you have any questions on this timeline.
-Dan Breedon
Senior Planner
2/6/2002
02/04/02
17:09 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING 4 916 983 9194
February 4, 2002
ENGINEERING
CM Enomm • Pro Ww" . sunim's
Mr. David Brown CCP,\-,.
Resource Design Technology
302-A S. Lexington Drive
Folsom, CA. 95630
Subject: M ds T Ranch, River Road Aggregate cline
Dear Dave,—.�� .
[ just received the latest comments from Stu Edell. I believe the following
comments address his concerns:
1. Stu correctly indicates that the FEMA floodplain, albeit a Zone A, is
for the 100 -year event. We early on discussed the use of more
frequent events for this project since road closures and other'
impacts occurred on a much more frequent basis.
2. The storm that causes -Overtopping of the existing levee is between
a S and 10 -year event and occurs at one location. Refer to pg. 6. if
Public Works truly believes they have the authority to mandate no
impact, then the plant site will have to be relocated out of the
floodplain, period. I do not believe they have that authority.. An'
increase in stage of one foot over a limited section of County road
can be mitigated. As stated in the report, the only other impacted
adjacent landowner is the project proponent.
3. The report specifically identifies a mitigation'measure (page 14)
that addresses overtopping into the pit. It also states that design
measures will need to be incorporated in order to preclude erosion
and scour that could lead to migration of the creek. It is my
.,and
based on estimated velocities that thio can be achieved
with a combination of vegetation, geotextile and riprap. I have not
dont the "design' as this goes beyond the scope of my work. I have
no knowledge of a berm along the east side of the pit. The
proposed levee/weir discussed in the report is on the north end of
the pit. This levee/weir is anticipated to be quite low to allow
overtopping at select, protected locations.
20 DECIARAt1oN DRIVE
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973
530.893.1900
FAX -693.2113
"� • c+v NLRK 1 rM 1►a< t Nb 1 NEER 1 tU a 916 993 9194 N0.128 D83
4. The issue of Little Chico Creek flows intermingling with Angel
Slough seems to have no bearing on the issue at hand. I am not
sure of the impactor the retnedy, but believe unless the impact is I
caused by or exacerbated by the project, that it is a separate issue
that perhaps the County needs to address in another manner. If
the impact can be shown to be attributed to or exacerbated by the
Proposed project, then mitigation could be proposed. The
comment from Stu is silent on the remedy.
S. While I question that the County has the authority to require no
impact, the mitigation measures proposed, in my opinion, provide
adequate protection for the County and adjacent property owner.
1f they in fact can required no increase in stage, then the plant and
stockpiles will need to be reconfigured or moved out of the
floodplain entirely or the creek capacity will have to be increased
by removing the existing levee, grading and placing a new setback
levee. The key issue here is of course the concept of widening and
deepening Chico Creek. I tried to avoid this for obvious reasons.
6. The cross sections on the report that 1 provided to you and I believe
also to the County have the stations clearly numbered. Possibly
Stu has an old copy.
Perhaps a meeting with County Staff is in order. We really need to clear
the air on these issues.
�-'A\\A&'-
Michael McEnespy, P.E.
NorthStar Engineering,
la.
VY
FEB 1)
BY
RESOURCE DESIGN
T£CHN.OL0GY, INC.
Land I Minerals Environment
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
F
A rPDDEB 0 �4 2002`_
Date: February 4, 2002
To: Dan Breedon Fax: (530) 538-7785
From: Jennifer Dzakowic
Pages: A. (Including Cover Sheet)
Description: M&T Chico Ranch Comments
® Original will not follow ❑ Original follows by: ❑ U.S. Mail [11 -Day/Fed Ex ❑ Courier ❑ Other
Message:
For your review, attached, please find NorthStar Engineerings response to Stu Edell, February 1, 2002
comments on the site's flooding study. We will call you Tuesday moming to discuss a plan of action.
with regards to these comments.
Thanks,
Jen D
a,� ! •'vim/ de. o
a
041-C 302-A S. Lexington DriveI Telephone: 916.983.9193
02042.9rtWorLf doc Folsom, California 95630 l Facsimile: 916.983.9194
-C CAU
0 NFEREN
&T
M Chico Ranch Flooding Study
... .. ..... .... .....
041
February 8, 2002, 9. - 1000 AM
iI EM
DIAL W or
OPERATOR ASSISTED
VE6,
Stuart Edell
(530) 538 -7266
(530) 538-7171
Toby Hanes
(707) 455-7642
(707) 455-7079
Dan Breedon
(530)538-7629
(530) 666-9567
Mike McEnespy
(530) 893-1600
(530) 893-2113
Dave Brown
(916) 983-9193
(916) 983-9194
02/04/02 17:08 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING 916 'SM 9194 N0.12$ 002'#
R, MUM
ovum
ENGINEERING
February 4, 2002
Mr. David Brown CO P,\.
Resource Design Technology
302-A S. Lexington Drive,
Folsom, CA. 95630 ,
Subject: M Qa T Ranch, Rile: Road Aggregate Mine ,
Dear Dave,
1 just received the latest Comments from Stu Edell- I believe the following
comments address his concerns:
1. Stu correctly indicates that the FEMA floodplain, albeit a Zone A, is, '
for the 100 -year event. We early on discussed the use of more
frequent events for this project since road closures and other
impacts occurred on a much more frequent basis.
• 2. The storm that causes overtopping of the existing levee is between
a 5 and 10 -year event and occurs at one location. Refer to'
Public Works truly believes they have the authority to mandate not
impact, then the plant site will have to be relocated out of the
' floodplain, period, I do not believe they have that authority. An
increase in stage of one foot over a limited section of County road
can be mitigated. As stated in the report, the only other impacted
adjacent landowner is the project proponent.
3_ The report specifically identifies a mitigation measure (page 14)
that addresses overtopping into the pit. It also states that design
measures will need to be incorporated in order to preclude erosion �• .
and scour that could lead to migration of the creek. It is my
opinion; based on estimated velocities that this can be achieved
with a combination of vegetation, geotextile and riprap. I have not
done the `design" as this goes beyond the scope of my work. I have
no knowledge of a berm along the east side of the pit, The
proposed levee/weir discussed in the report is on the north end of
the pit. This levee/weir is anticipated to be quite low to allow
overtopping at select, protected locations. ;
20 DECLARATION ORIVE
s
t . CHICo, CALIFORNIA 95973
• 530-BS3480p
FAX -893.2113
i 02/04,-02 . 1?:08 NORTHSTAR ENG]NEERING "•1916 983 9194
, R No. 128 �'D83
- C� x .:.•.r Y y •}• 1 ,. 4 ? f t .: � n; moi.
`4. The issue of Little C `
r hien Creek flows interminglingwith Angel
' Slough seems to have no bearing on the issue at hand. I am not
sure of the impact or the remedy, but believe unless the impact is
caused by or exacerbated by the project, that it is a separate issue _
that perhaps the County needs to address in another manner..If
r
the impact can be shown to be attributed to or exacerbated by the 7vx
Proposed project, then mitigation could be proposed. The �� Y
comment from Stu is silent •non the remedy.
S. While I question that the County has the authority to require no +A
f_
impact, the mitigation measures proposed, in my opinion, provide
Adequate protection for the County and adjacent property owner. '
If they in fact can required no increase in stage, then the plant and r
stockpiles will need tobe reconfigured or moved out of the . w
,.'floodplain entirely or the creek capacity will have to be increased '
by removing the existing levee, grading and placing a new setback < '
levee. The key issue here is of course the concept of widening and
'
deepening Chico Creek.
• I tried to avoid this for obvious reasons. ti . „ � :•'
6.� 'The cross sections on'the report that 1 provided to you and 1 believe "
also to the County have the stations clearly numbered. Possibly.
.Stu has an old copy. r'
^perhaps a meetingwith County } s '
my Staff is in order. We really need'to clear. ;4-
the air on these issues.
Mich• � - + • � f;t.,�; ; . '
ael McEnespy, P.E.
NorthStar Engineering.
i
•
Revised Preliminary EIR Processing Schedule
for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
1. February 27, 2001 Revised Contract Signed by Board of Supervisors for increase in
contingency fund to pay for Little Chico Creek Floodplain Study
4
2. April 1, 2001 Floodplain Study Completed by NorthStar Engineering, and
incorporated into the Hydrology Section. Comments Received
from Public Works on Traffic Section incorporated into Traffic
Section. Comments Received from Environmental Health on
Hydrology Section incorporated into Hydrology Section.
Comments received from applicant on Noise Section incorporated
into Noise Section, if necessary.
3. April 9, 2001 Screen checks of revised traffic, noise and hydrology section
provided to Planning Division.
4. April 13, 2001 35 copies of revised sections provided to Planning Division.
5. April 18, 2001 Public Review Period begins
6. May 24, 2001 Planning Commission Hearing on revised sections
7. June 4, 2001 Public Review Period ends.
8. June 18, 2001 Submission of Administrative Draft of Responses to Comments
Document for comments received on recirculated Traffic, Noise
and Hydrology Sections and all other Sections of the DEIR, and
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan.
9. June 27, 2001 Staff response back to consultant on Administrative Draft of
Responses to Comments Document for comments received on
recirculated Traffic and Noise Sections and all other sections of
the DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan.
10. July 4, 2001
.11. July 11, 2001
12. July 26, 2001
Screen Checks of Response to Comment Document for
recirculated EIR sections, other sections, and Mitigation
Monitoring & Reporting Plan.
35 copies of the Final EIR provided to County, to include
Response to Comments Document, Mitigation Monitoring &
Reporting Plan.
Final EIR - Planning Commission Hearing for consideration
of certification.
Revised EIR Processing Schedule
for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine EIR
1. October 15, 2001 Floodplain Study Completed by NorthStar Engineering, and `
incorporated into the Hydrology Section. Comments Received from
Public Works on Traffic Section incorporated into Traffic Section.
Comments Received from Environmental Health on Hydrology
Section incorporated into Hydrology Section. Comments received
from applicant on Noise Section incorporated into Noise Section,.if
necessary.
2'. October 25, 2001 Screen checks of revised traffic, noise and hydrology section
provided to Planning Division.
3. October 30, 2001 35 copies of revised sections provided to Planning Division.,
4. November 5, 2001 Public Review Period begins*
5. November 8, 2001 Planning Commission Hearing on revised sections (public input
only)
6. December 20, 2001 Public Review Period ends.
7. December 28, 2001 Submission of Administrative Draft of Responses to Comments
Document for comments received on recirculated Traffic, Noise and
Hydrology Sections and all other Sections of the DEIR, and
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan.
8. January 5, 2002 Staff response back to consultant on Administrative Draft of
Responses, to Comments Document for comments received on
recirculated Traffic and Noise Sections and all other sections of the
DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan.
9. January 10, 2002 Screen Checks of Response to Comment Document for
recirculated EIR sections, other sections, and Mitigation
Monitoring & Reporting Plan.
10. January 20, 2002 35 copies of the Final EIR provided to County, to include
Response to Comments Document, Mitigation Monitoring &
Reporting Plan.
11. February 14, 2002 Final EIR - Planning Commission Hearing for consideration of
certification.
*A contract amendment may be necessary to recirculate entire EIR. This amendment process
will take place prior to Step 5 (October 20, 2001).
K:\PROJECTS\M rN\M &T\TI M E LIN 3. d oc
Ir
t . _ EXHIBIT B COST ESTIMATE FOR RECIRCULATED DEIR
" M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
'
sk / Subtask
_
Status
.Original Cost
Recirculated Cost
RecirculatedAmmendment
Subconsultants
Costs
Direct Cost (7%)
Cost
Total Cost
,,...... �. - -. - -
i Task .1 h Pro ect Revie_w and Coordinations �'1�� • v ' �` _`' - '1" • �-... �",,_ '"" . ""`� a '' • " �' ` " , .s€ :�` �• = *'->" y �. _ `"
1.1 Kick-off Meeting
No Additional tasks required
$1,2501
_$1,250
1.2 Project Review -
No Additional tasks required
$2,7601
$2,760
1.3 Coordination - - -
Additional tasks re uired
$4,1101
$2,12,
$1.400
$246 $3,7661
$7,886
- Task 1 Subtotal
-
$8,120
$2.1201
$1,400
$2461 $3,7661
$11,896
,-'.Task 2 Draft EIR Revisions and Responses "_- ^` ;e9"k .•.°.fa_�C � . a. - s �� .. _ • _ f....<7` ="r •�'�` �., Z^"f_+ , s :- ; _- < a"-• •c - V
2.1 Traffic Section Revisions
No Additional tasks required S1.920
$1.920
Subconsultant: Fehr 8 Peers -
No Additional tasks required $37,980 - -
-
$37,980
2.2 Noise Section Revisions -
No Additional tasks required $795
$795
Subconsultant: Bollard 8 Brennan -
No Additional tasks required $7,500
$7,500
2.3 Liydmloqy Section Revisions (previously Master Response)
No Additional tasks required 52,100
$2,100
Subconsultant: Hydro Science
No Additional tasks required $16,435 -
$16,435
2.4 Surface Flooding Ana sis
Additional tasks required $1,760 $1,600
$235 $3,595
$3,595
Subconsultant: NorthStar - -
No Additional tasks required $19,840
$19,840
' Task 2 Subtotall1
$86,570 $1,7601 $1,600
$2351 $3,595
$90,165
aATask 3: Prepare Administrative Draft Recirculated EIR'
34 ify-Master-Respense (Bud et Moved to Task 2.3
-
- '
32 Re sen-Wevieu 'rsulaied-Sestioas (Budget Moved to Task 4.4)
$8-835
3.3 Reforinal Document
"=Additional tasks required x
'$2100
- - 3' --�
$147 '-$2 247. '$2247
1,k . 3.4 Prepare Overview of Disposition of Comments Received '" 1 " `< �" _ -+-: '
Additional tasks required -'•-
•� A. . - ° •. $1,120
"" ••• - •
_ , ` �` " f' $78 , -_ $1,198 u• $1 ,198
- --^a 3.5 Update and Revise Text and Figures; as necessary ::'_ .# "t�: r.. " ."... :-.. ••:<
. 1.Additional tasks required �_
.. r _:f _ '.. z. $3,200
..__._ _. '- -
$224. .iK. _ ,. $3,424 "r• ? $3 424
3.6 Update Air Quality Section �i«l-. '
" -:Additional tasks required:'.
$280
' -" $20 $300 $300
Update Land Use SectionAdditional
tasks required �.`_`
_ ''` " :: -^5• $280
: $20 -,-:.-$300 7 $300
-:-- 9 3.8 Update Biology Section
Additional tasks required.
+ . .- 1 " ' $720
_ a+..
- $50 -t - -> $770 '-. $770
3.9 Preoare County Review Copies 6 copies)'_ -: i*n:
Additional tasks required .
. + ... .:-.:,... .$7001
$49 '^' $749 ". 749
y-$2.033
-;�>iia.3.10 Meet Revise Per Stall Comments " - .,^-s-- ---^ ` *- - >� -•
:>rs_Addilional tasks required-..+-
•� N-. - + -w' - '+• - $1 900
'a
v. $133 '- $2 033
Yr`xv-a 3111, Print and Circulate 100 copies), :- " ':. -,.: 't�� -� - ?+::' .• '- - x .-.--: ` -
.„i Additional task§ required ..+-:'
�' °. •' _ _ : ' ' `$i 840
-- � �
$9 500 - '-$11,340 '. -$11.340
rf a 3.12 Planning Commission Study Session ." ; h r& -.+ '� -`°- %• -: "_-::
-:. Additional tasks re uired *..
`� .. ^= _ - ,:," .-+ ,$1 760
._.. ,.
183
$123 - � -$1 $1.883
Task 3 Subtotal
$13,9001
$10,344 $24,244 $24,244
e-v-Task'4�Res "onse to Comments/Final EIR _ _4`x W<,,s-
4. R (Buget Moved to Task 4.4)
No Additional tasks required
4.2 Fin^' E oa,-�.«��.w�.had bu et Moved to Task 4.4 -
No Additional tasks required
'
42 .... 1g-. 0.. - 1 --- (Bunet Moved to Task 4.5) -
No Additional tasks required
54-360
4.4 Responses to Comments/Administrative Draft Final EIR
No Additional tasks required
$21,965
$21,965
4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan " "
No Additional tasks required
$4,360
$4,360
. ,�. •, ^4.6 Print'and Circulate Final EIR ,; ,, s__;;;:,. `'_c'.N`.3'"' ..>- -., :.+." "' .i ..'• -' ">
._
`-. -Additional tasks required,
= -r*J1 .f" ..i 'C ="'.c
"i,....", .. ::. .7:-':
... ��- $2500 ;"".''$2500
-::..$2500
' Task 4 Subtotal
$26,325
$2,500 $2,500
$28,825
--j;,.,:.Task5 Hearings Suort,�..:� �. 7� - _ � Nxr.> .... _. _^e .►sA,.M ,�:r r"._`,%x` 6.-r_.'.T-_?_-o,,•'
5.1 Hearing on Recirculated Sections
No Additional tasks required
$1,825
5.2 Hearing on Certification of Final EIR
No Additional tasks required
$1,7751
1 Task 5 Subtotall
1$3,6001
1
« ..
ontin ency ,-��C",..� - - : _�' �.l_`r'-- m`"' -� - - - - . - - -
.aL.a4h`J"'v'.. axi.�'a..�i" �?',:, �s8;q' tiY .i-�,.�+� .�.,.i"�.aEim 'i: _'.� ;,�, �...,. ��aEr � .i �'ii-�- ..._` 2. �' :� -_.L __. ,�. ."''',.�° €" .�.r ,_. ¢ q
Direct Costs (Estimated at 7% of Total)
No Additional tasks required
$2 685
- Contingency -
No Additional tasks required
$10 196
Direct Cost and Contingency Subtotall
512,881
,Original Contract Cost 1 $137,496 ',�" _ a q r r,We Total Cost k- -
^e Contingency (10%) ';:8 .�"
Highlighted Rows amAdditionalTasks required for Recirculation` of the DEIR.and Production of the Final EIR " fix k - - 4' „'< :� _'-Mic .e Tgtal Contract
$155,130
$15,513
$170,643
s. �
J
Pagel of 1
r
Blank •
Breedon,Din
Dan -- Thanks again for the opportunity to reJiew these administrative drafts. We appreciate this opportunity
and provide these comments with all due respect. ,Please review them, and then perhaps we can have a
meeting to discuss as soon as possible. If you are willing would-you please share these with Dave Brown,
Paul Bollard, Toby Haines, and NorthStar.Engineering? Also please note, we have not yet had these sections .
technically reviewed, e.g. Steve Deverel has not looked at Toby's work yet. We are proceeding with this now.
-The comments really reflect concerns shared by me, Mike Pole, and Baldwin. Thanks.
Heidi Tschudin
TSCHUDIN CONSULTING GROUP
710 21 st Street
Sacramento, CA 94814 "f '
(916) 447-1809
(916) 444-0227 fax
3/22/01 ,'
COMMENTS ON NOVEMBER 19, 2000 DRAFT REVISED HYDROLOGY SECTION
(RECEIVED MARCH 5, 2001) FOR M & T RANCH MINE EIR
General — We appreciate this opportunity for an early review of this partially complete
revised analysis. We understand portions may change with the addition of the
information from NorthStar Engineering. However, we did not want to wait in alerting to
you to some significant concerns we have with the direction of these revisions. Should
you agree, we request that these comments be sent on to NorthStar to at least sensitize
them to our issues.
Page 30 (MM 4.4-1c) — It is not clear why increased pumping costs is a CEQA impact.
It is a financial issue but is there an adverse physical impact? If not, maybe this
belongs in a staff report, but not in the EIR.
Page 32 — It is not clear why the impact changed from "less than significant" to
potentially significant? There is no evidence to support change in conclusion. The
analysis continues to support a finding of no impact.
Page 35 (MM 4.4-2c) — We do not see any nexus provided to require groundwater
quality monitoring. The text and analysis all seem to continue to support a finding of no
impact. Without evidence to reasonably support conclusion, is there a nexus for the
County to require this mitigation? See CEQA' Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4)A and
B.
Page 36 (first paragraph) — The water table is already exposed via Little Chico Creek
(see second sentence from bottom of page 16) and every well in the area. This impact
already exists. Arguably the design of project will be safer than these pre-existing .
conditions.
Page 36 (second paragraph) — I may be misreading this but it sounds like Toby is
identifying an impact associated with pumping in the area. I do not believe we are
proposing any pumping. Therefore, this is not a project impact, but an existing
condition.
Page 37 (first paragraph) — We are proposing to use a drag line, not a floating dredge.
The text suggests here and in other places that we would be using a dredge. Also
potential impacts from waterfowl are a pre-existing condition due to the Creek's existing
connection to the aquifer. Didn't the Cache Creek studies dispel this issue.
Page 41 (third paragraph) — This and other references to drinking water standards do
not seem appropriate. We are not proposing to use water from the lake for drinking
water purposes.
Page 43 — The analysis does not acknowledge that:
• pit is not proposed for drinking water;
• there is significant filtering of water as it passes through the soils;
• water in the pit is not stagnant it is free-flowing and -constantly freshening and
filtering;
• the Creek is already hyrdologically connected to the aquifer;
1
• the aquifer is huge compared to this minute blip proposed by project;
• at best potential impacts are remote, speculative, and not reasonably foreseeable;
• CEQA does not require or allow for speculation or worst-case analysis — the
standard is reasonableness.
Page 44 (bottom paragraph) — Agricultural tailwater and unregulated use of pesticides
Q and poisons by agricultural industry are a pre-existing condition. There is no nexus for
project to address impacts from that industry.
Pages 45-47 — We are currently attempting to assess the physical and financial
effects of the mitigation on our project and will come prepared to provide this
information.
Page 47 (MM 4.4-4e) — There does not appear to be a nexus for the monitoring
requirement. The analysis does not support the imposition of this measure.
Page 52 (bottom full paragraph) — There has been no channel movement since 1862
per added text. Clearly no mitigation measures are merited. There is no nexus for
additional setback. Additional research proves this is not a migrating channel. Impact
should be identified as less -than -significant.
M and T\Hydro.comments.doc
2
COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 8; 2001 DRAFT. REVISED, NOISE SECTION.FOR M" &T
RANCH MINE EIR 3$4..
General —We are very concernedabout the approach and the mitigations in�tliis revised
noise analysis. We look forward to addressing the approach and, hopefully, convincing _
you to make some modifications. Whether or not you agree with us regarding the
approach, we also look forward to discussing the mitigations with you to assess cost;
effectiveness, and effects on the project. Thank you for this opportunity.
