Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE M AND T RNACH BALDWIN COMPANY MINING PROJECT• . i Bill Connelly. T ,' • ' ' ; `Jane Dolan • Maureen Kirk Curt Josiassen w Kim Yamaguchi cc: Mr. Howard Ellman,,.•, - BUTTE COUNTY ASSESSOR' Kenneth Reimers F BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL ` . Felix Wannamaker . DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 1- James Pompy RE: The M & T Ranch//Baldwin.Company Mining Project • Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Board,of Supervisors: This is a request for the Planning Commission to address the following issues that continue to be unresolved in'order to determine once and for all t r ' if the Environmental Impact Report for ttie proposed M&T/Baldwin mine is accurate -and complete and should be certified — and. 2•� ` L if the resolutions which:you are being asked to vote on accurately and honestly describe the proposed project: ' t " AlthoughmanY,othese issues,have been previously raised, they T certain! l have noa.t been'.., adeqately addressed. ' >• ,'< � •- J. '� F` .4Y ,, A• !� .1_I\ t .'`t11t.f . w. • � � f �* ^;� , 4�. ' January 3,1067',- TO: rBUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chuck Nelson; Chair -, y 'Nina Lambert; Vice Chair Fernando Marin t �t ^ ` Harrel Wilson Richard Leland i BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' �, # • . i Bill Connelly. T ,' • ' ' ; `Jane Dolan • Maureen Kirk Curt Josiassen w Kim Yamaguchi cc: Mr. Howard Ellman,,.•, - BUTTE COUNTY ASSESSOR' Kenneth Reimers F BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL ` . Felix Wannamaker . DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 1- James Pompy RE: The M & T Ranch//Baldwin.Company Mining Project • Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Board,of Supervisors: This is a request for the Planning Commission to address the following issues that continue to be unresolved in'order to determine once and for all t r ' if the Environmental Impact Report for ttie proposed M&T/Baldwin mine is accurate -and complete and should be certified — and. 2•� ` L if the resolutions which:you are being asked to vote on accurately and honestly describe the proposed project: ' t " AlthoughmanY,othese issues,have been previously raised, they T certain! l have noa.t been'.., adeqately addressed. ' } , Issue #1— Inaccurate Information _• - Mr. Pete,Calarco of the Butte County Department of Development Services, at the December 14; 2006 Planning Commission meeting, asserted that the Department of Conservation (DOC) was okay with the reclamation plan. This was misleading information. , • Leah Miller of the DOC's Office'of Mine Reclamation was Pete Calarco's contact: My contact has been Jim Pompy, Director of Mine Reclamation, who has told me more •than, once that the reclamation plan had not been okayed and that unless the DOC sent something , in writing, their original opinion had not changed (last letter from DOC 'on this subject was - 'June 10; 2004). When I spoke with Leah Miller after the December 14a' meeting, she told . • me that at no time in her conversation with Mr. Calarco had she said that the DOC was now satisfied with the EIR or the reclamation. plan — only that they were satisfied with the "process". In fact, she told me that if anyone was saying that the DOC had said that they were now satisfied with the reclamation plan that this was quite an exaggeration. ' 'How can the `Planning Commission make a considered judgment on the adequacy of the reclamation plan if the DOC's position's is not known with absolute certainty? My request is that someone impartial, not just someone in the'Department of Development , Services, calls Mr. Po"' prior to the next Planning'Commission meeting on January' 25.to clarify the status of.the project: Given the gravity of the situation, and to avoid the possibility of any furthei misunderstanding, Isuggest aconference -call including representatives of the various iriterestedparties, and including Felix Wannamaker: 'x w r t Issue #2 — Conwaliblewith SMARA? While;someone is talking to Mr. Pompy about the reclamation plan,'they could ask if ' another statement in their last letter about the project still.stands.! In their June 10, 2004 " tetter,they, said that, "The reclamation plan is incomplete and does not meet the minimum ♦ requirements_of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 19757: A few weeks ago. Mr. `. Poppy told me, and he said -I could quote him on this, that unless the County has received , , something in writing to the contrary that all of the DOC's comments on this project stand as stated in their letters to. the County., In spite of this fact, Finding'5 in Attachment C that you will be- asked to approvei says that, "The Project com les with the revisions of the Srace , -- ' Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975". I would request that this be changed to accurately ' reflect the' DOC's position that this• project is not in compliance with SMARA regulations `• and that the Eli and reclamation plan do not meet the minimum requirements of Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.. �• Issue # 3 — In Combliance with CEQA? K' You could also ask Mr. Pompy if what they said in their November. 