Page 4.8-4 (second paragraph) — This critique of the County's standards is important;
but we believe, unfair in this context. This project should be judged against the
n. standards in place. If the standards are felt to be inappropriate for whatever reason,
then we hope that they would be changed in a public process, on a countywide basis,- t
not ad hoc through the M & T EIR. _
Page 4.8-0 (third line) The text: "this .is a' valid concern" seems inappropriately
subjective. There are no criteria given for how the validity of. the "concern" was
determined, and no explanation as to why the opposing concern of the applicant was
not identified, and presumably determined to not be "valid". The area is, in fact, an, r
agricultural area. We believe that the conduct of noise measurement during the
agricultural season is very valid. We are concerned that this statement is gratuitous and.,
we respectfully request- it be edited out of the final section. The suggestion that the
ambient measurements were somehow adjusted to achieve a particular result is also of'
concern. This would impinge on the objectivity of the EIR, ,an& we believe it is
. detrimental to the process.
Page 4.8 -$((third paragraph) It appears that no row crop agricultural activities .were .
occurring (e.g. tilling, harvesting, spraying, etc.) and that minimal orchard crop activities -
4 were occurring. Perhaps that should be clarified, as this would demonstrate that the {
measurement of existing conditions was not "worse case" or perhaps even "reasonable.
case".
Page 4.8-19 — The text on this page is of great concern. The revised noise analysis '.
appears to acknowledge that the County has noise standards within the General Plan • ` that could be used for this purpose, but then essentially. ignores, them and sets a whole,,
new standard.
4 _' .• 1 r Sections 15064(h) and 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines speak to the idea of }
impact being determined. based on standards set by the lead agency. The
County's standard is 65dB ' Ldn. As we have stated earlier, should the ; A
County wish to change this it should be done through a public process, with' s
appropriate analysis of the implications to all industries and land uses, and "
be applied County -wide.
2. It remains unclear to us why the approach taken in the originally circulated a
EIR is being changed at all. We are not aware of anything in the,.comme`nt `
letters that would have triggered this change.. We are concernedthat' it: r
undermines the process. Y ,
3. There is no substantiation for the revised approach. If an average. ambient is
going to be used, it should reflect typical background noise for allowed
existing uses in the area, not the quietest weekend morning measurement at
the quietest location. CEQA mandates a reasonable approach, not a worst-
case analysis. The first paragraph on page 4.8-10 indicates that the
measurements are unusually low. We do not believe the use of these is
reasonable.
4. The new standard would preclude ANY use of the land. Normal speech is 60
dBA (Figure 4.8-2). In other words under this proposed new ad hoc
standard, a home could not be built, the fields could not be farmed, and
certainly aggregate could not be feasibly extracted from this State- and
locally -recognized important deposit.
Page 4.8-20 (second paragraph) — The text describes the alternatives as "optional'.
They are not optional in our mind. We request the term "scenarios" be used. This
would be consistent with terminology used elsewhere.
Page A-25 (third paragraph) — We believe a reasonable question to ask is whether and
how one residence should trigger the full force of CEQA mitigation. At a certain point
someone needs to ask whether it makes sense for impacts to one home to trigger
hundreds of thousands of dollars of mitigation (or even preclude the financial feasibility
of the project) for no public good. We also hope you will be sensitive as to whether
there truly is a nexus for the mitigation. We understand why the 'EIR must disclose such
an impact (assuming appropriate significance thresholds are used) but believe this may
be where an override is appropriate? Would the County staff support and recommend
an override of this impact? We would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Please note, we are currently attempting to assess the physical and financial
effects of the mitigation on our project and will come prepared to provide this
information.
Page A-26 (MM 4.8-1 b and c) — How would these be enforced? How could we prove
these were adequately implemented?
Page A-26 (MM 4.8-1 d) — We cannot address the effect of this mitigation on our
operations without a specified setback. We also again question how mitigation this
vague could be enforced or proved to be adequately implemented?
Page A-28 (MM 4.8-3a and b) — These mitigations are too vague to know exactly what
is being required and.when.
Other Items — 1. There is no quantitative analysis of the project with the mitigations
applied to prove that the impact is mitigated and to what extent. We believe this is
necessary for the EIR to hold up to scrutiny in the next review. 2. Also there does not
appear to be any analysis of the alternate scenarios (with and without the batch plant).
M and TMise.comments.doc
2
October 12, 2001
V, E
DY"
N
- OCT 1 5 2001
bari,B eedon
Senior -Planner
Planning Department "BUTTECOUNTY
PLANNING.. DIVISION
Butte County
7 County, Centei..D iv.e -
Oroville, California :95965'
SUBJECT: Cost .Ek f6i"the Re-cifcu1idoaof m&r,
-Chico ''Ranch
Mine Daft-Enviieonmental Inipact' Report
(DEW
Dear Dan,
Enclosed, is a -Cost Tstimate* for the.Re-ciiculation of ;the "M'&T-:Chico Ranch Mirie DEIR (Table 1).
Thef0aie', 'several- confusing aspects eds ofthis're=budg'eting, as.'some'tasks-ihaVe_:been partially or
entifely:cofio'l0ted,:and '' ter-Aasks . ave, een,, som whafreddiredio.r the..n�w:ap
approach. We
have evared'Table -J to; -show both ;the ;6rigidal:tasks' and :b dget -the additional
hydr0-1ogy flooding analysis); is arid;additionalto showthe .Itasks and budget
r <the re -circulation.
Where previoustasksare -redefined, weshowwhere budgets`
havebeen moved.
In addition, at the pciirrt_,.ev`f__�,one agrees with the, expecte,d costs, we will have to deal with the
t
following your review a 01, 98379193.
payment, schedule. easecail.u�6
Sincerely,
avid4Brown
Principal,
Encl.
041 1 /C
Cost..estirnatc for recirculation M&T.doc 302'-A S. Lex"19ton, Or I ive Telephone: 916.983.903
Folsom, 61iforn' ia 95'630 Facsimile: 916.983.9194
X,
M & T HYDROLOGY CONFERENCE CALL AGENDA (9/28/01)
Purposes of this discussion are to resolve the outstanding issues regarding the revised
hydrology section of the M&T Chico Ranch DEIR. Participants will be Dan Breedon,
Toby Hanes, Lane Green, Mike Pole, Rene Vercruyssen, Heidi Tshudin, David Brown,
and Jennifer Dzakowic. The following outlines the main topics to be covered:
1) NorthStar Engineering Flooding Analysis
After reviewing the draft flooding study, Toby Hanes had numerous comments that
he addressed in his May 17th letter to Dave Brown. The following outlines issues
from his letter:
a) Define the channel capacity of Little Chico Creek at the Jones parcel and at
the proposed pit, along with the associated estimated recurrence interval.
b) Analysis of flooding potential of the Jones parcel as well as impact to
downstream properties as far as Angel Slough.
c) Location of proposed cross-sections (North and South).
d) Areas of impact and marginal increase in water depths from project.
e) Potential impacts of the overburden stockpile areas located to the east of the
proposed pit.
f) Including M&T overflow weir as a source of flooding.
2) Proposed Mitigation Measures
After reviewing the draft hydrology section, Mike Pole had numerous comments that
he addressed in his June 7th letter to Dan Breedon. The following outlines issues
from his letter: ��� �5��� U� �v�r•✓�. Q��/o �����
Well draw down level standards used in mitigation measures. Tyr
b) Set back for adjacent wellssed in mitigation measures.
C) Miti�aA?ncme�uies requiring agreements with adjacent landowners.
d) Water usage calculation.
e) Groundwater impacts and mitigation measures (groundwater monitoring).
3) Proposed Timeline for completing updated sections [
2. �0
a) Completion of flooding study October 15, 2001 " G� Ae
4) Re -circulation of the DEIR
a) Copy of application from applicant (for updating land use) section.
b) Change Project Description to incorporate new items (i.e.berm) or leave as
mitigation measures.
c) Response to comments (for re -circulated EIR).
041
hydroagenda.9-28-0I Am
,•0 31^
/00/1994 18' 58 91F,-444-:022-7 TSCHLIUIN.'CONS U -TING PAGE 01+`
}..r"CHUDIN. CONSULTING GROUP -71 -Street,
OA 858 4 �` ,'
DAVE:
_TO:Teb�a�.,cs X707) SSS--7oTq
(S 30 S38_ 797,0 • '
Rtnt Vcr ,� SSe►7 CS3fl
_ PRS:
PAGES: t�
SCHUDIN (FAx
MESSAGE: PLEASE DELIVER THIS DOCUMENT ASAP r
'
-perS_r . ! ;� ,; • y � t . �
-Lt-
• ., . • • Y � - � f,'' " ^ f, n ., . ~�w .. . air '`•�, ��
� ... �' � . ..1 ' � r � '`.. � - • • / }• - ` _ •a ,.. , � •, . e; � } � ,fir
. �,� '` .. .• - 1 •. *,'•ice •'l
IF YOU NAVE ANY PR09LEMS RECEIVING THIS FAX PLEASECALL (9161 447-1 .
- ,� , ) 809.
I.i
L�
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
To: M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner
From: Dan Breedon, Senior Planne
Subject: M&T Chico Ranch -Update
Date: August 31, 2001
Meleka, here is a summary regarding this project:
At present, the following issues are on the table:
1. Completing floodplain study (HEC -RAS Model) of Little Chico Creek.
This is being accomplished by NorthStar Engineering. Mike Mcenespy is the project engineer on this.
Public Works has provided comments on this study directly to NorthStar. I have confirmed that
NorthStar is working on these comments, which are extensive. Fundamentally, the study must
demonstrate that the project will not displace floodwaters and impact surrounding lands. At this time I
am told that this is not shown. Additionally, NorthStar is incorporating a sound berm into the analysis,
as this berm alters the footprint of the project, it may impact the floodplain. Baldwin Contracting has
hired NorthStar to design this berm, based upon dimensions provided by Paul Bollard necessary to
attenuate noise impact to the nearby residence. Ideally, the berm will be situated out of the floodplain.
This will be assessed by NorthStar. Mike Mcenespy indicates that the floodplain analysis will not be
completed until mid-October. The Floodplain study must be incorporated into the Hydrology Section of
the EIR by Dave Brown of Resource Design. That will occur with the assistance of Toby Haines,
project hydrologist.
2. Inclusion of an asphalt & concrete plants at the Mine
According to the original project description, the project included the operation of asphalt and concrete
plants in connection with the rock quarry. At the time, County staff requested that the EIR analyze the
project's impact with the batch plant and without the batch plant. On Page 1-1 of the previously
completed DEIR it states that the County has not previously permitted batch plants in the A-40 zone
and, for this reason, the DEIR evaluates scenarios with the batch plant and withoutthe batch plant. On
page 4.2-6 of the previous DEIR it states. .."The processing of aggregate onsite may be inconsistent
with the policies of the Butte County General Plan and the Butte County Zoning and Mining Ordinance.
Current interpretations of the General Plan by Butte County staff seem to indicate thatthe batch plants
associated with the proposed project would not be inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan
(Butte County 1997). However, the specific facts associated with this Use Permit application must be
reviewed by County staff and decisions thereof be made by the Planning Commission or Board of
Supervisors." More recently, staff has advised the applicant that the County Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan does not support approval of batch plants in the A-40 zone or Orchard & Field Crops
General Plan designation. This position has been confirmed by the Board of Supervisors when they
acted to deny a process that would have allowed for a use permit application process for proposals to
make batch plants accessory to quarries. The most vocal critics of this process included Robinson
Construction in south Oroville. Robinson Construction went through an Industrial Rezone process to
allow for a batch plant next to their rock quarry. They argued that others should be held to the same
standard. In my opinion, the Board, in acting to deny that process, affirmed that the rezone process
was necessary to address the potential impacts batch plants had on surrounding lands.
I recently discussed this issue again with the applicant. We advised that if batch plants are desired, an
application for rezone and general plan amendment would be necessary, and these applications were
provided to the applicant. The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of the equipment area of the
mine, probably about 5 acres. The applicant has not submitted this application at this time. I indicated
to the applicant that the findings for such a rezone would be difficult to make, because it may constitute
a spot zone, and would be difficult to make findings of compatibility in an Agricultural area. I discussed
the possibility of a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the zone could be limited by the
County. -
3. Inconsistency of Batch Plant with Williamson Act Contract
The M&T Ranch property is under a Williamson Act Contract or Land Conservation Act (LCA) Contract.
Such a contract specifies uses that are compatible with the terms of the Contract. Generally, uses
must be related to agriculture or not present a threat to agriculture. Under the LCA contract in effect
for this property it states that mining is a compatible use. The specific contract language allows for
sand and gravel operations subject to securing a Use Permit from the County. Batch plants are not
listed as a compatible use. There is a contract section that allows for any other uses determined to be
compatible by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing and made applicable to all other contracts.
4. Request of applicant to recirculate entire EIR
Resource Design suggested that it may be beneficial to recirculate the entire EIR, instead of just the
three rewritten sections. This will require a revised estimate from Resource Design, which they are
pulling together at this time. This may be beneficial in that the other sections can be revised for
consistency, and it may be less confusing to the general public. Baldwin and Knife River Corporation
seem agreeable to this. I will discuss the estimate with them when it arrives. If this is agreed to we will
need to do a contract amendment (Deborah will have to help with this). These take awhile to process
before the Board. We'll need to set that into motion as soon as it is agreed to.
K:\PROJECTS\MIN\M&T\update memo.doc
, .
I'-
:. ; , :: ,,. � r
t 1.
<
I 11 "> r
fi .�'' :�
I ,.:
�
.. ,K. . T r
S 11 '_.
, : y .
•
M..1.
<'
1
, , b11
C� r
?, •. L S
X �
I
,.},. .y ..d: L ro
�,
r ,C M1
k �i n
r. j.
+, , , ,.
2' n
t )
n
�" x
S. .-.
;,:
4
f:
�' r
,
{: !
s<.
J' `, S
AR n 'fa. r
.. ,, �. -.
R• Y
:.,- .-;4
e w- . <., ,.,
W
e - ".. .. - e p..3' f
K
,�• s' ',7'
_
.. y'J. -
- +r
L'
. , ' ,- ". TABLE 1 COST.ESTIMATE FOR RECIRCULATED DEIR _.
"''1
, . �,'•-, ., .
x '
v _
• .,. ,.
.., i.. ..r �. M&T CHICO. RANCH�MINE a �.
w
'.N .
. s
.' S - k
"
: .. , ., ...
_ s ....
x ._
s" r
:
,,, >„ <
,-
". ;
(
:,
..
-.-.
... ,,. i . a
s .,, -. /:S ,. ..
Task ubtask C.
.., , I. , < a
k ;
F-- r
Status,. O Cost '
r,. flG �
Recirculated Cost
Recircttla ed
-
�I'
Direct Cost (7°/v)
.Total Cost
;
:. 1.a
.._ - .'
, .. _ .,
y . ,2
„:
c.
Stibconsultan` is
is Cos
- u
,
-
"
1
R..
In '
TaskT P o ect Review and Coordination
-
,- :
s d a, -_.
' ^'A , ''' f '; ,
.�� _
1.1'Kickoff Meeting -
No Additional Tasks required'
$1,250
•
.-. ,. .` �" .'t. >
,:.1-.2 Pro' ct Review ' _ - - - - -. - 'k` -
'. No Additional tasks uired
: f2 760
. -
J• !:L
- I 5
r:r',: } ^t ;.,^ ',:-' ; ,:
-, k1,:1
,: '4 Coordination . : , '.
3
, Additional tasks required '
_
$4,110
$2,120
$1,400
y
- - .6246
33,766
,
I I—,...+_
a
Task 1 Subtotal
$S,lzo
$2 120
$1,400
$246
$3,766
,.. - _ a
. y , - '
$ask 2 Draft EIR Re' iris�ons and Res onses
__
- , p
1 - -
. � .
2.1 Traffic Section Revisions
No Additional tasks required
31,920
A
- .
?
Subconsultanc Fehr & Peers
No Additional asks required'
637,980
,
2.2 Noise Section Revisions
No Additional tasks required
$795
G
-
I - " }"
Subconsultant Bollard & Brennan
No Additional tasks required _
$7,500
t
- '''
r: - - .. ,.. ' , I
2.3 Hydrology Section Revisions (previously Master Response)
No Additional tasks required.
$2,100
.
..� y
_ „-
Subconsultant, Hydro Science
No Additional tasks required .
$16,435
' -
5 `
r ' ;
:.
2.4 Surface Flooding Analysis
No Additional tasks required
31,760
' $1,600
a{ 5235
• � $3,595
�
Subconsul ant: NorthStar
: No Additional tasks required
$19,840
rl
,
Task 2 Subto
$86,570
$1,760
$1 600
.; $235
$3,595
'
sk 3' P spare ff minist ar ova U�eft Recircuiateddd E1R �<
�
_
. '
3 (budget moved to Task 2.3)
1
"
3-2 (budget moved to Task 4.4)
`a:
: � , - _
.. ._
,g_m .tom ._ -, z .. ... _.w_. ,.. -.- .y- ...... c .. >m _. .r o .a ._ _'... _._# .,
_ .. >.> ,: , .� . ..�, .:....,:e:� 2°'g'._._, -. ,.......R : ;>E -_ r__ _r ,..a'�s• . ,;:i.=#-xa
._.._ :::Refom,atDocument.. _. �_..? ._ - ,.. _
3 3 fi z ���.�._...� _.
T ..,._-3"r.,:M
Ad d,uonal'tasks. uued -
''' e- ,, ='
.ccs..' _,.:.
s a __
'_ - �i :a
.R : ._ __'..>�e-_
t2 A700
of .. zx` m' �_:... "
m
. -g�,:-4.. '(x;, FR=
.€.,-.&�-'M>-s. `:'`�'fs-` ,�
�:s
s 147
"
. - _":'S,X-,v _,_.
.. f229Z
,\.
` a
.
_ , , __ ._, .. .._ _ .. _ 3 .. _.
_ :..., .__.. _.: >.<..:__. ._..<__ _.,...s__ ___ _
_ .. >.v a ...,. ._ , . t : - ,...._ _ _ ._ ..... - _.- ..,,.a a _s E" >+'?..
d� „Pre CNernew:ofDis ttion-of Co ts: e v , _. .� ,_ �._>-, �� ,� ._ s. �...sL., ._.
__-�...r�34....__P�-- --- tnmen _Rceied.�.- �-.... r �.,_ �____ _
„_..,....,._.__c._..-.pa',___.._.�__ .a;�rtr __...>__..�..�:sx...':."..�'. .. s�
__
.:. _.
,> Addtnonal;[asks:r uired_._
.-. ....._.._ ..._ e9-_._._......___:".."`:....a�...:_...._
.rvs ,. ..-»R?s,
, _ � .:
.. _�,.�'.-.< .�:
:.a-
"` z
�_ t-.-, ' __ __ ..
� :.,_ _ ,�f1120,
._'zrs?:m�._._>_.._._s:,-.>.=?-_.a.:..._..__.:x-
.`'ft v.:.<s�P :-::a
.��r � _. _ �
s�. �
- _ .
�3' s.-, zI ..
� wry :�'�
a.��..---_'-'''a. :' ..`--3- 378.,
t` _
��� � (1198
,__-
- _
-,
,.> v:: .:-,..:_. - = _._ - _ .,-_.!' F--='''`-' ,,. _"rm c- _..1001:'vim•. a- _ _.x>,.3.;, _.,� �;...,,...
F. 2- _rte m ..
_ U te:and.Revtse Text and,Fi tires :as:neces5a'00
3 5 g ry €._
-�:'
......, a -ate-, _ .
.. _ z
uired
_ .'•�=
'_ �'r = '. ?
>
--`-a--_''"-'
_-:-,- $. -
3 200
%
az ;
'--'='-=°` ,.:r:-' ",x__.__..i°:''="
�, t • max.-
r-, - 6224$
-
a 3,, 424
` .
..
, 11- - h
t
_ _ . ,Add}uonal.tasks.
,5'' _ . s ..n;»,�-..-<...-.- -.. -.. ,..� ,,,�_r.2�__
�*�._...„,I x..,.s_ z,.. .__ ,.t,.. <.,.., _ .... r ..._ ,.s __ ..__ <,_...:.
mm ..:.. _ -„
,.. .., -.. a A ,. .i..--:.. : ms , ,: ;ig .' ' _ ,
:....6, U tezAir Section. = < _ m .
R_ 3
nor- pda QuaLry ___ -
a-'___-s`3m�'`:`z�-."..--�_._._._._..___.s.._,
I:..,._ ....... _ _......!'_i ---..._... ,.�.,..�_:i,�:;
moi'.. `°' '. "tea:
Addmomll ntskz cared - ._
.a:
_ .. 3ltz_ ,g",
- .:
_
x;=',E` - -:.
.s_°"., ,' • $280
-':',, . ,- .,.,_s'. :,,
, .
:<�'�.a?. _,-x.. - 3rs_-'. _,�. _
: E' ..cT : _ _ .
$
"m�-.ta.•a�,.'.,,:.::r::�2�-,.s300
< :a _,.
` `
fi4
.,,
.. - -
. .' ..
,
a _
_ .x,. ., ,.._..._.. ,� .._...__.._.>.. , .....r._ssfnbp"''X..x___
c,, ._ "`,#:.*,..,. -�M. ..
m _.',F�"�+,.,• "`^�' .. u.�`G.. _. '•x,.. .,. _Z>: _'
, ... _; ,.. ,: :: .. , ., .,. _• _., .:'' _e ._ .._: ski.?a':, ,`°..`I,t`.
a a .7 .0 te:Land Use>Secnon ,. , _. _
$
_..4?I._.._._..rs�.,>�f<'?-:.,rt.^.!_"��---?a.:..._-...wc_=".,'',.,.
,t, ..._,.v_,,,
- _ _ . €ham>'z„`L,,:
Addtt oral tasks re uirrd..
A.._._.__._..
�.._ .. ,...,.„.
., m - ., .4 .
1,, . N
, =«s ... «.-_..__. -:
_
'_
�� :6280
... a _µ �:>
3>= , _ n.:s"C- '+3::
_ _•-s� -
.>
-.. `! amu,
'' aA�G„xf
a
_.' :E4' T" -.: �+- ,-'
'"`. .y,
::',.. . ' $20
..,,.
3"00
,F
., . „'_
- ,%
„
".;, ',',
...3...._Pa? ,...��=
"-kms, z : .., > `>_•�• .� , R,- ': ----v = . < ...
8 .0 to Bolo Seeuon. _
�. 3 _
.;._ .:_,_, .gra,._ . : _,,, , - _
_ _..���.
_ �.-" ...<>:.-: -�-s :'tea. _ -- -
Additional-tasks:r ulmd ._
: .es,.__._.���_�.,
_ rare
. , _..
i :�' _ -_
f72o
.,, ___
_
x��,
....,..___ .uric _
..: ..:
0__��
_.
..��...�3._.
�i+�
s
��: T :fes __,� Soy?