18, 2002 letter still stands. This -DOC letterstates that, "The project as proposed violates the Williamson Act, CEQA, and SMARA.,, ;. Page.1 of Attachment A says, "Adopt the attached resolution certifying the Final' Environmental Impact Report as consistent with the. requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.!' Howeve , CEQA Section 15147 — Technical Detail states G that,,"The information contained in an EIR shall in summarized technical data, maps, ' ' plat plans, diagrams, and similar. relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of r significant environmental impactstiby reviewing agencies ... " And, CEQA. Section 15151— Standards for Adequacy of an,EIR — says that, "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient ' degree of analysis to provide decision-makerswith iriformaiion.which enables them to make ` a� a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. " If the DOC i' says that this EIR�and reclamation plan don't have enough information; detail, and design work to meet even the minimum rrequirements of SMARA then it goes without saying that these documents, almost by definition, would not have the detail required by CEQA for a : • . .project of 'this size and magnitude; I would request thatA _Attachment be revised to read_ that • the DOC has determined that the FEIR does not contain even the minimum amount of - adequacy and completeness required by CEQA; therefore, this Environment Impact report , and reclamation plan:arenot consistent with CEQA requirements.' .ff the DOC says that this project is not in with SMARA and that it's not in compliance with CEQA; can the Planning Division just .decide -that it is? ' Issue #4 — Rule-hendinP j Why has Baldwin been allowed to proceed with a permit request designed for a small mine of less than 5 acres when this mine would actually encompass nearly 200 acres?. - In their June 10, 2004 letter the DOC said,' "The Reclamation Plan uses the 'Small Mine ry Prototype' format from the State Mining and Geology Board's website. The Small Mine a Prototype is useful for very small operations (S -acres or less) in areas with negligible environmental, issues. This format is not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity Baldwin's response to the DOC is contained in -a letter dated September 20, 2004. Baldwin r r states`, "BCC used the reclamation plan format selected by, Butte County. " If Butte County. . r did, mi fact, select this inadequate permitting form, why did they do that? And if it isn't so, then why is Baldwin saying:they_ did? Most of us have had to negotiate the permit process at some point in our property -owning, lives and we know how slow and frustrating it can be. Still, we do it because it's part of the t'. rule,of law. Why wasn't Baldwin required to fill out the correct form? Is Baldwin being ; allowed to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us?' .. ' An inadequate- permitting process should be unacceptable and is clearly a shaky foundation on which to base subsequent decisions: ' t Issue #S = Withholdinz of relevant data „ In February 2006, the Department of Development Services led by Dan Breedon provided the Land Conservation Act Committee (LCAC) with findings only,from the DEIR—and from no other source—as to the nature of the soils at'the site'(the DEIR states that these soils did not meet Williamson Act criteria for prime farmland). However, Mr. Breedon did not ` also include for the LCAC other already-known assessments that disagreed with the DER . which clearly stated that the MRCS, the DOC, acid the Butte-.County Assessor had all come , •to the conclusion that the soils were prime. ' So in February of 2006, ori the basis of this incomplete and'one-sided information,fthe LCAC voted a motion of intent to release' M&T -from their Williamson Act contract. 'After - being given the complete information prior to their April 2006 meeting, LCAC member Blake Bailey called the. NRCS and they told him that they had recently done a soil survey at the specific project site and they had determined that the soils we're prime. Consequently, a • the LCAC reversed their, decision and voted to recommend instead that the -M&T people ' should not be, released from their contract. If there is still any doubt about the proper classification of the soils Ken}Reimers, the Butte County Assessor, could answer any questions since he, too, has talked to the NRCS about this issue. • Why was available, official information regarding the quality of the soils of the land iri question withheld from the LCAC in February 2006 when they were deciding on whether to '. release the M&T from their Williamson-Act contract? " We understand that the Board of Supervisors will be the final arbiter in this question once they review this.project. However, the Planhing.Commigsion and all concerned-need to ` ' know of this questionable behavior in order to evaluate the soundness of the Development Division's recommendations. ' Issue #6 – Lack of responsiveness Many of the issues we've mentioned have already,been raised with no credible response, , t and much of the informationin Attachments °A, B, and C is riddled with misstatements l which are repiesented.as facts. Attempts to correct these facts seem to fall on deaf ears. What I see as a lack of responsiveness on the part of the County developers can be usefully characterized by the following blatant examples: - Example A , - If the Planning Division _knows the soils are prime why do the resolutions you will be F = signing say that aren't? In order to approve this project the Planning Commission will also , ' be asked 'to approve three separate resolutions found in Attachments A; B;• and C. Attachment A says, "The project site does not meet the standard for prime farmland Though'the Project will result in the conversion of non prime farmland to open space; the amount ofagricultural land surrounding the site is relatively abundant. ...In terms of prime agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected as a result of this Project. " I would respectfully request that this section be changed to reflect the fact that the soils have been determined to be prime by the Assessor, the NRCS, and the DOC and that there would be significant land use impacts. Both Attachments B and C state, "Land Reclamation - This performance standard does not apply to the Project because it, is not located on Prime Agricultural Land. " I would also request that these sections be changed to reflect the fact that this land is prime and the performance standards for prime farmland do apply. According to the SMARA code (section 1823.1) the performance standards for prime farmland are as follows: "The objective of this Part is to set forth those soil removal, stockpiling, and replacement operational requirements and revegetation and other reclamation standards for prime farmland to ensure both that the land will have agricultural productive capacity which is equal.after mining to. premining levels and the land is not lost as an important national resource. " Example B Attachment C incorrectly states that, "The proposed lake will 'actually result in enhanced groundwater recharge from precipitation and evaporation from the shallow groundwater. " This finding even disagrees with the DEIR itself (page 4.4-2), which says that rainfall in the area is about 22 inches a year and evaporation from the lake will be about 52 inches a year. Obviously, if there is more evaporation than precipitation you will end up with less water in the aquifer, not more. This fact was validated in a letter from the DOC dated June 10, 2004 (page 2) where it says, "The effect of evaporation of the pond surface would,also tend to negate the benefit of any. enhanced recharge to the aquifer. We recommend that recharge not be listed as a beneficial end use for this project. Why have the misstatements on the groundwater recharge capabilities.of the lake that would result from the mining operations been allowed to stand when they are so clearly contradicted by the facts? I request that this statement,be changed to read that the project would result in a net loss of groundwater recharge capabilities due to fact that there would be more evaporation from the lake than available -average rainfall in the area. • Example C ' Baldwin Construction finally came out with a weir design in August of 2004 showing rip rap . clear to the bottom of the creek bed. Yet the resolutions you will be asked to sign still say,. "Little`Chico Creek will not be `disturbed except by the road and conveyor crossings ". ' When the new information was provided why weren't the documents changed to reflect > this? And since this first weir was designed with rip rap, it's very,, likely that once the weir ' for the headwaters of the bypass channel is designed it too will have rip rap clear to the bottom of the creek bed. Of course, we have no way'of knowing;if this is true or not ' F " . because the bypass channel, one of the key elements of this project, has yet to be designed: I would request that Section 3706'in Attachment B as wellas Section 3706 and 3710 in Attachment C be changed to read that the streambed of Little Chico Creek'will be distuibed, " _ in, not one, but possibly two locations. L ' ' It should also be noted'that when Baldwin completed the Reclamation Plan application form they, indicated that at no time would the creek bid 'be disturbed. Because of this, and 'since ' not even one State agency knew that this would be part of.the weir` designs, no agencies f have ever gone out to the site to see if there might be.any negative environmental issues :. , _• involved with doing,such an incursion into the streambed. This is just another in a long list ti ` ' of reasons why the DOC'says'that this reclamation plan is incomplete and doesn't meet the ' • ;� , minimum requirements of SMARA. Examples such as these suggest, rightly or wrongly, a concerted 'efforton the part of the Department of Development Services and its consultants to say and word things, whether ' true or not true,. in a way seemingly calculated to influence first the LCAC and now the ' Planning Commission's vote on this project. If this is merely an.impression, it is a sorry. one ` that needs -to be rectified. Issue.