- $ ; o
_ .,. :' . - : .,.' : •- ..
t - , -
> '"-a ;... : - , .'-`^ _.. •:•':, •. _ ., ?z _,,..
gPre re,Coun +Rev,ew Co les 6<co les _ m _ - _
3.9 _ _P? tyl..,. _ P_ �. �__P s�:? . _.. , _
_ .. .•: w i
AddtnonaLtasks r uired
E - -
--..
_° tea -,--'.---'s
�::-
l2�
-,:>-
MINIMIZER=:
..,
34'
;.p„_,., .,
::i74
. r
.. _
,
-_ __
310 . set else Per $raft Continents , ,_
_..>.x _. _ _ .__. , �� a .., , ; �"� . , . _: •
m, Add€uonal;rasks r cared
._ _ tl 900
'� ._
' sl...
��f2 0_
". -
<.x.�:..
_ �, _
_ ..
..,..... �_ a r _ .,.
a 3 Pnnt.and,Circulate.Cl00.co ,es .. _. ....
1 .:_ .> _ m ..__..:,P. >� �_ ,. :... w
_. .}.
_ , r ._ __
Addmonal ks i
..z u reg _��k�
_:' -: _ ', s ,�.
....
_.. , �:_,_.:
��
s ' , ,ct
f. ,
¢_ .x 95
=€�w.< ...a_
__
611"40
,3
.-
,I
, , ,,
1.<..
11
: _,., _ r ..y.,.__
-1_>. 3 Plannln Commiss,onScu Session _�..... _ .. _. _
_ ,_ .. .>,
W..., ...... g . ........ dY _ _ ,c . _ :.
_ Addiuortal€ttsks° cared.
mq ��:
-31760
�a ,>: _. -
N
.....x
a ���„a f 123
�.. , ::
�,fl 88 3
I'll
_..
._ __.. , .._..._ _ .__ <,. _`,�_��_ x...
Task 3 Subtotal
:._.y
--� .nom ._
$10,300
..
._ _�
_ .�
$10,344
_. , ,
$11,021
,,. - ;
Task 4 R on mm n �,-. ,:,
t.„_,.._-ta.�� esp se toCo _ ®- ts_t,Fi�aIEIR ���a
.mss '
'`
.tm
" .,,
a`"
-
,
e F -,
4 b (buget moved to Task 4.4)
No Additional tasks required -
a
h rr
, y. " '.
4 2 (buget moved to Task 4.4)
No Additional tasks required
a.,
x !
-
,-''
43 Cbuget moved to Task 4:5)
'
No Additional tasks required-
f :
+ '; k I
I-
} , J
'
4.4 Responses to Comments/Administrative Draft Final EIR
No Additional tasks required
eq -
S 21,965
,,:; a i
5 , . . , > ; , , , . ,
".r, R
Y,, '',. E ,�'.
4. Mitigation Monitorin and Reporting Plan .., . .
5g Po 8 . ..
No Additional tasks required
$4,360
e 4 ..: `
s
_.-I'..
,: ", , ,
_ -. ,,
4.6-Prin[and Circulate FLtaI.E[R. - x. :� _
>e :, , _ ,... , _: ,.,� fir. - -
^.�..�� �=".' -:.�: •�
..k m.
�` Add,nonal+tasks uired
_
i
,,.
,, ,.;. .: .'
-, _
__ .. .gat. „. _ -..>., ,_...�_,w:.-i,<_."�:,.
.> _. ..q. .. =c __ .,.r.'-"`�""�
.
_..s
i�,�,S
�i
`., is
; ,
,
Task 4 Subto
$26,325
$2,Soo
$2,500
,.
1
Tusk 5, hearings Suppoii,
p x^ f
5.1 Hearing on Recirculated Sections - - _ •
No Additional tasks required
61,825
,
x t
" 5.2 Hearing on Certification of Final EIR
No Additional'tasks required
31,775
,
.
'
'::, .,11
. Task 5 Subto
-
$3,600
¢
-
•
Dlrect Costs / Continger►cy
_
, ,d
Direct Costs (estimated at of total) >,,- ,, „1 I
No Additional liisks required
32,685
3 Y
. "
. .
, Contingency
No Additional tasks required
310,196
t
:., , . .
11
Dlrect Cost and ContiagencySubto
$12,881
y; ;•
UrlglanlGontrectC�
$137,496
Toial`CosE:
$20,883
. t3 -
-
. r , ;
,, ._ ,
I 11-, . .
'. •k
Tota1 Direct Cos
$13,326
S ' ` 4 ' y
_ ,....
• '
,, �.-'-ate .�-�...'-- ..__.:'� - - ...;.. _..ku „« ,. ..
' - � ', _ -�' :u�?F"% ,� .x.:: ;a '-' ,. ^�c-=s.'��a�sa�'z ^' x??�% r.- .:ix---.r,•,.�,�, ,,..
ted;Rows areTAddltlonalTasks: ulced;for Recircttlation of=ihe'DEIR=and,Production,ofat -- F na�l`EIIt 41 + � r ��t r
I� ��:-
St�total > otal (ost lus'Tota( Dlrect Dost
' C1 a
20
$34, 8
,, f „
-111 ,
m t
. _!1
. P
-.
.
..
' " ' _
, s}'� t Ctin I --- cy'.,104h)
$3,421
,:' I
Toil Contract:
$37, 629
.
-
- t�
. . a
f.
-
, ..
,
ry .' ,. _ -
, 11 _
4
t .i� - S -
.. .'
F
} Aug 10
Decision to recirculate full EIR
= Aug 15
County comments (Public Works) on r written sections
Aug 15
Applicant comments on other sections
Aug 15
County comments on other sections
Sep 05
EIR consultant produces administrativ6 revised document
Sep 12
County and applicant comments on revised document
Sep 18
EIR consultant produces final revised document for recirculation
Sep 20
Printing and distribution
Sep 21
45 day recirculation of EIR starts
Nov 05
.45 day recirculation ends
Nov 05
County distributes comment letters
Nov 08
Staff/applicant/consultant meeting on approach for responses
Nov 26
EIR consultant produces administrative response document
Dec 03
Applicant comments on response document
" Dec 03
County.comments on response document
Dec 12
EIR consultant produces final response document
Dec 14
Printing and distribution
Dec 28,
County produces draft staff report
Jan 04
Applicant comments on draft staff report
Jan 09
Final staff report released
Jan 17
Planning Commission hearing
Jan 29
Board of Supervisors hearing
F
August 9, 2001
Summary of M&T Chico Ranch Mine Permit Application
March and August 1995 — M&T consultant meets with Butte County staff on preliminary permit
application..
August 30, 1996 — KRCBaldwin Contracting Company submitted use permit application to
Butte County. Several prior meetings and telephone calls with Butte County Planner, Steve
Hackney, provided information on application procedures: Application included hydrology
study as. recommended by Steve Hackney. Application was submitted on two. different forriis as `..
Butte County' was'in the process of changing application forms. Initial application was for 315
acres.
October 9, 1996 — Application deemed complete by Butte County.
December 11, 1996 — Initial Study completed and EIR process begins.
February 27, 1997 — Butte County promulgated request for proposal to complete EIR.
� 1x31-Sz84 0
May 7, 1997 — KRCBaldwin submitted $106,850 check to Butte County for completion of the
EIR by Lilburn Corporation. RTRW �sW25 &O'f* # 15894
June 23, 1997 — Received letter of General Plan interpretation from Development Services
Director indicating that mining and processing as proposed in the M&T use permit application
are compatible uses in the agricultural zone where the M&T project is located. Subsequent
conversations with the director. suggest siting of an asphalt plant or a ready mix plant may not be
allowed, but that screening and crushing plant is'allowed.
December 1997 — Lilburn submits administrative draft EIR to the county and the applicant.
January 14, 1998 — Meet with county staff and Lilburn to provide comments on the
administrative Draft EIR. Additional written comments provided on February 6. By this time,
KRC/Baldwin had agreed to reduce the size of the project to about 235 acres.
May 20, 1998 — DEIR deemed complete by county staff. Steve Hackney decided to release the,
DEIR without review by county staff or applicant. There had been many changes to the
administrative draft that was reviewePhe county staff and the applicant in January. Also, most
of the Lilburn staff working on the project left the firm in March and April. As a result, the draft
EIR contained many errors. We believe that many of these errors could have been corrected
prior to the document's release to the public had county staff and the applicant been able to✓
review it first.
June 11, 1998 — Public hearing on DEIR. The Lilburn representative sent to the hearing had no
experience on the project as Lilburn staff who conducted the EIR had left the company in March
and April of 1998. As a result, the consultant provided virtually no response to any of the
public's concerns addressed in the hearing.
Certificate of I
Agency Name and Address:
Professional Practice
Insurance Brokers, Inc. '
2244 West',Coast Highway, Suite 200
Newport'Beach, CA 92663._;
Insureds Name and Address:
Resource Design Technology
26941 Cabot Road, Suite #104
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
a¢
rsurance
1 of 1 #S39414/M39413
ISRTIFICATE-d,_1SSUED AS A MATTER OF
00 MATION ONLY AND.CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON
E�CERTIEICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES
D .� ..
T
AMW, EXTEND:O,R ALTER THE COVERAGE
r r , A . , ... .
FORUD THE -POLICIES LISTED BELOW. • - • -- -- -1
A-Amcrrican Motorists Insurance Co
B.
C. I
D:, %.
E.�
COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
IVIM1 rMM I MIIV. I r1C IIVJUMMIN1,C ArrUMUCU DT I MM rUL1UMO Ur0t N1CCU r1rNtIN IJ bLIWtU I I U ALL 1 Ht 1 tHMS, tXGLUSIUNS, ANU UUNUI I IUNS UI- $UGH f ULIGIE$.
TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP.DATE POLICY LIMITS
Description of Operations/LocationsNehicles/Restrictions/Special items:
RE: M&T CHICO RANCH MINE PROJECT.
*\A/ritton nt nnnronnto limite of Iinhilihr not Ince fhnn mmnllnt chn—n
General Aggregate:
GENERAL LIABILITY
Products-Com/Ops
WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED.
Aggregate:
CANCELLATION:
❑ Commercial General Liability
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
Each Occurrence:
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30
Fire Dmg. (any one fire):
❑ Claims Made
Combined Single Limit:
THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS
Bodily Injury/person:,-,
NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN.
❑ Occurrence
Autho e r entativ 09/13/01
Property Damage.
Each Occurrence:
❑ Owner's and Contractors
Aggregate:
Statutory Limits
Protective
$1,000,000
Disease/Policy Limit:
$1,000,000
Disease/Employee:
$1,000,000
Per Claim
Aggregate
AUTOzLIABILITY - .
$0
❑ Any Automobile '
❑ All Owned Autos
❑ Scheduled Autos
❑ Hired Autos
❑ Non -owned Autos
❑ Garage Liability
EXCESS LIABILITY
❑ Umbrella Form
❑ Other than Umbrella Form
A
WORKERS'
7CW28663203
09/01/01
09/01/02
_ COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYER'SThis
Certificate sho
s the
LIABILITY
insured's Workers'
renew
Som
I of the
ensatio
PROFESSIONAL
01`11Y. Ail p lousy issued
other coverae
Certificate
, showing
LIABILITY*
s
and/Or attachents
,,fill
FF9
Description of Operations/LocationsNehicles/Restrictions/Special items:
RE: M&T CHICO RANCH MINE PROJECT.
*\A/ritton nt nnnronnto limite of Iinhilihr not Ince fhnn mmnllnt chn—n
General Aggregate:
THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED
Products-Com/Ops
WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED.
Aggregate:
CANCELLATION:
Personal and Adv. Injury:
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
Each Occurrence:
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30
Fire Dmg. (any one fire):
DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN
Combined Single Limit:
THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS
Bodily Injury/person:,-,
NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN.
Bodily.lnjury/accident: _ ..
Autho e r entativ 09/13/01
Property Damage.
Each Occurrence:
Aggregate:
Statutory Limits
Each Accident:
$1,000,000
Disease/Policy Limit:
$1,000,000
Disease/Employee:
$1,000,000
Per Claim
Aggregate
$0
Certificate Holder:
THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED
WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED.
Butte County
CANCELLATION:
Attn: Dan Breedon
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30
7 County Center Drive
DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN
Oroville, CA 95965
THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS
NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN.
Autho e r entativ 09/13/01
cc:
.,1
�f
Certificate of Insurance
1 of 1 #M47352
Agency Name and Address:
GENERAL LIABILITY
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF
Professional Practice
03/09/03
INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON
Insurance Brokers, Inc.
$1,00000
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES
2244 West Coast Highway, Suite 200
Fire Dmg. (any one fire):
NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE
Newport Beach, CA 92663
$1,000,000
AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW.
Insureds Name and Address:
® Occurrence
Companies Affording Policies:
A.American Manufacturers Mutual Ins.
Resource Design Technology
$0
B. American Motorists Insurance Co.
26941 Cabot Road, Suite #104
Aggregate:
of London
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
D.Lloyd's
$1,000,000
Disease/Policy Limit:
E.
Disease/Employee:
El
F.
COVEHAUFS: IHIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.
TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP.DATE POLICY LIMITS
A
GENERAL LIABILITY
7RE79089301
03/09/02
03/09/03
$2,000,000
21 Commercial General Liability
$1,00000
Each Occurrence:
$1,000,000
Fire Dmg. (any one fire):
❑ Claims Made
Combined Single Limit:
$1,000,000
Bodily Injury/person:
$0
® Occurrence
$0
Property Damage:
$0
Each Occurrence:
❑ Owner's and Contractors
Aggregate:
Statutory Limits
Protective
$1,000,000
Disease/Policy Limit:
$1,000,000
Disease/Employee:
El
Per Claim
$2,000,000
Aggregate
A
AUTO LIABILITY
7RE79089301
03/09/02
03/09/03
❑ Any Automobile
❑ All Owned Autos
❑ Scheduled Autos
Hired Autos
X❑ Non -owned Autos
❑ Garage Liability
El
EXCESS LIABILITY
❑ Umbrella Form
❑ Other than Umbrella Form
B
WORKERS'
7CW28663203
09/01/01
09/01/02
COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYER'S
,LIABILITY
C
PROFESSIONAL
AEP120
03/09/00
03/09/03
LIABILITY'
General Aggregate:
$2,000,000
Products-Com/Ops
WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED.
Aggregate:
$2,000,000
Personal and Adv. Injury:
$1,00000
Each Occurrence:
$1,000,000
Fire Dmg. (any one fire):
$100,000
Combined Single Limit:
$1,000,000
Bodily Injury/person:
$0
Bodily Injury/accident:
$0
Property Damage:
$0
Each Occurrence:
Aggregate:
Statutory Limits
Each Accident:
$1,000,000
Disease/Policy Limit:
$1,000,000
Disease/Employee:
$1,000,000
Per Claim
$2,000,000
Aggregate
$3,000,000
$0
Description of Operations/LocationsNehicles/Restrictions/Special items:
RE: M&T CHICO RANCH MINE PROJECT. GENERAL LIABILITY & NON OWNED/HIRED AUTO LIABILITY: BUTTE COUNTY, ITS OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES
AND DESIGNATED VOLUNTEERS ARE NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED/PRIMARY PER THE ATTACHED ENDORSEMENT.
*Written at aggregate limits of liability not less than amount shown
Certificate Holder:
THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED
WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED.
Butte County
CANCELLATION:
Attn: Dan Breedon
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30
7 County Center Drive
DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN
Oroville, CA 95965
THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS
NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN.
Autho e r entativ 03/08/02
cc:
:I
KEMPER PREMIER ENDORSEMENT FOR
ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FIRMS
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
Thin endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
BUSINESSOWNERS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM BP 71 08
1. ADDITIONAL INSURED - - BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT
ADDITIONAL INSURED: Butte County, its officers, officials, employees and designated volunteers
Item 5. of Section C. —WHO IS AN INSURED, is deleted and replaced by the following:
Any person or organization (named above) to' whom or to which you are obligated by virtue of a written
contract, agreement or permit to provide such insurance as afforded by this policy is an insured, but only
with respect to liability arising out of:
a) "Your work" for that insured by you, including work or operations performed on your behalf for that insured;
b) Permits issued by state or political subdivisions for operations performed by you; or
c) Premises you own, rent, occupy or use.
This provision does not apply unless the written contract or agreement has been executed, or the permit
has been issued, prior to the "bodily injury," "property damage," "personal injury" or "advertising injury."
This provision does not apply to any person or organization included as an insured under Additional
Insured — Vendors.
(NOTE: MEETS OR EXCEEDS CG 20 10 11 85)
2. PRIMARY - - NON-CONTRIBUTORY
This insurance is primary and is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or
for the benefit of Additional Insureds.
3. SEPARATION OF INSUREDS
Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this policy to the first
Named Insured, this insurance applies:
a) As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and
b) Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or "suit' is brought.
4. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
If we cancel this policy for any reason other than non-payment of premium, we will mail written notice at
least 30 days before the effective date of cancellation to the Additional Insureds on file with the Company.
If we cancel this policy for non-payment of premium, we will mail written notice at least 10 days before the effective
date of cancellation to the Additional Insureds on file with the Company.
5. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this policy, those rights are
transferred to us. This insurance shall not be invalidated should the Named Insured waive in writing, prior to a loss,
any or all rights of recovery against any party for a loss occurring. However, the insured must do nothing after a
loss to impair these rights. At our request, the insured will bring "suit' or transfer those rights to us and help us
enforce them. This condition does not apply to Medical Expenses Coverage.
Nothing herein contained shall vary, alter or extend any provision or condition of the Policy other than as above stated.
NAMED INSURED: Resource Design Technology I POLICY NO: 7RE79089301
Effective Date: 03/09/02 1 Expiration Date: 03/09/03
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Qwyupw
Authorized Signature
ISSUED: March 8, 2002
Note: Meets or Exceeds CG2010 11/85
Kemper Form #BP7108
FW: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Recirculated EIR Budget Page 1 of 2
Breedon, Dan
From: DeBrunner, Deborah
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002.1.1.:42 AM
To: Breedon, Dari
Subject: FW: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Recirculated EIR
Jennifer and I have agreed on the spreadsheet, and we have the revised scope of work. I need to discuss
with you the payment terms, at what point, completion of - ? task, will they be paid, and how
much, etc., following the foriilat of the existing contract.
Debcra vDe43vwti eta
Administrative Analyst III
Department of Development Services
(530)538-7464 538-7785 Fax
-----Original Message -----
From: Jen Dzakowic [mailto:jdzakowic@resourcedesign.biz]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:23 AM
To: DeBrunner,'Deborah
Subject: RE: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Recirculated EIR Budget
Deborah,
I have fixed the fomula error and attached the revised cost estimate. The final total for the Amendment is $51,
507 and the Total Contract is $189, 003. Please advise if additional changes are required.
Thanks,
Jen D
-----Original Message -----
From: DeBrunner, Deborah [mailto:DDeBrunner@ButteCounty.net]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 8:50 AM
To: 'jdzakowic@resourcedesign.biz'
Cc: Breedon, Dan
Subject: FW: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Recirculated EIR Budget
Hi Jennifer, I've looked at the spreadsheet and saxv only one formula error. It is fixed on this version - See very last
entry for contingency total, formula included "M25" for an additional $300.
Deborah DeBrunner
Administrative Analyst III
Department of Development Services
(530) 538-7464 538-7785 Fax
-----Original Message -----
From: Jen Dzakowic [iiiailtpJdz_il:o�_vic rcresqurcedesign biz]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:04 PM
7/1/2002
TABLE 1 COST ESTIMATE FOR RECIRCULATED DEIR
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
Task / Subtask
Status
_
Original Cost
Recirculated Cost
Recirculated
Subconsultants
Costs
Direct Cost (7%)
Total
Amendment
Cost
Total Cost
Task 1 Project Review and Coordination `�- _'' �- - - ��. .Y.;� .` .. -`.• .--_ . n _•_` -- `- `-,�'' - - '^
1 1 Kirk -riff MP.P.11n - ,
0 _ 2.222 _-,-,
_�,0 Additional tasks required
S1,250
S2,760
-.
__ 51,250
Review TT -f
No Additional tasks required
52,760
- 13 CudNinalion- - _. '"--""��•s'" -*:-" : i _
__-_Additionat_tasks required_. __y
- .54,110
$8,120
-. $2120
--- J 32,120
'- 51,400
_._.-S1,400
- � 5246
--_�-- $2,
. 53766
v 33,766
- r 57876
--_- 511,886
f
Task 2 Draft EIR Revisions and Res onsesl- - s " "'` - •' •i5` k--. n'2•
_ 2.1 Traffic Section Revisions _
Snhn0n5ultaut; FahrR Pppm
-__No Additional tasks_ required-
No Additional tasks required_
No Additional tasks required__--_
No Additional tasks required _
No Additional tasks required-
No Additional tasks re aired
--�_- 31,920.
�_$37_980
_- _$7,500
_ _ _ • _ $2,100
S16.435
_ _
_ -" 519,84_0
�S86,5701
_
$1,920
--
537,980
$795
2.2 Noise Section Revisions - - T_
_V Subconsullant_Bollard R Brennan
`
_-__
;
_
_ _
{
_
--- - _
---------
S3_,595
_ _ �•- - •-_
3,595
_
_ S7,500
$2 100
516,435
_ - _ - _ -
2.3 Hydrology.SeFnon Revisipns (previously Master Response). _�-_-
- Subconsullank Hydro Science
__--2.4 Surface Flnnding Analysis �_ _ _` ___-_��"__��
Subconsultant_ NorthSlar _.- ` ` -
Task 2 Subtotal
_
T _
$1,760
S1,7601
51,600
$1,6001
-
5235
S2351
No Additional tasks requiretl._
No Additional tas_k_s_req:dred
^-
-
_ 53,595
519,840
590,165
Task 3 Prepare Administrative Draft Recirculated EIR r
u,.a..a^^,.
_2-1-,_- _^^-YVater-Quality-Masted esponse (Budget Moved to Task 2.3 _
3.2 Response to Comments-on-Previously-EirculaitgS§ cions (Budget Moved to Task 4.4
.- -2...222_..--T--__-.;.�...,..
SIB, -
-
�- Additional tasks required -•
S9_-9, 1
-
$3,200
--
5224-
---
$3,424
-
- $3,424
.
3.3 Retormat Document ' -
34 I'reRare rJveNiew Of Disposition of Comments Received , „ ' �, `
Additional tasks required ^_
tasks required
_
-,- -
_ •_ ,.
-
; 51,120
.. • - .. _ .. $3,200
-
-2222
.., . y. $78
-
- 5224'
- �S t�198
_ $1,198
_..