# 7— The General Plan The General Plan states that the only alternate uses for ag land are those which preserve, ,.promote, and support agricultural areas (page AE —14). Obviously, this project would not . do that. At the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting Dave Brown gave a power point presentation showing aerial photos of othergravel pit projects that have been ' ry approved in other counties. His presentation left viewers with the impression that whaf i_s , •z* being proposed hereis very common. However, this wasjust another in a long line of ' ' deceptions, smoke and mirrors; and half-truths that have permeated the entire environmental impact process. ' What Mr. Brown conveniently failed to tell you was that none of those other projects were extracting their gravel from prime farmland, not a single one of them. ' The fact is that it is not a common practice for other, counties to'allow mining projects out in r ' prime, agricultural land. Nhy isn't it common? Because other counties realize that projects like this do not belong out in the middle of prime ag land. The,original writers of,the General Plan would be appalled if they knew what you were thinking`about approving. . • , ' •^ a .. l j ,,,.' .y •^ .. .. .: 4 a ♦ ' � . e • . N . Conclusion The ramifications of approving this project are sobering. Giving your approval to.this mine would set a precedent that could lead to literally thousands of acres of prime farmland being lost to similar operations. If this project were approved, it would be very hard to tell other gravel companies that they couldn't put a�gravel pit out in prime farmland if Baldwin and M&T are allowed to do just that. The people of this County have repeatedly made it'clear that they,want to preserve prime farmland. Let's not let them down. ■ The DOC is not okay with this project; ■ the reclamation plan does not meet SMARA's minimum requirements; it is not in compliance with CEQA and ■ . the EIR process has. been flawed, biased, incomplete, and, inadequate. Please vote this project down. Sincerely, Ron Jones . 3203 Hudson Avenue ._ . Chico, CA 95973 345-4286 ronsano@pacbell.net - Appendix Below are 10 specific items that the DOC said were deficient in the reclamation plan for the M & T Mining project— areas that Baldwin has definitely not addressed. Statements from the November 18, 2002 Department of Conservation letter: (Baldwin's responses can be found in the FEIR starting on page 5.1-8) (1) Page 5.1-13 — "CEQA Guidelines state that termination of a Williamson Act contract of over 100 acres is treated as a significant environmental impact of statewide significance., Thus the FEIR for this project must show termination of the contract as a significant environmental impact and must provide mitigation for this impact. " Baldwin incorrectly responds that this is a compatible use under the Williamson'Act. (2) Page 5.1-13 — "The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Concerns does not absolve . the• agency of the requirement to implement feasible mitigation that lessen the project impact. " "The Department recommends mitigation in the form of a permanent agricultural . conservation easement on other,land of at least equal size and quality as the land removed from the contract. Baldwin responds again by saying that this is a compatible use under the Williamson Act so they do not need to remove this property from the Williamson Act in order to mine gravel nor is any mitigation necessary. - - (3) Page 5.1-17 _ "The Reclamation Plan described in the DEIR does not describe how the site will actually be reclaimed, and does not give a detailed description of the open water• and wetland habitat to be established... " Baldwin did not respond directly to these issues. (4) Page 5.1-18 — "Nowhere is the shoreline to be created depicted in any detail. " Baldwin has no response to this statement. There are still no detailed drawings indicating where the lake will be nor does it say where it would be in relation to our property line or to the bypass channel. , (5) Page 5.1-18.— "The volumes of backfill available for use in creating a diverse _'shoreline is unstated and unplanned and the slope profiles are generic and non -committal. " Again Baldwin has'no response to this. statement. (6) Page 5.1-19 —"Reclamation procedures are not presented in sufficient detail to determine the viability of the created wildlife habitat." ' Baldwin's' response is that thiswas discussed in the DEIN. . • Statements from -the June 10, 2004 Deuarbnent of Conservation letter: = ' (Baldwin's responses can be found in a letter to'the Department of Development Services dated September 20, 2004) (7) Page 1—'"The Reclamation Plan uses•the Small MineTrototype format from the State ' Mining and Geology Board website. The Small'Mine Prototype is useful for very small , operations (5 acres or less) in'areas with negligible environmental issues. This format is Y a not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity. ` Baldwin states that this is the reclamation plan that the County recommended that they use. ^' - ` • � - . r / , ' • to �' — , .;. +• i - ' • • ` • r � N (8) .Page,2 — "There is no detailed engineered design for the�bypass channel or weir t structureproposed to mitigate most of. the floodplain impacts that would result from the ' placement of a deep mining pirwithin'100 feet of Little Chico Creek and in proximity of the Sacramento River. This, aspect'of the reclamation plan is totally'lacking and 'must be addressed prior to the approving`the reclamation plan. _ Even though the'DOC says that this needs to be designed before the project is, , approved,' Baldwiii's response is that "The weir• and bypass channel will be made *conditions 4 + of approval of the"project. " In other words, they will do the design work and engineering , after theproject is approved. - M . (9) Page 3 - "Reliance on natural. revegetation is not an option under the statewide reclamation standard regulations. ' Proactive measures to achieve the stated end use must be described in the plan.:. 'r Baldwin says that they'feel natural revegetation is allowed under state regulations' u and they don't needto use proactive measures. . ' (10) Page 4 - :....the plan needs to contain more detailed information concerning the . + waterfluetuation levels and how this would impact the 50 foot,wide bench created for the margin habitat.." ' Baldwin's'response is that as they excavate'the lake,' additional and more detailed information of water level fluctuations will be acquired. Even though the DOC wants this ' information stated before the plan is approved, Baldwin's response is they will get to it later. r January 6,'2007 • Mr. Tim Snellings,. Director r Y Cp "M ` JAN 0.9.1007 DEVELOP ENT Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr.- Snellings; - f J' Iam enclosing a copy of the letter I just mailed to Planning Commission members, ' Supervisors and others.-- It contains informationI thought that you, as Director of the ` Department of Development Services, should have. 4 z • To say that2we are disappointed with the conduct of several members of the County's ' Departmentof Development Services would be an understatement. Although we do R' ' understarid'that it is the job o f the personnel in DDS to assist those who are trying to get projects approved by the County, we do'not believe that DDS personnel should actually be proponents for the projects. r , It has been obvious that both Mr. Calarco and Mr. Breedon have been willing to say, thing's that were not, completely true and to word documents in ways so as to influence the approval of this project., They have shown a complete disregard for the opinions of the DOC, the NRCS, the Butte County Assessor, the EIR and even the reclamation plan in the wording of the resolutions that the Planning Commission members will be asked to sign in order to gain the approval of this project. The resolutions that.the Planning Commission will be asked to"sign are inaccurate and need to be reworded. The DOC's Dept. of Mine Reclamation has a lot more expertise in , t determining if an EIR and. reclamation plan have sufficient detail in order to be in compliance with CEQA and SMARA than do the County planners.' To totally disregard the DOC's clearly -stated position regarding these two issues, as well as all the other items which - the DOC has said need to be addressed,, is totally unacceptable,. w At the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting Mr.,Calarco looked the Commission members right in the eye and told them that the Department of. Conservation had said that they were now okay with the EIR and reclamation plana This was not true. Aad it was not the first time this statement had been made. Dan Breedon, in a conversation y with me before the November 30,2006 Planning Commission meeting, said exactly the same thing: that the DOC was now satisfied with the EIR and reclamation plan. As obvious as it was to me that this could not be true, it's hard to believe that both of these gentlemen would not have known that what they were saying was not true... Mr. Snellings, it is my hope that this matter is thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action will be taken. Behavior such as this reflects very poorly on the Planning Division and it just isn't fair to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has a hard enough time,making a decision about whether or not to approve a project without having to wonder if the Planning Division might, once again, be providing them with misleading and inaccurate information. Opposing this project has been a daunting task, especially when it seems like we're doing battle with, not just Baldwin, but with the. Planning Division as well. Thank for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ron Jones 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico, CA 