• 53,4224
-
3.5 UPCme anc _Revise Text and Fig_ur_es,_as necessary ° - - _
3.6 Update Air Quality Section '_- -' - -
__Additional
Additional tasks required
S286
_
_ 520
_•_'-__$3,424
5300
5300
_ _ _
` 37 Upcate Land Use Section ' - _ - _ -
_
Additional tasks required
5280
_
$20
5300
• S300
3.8 Update Biology Section - -
Additional tasks required. .
-
- S720
_ S50
5770
$770
3.9 Prepare Revised Archaeological Section and Update in EIR -
"Additional tasks required
S5.250
5368
$5,618
S5,618
3.10 Prepare County Review Copies (6 copies) -
Additional tasks required
- $700
-
S49
5749
5749
3.11 Meet and Revise Per Staff Comments -
- Additional tasks required
-
-_- $5.100
5357
$5,457
- $5,457
• 3.12 Pnn: and Circulate (100 copies) - ° . .: . - -
..' Additional tasks required
$1,840
-...
$9,500
f - :. S11,340
- S11,340
3.13 Planning Commission Study Session -- : ' _ u' -• - ' .. s' .:
T': Additional tasks required % `
::
.: $1,760
- ri -
S123
.. S1,883
".5.1,883
Task 3 Subtotal
$23,450
571,013
534,463
534,463
Task 4 Response to Comments/Final EIR `. " ". - .'°•- ',. ^ s' /. , -• .1 - 5r 4
4,1 Response to GommentsonReurwlated iraffisand-NoiseSerAions (Buget Moved to Task 4.4)
No Additional tasks required
4.2 Final-EIR-Errata-.Sheet (budget Moved to Task 4.4)-
No Additional tasks required
_
4-3 11A igaepor1in944an (_Budget Moved to Task 4.5)
No Additional tasks required
4.4 Responses to Comments/Administrative Draft Final EIR
No Additional tasks required
521,965
--
$21,965
_ 4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
No Additional tasks required
$4,360
$4,360
4.6 Print and Circulate FinalEIR(' .: -.: r. : '�'�`' • - ` ` -' - •
` - Additional tasks required •
SS 000.
$5,000
- . 55;000
Task 4 Subtotal
$26,325^
$5,000
$5,000
$31,325
Task 5 Hearings Support ' : t
5.1 Hearing on Recirculated Sections
No Additional tasks required
$1,825
51,825
_--
5.2 Hearing on Certification of Final EIR
No Additional tasks required
$1,775
_
$1,775
Task 5 Subtotal
$3,600
$3,600
. ___... -_- - 4 -- 'S, a ^-ter' -
.....-'----------Direct'Cdsts /'Contin enc • �u•'1,.t, a'# .. , - ._
Direct Costs (Estimated at 7% of Total)
ditional tasks required $2,685
$2,685
Contingency _
ditional tasks re uired $10 196
$4682
$14 878
Direct Cost and Contingency S��NLo
$12,881
$4,682
$17,563
_- "� + o-;.;?-s_.�-"_,; .+L.i^t'�.••+ s.a.� - •-
`Original Contract Cost $137496
,
,v totalAmendmentCost $51,507
Total Contract Cost
HI hu hted Rows arere'Additional Tasks required.for Reiirculation.of.the DEIR andProduction. of the Final E1R
$189,003
061202.MT.AdditionalCostDEIR.V2.ds -
FW: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Recirculated EIR Budget
To: Deborah DeBrunner
Subject: FW: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Recirculated EIR Budget
Deborah
Per our discussion today, attached, please- find the revised M&T Chico Ranch
Mine budget. Please let me know if you need additional information or have
any questions.
Thank,
Jen D
*** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content ***
*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***
*** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content '"'
*** IMPORTANT: Do not, open attachments from unrecognized senders ***
7/1/2002
Page 2 of 2
t
UNTY OF BUTTE
X11681
CONTRACT NO, Page. I of 5
AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF A
DRAFT & FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into thi%:�]—th day of—�OrIVL— , 2000, among the COUNTY
OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), Resource Design Technology, Inc.
("Consultant".) and KRC Holdings, Inca("Applicant").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a project identified as M&T Chico Ranch Mine Use Permit, Mining
Permit, and Reclamation Plan (Mining 96-03) for review and.approval by the County; and,
WHEREAS, the County has determined that said project must have an Environmental Impact Report ("Report")
prepared for it to assess potential significant environmental impact; and,
WHEREAS, the County wishes to engage the services of a qualified Consultant to perform the necessary work
in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft Report") and a Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final Report") must be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the County will need assistance and technical support in the administration of the Environmental
Review Process for the Applicant's project;.and
WHEREAS, the Consultant, and Consultant's subcontractors, have the knowledge and expertise to prepare the
Draft Report and Final Reports in addition to providing administrative support to the County in the preparation and review
of the Reports.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, it is agreed as
follows:
SECTION 1: The Applicant shall be responsible for all the various costs related to the preparation of the Report as
follows:
a. Pay the County the lump sum of $117,655.70 upon signing of this Agreement, $107,178.20 dollars
to be paid to *the Consultant to prepare the Draft Report, Final Reports, and Mitigation Measure
Monitoring & Reporting Program, and an additional $10,477.50 contingency budget for optional
tasks. Optional tasks deemed necessary and agreed to by the County shall. be funded from the
contingency budget.
b. Pay the County any additional fees to cover the cost incurred by the County, on an hourly rate based
on time and materials, to process the Reports.
C. - Grant or obtain for the Consultant permission to enter upon the property and to perform all necessary
work relative to preparation of the Report;
d. Hold the County and Consultant blameless and harmless for any damage to soils and vegetation which.
may occur during the normal course of field work;
e. Not interfere with the Consultant in the course of his/her work or his/her investigation and preparation
of this Report.
f. Contact with the Consultant only when County has been notified and given approval.
SECTION 2: The County shall:
a. Engage the Consultant to perform the work necessary in the preparation of the Draft Report for the
project described in EXHIBIT "A", and attached and incorporated herein by reference;
1b. Direct the Consultant to determine at the earliest time, those factors which could severely inhibit or
prohibit the proposed project, and the County will advise the Applicant of those factors for the purpose
Butte County Consultant Agreement for DEIR & FEIR —
Page 2 of 5
of determining the feasibility of continuing with the preparation of the Draft Report; in the event the
preparation of the Draft Report is terminated, the Consultant shall be paid for the work completed and
the County shall reimburse the Applicant for the uncompleted portion of the Draft Report;
C. Cause the Administrative Draft for the revised Traffic and Noise Sections, Response to Comments
Document and Master Response to Comments for the Hydrology and Water Quality Section to
be completed no later than 70 days from date of contract approval;
d. Make payments to the Consultant as provided for herein;
e. Make available to the Consultant any document, studies, or other information in its possession related
to the project;
f. Review the Administrative Draft Report presented by the Consultant and make written comments to
the consultant;
g. Review the proof copy of the corrected Administrative Draft Report and authorize the Consultant to
print the draft Report;
h. Process and review the Draft Report according to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") and the County's Guidelines for Implementing CEQA;
I. Notify the Consultant of all public hearings which the Consultant is required to attend as specified in
Section 3g.
SECTION 3: The Consultant shall:
a. Prepare the Environmental Impact Report according to the Work Program attached hereto EXHIBIT
"B", to conform with CEQA and the County Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, and may include
field exploration, review of all relevant information, laboratory tests and analyses, written reports and
such other data as may be necessary to properly evaluate the impact of the proposed project on the
environment;
b. Consult directly with all Responsible Agencies and other agencies having jurisdiction by law of the
project, during the preparation of the Draft Report;
C. Comply with the County's request to make an early determination of inhibiting factors to the project,
as provided for in paragraph 2(b) above;
d. Submit five copies of the administrative draft of the revised Traffic and Noise Sections,
Response to Comment Document and Master Response to Comments for Hydrology and Water
Quality Section to the Director of Development Services, or his designee, for review and make
changes as requested;
e. Provide the County with two 2 proof copies of the corrected documents in 2 (d) above, following
receipt of the Director of Development Services' written comments and corrections on these
documents;
f. Provide the County with thirty-five (35) copies of the Revised Traffic and Noise Sections upon receipt
of the County's authorization to print;
g. Attend no more than two 2 public hearings for which the Draft Report or the project is scheduled for
review except that attendance at additional hearings may be required and reimbursed in accordance with
the Consultant's budget proposal;
h. Submit two 2 copies of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Administrative Draft of
Response to Comments Document for comments received on the revised and recirculated Traffic
and Noise Sections and all other sections of the DEIR to the Director of Development Services, or
his designee, for review and make changes as requested;
I. Provide the County with two 2 proof copies of the corrected documents in 2 (h) above, following
receipt of the County's written comments and corrections on these documents;
— Butte County Consultant Agreement for DEIR & FEIR _
Page 3 of 5
Provide the County with thirty-five (35) copies of the Final EIR to include Responses to Comments
Document, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Master Response to Comments for
Hydrology and Water Quality Section, following receipt of the County's authorization to print.
SECTION 4: Standard Insurance Requirements
The Consultant shall provide at its own expense and maintain at all times the following insurance as described
in EXHIBIT " D".
SECTION 5: Standard Hold Harmless Agreement
The Consultant and Applicant shall hold the County, its agents, officers, employees, and volunteers, harmless
from, save, defend and indemnify the same against all claims, losses, and damages for every cause, including but not
limited to injury to person or property, and related costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising directly
or indirectly out of any act or omission of Consultant and Applicant, their agents, officers, employees, or volunteers,
during the performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED that:
a. The Consultant represents that neither he nor any member'of his staff has performed any work on the
proposed project, has no understanding with the Applicant or any expectation of working for the
Applicant in the future on said project.*
b. The Consultant, his employees, and subcontractors shall be considered independent contractors.
C. Any reports, information or other data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement shall not be
made available to any individual or organization by the consultant without prior written approval of the
County. The County shall have the unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute or otherwise
use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other material prepared under this Agreement.
d. The Consultant shall be paid a sum not to exceed one -hundred and seven thousand, one -hundred
and seventy-eight ($107,178.20) dollars and twenty cents for all work necessary to carry out the
requirements of this Agreement. Payments will be made in accordance with the following schedule:
The Director of Development Services shall be authorized to pay the initial ($32,153.46) 30
percent within ten (10) working days of the execution of this Agreement;
2. The Director of Development Services shall be authorized to pay ($21,435.64) 20 percent
upon submission by the consultant of the Administrative Draft of the revised Traffic and
Noise Sections, Response to Comments Document, and Master Response to Comments
for Hydrology and Water Quality Section;
The Director of Development Services shall be authorized to pay the ($32,153.46) 30 percent
upon submission of the printed copies of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and Administrative Draft of Responses to Comments Document for comments received
_ Butte County Consultant Agreement for DEIR & FEIR _
SECTION 6:
SECTION 7:
Page 4 of 5
on the revised and recirculated Traffic and Noise Sections and all other sections of the -
DEIR;
4. The Director of Development Services shall be authorized to pay the ($10,717.82) 10 percent
upon submission of the printed copies of the Final EIR, to include the Responses to
Comments Document, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and Master Response
to Comments for Hydrology and Water Ouality Section. t
5. The Director of Development Services shall be authorized to pay the remaining ($10,717.82)
10 percent upon certification of the Final EIR and filing of a Notice of Determination.
6. Any portion of the contingency budget, up to the total amount of $10,477.50, upon proof of
completion of any optional tasks identified by the County.
Time is of the essence in carrying out the terms of this Agreement. It is understood that
unforeseeable events or conditions may delay the completion of the work; in which case the
Consultant must request an extension of time, in writing, five (5) days before the applicable
deadline. No requests for extensions will be granted unless made within seven (7) days of the
event giving rise to the request.
The County may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to the
consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least fifteen (15)
days before the effective date of such termination. In that event; all finished or unfinished
documents and other materials prepared pursuant to this Agreement shall, at the option of the
County, become its property. The Consultant shall be entitled to receive his actual cost for
satisfactory work performed based upon the number of hours for men and equipment and for
mileage at the rates listed in EXHIBIT "E", attached hereto.
* Resource Design Technology, Inc. provides a disclosure statement indicating that project manager, David Brown, previously prepared the M&T
Chico Ranch Mine administrative draft Environmental Impact Report in his capacity as Vice -President for Lilburn Corporation. It is indicated
that Mr. Brown terminated his employment with Lilburn Corporation in December 1997, and formed Resource Design Technology, Inc.
— Butte County Consultant Agreement for DEIR & FEIR _
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby agree:
RESO CE ESI CHNOLOGY, INC.
by
David E. wn, inci datef
KRC HOLDINGS, INC.
by
Ter desta date
Pjg�'ent and Chief Executive Officer
by W JUN 2 7 2000
CH-Aff \- date
Board of Supervisors
A'I�EST/.
John Blacklock,& hief �strative and Clerk of the Board
APPROVED A TO ORM:
Butte Co Couns 1
by ( d0
APPROVED:
Risk Mang er
by
n
Butte County Auditor to
by OMM
_ Butte County Consultant Agreement for DEIR & FEIR _
Page 5 of 5
r
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby agree:
RESO CE ESI CHNOLOGY, INC.
by
David E. wn, inci datef
KRC HOLDINGS, INC.
by
Ter desta date
Pjg�'ent and Chief Executive Officer
by W JUN 2 7 2000
CH-Aff \- date
Board of Supervisors
A'I�EST/.
John Blacklock,& hief �strative and Clerk of the Board
APPROVED A TO ORM:
Butte Co Couns 1
by ( d0
APPROVED:
Risk Mang er
by
n
Butte County Auditor to
by OMM
_ Butte County Consultant Agreement for DEIR & FEIR _
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
The project is a request to develop a sand and gravel mining operation with associated processing
facilities: crushing and screening, processing plant, ready mix concrete plant, and asphaltic concrete
plant, encompassing approximately 235 +/- acres. Material is to be removed to a depth of 70+/- feet,
conveyed to the adjacent processing plants, and sold or used as new material to produce asphalt
and/or concrete and concrete ready mix. The site will be reclaimed to groundwater recharge ponds,
wildlife habitat and other wetlands. The proposed mine area will be approximately 8,100 feet in
length and 1,400 feet in width. The permit life will be approximately 30 years. The project site is
located 5 miles southwest of the City of Chico, south of Chico River Road, and north of Ord Ferry
Road.
EXHIBIT "B"
r
PROPOSAL FOR
COMPLETION OF THE
M&T CHICO RANCH MINE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Submitted to:
Butte County
Planning Division
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965-3397
Prepared by:
Resource Design Technology, Inc.
302-A South Lexington Drive
Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: (916) 983-9193
Facsimile: (916) 983-9194
x
March 20, 2000
Revised May 3; 2000
Further Revised June 1, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1
2.0 APPROACH AND SCHEDULE........................................................ 5
2.1 Approach...................................................................................
5
2.2 Schedule.................................................................................:5
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................... 7
3.1 Work Tasks...............................................................................7
- Task 1: Project Review and Coordination ............................................... 7
Task 2: Revisions to Draft EIR Traffic and Noise Sections ........................ 7
Task 3: Response to Comments........................................................... 9
Task 4: Completion of Final EIR...........................................................10
Task 5: Hearing Support.....................................................................11
4.0 COST...................................................................................... 11
4.1 Estimated Costs......................................................................1 1
4.2 Payment Schedule...................................................................12
5.0 AUTHORIZED OFFER................................................................. 12
6.0 PROJECT MANAGER................................................................. 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Scope of Work Schedule
Table 2
Cost Estimate
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Resume of Project Manager
Appendix B
Standard Schedule of Charges
Appendix C
Revised Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Scope of Services and Cost
Estimate
i RESOURCE DESIGN
T f C H Ni 0 I. 0 G Y. I N C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This proposal has been prepared in response to the February 18, 2000 Request for
Proposals (RFP) issued by Butte County (County). The County is seeking completion of
the Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine project, File No. Min
96-03 (State Clearinghouse No. 97022080).
In conformance with the RFP, this proposal concisely addresses the work program,
schedule, approach, methodology, report format and contents, technical approach and
other details specified in the RFP. In preparing this proposal, we have reviewed and
considered the available data, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and the documentation provided with the RFP. Our staff is familiar with the project and
its proposed site, surrounding land uses, roadways and intersections and all other existing
conditions and potential impacts, as our office previously prepared the administrative
draft EIR for this project. Considering this background and our staff's extensive
experience in preparing EIRs on controversial mining projects, we believe that a
relatively straightforward final EIR can be prepared that focuses on the significant issues
of concern to the public and decision makers.
Butte County has received proposed work plans and cost estimates from three
subcontractors involved with preparation of the draft EIR: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.,
Bollard & Brennan, Inc., and Hydro Science. Each of these firms was initially contracted
by our staff to work on this draft EIR, and we would accept their proposed work plans
and recommend to the County continuance of their involvement. Each of these firms
have a reputation for high quality technical work, and an understanding of mining
projects. Their continued involvement would minimize the time and cost to complete the
final EIR, as compared to introducing a new consultant to the project' and work
completed.
The following summaries respond to common questions raised by industry or agencies
pertaining to a consultants ability to adequately perform the contracted work. The
complete requirements specified in the RFP are provided throughout the remainder of this
proposal; common questions are addressed below:
Professional Qualifications and Similar Experience; Resource Design Technology,
Inc. (Resource Design) has extensive experience in the preparation of environmental
documentation throughout California. We have prepared both federal Environmental
Impact Statements (EISs) and state Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). Our breadth
of experience includes preparation of California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA)
documents for residential, commercial, and industrial projects. In addition, and most
relative to this project, our firm has developed specialization in these environmental
documents for precious metal, industrial minerals, and aggregate mining operations
throughout California, including some of California's largest and most controversial sites.
In preparing EIRs on mining operations, Resource Design is engaging in work that it is
entirely familiar with and is well prepared to complete. Our team relationships are long
established and the process and work products are familiar tasks we have previously
1 RESOURCE DESIGN
T r. C H N 0 I. 0 G Y. I N C.
completed. Our project team is therefore uniquely qualified for this EIR in that virtually
all of the members have either long-term acumen in the issues to be addressed or have
been significant contributors to recent similar projects. Our proposed Project Manager,
David Brown, has been preparing planning and environmental impact documentation for
over 17 years.
References that can attest to the quality of our staff's work on mining projects and EIRs
include:
• Marvin Demmers
Planner II
Resources Management
Tulare County
5961 E. Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, CA 93277
(209) 730-2653
• Mr. Leon Martinez
Deputy Director
Planning and Community
Development Department
Merced County
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-7654
• David Morrison
Resource Management Coordinator
Planning Department
Yolo County
(530) 666-8041
• Mr. Pierre Rivas
Senior Planner
El Dorado County
2850 Fairlane Court
Placerville, CA 95667
(530) 621-5355
• Mr. Bill Walker
Associate Planner
Department of Resource
Management
Shasta County
1855 Placer Street, Room 103
Redding, CA 96001
(530) 225-5532
• Mr. Randy Scott
Land Use Services
San Bernardino County
385 North Arrowhead Avenue
3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415
(909) 387-4096
Completion and Quality of Similar Studies: Resource Design's team staff have been
preparing environmental impact reports for nearly 20 years; moreover, we are recognized
experts at addressing the environmental consequences of all forms of land use, especially
mining issues and related reclamation. We have developed key subconsultants that are
very familiar with the technical disciplines of mining projects and have gained the
professional experience and expertise to complete the M&T Chico Ranch Mine project.
We would be pleased to show the County examples of other successful mining EIR
projects completed by our staff.
Record of Performance: Resource Design staff, have a long history of preparing
environmental documentation. Our experience, gained from intensive work on virtually
all types of mining projects, is a strong asset for addressing the complexities associated
with mineral resource development. Methods of preparing accurate and complete
2 RESOURCE DESIGN
T L• C H N 0 I. 0 G Y, I N C.
environmental analyses have been developed, and are combined with current strategies
needed to resolve contemporary issues particular to the mining industry. The results
benefit both the project and the quality of the environment.
Examples of mine EIRs under the direction of our team Project Manager include:
• Stillwell Project: EIR for the development of a new off -channel operation for the
extraction of aggregate resources to be transported to an existing processing plant.
This project encompassed 156 acres and will continue to operate over a 10 to 20 year
period, with reclamation to a lake with surrounding grazing pasture. Key
environmental issues included loss of habitat for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle, traffic, noise impacts to nearby residences, and potential water and visual
impacts. (Lead Agency: Tulare County; Operator: RMC Pacific Materials.)
• Castle Mountain Mine Expansion: EIS/EIR for 550 -acre expansion to the third
largest gold mine in California. Project would extend mine life by 10 years, create
additional mine pits, heap leach pads, and incorporate pit backfilling. Final expanded
project will mine 145 million tons of overburden and process 71 million tons of ore.
(Lead Agency: San Bernardino County; Operator: Viceroy Gold Corporation.)
• Cache Creek, Aggregates EIR: EIR addressing off -channel mining permit for seven
mine quarries covering 360 acres, and processing of up to one million tons per year.
Key environmental issues included noise, pit river capture from Cache Creek, PMio
generation, aesthetics, and potential water quality .impacts. (Lead Agency: Yolo
County; Operator: RC Collet.)
• Teichert Esparto EIR: Thirty-year off -channel mining permit for a single 148 -acre
mine quarry, and for processing of up to 1.2 million tons per year. Project included
mining to depths of up to 150 feet using dry pit (scraper) and wet pit (dredge) mining
methods. Planned reclamation is to open water and wildlife habitat. Key
environmental issues included potential pit river capture from Cache Creek, loss of
prime agricultural soils, PM10 generation, and potential water quality impacts. (Lead
Agency: Yolo County; Operator: Teichert Aggregates.)
• Arctic Canyon / Cushenhury Quarry: A 400 -acre expansion to a high quality
limestone mine. Mine quarries will provide 60 years of reserves to the existing mine.
Key environmental issues included addressing impacts and revegetation for federally
listed carbonate endemic plant species. (Lead Agency: San Bernardino County;
Operator: Specialty Minerals, Inc.)
Ability to Work Closely with County Staff Throughout the Project Review Process:
Resource Design's team has worked with lead agency jurisdictions statewide. We are
uniquely skilled in understanding the environmental impacts of continuing to develop
previous mining sites and in addressing those concerns. Our Sacramento regional office,
from which this project would be performed, is located conveniently within two hours
driving time to the project area, meetings can therefore be scheduled at virtually any
time, with minimal notice.
3 RESOURCE DESIGN
T r. C 11 N O 1. O G Y. .1 N C.
We are familiar with the region and especially with environmental concerns as related to
mining activities as we are currently assisting other operators in the area. Most
importantly, we are experienced in understanding environmental concerns and impacts of
mining.
As Resource Design works both with industry and agencies addressing the common
interests of project permitting and environmental conservation, our ability to
cooperatively work with all parties is an established hallmark of our success. We
welcome the opportunity to again bring our mining EIR expertise to the County via this
final EIR.
Legally Defensible EIR: Our team's Project Manager has prepared and managed not
only similar projects, but none has ever been successfully challenged and found inade-
quate under CEQA. Our approach to EIR preparation is one of constant improvement to
reflect the changing regulations and standards in our industry. This approach to our work
has been a successful foundation to avoiding challenge to EIR adequacy.
Equipment, Technical and Financial Resources: We employ Pentium III, 400 MHz
computers and maintain up-to-date software (including the required software for this
project). Resource Design is a privately owned, self -financed operation. We have no
current debt, and are sufficiently financed and capable of responding to the County's
needs for this project.
Scope of Work and Schedule: The County has prepared a detailed list defining the
environmental issues of concern. Resource Design proposes a scope of work that will
satisfy the requirements of CEQA, and provide an evaluation sufficient for use by
responsible agencies in issuing subsequent permits. The level of detail and analysis
proposed is aimed at the anticipated needs and desires of the project area, the anticipated
environmental issues, the degree of impact expected, and accepted professional
standards.
Our team has the capabilities and experience to complete the process in a time efficient
manner, as we specialize in mining -related and other industrial land use EIRs (and
already have detailed knowledge of this project), we would require no learning curve.
This knowledge also provides the advantage of anticipating issues and readily
accommodating project or other changes with the least possible impact to the overall
schedule. We propose io complete the EIR process within the County's schedule as
defined in the RFP (see Table 1).
Cost: The Resource Design team believes in being reasonable in cost and adhering to
budgets. The nature of the EIR process is comprised of some tasks that are entirely
within our control, but unfortunately, many that are not. The EIR process will be
influenced by input from the public sector and other responsible agencies. Our assistance
in this regard is primarily to anticipate issues and desires accurately, thereby addressing
them as efficiently as possible.
4 RESOURCE DESIGN
T r•. C N N 0 I. 0 G Y. I% C.
Disclosure Statement: Resource Design's project manager, David Brown, previously
prepared the M&T.Chico Mine Ranch administrative draft Environmental Impact Report
in his capacity as Vice -President for Lilburn Corporation. Mr. Brown terminated his
employment with Lilburn Corporation in December 1997, and formed Resource Design
Technology, Inc.
2.0 APPROACH AND SCHEDULE
2.1 Approach
The environmental review process for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine has been
extended due to public opposition and environmental concerns. The County has
determined to re -issue portions of the draft EIR. Additional controversy and
public concern is expected.
Resource Design is familiar with public concerns regarding the environmental
consequences of mining, processing and materials transport. Because mining
operations undergoing a public permitting process typically induce close scrutiny
and controversy, it is important for the EIR process to remain focused on the
technical issues and factual evidence.
While the M&T Chico Ranch Mine would be a .new mining site, the
environmental consequences of such an operation are well known from other sites
in the region. We are experienced with the issues and scope of available
mitigation from our permitting and compliance work at mining sites statewide.
Resource Design will approach the final EIR as a full disclosure document
designed to provide mitigation for each significant effect. Our documents are
clearly written and well organized to minimize unnecessary controversy or
disagreement about the facts, and allow decision makers and the public to focus
on the significant issues.
2.2 Schedule
We have reviewed and are prepared to meet the County's defined schedule, as
shown in the RFP as follows:
Required Documents
Administrative Draft of the revised Traffic
and Noise Sections, Response to
Comments document, Master Response to
Comments for Hydrology and Water
Quality Section
Number
5 Copies
Due Date
September 5,
2000
5 RESOURCE'DESIGN
T f•. C FI N 0 I. 0 G Y. I N C.
Required Documents Number Due Date
Screen Checks of the revised Traffic and
Noise Sections, Response to Comments
Document, Master Response to Comments
for Hydrology and Water Quality Section
Revised Traffic and Noise Sections and
Response to Comments Document
Administrative Draft of Responses to
Comments Document for comments
received on recirculated Traffic and Noise
Sections and all other sections of the DEIR,
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan
Screen Check of Response to Comments
Document for Recirculated Traffic and
Noise Sections and all other sections of the
DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan
Final EIR, to include Responses to,
Comments Document, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and Master
Response to Comments for Hydrology and
Water Quality Section
2 copies
35 copies
2 copies
2 copies
35 copies
October 2,
2000
October 17,
2000
December 6,
2000
December 22,
2000
January 2,
2001
Although the steps in the EIR process are relatively predictable, unexpected
issues, events, public or decision -maker concerns, and other factors will occur,
especially in' controversial and complex projects. Our team has the ability to
avoid or contend with such effects, and minimize schedule delays due to factors
such as:
• Our ability to'anticipate problems and address them early;
• . Our adaptability and flexibility in work methods and problem solving; and
0 Our talent and experience from similar situations.
Other factors, including the degree of cooperation of the applicants, legal or other
advice, and ability to quickly authorize budget amendments if needed, are also
important. The Resource Design team will make all efforts to ensure that factors
that are within`our control will not be cause for schedule delay.
6 RESOURCE DESIGN
TECH N 0 I. O C Y. I N C. .
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3.:1 Work Tasks
Task 1: Project Review and Coordination
In this task, the project information received since our involvement
will be reviewed, and the issues and scope of the final EIR will be
refined.
Subtask. 1. 1: Introductory Meeting
One kick-off meeting with Planning Department representative(s) and
the applicant has been budgeted.
Sub task 1.2: Project Review
The project has progressed through circulation of the draft EIR.
Substantial comments have been received that will require detailed,
review by Resource Design. The draft EIR will be reviewed, as well
as any supplementary reports, data, correspondence, maps and any
other material which has been generate regarding this project.
Sub task 1.3: Coordination
This task will be ongoing throughout the EIR process and will involve
coordination to inform the County of the results of the supplementary
analyses as they are completed, and to resolve issues regarding the
response. Coordination will include discussion of issues concerning
the analysis, obtaining information necessary for the EM, contract
administration, and other efforts.
Task 1 Work Products: Status reports and correspondence.
Task 1. Meetings: One coordination meeting; one site visit.
Task 2: Revisions to Draft EIR Traffic and Noise Sections
The draft EIR has been subject to public review and comment. The
County has determined that further work is required for the traffic and
noise sections which will be circulated for public review and
comment. Resource Design will coordinate with the subconsultants
for preparation of their technical reports, and prepare a summary of the
draft EIR and project description that will support recirculation of the
Traffic and Noise sections.
The EIR will be written in clear language intended to be easily
understood by the decision makers, responsible agencies, and public
7 RESOURCE DESIGN
T E C H N O L O G Y I N C.
for whom it will serve as a source of information concerning the
project. 'Technical terms will be defined in a glossary. Quantitative
information will provided in tables. Where explanation of an issue or
concept can be more clearly understood graphically, graphics will be
provided.
Subtask 2. 1: Traffic
The additional traffic study will be completed by Fehr & Peers
Associates, Inc. (Fehr & Peers). The complete traffic studies will be
included as an Appendix, while the results will be summarized in.the
body of the EIR. We concur with Fehr & Peers' complete scope of
services as attached to the RFP, which generally includes analysis of
the following intersections:
• SR 32 and River road;
• West 5h Street and SR 32;
• Ord Ferry Road and Dayton Road;
• Ord Ferry Road and River Road;
• The ingress/egress at Baldwin Construction on the Skyway;
• Durham Dayton Highway and the Midway.
Road segments and intersections studied will be clearly identified. An
assessment of the traffic impacts will include agricultural harvesting
and Chico State University's traffic, traffic accident analysis for
primary haul routes, a determination of a pro -rata or fair share
approach to traffic fees for road construction, an evaluation of bridges
used for primary haul routes.
Modifications or mitigation will be developed for significant changes
brought about by the project. These recommendations may include
street improvements, site plan modifications, or transportation demand
management measures.
Resource Design will coordinate this effort and integrate Fehr &
Peers' report into a format acceptable for recirculation as part of the
draft EIR.
Subtask 2.2: Noise
Bollard & Brennan, Inc., acoustical consultants, will complete the
tasks specified in their November 15, 1999 letter as attached to the
RFP. The general scope includes:
Noise Criteria will be determined by noise level standards based on the
ambient noise level, the Butte County General Plan Noise Element that
are applicable to this project as well as germane CEQA standards.
s RESOURCE DESIGN
TECH NO I. O G Y. I N C.
Existing traffic and general ambient noise levels in and near the
project area will be analyzed through noise level measurements and
through application of accepted traffic noise prediction methodologies.
If significant noise sources other than traffic are identified within the .
project area of influence, noise generation of those sources will be
quantified through additional noise measurements.
Significant noise impacts due to and upon the proposed project will be
identified. Specific impacts to be evaluated include noise associated
with project -generated traffic and aggregate mining/processing
activities.
The analysis of any additional noise mitigation measures will focus on
appropriate, practical and specific recommendations for noise control
aimed at reducing any identified noise impacts to a level of
insignificance. Where it is not possible to reduce project -related noise
impacts to a level of insignificance through practical noise mitigation
measures, such conditions will be clearly identified and described.
Resource Design will coordinate this effort and integrate Bollard &
Brennan's report into a format acceptable for recirculation as part of
the draft EIR.
Subtasks 2. 1 and 2.2 Work Products: An administrative draft of
the revised Traffic and Noise sections will be produced and forwarded
to the County for comments. Once the County has comments, the
Traffic and Noise sections will be revised as necessary based on
County comments, and the Draft Traffic and Noise sections will be
produced. Summary of Changes; Administrative Draft Traffic and
Noise sections; Draft Traffic and Noise sections.
Task 3: Response to Comments
Subtask 3. 1: Master Response to Comments for
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project team will coordinate with Hydro Science to prepare a
Master Response to Comments for the Hydrology and Water Quality
section addressing comments received on this section of the draft EIR.
Subtask 3. 1 Work Product: Master Response to Comments for
Hydrology and Water Quality.
9 RESOURCE DESIGN
T r. C H N 0 I. 0 G Y. I N C.
Subtask 3.2: Response to Comments on Previously
Circulated Sections
Responses to public comments on the draft EIR will be completed in
an acceptable format, with comments correlated to responses by
number. Where comments are duplicated by other commentors,
references between responses will be provided. -
Subtask 3.2 Work Product: Responses to Comments.
Task 3 Work Product. Response to Comments document, with
recirculated Traffic and Noise sections. The revised portions of the
draft EIR will be assembled into a format for public review that will
include a summary overview of the project description, the draft EIR,
and current status of processing. Administrative draft (5 copies),
screen check (5 copies) and 35 copies of the revised draft EIR Traffic
and Noise document. The documents will be produced in Microsoft
Word 97 for Windows. In addition to a reproducible copy, Resource
Design will submit an electronic version.
Task 4: Completion of Final EIR
The final EIR will conform to CEQA, and include the Response to
Comments document, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and
the Master Response to Comments for Hydrology and Water Quality
Section. Response to Comments will contain each letter of comment,
with each comment numbered, and a specific response to each
comment. Where comments are duplicated by other commentors,
references between responses will be provided. The Response to
Comments chapter will be submitted to the County staff for review
prior to finalization.
Subtask 4. 1: Responses to Comments on Recirculated
Traffic and Noise Sections
Responses to public comments will be prepared for the recirculated
Traffic and Noise sections. The format will follow the sections
completed in responding to other comments.
Subtask 4.2: Final EIR Errata Sheet
Changes to the draft EIR and the recirculated Traffic and Noise
sections will be itemized.
Subtask 4.3: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6, the Lead Agency must prepare a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that will describe how
10 RESOURCE DESIGN
T L• C H N O I. O G Y. I N C.
mitigation measures will be monitored and how implementation will
be reported. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will be
prepared in the form of a matrix that can will be presented as an
appendix in the final EIR.
Subtask 4.3 Work Product: Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan.
Task 4 Work Product: Final EIR; Administrative Draft (2 copies);
Screen Check (2 copies) and public distribution copies (35 copies).
The EIR will be produced in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows. In
addition to a reproducible copy, Resource Design will submit the final
EIR on disk.
Task 5: Hearing Support
Subtask 5. 1: Planning Commission Hearing Preparation
and Meeting Attendance
Attendance at one Planning Commission hearing on the final EIR has
been budgeted.
Subtask 5.2: Board of Supervisors Hearing Preparation
and Meeting Attendance
Attendance at one Board of Supervisors Hearing on the final EIR has
been budgeted.
4.0 COST
4.1 Estimated Costs
Estimated costs to complete the scope of work and tasks described in the Scope of
Work are shown in Table 2. Costs have been developed based on the County's
direction as to the project issues,. Resource Design's experience in completing
EIRs on similar projects, and our, understanding of the site and the work
completed to date.
We propose preparation of the EIR with a defined scope of work and budget not
to exceed $44,880.70, plus the estimated subconsultant costs of $72,775 (see
Table 2). Costs for the final EIR portion of the process are largely dependent on
factors beyond our control; however, we provide an estimate based on our
experience on similar mining EIRs that reflects the anticipated public involvement
at this site.
11 RESOURCE DESIGN
T f. C N N 0 1. 0 C Y. I N C.
4.2 Payment Schedule
Resource Design understands and agrees to the County's schedule for payment as
specified in the RFP.
5.0 AUTHORIZED OFFER
Resource Design's response is provided to the County authorized to the schedule and
timelines described in the RFP. Authorization beyond those timelines is granted for a
period not -to -exceed 90 days. In the event the County requires additional time, Resource
Design should be notified for extension or revisions to its original proposal.
We would be pleased to meet and further discuss any aspect of this proposal with you at
your convenience, and incorporate desired modifications designed to suit your particular
project needs.
6.0 PROJECT MANAGER
David Brown will act as Project Manager during the preparation of the EIR and each
subconsultant will report directly to Mr. Brown. We have included Mr. Brown's resume
in Appendix A.
12 RESOURCE DESIGN
T f•. C H N() I. 0 G Y. I N C.
July 2, 1998 — End of comment period on DEIR. Comprehensive comments were submitted by
the county staff and the applicant in addition to the comments submitted by the public and other
government agencies.
Late summer and fall of 1998 — Steve Hackney leaves the county planning staff. This coupled
with Lilburn's loss of key staff in the spring resulted in significant delays in the project as both
the county staff and Lilburn staff needed time to get up to speed on the project. Most of the rest
of 1998 was spent on determining the best way to address the comments received during the
hearing and the public comment period.
October 6, 1998 — Met with county staff (Planning and Public works) to discuss traffic,
hydrology, noise studies. Decided to complete additional noise study and to collect additional
data for.traffic study. The. raise study wbuld be required because the county staff changed its
interpretation of what the noise standard should be (60 dB was used in the initial DEIR)."
October 14, 1998 — Received clarification letter from Development Services Director regarding
what additional traffic data needed to be collected.
February 18, 1999 — Met with County and Lilburn to discuss project, especially hydrology study.
Lilburn's subconsultant for hydrology was also present. All parities agreed on how to proceed.
September 2, 1999 — Authorized contingency fund expenditures for Fehr and Peers to conduct
additional traffic data collection.
A -1035 -
January
-103s-January 11, 2000 — Lilburn requests to be released from its contract to complete the EIR.
Contract terminated January 18, 2000.
February 8, 2000 — Butte County sent out request for proposal to complete EIR.
June 15, 2000 — State Mining and Geology Board approves report designating M&T reserve as
MRZ-2a, a mineral resource of prime importance. This is the highest classification of mineral
importance in the Department of Conservation's classification system. This designation is
detailed in the Department of Conservation's Open File Report 2000-04.
June 27, 2000 — Completed contract with Res rce esign Technology Inc. and Butte County to
complete EIR for $117,655.70. Of this, $22,393.24 remained from the previous contract with
Lilburn. KRCBaldwin submitted a check to the county for $95,262.45 to cover the difference.
Also, submitted $23,131.25 check to Butte County for permit processing costs.
�2cP} Igbm cgzg/oo CV 015068 Ate alv? 33 401Zgi06
September 26, 2000 — Board of Supervisors accepted the Department of Conservation's M&T
Mineral Classification Study. This action requires the county to establish mineral management
polices in the General Plan to emphasize the conservation and development of this identified
mineral deposit within 12 months, according to the staff memo associated with this action.
November 16, 2000 — Met with county staff and consultant to discuss.revised hydrology study,
traffic study and noise study. Decided to hire North Star Engineering to complete flood study..
Public Works has not completed their review of the traffic study but expects to soon.
November 17, 2001 — Baldwin/KRC submit comprehensive comments to Butte County on
revised traffic study.
December 18, 2000 — Provided check for $19,840 to Butte County to increase the contract
amount for the EIR contract to $137,495.70. Increase is to complete flood study.
March 5, 2001 — Received revised November 19, 2000 hydrology section of EIR
March 22, 2001 — Submitted draft comments on revised hydrology and noise sections of the EIR.
April 26, 2001 — Met with county staff. Public Works still has not submitted comments on
traffic study. Bob Greenlaw expects to submit the comments next week.
June 7, 2001 — Submitted final comments on revised hydrology section, as per request -by Dan
Breedon. Delayed final submission of hydrology comments pending receipt of revised
hydrology study including flood study. However, incorporation of flood study is not yet
complete.
June 27, 2001 — Met with county staff and consultant to discuss noise study.
July 9, 2001 — Resource Design provided noise attenuation berm height and request for berm
design. Baldwin hired North Star to complete berm design since the location and design of the
berm must be compatible with the flood study being completed by North Star. North Star cannot
complete the berm design until flood study is completed and flood study is accepted by Resource
Design. We understand that Resource Design is still awaiting comments on the hydrology study.
and the flood study from Public Works.
August 2, 2001 — Met with Dan Breedon to discuss location.of ready mix and asphalt plants.
Original application assumed ready mix and asphalt plants as allowable accessory uses. EIR
studies include analyses both with and without ready mix and asphalt plants, .since there was
some uncertainty as to whether or not these uses would be allowed at this site. Since that time,
County Board of Supervisors has ruled that ready mix and asphalt plants are not accessory uses
to a mini ng.operation (crushing and screening are, however, allowed uses). Baldwin/ KRC will
submit a rezone application for an asphalt plant anda ready mix plant.
July 9, 2001
Mr. Rene Vercruyssen
President
Corporate Office
Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc.
1764 Skyway-
Chico.,
kywayChico CA 95928-8833
SUBJECT: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Berm Height
Dear Rene,
As determined at our last meeting on June 27, Bollard & Brennan was to generate berm height
data for use in designing the noise mitigation berm. Enclosed are printouts from Bollard &
Brennan's noise -barrier model. Paul notes that, if conditions exist as discussed at the last
meeting (i.e. distance from residence and placement of equipment), to meet the 50-dBA
standard, a berm height of 18 feet will be needed. Please call us if further height specifications
are needed.
Based on our meeting, we understand that Baldwin Contracting will undertake design of the
berm. Please forward the specific design location at your earliest convenience for review by
NorthStar for any effects on the flood analysis.
Sincerely,
L-
Je 2ifer ;.Diz a Vowic
Resource Planner
Encls.
CC: Mike Pole
Heidi Tschudin
Dari Breedon
[RELCE0VE
0
JUL 11 2001
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
041-02-01 302-A S. Lexington DriveI Telephone: 916.983.9193
;-9-01.Vercruyssen.letter.duc Folsom, California 95630 Facsimile: 916.983.9194
07/03/2001 13:21 91666UU192 BULLAKU BHENNAN INN rout til
D
Bollard & Brennan, Inc.
ldmftk Transmittal Sheet
Date: July 3, 2001
To: Dave or Jennifer
Organization: Resource Design
Subject: Berm Heights for M&T
# of Pages: 4, Including this cover
Fax Number: 983-9194
Comments:
Hi Dave & Jennifer...
Here are the print-outs from our noise -barrier model.
They actually indicate that a 22 -foot tall berm would be required to get 50 dBA, but the
model is based on a wall, not a berm. Berms are theoretically a couple dB better than
wails, so it looks like the 52 dB mark would be met with a berm height of 18 feet.
This assumes, of course, that the noise source is depressed 10 feet relative to the
residence, and that the berm height Is cited relative to the residential elevation.
Please call if you have any questions.
Pa
aollard & Brennan.
3805 Taylor Ror'. :,jIte 2
i Loomis, C?"'. '..:d 95650
Phos- :b) 660-0191
::.�. (916) 660-0192
PBollard@aol.com
07/03/2001 .13:21 9166600192 BOLLARD BRENNAN INC PAGE 02 -
Appendix B
Insertion Loss Calculation Spreadsheet
Infinite Barrier
Job Number:
2000-006
Description:
M&T Excavation
Source Noise level (dBA):
65
Source Frequency (Hz):
800
Source Height (ft):
0
Receiver Height(ft):
6 r�
C1 (Source to barrier Distance (ft)):
225
C2 (Barrier to Receiver Distance (ft)):
75
Range of Barrier Heights
60.0
From(ft):
0
to(ft):
10
Barrier
Heights (ft)
Insertion
Loss(dB)
Noise
Level (dB)
0
-2.1
62.9
1
-316
61.4
2
-4.5
60.5
3
-4.9
60.1
4
-5.0
60.0
5
-5.1
59.9
6
-5.6
59.4
7
-6.3
58.7
8
-7.0
58.0
9
-7.7
57.3
10
-8.5
1 56.6
ff
Barrier
Heights (ft)
Insertion
Loss(dB)
Noise
Level (dB)
10
• Appendix B
56.6
Insertion Loss Calculation Spreadsheet
-9.2
Infinite Barrier
12
Job Number:
2000-066
Description:
M8i Excavation
Source Noise level (dBA):
65
Source Frequency (Hz):
800
Source Height (ft):
0
Receiver Height(ft):
5 --
C1 (Source to barrier Distance (ft)):
225
C2 (Barrier to Receiver Distance (ft)):
75
Range of Barrier Heights
18
From(ft):
10
to(ft):
20
Barrier
Heights (ft)
Insertion
Loss(dB)
Noise
Level (dB)
10
-8.5
56.6
11
-9.2
55.8
12
-9.8
55.2
13
-10.5
54.5
14
-11.0
54.0
15
-11,4
53.6
16
-12.0
53.0
17
-12.6
52.4
18
-13.0
52.0
19
-13.5
51.5
20
1 -13.9
1 51.1
Appendix B
Insertion
Loss(dB)
Insertion Loss Calculation Spreadsheet
20
Infinite Barrier
51.1
Job Number:
2000-066
Description:
M&T Excavation
Source Noise level (dBA):
65
Source Frequency (Hz):
800
Source Height (ft):
0
Receiver Height(ft):
5
C1 (Source to barrier Distance (ft)):
225
C2 (Barrier to Receiver Distance (ft)):
75
Range of Barrier Heights
49.1
From(ft):
20
to(ft):
30
Barrier
Heights (ft)
Insertion
Loss(dB)
Noise
Level (dB)
20
-13.9
51.1
21
-14.3
50.7
22
-14.7
50.3
23
-15.1-
50.0
24
-15.4
49.7
25
-15.6
49.4
26
-16.0
49.1
27
-16.3
48.8
28
-16.3
48.7
29
-16.5
48.5
30
-16.7
48.3
BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7601
FAX (530) 538-7785
to:
fax #:
from:
date:
subject:
pages:
NOTES:
Dave Brown, Resource Design Tech., Inc.