95973 a ronsano@pacbell.net Enclosure ' T + 1 BUTTE i COUNTY FARM BUREAU Serving Agriculture For More Than 80 Years January 12, 2007 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: M & T Chico Ranch Mine Project Dear Commissioners, The Butte County Farm Bureau (BCFB) opposes the granting of a mining permit for the M & T Chico Ranch Mine Project at this time based on the following concerns: 1) The property is under a Williamson Act contract which is intended to preserve agricultural lands. The land has been classified as prime agricultural land by the Butte County Assessor and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. The reclamation plan calls for the conversion of this land to nonagricultural use which, according to the California Department of Conservation is not permitted under a Williamson Act contract. 2) The mine will create a new water way within 15 feet of neighboring orchards and the aquifer will be exposed within 103 feet. BCFB believes new water ways and the open aquifer pose a threat to the continued agricultural practices to all the lands surrounding the mine. The BCFB requests that a minimum buffer of 300 feet be maintained free of new water ways and the open aquifer. This position is consistent with our position that newly built residences on agricultural lands be kept at least 300 feet from neighboring agricultural lands. Please contact us at (530) 533-1473 if you have any questions regarding the above concerns. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, David Lundberg President B(1 coui <y cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors SAN 17.2007 nEv RAW" szMas 2580 Feather River Boulevard • Oroville, California 95965 • (530) 533-1473 • Fax: (530) 533-6508 • Email: buttecfb@sbcglobal.net January,13, 2007. . • �., r <.. '` , _ ; >� �,` :� �� `�: •- . .• � 'r � ` ;. •.� • JAN 11.2007- DEVELOPMENT TO: ` BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ,. Chuck Nelson ,.. SJ®VICES rw Nina Lambert • Fernando Marin s a Harrel Wilson.. c Richard Leland 6 - CC: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Re: , M• & T Ranch Mine ' 4 Dear Members-of the Planning Commission: c = � ('realize that you must be very busy, and I'm sorry to keep bothering you but there. seems to 'be so many issues regarding this proposed mine that just have to be said. A w ' The Department of Conservation (in their November 18, 2002 letter) said that.if the;M & T q • - . . M wanted'to do an immediate cancellation on 106. acres of their Williamson Act contract there _ should be some form of mitigation. They suggested that this might.-be a permanent agricultural easement on other land of at least equal size.. It is my understanding that even though the Planning Commission won't be taking' up the issue of the Williamson Act_ ' 'cancellation;-you could still make a mitigation recommendation to the Supervisors. Since i this wasn't discussed at the LCAC meeting l wasn't sure,if you,were aware of the DOC's °recommendation. ` ' .Here is the complete text of the DOC letter Mitigation Measures - i As .the project does not meet the compatibility findings of the Williamson Act, it would as y' currently configured, require termination.of the' Williamson'Act contract. The CEQA t : Guidelines state that termination of the contract of over 100 acres is 'a treated as-a'.- -'significant s-a'- ''significant environmental impact of statewide significance. Thus, the FOR for this project r . must show termination of the contract as a significant environmental impact, and. must provide mitigation for this impact. The°adoption ofa Statement of Overriding Consideration, ' does not absolve the agency of the requirement of implement feasible mitigation that lessens a project's impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15370, mitigation includes measures that "avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate, or compensate" for the impact. For example, mitigation includes - 'Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or _ environments (15370(3)).' All measures ostensibly, feasible should be included in the FE1R. Each measure should be discussed, as well as the reasoning for selection or rejection. A measure brought to the attention of the'Lead Agency should not be left out unless it is infeasible on its face (Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angles (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019): Mitigation should be specific, measurable actions that allow monitoring their implementation and evaluation of success. A mitigation consisting only of a statement of intention or an unspecified future action maynot be adequate pursuant to CEQA (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1998) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296). The Department recommends mitigation in the form of a permanent agricultural conservation easement.on the other land of at least equal size and quality as. the land removed from the contract /n the altemative we recommend the contribution of equivalent mitigation fees to an organization, such as a land trust, for the purchase of a permanent agricultural conservation easement." Noise Also at the December'14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting you talked about another mining project, the Morris Ravine Quarry, before discussing the M & T Mining project. The same person who did the noise study for the M &7 mine did the'noise study on this other mine. He said that, because it was so naturally quiet in the area of the Morris Ravine mine site that they were hoping to keep the ambient noise levels down to 35 decibels for neighbors in the area. There are currently no major sources of noise around our ranch. It a very quiet place to work and live, so it's hard to believe that it is so much noisier at our ranch than it is around this other mine. According to the noise study there is an average of 45 decibels of noise at our house. Since it's very possible that this is not an accurate reading, I would request that this ambient noise level be reevaluated by a different company. However, even if it's found that this figure is correct the DEIR says that even if an 18 -foot high berm is built next to our house the noise level would still be 58 decibels. The DEIR also states that anything more than 5 decibels over the normal ambient noise level is considered a significant environmental impact. So even if the noise level was reduced to 58. decibels that would be 13 decibels over the current level and that's assuming that the figure of 45 decibels is correct. I would request that Baldwin would be required to do enough mitigation so that the ambient noise level at our house is kept down to a point where it is not over 5 decibels above whatever the actual current average ambient noise.level. Bypass Channel Baldwin wants to put a bypass channel next to our property line to help alleviate any additional flooding on our property. In a June 10, 2004 letter the DOC said that there should be a maintenance agreement in place to perform repairs after the site closure. Baldwin says that they are designing this as a long term solution and no maintenance agreement will be necessary. If this channel gets plugged up it will cause more flooding on our ranch. I would request that Baldwin be required to maintain this channel and keep it clear after they finish mining. Three hundred foot set back I've. been.puzzled as to why Baldwin has refused to do any engineering work on the bypass channel., It seems possible that they may have been expecting that they would be required .to move the bypass channel and lake away'from our property line as a, condition of the project's approval. Assuming that you would be demanding this, it may not have made much sense for them to put a whole lot of money into engineering the bypass at its current location right next to our property line. The Butte County Farm Bureau. recently voted to oppose the M & T Ranch Mining project. One reason for their opposition was their contention that there should be at least a 300-foot setback from neighboring ag properties to limit any impacts that a conversion of ag land to wildlife habitat might have on those adjacenfproperties. We agree with the Farm Bureau's.. recommendation and we would request that this be'made a condition of approval. Of course this would be good but it still doesn't get around the fact that this bypass channel has never been engineered and the DOC says this need to be done,before you approve this project (June 10, 2004 DOC .letter). Thank you so much for taking the time to read this. LRon Jones 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico, CA 95973 345-4286 ronsano@pacbell.net To: Butte County Planning Commission 25 CountyCenter Dr. �Qroville,'CA95965 , :_=f, _; - t. , • , Concerns about the proposed gravel piton Chico River Rd... To dig down several feet on good farmland to find gravel in Butte County is not a good idea. Trucking all this gravel county & city roads , would cause terrible damage at great cost to all people in Butte County. The children to and from school would be in peril from these many trucks. Farmers trying to move their equipment from one job to another will find the roads dangerous to their slow moving vehicles. Hundreds of bicycle riders will no longer feel safe to ride on Chico River Rd. Homes along this road will no longer be livable. Gravel trucks carrying many tons make thunderous noise. Chico River Rd. already is known for the many accidents' that happen there on a regular basis. Imagine the rise in this heavy traffic and the toll it will take in this area. Gravel is plentiful in the county of Butte. At least two additional gravel. pits are soon to -open. Looking at the gravel needed and the amount already available, it seems we have enough. ,This proposed site.is in the wrong area to be a good thing for any of US.- ;. �= . Y', ,; .Sincerely, Dixi L.Pase '� Poll Dennis BUTTE CtN,. Y JAN 1.7 2007 DEVELOPMENT ' SERVICES t Roy R. Pase :� S R fi� :NTO CrA '9S ,, . 3715.Wreheadd'*e: Chico CA 95928 �N tw ©V", ::.