916-983-9194
Dan Breedon, Senior Planner (530-538-7629)
June 4, 2001
M&T Chico Ranch Draft EIR -comments from DPW
4, including cover
Please see attached comments from the
Department of Public Works regarding the draft
Traffic Section of the EIR. Please coordinate with
Feir & Peers and DPW.
Jun -07-01 11:55 From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION
-530=1451 T-783 P.01
y •
o
Knife River Corporation
1915 N. Kavaney DrjWe
Bismarck, ND 58501-1698
PHONE: (701) 223-1771
FAX, (701) 530-1451
o: 1 �{Q tr O 4 /V from: JA
Fax: $ 3 4 S-3 9 -7 Pages:
Phone.. Date: j u r<I —],
r
Re: CC:
T
❑ Urgent O For Review ❑ Please Comment C1 Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
• Comments:
C
0 11 Iva
tVto
el
,vol4� S>u��r0O
A,-Toa4� a,�
aw
f � Po
Jun -07-01 11:56 From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION -701-530-1451 T-783 P.01/08
June 7, 2001
Baldwin Contracting Company and KRC Holdings, Inc. i
Additional comments on November 19, 2000 Draft Revised Hydrology Section (Received March '
5, 200 1) for M&T Ranch Mine EXR.
-General -Our preliminary comments on this section were submitted to Butte County on March
' 22. We intended to delay the submission of any additional comments until we received a full
draft of the hydrology section, including results of the surface water hydrology studies being `
conducted by NorthStar Engineering. However, at our April 26 meeting, the Planning Division - t
requested that we submit our comments at this time. Additional comments may be submitted
after we have had a chance to review the next administrative draft of the hydrology report, which
will include the surface water hydrology study results.
November 19, 2000 cover 1 tter from Toby Hanes to Dave Brown
Paragraph 2 — Mr. Hanes indicates that he is having great difficulty finding any data related to
pesticide concentrations during flood events. IRC/Baldwin collected water quality data in the
_vicinity of the existing pit at M&T and pesticide concentrations were measured. Both the
existing mine pit and Little Chico Creek are subject to flood events. As indicated in the last
paragraph of page 16 of the draft revised hydrology section, ...Little Chico Creek becomes an
exposed water table..." during the time that it is flowing. According to many commenters on the
- • earlier DEIR, the area floods almost every year. Since flooding of this pit and Little Chico Creek
are both subject to agricultural runoff, one could conclude that the data collected by
" KRCBaldwin reflect that pesticides from flood events do not have a significant effect on ground
water quality adjacent to the existing pit. ,
;Paragraph 3 — As indicated in our comments on Impact 4.4- 1, assumptions regarding process
water use were not changed as much as apparently assumed by Mr. Hanes. Mr. Hanes appears to
have overestimated the maximum number of hours that the plants will operate. Based on
maximum production rates, consumptive water use should be much less than the annual volumes
calculated by Mr. Hanes. Also, as discussed in our comments to Section 4.4.3, a one -foot draw
down action level is an almost impossible standard to measure. Numerous factors unrelated to
the mining operation will affect water levels. Based on Mr. Banes hydrologic analysis, the
potential for this project to have any significant effect on the water level of the nearest domestic
well is very small. As we discussed during our April 26 meeting, a 500 -foot setback, which is
not warranted by the analysis, will cause KRCBaldwin to forego the mining of a very significant
amount of the reserve. Furthermore, the suggestion of reaching an up—front binding agreement t
with potentially affected parties (of which there is only one) is probably impossible, considering
That party's opposition to this project. Even if such an agrccmcnt could be negotiated, it would
be very difficult to calculate the percentage of drawdown if there is any, that its attributable to
KRCBaldwin's operations and the percentage that is attributable to the myriad of other potential ;
f causes of drawdowns.. The calculation of the cost of additional pumping (which will be very '
f small in total) will also be difficult to determine. If there is concern for water level effects on the
one nearby well (and the analysis in the draft revised hydrology section suggests small reason. for
such concern), Butte County should require water level monitoring. If, in the view of Butte
Jun -O7-01". 11:56
From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION
701-530-1451 T-783 P.03/08
County regulators, the mine is having an effect on"the well, the permittee would be required to .
construct a new well'in the deeper aquifer. We don't understand why Mr. Hanes deleted drilling
a deeper well as a potential mitigation. The analysis suggests that KRCBaldwin's proposed
operation is very unlikely to have any significant effect on the water levels in this well.
Similarly, the water quality mitigation requirements proposed are unnecessary based on the
analysis of likely effects of the mining operation. KRC/Baldwin agree the sumps used to collect
runoff that may come into contact with pollutants like fuel should be above the water table and
sealed to minimize seepage. However, ponds for recycle water have almost no potential to cause
significant water pollution and should be allowed to expose the water table. Baldwin
Contracting Company has been using such a recycle system, with ponds that expose the water
table, at its Hallwood operation for over 50 years. Water quality analyses, which can be
provided, indicate no significant adverse. effects on groundwater quality. Other mining
operations referenced in the draft revised hydrology section exhibit similar results. Water used
to wash aggregate materials only comes into contact with the aggregate materials which were
themselves removed from the below the water table. We agree with Mr. Hanes' suggestion at
the end of the cover letter that we should meet to discuss the document and agree on any
changes. I _
Draft Revised Se 'on 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 4.4.2, pages 3- 6, Flooding — This discussion is based on a number of studies that are in
the Chico vicinity but not specific to the M&T project site. We understand that this section may
change substantially based on the results of the North Star Engineering surface water hydrology
study, which will be site specific. On page 5, in reference to flooding sources, we suggest that
the anecdotal nature of the opinions of nearby residents should be noted, especially in view of
inconsistencies in those comments.- We suggest that in the second full paragraph on this page,
the sentence starting with "The source of floodwaters as observed from nearby residents..."
should be something like "Anecdotal information from nearby residents regarding the source of
floodwaters is inconsistent." We understand that Mr. Hanes will have better information
regarding the sources of floodwaters and the relationship between Little Chico Creek and
Sacramento River flooding after the North Star Engineering surface water hydrology study is
completed.
Section 4.4.2, page 17, Water Quality: Groundwater — We suggest adding a sentence to the last
paragraph on this page to the effect that "There is no evidence to suggest that water quality
within the upper aquifer has been contaminated by water flowing into the existing pit." to clarify
what is only inferred in the paragraph. Also, it appears'that the 13th word in the second line of
the last paragraph on this page should be "mine" rather than "trace".
Section 4.4.2, page 18, Water Quality: Groundwater — The presence of the small mine pit on the
property and the results of KRCBaldwin's water quality sampling in the vicinity of that pit is
further evidence that neither flows from Little Chico Creek nor the presence of a mine pit will be
sources of groundwater contamination. We suggest that words to the effect that "In addition,
given the results of groundwater sampling near the existing gravel pit on the property, there is no
evidence to indicate that this pit has caused the groundwater to become contaminated." should
be added to the end of the fust paragraph on that page,
2
Jun -07-01 11:56 From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION 701-530-1451 T-783 P.04/08 F-818
Section 4.4.3, page 18, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Standards of Significance — A standard
of significance of 1 foot of drawdown would lead to a performance standard that would be very
difficult to measure. A one -foot change in clearly within the seasonal fluctuation of the water
table in this area and number of factors not related to mining could cause a 1 -foot drawdown.
We believe that the original standard of significance, that wells would have to be deepened or
pumps repositioned as a result of the project, was reasonable. We do not understand why this
Standard of Significance was changed. We suggest adding the words "except where they are
.already exceeded" to the end of the second Standard of Significance to reflect that some drinldng
water standards are already exceeded. Also, regarding the fourth standard, a direct subsurface
hydraulic connection already exists between the groundwater in the pit and surface runoff. .
Therefore, we suggest adding the word "surface" after "Resulted in a direct..." in the fourth
Standard of Significance.
Impact 4.4-1, pages 19-23, Groundwater Resources — We respectfully suggest that the
consumptive use of water resulting from this project has been substantially overestimated by Mr.
Hanes. The overestimate results from three erroneous assumptions: (1) assuming that the planus
will operate for 7 hours every workday during the year, (2) neglecting to note that the 2.5 acre -ft
per yr. per acre losses due to evaporation from the Iake are already occurring due to transpiration
by plants which have been, or will be, grown on the site and (3) ignoring the effect of flooding
on water balance. In calculating losses due to plant operations (wash water evaporation, dust
suppression usage, misters, and the ready mix plant), Mr. Hanes assumed that the plants would
operate virtually .every workday of the year. The "daily" water usage figures used by Mr. Hanes
are correct, but the assumed number of days when the plants are operating is incorrect. If the
aggregate processing plant operates 5.25 days per week for 8 months and 4 days per week for 4
months (as apparently assumed by Mr. Hanes), it will operate approximately- 1762 hours per
year, assuming 7 hours per day. However, the maximum aggregate production will be 425,000
tons, which would require 467,500 tons to be processed. At 400 tons per hour, this would
require about 1169 hours (167 7 -hour days) of plant operation to produce the maximum annual
tonnage from the aggregate processing plant. The maximum concrete production, at 150 cubic
yards per hour, would be done in about 333 hours or 33 days, assuming 10 -hour days for the
concrete plant. Therefore, only about 118 acre-feet of water would be consumed rather than the
180 acre-feet calculated by Mr. Hanes.
The calculated groundwater hydraulic effects are difficult to follow and do not consider the
temporal changes in water use and net water supply effect of the project. As a result of the
project, water is evaporated from the lake but water loss is already occurring due to plant
transpiration. The "net" effect of the project on water balance must be the criterion used to '
evaluate the effects of this project. Moreover, .the estimates of groundwater hydraulic effects
need to account for revised water consumption due to plant processing as outlined in the
previous paragraph. The total water consumption shown in Figure 4.4-9 should be compared to
cropped conditions: Using the cropping example provided by Mr. Hanes, for the 193 acre lake,
alfalfa grown on the same area would consume 550 acre feet per year. Using revised
consumptive use date based on maximum operating hours of the plant, the project water
consumption will exceed 550 acre-feet during years 19 through 32 when the difference between
the project and alfalfa evapotranspiration increases to about 1.2 feet (236 acre-feet) in the final
year of operation. After that, effects of the project will be limited to lake evaporation, which will
consume about 0.3 feet (64 acre feet) less water than alfalfa produced on the same acreage.
Jun -07-01 11:57 From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION 701-530-1451,_ T-783 P.05/08 F-818" j
.'Second, the calculations of hydraulic effects of the project do no consider the temporal nature of
the increased water consumption. Currently, the effects are estimated for the last year of the
project, which is the worst case. Even using these worst case numbers, the groundwater
hydraulic analysis indicates that there is minimal effect of the project water consumption on
groundwater levels. The average water consumption during the final 12 years of the project will
be less that this worst case analysis.
Third, the analysis of the groundwater hydraulic effects of the project should be determined on
the incremental increase in water corisumption for the project relative to the likely alternative.
Compared to alfalfa, this incremental difference reaches a maximum of about 1.2 feet (23 -acre.
feet) but is substantially less than this on average and is zero or less for the first 19 years of the
project and after completion of the project. In light of this, the groundwater analysis, pump tests
results and the small increase in water use due to the project, it is apparent that there will be
minimal groundwater hydraulic effect of the project. Much of the rest of Mr. Hanes analysis is
` an attempt to define the extent of water loss. Since the analysis projects a net gain rather than a
net loss over the long term, this additional analysis appears unnecessary. As such, the mitigation
measure for the neighboring well appears unreasonable and would be difficult to determine and
implement. We suggest that groundwater monitoring should be the primary guide for
determining the groundwater hydraulic effects of the project, which this analysis suggests will be
indiscernible.
Impact 4.4-1, Groundwater Resources, page 23 — The third paragraph on this page states that
"On those years where floodwaters enter the created lake, the potential flood storage volume
could entirely offset the total annual consumptive use". Anecdotal evidence suggests that
flooding occurs almost every year. We understand that results of the surface water hydrology
study will provide better flooding frequency data. In any case, flooding is certainly a frequent
event and this gives fiuther evidence that the project will not result in any significant water
balance deficit, which would affect adjacent ground water wells.
Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a and 4.4-1c, page 30 — Both of these mitigation measures are based
on the premise that there will be a net water loss and potential well drawdowns as a result of this
project. A discussed above, the potential process water use was significantly overestimated and
water losses due to crop evapotranspiration were not taken into account. Therefore, the proposal
for a legal agreement with all well owners within 1000 feet (of which there is apparently only
one) is unreasonable. Butte County is the proper regulatory authority to objectively determine
proper groundwater monitoring and mitigation requirements, if any are needed,
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b, page 30 — As described above, taking into account the maximum
number of hours that the facility will be permitted for, water losses already occurring as a result
of plant transpiration and water balance additions due to flooding, there is no evidence that this
project will significantly drawdown nearby wells. If water levels must be monitored, the well
locations and monitoring requirements should be determined by Butte County, which is the
proper regulatory authority to objectively determine such requirements.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario, page 31.— The second sentence of this section
states that drawdown of water would be ".., as described above..." (under the "with batch plant
scenario"). However, the elimination of batch plants would eliminate that use of water by the '
ready mix plant so there would be a reduction in water use under this scenario.
4
Jun -01-01 11:58 From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATIOW 101-530-1451 T-183 P.06/08' F-818
Impact 4.4-2 — Ground Water Quality Associated with Facilities Operations, page 32 — As
indicated in our earlier comments, this analysis does not justify changing this impact from "less
than significant" to "potentially significant". In fact, the additional information adds to the
evidence that a properly designed and permitted facility will not have a significant effect on
groundwater quality. In addition to the new information added by Mr. Hanes, Baldwin
Contracting Company can provide data from its very similar Hallwood operation, which '
demonstrates that this type of operation does not significantly affect groundwater quality. Also,
we believe that additional data since 1997 from the Yolo County projects referenced in the draft
revised hydrology section further support this point. t
z
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, page 34 — We believe that this mitigation measure should apply
strictly to sumps that will collect runoff water than may come into contact with potential
- contaminants such as petroleum products. This operation will require KRCBaldwin to comply
with both a storm water runoff control permit and waste discharge requirements issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Waste discharge requirements will require
Baldwin/KRC to retain all non -storm water runoff on site. Storm water not coming into contact
with potential pollutants will not have to be retained on site. Runoff from refueling areas and
equipment storage areas will be directed to sumps that are not exposed to the water table, but
recirculated wash water,will be rerouted to ponds that are exposed to the ground water. This
segregation of storm water runoff from wash water from water that may contact pollutants such
as petroleum products is how runoff is handled at Baldwin's Hallwood operation, which is ;
operated in compliance with RWQCB permits and requirements. Water quality data from
Hallwood and from similar operations (as indicated in Mr. Hanes narrative) indicate that this
standard method of handling wash water and runoff does not significantly affect ground water
quality.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c, page 35 — As indicated in our earlier comments, we do not see any _
nexus to require ground water quality monitoring. The text and analysis seem to support a
finding of"no impact". Please see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4) A.
Possible Alternative Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, page 35 — This alternative mitigation measure is
in fact the method that will be used to prevent contamination of ground water and should be
listed iather than 4.4-2a., b. and c.
Impact 4.4-3: Pit Water Quality, page 36 — As indicated in our earlier comments, the water table
is already exposed via Little Chico Creek and the existing pit. This impact already exists. Our
previous comment on this impact regarding well pumping should be disregarded, as we may drill
a well to pump make-up water as opposed to pumping it directly from the lake.
Page 37, Nrining Activities — We suggest that Baldwin's Hallwood operation is good evidence
that this type of operation will not have any significant effect on groundwater quality. Baldwin
can provide water quality data which supports this position. Also, as stated in our earlier
comments, the potential for biological pollutants from waterfowl is a preexisting condition.
Page 38, Drainage from Processing Facilities — We suggest that this section should clarify that
storm water will be discharged from the site in accordance with. a storm water discharge permit
issued by the RWQCB. We suggest adding the following after "...zero -discharge operation..."
Jun_ -07-01 11:59 From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION 1701-530-1451 T-783 P.07/08 F-818
in the first paragraph on this page: "...except for storm water that does not come into contact k ,
with process water. Storm water that does not come into contact with process water will be
routed around potential contaminants in accordance with...
Page 41,.General Flooding Associated With the Sacramento River — As indicated in our earlier,
comments, drinking water standards are not appropriate for the Iake.
Page 43, General Flooding Associated with the Sacramento River — As indicated in our earlier ,
comments, this analysis does not acknowledge that the lake resulting from mining and
reclaiming this pit is not proposed for drinking water. The quality of the water in the lake will be
appropriate for its intended use of wildlife habitat. Water in the pit is not stagnant. The creek is '
already hydrologically connected to the aquifer as is the existing aggregate pit. The aquifer is
w very large. Potential effects are remote, speculative, and not reasonably foreseen. The CEQA
standard is reasonableness not worst case analysis. ,
Page 44, Mitigation Measures — Agricultural tail water and unregulated use of pesticides are
preexisting conditions. .
Mitigation Measure 4.44a; page 45 —.The first two words in this mitigation measure should be
"Non-Stormwater" to reflect that storm water will discharge into the pit in accordance with a
storm water discharge permit issued by the RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4d, page 46 The analysis in the draft revised hydrology section. R
suggests that ground water quality will not be affected by.the proposed operation. Other
regulatory setbacks to protect ground water quality, as stated in the draft revised hydrology
section,, are 100 to 150 feet. There is no justification for a 500 -foot setback. It is our
understanding that the setback for the existing septic tank is no more than 150 feet. If there is a
legitimate concern for this negligible potential for affecting ground water quality, then ground
water quality should be monitored. If monitoring indicates any degradation as the result of this
project, the permittee should be required to replace the one domestic well of concern- The
replacement well could be screened in the lower aquifer, which the analysis indicates is not
connected to the shallow aquifer that includes the gravel resource to be mined.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4e, page 47 — As stated in our earlier comments, there does not appear to
be a nexus for. groundwater monitoring. If ground water monitoring is required, the standard
should be set by the primary regulatory agency, Butte County. The RWQCB may place
conditions on storm water permits and waste discharge requirements as a natural result of
reviewing and approving permits for this project.
Impact 4.44: Storm Water Discharges, page 48 -- Although all process water will be retained on
site, storm water will be discharged in accordance with a storm water discharge permit issued by
RWQCB. We suggest this section be revised to differentiate between runoff that may come in
contact with potential pollutants and storm water runoff not associated with potential pollutants.
The latter may be discharged in accordance with a storm water discharge permit:
Impact 4.4-6:Creek Migration, page 51— As stated in our earlier comments, there has been no
channel movement since 1862 and no mitigation measures are merited. As indicated on the
Jun -07-01 11:59 From -KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION 701-530-1451 T-783 P.08/09 F-818,
' bottom of page 52, "..-the potential for channel migration is extremely low...". This comment
also applies to the Proposed Project with Batch Plant Scenario narrative on page 53.
Page 55 — The last sentence of the second full paragraph of this page states that "this beneficial
effect (flooding of the pit) will only occur during years when there is flooding." We suggest
that language should be added to indicate that flooding, thus the beneficial effect, occurs
frequently. According to anecdotal evidence provided by area landowners, it occurs every year.
}
7
i
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: DAN BREEDON, SENIOR PLANNER
FROM: STUART EDELL, MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: M&T CHICO RANCH DRAFT EIR, HYDROLOGY SECTION
DATE: JUNE 71 2001
We have the following comments with respect. to the incomplete report from dated
November 19, 2000.
I. The report references a separate Flood Plain Study, which is to be conducted
and incorporated, we cannot find a copy of this Study.
2. Pages 4 through 6 ignore the Supplemental Standards and permit requirements
for Butte Basin as setforth in Section 135 of the Regulations of The Reclamation
Board, Title 23. Waters (copy attached for reference). The Reclamation Board
should be contacted for comments and permits. This project should be
conditioned upon obtaining a Reclamation Board Permit prior to commencement
of any work within the Flood Plain.
3. Provide the projected flood events for Little Chico Creek and the Sacramento
River to replace the **** predominant throughout the report.
4. Page 6. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Study has prepared
extensive analysis of the Sacramento River throughout this area and has mapped
the potential flood plain for several frequency events. They should be contacted
for comments and their comments should be included in this section.
5. Page 18 MM 4. Would migration of stream water into the .groundwater reduce
the stream/creek flows to a point where it would threaten or endanger species or
habitat?
JUN 8 2001
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
M&T Hydrology Section • Page 2 of 3
June 7, 2001, .
6. Page 19 last two paragraphs. The area of 6 acres/year does not correlate with a
volume. Do they mean 6 acre feet/year .or 6 acres 50 feet thick/year (300
of/year)?
7. Page 22, first paragraph. See page 13, the estimated K factor was as high as
1,000 feet/day for this area. Why are they using the lower 400 feet/day to
calculate the damaging effects of surface .water infiltration into a lowered
groundwater table?
8. Page 30 MM 4.4-1b. The measure should specify which agency or agencies
within Butte County would be required to approve monitoring programs. Left
open it could take from Board approval to librarian approval for the monitoring
program: Modify the 5th sentence as follows:
Monitoring must be performed for three years beyond the life of the
project or until the nest major flood event in Butte Basin, which allows
overflows into the pit, whichever is greater.
If the any of affected well owners will not provide access to their wells for
monitoring purposes, does that kill the project? -
9. Page 30 MM 4.4-1c. If any of the well owners is unwilling or unable to enter
into the described agreements, what happens to this MM? Is the project dead
due to this lack of cooperation from outside sources?
10. Page 41. We really need the flooding information, ***, to determine if the
discussion is adequate.
11: Pages 41 & 42 address impacts from flood flows in Little Chico Creek and the
Sacramento River. How many feet from the pit will the turbidity from the
mining operation, or flooding, be considered insignificant in the ground/well
water? What about seepage from these same sources (little Chico Creek and the
Sacramento River) in drought years? Would the surface flows be reduced to a
point that would threaten or endanger species or habitat? Would additional
flows need to be reintroduced into these sources by pumping or dam releases to
replace this seepage water?
12. Page 43 last paragraph. It should be noted that under existing conditions
floodwaters would not directly interact with groundwater.