��. •...5:. y.." .h i...i .if `'I*...i. .w:°:•_ s r. _ _ ., _-ift1le!ht!9N!tl1L+!!hl!ft(�t:!it.!!!it!!!f1!illuihrittr.itf!t H s I a To: Butte County.Planning Commission, - 25 County. Center Dr. Orovihe, CA 95965 e I am a Butte County resident & live at the corner of Chico River Road & Morehead Ave. I am strongly oppose the proposed gravel pit operation on Chico River Road. To dig away several feet of great Vina Loam to find gravel in -Butte County seems to be a wasteful idea: With all the foothills to the east of Highway 99, there is bound to be easier sources of gravel with out ruining any of the richest farm land in the world. Trucking all the gravel on two lane county & city roads would cause terrible damage at great cost to all people in Butte County. West 5t' Street between Highway 32 & Chico River Road would be a terrible bottleneck. There are apartment complexes for college students so there is parking on both sides. of the road leaving barely enough room for 2 cars to pass, let alone a big gravel truck. There are also children from Rosedale Elementary School in this area on a regular basis.. Chico River Road is used extensively by local farmers on slow moving wide equipment. It is also a favorite road for college students on bicycles. We live on one of several long sweeping curves on Chico River Road and over the last 45 years, several cars and trucks have ended up in our front yard with at least 2 fatalities. If you put more large gravel filled trucks on, this road, no doubt there will be more! Sincerely, Roy Pase Roy R. Pase 3715 Morehead Ave. Chico. CA 95928.:,l WIT'2007, "Pm. g L �5 \ . •�.���.: "-:...moi.•= -##!#,1:is�.t#,I1?'3##.Fli#!#!i!:#i}:?.#'#!2}plll�l:lil�i:3��!#l�,'#:�#)� TO : Concerned Parties FROM : Ken Reimers, Butte County Assessor DATE : Jan. 25, 2007 SUBJECT: M&T Chico Ranch Mine "Project" proposed by Baldwin Contracting Company I'd like to go on record relative to this "Project" 1. From the very inception of the Williamson Act in 1968 the primary purpose has been to protect valuable farm land. The question on this project is not "can this gravel mine legally be permitted on Williamson Act land?" There are ways to accomplish the end result of placing a gravel mine in this location. The question I'd propose is why would anyone insist on putting it in this location? 2. There are other options and frankly other proximate lands that could be mined without the destruction of prime agricultural land that has received preferential tax treatment for many (38) years. My office has spoken with Dean Burkett from Natural Resouces Conservation Services (MRCS) in the past and again recently on Tuesday afternoon January 23, 2007 to confirm they consider Parrott Silt Loam Class I Prime Soil. To make the blanket statement that this land can not be Class I Prime Soil because it is not irrigated is either purposely misinforming people or hopefully just not informed. I'd encourage all of you to answer this key question before you allow this valuable resource to be lost forever. Sidebar comment: I believe the process of ' soil classification has, historically, purposely included my office to make this judgment call for several reasons: ✓ We can provide an objective opinion based upon field inspection and typical farming practices throughout the county ✓ The Assessor's office has been charged with making this call to keep politics out of the decision — the Department of Conservation complimented my office during the last audit of Williamson Act Administration ✓ If we allow the rules to be bent and ignore the facts; the entire Williamson Act program suffers and we jeopardize reimbursement funds 3. There is plenty of gravel available and permitted for the foreseeable future — more than a 10 year supply exists. This would allow this property to be non -renewed and come out of the Williamson Act over time. To imply there is some huge pressing economic need to cancel this contract, and treat other ranchers in the area poorly, seems ill advised and may open the county up to more litigation. 4. The county has had a lot of discussion concerning agricultural buffers (generally around 300' in width). Why would someone with thousands of acres insist on removing Prime Agricultural Soil, under Williamson Act contract, immediately adjacent their neighbor's orchard? Why expose the aquifer and threaten the livelihood of others before abandoning the project some decades later, while not planning to restore the prime farmland? The answer is simple; it is more financially feasible. 5. The thought that nearly 36 miles of county rural roads would also be heavily impacted and the applicant billed a very small share of that cost is called to question. That might not be a bad call if the roads were built with the proper base and shoulders to begin with, but they are not. The latest estimates to reimburse the county are ridiculous considering what is about to transpire if this project goes forward. I also heard the figures were revised to add 2" asphalt without addressing the base or shoulders to the road. I think we can all visualize what the road will look like in a relatively short time.