13. Page 45 MM 4.4-4be. Does this MM increase the flood impacts on neighboring
properties by not allowing attenuation onsite?
M&T Hydrology Section • • Page 3 of 3
June 7, 2001
14. . Page 48 Impact 4.4-4. Where will "Internally -generated stormwater runoff be
retained on-site"? What are the impacts associated with elevating this area
within a flood plain? (Loss of storage/attenuation volume due to fill placement,
possible diversion of flood flows, etc.) The impacts and associated MM would
also apply to the without batch plant scenario on the following page.
15. Page 49, Impact 4.4-5. Erosion of the banks of Little Chico Creek sufficient to
change the creek location would have an impact on downstream channel
(habitat etc.); which no longer would carry water.
16. Page 50 MM 4.4-5a. The approval agencies of Butte County need to be defined.
17. Page, 51. Recent Little Chico Creek migration/alteration is evidenced by the
increased flood frequency of River Road at the Brick House. This section of road
has been flooded in even minor rainfall events recently. We have not been able
to determine the exact location of the migration/alteration, which has produced
this change.
18. . Page 53, Impact 4.4-7. This section needs a lot of work; most importantly it
needs the completion of the flood study. I would also recommend inclusion of
information from the Comprehensive Study (see item 4 above). Analysis must
include flood impacts from the Sacramento River as well as Little Chico Creek.
19. Page 54, Impact 4.4-8. The paragraph indicates "Flows in excess of this amount
could flow into the pit", previous MMs have described construction/enlargement
of channels to divert flows around the pond. What exactly are they proposing?
When,will flows be diverted and when will they be allowed to enter pond? What
are the effects of Sacramento River overflows?
The MM on page 55 states ''No mitigation is required as this is a beneficial
impact". What about the turbidity in groundwater due to direct recharge from
flood flows?
Please contact me if you have any questions.
cc: Mike Crump, Director of Public Works (File 180)
1133 BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS Tide 23
1136. st" Mt " stwWWR tt for Butte Bit..
(d) Within Mea B. approval from the board is not required for any en-
7be standards apply to Bnae Basin. as delineated on Figu m 8.12 and
croachment that is less than eighteen (18) inches in height above dwaatu-
partitianed into designated Areas B. C. D. E. and Reclamation District
d gttamd level.However. any popoaed encroachment within a slough
1000. The basin's west boundary is Be Sacramento Riveresst brook pant
or swab must be approved by the board Area B extends soutberly hese
ect levee. and above the Osd Ferry ansa where there is no project levee.
Butte Brim's northerly boumdaty to a lice located one chased (JAW)
the boundary is fie designated fbodway of the Sacramento River
feet southeasterly and lying paralM to the Paotrott Grant line.
sdopeed November 29.1988.7he east boundary is based an the wetted
(e) Within Area C. approval from the board is not acquired far any en -
area dthe 1970 flood Mw norib boundary is the Sacramento Riverdes-
eroacbment less duan ftty-sht (36) inches in height above the natural
mated floodway in the pm mity of Murpby Slougb and Golden State
ground level. and havingacrestelevation less tban seventy and one tenth
Lland. and the saMb boundary is the Sacramento River between the city
(70.1) feet (NOVD). Arca C is the imea enclosed within a thrco-(3) mile
ofColusaandtheBuftSlooghattfallgete:.aseaionoftbeBum Stwgh
rad'na measured -from the center of Matltnn Weir and limited by the
levee m botb Cohwaand SmwCounties. and Pass Road in SunarC.onmty.
southeasterlyrextensions of thenaub and south training levee alignments
7bese standards supplement and, when m conflict with, supersede the
to the three- (3) mile on.
standards in section 111 through section 137.
(i) Within Area D. approval tram the board is not required for any en-
°
(a) Appaval from the board is required for any encroachment that
eroacbment less than thirty -act (36) inches in beigbt above the natural
tould reduce or impede floodtlows. at would reclaim any of the flood-
ground level and baving a stat elevation less to filly -four and nine
plain within Butte Basin.
teatha(S49)feet(NGVD).AteaDencnmpassestheColusa Weirtogeth-
(1) Encroachments in Recknotion District 1004 are not regulated by
er with its oudlow channel enclosed by training levees. and an oven km
the board
arca extending to Butte gear
• (2) The stupplemewd standard: do not apply to that portion of Area E
(8) Within Area F. approval from the board is not requited fern any en-
Sti
-locatednorth of the Butte-merCamty line and its extension westward
ctnachmcut lens than chitty -sot (36) incbes in beight above due natural
into Cohtsa County. and situated adjacent to the Sacramento River proj-
ground level. '[be norlbern boundary dArea E is a tine located ane Chow
ectleveewhenthenaturalground level isbigberthanthe 100-yearflood
sad (UAW) feet soutbastedy of the south Parton Grant line. and the
elevation.
soudiem boundary is foamed by the Sacramento River between the city
(3) Excep where the activity would potentially affect a project levee
of Colusa andthe Butte Slougb atutfelt gatm a section of the Butte Stough
or ether project feature, the standards within sections 116.122.123.124.
levee mbada CaltusaandSuMaCeemties.andPass Roadin SutterCounty.
126.127. IN. 130.131. M and 137 dons apply to dist Portion of Ana
(b) Within that portion of Area E located south of Gridley Road. new
E locatd sontb of the Buns-Suues County lion and its extension west-
and existing nexeabooal structures, mchrdiog caretaker. security. and
ward into Corrin Coxity.
• dwoUiagdar seasa W occupancy(as defined is settice 113) maybe per -
(b) Approval from the boned is not nquued forcrop checks less than
mined provided the finished floor level of the strtucnun is at leans two (2)
chary-d:(36)incbesinbeigbt.InAressB.0and D.all cropcheebmust
fen abovethedesignflood piarteortwo(2)feetabove the 100-yearftood
be removed prior to flood season, unless they comply with the require-
elevation. whichever is bigjw.
menta of subdivisions (d), ft and M. respectively.
Norte Authority cited Section 8571, Weer Code. Retere wr. Serines MM
(c) Fac ept where the activity wotuld potentially affect a project levee
8609 and 8710. Wats Ca&
err other project feaoae. approval fmm the board isnot required for land
Humay .
levelin ar orfordraina and n An
8 8T�8• � �8� impronroments �
1. New semen and fW= 8.12 filed 9 -M -M operative 10 —30•-96(Retreat 96.
C. D and E Bao have a localized impact only and comply with subdivi-
suns (4 (f), and (g) of this actino.
• ftV 4.42 ltqoan a Nara _.M1 t�► . as
We D Reda dm Baud f 136
•J1 v�
• � ;•i mfg , 7• ! � •'.,(�'
RD IOD4
C.
. '= t •,i '' : r ,' ' Vis. j
•±• v� � • is ►,i� � � .. , •- .
• :.ice .; t.� � .
t to ! M •\� —�•• �7 • t - .. .,kjS
iii.• �, •�'��': � :.:..1�..:�•'� '
Pqe 4A3 e.d+a oa, Ne a to+oa
� KRc
HOLDINGS, INC.
A Subsidiary of Knife River Corporation
1915 North Kavaney Drive
Bismarck, ND 58501.1698
(701) 223-1171
(701) 255.0560 FAX
June 7, 2001
Mr. Dan Breedon
Senior Planner
Butte County Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Dear Mr. Breedon:
Enclosed please find our comments on the November 19, 2000 administrative draft of the
hydrology section for the M&T Ranch Mine EIR. We received this administrative draft on
March 5, 2001 and submitted preliminary comments on March 22, which we discussed during an
April 26 meeting at your office. These comments have also been emailed and faxed to you on
this date. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this project,
please call me at 1-800-982-5339 or Heidi Tschudin at 916-447-1809.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
LJ'0 UU4
Michael W. Pole
Vice President -Technical Services
for Construction Materials
lb
Attach.
C: Rene Vercruyssen
Heidi Tschudin
Steve Deveral
JUN 8 2001
BUT(E COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
June 7, 2001
Baldwin Contracting Company and KRC Holdings, Inc.
Additional comments on November 19, 2000 Draft Revised Hydrology Section (Received March
5, 2001) for M&T Ranch Mine EIR.
General — Our preliminary comments on this section were submitted to Butte County on March
22. We intended to delay the submission of any additional comments until we received a full
draft of the hydrology section, including results of the surface water hydrology studies being
conducted by NorthStar Engineering. However, at our April 26 meeting, the Planning Division
requested that we submit our comments at this time. Additional comments may be submitted
after we have had a chance to review the next administrative draft of the hydrology report, which
will include the surface water hydrology study results.
November 19, 2000 cover letter from Toby Hanes to Dave Brown
Paragraph 2 — Mr. Hanes indicates that he is having great difficulty finding any data related to
pesticide concentrations during flood events. KRCBaldwin collected water quality data in the
vicinity of the existing pit at M&T and pesticide concentrations were measured. Both the
existing mine pit and Little Chico Creek are subject to flood events. As indicated in the last
paragraph of page 16 of the draft revised hydrology section, "...Little Chico Creek becomes an
exposed water table..." during the time that it is flowing. According to many commenters on the
earlier DEIR, the area floods almost every year. Since flooding of this pit and Little Chico Creek
are both subject to agricultural runoff, one could conclude that the data collected by
KRCBaldwin reflect that pesticides from flood events do not have a significant effect on ground
water quality adjacent to the existing pit.
Paragraph 3 — As indicated in our comments on Impact 4.4-1, assumptions regarding process
water use were not changed as much as apparently assumed by Mr. Hanes: Mr. Hanes appears to
have overestimated the maximum number of hours that the plants will operate. Based on
maximum production rates, consumptive water use should be much less than the annual volumes
calculated by Mr. Hanes. Also, as discussed in our comments to Section 4.4.3, a one -foot draw
down action level is an almost impossible standard to measure. Numerous factors unrelated to
the mining operation will affect water levels. Based on Mr. Hanes hydrologic analysis, the
potential for this project to have any significant effect on the water level of the nearest domestic
well is very small. As we discussed during our April 26 meeting, a 500 -foot setback, which is
not warranted by the analysis, will cause KRCBaldwin to forego the mining of a very significant
amount of the reserve. Furthermore, the suggestion of reaching an up—front binding agreement
with potentially affected parties (of which there is only one) is probably impossible, considering
that party's opposition to this project. Even if such an agreement could be negotiated, it would
be very difficult to calculate the percentage of drawdown, if there is any, that its attributable to
KRCBaldwin's operations and the percentage that is attributable to the myriad of other potential
causes of drawdowns. The calculation of the cost of additional pumping (which will be very
small in total) will also be difficult to determine. If there is concern for water level effects on the
one nearby well (and the analysis in the draft revised hydrology section suggests small reason for
such concern), Butte County should require water level monitoring. If, in the view of Butte
County regulators, the mine is having an effect on the well, the permittee would be required to
construct a new well in the deeper aquifer. We don't understand why Mr. Hanes deleted drilling
a deeper well as a potential mitigation. The analysis suggests that KRCBaldwin's proposed
operation is very unlikely to have any significant effect on the water levels in this well.
Similarly, the water quality mitigation requirements proposed are unnecessary based on the
analysis of likely effects of the mining operation. KRCBaldwin agree the sumps used to collect
runoff that may come into contact with pollutants like fuel should be above the water table and
sealed to minimize seepage. However, ponds for recycle water have almost no potential to cause
significant water pollution and should be allowed to expose the water table. Baldwin
Contracting Company has been using such a recycle system, with ponds that expose the water
table, at its Hallwood operation for over 50 years. Water quality analyses, which can be
provided, indicate no significant adverse effects on groundwater quality. Other mining
operations referenced in the draft revised hydrology section exhibit similar results. Water used
to wash aggregate materials only comes into contact with the aggregate materials which were
themselves removed from the below the water table. We agree with Mr. Hanes' suggestion at
the end of the cover letter that we should meet to discuss the document and agree on any
changes.
Draft Revised Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 4.4.2, pages 3- 6, Flooding — This discussion is based on a number of studies that are in
the Chico vicinity but not specific to the M&T project site. We understand that this section may
change substantially based on the results of the North Star Engineering surface water hydrology
study, which will be site specific. On page 5, in reference to flooding sources, we suggest that
the anecdotal nature of the opinions of nearby residents should be noted, especially in view of
inconsistencies in those comments. We suggest that in the second full paragraph on this page,
the sentence starting with "The source of floodwaters as observed from nearby residents..."
should be something like "Anecdotal information from nearby residents regarding the source of
floodwaters is inconsistent." We understand that Mr. Hanes will have better information
regarding the sources of floodwaters and the relationship between Little Chico Creek and
Sacramento River flooding after the North Star Engineering surface water hydrology study is
completed.
Section 4.4.2, page 17, Water Quality: Groundwater — We suggest adding a sentence to the last
paragraph on this page to the effect that "There is no evidence to suggest that water quality
within the upper aquifer has been contaminated by water flowing into the existing pit." to clarify
what is only inferred in the paragraph. Also, it appears that the 13th word in the second line of
the last paragraph on this page should be "mine" rather than "trace".
Section 4.4.2, page 18, Water Quality: Groundwater — The presence of the small mine pit on the
property and the results of KRCBaldwin's water quality sampling in the vicinity of that pit is
further evidence that neither flows from Little Chico Creek nor the presence of a mine pit will be
sources of groundwater contamination. We suggest that words to the effect that "In addition,
given the results of groundwater sampling near the existing gravel pit on the property, there is no
evidence to indicate that this pit has caused the groundwater to become contaminated." should
be added to the end of the first paragraph on that page.
2
0 0
Section 4.4.3, page 18, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Standards of Significance — A standard
of significance of 1 foot of drawdown would lead to a performance standard that would be very
difficult to measure. A one -foot change in clearly within the seasonal fluctuation of the water
table in this area and number of factors not related to mining could cause a 1 -foot drawdown.
We believe that the original standard of significance, that wells would have to be deepened or
pumps repositioned as a result of the project, was reasonable. We do not understand why this
Standard of Significance was changed. We suggest adding the words "except where they are
already exceeded" to the end of the second Standard of Significance to reflect that some drinking
water standards are already exceeded. Also, regarding the fourth standard, a direct subsurface
hydraulic connection already exists between the groundwater in the pit and surface runoff.
Therefore, we suggest adding the word "surface" after "Resulted in a direct..." in the fourth
Standard of Significance.
Impact 4.4-1, pages 19-23, Groundwater Resources — We respectfully suggest that the
consumptive use of water resulting from this project has been substantially overestimated by Mr.
Hanes. The overestimate results from three erroneous assumptions: (1) assuming that the plants
will operate for 7 hours every workday during the year, (2) neglecting to note that the 2.5 acre -ft
per yr. per acre losses due to evaporation from the lake are already occurring due to transpiration
by plants which have been, or will be, grown on the site and (3) ignoring the effect of flooding
on water balance. In calculating losses due to plant operations (wash water evaporation, dust
suppression usage, misters, and the ready mix plant), Mr. Hanes assumed that the plants would
operate virtually every workday of the year. The "daily" water usage figures used by Mr. Hanes
are correct, but the assumed number of days when the plants are operating is incorrect. If the
aggregate processing plant operates 5.25 days per week for 8 months and 4 days per week for 4
months (as apparently assumed by Mr. Hanes), it will operate approximately 1762 hours per
year, assuming 7 hours per day. However, the maximum aggregate production will be 425,000
tons, which would require 467,500 tons to be processed. At 400 tons per hour, this would
require about 1169 hours (167 7 -hour days) of plant operation to produce the maximum annual
tonnage from the aggregate processing plant. The maximum concrete production, at 150 cubic
yards per hour, would be done in about 333 hours or 33 days, assuming 10 -hour days for the
concrete plant. Therefore, only about 118 acre-feet of water would be consumed rather than the
180 acre-feet calculated by Mr. Hanes.
The calculated groundwater hydraulic effects are difficult to follow and do not consider the
temporal changes in water use and net water supply effect of the project. As a result of the
project, water is evaporated from the lake but water loss is already occurring due to plant
transpiration. The "net" effect of the project on water balance must be the criterion used to
evaluate the effects of this project. Moreover, the estimates of groundwater hydraulic effects
need to account for revised water consumption due to plant processing as outlined in the
previous paragraph. The total water consumption shown in Figure 4.4-9 should be compared to
cropped conditions. Using the cropping example provided by Mr. Hanes, for the 193 acre lake,
alfalfa grown on the same area would consume 550 acre feet per year. Using revised
consumptive use date based on maximum operating hours of the plant, the project water
consumption will exceed 550 acre-feet during years 19 through 32 when the difference between
the project and alfalfa evapotranspiration increases to about 1.2 feet (236 acre-feet) in the final
year of operation. After that, effects of the project will be limited to lake evaporation, which will
consume about 0.3 feet (64 acre feet) less water than alfalfa produced on the same acreage.
Second, the calculations of hydraulic effects of the project do no consider the temporal nature of
the increased water consumption. Currently, the effects are estimated for the last year of the
project, which is the worst case. Even using these worst case numbers, the groundwater
hydraulic analysis indicates that there is minimal effect of the project water consumption on
groundwater levels. The average water consumption during the final 12 years of the project will
be less that this worst case analysis.
Third, the analysis of the groundwater hydraulic effects of the project should be determined on
the incremental increase in water consumption for the project relative to the likely alternative.
Compared to alfalfa, this incremental difference reaches a maximum of about 1.2 feet (23 -acre
feet) but is substantially less than this on average and is zero or less for the first 19 years of the
project and after completion of the project. In light of this, the groundwater analysis, pump tests
results and the small increase in water use due to the project, it is apparent that there will be
minimal groundwater hydraulic effect of the project. Much of the rest of Mr. Hanes analysis is
an attempt to define the extent of water loss. Since the analysis projects a net gain rather than a
net loss over the long term, this additional analysis appears unnecessary. As such, the mitigation
measure for the neighboring well appears unreasonable and would be difficult to determine and
implement. We suggest that groundwater monitoring should be the primary guide for
determining the groundwater hydraulic effects of the project, which this analysis suggests will be
indiscernible.
Impact 4.4-1, Groundwater Resources, page 23 — The third paragraph on this page states that
"On those years where floodwaters enter the created lake, the potential flood storage volume
could entirely offset the total annual consumptive use". Anecdotal evidence suggests that
flooding occurs almost every year. We understand that results of the surface water hydrology
study will provide better flooding frequency data. In any case, flooding is certainly a frequent
event and this gives further evidence that the project will not result in any significant water
balance deficit, which would affect adjacent ground water wells.
Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a and 4.4-1c, page 30 — Both of these mitigation measures are based
on the premise that there will be a net water loss and potential well drawdowns as a result of this
project. A discussed above, the potential process water use was significantly overestimated and
water losses due to crop evapotranspiration were not taken into account. Therefore, the proposal
for a legal agreement with all well owners within 1000 feet (of which there is apparently only
one) is unreasonable. Butte County is the proper regulatory authority to objectively determine
proper groundwater monitoring and mitigation requirements, if any are needed.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b, page 30 — As described above, taking into account the maximum
number of hours that the facility will be permitted for, water losses already occurring as a result
of plant transpiration and water balance additions due to flooding, there is no evidence that this
project will significantly drawdown nearby wells. If water levels must be monitored, the well
locations and monitoring requirements should be determined by Butte County, which is the
proper regulatory authority to objectively determine such requirements.
Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario, page 31 — The second sentence of this section
states that drawdown of water would be "... as described above..." (under the "with batch plant
scenario'). However, the elimination of batch plants would eliminate that use of water by the
ready mix plant so there would be a reduction in water use under this scenario.
Impact 4.4-2 — Ground Water Quality Associated with Facilities Operations, page 32 — As
indicated in our earlier comments, this analysis does not justify changing this impact from "less
than significant" to "potentially significant". In fact, the additional information adds to the
evidence that a properly designed and permitted facility will not have a significant effect on
groundwater quality. In addition to the new information added by Mr. Hanes, Baldwin
Contracting Company can provide data from its very similar Hallwood operation, which
demonstrates that this type of operation does not significantly affect groundwater quality. Also,
we believe that additional data since 1997 from the Yolo County projects referenced in the draft
revised hydrology section further support this point.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, page 34 — We believe that this mitigation measure should apply
strictly to sumps that will collect runoff water than may come into contact with potential
contaminants such as petroleum products. This operation will require KRCBaldwin to comply
with both a storm water runoff control permit and waste discharge requirements issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Waste discharge requirements will require
Baldwin/KRC to retain all non -storm water runoff on site. Storm water not coming into contact
with potential pollutants will not have to be retained on site. Runoff from refueling areas and
equipment storage areas will be directed to sumps that are not exposed to the water table, but
recirculated wash water will be rerouted to ponds that are exposed to the ground water. This
segregation of storm water runoff from wash water from water that may contact pollutants such
as petroleum products is how runoff is handled at Baldwin's Hallwood operation, which is
operated in compliance with RWQCB permits and requirements. Water quality data from
Hallwood and from similar operations (as indicated in Mr. Hanes narrative) indicate that this
standard method of handling wash water and runoff does not significantly affect ground water
quality.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c, page 35 — As indicated in our earlier comments, we do not see any
nexus to require ground water quality monitoring. The text and analysis seem to support a
finding of "no impact". Please see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4) A.
Possible Alternative Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, page 35 — This alternative mitigation measure is
in fact the method that will be used to prevent contamination of ground water and should be
listed rather than 4.4-2a., b. and c.
Impact 4.4-3: Pit Water Quality, page 36 — As indicated in our earlier comments, the water table
is already exposed via Little Chico Creek and the existing pit. This impact already exists. Our
previous comment on this impact regarding well pumping should be disregarded, as we may drill
a well to pump make-up water as opposed to pumping it directly from the lake.
Page 37, Mining Activities — We suggest that Baldwin's Hallwood operation is good evidence
that this type of operation will not have any significant effect on ground water quality. Baldwin
can provide water quality data which supports this position. Also, as stated in our earlier
comments, the potential for biological pollutants from waterfowl is a preexisting condition.
Page 38, Drainage from Processing Facilities — We suggest that this section should clarify that
storm water will be discharged from the site in accordance with a storm water discharge permit
issued by the RWQCB. We suggest adding the following after "...zero -discharge operation..."
in the first paragraph on this page: "... except for storm water that does not come into contact
with process water. Storm water that does not come into contact with process water will be
routed around potential contaminants in accordance with..."
Page 41, General Flooding Associated With the Sacramento River — As indicated in our earlier
comments, drinking water standards are not appropriate for the lake.
Page 43, General Flooding Associated with the Sacramento River — As indicated in our earlier
comments, this analysis does not acknowledge that the lake resulting from mining and
reclaiming this pit is not proposed for drinking water. The quality of the water in the lake will be
appropriate for its intended use of wildlife habitat. Water in the pit is not stagnant. The creek is
already hydrologically connected to the aquifer as is the existing aggregate pit. The aquifer is
very large. Potential effects are remote, speculative, and not reasonably foreseen. The CEQA
standard is reasonableness not worst case analysis.
Page 44, Mitigation Measures — Agricultural tail water and unregulated use of pesticides are
preexisting conditions.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a, page 45 — The first two words in this mitigation measure should be
"Non-Stormwater" to reflect that storm water will discharge into the pit in accordance with a
storm water discharge permit issued by the RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4d, page 46 —The analysis in the draft revised hydrology section
suggests that ground water quality will not be affected by the proposed operation. Other
regulatory setbacks to protect ground water quality, as stated in the draft revised hydrology
section, are 100 to 150 feet. There is no justification for a 500 -foot setback. It is our
understanding that the setback for the existing septic tank is no more than 150 feet. If there is a
legitimate concern for this negligible potential for affecting ground water quality, then ground
water quality should be monitored. If monitoring indicates any degradation as the result of this
project, the permittee should be required to replace the one domestic well of concern. The
replacement well could be screened in the lower aquifer, which the analysis indicates is not
connected to the shallow aquifer that includes the gravel resource to be mined.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4e, page 47 — As stated in our earlier comments, there does not appear to
be a nexus for groundwater monitoring. If ground water monitoring is required, the standard
should be set by the primary regulatory agency, Butte County. The RWQCB may place
conditions on storm water permits and waste discharge requirements as a natural result of
reviewing and approving permits for this project.
Impact 4.4-4: Storm Water Discharges, page 48 — Although all process water will be retained on
site, storm water will be discharged in accordance with a storm water discharge permit issued by
RWQCB. We suggest this section be revised to differentiate between runoff that may come in
contact with potential pollutants and storm water runoff not associated with potential pollutants.
The latter may be discharged in accordance with a storm water discharge permit.
Impact 4.4-6:Creek Migration, page 51 — As stated in our earlier comments, there has been no
channel movement since 1862 and no mitigation measures are merited. As indicated on the
6
bottom of page 52, "...the potential for channel migration is extremely low...". This comment
also applies to the Proposed Project with Batch Plant Scenario narrative on page 53.
Page 55 — The last sentence of the second full paragraph of this page states that "this beneficial
effect (flooding of the pit) will only occur during years when there is flooding." We suggest
that language should be added to indicate that flooding, thus the beneficial effect, occurs
frequently. According to anecdotal evidence provided by area landowners, it occurs every year.
:11
O 700
lti
S600
500
to
o roc
a
E 30(
N
V 201
P 10
C� NA NIb IV
Time (Years)
Figure 4.4 B. Annual Water Use Over and Beyond the Life of the Project.
JW'j- (�,
r40� 13<�L�C-�v�o ►.) � u Ct9uurY /p" 4%
D
�CEod�
J U N 1 1 2001
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
I .
06/05/2P01,, 09:.06 9166600192
Bollard & Brennan,
Inc.
Facsimile Transmittal,Sheet
Date: June 5, 2001
To: Dan Breedon
Organization: Butte County Planning
Subject: M&T Chick Ranch Berm
# of Pages: 1, including this cover
Fax Number: (530) 538.7785
Comments:
Hi Dan_...
BOLLARD BRENNAN INC
PAGE 01/01'
w
In response to your inquiry regarding the length of the berm which would be necessary to
shield the nearest residence to the M&T Chico Ranch mining operations, I have the
following input.
The length of the berm will depend on the distance to the 55 dB mining equipment
contour. That is because a berm. that breaks line of sight will provide at least a 5 dB
reduction down to 50 dB Leq, which is the project's standard of significance.
For example, with no mitigation, the Manitowoc Drag Line generates an average level of
65 dB Leq at 300 feet. The distance to the 55 dB contour would be 950 feet based on a 6
dB decrease for each doubling of distance from the source. Therefore, the berm would
need to be long enough to break line of sight to the Manitowoc anywhere it is operating
within 950 feet of the nearest residence. By my estimation, that would be a berm
approximately 1500 feet long at the edge of the mining area.
If the excavation equipment generates an average level of 60 d8 at 300 feet, the 55 dI3
contour would be approximately 530 feet away. Therefore, the berm would need to be
long enough to break line of sight to the Manitowoc anywhere it is operating within 530
feet of the nearest residence. By my estimation, that would be a berm approximately 800
feet long at the edge of the mining area.
I hope this information helps, and I'm sorry it took me a while to get it to you. Call me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
rard re ,Ird
President
cc: Dave Brown, Resource Design - 983-9194
Bollard & Brennan, Inc.
3805 Taylor Road, Suite 2
Loomis, California 95650
Phone: (916) 660-0191
Fax: (916) 660-0192
PBollard@aol.com
Hydro -confusing, nothing to substantiate changes in mitigations -insurance policy Impacts to
domestic well, occupant has shallow well, easily contaminated, all mitiations for well unnecessary if
new well is provided with proper depth and seal. Do agreement to provide new well for landowner,
set up annuity for extra power use. Check with County Counsel on legality.
Noise -Should do berm analysis how high how long what type of material, landscaping problem with
methodology for 5 decibel increase over ambient as significant. Should consider allowed uses and
what those uses may generate, such as row crops, discing etc..
Traffic, Bob Greenlaw promises next week. What is status of double -counting issue? Check with
Feer & Pears and Dave Brown. KRC needs to see DPW comments, methodology for road impact
fee is an issue.
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
P080C WORKSDEPARTMENT
TO: Dan Breedon, Senior Planner
FROM: Bob Greenlaw, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Comments on Revised M&T Chico Ranch DEIR, Traffic and Circulation
DATE: May 25, 2001
Following are comments on the traffic element for the above referenced DEIR:
General Comment: All pages should be numbered in any submittal. This makes commenting in an
abbreviated form easier.
Existing Roadway Conditions (comments by roadway):
River Road — In addition to being subject to inundation, it is subject to frequent closure from
inundation.
Chico River Road — Pavement conditions are fair from Lone Pine Avenue to River Road.
Ord Ferry Road — Large segments of the roadway are subject to inundation and to frequent
closure.
Durham Dayton Highway — Roadway segments east of Durham are subject to inundation
and frequent closure.
Skyway — The roadway segment north of Butte Creek is subject to inundation and closure
during a major flood.
Bruce Road — It connects SR 32 to Skyway. The pavement conditions are poor / fair / good.
SR 32 / River Road — Caltrans has stated they intend to construct a left turn lane from SR 32
onto River Road in the near future.
Ord Ferry Road / Dayton Road ' — This intersection is now a four-way stop controlled
intersection.
Skyway @ Baldwin Plant — The driveway is not stop sign controlled at the edge of the
traveled way.
Truck Traffic: The text denotes three routes primarily traveled by the aggregate industry. Should
SR 44 be SR 45?
Accident History: The intersection of Skyway and the Baldwin driveway is not recognized as an
intersection by the County, it is a driveway. As such, no specific accident information will be
available for an intersection. Yet, this is a driveway on a four -lane roadway segment with known
accidents in the near vicinity. These accidents should be noted. Additionally, the driveway
r
v
LA
immediately to the south at the molding factory should be investigated for accidents and user
comments. Large trucks within the same traffic stream use this driveway.
Summary of Existing Intersection Operations, Table 4.6-7: The average delay of 0.2 and 0.3
seconds at the Baldwin driveway is not likely at peak hour. Provide backup data.
Existing Operational Issues
Non Standard Road Design: It 'is commented that the roadway segment of River Road
between Chico River Road and SR32 is restricted to a 14,000 Ib. weight limit. The bridge at
Big Chico Creek was reconstructed in 2000 and will support legal loads. Yet the roadway
beyond this to SR 32 is substandard in width, structural section, shoulder section and
alignment. Additionally, the roadway is subject to large areas of inundation and frequent
closure. The roadway is not currently posted, but may be considered for this in the future
due to the substandard issues.
Narrow or Substandard Bridges: A narrow bridge is located at Ord Ferry Road at Little
Chico Creek. This was a concern in the first version of the DEIR and is still a concern. In
addition, the bridge mentioned as in need of structural repair on Big Chico Creek at River
Road was replaced in 2000.
Deteriorated Pavement: Backup calculations for this analysis needs to be included in the
appendix.
Intersection with Limited Curve Radii: An accident between a large truck and the traffic
signal at West 5th Street and SR 32 was reported. To establish that the turning radius at the
intersection is sufficient please state what the radii are and the required Caltrans truck
turning radius for the most critical project generated vehicle.
Transit System: The list of fixed -route transit provided does not include the CATS routes
within the project study area.
Bicycle and Pedestrian System: The Countywide Bikeway Master Plan was approved on
October 13, 1998. Within this plan there are facilities planned for Chico River Road and
River Road that are within the project study limits, although they are not included in the
DEIR.
Project Specific Analysis
Existing Conditions
Background Circulation Assumptions: It is stated that the Butte County Bikeway Master
Plan is a draft and not yet approved. The plan is now final and was approved on October 13,
1998.
Table 4.6-8: As stated in the data collection section, traffic from the aggregate industry
varies seasonally. This table and the analysis could be misleading as the trip generation is
spread throughout the year and not throughout the aggregate delivery season. A more
realistic look would utilize historic records for trip generation provided by the Stony Creek
plant.
Analysis Results: The estimates are most likely conservative. Aggregate truck traffic from
Stony Creek is essentially utilizing the same haul routes as the proposed project with the
exception of SR 32. It, seems unreasonable to count trips from Stony Creek and
incrementally add the trips from the project on the same route. This is a market demand
issue; the market for aggregate in Chico will not increase due to a plant relocation.
Cumulative Conditions
e
Background Circulation Assumptions: Same comments as existing conditions.
Analysis Results: Same comments as existing conditions.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance: Public Works does not agree with the standard of significance for
bridges less than 20 feet in width to be considered a significant effect. The standard should be 24
feet. The bridge on Ord Ferry at Little Chico Creek is 20 feet and is a concern when any other
vehicle occupies the bridge with a large truck.
Impact 4.6-1: Backup calculations need to be included in the appendix.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1: The analysis should be further reduced to a fee based on per ton of
material that is trucked from the project site. The fee will need to be relative to an inflation index.
The fee shall be submitted annually to Public Works. The mine operator will be required to provide
Public Works access to records verifying material that has left the mine site.
r
Impact 4.6-2: The intersection is now a four-way stop controlled intersection.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: The improvements already have been completed.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-7: Improvements to the median crossing, acceleration/deceleration lanes,
signing, striping, and channelization could improve the safety characteristics of this roadway
segment. If this segment can not be improved then this scenario should not be considered.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-8: The project applicant should contribute now for their fare share of
intersection improvements that will occur in the future. Other projects have contributed to this in the
past, so there is some history to build upon and support this.
Project Specific Impacts -for Mining Only Scenario: The text states that the impacts for this
scenario are identical to the full operations scenario. This appears to be an unfounded
simplification. Without operations from the Skyway plant, impacts to Skyway and Bruce Road are
greatly reduced.
05i25i01 08:03 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING 530 538 7785
9®orth*tar
20DEClARATIONONVE
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973.4901
ENGINEERING
NO. 341 (?04
I. D. Ge-r�,sus,o
C%I Engineers - Planes - SuNeyors 530 893 1 G00 - FAX 530w893 2113 (quoits#: 25423
Resource Design Technology, Inc.
302-A S. Lexington. Drive
Folsom CA 95630
Client II]: Project#
A1604'7182
Project Charges through:
Professional Services
Consultation - River Road
April 30, 2001
April 30, 2001
Page 1
l
D E CEO MAY 2
5 2001 �.
PLANNING
Amount
360.00
CAD Design 1.187.50
Report/Letter (Stamped)
For professional services rendered $1,547.50
Previous balance $9,335.30
Balance due $10.882.80
No payments received after the "Project Charges through' date above are reflected on this invoice - also, Please
Write Your PROJECT # (as shown above under your address) 'On Your Check to insure proper crediting of your
payment - Credit Cards Gladly Accepted. THANK YOUI
TERMS: NET CASH
A 1'.; o n,WMhq e6 -MC Chs+Oe 1,8% Pe- vwwnj +hU oo adde010 vow B CCOun, d =-I OLse. 01u: atifAPev lo¢:fi n0 C6s::+ncw: £0 +01 CQ;,t -.-cn
NOTICE
•linlEr Ino+/E� d'.r.4E�\:••r IC81i+0/nO CC/leo:Ci.•dP+aCEOur¢.Seacm 1! 819::en.J BnY C611i BGGL Sut CY:+O=fit. !6DG'E+W;Z-1-: ::'c':t':7' -T,-S •: .a
w.
p,e a vi ?:S
.r.n•ea.elo+n.5wCr4 Gr Sa.�01t9.f.853n]!1i 10 ¢ntS+Ce6Card'aaiAS1 v�u+v.fxr.0 l'of eC2+:^ •cS+'a ,r:: C+==2:-: ^'::a :�.
05/25/01
08:03 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING 4 53e 538 7785
M & T RANCH MINE SITE
FLOODING STUDY
NO. 341 P03
=I
05/25/01 08:03 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING -� 530 538 7785
ENGINEERING
Civil Engineers Planers Surveyors
April 25, 2001
Mr. David Brown
Resource Design Technology
302-A S. Lexington Drive
Folsom, CA. 95630
Subject: M & T Ranch, River Road Aggregate Mine
'Dear Dave,
Pleasefi.nd enclosed herewith our draft flooding study for the above noted
project- 1 'would appreciate review and comments by you and Toby
Haynes. I am still waiting on information from Butte County DPW
regarding historical flooding, road closures and will analyzeand include
them when available.
My general conclusions at this time are that construction of the
stockpiles/ plant will increase the stage in Little Chico Creek in the
vicinity of the fill, but that it may well be possible to mitigate with a
bypass channel. The increase in stage will most likely only impact the M
& T Ranch with minimal impacts to River Road.
Please feel free to call me with comments.o.r questions, as we are anxious
to keep this project on schedule. I would be happy to meet with you and `
Toby (and County Staff should you choose) to review our work.
J-
t
Very Truly yours,
Michael McEnespy, P_E.
NorthStar Engineering.
20 DECLARATION DRIVE
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95913
530-893.1600
FAX•893-2113
n
05/25/01
08:03 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING -i� 530 538 7785
•
Nor1L r
ENGINEERING
Civil Engineers - Planners • Surveyors
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE: S JOB
SEND TO: Name
Company �v
Phonehl
FAX # S "36 -
MESSAGE:
6 -MESSAGE: V --A ► ' %2-A;tmag
Icz
FROM. Name,
Company NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING
Phone. # (530) 893-1600
FAX # (530) 893-2113
E-mail
S
NUMBER OF PAGES: Cover sheet plus sheets
20 DECLARATION DRIVE
C_HICO, CALIFORNIA 95973
530-893.1600
FAX -893-2113
Jun 26 0.1 01:08.p RESOURCE DESIGN (916) 983-9194 p.1
RES®�JRCE DESIGN
T E C H.N O L O G Y, I N C.
Land Minerals • Environment .
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
Date: June 26, 2001
To: Dan Breedon Fax: (530) 538-7785
' From: Jennifer Dzakowic
Pages: 3 (Including Cover Sheet)
Description: M & T Chico Ranch
® Original will not follow ❑ Original follows by: [3 U.S. Mail Q t-pay/FedEx ❑ Courier ❑ Other
Message:
Dan,
Here is the relevant section of the reclamation plan that discusses topsoil management for the M & T
Chico Ranch site. It states that the deposit consists of a layer of topsoil 0-15 feet thick which will be uses
where necessary and/or removed and sold and or used elsewhere on the Ranch.
Jennifer
302-A S. Lexington Drive I Telephone. 916.983.9193
Folsom, California 95630 Facsimile: 916.983.9194
Jun 26 01 01:08p RESOURCE DESIGN (_916) 983-9194
15. operation is developed.
The small aggregate pit on the site has been used intermittently
to provide sand and gravel for surfacing roads and -other purposes
on the M&T Ranch. Its location is shown on Exhibit I.
19a. Describehe nature of
tailings orewasteessing and explain disposal
from processing.
crush, screen, and wash sand and gravel, produce asphaltic con-
crete and concrete. All by-products from the washing operation
shall be used in the manufacture of aggregate products, used to
reclaim portions of the pit areas, or deposited on. adjacent
farmland to augment the topsoil.
19b. Estimate quantity (gallons per day) and quality of water
required by the proposed operation.
The aggregate washing operation will use approximately 700 M
gallons of water per day. The wastewater will be returned to a
settling basin where it will be recycled. Non -potable water can
er will be
be used for this facility. since all
ter will lonly the required
recycled through the plant, make up
to compensate for losses due to evaporation. Abundant groundwa-
use on
ter is available at the site and the effects of this water
earitached
the groundwater resources will be insignificant -
Hydrology Report). A sump pit will be excavated into the shallow
to the plant and used as a source of
ground water located next
water.
20. Describe and show the steps or phases of the mining
concurrent reclamation and include
operation that allow
a proposed time schedule for such concurrent activities.
The deposit consists of a layer of topsoil, 0 - 15 feet thick,
underlain by sand and gravel.
The topsoil shall be used where necessary or removed and sold,
and/or it shall be deposited on adjacent agricultural fields.
The sand aSe gravel
removallofnlowerldeposits shall be done withga
be harvested using a ra-
line. subsequent
dredge.
taken
Reclamation of
ovale of 1 sand and gravel mned areas shall.be Mostr of the mined continually of
following rem
ovale
will become groundwater recharge ponds or wetlands and rec]ama-
tion activities will be concentrated on the perimeters of these
imately 4 acres will be mined each year,
water bodies. Approx
feet of.recharge pond and wetland
yielding an average of 1680
perimeter to reclaim.
following soil reclamation plans are coordinated r
ith the
The el and
proposed mining plan which allows for extraction of g
post-minin; soil reclamation ute Cour.*ystandtthe ion °Surfa�1f some a Mining areas of nd
site if required .y � ated that most'
Recla' .ation Act ;3MARA): standi" -kls: It is anti -.p ,s yd
-]s - of :.ne topsoi: removed fry..:. the miningarea '•:.il be sold or.
-lsewhere on the M&T
- 5 -
M&T Chtco Ranch Mine Project Draft EIR
LILBURN CORPORATION C-24
p.2
Jun 26 01 01:09p RESOURCE DESIGN (916) 983-9194 p.3
i 0
Soil units mapped on the site were discussed above. About eight
series were identified and described. The soils of the site,
because they are unirrigated and unleveled and have other con-
straints, do not meet U.S.D.A. criteria for prime farmland. The
mapped soils overlie significant gravel resources which can be
mined; the areas occupied by these soils will be reclaimed as
groundwater recharge basins and wetlands for wildlife habitat and
. the soils removed from them in the mining process will be used to
augment reclamation efforts if needed on the site.
The ls somerevegent-
eta-
tion plan discussed in following sections
ingdeveloment of habitat/groundwaterland comlexes recharge ponds. long the margins of
wildlife
The removal, handling, and replacement of any soil to be used in
reclamation efforts will be done in accordance with Butte County
ordinances and SMARA guidelines. The soils of the site are
shallow and young and will be handled as functional units rather
than by strict horizon designations. If needed for reclamation,
the surface 12 inches of soil will be removed, designated as the
A horizon, and stockpiled and replaced as a unit; the remaining
1k' subsoil will be treated as a subsoil unit (the hors. Th
function.
The intent of this guideline is to preserve soil function.
characteristics of these horizons -have impacts on soil function
is often
and plant response. The A horizon (surface layer) The lower
enriched with plant micronutrients and organic matter.
horizons (BIC), which make up the sub --soil, have different tex-
tures, chemical compositions, and may be impoverished or contain
concentrations of nutrients and other ions unsuitable for plant
growth. The BIC horizon will be treated as a separate unit
tand he
not placed on the surface of reclaimed areas. In general,
following protocol will be used if reclamation is required:
• The upper 3-2 inches of soil (A horizon) will be removed
and stockpiled separately.
The subsoil (BIC) horizons will not be further separated.
They will be stockpiled separately from the A horizon.
. During re -emplacement of soils, the B/C horizons will be
A horizon. will be placed on the
emplaced first and the
surface.
This plan incorporates the intent of the sMARA guidelines to
maintain soil function through adequate design and reclamation
planning.
Compaction caused by heavy equipment can be a problem in re-
claimed soils. To decrease the effects of compaction of soils to
be used in reclamation:
• Heavy equipment traffic
ff cit will
re-emplaced.
to a minimum and the
soil will be ripped
After reclamation hat: been completed these soil.. will be
•Managed .using cor6c�rvation technir.:es to fac�.�itate long-
term habitat m;.::agement object3`. �s.
M&T Chico Ranee Mine Project Draft BIR
LILBURN CORPORATION 0, 1r,
NorthStar
0MF" ,
ENGINEERING
Civil Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
April 25, 2001
Mr. David Brown
Resource Design Technology
302-A S. Lexington Drive
Folsom, CA. 95630
Subject: M & T Ranch, River Road Aggregate Mine
Dear Dave,
C�OFID)
�
REC 'V0
APR 2 6 2001
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Please find enclosed herewith our draft flooding study for the above noted
project: I would appreciate review and comments by you and Toby
Haynes. I am still waiting on information from Butte County DPW
regarding historical flooding, road closures and will analyze and include
them when available.
My general conclusions at this time are that construction of the
stockpiles/ plant will increase the stage in Little Chico Creek in the
vicinity of the fill,-buf.that it may well be possible to mitigate with a
bypass channel. The increase in stage will most likely only impact the M
& T Ranch with minimal impacts to River Road.
Please feel free to call me with comments or questions, as we are anxious
to keep this project on schedule. .1 would be happy to meet with you and
Toby (and County Staff should you choose) to review our work.
Very Truly Yours,
20 DECLARATION DRIVE
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973
530-893-1600
-- FAX -893-2113
Breedon, Dan -
From: Breedon, Dan
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:09 AM
To: resourcedesign@cmcconnection.com'; 'pbollard@aol.com'
Subject: FW: Comments on Noise and Hydro -- M and T Project EIR. ,
Untitled Attachment Hyrdo.comments.doc Noise.comments.doc
Dave and Paul,
These are comments submitted on the draft sections for the M&T EIR submitted by the applicant, Mike Pole. They have
been prepared by Heidi Tschudin. Please review these comments. I wouild like to meet with the applicant to discuss
their concerns. This will be scheduled later this month. The County will also be preparing a response to these concerns.
-Dan Breedon
-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Tschudin [mailto:tschudin@cwnet.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 1:14 PM
To: Dan Breedon
Cc: Rene Vercruyssen; Mike Pole; Rene J. Vercruyssen
Subject: Comments on Noise and Hydro -- M and T Project EIR.
r
8
1